David Bellamy Being Humiliated By George Monbiot Over Climate Change

The willfully ignorant will be offended, the critical thinker gratified, by this video:

This Is Great!

It is a strange online world we have created for ourselves, as this video amply demonstrates. Enjoy!

Canadaland Does It Again

Jesse Brown' Canadaland, the investigative website whose work allowed The Toronto Star to develop its series uncovering the Jian Ghomeshi scandal, is once again proving its worth in a landscape littered with corporate news media. This time it has discovered, thanks to a tip from a reader, the mysterious removal by Global News of an investigative report into that right-wing cabal known as the Koch brothers and their connections to Canada.

Last Thursday at 11:06am, an article titled "The Koch Stake in Canada" ran on GlobalNews.ca. The piece, by veteran investigative reporter Bruce Livesey summarized an upcoming investigative report titled "The Koch Connection," which, the article promised, was set to air two days later, on Saturday January 31 at 7pm. Global News promoted the item with a post on 16x9's Facebook page and a tweet from an official account, which was retweeted by Global's Washington correspondent Jackson Proskow.

By Thursday night, the article had disappeared from GlobalNews.ca, the Facebook post and official tweet were deleted, as was Proskow's retweet.

Fortunately, the original article, but not the promotion video, can be found on Google Cache, and it certainly makes for some interesting reading.

It explains how the Koch brothers have a vested interest in seeing the Keystone XL pipeline become a reality, given their extensive holdings in the Canada's tarsands. It also discusses well-known facts about the brothers, including the vast sums of money they direct to conservative politicians and climate-change denial groups.

As well, and this is perhaps where the investigation might have earned unwanted attention, they

fund the climate-change denying Fraser Institute think tank here in Canada.

The cached document also observes the following:

Multiple generations of Fraser Institute staffers and donors and board members have had links to the federal Conservative Party,” says Rick Smith, executive director of the Broadbent Institute, a liberal think tank. “And you know there’s no doubt that the Fraser Institute’saggressive denial of climate change, the Fraser Institute’s views on tax policy and on immigration – you can see resonating in Harper government policy.”

Yet the Kochs don’t seem to need to spend much money in Canada: after all, the policies of the Harper government on energy, pipelines, climate change and the oil sands dovetailwith their own. In fact, the Harper government has taken measures against the environmental movement that benefit the Kochs directly or indirectly.

So what is the official reason for pulling the exposé?

Canadaland conducted a telephone interview with Ron Waksman, Global News' Senior Director of Online News, Current Affairs, Editorial Standards & Practices, to try to get some answers. According to Waksman, it "was not up to scratch" and "had some holes in it."

Perhaps his most definitive reason was,

Look, when we have an editorial hypothesis, we need facts to back it up, we didn't have the facts to back it up. In my opinion it didn't meet our standards of fairness and balance. It just wasn't up to scratch.

Maddeningly short on specifics, Waksman's 'answers' invite the critical thinker to entertain darker possibilities.

With Canadaland at the helm on this story, I'm sure this isn't the last we will hear about it.

Oh, and one more ort to chew upon: Global News is owned by Calagry-based Shaw Communications, who advertise their services to the oil & gas industries here.

More On Our Opposition Leaders

Two posts I recently wrote were highly critical of both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair for their apparent embrace, for political purposes, of Bill C-51, the bill that will serve only to further erode our civil liberties in the chimerical hope of containing terrorists threats to Canada. I expressed my disgust over the fact that both leaders seem ready to abandon the broader interests of Canada for the sake of their own quest for power, fearful of being labelled by the Harper machine as 'soft on terrorism.'

I may have been too quick to judge Mr. Mulcair.

According to Tim Harper in today's Star, Mulcair is preparing to diverge from Trudeau's acquiescence:

Voters will decide whether Opposition leader Tom Mulcair is brave or foolhardy, but the official Opposition is preparing a case to oppose the bill — not simply by working around the fringe on oversight or sunset clauses, but by questioning the guts of a bill that gives the country’s spy agency radical new powers, allows longer and easier preventive detention and would criminalize the “promotion” of terror from a naif in a basement.

The oppositions leaders' non-performance on this issue thus far has bothered me for a number of reason, their refusal to safeguard our liberties being only one of them.

Their timidity also bespeaks a jaundiced view of Canadian voters, one that says we are easily fooled and manipulated, a contemptuous philosophy found at the core of Harper strategies these past nine years. And while I have frequently expressed genuine concern on this blog about the general level of political engagement of my fellow citizens, political leaders who capitulate to the lowest common denominator essentially preclude the possibility of establishing vision and real leadership.

It would seem that Mulcair is mindful of this to some degree:

Mulcair will likely announce his opposition when the House returns later this month.

Is he filling an opening left by the Liberals? Yes. Is he ensuring he responds to his base? Surely.

There may be cold feet in the caucus, but opposition MPs must raise the questions, provide the skepticism and, ultimately, oppose a law if that is their view. They’re not supposed to flee from a wedge issue.

Mulcair will have to stand and explain that keeping Canadians safe does not mean sacrificing civil liberties. He will have to fend off the inevitable attacks that he is a weak-kneed terrorist-hugger.

But he will stand and oppose a bill he believes is flawed, meaning we will have one opposition leader doing his job.

To me, an opposition leader doing his job, despite the inherent political risks, commands respect; playing it safe, as is Justin Trudeau, does not.

Note To Peter Mansbridge

H/t Occupy Canada

Hammering Harper's Hypocrisy - Rick Mercer Does It Again

Should you ask Rick Mercer if he thinks the Harper regime is treating our vets fairly, he will give you this earful:

On Profound Timidity

H/t The Toronto Star

Yesterday's post dealt with the profound reluctance of Messieurs Trudeau and Mulcair to oppose Harper's latest incursion into our civil rights, Bill C-51, lest they be accused of being 'soft on terrorism' ("Oh, the horror!"). Better, in their minds, to betray the interests of Canadians than to be stuck with that taint, I guess.

Today's Star reports Justin Trudeau speaking with some enthusiasm about the bill, again carping around the edges about the need for more parliamentary oversight:

This bill can be improved but on the whole it does include measures that will help keep Canadians safe,” Trudeau told reporters.

But he conceded that his party will back the new law even if their suggestions are ignored by the Conservatives, adding that a Liberal government would bring in “robust” oversight and review if elected in the October election.

This seems hardly an adequate response to such an onerous bill, given that

it would give agents working for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service a broad new mandate to directly intervene in and “disrupt” emerging terror threats at home and abroad, even if it meant breaking the law.

In the same paper, Thomas Walkom writes about how even the parliamentary oversight called for by both Trudeau and Mulcair would not prevent or address the intrusions the bill makes possible:

In fact, most legislative oversight committees have limited authority. Those with greater powers, such as the U.S. Senate and House intelligence committees have, in many cases, given their imprimatur to dubious security practices. Walkom cites the use of torture by the C.I.A. While the Senate produced a report about it, it was years after the event, demonstrating the failure of oversight.

Or how about this?

In 2005, the New York Times broke the story that, in apparent violation of American law, the country’s National Security Agency was engaging in warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens. In this case, the chairs of both legislative oversight committees had known of the program since its inception in 2002. But they had done nothing.

Similar failures abound in other countries with supposed legislative safeguards:

Australia’s parliamentary oversight committee is barred from examining either operational methods or specific operations. It is not permitted to make public any information that the intelligence agencies want kept secret.

New Zealand’s oversight committee is subject to similar constraints. It is also specifically barred from inquiring into whether the country’s intelligence services are breaking the law (an appointed inspector-general does that).

In Britain, that country’s parliamentary oversight committee can look at past operational matters (if the prime minister agrees) as well as other matters that the prime minister wants it to examine. The government can deny the committee any information it deems sensitive. The committee’s annual reports to Parliament are subject to censorship by the prime minister.

What does all of this demonstrate? In my mind it is a piercing indictment of both Trudeau and Mulcair, who, in hiding behind the accountability mask, are revealing themselves for what they really are: political opportunists whose only real passion is for power, not public service.