There is an excellent letter about New Orleans in today's Globe and Mail by Judy Rebick, publisher of rabble.ca and long time activist. (An aside: unfortunately the Globe locks up their letters page online with a cute little red key icon  meaning that you have to pay to read it. Fair enough, I guess, newspapers gotta make a buck just like everybody else, but you'd think maybe the letters to the editor could be free). Anyhow, Rebick points out that a key factor in the "societal breakdown" in New Orleans, is the steady dismantling of the social safety net that started under Regan in the 1980s, and had continued every since. Instead of spending tax dollars on welfare and unemployment insurance, we pay for police. This is Canada's problem too. As Rebick says, "Cuts to social services and infrastructure to fund tax reductions and security services lead to a breakdown in a sense of community and caring for each other. In good times that breakdown is suffered by the poor while the rest of us look away."
I'm a major fan of Judy Rebick.
I hope this link works for people, it is a geologist's nerd's eye view of the natural and unnatural conditions in New Orleans that have made it vulnerable to flooding.
Thanks for the article L.M. The article tangentially mentions the various dangers in California. Given the performance of Commander Clusterfuck in time of disaster, I want my CA National Guard troops back!
I read this letter to the editor and found it simply predictable lefty stuff. Why is the Left, in every other matter seemingly progressive, always so conservative when it comes to the arguments? I for one don't see many parallels between Canada and the United States. The worst leadership in our country is Ralph Klein, and yet I saw something yesterday (on Maisonneuve's Mediascout) about how the Alberta government has sent people to Israel to study water conservation. That's a far cry from President Bush's incompetence of pretending nothing is ever wrong.
The yawn inducer in Rebick's letter was her bringing up Regan, who is now thankfully dead and been out of office for 16 years. Yeah sure, social cut backs 20 years ago caused problems. The silver lining in Katrina's cloud is that the rest of the USA is waking up that reality. I mean, with Bush saying the government will do everything it can to help, and giving away $2000 debit cards, one has to do an about face and say, 'my he sounds like a socialist'. I found Rebick to be simply stating the obvious, almost to the point where it seemed like she was insulting our intelligence.
Americans only seem to wake up to the social contract after a catastrophe that kills thousands. That fact that even the most sycophantic journalists on Fox News and elsewhere are finally seeing eye to eye with the rest of us who've known Bush and Co were incompetent only makes them seem more Canadian now, not less. While Canada has had its share of stupid social policy and spending cuts, we've never lost the social contract. (Or am I wrong here?)
Toronto's spree of gang violence over the summer was blamed on Harris' cuts. Harris's legacy was ultimately to have the Conservatives voted out of office. But there's a big difference between Canada and the USA. They reelected their Conservative leader, they continue to let people go bankrupt over medical care, and they continued to ignore New Orleans request to improve the levees. There's a big difference in social policy application when one leads to an upswing blip in crime and the other to the destruction of an entire city.
I'd like to think this whole thing will lead to better social policies for everyone, and I hope it's possible to talk about it and consider it without once using the word 'marx'.
Mike Harris got elected twice. And he was glad-handing with the cash too, doling out tax refund cheques. Erosion of the social safety net in Canada is a problem. Unless you don't like the social safety net. Remember U.I.? Remember when the Reform Party was just a surreal joke? As far as I can tell, the socialised health care we're all so proud of is being privatised as we speak, and the fact that we are holding vaguely suspected terrorists in dentention (for years) without laying charges or granting visiting prviledges is quite possibly a breach of the social contract. But I dunno... maybe that's all too obvious to bother thinking about. Much less insulting to our intelligence to sit around and pretend the American people are all dumber than us, and that's why they're in this mess, and we're not...uh, we're not in this mess, right?
I for one am frankly bored by Canadian provincialism that keeps looking to American examples for everything, including politics. Yes, it's true our elected leaders (Harris, Klein) over the past 25 years have parroted American politicians (because we're a country of provinces right), and yes it's true that our health care system is being eroded, that we have people in unlawful detention. But I would say that's our problem, and we shouldn't look to the U.S. to lay blame. I'd rather blame the imitator in the case than bitch about the role model.
As citizens who are under the cloak of provincialism, too busy watching American tv shows or the BBC news on CBC, we're the ones who are letting our leadership get away with this. And it also should be said that the 'erosion of social programs' was an economic trend throughout the world, promoted by the WTO and all that globalization stuff. Now that's fallen out of favour, largely because of the examples of its failures.
It comes down to this for me - I'm not American, and I can't vote in their elections. There are 32 million of us, and 250+ million of them. It's their society, their problems, and their electorate that can fix things.
That's why we have countries after all isn't it, so that one group can be responsible for themselves. We all bitched when USA decided they were going to fix Iraq's problems didn't we? And we get worried and upset when the Americans don't respect our sovereignty so that their problems carry over into ours. But again, when that happens it's a failure of our political leadership for wimping out in the assertion of our sovereignty.
And yes, I do think they're dumber than us, because they don't have the CBC, which does a great job of raising our basic understanding and common sense on so many international issues. A majority of them did re-elect Bush legitimately the last time around. I respect that as much as I respect the Germany who elected Hitler legitimately in 1933. I think it's totally fair to consider the country with disdain. A majority of Canadians would not have elected Bush both times around. That says something.
It's not self-righteousness to say that, it's a simple fact. And further, whenever you get some Canadian saying we're better than them or whatever, they get shot down by the type of provincial who still thinks USA is better than we are. It's ok to be proud to be Canadian, and it's ok to say that is some ways we're better than them. But I also agree with Michael Ignatieff that being anti-American is a bad way to define oneself as Canadian. The last few years under the Bush Administration has created a trap for those of us who can see plain as day that the American people have lost whatever dignity and direction they once had, but we're not allowed to say so, because suddenly we're all anti-American if we do. The Emperor has no clothes here, and to call him on it we get to be called prudes for being bothered by the Emperor's nudity. It's depressing when anyone tolerates such idiocy - Ray Nagin bitching about Bush last week, and people speculating he threw away his career for doing so. That to me is the ultimate sin here - that no one feels free to speak their mind, or be truly critical. What Nagin said when he brought up the Iraq war was obvious and justified and I'm dismayed that all the so called smart people think that means the end of his career, instead of backing him up on it. The timidity had led to mediocrity and that can't inspire anybody to care.
You're upset about the people being detained, but with the CBC in their lockout, no one's gonna promote that story, and harass the right people into doing something. You suggest we write letters to our leaders - but I can't jump on that bandwagon because a) I don't feel like I have the facts, since everything always seems biased and governments distort the truth b) I feel like I'm powerless to do anything about it. I'm not a lawyer etc. By suggesting we write our leaders, you're anticipating what? A brilliant letter from someone which is going to sway them? It seems to be an argument toward inspiring someone to care through compelling language. What I'm afraid a letter writing campaign can only produce is a bunch of flaccid prose which these politicians can easily ignore, which is especially true when we deal with these cut and paste protests that even I've sent around a couple of times. If anything, write to the people those politicians represent, so that the next time they vote, they are making an informed choice.
But with regard to U.I. and Reform Party - both are now history. The Reform became the Conservatives and they're now little more than a joke. But again, I want to say that our right-wing are not nearly as backward and blind to reality as the American right wing. We haven't demonized Liberals in Canada - and that to me says something about the integrity of our social contract. U.I. - according to my understanding, it was little more than a name change when it went to E.I. Where I grew up, people needed U.I. over the winter, and a small percentage worked to get their stamps and then didn't work anymore, much to the loathing of everyone else. Nothing there has changed, there's still the same percentage who work for their stamps than take the rest of the year off. So, yeah, I remember U.I. and I remember when they red-tapped it up into E.I. Bitching about that now seems irrelevant - I'd prefer to start a discussion to develop a guaranteed income in this country, which is something the Liberal party has contemplated for 30 years. How much more better off we'd be if we pressed them on that.
I'm not going to spend my time harping on past wrongs, and would prefer to work on establishing future rights, and do what I can to correct whatever problems are going on today. You can't change the past, and can only build the future by working in the present.
So anyway, I still think Rebick's letter was boring. Sorry to disagree with you on that.
Is it wrong for me to enjoy this exchange too much?
Aside from Timothy's sweeping statement about our inherent superiority due to our mind-meld with the CBC, I like most of his rant. I resent the habit of colonial ankle-licking whether it was directed towards Britain or is currently directed towards the USA. (that's an accusation I level towards our moneyed elites)
However, I have take issue with any accusation of "harping on past wrongs". I want to know the recent history of our thinking and popular opinions, a big part of building a future (Timothy's expression) is being able to identify influences that shaped what we lazily think of as common sense or self evident fact or our current lot in life.
"we shouldn't look to the U.S. to lay blame" this is what I have been saying. Obessing on USA, whether fawning or condeming can be a big distraction. Like LM, I pretty much agree with you Timothy. (Although NPR blows CBC out of the water for being A: not boring and B: representative, and of course there's Common Dreams and Democracy Now). But I'm still mad about the Judy Rebick being a boring old lefty thing you said (you're not only person to say this, of course, Lynn Crosbie called her a boring old feminist in the Globe and Mail a little whilte ago), and it folds into this not dwelling on the past thing you are saying now. This is going to be boring too, but here goes: Social change requires work, labour, lobbying, letter writing, speechifying, protesting, etc. Public policy doesn't just drop out of the air.
|
There is an excellent letter about New Orleans in today's Globe and Mail by Judy Rebick, publisher of rabble.ca and long time activist. (An aside: unfortunately the Globe locks up their letters page online with a cute little red key icon
- sally mckay 9-03-2005 6:08 pm
I'm a major fan of Judy Rebick.
I hope this link works for people, it is a geologist's nerd's eye view of the natural and unnatural conditions in New Orleans that have made it vulnerable to flooding.
- L.M. 9-03-2005 9:29 pm
Thanks for the article L.M. The article tangentially mentions the various dangers in California. Given the performance of Commander Clusterfuck in time of disaster, I want my CA National Guard troops back!
- mark 9-04-2005 2:21 am
I read this letter to the editor and found it simply predictable lefty stuff. Why is the Left, in every other matter seemingly progressive, always so conservative when it comes to the arguments? I for one don't see many parallels between Canada and the United States. The worst leadership in our country is Ralph Klein, and yet I saw something yesterday (on Maisonneuve's Mediascout) about how the Alberta government has sent people to Israel to study water conservation. That's a far cry from President Bush's incompetence of pretending nothing is ever wrong.
The yawn inducer in Rebick's letter was her bringing up Regan, who is now thankfully dead and been out of office for 16 years. Yeah sure, social cut backs 20 years ago caused problems. The silver lining in Katrina's cloud is that the rest of the USA is waking up that reality. I mean, with Bush saying the government will do everything it can to help, and giving away $2000 debit cards, one has to do an about face and say, 'my he sounds like a socialist'. I found Rebick to be simply stating the obvious, almost to the point where it seemed like she was insulting our intelligence.
Americans only seem to wake up to the social contract after a catastrophe that kills thousands. That fact that even the most sycophantic journalists on Fox News and elsewhere are finally seeing eye to eye with the rest of us who've known Bush and Co were incompetent only makes them seem more Canadian now, not less. While Canada has had its share of stupid social policy and spending cuts, we've never lost the social contract. (Or am I wrong here?)
Toronto's spree of gang violence over the summer was blamed on Harris' cuts. Harris's legacy was ultimately to have the Conservatives voted out of office. But there's a big difference between Canada and the USA. They reelected their Conservative leader, they continue to let people go bankrupt over medical care, and they continued to ignore New Orleans request to improve the levees. There's a big difference in social policy application when one leads to an upswing blip in crime and the other to the destruction of an entire city.
I'd like to think this whole thing will lead to better social policies for everyone, and I hope it's possible to talk about it and consider it without once using the word 'marx'.
- Timothy (guest) 9-08-2005 4:01 am
Mike Harris got elected twice. And he was glad-handing with the cash too, doling out tax refund cheques. Erosion of the social safety net in Canada is a problem. Unless you don't like the social safety net. Remember U.I.? Remember when the Reform Party was just a surreal joke? As far as I can tell, the socialised health care we're all so proud of is being privatised as we speak, and the fact that we are holding vaguely suspected terrorists in dentention (for years) without laying charges or granting visiting prviledges is quite possibly a breach of the social contract. But I dunno... maybe that's all too obvious to bother thinking about. Much less insulting to our intelligence to sit around and pretend the American people are all dumber than us, and that's why they're in this mess, and we're not...uh, we're not in this mess, right?
- sally mckay 9-08-2005 5:27 pm
I for one am frankly bored by Canadian provincialism that keeps looking to American examples for everything, including politics. Yes, it's true our elected leaders (Harris, Klein) over the past 25 years have parroted American politicians (because we're a country of provinces right), and yes it's true that our health care system is being eroded, that we have people in unlawful detention. But I would say that's our problem, and we shouldn't look to the U.S. to lay blame. I'd rather blame the imitator in the case than bitch about the role model.
As citizens who are under the cloak of provincialism, too busy watching American tv shows or the BBC news on CBC, we're the ones who are letting our leadership get away with this. And it also should be said that the 'erosion of social programs' was an economic trend throughout the world, promoted by the WTO and all that globalization stuff. Now that's fallen out of favour, largely because of the examples of its failures.
It comes down to this for me - I'm not American, and I can't vote in their elections. There are 32 million of us, and 250+ million of them. It's their society, their problems, and their electorate that can fix things.
That's why we have countries after all isn't it, so that one group can be responsible for themselves. We all bitched when USA decided they were going to fix Iraq's problems didn't we? And we get worried and upset when the Americans don't respect our sovereignty so that their problems carry over into ours. But again, when that happens it's a failure of our political leadership for wimping out in the assertion of our sovereignty.
And yes, I do think they're dumber than us, because they don't have the CBC, which does a great job of raising our basic understanding and common sense on so many international issues. A majority of them did re-elect Bush legitimately the last time around. I respect that as much as I respect the Germany who elected Hitler legitimately in 1933. I think it's totally fair to consider the country with disdain. A majority of Canadians would not have elected Bush both times around. That says something.
It's not self-righteousness to say that, it's a simple fact. And further, whenever you get some Canadian saying we're better than them or whatever, they get shot down by the type of provincial who still thinks USA is better than we are. It's ok to be proud to be Canadian, and it's ok to say that is some ways we're better than them. But I also agree with Michael Ignatieff that being anti-American is a bad way to define oneself as Canadian. The last few years under the Bush Administration has created a trap for those of us who can see plain as day that the American people have lost whatever dignity and direction they once had, but we're not allowed to say so, because suddenly we're all anti-American if we do. The Emperor has no clothes here, and to call him on it we get to be called prudes for being bothered by the Emperor's nudity. It's depressing when anyone tolerates such idiocy - Ray Nagin bitching about Bush last week, and people speculating he threw away his career for doing so. That to me is the ultimate sin here - that no one feels free to speak their mind, or be truly critical. What Nagin said when he brought up the Iraq war was obvious and justified and I'm dismayed that all the so called smart people think that means the end of his career, instead of backing him up on it. The timidity had led to mediocrity and that can't inspire anybody to care.
You're upset about the people being detained, but with the CBC in their lockout, no one's gonna promote that story, and harass the right people into doing something. You suggest we write letters to our leaders - but I can't jump on that bandwagon because a) I don't feel like I have the facts, since everything always seems biased and governments distort the truth b) I feel like I'm powerless to do anything about it. I'm not a lawyer etc. By suggesting we write our leaders, you're anticipating what? A brilliant letter from someone which is going to sway them? It seems to be an argument toward inspiring someone to care through compelling language. What I'm afraid a letter writing campaign can only produce is a bunch of flaccid prose which these politicians can easily ignore, which is especially true when we deal with these cut and paste protests that even I've sent around a couple of times. If anything, write to the people those politicians represent, so that the next time they vote, they are making an informed choice.
But with regard to U.I. and Reform Party - both are now history. The Reform became the Conservatives and they're now little more than a joke. But again, I want to say that our right-wing are not nearly as backward and blind to reality as the American right wing. We haven't demonized Liberals in Canada - and that to me says something about the integrity of our social contract. U.I. - according to my understanding, it was little more than a name change when it went to E.I. Where I grew up, people needed U.I. over the winter, and a small percentage worked to get their stamps and then didn't work anymore, much to the loathing of everyone else. Nothing there has changed, there's still the same percentage who work for their stamps than take the rest of the year off. So, yeah, I remember U.I. and I remember when they red-tapped it up into E.I. Bitching about that now seems irrelevant - I'd prefer to start a discussion to develop a guaranteed income in this country, which is something the Liberal party has contemplated for 30 years. How much more better off we'd be if we pressed them on that.
I'm not going to spend my time harping on past wrongs, and would prefer to work on establishing future rights, and do what I can to correct whatever problems are going on today. You can't change the past, and can only build the future by working in the present.
So anyway, I still think Rebick's letter was boring. Sorry to disagree with you on that.
- Timothy (guest) 9-09-2005 1:44 am
Is it wrong for me to enjoy this exchange too much?
Aside from Timothy's sweeping statement about our inherent superiority due to our mind-meld with the CBC, I like most of his rant. I resent the habit of colonial ankle-licking whether it was directed towards Britain or is currently directed towards the USA. (that's an accusation I level towards our moneyed elites)
However, I have take issue with any accusation of "harping on past wrongs". I want to know the recent history of our thinking and popular opinions, a big part of building a future (Timothy's expression) is being able to identify influences that shaped what we lazily think of as common sense or self evident fact or our current lot in life.
- L.M. 9-09-2005 4:07 am
"we shouldn't look to the U.S. to lay blame" this is what I have been saying. Obessing on USA, whether fawning or condeming can be a big distraction. Like LM, I pretty much agree with you Timothy. (Although NPR blows CBC out of the water for being A: not boring and B: representative, and of course there's Common Dreams and Democracy Now). But I'm still mad about the Judy Rebick being a boring old lefty thing you said (you're not only person to say this, of course, Lynn Crosbie called her a boring old feminist in the Globe and Mail a little whilte ago), and it folds into this not dwelling on the past thing you are saying now. This is going to be boring too, but here goes: Social change requires work, labour, lobbying, letter writing, speechifying, protesting, etc. Public policy doesn't just drop out of the air.
- sally mckay 9-09-2005 4:17 pm