A gnomic utterance

4 May 2009 comments (0)

I was at a picnic yesterday afternoon, and someone brought fortune cookies. Everyone else got the usual vague-but-positive predictions of good things to come. I got “Minimize expectations in order to avoid being disappointed.” We all had a good chuckle at that — especially when we went around the table adding “in bed” to the end of everyone’s fortune.

Then I grabbed a second fortune cookie, because who wants to be stuck with a fortune like that? But when I cracked it open, I found I had received the same fortune as before: “Minimize expectations in order to avoid being disappointed.”

I think there’s a lesson in there somewhere.

Obama and Ignatieff: best friends forever

23 April 2009 comments (0)

Cover of the Georgia Straight, April 23-30, 2009

When you live in downtown Vancouver, you can’t help noticing what’s on the cover of the Georgia Straight, one of the city’s weekly alternative newspapers. This week’s cover shows Barack Obama and Michael Ignatieff standing close together and grinning at the camera. They look a little bit like old friends at a high school reunion.

It’s a fitting resemblance. After all, as the headline suggests, they’re both “Harvard men.” Obama graduated from Harvard Law School; Ignatieff got his PhD at Harvard and directed the university’s human rights centre for several years before entering Canadian politics (he’s now the Leader of the Opposition).

The Harvard connection is a minor point, but a telling one. Obama and Ignatieff both have ties to Harvard not by some strange coincidence, but because they are both members and representatives of  North America’s political and economic elite. It’s no surprise, then, that there are other, more substantial similarities between the two men on the cover of the Georgia Straight. Politically, they’re both centrists; economically, they’re neoliberals. They’re hawks on Afghanistan, supporters of the War on Terror, and proponents of Western imperialism in general, in the form of what Ignatieff calls empire lite. Neither Ignatieff nor Obama has any intention of questioning the fundamental assumptions of mainstream North American politics.

And we know what happens when you turn those assumptions into state policy. The worst economic crisis in over 60 years. Growing income inequality in both Canada and the United States. The ongoing erosion of civil liberties. Imminent environmental catastrophe. A series of pointless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, with thousands of dead foreigners as collateral damage (the UN counted 2,118 civilian deaths in Afghanistan alone in 2008; anywhere from 100,000 to well over a million civilians have been killed in Iraq since the invasion). Those are the consequences of the kind of thinking that got Obama and Ignatieff where they are today.

It’s become almost boring to see the same old faces in the news all the time, shilling minor variations on the same old policies on behalf of the same old interests. Obama claimed that he stood for change, but he’s already shown that what he really stands for is a ruling class we can believe in. Ignatieff doesn’t even pretend to represent a break with the past. But a break with the past is precisely what we need. I’d say it’s past time for some real change — the kind of change that doesn’t come from men in suits grinning on the front pages of newspapers.

A brief note on unemployment rates

10 April 2009 comments (0)

According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate in this country rose to 8% in March, with some 387,000 full-time jobs lost since last October. But the official unemployment rate is a weird and very narrowly defined statistic. It includes only “the percentage of the labour force that actively seeks work but is unable to find work at a given time.” If we add other groups of people that you and I would consider unemployed or underemployed — such as those who have given up looking for work altogether and those working part-time because they can’t find full-time work — the real unemployment rate for March is more like 12.4%. That translates into approximately 1,456,600 people without full-time jobs in Canada.

The real unemployment rate in the United States, by the way, is 15.6%, which works out to more than 13 million people. According to the Center for American Progress, more Americans have lost their jobs in the past year than at any other time since the government started tracking unemployment just after World War II.

Dear Anna Maria Tremonti

26 March 2009 comments (0)

Please stop equating militant labor action with death threats and workplace shootings (listen to the audio to see what I mean). The workers may be angry, but they’re not going to hurt you. Honest.

Sincerely,
textsfornothing.com

Police raids in Germany part of global battle over Internet censorship

25 March 2009 comments (0)

stasi_20German police have raided the home of the guy who owns the German domain name for Wikileaks, a well-known non-profit organization that anonymously publishes sensitive documents that governments and other institutions would like to keep under wraps.

What’s going on here? Well, it all starts in Australia, where the government has proposed legislation that would impose mandatory filtering of the Internet. They plan to do this by having a state agency maintain a blacklist of websites with content that some government bureaucrat thinks Australians shouldn’t be allowed to see. If the proposed legislation passes, Australian ISPs will be required to block all URLs in the list, and anyone who links to one of those URLs would face an $11,000-per-day fine. Child pornography is, of course, the main pretext here, as it so often is in Internet censorship cases.

Earlier this month, Wikileaks published Australia’s blacklist, revealing that numerous legitimate websites were wrongfully included on the list (which is no surprise, given that there’s virtually no accountability for the blacklist maintainers). Of course, the list also presumably includes some child porn sites; that’s what the program is supposed to be blocking, after all. Which brings us to Germany, where the current government has been pushing a scheme not unlike Australia’s — again, using child porn as a pretext for censoring Internet access. Since the blacklist published by Wikileaks presumably links to child porn sites, the German authorities figure that this makes Wikileaks guilty of helping to provide access to child porn — thus justifying the raids. Wikileaks, meanwhile, regards the raids as part of a broader political struggle over Internet censorship in Germany, and rightly so. Whatever you think of Wikileaks’ decision to publish the Australian blacklist, it’s hard to dispute that the raids are in part an attempt to intimidate opponents of the German government’s censorship plans.

Australia is far from the first country to try to censor its citizens’ Internet access under the guise of fighting child pornography. Nor is it the first to abuse its censorship powers to silence dissent and other legitimate speech: to take just one example, Finland got caught doing it last year. And the raids in Germany are only the latest attempt by the authorities in one country or another to clamp down on Wikileaks. Last year, for instance, in the course of a lawsuit over a different set of Wikileaks documents, an American judge ordered the site’s registrar to take its domain offline — a decision the New York Times described as “akin to shutting down a newspaper because of objections to one article.” (The same judge later reversed his own ruling, citing “the futility of attempts to censor information …  after it has been posted to the internet.”) The trend is clear. I think we can expect more and more of this sort of thing in the months and years ahead.

And lest you think we’re immune to this sort of thing here in Canada, please note that we already have a “voluntary” censorship program — voluntary, that is, for the big ISPs that have signed onto it, not for their customers. The program is called Project Cleanfeed, and its blacklist, too, is secret. It’s maintained by a fairly reputable non-governmental organization that is specifically dedicated to fighting child porn, and for that reason (and also because I was more naive back then), I was willing to give the project the benefit of the doubt when I first heard about it in 2006. But having seen the results of similar programs in Australia, Finland, and elsewhere, and the lengths to which the authorities in other countries will go to prevent the dissemination of information they find distasteful, I no longer believe we should give Project Cleanfeed or any other such program the benefit of the doubt.