Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

  • Welcome to Radio Freethinker!

    Radio Freethinker is a radio show/podcast that promotes skepticism, critical thinking, and secular issues.
  • Follow Us!

  • Authors

  • Categories

  • Archives

Author Archive

The Toews Law…

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 21, 2012

This is not my Canada…

There is before parliament now a law that will give unprecedented powers to the security forces of this nation…not because they are needed but because they can do it. The “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, will give officers of the government the power not only to request private information for both Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Cell Phone Networks(CPNs) but force ISPs to retain that information for over a year (I believe 18 months was the number I heard). It also forces CPNs to disclose the unique identifier of your cell phone so security forces can ‘sweep’ an area to know everyone present. We will discuss later the issues with the bill itself, for now lets discuss how the bill was presented to parliament by Vic Toews is itself a sad story.

Printer Opps!

This bill in so many ways has shown one of the worse side of Canadian politics. First, I am sure most of you know that the bill formerly called the “Lawful Access Bill” is now the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” although it makes no reference to children or pedophile in the act itself. The name change happened at lightning speed and seems to be for completely propagandistic reasons.  If you check out the original filing of the bill by Vic at 10AM, the short title was “Lawful Access”, however it was quickly reprinted…content exactly the same, except at 11:17AM the short title was “Protecting Children from Internet Predators”.

The change was quick both conceptually which I am sure happened a day or 4 before Vic set forward the bill, as well as technically when they realized they forgot to doctor…er update the actual legislation to reflect their new ‘direction’ in promoting the bill.

In fact our government may be open to a copyright infringement claim…in 1997, a US congressman presented a bill with the same name; of course his bill was actually about stopping child predators.

Another way it exemplifies the poor state of politics is the admission made by Vic as being “surprised to learn” at what was actually in the bill he was presenting to parliament…and not some minor point but a section that was pretty significant in fact integral to the implementation of the bill. How can he say the law is absolutely necessary without amendments (a point he did eventually back down from) when he didn’t even know what was in the bill in the first place!

Lastly, he made a point that “standing with pedophiles” was not the same as supporting a pedophile…so does that mean the opposition could ‘stand by Vic’ while not actually supporting the bill? Is Vic so out of touch that he does not know what “stand with” means in our society? It’s a disingenuous comment, and not one that was a slip of the tongue. Often the Harper government has accused the opposition of outrageous rhetoric…here is a prime example of committing a near-Godwin right out of the block.

For those not acquainted with the Godwin Law, that in any argument, the side that first makes a reference to the Nazis loses the debate…it perhaps should be called the “Toews Law”, the side that first makes a (inappropriate) reference to pedophilia, would automatically resign from office…or at least lose the debate.

Thoughts?

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is deception a charter right?

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 20, 2012

Advertised the claim but did not actually check to see if it was true...or so Rogers claims

Rogers Communications Inc. is asking an Ontario court to strike down part of a federal law requiring a company to have “adequate and proper” tests of a product’s performance before advertising claims about the product — on the grounds that it violates its freedom of expression.

In addition to taking on the performance claims provision of the Competition Act, the telecom giant is arguing before the Ontario Superior Court the hefty financial penalties that can be imposed on a company for making a false or misleading claim are also unconstitutional.

The legal battle with Rogers began in November 2010, when the bureau went to court to levy a $10-million penalty for a “misleading advertising” campaign involving the company’s Chatr discount cell phone service. The bureau is also asking the court to order Rogers to pay restitution to affected customers and refrain from engaging in similar campaigns for the next decade.

In their advertising Rogers’ Chatr claimed to have fewer dropped calls than any other competitor and that its customers had “no worries about dropped calls”. A study of the drop rates between Rogers’ Chatr and the competition showed no difference in drop rates.

The ruling in question and the Competitions law states that before a company can make a advertised claim it must have a test in hand. Rogers is claiming this violates its charter rights to free speech because, and you may want to sit down for this one. IF what it had said was true except when they said it they did not have proof but later they could provide proof then the test would be a violation reason being it would prevent them from saying a true thing because they did not know it was true at the time”.

Make sense? No, not to me either. First the case at hand showed they issued a false and misleading statement. Second, they are saying if there is no proof to the contrary they can claim anything and to prevent them from doing so is a violation of their charter rights (not that I think corporations have charter rights!).

One aspect that plays into this is the amount and type of penalty. First it is not a fine, which is given in criminal court; penalties are handed down by civilian courts. The civilian courts are not subject to the same ‘safeguards’ as criminal cases such as:

Presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full a answer and defense, and the privilege against testimonial compulsion.

Hypocracy of privilege.

Although with the exception of the last point, compulsory testimony, I don’t think Rogers is seriously implying that our courts are corrupt and thus they did not get a fair trial or were presumed innocent. It is true the threshold to guilt is a preponderance of evidence as opposed to the classic beyond a reasonable doubt…this I think is why they really want to have the Competitions law seen as criminal law vs. civil. It would be almost impossible to prove the Rogers (and the thousands of people working in it) purposely misled people…they would say “it was a miscommunications” or something.

This is became a more important issue for Rogers because in 2010, the penalty for this infraction went from a paltry $250,000 to $10M for first offence, and $15M for each thereafter.

Thoughts?

——————————————————-

Reference:

http://openmedia.ca/blog/postmedia-rogers-uses-freedom-speech-excuse-misleading-ads

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/first-constitutional-challenge-to-civil-penalties-for-misleading-advertising/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/27/rogers-misleading-advertising-charter-rights_n_1236517.html

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Avoiding the dogma of legislating morality

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 19, 2012

I have gotten a lot of feedback on my blog post and our segment last week about gender selection; and more to the point whether we should legislate morality.

Some people have expressed a view that we should legislate morality…because the laws skeptics would enact could help make the world a better place.

My response to this is to reiterate my opinion last week that I think it is bad to legislate morality. First, there is a reverse implication, if we create moral laws; that implies all laws are moral…something history has shown time and again not to be true.

That said, I don’t know if we are talking about the same thing and that is often the problem with philosophy. When the religious, conservative, or traditionalist use the word morality they mean metaphysically right…the ‘ought’ vs. the ‘is’. What is moral is ALWAYS moral; it transcends time and space. Moral is the word of god and is immutable. Often in the skeptic community we hear this with regards to libertarian or, dare I say it, socialist thinking. They hold to some precepts as foundational or a prior. Regardless of where you are coming from when something is moral, it is so irrespective of reality or the way things are.

Although the original meaning of ‘moralis’ simply meant ‘proper custom’; centuries of Christian influence and indoctrination (irrevocably) alter it to ‘right, good and virtuous!’

In a skeptical article pointed out by our loyal readers, Ian (thanks for your input). The article argues that not only can we legislate morality but that we must do so. Although he makes token appeals to evidence one of his main premises, and where I have issue, is like this which states – “if your conscience tells you some action may be causing great harm to society, you have both the right and, I believe, the duty to try to help or correct the situation, through both social and political means”. I think it is the appeal to ‘conscience’ that can be problematic. It lays moral laws on a foundation of belief and opinion and not fact or reason.

In the article, written by what I would guess is a libertarian, it shows why we should not think in terms of morality because we are too culturally indoctrinated to think of this dogmatically. The article states “we don’t limit or take away the right to free speech just because a person’s exercise of that right led to deaths”. The author praises Obama’s book “The audacity of hope” for saying “I propose that most law, either in spirit or letter, is nothing but encoded morality”; one must ask whose morality?

That is the heart of my criticism. Morality is, at least in our modern context, dogmatic; dogmatism (be it theological, political or skeptical) is innately wrong…regardless of the good it may incidentally do. Using the term morality, this necessarily must appeal to “belief” and the metaphysical, creating a field of competing equals. A Christian belief in ‘right or wrong’ based on the bible is no less sound than one based on the philosophy of ‘inalienable rights’; yet both may be invalid because they are assertions of belief not discovered knowledge.

This is why I don’t think we should legislate morality. So do I think law can make society better – yes; do I think we should use law to modify people’s behaviour to make society better – yes, but cautiously; do I think I should impose my moral belief on others through law – no, no matter how right I might think they are or how much incidental good they may do. What I would do is approach law like I do everything else; use the tool kit of skepticism (evidence, logic, reason and the scientific method) to create law ethically.

Okay, what do I mean ethically, is that not just a different way of saying morality? Yes and no. There is a conflation between ethics and morality however they are not really the same. Morality is a judgment on something; ethics is more a process…a WAY to do thing.

I believe that we should make laws that are consistent with empirical evidence…rational thinking…what I could call ethical thinking. I think ethical thinking is a method like the scientific method; it is not an answer but a method to derive answers. Ethical thinking, at least as a ‘good’ skeptic would apply it, should not be dogmatic, can evolve over time and point to truth but never claim to be it.

So laws created with ethical thinking are not moral or immoral; they are the best attempt to make society better. We can say that laws are ethical or unethical. For example, the article said free speech should be maintained even if it resulted in deaths. To be fair he did make an exception for yelling fire in a crowded theater as unethical because it ignores hate speech (for example).

I can say unethical, because he is dogmatic in his views of rights thus not willing to change based on evidence. It’s double dogmatic because he makes an exception for one ‘harm’ but not another, yet of the two, genocide seems the greater…his exclusion is arbitrary based on his BELIEFS!

This view of rights are asserted as being true; as in the US Declaration of Independence, a noble document but one that asserts that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Although I am sympathetic to these words, anything asserted is dogmatic and innately unethical because the King of England could equally assert “all men are subjects of the king”.

Here’s an example. When law is based in morality, we are stuck saying “pot smoking is immoral” forever because something is either moral or immoral…there is no kinda moral. By using the “M” word, you create dogmatic law.

It sounds self-serving, but really if 'reason' is meant authentically then...rationality to rule them all

Ethical thinking gets around this dilemma because its outcomes are not moral but the best answers so far…like science. So we can say in 1980 “pot smoking causes major harm to individuals and society” and yet as more research provides evidence it (may) not be harmful you; we can alter our law/statement “pot smoking causes little harm to self or state” without being inconstant or contradictory.

So now we return to our original question…should we legislate morality? No, I think doing so lowers ourselves to the same level of the theocrats we often decry. I do however think law can be used to make society and its citizen better if those laws are created ethically.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Oz Universities Defend Alternative-Medicine Teaching

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 17, 2012

Friends of Science in Medicine — a recently formed group that includes more than 400 prominent scientists, doctors, academics and consumer advocates from Australia and overseas — wrote to the vice chancellors of Australian universities last month. They outlined their concerns about what they called the “diminishing of the standards applied to the teaching of science in our universities” and “the increased teaching of pseudo-science.

“Such courses involve so-called ‘complementary or alternative medicine’ masquerading as, and sitting side-by-side with, evidence-based health-related science courses,” the letter said.

In response to this, the Universities have pushed back. Nick Klomp, Dean of the Science faculty at Charles Stuart University, agreeing with some points of the letter continued to state that the degree offered at his university, a Bachelor of Health Science (complementary medicine) for example, was based on science.

He said the course was designed to impart evidence-based science to people who already had a qualification, like a diploma, in alternative health care. The course includes such subjects as biology and physiology.

Those behind the letter said “For many of us, we’ve been concerned for a long time that in this most scientific of all ages, pseudoscience seems to be flourishing,”

David Colquhoun, a Professor of Pharmacology at University College London has called for the ending of alternative-medicine programs in Britain, a member of the Australian group had some of the harshest words in the article I read when he said “Courses in alternative medicine are dishonest, they teach things that aren’t true, and things that are dangerous to patients in some cases,”

Logical does not mean rational

Now, I don’t think I have to take a survey of RadioFreeThinker to know we support the Friends of Science and would be glad to see all CAM programs ended in higher institutions with the caveat, made by the Friends group as well, that research into CAM, if warranted should not stop. That said, one thing Klomp said made me pause.

“I could ignore them or I could train them better,” Mr. Klomp said, adding that a majority of the university’s students were already practicing. “We actually create graduates who are much better health care providers. It’s all about evidence based, science based.

So, that argument is, I think, is even if you think that CAM is all fake, there is here an aspect of harm reduction. That these people would be practicing their pseudo-science regardless, this way they at least have an understanding of what real medicine is and the ethics attached to it. We often say that many CAM practitioners are not frauds but misinformed, this seems one way to at least reduce the potential harm they could do to their patients accidentally via ignorance.

Thoughts?

———————

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/australian-universities-defend-alternative-medicine-teaching.html?_r=4&hpw

http://www.aims.ubc.ca/

http://www.students.ubc.ca/livewelllearnwell/learn-about-wellness/other-health-topics/alternative-complementary-medicine/

http://summaries.cochrane.org/search/site/?f[0]=im_field_terms_cochrane_library%3A44450

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is gender selection wrong?

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 10, 2012

An editorial in a major Canadian journal urges doctors to conceal the gender of a fetus from all pregnant women until 30 weeks to prevent sex-selective abortion by Asian immigrants.

“Female infanticide happens in India and China by the millions, but it also happens in North America in numbers large enough to distort the male to female ratio in some ethnic groups,” said the editorial by interim editor-in-chief Rajendra Kale.
The article published int he Canadian Medical Association Journal cites US census data from 2000 that shows male-biased sex ratios among US-born children of Asian parents, and a study of 65 Indian women in the US from 2004-2009 that showed 89 percent of them terminated pregnancies with female fetuses. That strikes me as an extremely small sample size, I mean how many “Asian” women got pregnant between 2004 till 2009…millions I suspect; 65 people seems easily prone to ‘outlier’ effect. But, that is not important to this post. I am more interesting in the general question – is gender selection wrong?

Canada in 2004 outlawed fertility practices that would increase the likelihood that an embryo will be a certain sex, or that would identify an in-vitro embryo by sex for any reason other than to diagnose a sex-linked disorder or disease Kale said the Canadian medical establishment needs to go further, and make express rulings that would ban fetal sex disclosure before seven months, when it is too late for an abortion.

Alexia Conradi, head of the pro-choice Women’s Federation of Quebec, agreed that abortive sex-selection is “unacceptable,” but questioned the motivation of those who support formal measures to prevent it.
“Any types of restrictions on abortion are met with skepticism by the pro-choice community generally,” she said. “A more appropriate intervention with sex-selection is to do more education, especially if we are talking about son preference, rather than seek to limit women’s choices or access to information.”

Okay, I understand that pro-choice people would be suspicion of any attempt to limit abortion; but the fact remains abortion IS legal in this country…more specifically, it is seen as a medical condition and a matter between patient and doctor.

So, my question is; if abortion is legal then why is gender selection wrong. I grant there is a ‘smell-test’ failure here; I feel it’s wrong but I fail to see the stronger argument why? Some will argue it is discriminatory against women. And that would be true if it’s a ‘post-birth’ child; however the argument that justifies abortion is that although we may say a fetus is a potential person it is NOT actually a person…so the argument saying it is discrimination against women seems to fail because in the say way it is NOT actually a women.

Now some have argued that although technically it’s not a ‘crime’ against the female fetus instead the practice propagates in society a devaluing of women in general…that if female fetus’ were deemed disposable that mentality will pollute the general culture and women (real women) will be devalued. That it is the secondary effect that must be prevented and thus limiting women’s right to choose…their right to even know the gender…should be abridged.

I am also uncomfortable with the fact that this seems close to legislating morality. We atheist often criticize and condemn the religious types for trying to legislate morality (such as banning same-sex marriage) but how is this different? One could argue that its like racism or the civil rights movement of the 60′s; but gender selection is not a major issue in Canada as a whole and the law would apply to everyone. Racism was (and still is) a institutional and ingrained aspect of our society requiring legislation of morality because it was so lacking in the society…I don’t see the parallel, maybe its appropriate for India or China where these are systemic and major issues.

If we accept this legislation, it will of course have secondary effects. We are saying that women cannot be trusted with this power over their own bodies…does this not also devalue women? I am unsure where I stand on this. I accept it has a bad smell to it and yet i think I cannot morally or logically say I think gender selection, in itself, is wrong although I trust myself not to fall into the traditional conservative mentality that would make me wish to abort a daughter and would advise my friend likewise.

Your thoughts?

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

How Libya killed hundreds in Syria

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 9, 2012

An UN Security Council proposal to invoke its charter for “responsibility to protect” was vetoed by China and Russia last week. Now many people have questioned why we, the West, intervened into Libya to ‘protect’ those civilians and yet we stand by and watch a government slaughter its own people in Syria?

Well, you can blame Libya or at least how we did the job there. One of the concerns by international governments (like Russia and China) was that the UN mission was not actually to protect the people instead, an opportunity to get rid of an internationally unpopular dictator…i.e. regime change was the real point.

As it turned out, they were right.

The role of NATO (the instrument of UN protection) seemed not to limit or prevent Gaddafi’s ability to punish his people but to act as an unofficial air force for the ‘liberation’ rebels. Now, it could be argued that getting rid of Gaddafi was a good; however the poor choice of mechanism for regime change has come home to roost and the people of Syria are paying the price.

Assad, Syria’s ruler, unlike Gaddafi has some strong supporters in the international community; Iran, Russia and China being the most notable and important. Even though I think (grant me a moment of sentimentality) that as much as the political leadership of these countries desperately want to see the end of the deaths in Syria; they do not want to get rid of Assad who is too important to their geo-political machinations. They fear, and Libya seems to have proven, that UN intervention will not be limited to protecting civilians but will be used as a means of regime change.

Sadly, they are probably right.

Of course some may argue that if NATO actually did the work in Libya and WE, the West, control NATO, why not have NATO unilaterally intervene?

Fears of western imperialism not new

First, intervene could risk war with Russia and China (okay not likely but tension would rise…never a good thing). Beyond that, without UN cover, it is likely…no for certain, that Arabs would will not see this as humanitarian help especially by Syrian allies Turkey, embattled Egypt and Iran (also paranoid with reason).

I have used the term ‘the West’ a few times because to those in the region this term means something…they do not see democracy or  philanthropy but they know two wars in Iraq, one still going in Afghanistan, drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, Israeli settlements in Palestine, Gaza blockade, Libyan collateral damage, the constant threats to Iran, the habitual silence over Israel…they do not automatically assume our acts/intentions are noble but are instead another example of western (American/Israeli?) imperialism – right or wrong, this is how they feel.

These Arab nations could make operations in Syria difficult at best and at worst they may ‘defend Syria’s rightful government’ with military force. Because this operation would lack the legitimacy of an UN Security Council resolution, they would be right…technically (and really?) it would be an act of war for NATO to intervene militarily.

Better the devil I know

Secondly, Syria has a military. One of the facts that led to the defeat of Gaddafi was his relatively small aged and ineffective military. Libya had been on the arms embargo list for decades; Syria has large forces, well organized and equipped with modern and deadly weaponry. Libya’s forces were largely used to suppress its own people; Syrian forces are in constant preparation for a war with Israel…a major threat to Syria (let us not forget these countries are still technically at war and Israel bombed Syria in 2007). Syria’s military is, at least conventionally, able to deal with a major Israel threat; NATO would be minor compared to what Israel could do.

Arab spring or swapping jockeys

The only hope the people of Syria have is the Arab League of Nations…their local UN. The Arab league has sent in observes to judge the level of violence and quickly left because the levels of savagery they saw shocked even ‘professionals’ like them. They have condemned Syria and attempted to isolate it politically. However, the Arab League is composed of 21 Arab nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; these nations have had difficulty presenting a unified front in the past and there are few military that could take on Syria.

Of course another major issue is that after the “Arab Spring” most of the oppressive nations, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, do not want to promote ‘liberation movements’. The Saudi’s sent troops into Bahrain to stop uprisings there and the Egyptian military is trying to maintain its control over Egypt after the loss of Mubarak. Economically, Russia and China (and India, Brazil, South Africa) see Syria as valuable for economic, political or geo-strategic imperatives.

Short vs. Long term

I came out strongly in favor of the intervention in Libya to “protect innocent civilians” and at the time I mentioned my fears that western powers would use this noble (and necessary) principle for a more opportunistic agenda (regime change). Well, my trust in humanity (as principled and tentative as it was) was misplaced. That said, there is a lesson to be learnt.

One of the goals of Radio Free Thinker, is to expand the frontier of skeptical thinking; taking the tools of critical thinking and the scientific method beyond their traditional limited spheres of science. We have a learning opportunity here; one I hope political leaders will learn from. Libya and Syria are empirical data points about what happens then noble and just actions are hijacked for more cynical political gains. That if politicians hope to elevate the state of humanity and create a better world for themselves (and maybe by accident for us all) they need to learn from the lessons of the past…that when we are dogmatic, be it in religion, history or politics, we are condemned to death, destruction and failure.

{End note – As my loyal readers know, I like to have a good supply of images in my posts. Often I use cartoons. When I was looking for images for this post I was struck by the number I found in Arabic…most poignant ones were ‘local’. I have not found this for any other blog I have done to date; I think this is saying something and if I were Assad, I would be looking for a place to retire sooner than later.}

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Allah, too little too late

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 8, 2012

Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings last week. Seems a bit late, but better late than never. I find it funny that in a religious context it was not obvious that killing or maiming women for the sake of honour was wrong…morally wrong. Okay maybe not exclusively religious but seems to be the last bastion of this kind of thinking. What is honour killing? When the head of the family perceives a member of the family has committed an act that brings shame or dishonour on the family, they punish the offender to restore the family honour. This punishment (most often against wife or daughter but occasionally against sons who ‘marry wrong’ or are gay) can be as simple as in-house imprisonment or a beating however occasionally women have been burnt alive, have had acid thrown on their faces or just simply shot to death. To give an example how twisted this idea of honour can be (at least in more traditional cultures), women have been maimed and killed because THEY were raped…yes, they get punished for being sexually assaulted by someone else.

In response to the convictions of four people in the Shafia family murder of four female members, over 30 imams signed a fatwa that condemns honour killings, domestic violence and misogyny as “un-Islamic.” In a classic apologist play, this group attempts to explain how previous translations or interpretations of Koranic verse were incorrect. That those (and it was, is?, the majority) who think that when the Koran says a husband is superior to his wife it means the man is better than the women…no, no, no….the term ‘superior’ doesn’t mean better than but only that the husband has a greater responsibility (ie superior responsibility) to provide for the family. aaAAHHhh(sound of coming realization), so superior really means more accountable .

They go on to address domestic violence directly by stating that the term “wadhriboo-hunnah” ( وَٱضۡرِبُوهُ نَّ ) has been mistranslated. The wrong read is ‘strike’ where it should be ‘cite’. So, when imams and the faithful use to incorrectly read what to do if you find your wife having an affair they thought Allah commanded them to 1) advise her, 2) abandon her bed and then 3) strike her until she learns to obey. How they should have read the commands is 1) educate her on what her duty is, 2) move to separate bedrooms, and 3) CITE her to the authorities (where they can ostracize her or whatever the sharia court may impose). They do make it clear when they also add “Honour killing is a major sin in Islam.” and those who commit this crime should be punished both by secular law as well as the justice of Allah in the next world.

[Small aside – if this is the unerring word of god…failure to follow or understand this religious laws/lifestyle will mean eternal damnation…it seems odd that a loving god would be so ambiguous. Seriously, if the original Arabic was inaccurate why not correct it when the language was available…Allah is supposed to be all powerful? He (I assume it’s a he considering the treatment of women whether you think it special or inferior) ]

The fatwa is three pages long, four if you include the ‘signature’ part, and mostly tries to explain that Islam is not a religion of violence…never was, it’s all about love and genuine obedience to Allah. Standard PR stuff. It comes across as very apologetic for Islam and that ‘real Muslims’ would never condone this. On that, I think most PEOPLE do not, in spite of their religious beliefs, think killing your spouse appropriate.  That said, claiming that the Islamic community does not have a major problem with domestic violence because of religious doctrine seems disingenuous; in the same way the Pope says that the Catholic Church does not have a pedophile problem. It is true that all peoples suffer from domestic violence, and that it is not uniquely an Islamic problem; however it is unique that many Muslims are new immigrants who come from very conservative cultures. Because of this and the current geo-political atmosphere, conservative views are common in their community.

Pakistani activists perform a skit in a street in Hyderabad, Pakistan (2008) to portray the recent "honor killings" in a tribal town

I think the imams missed a golden opportunity. They could have moved their community forward by acknowledging they have a particularly worsening problem in their community (along with perhaps Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians) that must be addressed and not excused away. I think most people who perpetrate regular or extreme domestic violence do so because of personality defects; however religion and religious communities can become enablers for violence…providing the excuse to do violence; and then provide the apologetic. The message was clear by the imams that Islam condemns domestic violence…as stated; however it would have been more powerful and responsible if they acknowledged the complicity by which Islam and Koranic tradition has been in allowing this tradition to exist and the need to use human standards for ethics and, not a 1500 year old befuddling document.

{End note – I do not think Islam is more (or less) ‘wrong’ than any other religion. My disdain of religion is universal. This could be seen as anti-Muslim, but that would just play into the hands of the apologist and those individuals who perpetrate violence. This only talks about Islam because that is what the story is about…in the same way the “hiding priests” scandal was a catholic church thing, not because we hate Catholics but because it was their wrong doing that was the story. }

 

———————————-

Reference:

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Editorial – Caterpillar, lock-outs and who defends Canadians?

Posted by Don McLenaghen on February 5, 2012

Okay, so there are many things that I find disturbing and upsetting about the just announced decision of Caterpillar to shut down the Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. plant in London. I could do an appropriate anti-corporate rant about how corporations see people…cities…society as meat for the grinder of profits. I could point out the underhanded and deliberate way Caterpillar uses its global position to undermine labour…to strip people of their ability to collectively bargain by creating production in different counties then pitting labour in those regions against each other to create the lowest possible standard of living…regardless, of the inequality of wealth created. It is obscene that a corporation like Caterpillar, which is experiencing record profits[1], feels no need to share its prosperity with those whose hands made the products that enriched the company but instead plans to strip them of what dignity they have remaining.

No, what I wish to bring to the attention of Canadians is our government…well, I say ours but I find that caricature farcical. One would expect that a body, such as government or union, would work to help its people…to ensure the prosperity, integrity and dignity of its members. The union has tried to stand up for its workers but as labour laws are, there is little they can do when confronted by a corporation that demands its work force take a 50% drop in pay or they will leave the country…”oh and by the way, leaving was our intention from the start”.

In October 2010 Caterpillar bought Electro-Motive[2] that same month it began ‘building’ an assembly plant in Indiana[3] which went online Oct 2011 ostensibly because of “Buy America” provisions imposed by US lawmakers. It is important to note though that Indiana is one the US states that have passed “Right to Work” legislation[4]; laws intended to prevent unions from organizing in their state. The plant in London, for those not in the know, is one of four facilities operated by Electro-Motive around the world; although one, a maintenance plant (immune from “Buy America”), was opened in 2010 in Mexico and the other in Indiana. Caterpillar experienced a record increase in profits of 82%[5]…but did this only on an increase sale of 52%; where did the rest of the increased profit come from? Well one possible location is the workers. The average wage in the closed Canadian plant was $32-$45/hr[6] and those of the new Indiana plant – $12-$18/hr[7]…that helps the shareholders, the CEO ($10.5 million in pay last year)[8] & board members…but those who actually do the work – F@ All.

Losing unions hurts us all

Okay, I have taken a bit of a sidetrack here. It is important to know some of the detail…that this is more than just a business decision; it is an attack on Canada and the Canadian worker. Although my views on capitalism should be well known to my readers this is how the system is set up. To push back on the power of the corporation the worker has only one option – collective power. Collective power has two main manifestations; unions which are prevented to organize globally, effectively because of draconian restrictions on the movement of labour, while capital flows freely (and recklessly) across borders. This is not the first time Caterpillar has used its global reach for union busting.

The other locus of collective power is the government. It was the Harper government that gave Electro-Motive a 5 million dollar tax break[9] to ‘save jobs’, fat lot of good that did. The conservative mantra (north and south of the border) state that give the 1%…the corporations tax breaks they will invest, employ and create better communities. This is, as a rule with few exceptions, a fallacy when applied to multinationals. Why don’t they learn!

What can the government do now? Well, then labour was ‘acting up’, Harper could not move fast enough to pass back-to-work legislation. “To save jobs and help the economy”. In this case he could seize the assets of the London plant…nationalize it (or at least collectivize it). This is not as radical or ‘petty’ as it may at first sound. Caterpillar did not resolve the continuing labour dispute; it just walked out. The government has a right and a duty to step in and ensure the community and the workers are protected and compensated. There are obligations a corporation takes on when it sets up shop; it is the role of the government to ensure those obligations are satisfied.

Second, this is an act of economic warfare.  As we are all well aware of these days, corporations have in many ways become de facto states. Caterpillar took hostage a group of Canadian workers and then economically executed them…as a warning to any other union or worker in Canada, if the company says take a 50% pay cut, you do it or will kill your livelihood! It would not be the first time a government in Canada has stepped-in to protect its populous from predatory corporations[10]. Former Premier Danny Williams did this Abitibi-Bowater in Newfoundland[11] when it threatened the people of the province[12].  The Harper government did not even have the business intelligence to ensure that when Canadian taxpayers gifted Electro-Motive with 5 Million dollars, strings would be attached to ensure the plant while profitable (and no one has argued it is not) would remain open with job security and integrity intact.

I am incensed at Caterpillar for what it has done. We can however ask and ask again why our government…the HARPER government sits back and insists that tax cuts for corporation help workers in the face of the obvious rebuttal of that as witnessed by Electro-Motive. Why he is so eager to stand up for corporations when unions attempt redress of grievances by instantly issuing back-to-work legislation. Why he has been absent when a foreign corporation takes economic hostages…almost 500 people have lost well-paying jobs not to mention the ripple effect in the community of London. If he is OUR Prime Minister…if it is OUR Government, why does it stand by in silence and do nothing?

Let your voice be heard…

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/02/power-politics-ballot-box-question-3.html


[1] “Caterpillar Inc. reported a 58 percent rise in quarterly earnings that blew away Wall Street expectations”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-caterpillar-idUSTRE80P0VW20120126?type=companyNews

[12] Of course the absence of the Ontario government is just as sad, however, they have not been as ideologically tied to the manta of “tax breaks improved corporate investment leads to more jobs” that Harper et al has chanted.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Prophets of Gold – Part 6 – Economic fear mongering

Posted by Don McLenaghen on January 29, 2012

Okay, we have thrashed out all the arguments the prophets put forward to support their golden view…they seem lacking at best and fictional at worse; but what about the current economic meltdown?

There is a major problem with the world’s economy…the US economy. The US did not spend enough to get itself out of the recession. Most economists now think[1] if the US had doubled or more its stimulus spending, the economy would be back to a healthy state. You ask “what about the downgrade in the US’s credit rating?” Well that had NOTHING to do with the American debt; the US economy, dollar and treasury bill are still considered the safest investment on the planet (safer than gold?).  The downgrade occurred because of political manipulation of a political minority (the GOP)…S&P stated it was the political instability NOT economic that prompted it to downgrade. The prophets feed into this hysteria to capitalize on the public fear to promote their radical change (I would recommend reading “Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein). It has never been cheaper for the US to raise money that now.

Now, the debt is a long-term issue; I am not saying that it is not but I am also saying that it is not the time to worry about it. Reasonable and effective stimulus via spending is more important than debt reduction (and tax cuts do NOT effectively stimulate). Those who follow the prophets, SHOULD insist that when the economy has recovered the government must resist demand to cut taxes but should instead increase them and pay down the deficit when times are good and to place the nation in a position so as to be able to take on the next economic downturn.

“But what about THIS recession? Was it not caused by fiat money? By a high debt?” No!

The current troubles were not caused by government manipulation of the currency nor the debt. Almost every economist (left and right including the infamous Greenspan) blames lack of regulation for the current debacle. The prophets (when not praising gold) staunchly support the laissez faire approach to the economy… a completely free and unregulated market. They say this in spite of the fact that the current crash is directly the result of under-regulation…that in no point in history has unregulated markets led to stable economics. History has shown that deregulation always leads to short term instability and long term monopolistic markets (near absence of competition).

“What about Greece, Italy…they have fiat money and are about to default on their debt; explain that!”

Loss of options

None of the problems had anything to do with the type of (fiat) currency these countries had. In fact, the trouble they currently have is because they cannot just print money. The Euro is not in the control of Greece or Italy…it’s in the control of the European Central Bank. They do have a problem with ‘bonds’ and the need to secure new bonds to keep paying the bills and pay off old bonds that have come due. A countries credit rating is intended to provide lenders a guideline as to the likelihood a nation might default on its loans; this then determines the interest rate lenders can ask.

For a company, a lender would renegotiate the loan – better to take a small loss and let the company recover to repay then lose it all by forcing a bankruptcy. However, in the case of a nation…a nation with the backing of the Euro, there is no chance it will go bankrupt…or default (long term at least) on its debt; there is no incentive for the creditors to ‘work with Greece’ to help its economy recover. To make its bond payments, Greece is forced to reduce its spending because it cannot ‘print more money’…the Euro for Greece is like a fixed currency…the economy goes into recession leading to less tax income so less money to pay lenders and the cycle continues.

Huff and Puff!

The current holders of Greek debt are hedge funds which bought the Greek bonds from other less speculative lenders at a discount; they then turned around and purchased insurance on the debt. The speculators have no interest in helping Greece recover its economy but only to see how much money it can squeeze out of the Greeks. It is true Greece put itself into this bind but we are seeing that the interdependence of a fixed currency can cause financial repercussions over the whole global economy.  The speculators know eventually the European Central Bank or the International Monetary Fund will step in; make good on the loans and turn Greece into a third world country…they will then repeat the process in Spain, Portugal, Italy…if it takes the rest of

The dark side of finance.

Europe down, speculators can still invest in China. The main point in our context is none of this would have been avoided by the gold standard in fact because relative to Greece, the Euro is a fixed currency; it shows that the gold standard would have made no difference and caused the same economic crisis Greece et al are now experiencing in the Euro Zone. In fact it provided a counter-factual because if the Greek’s had their own fiat money, it may have provided Greece a way out of its bond crisis (although still at a price).

“Okay, but more than Greece has experienced a drop in its credit rating…admit it, it’s their debt that caused this problem!”

Now, Greece and more importantly France (among others) have experienced a downgrade in their borrowing grade NOT because they have too large a debt (although for Greece that is part of it) but because they are trying to reduce the debt through austerity measures. There has been a complete misstep that politicians around the globe (reflecting the neo-liberal/neo-conservative revolution that has occurred in the last couple of decades) have become obsessed with reducing the size of government, the deficit and a removal of government regulations on ‘the market’.  As mentioned earlier it was deregulation that was at the heart of the current financial crisis however those who have profited from this ‘unfettered capitalism’ do not want regulations to return so the blame for the economic debacle has been laid at the feet of the debt. The only way the pro-corporate right wing governments[2] see to reduce the debt is to reduce government size and government spending. So, countries like Britain and France have been imposing austerity measures in the false hope they will ‘stimulate the economy’ from the current recession. This is like inflicting deeper cuts on a person who is bleeding to death; it will only hasten death.

"It shall collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions" Marx

In one of those twists, the rating agencies are beginning to acknowledge that government spending in times of recession is good…that failure to do so will make an nation a greater credit risk; thus France is downgraded. I say twist because it is those very same credit rating agencies that graded the toxic Credit Default Swaps from bad housing loans as Grade A that started this current bust cycle. The problems the current nations are experiencing are not universally safer because some nations are willing to spend more to (at least) reduce the decline into recession or attempt to recover. If all nations were locked into the gold standard then the global economy would not be teetering on the edge for a couple of years, it very well have slammed head into a decade’s long depression like we experience a century ago…while on the gold standard!


[2] Sadly, in the ‘new left’ which has replaced the ‘socialist left’ are corporate ponds. The Labour of the UK is not pro-union but pro-business as its actions have shown. This is seen in the US with the difference between the Dems and the GOP being how much and how far they are willing to go in lowering taxes and cutting spending.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Prophets of Gold – Part 5 – Hyper-active over hyper-inflation

Posted by Don McLenaghen on January 27, 2012

Last time we discussed how fractional reserve banking can inflate the amount of money in an economy…the prophets hate inflated money.

Old fears renewed

The underlying premise of the previous planks of the prophet’s gilded construct is the idea of inflation. This actually has two parts, first is the inability to buy stuff because it becomes too expensive (classic inflation) and the devaluation of fixed assets (depreciation).

Now, it is true that fiat currency can experience hyper-inflation. It happened in Germany, Zimbabwe and other places…surprisingly a lot of ‘small’ nations have experienced hyper-inflations with little long-term detriments. The normal course of action is for a ‘revaluation’ of the currency. This has the harmful effect of wiping out ‘old money’; however for the majority of the populations (at least of these countries) poverty minimized this loss. Fixed assets are also safe for once a revaluation occurs these assets (property) are valued at the new stable currency maintaining an equivalent value prior to the hyper-inflation. That is why; those who fear hyper-inflation the most and thus preach the stability of the gold standard are those with large ‘savings’…the 1% types…those who have little real assets and thus must defend their (ironically) paper fortunes.

I am not saying hyper-inflation is always a minor and temporary event in people lives. We have all seen the wheel-barrows of money Germans needed to buy a loaf of bread.  In Germany’s case, we did have a major economy hitting the wall where simple revaluation did not seem to work. Of course Germany could not simply adopt a gold standard for most of its reserves were being paid out as reparations to ‘the victors of WW1’; it eventually recovered in small steps from 1923 to 1925. Germany did end up with a gold backed mark but this ‘saviour’ became the gate way to the depression for Germany less than 5 years later.

Why did it become the gate way to depression? The one thing the prophets of the gold standard mention the most is the one thing that is the biggest asset of ‘fiat money’ – the ability of the government to control the economy. Most prophets have an extreme fear of governments and thus see anything they do as innately wrong and to be eliminated or minimized. One of the realities of the capitalist system is the boom/bust cycle. The prophets believe that the gold standard will ensure stability by prevent the government from interfering in the ‘free market’; that historically gold has had a stable price and thus countries on the gold standard do not experience (large) boom or bust cycles. Historically this is pure fantasy.

Gold-flation, the instability of Gold

Whenever a government NEEDED money, it would just drop the gold standard, print what it needed and then return to the standard when it was convenient. The prophets have an existential fear of government and somehow think that the gold standard will miraculously prevent them from interfering in the national monetary system; this too has been proven to be pure fantasy. The USA alone has been effectively on and off the gold standard three times.

Using the USA, as an example, they have experienced dozens of recessions/depressions during the 19th century. Most were quite severe because under a fixed currency there is no way for the government to ‘push back’ against the economic tsunami that ‘bust’ begets. As everyone starts to suffer, spending goes down, leading to drops in demand, businesses close or go bankrupt leading to more suffering and even less spending…what is needed is ‘push back’ to restore economic equilibrium; this is when fiat money becomes a necessity. Let us remember that is was the USA’s attempt (and Germany and others) to maintain the gold standard that pushed a recession into the worst depression in modern times. That when a government was freed from the demands of the gold standard only then could they stimulate their economy by ‘printing money’; only then did the depression end. As mentioned earlier, a direct correlation between abandoning the gold standard and recovery can be found[1].

Governments can both stimulate economies, in a measured and controlled way, by increasing debt via the printing of money. This stimulus creates jobs, which creates demand, which creates more jobs. As the cost of goods rise, so too do wages. When an economy becomes ‘too hot’, the government reduces spending, pulls money out of the economy via increasing taxes (which should be used to reduce the debt incurred during the stimulus phase) there will be less money in the economy, meaning less will be bought, things will become more expensive, even less will be bought and the economy gently slows down. The role of the Bank of Canada, the Federal Reserve or any central bank is to balance the money supply to ensure limited and sustainable grown while avoiding boom or bust; for the last 80yrs it has worked well. Not perfect I admit but it has done well to smooth out the peaks and valleys of the capitalist system.

Now this does require some fiscal responsibility for governments to not go overboard, however it is in the long-term interest of governments to resist; the memory of Weimar Germany shows how quickly an undisciplined printing press can lead to ruin. Lessons learnt by the major economies as can be witnessed that since the 1930’s no major depression has occurred, no major currency had experienced hyper-inflation. One of the ways that has helped prevent ‘abuse’ by politicians is that in most (all?) modern governments, there is a separation between the government and the central bank. In Canada, the Bank of Canada is technically part of the government but is administered at arm’s length by an independent governor; the same is more evident in the USA were the Federal Reserve[2] is a private entity governed by presidential appointees

Now, you might say “what about now? The USA’s credit rating has been downgraded, Greece et al are about to default on loans, the Euro is about to crash! What about that?” Nothing to do with the gold standard but before we move on to these sexy issues lets deal with the other way inflation frightens the prophets of gold.

As mentioned there are two aspects to inflation; we have covered the supply/demand for currency and how it affects boom/bust cycles; the other is how long-term inflation can erode the value of fixed assets. In a world of ever increasing inequality, depreciation of assets is very important to the 1% (to single them out again). Inflation not only makes things more expensive but it also has the effect of eroding the value of fixed assets like property, savings, or overseas investments. If you buy a house for $100,000 at time X then sell it for 150,000 at time Y, you might think you have made 50,000; however if you factor in inflation of let’s say 10%, you only made 40,000…if its high inflation of 100% from time X to Y, you actually lost 50,000. That is why prophets of the gold standard, who constantly preach stability, have a vested interest in ensuring inflation is as close to zero as possible. The gold standard protects there ‘paper profits’ and zero inflation protects their luxury homes…their ‘comfort profits’. Now, I understand that a lot of the 99% have accepted the mantra put forward by the prophets; I am not saying that all those who want the gold standard are the 1%, but I would argue they have been duped by them. The myth of the gold standard is simple and convenient; the prophets promise in one simple move we can solve all our nation’s problems…who would not be tempted by that.


[1] Bernanke, Ben (March 2, 2004). “Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke: Money, Gold and the Great Depression”. At the H. Parker Willis Lecture in Economic Policy, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia

[2] The Fed, although governed by publicly appointed governors, is private banks. It’s in their vested interest to ensure the government does not induce major, let alone hyper, inflation. They would lose the value of their primary asset – money.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers