Engagement, or Enslavement?

What should unions do?

Unions are the united, democratic voice of its members, as well as nonmembers in similar positions. Fight for one, fight for all. But they have been under heavy attack since neoliberalism co-opted globalization in the 1980s.

Why? Large corporations make huge profits through the globalization of exploitation and outright slavery. There are currently more sweatshops and actual slaves in the world today than throughout the rest of history.  This is the cost of unrestrained capitalism where markets are considered sacred. Markets eat their own for profit, and exploit anything and everything they can. Monopoly and oligarchy are the inevitable results. Unions threaten this.

Unions are democracy and peaceful protest in action, or should be. Unfortunately once they achieved most of their initial goals in the developed countries, unions concentrated on protecting their influence rather than helping workers. All unions should form a worldwide association doing everything in its power to spread wherever exploitation exists. They need to maintain past achievements as much as possible but be flexible enough to pitch in when business goes through truly rough times... not just attempts to maximize shareholder and CEO gains. Then they should give back by taking necessary cuts, but these must be reversed when conditions improve. Unions don’t work by tearing down, but by raising everyone up.

Voters may be surrendering their voices without a fight partially because they see unions, the worker democracies, doing the same. Apathy, like depression, anxiety, and the flu, tends to go viral.

Attacks on workers and exploitation effect the majority of the populace, like politics, and government, and economics... three separate things too often confused. Strong unions help ensure a broad and strong middleclass while minimizing poverty. Strong, happy workers equal strong, happy families and societies.  This is good for all except those exploiting the system, particularly in the non-industry (industries create real wealth not its transfer and consolidation) of finance (the ones who created the current mess).

If unions can engage their members, they engage the populace. Enthusiasm and patriotism are viral, as well as righteous outrage. If they fight for and safeguard worker rights wherever needed, they can inspire and drive worldwide change. The kind of globalization the world really needs.

Attacks on unions are attacks by the privileged elite on the common person, though always presented as the opposite. Tjats how depression and evil work. They make giod seem baf and call evil gods work. That’s why the privileged rich convince the poor into thinking everyone is likely to get rich if they are virtuous or blessed and that education creates entitled elites, when in fact education is a far surer path to success for the common person – education opens one’s eyes to such misdirection and you come to realize that hypocrisy is usually quite blatant.

Workers of the world unite. Join your voices for justice, democracy, and equality. The suffering of one is the suffering of all. Holiness cannot be achieved through hatred. Violence never creates legitimacy and is only justified in self-defense, like the way Syria started, before foreigners hijacked the revolution. They only became violent when the government, Assad, insisted on responding to peaceful protest by torturing and killing innocents and children, in fact, only after many years of such oppression and brutality.

Order and safety come only through organization. Together we can support each other as needed, divided we are alone against the powerful. That’s why political parties and unions exist. Both forms of organization are necessary in a democracy, and when one becomes dysfunctional the other becomes essential. When both are suffering from apathy, there are no united voices, no real representation, and no functional democracy, just rule by the highly motivated, and often privileged, few.

Engagement, or enslavement?

Your choice.

Vetoing Effectiveness

Some say that the United Nations doesn’t work, and they ate correct, or at least partially so. It has many sub-organizations that are extremely effective in serving their mandates. Where it fails, and fails big, is the so-called Security Council. There is no way for such a council to function when even one member holds a veto. It invalidates its very existence.

You want actual world security, eliminate the veto. The five members with them will retain their permanent seats, but then no one member, or two, as in Syria, can hold the Council hostage to its selfish interests. Maybe then it could actually act, enabling the General Assembly to do so (A direction of process that seems backward to me but it’s what we have.)

The world doesn’t need full unity to establish a preponderance of peace and put out fires before they explode, taking out millions, it needs to end the veto and its strangle hold on the process. The tyranny of the few must end.

This should be put to a binding vote of the general assembly.

Veto the veto!

4 Necessities for Democratic Civilization

I believe that there are four things that a healthy democratic civilization requires enough that they should be mandatory duties of all citizens and treated as such rather than onerous tasks of inconvenience.

Jury Duty

The basis of a fair legal system with judgement by peers. It is already required with punishments for failure to serve without just excuse.I believe our model lies here.

Taxation

The pooling of individual wealth for common purpose and welfare. Avoiding it should be shameful, not good business practice and all avoidance loopholes should be closed. Businesses, instead of sitting on billions in profits should be forced to contribute more. Without the civilization the business can't exist.

Immunization

A healthy democracy needs a healthy populace. Free choice is always limited when it harms others. Vaccines which truly immunize against serious communicable diseases need to be mandatory.

Voting

The basis of the political system, it is even more essential than jury duty and should be treated as such. Everyone is a registered voter. If you don't show up to vote without a valid excuse you should be fined or face a small amount of jail time, as per jury duty.

All these things are far too important to the common good to be left to individual whim and convenience.Without them a healthy democracy is not possible. Without juries you have no justice. Without immunization you have plague. Without taxation you have no common services, infrastructure, or other projects requiring massive funds and are dependent upon the good will of the few who can afford it, like robber barons and kings. Without voting you have a populatuce able to completely tune out to things that affect everyone's lives. The vocal, often fanatical or extreme few who participate determine the path of the country for all. It becomes a de facto tyranny, an elected dictatorship of the interested. Again, too important to leave to common sense and free choice.

But, except for these four boots to the collective ass, free will should be one of the first common goods protected. Without it, democracy - and life - is meaningless.

More northern wisdom.

The right way to do things. Instead of the right-wing way that has created the economic and political problems we have today. Low taxes for low quality of life. What's the true opposite of tax and spend? Keep and hoard. Taxes are our investment in the country and each other. I'd rather be a bleeding-heart liberal than a selfish, paranoid, money-obsessed conservative.

The Most Democratic Government in Canada

There is much we could learn from Canada’s aboriginal peoples.  Despite intentional attempts to destroy their culture, minds, and bodies they remain willing to share the wisdom of ten thousand years and the land of their ancestors for all our good. 

In truly “responsible government,” Nunavut leads the way. Consensus Government makes so much sense and is far more adult than adversarial party politics. 

The following was assembled from Government of Nunavut website.

Commissioner of Nunavut

Role of the Commissioner

The Commissioner’s role is much like that of a Lieutenant Governor of a province.

Nunavut has what is called “responsible government” meaning that the Executive Council holds power only as long as it is supported by a majority of the members of the elected legislative assembly.

 The symbolic role of the Commissioner

The Commissioner exercises power by acting as a symbol of the territory, supporting the values its citizens have agreed to be governed by.

The Governor General personifies the national and federal interests of all the people of Canada, while the Commissioner personifies the interests of the people of the territory. Over them all the Queen is a figurehead symbolizing the unity of these separate interests.

The Commissioner is “Head of State” but not Head of the Government”.

No one but the Commissioner plays the role of flesh-and-blood symbol of the territory, representing the interests of the territory’s people.

Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly do not become law until they receive the Commissioner’s assent. The Commissioner gives assent to the bills on the advice of the First Minister (Premier)

The powers of the commissioner include both statutory and customary responsibilities. Statutory responsibilities include the swearing-in of members of the legislative assembly and executive council, the reading of the speech opening sessions of the legislative assembly and the signing of documents such as orders-in-council, Commissioner’s warrants, statutory appointments and dispositions of Commissioner’s Lands.

Customary responsibilities include the Commissioner’s attendance at official functions and issuing declarations that are not legal in nature.

Premier of Nunavut

In 2008, Premier Aariak ran for office and won the seat for Iqaluit East. Shortly thereafter she was chosen by the Members of the Legislative Assembly to lead the government as Premier.

Cabinet

Cabinet, or Executive Council, is the senior decision making body of government and is made up of the Premier and usually seven members, all of whom are elected by the Legislative Assembly.

Legislative Assembly of Nunavut

The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut includes the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Premier, the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).  There are 19 constituencies represented in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.

Consensus Government

The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut is one of only two federal, provincial or territorial legislatures in Canada that has a consensus style of government rather than the more common system of party politics. 

In Nunavut, all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected as independent candidates in their constituencies. The consensus style is considered to be more in keeping with the way that Inuit have traditionally made decisions. However, unanimous agreement is not necessary for decisions to be made, motions passed or legislation enacted in the Legislative Assembly. For many matters, a simple majority vote is required. As in other Canadian jurisdictions, the Legislative Assembly governs its own proceedings through the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.

Following a general election, MLAs gather together as the “Nunavut Leadership Forum” to select the Speaker, Premier and Ministers in a secret ballot election. This process is open to the public to observe. These choices are formalized through formal motions at the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly. The Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, formally appoints the Premier and Ministers.

There is no fixed number of seats on Cabinet. However, in order to ensure the accountability of the executive to the legislature, the Commissioner of Nunavut is not permitted to appoint a majority of the MLAs to the Cabinet. The Premier has the prerogative to assign and remove Ministerial portfolios. However, a motion in the Legislative Assembly is required to remove a member of the Executive Council from office.

The Consensus Style of Government in Nunavut

There is no single definition of what constitutes “consensus government” in Nunavut. Indeed, many of the elements that differentiate Nunavut from other Canadian jurisdictions are intangible and relate more to the manner in which politics is conducted and decisions are made, rather than what is written in law or formal policy.

Some of the features which clearly illustrate Nunavut’s consensus approach to government are:

• MLAs are elected as independents, rather than as members of a political party with a formal platform;
• Although Ministers are expected to vote together on matters before the House, Regular MLAs may vote according to their individual wishes without fear of formal sanction or punishment. However, informal discipline on the part of Regular MLAs as a group could be exerted through the Regular Members’ Caucus (RMC);
• Regular MLAs hold a majority of seats in the Legislative Assembly. Unlike in partisan Canadian legislatures, there are no “government backbenchers” who are expected to vote on matters according to the preferences of the Cabinet;
• Unlike every other Canadian legislature except that of the NWT, the Premier and Cabinet Ministers are chosen by the Members of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. The Premier has the authority to assign specific portfolios to his or her Ministers, and to designate his or her Deputy Premier. The Premier and Ministers hold office at the pleasure of the Legislative Assembly;
• The practice of holding a Mid-Term Leadership Review of the Cabinet has been undertaken in the First, Second and Third Legislative Assemblies;
• The forum of Full Caucus serves as an important body in which all 19 MLAs can discuss - in confidence and as equals - matters of their choosing. Although Nunavut’s proposed laws and budgets must be debated publicly on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, Full Caucus is often the forum in which differences are reconciled and compromises achieved. Full Caucus also serves as a practical forum for the discussion of such matters as the scheduling of House business, the review of internal matters and the timing of elections. Although the Cabinet has the legal authority to call a general election at a time of its choosing, the experience in Nunavut has been that this issue is first discussed in Full Caucus in order to achieve consensus;
• Although unanimity is not required for the passage of Bills or other items before the House, it is frequently achieved. Regular MLAs do not vote against government measures simply for the sake of opposing them. Unanimous consent is very often granted to Members asking for permission to conclude their statements, refer Ministers’ Statements to Committee of the Whole for consideration, advance a government Bill through the stages of the legislative process more quickly than usual or take other actions;
• Although Regular MLAs hold Ministers accountable through such mechanisms as Oral Questions, the tone of deliberations in the Legislative Assembly is marked by greater civility than that which is often evident in partisan legislatures. Heckling is very rare, for example. It is noteworthy that although the Legislative Assembly has held over 400 sitting days since the creation of the territory on April 1, 1999, no Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has had to name a Member and eject him or her from the Chamber because of disorder or repeated breaches of the Legislative Assembly’s rules;
• The Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly are recommended for appointment by the Legislative Assembly as a whole, rather than being chosen solely by the Cabinet or the head of government alone; and
• Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly have the ability to exert more influence on government than in most Canadian legislatures. For example, Standing Committees review the government’s annual business plans, main estimates and capital estimates in draft form prior to formal introduction in the House. This provides Regular MLAs with the opportunity to recommend changes to spending plans and program initiatives before they are finalized. Standing Committees also have the opportunity to review legislative proposals for new laws before they are introduced in the House in the form of a Bill.

The Three Branches of Government

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. As in all Canadian jurisdictions, there are three separate branches of government in Nunavut: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Each branch of government has different powers and responsibilities. In general terms:

• The legislative branch of government consists of the Legislative Assembly and the Commissioner. The approval of a majority of MLAs and the Assent of the Commissioner are required for a Bill to become law. Most Bills are introduced by the government and sponsored by a Minister. The executive branch of government is accountable to the legislative branch of government. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that the Premier and Ministers hold office at the pleasure of the Legislative Assembly.
• The Commissioner of Nunavut is formally designated by the Nunavut Act as the Chief Executive for Nunavut, similar to the role of the Governor General with respect to the federal government or a Lieutenant Governor with respect to a provincial government. The executive branch of government is led by the Premier and Cabinet, who are Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Government of Nunavut’s departments, boards, Crown agencies and other entities administer Nunavut’s laws and deliver programs and services. The executive branch holds the “Crown prerogative” to initiate financial legislation to levy taxes or spend public money.1
• The judicial branch of government is, in essence, the court system. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law. Nunavut is unique in Canada in that it has a “single level” court – the Nunavut Court of Justice.

1 This is best illustrated by the fact that non-members of Cabinet may not introduce their own appropriation Bills to spend public money or raise taxes. A “money bill” can only be introduced in the Legislative Assembly if it is accompanied by a “money message” (also known as a “royal recommendation”). This is a formal written message from the Commissioner, acting on the advice of the government, which recommends to the Legislative Assembly the passage of the financial legislation.

The Fundamental Principles of Parliamentary Government

Canada’s system of parliamentary government is often referred to as “responsible government” or “Westminster-style government.”2 The most important principles of this system as they apply to Nunavut include:

• The principle of “parliamentary privilege” is respected. The rights, powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly and its Members are provided for in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Parliamentary privilege encompasses the rights and powers of elected legislators as individuals to perform their duties of office, and the rights and powers of the institution as a whole;
• The collective privileges of the Legislative Assembly as an institution include the right to establish its own rules and procedures, the right to control its own publications, the power to punish individuals for contempt, the right to discipline its own Members and the power to summon witnesses and documents;
• The government - Premier and Cabinet - holds and retains office by maintaining the “confidence” of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. For example, a motion of non-confidence in a specific Minister would, if passed, result in that Minister’s departure from Cabinet. This occurred on one occasion during the First Legislative Assembly of Nunavut (1999-2004);
• Cabinet solidarity is required. Although Ministers are expected to voice their views during the in camera deliberations of Cabinet and its committees, once a collective decision has been reached, all Ministers are expected to publicly support it. For example, Ministers are expected to vote in favour of Bills introduced by the government, while Regular MLAs may vote as they deem fit;
• Ministers, both as political heads of specific departments and as members of a unified Cabinet, are accountable to the Legislative Assembly for the policies, decisions and actions of government;
• The government formally outlines its priorities and legislative agenda at the beginning of each new Session of the Legislative Assembly through the Commissioner’s Opening Address (also referred to as the “Speech from the Throne” or “Throne Speech”);

2 Westminster is the name of the district in London where the British Parliament is located. Many of the principles and traditions of British parliamentary government have been inherited by Canada.

• The public service (the “bureaucracy”) is expected to remain politically neutral. Public servants are expected to provide professional, impartial advice to their Ministers, and implement the decisions taken by the government of the day. Public servants are accountable to the Legislative Assembly through the Ministers to whom they report;
• Bills to allow the spending of public money (through the estimates process) and the raising of public money through taxation measures may only be initiated by the government (see Footnote #1 on “money bills”);
• Members of the Legislative Assembly have a variety of tools with which to hold the government accountable for its actions. These include the asking of oral and written questions, the moving of motions and the requirement that the government publicly provide written responses to petitions and reports of Standing and Special Committees of the Legislative Assembly;
• The government is also required by law to table a number of reports and other documents on an annual basis. These reports account for the government’s activities in a number of different areas; and
• The Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly and the Auditor General of Canada report annually to the Legislative Assembly as a whole.

The Compassionate, Constructive Conservative

Despite commandments not to judge others and to love everyone that many claim to follow, it seems like many conservatives feel that everyone except themselves is lazy and evil, out to screw everyone, especially them. It is true that some people are, but most aren't. A small percentage of people involved in any system, will try to take advantage of that system bt that doesn't invalidate the system. Evn so called "bums" , the homeless who often suffer severe mental illness, try to be productive. They colle4ct change, bottles and other materials, scanaging, scrounging and generally doing whatever it takes to survive. They aren't sitting around spas sucking the public teat... that's senators. They aren't harming us, they are leading typically horrible, desperate existences as best they can. 

Poverty breeds most of the social ills we have. It causes stress and malnutrition that promotes mental and physical illness, intense chronic pains that most people will do or take whatever they can to numb. Thus drug use becomes rampant, usually making it easier or necessary to commit crimes. All the problems magnify each other. Distrust spreads until governments are brought to a halt. It is in everyone's interest to keep its citizens, taxpayers, and consumers, above the poverty level. It reduces crime, improves general health, and makes for a more civilized, reasonable, compassionate society.

But some would use the misery of the poor to spur the rest of us on. Some conservatives believe it is only fear and punishment that keeps most people honest and productive. There has to be the threat of poverty to keep people working. If there was a level of income below which no one was allowed to fall, no one would do anything and society would collapse. No one, that is, except these conservatives, who are the only ones who work hard to try and better their lives. The idea that once their basic needs are guaranteed, no one would want anything more or better, or would ever need to replace or fix what he has, seems to ignore basic human nature and reality.

The reliance of these "True Conservatives" on fear, character assassination, and punishment exposes the weakness of their ideology. It opens the door to abuse far wider than helping everyone maintain a dignified income level. The danger screams Orwellian loud from a wall speaker during the Hate time. Are you a "True Conservative"? Are you a "True German" Adolf? They see only the pure and impure. There can be no middle ground. This way of thinking produces only misery and conflict for everyone. It is the siren song of fanatcism, so-called "fundamentalism". Funny how only what serves the interests and fears of the fundamentalist is fundamental. Also funny how often it is dirtectly opposed to what is truely fundamental, essential, to the belief system of which it claims to be the purest example. In the States, the Tea Party has managed to use this thinking to bully the other conservatives into actually shutting down their government without caring ounce about who it hurts.

Are these the "True Conservatives"?

These cons believe there can only be two classes of people: the deserving upper class and the undeserving lower class. Those not in the upper classes belief it their due one day, because they are deserving. Thus they actively attack the middle - economically, politically, socially, and religiously. 

The senator speaking about a guaranteed income experiment done in Canada on the following episode of CBC's The 180 is the kind of conservative that I can respect. He is actually concerned with the welfare of his fellow citizens and society, respecting facts above ideology, and not afraid to agree with those of a different political belief when it makes sense. Rather than cling to indefensible opinions and mistakes as if they were divine he is willing to change his mind and admit errors. I find that admirable. He seems to recognize that you can build a healthy country by ignoring, even attacking, 60% or more of the population. You need to communicate, comprehend, compromise, cooperate, and negotiate - things of which the Harper types have shown to be incapable.

Where has the reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate, constructive, conservative gone?

Prescription heroin, Wildrose vs. NDP, Mincome revisited, GMO's

Friday, October 11, 2013 

Listen

On this episode Jim Brown and his guests discuss a ban on prescribing heroin to treat people with addictions, and a proposal for a guaranteed minimum income in Canada. As well, Jim moderates a debate between the leaders of Alberta's Wildrose Party and the New Democratic Party, and hears from a defender of genetically modified foods.