but there is some good news: becoming a librarian update

Despite my complaints, there is some good news. Nothing solid like a job offer - too early for that - but hope is beginning to take shape on three different fronts.

Volunteering. At the iSchool, we are absolutely inundated with opportunities to be more active in the library and information science community. Talks, conferences, networking opportunities, volunteering needs - our in-boxes are flooded on a regular basis. At first this used to add to the pressures I felt during my first term, but I learned to quickly scroll through the emails, then hit delete.

However, graduates are expected to have participated in some extracurricular activities. Library students are especially expected to go beyond, at least a bit. I don't think anyone expects our resumes to be laden with organizations and activities, but on the other hand, not having any would be a deficiency. I feel like I can't afford to have anything working against me - I'm not going through all this to lose out on a potential job because I didn't dig deeper.

Given how I feel about my time and my schedule, you can imagine how much I look forward to this! Because I'm attending school part-time, I've been able to put it off. Full-time students have only two years to touch all the bases; I have four. But now it's become time for me to keep an eye open for some volunteer opportunities. Anything I do must be both relevant and interesting to me, and work with my schedule. No small order! So when I received an email that had potential, I jumped on it.

A community centre in Toronto needs volunteers to read to children in their after-school program, and to generally maintain their small children's library. They ask for only one three-hour day per week - a minor time commitment compared to most things I do.

Inquiring further, I learned that there's a great need for volunteers after school ends, but before they break for summer - perfect for me. And they're in easy walking distance of my war resister meetings. So during May and June, before my Wednesday night meetings, I'm going to do this. I'm actually looking forward to it!

I also joined a children-and-youth library group, and although I haven't participated at all yet, perhaps I can write about this experience for the group blog - potentially interesting to me, and a useful resume-building activity. So expect to read about this in May and June.

Working in a library. When I started school, I was hoping and expecting to get a job as a page - shelving books - in the Mississauga Library System. This would give me access to internal job postings, plus bring in a bit of much-needed income. But my library school career coincided with the closures for renovation of five branch libraries, which had to be done simultaneously in order to qualify for federal stimulus money. So the whole system compressed, and hiring froze.

Now the first renovated branch has reopened, and the rest are slated to reopen soon. It will still be a while until a job opens up, but several librarians have told me there is movement on this front.

In one sense I dread this, as it seems that the only way I can squeeze in a part-time job is to give up my activism for a while. But it's important, and I need it; if there's an opportunity, I have to take it.

Career prospects. Several people at school have implied that not having library experience will be a gaping hole in my resume - that despite 20+ years of work experience, great skills and a degree, I may not make the cut because my past experience is not library-oriented. This is not a part-time job shelving books, but people who have made a career in libraries, working their way up through a library system, eventually hitting a ceiling, then returning to school for their Master's degree, and now moving into the professional level.

In January, I had a networking and informational interview with a librarian very high in the Mississauga Library food chain. Her response to this concern: absolutely not. She said, point blank, that I "should not hesitate" to apply for professional-level jobs upon graduation. Working one's way up through a library system is one path, but it's not the only one. In her mind, it's not required or necessarily preferred: it depends on the person and her or his skills. She was very encouraging that my life-work experience plus my degree would be considered a solid background, and that - at least in her mind - I would not be considered deficient because my career path hadn't run through the library. This was a great relief!

Along with the volunteer opportunities I mentioned above, iSchool students are bombarded with networking opportunities. I never attend. Most of them don't apply to the work I want to do, plus I am useless in those forced networking situations. I grow tongue-tied and shy. But one-on-one, although I do get a bit self-conscious, I am much more at ease. And since I know exactly where and how I want to start my library career, it seems much more fruitful for me to simply meet people in the Mississauga system - to let them know I'm here, and to periodically remind them I'm still here.

we like lists: top five reasons i hate grad school

A new list thread is coming soon, but first I must use my poor, neglected blog to complain about why my blog is neglected. This is not a participatory list - it's an extended whine.

I am very glad I am on the road to making a career change, and very hopeful about my prospective new career. I'm super excited about becoming a librarian. So far, my library-specific courses have been extremely interesting; the one I'm taking now - Intro to Reference - I love.

But being in school sucks. Here's why.

1. I hate always having to read for school rather than what I choose to read. Even if I have a bit of time in which I could be reading something for myself, I don't - the need to read for school is too pressing, plus my mind is so crowded and over-stimulated, pleasure reading isn't even pleasurable.

2. I hate not having adequate time to blog. Other than papers for school, blogging is my only writing outlet. I need it. I don't have enough of it.

3. My schedule is too tight. There is no give. Yesterday I had a hair salon appointment and a couple of errands to run, and that put me behind schedule. Without a partner who does most of the housework and errands, I don't know what I would do.

4. I resent having to take required courses that are either redundant or well outside my career goals.

Everyone at the iSchool - whether library, archives, knowledge management, whatever - takes four general courses on "information and society". There is widespread agreement among students that these could be condensed into two courses or even one. Contemplating the big picture is useful, but there are easily a dozen library-specific electives that I'd rather take, that would be much more useful to me, and that I won't be able to fit in.

This term I am slogging through the dreaded "Research Methods," which is intended for students going on for their doctorates, yet required for all. The school pushes students to get their PhDs; I've heard that's how funding is determined, and although I don't know if that's true, it would explain a lot.

Instead of this suffering through this class that I'll never use, I could be learning more about becoming a librarian.

5. I hate having to be so disciplined. I have to say no to so many things I'd like to do. I have to go to sleep at a certain time to be alert enough for morning classes. I have to swim on the only days I have available, and if I don't, there goes my exercise for the week. And so on. I've always been a disciplined person - writing while having a series of day-jobs demands it, and my health issues add to that need. But working, going to school, being an activist, and taking care of myself, which includes getting some exercise and having some down time, requires more discipline than I really want to bother with.

* * * *

By now I recognize the pattern: I write posts like this in November and March. This is a bit early, but blame that on Research Methods.

I keep Impudent Strumpet's comment on the wall next to my desk:

It's March. You're in university. Of course you're a mess. You're going to be a mess for a month and then emerge, blinking and befuddled, somehow having completed all your coursework, into a beautiful spring where you'll watch baseball and blog as much as you want.

My term ends a week later this year, so I'll be watching baseball while writing papers and studying for a final. But here's to April, it can't come fast enough.

herbert and dobbin: where is democracy at home?

It's been a very long time since I posted a column by Bob Herbert. He's an excellent thinker and writer with a difficult beat: the liberal readers of the not-so-liberal New York Times, who he challenges to step outside their comfortable, 10-degrees-left-of-centre box.

As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.

As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.

While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.

So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them. One state after another is reporting that it cannot pay its bills. Public employees across the country are walking the plank by the tens of thousands. Camden, N.J., a stricken city with a serious crime problem, laid off nearly half of its police force. Medicaid, the program that provides health benefits to the poor, is under savage assault from nearly all quarters.

The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.

In an Op-Ed article in The Times at the end of January, Senator John Kerry said that the Egyptian people “have made clear they will settle for nothing less than greater democracy and more economic opportunities.” Americans are being asked to swallow exactly the opposite. In the mad rush to privatization over the past few decades, democracy itself was put up for sale, and the rich were the only ones who could afford it.

. . . .

I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”

I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo.

On the subject of democracy abroad and at home, Canadian Murray Dobbins has some similar thoughts. Canada's democracy issues, however, are more specific: Stephen Harper and his anti-democratic Conservative government. The US's issues are more structural: the collapse of the entire system. That's fortunate for us. We can still fix things.

As tens of millions of Egyptians celebrated their victory over a brutal dictator and began the task of creating democracy, the story from Canada was of democracy going backwards. For five years under Stephen Harper, Canada has been subjected to a systematic erosion of democracy (as I document here). Canada is not Egypt and Harper is no Mubarak, but he is nonetheless a ruthless autocrat in the Canadian context, too often showing contempt for democracy and the aspirations of the people he governs.

It can hardly be surprising that almost alone among western leaders, Stephen Harper was so grudging in his response to the wonderful victory of the Egyptian people. Rather than praise the millions in the street, Harper actually praised Mubarak: “Canada respects President Mubarak’s decision to step down in order to promote peace and stability in the country.” Damning by faint praise?

The day that Mubarak finally resigned to the deafening cheers of a million people in Tahrir (liberation) Square was also the day that another repugnant example of the Harper government’s casual abuse of power was highlighted. This time, it was a scathing ruling against the government from the Speaker of the House, related to Harper’s decision to eliminate funding to the ecumenical development group, KAIROS. It was a fitting coincidence: KAIROS’s funding was cut due to its alleged anti-Israel bias. Harper’s barely disguised opposition to the revolution in Egypt is linked to his blind support of Israel and the recognition that democracy in Egypt is seen as a threat in the Jewish state.

. . . .

Is it simply that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone? In Egypt, years of oppression, brutality, humiliation and the simple lack of any semblance of real government drove the massive support for democracy in the streets. Maybe only the promise of democracy can motivate people in this profound way.

Or have Canadians simply lost faith in democracy as they increasingly lower their expectations of what government can or will do for them? Ultimately we judge democracy by what it delivers — and it used to deliver, and promise, a lot more. Are Canadians more and more just circling the wagons around their individual or family lives, looking for individualist solutions? With wages flat since 1980, 92 per cent of private pension funds in deficit (total $350 billion, almost double the 2003 figure) and holding record levels of debt, this solution must surely look just as bleak as hoping for political change.

Or could it simply be that there are too few venues and opportunities for Canadians to express their dismay at the loss of democracy? After Harper’s second prorogation of Parliament (over the Afghan detainee issue), virtually every political pundit and analyst in the country predicted that no one cared and most couldn’t even pronounce the word. Yet almost overnight (in organizing terms), over 220,000 people signed on to a Facebook page opposing prorogation, and within a few weeks there were simultaneous demonstrations in 61 cities across the country featuring 25,000 people. These were not organized by existing social justice groups or unions (though they came to help) and were as spontaneous as reserved Canadians get. They did care about democracy. They knew — or took the time to find out — what prorogation meant, and they were angry.

This should have been the signal for the Opposition parties to take up the cause, but it wasn’t enough to cut through the cynicism of the political operatives who run the Liberals and the NDP. By their pusillanimous calculations, if an issue doesn’t affect the pocket book (home heating oil), people don’t care. Would hundreds of thousands of people come into the streets if these parties called on them to defend democracy? Probably not. But they might come to the polling booths and rid the country of its own autocrat.

Read more: Bob Herbert, "When Democracy Weakens" and Murray Dobbin, Harper, Autocrat.

c-42 and north american security perimter: "canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window"

Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed a new border "security" agreement with the United States. Completed without public input or Parliamentary debate, the agreement aims to bring Canada's security "in line with" - read, under - US policy.

In Parliament, Bill C-42 - the Public Safety Act, or An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act - would seal the deal at home, putting Canada's airspace under US control, too.

When the "no deep integration" cry was making the rounds of the Canadian blogosphere some years back, I didn't bite. (Some old posts here and here.) The fear of the US taking over Canada has a long and often well-founded history, but it seemed to me hyperbolic to claim that a trade deal would lead to Canada becoming the 51st state.

There are many reasons to oppose so-called "free" trade deals: they are usually free of labour laws and environmental protections, and they free your community of decent jobs. They are generally enacted without public consultation or debate - that is, outside of any kind of democratic structure - by governments more concerned with corporate profits than the people they supposedly serve.

But the language surrounding "no deep integration" seemed to me based more on fear than on reality. Take, for example, the "North American superhighway". Depending on who you ask, this would lead to Mexico taking over the US, or the US taking over Canada. In reality, it was a change in tariff and border laws on highways that already exist. What's more, I had only recently emigrated to Canada, and the nationalist tone of the "no deep integration" campaign struck a sour note for me.

But hyperbole and nationalism aside, I know a raw deal when I see one. And I know a Canadian Prime Minister who is a lackey to the US when I see one, too.

First, from the Council of Canadians.

Harper signs new security perimeter deal without consulting Canadians or Parliament

Late Friday afternoon, Prime Minster Stephen Harper announced he had unilaterally signed a deal with the United States government that some pundits have said is larger in scope than NAFTA.

The security perimeter deal, which Harper touted as being needed to further ease trade restrictions between the two countries, states that Canadian and U.S. governments will work “together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries” to toughen security and promote trade.

In his comments following the announcement, Prime Minister Harper said the border plan is intended to “keep out terrorists and criminals,” “simplify regulations that hinder trade,” create “consistent inspection measures,” and to have “better management of our border” but not eliminate it.

The Council of Canadians has spoken out against this deal, which was reportedly negotiated in secret for six months with involvement from business groups, but not Parliament or public interest groups. While concrete details about the deal have been sparse, many concerns have already been raised about the implications of sharing security information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the loss of sovereignty and trade-offs made to come to this agreement, and the degree to which any of the common measures being discussed will address the so-called “thickening” of the border.

"We've gone down this road before – it was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership – and North Americans rejected it," said Stuart Trew, Trade Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "The Harper government must disclose what terms it is negotiating with the Americans and open it to public and parliamentary scrutiny."

And on C-42, from Maclean's:

Please Uncle Sam, May We Enter Your Airspace?

We knew it was coming, but the way it’s being done is upsetting opposition politicians – not to mention raising a few ethical questions. As Canwest News Service reported this week, the federal government has quietly presented a bill in the House of Commons that would give U.S. officials final say over who can board aircraft in Canada if they are to fly through United States airspace – even though they are not landing in the U.S.

Bill C-42 allows airlines to pass on passenger information to “a foreign state” for flights over that country. The legislation is needed so that Canadian airlines comply with U.S. Homeland Security’s Secure Flight program, which requires airlines to submit personal information about passengers 72 hours before a flight’s departure. If the bill passes, passengers leaving Canada on one of the many flights that travel over U.S. airspace will have their name, birth date and gender subject to screening by U.S. officials. If you have the same name as someone on a no-fly list, you may be questioned, delayed or even barred from the flight. If your name doesn’t show up, you get your boarding pass.

Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe said Bill C-42 was introduced with no warning and no discussion with the opposition. Together, the opposition parties could vote down the legislation – a situation that could cause turmoil for air travel. “Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window,” Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe told the Montreal Gazette in a recent interview. “You are going to be subject to American law.” NDP transport critic Dennis Bevington told Canwest that “We’re doing this without understanding what the threat assessment is. There’s no way that this is going to get an easy ride.”

Public outcry has killed bills and deals like this before. Here are a few actions you can take to add your voice.

* Sign a letter to Stephen Harper at the Council of Canadians website.

* Read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's response to amendments to Bill C-42. The amendments don't go far enough: the bill must be killed.

* Write to your MP opposing Bill C-42. Find your MP by entering your postal code here (scroll down).

* Educate your friends and colleagues about Bill C-42. Email the Council of Canadians link asking people to sign the letter.

* Get rid of this *&@#$! government!

today in toronto: celebrate the victory of the egyptian people

Today, people all over the world will celebrate the enormous victory of the Egyptian people. They have deposed a dictator! Join them in celebration. In Toronto, come to Dundas Square in the afternoon.

Saturday, February 12, 2011
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Yonge-Dundas Square / TTC: Dundas
Event on Facebook

Organized by Toronto's Egyptian community, with support from:
Canadian Arab Federation
Canadian Coptic Association
Canadian Peace Alliance
Egyptian National Association for Change
Toronto Coalition to Stop the War
Toronto-Arab Solidarity Campaign

sarah carr photos of revolution in egypt

Originally uploaded by Sarah Carr

Journalist Sarah Carr has taken some amazing photos documenting the People's Revolution in Egypt: go here. Carr's website is here.

Thanks to Allan for the send.

bush avoids handcuffs in switzerland, but spain may yet indict

As you may have heard, a former Resident of the White House recently cancelled a trip to Switzerland because he didn't want to be arrested - or humiliated. From The Nation:

George Bush has done a pretty good job of positioning himself as an "elder statesman" in the United States — at least by comparison with Dick Cheney — but the rest of the world has not forgotten the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney interregnum.

So the forty-third president will not be jetting off to Switzerland next week, as had been expected.

Bush was supposed to be the star attraction at a fund-raising gala in Geneva February 12. But the news that the former president would be in Switzerland set off a flurry of legal filings — and calls by members of the Swiss parliament — that sought to have Bush arrested upon arrival on torture charges.

Bush has defended the use of waterboarding and other outlawed interrogation techniques in his autobiography, Decision Points, and public statements, effectively admitting that he and his aides approved acts that are banned by the Convention on Torture, the 1987 international pact prohibiting cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment to which the United States and Switzerland are signatories.

The New York–based Center for Constitutional Rights and European human rights groups had planned to submit a 2,500-page complaint against Bush to legal authorities in Geneva Monday. The complaint details mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and was to be brought under the Convention Against Torture on behalf of two men who have been held by the United States — Majid Khan, who remains at Guantánamo, and Sami al-Hajj, a former Al Jazeera cameraman, who was released in 2008.

In addition, a conservative Swiss parliamentarian, Dominique Baettig, had requested that the Swiss federal government arrest of Bush on war crimes charges.

Organizers of the gala event claimed that Bush cancelled his trip in order to avoid protests that might turn violent. But the organizers of the protests, well-known activists on human rights and global justice issues, had actually proposed a symbolic protest that involved nothing more than tossing shoes at the hotel where Bush was scheduled to appear.

Geneva, home to numerous international agencies and tribunals, is arguably more experienced with managing protests than most cities on the planet. The notion that a Bush visit would have been anything more than an annoyance for the gendarmes, and for the broader community, is comic.

Bush decided not to make the trip because, in the words of Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch: "He's avoiding the handcuffs." [See original for more plus links.]

But are the war criminals out of the legal woods yet? In Spain, Judge Eloy Velasco has set a March 1 deadline to decide if he will prosecute the six Bush-era government lawyers, including then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for violating international law by creating a legal justification for torture. Remember, it was a Spanish court that indicted Pinochet. According to numerous reports, arrests are "highly probable". Documents released by WikiLeaks show that the US has been pressuring Spain to drop the idea. No surprise there!

The US-based group Voters For Peace has written an open letter to the Spanish public: "Dear Spain: Please do what the U.S. won't. Prosecute Torture". The site appears to accept Canadian postal codes, so readers on both sides of the border can add their names.

Although there's little chance these powerful men will be held accountable for their crimes, actions like these help revive memories in our amnesiac world. They should also remind us that the better-looking, smarter-sounding current US administration has not closed the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp, has not ended the occupation of Iraq, and has escalated the occupation of Afghanistan.

In the Canadian blogosphere, I sometimes see references to "the US of 2000-2008," and I wonder, what do they think is different in 2011?

relive the moment: savour the victory: savour the taste of freedom

Today is not a day for hand-wringing and fear, for asking and re-asking, What will come next. Today is a day for joy!

Celebrating today will not hurt tomorrow. Celebrate this incredible victory by the people of Egypt, which seemed all but impossible only weeks ago. Celebrate this incredible victory of The People.

January 25 to February 11, 2011: 18 days that shook the world. (Thanks to Dr. J!)

forum on revolution in egypt: "all we know is we are going to get our freedom"

Last Tuesday, I attended an IS forum entitled "Egypt and Tunisia: From Resistance to Revolution". There were two speakers: Dr. Mohammed Shokr, of the Egyptian National Association for Change and the Canadian-Egypt Solidarity Campaign, and my friend James Clark, a leader of the anti-war and civil liberties movements in Toronto, and a participant of the Cairo International Peace Conference for the past three years.

It was a fascinating and inspiring evening; the following is my summary of what I heard. (My own thoughts and comments are in italics and parentheses.) I hope you will consider downloading, printing and signing this petition calling on the the Canadian Parliament to stand with the people of Egypt.

* * * *

Dr. Shokr prefaced his remarks by noting that the mainstream media has consistently failed to provide a proper context for the people's revolution in Egypt, while ignoring many important news stories. He said that many radio and television broadcasters in Egypt have recently resigned and joined the revolution, in protest of the biased coverage emanating from Egypt's state-run media. He sees this as a crumbling of a huge pillar of the system and believes it will be "only a few more days until the entire system collapses".

Shokr touched on six principal points (making it very easy to take notes!):

1. This is a revolution. If you look up the word revolution in the dictionary, there is no qualification "only if it succeeds", and if it does not, it is an uprising. Perhaps if it does not succeed, then you can call it a failed revolution – but there is no doubt that it is a revolution.

However, this is not a revolution of any one party, and certainly not a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood (a group on which the Western media is fixated), although members of that organization are participating. It is a giant collective comprised of all segments of the population, especially young people. (The median age in Egypt is 24.)

2. This cross-section of the Egyptian people - having finally broken through the barrier of fear they have lived under for so many years - are not fighting with each other. While there are some divisions - unanimity is impossible in a group of several million people! - they are united in their desire to oust Mubarak and create a democratic society.

There should be no mistake: the violence and looting is coming from one only group of people: secret police and other thugs hired by the Mubarak government. Numerous credible reports have made this indisputable. Several reports from the Guardian's Jack Shenker, who was detained and beaten by plainclothes policemen while covering the demonstrations have received a lot of attention, but his story is far from unique. A search for "undercover police violence egypt" should keep you busy for awhile.

3. Shokr repeated several popularly-held myths about the Arab people: “Arabs are not ready for democracy,” “Arabs don't want democracy,” “Islam is inherently anti-democratic”. These are all false notions, promoted by the West and employed for various agendas, especially since 9/11.

Millions of Egyptians gathered in the street does not equal "mob rule". There are no democratic institutions in Egypt. There are no official channels through which Egyptians can express their desires and frustrations. The elections are fixed; their outcome is known in advance. The only way Egyptians can exercise some form of democracy is to go into the streets and yell. What you are seeing in Egypt are people expressing themselves in the only way available to them. A few hours before the meeting, Shokr had spoken to his son who was in Tahrir Square; he said the overriding feeling is one of fun. All kinds of people, from all different faiths and walks of life, are playing games, talking, praying, enjoying themselves, enjoying their freedom.

(Isn't this an inherent need in all of us? Isn't it intrinsically human, to want to be free? To be able to walk where you like, to speak your thoughts, to enjoy life - to live without fear? The desire for human freedom is not something specific to one religion or one part of our planet.)

4. Stability. US and Canadian government officials go on about "stability", and how the protesters are a threat to that "stability". (The obvious question: stable for whom?) Shokr, who was trained as an engineer, he said that if a system can withstand a "perturbation", then it is stable. If a perturbation makes the system crack, crumble or explode, then the system is inherently unstable. Here, then, is proof that the Mubarak regime is unstable: a few young people began a group on Facebook . . . and that has blossomed into full scale revolution.

5. Hypocrisy. Canada, the US and other Western nations bray on about "freedom and democracy" while offering support for a brutal dictator. Stephen Harper still stands squarely alongside Mubarak even as a huge cry for democracy echoes around the world. Harper's lip service to democracy and equality is obvious, of course, but there is also the implication that some people are not "ready for democracy". The US supported Mubarak as long as he followed the rules for their tolerance of dictators. (Shokr said he would get back to this point, his "catalog," as he called it of what a dictator must do in exchange for US support, but he never did. I was sorry because I wanted to hear his thoughts.)

6. The Future. What will happen when Mubarak leaves? Shokr was honest: "I don't know." This uncertainty is not because Egyptians aren't ready for democracy, but because Mubarak's regime eliminated the people's spirit of participation and engagement. All the people know is will be free, but they will build the road even as they walk it. The West says this situation is dangerous, and we must know what will replace Mubarak before he leave. To this Shokr said simply (and to applause): "It is not your business."

Dr. Shokr said one thing with great certainty: "All we know is we are going to get our freedom."

Dr. Shokr wrapped up by emphasizing that this is a revolution of youth, with no political affiliation, no agenda except overthrowing a dictatorship and establishing a democracy. They have formed the Coalition of Youth for Change. The vice-president, Mubarak’s second in command, says the regime will stay, but without the people’s consent, it will not. "They cannot use force anymore. They are too exposed to the world."

James Clark began by pointing out the remarkable speed, strength and momentum of these events. On December 17, a man named Mohammed Boazizi, after years of intense harassment by the police, set himself on fire in Tunisia. His death sparked a revolt that deposed a dictator of 23 years, and in short order has led to huge protests across the Arab world, in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, the Sudan, and in the Palestinian territories.

Clark then identified and demolished five myths being perpetuated by the mainstream media.

Myth #1: Social networking media like Facebook and Twitter caused this.

Social media has played a role in helping people communicate and organize, but the majority of people in Egypt do not have private access to the internet or own personal communication devices. In fact, the biggest demonstrations came after Mubarak shut off access to the internet throughout the country. It is the material conditions that Egyptians have been living under that led to this revolt.

Myth #2: Mubarak’s downfall will create a power vacuum, which the Muslim Brotherhood will fill.

This myth propagated to create a sense of fear, to make people in the West believe that they are better off if Egypt does not have democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the only force creating change in Egypt; it is not even a majority or dominant organization. The mainstream media can only recognize a top-down model of leadership, a ruling elite calling the shots, and what is happening in Egypt is the exact opposite. (Shokr later added that the Muslim Brotherhood has been much more of a follower than a leader in the revolution.)

Myth #3: There is "total chaos" in Egypt right now - rioting, looting, vigilantism - and order must be restored.

This, too, is an attempt to discredit and undermine the revolution. Claiming that "order" or "stability" must be "restored" is nothing more than a wish for the return of the dictatorship.

By all reports, there is a huge amount of self-organization going on all over Egypt, a camaraderie and solidarity that cuts across all supposed divisions. There have been joint masses and prayers with Christians and Muslims, especially after Coptic churches were attacked. While Muslims have knelt to pray, Christians have linked arms and formed circles of protection around them. There are security forces led by women, some wearing hijabs or niqabs, some not. People are sharing all of their resources, sharing food, sharing skills.

In Tahrir Square, there's a lost-and-found table piled high with wallets - with money and ID - that people have returned. A barber set up shop: "Revolution Salon: Free Haircuts". An engineer managed to cut into a lamppost, and a line of people were waiting to charge cell phones. In smaller cities and towns, people are intent on making sure everyone has food, and that disabled and elderly people are taken care of. And everywhere people are discussing, discussing, discussing – what do they want to see happen, what are their dreams, what needs to be done – organizing committees to share ideas and tackle problems as they arise.

Myth #4: This was a completely spontaneous action, it came “out of nowhere” because there is no democratic tradition in the Arab world.

This is an outright lie. In 2003, tens of thousands of Egyptians demonstrated against the US-led invasion and destruction of Iraq; Mubarak had to open sports stadiums to give protesters a place to go. There is Egyptian movement for change known as "Kafiyah," which means "enough", a broad coalition of opposition forces. In 2005, judges went on strike to protest the rigged elections, and in 2008, there was a wave of worker-led strikes calling for both economic and political reform.

It's difficult to organize and sustain opposition where doing so may mean torture or death. But just because Western media hasn't been paying attention to the resistance doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Myth #5: The revolution is already losing momentum, it is just a blip on the world stage, and everything will return to normal soon.

In one sense, of course, the revolution will lose momentum. It is not possible to sustain massive daily demonstrations forever, nor would one want to. But on the day of this talk, the largest gathering yet was reported – three million people in Tahrir Square, and eight million people demonstrating throughout the nation.

There have been strikes in all sectors of society: in addition to the journalists mentioned above, university professors went on strike, civil workers were offered a 15% pay raise - but struck anyway, and there is talk of a strike by Suez Canal workers.

Clark emphasized that the Egyptian revolution is not only an opportunity to get rid of Mubarak and overhaul the Egyptian political system, it is an opportunity to dismantle the entire "architecture of imperialism". No matter what happens with this revolution, a generation of Egyptians people have been emboldened, inspired, energized, radicalized - forever changed. Their eyes have been opened to what can be done when enough people work towards one goal. That bell cannot be unrung.

The revolution has made incredible gains that were absolutely unthinkable even two months ago. At the Cairo peace conference in 2005, Clark told us, no one dared utter the word "Mubarak" in public for fear of the undercover secret police. People had their limbs broken for simply putting up a poster.

Now, demonstrators have listed their demands on a banner 10 stories high and Mubarak has been hung in effigy in the square.

Mubarak has been in power for nearly 30 years - with the support of the most powerful countries on earth, yet he is on the brink of being driven from power. The people have done this. They are doing it. They will not be stopped.

The Seven Demands of the Egyptian People

1. Mubarak must go.

2. The government must be dissolved and fair elections held.

3. Interim government must include representatives of all opposition forces.

4. There must be a new constitution.

5. The emergency laws – imposed in 1981 after assassination of Anwar Sadat and now enshrined in law – must be lifted.

6. There must be accountability for government violence.

7. Mubarak must not be given immunity.

* * * *

Here are a few highlights from the Q&A period.

* One of the most powerful lessons people learn from these experiences is that they don't have to rely on an elite to change things - not a political elite, a religious elite or a military elite. They can organize themselves. This movement is not only anti-Mubarak, it is pro-democracy.

* “What is next?” is the wrong question. No one knows what will happen next week, let alone in six months or two years. Revolutions are messy; they do not happen linearly; they do not follow a prepared script. The first step is getting rid of the current regime. After that, the people will debate and arrive at answers as issues arise.

* What if another group sets up a dictatorial regime? Well, the people rose up and overthrew a tyrant of 30 years. They'll know what to do about a tyrant of three weeks.

(Hundreds of pictures, many of them amazing, can be found here, here, and here.)

* * * *

Dr. Shokr specifically addressed the commonly-heard argument: "This will be like Iran in 1979", used to create a sense of fear. This assumes that all Arabs are the same, and that Arab culture is monolithic. It as if people cannot conceive of an Arab culture establishing a form of democracy. If it's a revolution in an Arab country, the results will necessarily be dark and dangerous.

But Dr. Shokr reminded us: the median age in Egypt is 24. Most of these young people are unaffiliated with any political party or specific movement. Egypt in 2011 is not Iran in 1979. And why would it be? Unless we see all "those people" as the same.

(This reminds me of when people talk about “Africa” as if it is one big place with one culture and identity, or “the Muslim world”, as if there is some other world out there where Muslims live, separate from the world non-Muslims live in.)

* * * *

I encourage you to read this petition to Canada's politicians and parties, and if you agree, to download it, print it, sign it and if you can, circulate it. Send it to your Member of Parliament. Tell them: I stand with the Egyptian people. I stand with justice, democracy and freedom.

Many thanks to Allan for helping me write this post. Many photo credits here.

u.s. war on women continues and escalates: planned parenthood under attack

The US war on American women has escalated lately (as opposed to the US war on Afghan and Iraqi women, men and children, which continues at the same torrid pace). Please read below for important information about the US government's attack on Planned Parenthood, and how you can help.

* * * *

Two weeks ago we saw the redundant law-enforcement expression "forcible rape" used to strengthen the Hyde Amendment, which already appears to be iron-clad.

When public outrage forced the woman-haters to retreat from that, they proposed a bill that would allow hospitals to let a woman die rather than perform a medically necessary abortion or even transfer the woman to a facility that would perform one.

Another Republican initiative would redefine the language of the criminal codes of the state of Georgia, with the express purpose of making it more difficult for rape victims to report the crime. From AMERICAblog, quoting the Democrats:

Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin . . . has introduced a bill to change the state's criminal codes so that in "criminal law and criminal procedure" (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as "accusers" until the defendant has been convicted.

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn't think you've been victimized. He says you're an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim's ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.

This must reflect the belief that women falsely accusing men of rape is such a major issue that it requires action on a state-wide level. In reality, rape and sexual assault remain horribly under-reported, especially where the victim knows her assailant.

In Texas - a state with no money and virtually no public services - Governor Rick Perry wants to require sonograms for all abortions, and require the patient to listen to the fetal heartbeat. (This local article about the bill says it would require women to listen to "their baby's heartbeat".) Perry fast-tracked this bill by calling it "emergency legislation".

Ohio is considering a bill that would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which, because of new technology, can occur as early six weeks after conception.

There's a whole bunch more like this. I won't list them all. And we must always remember that laws mandating obstacles to abortion will always disproportionately affect low-income women, as women with the economic means can travel for services. They shouldn't have to, but they can. For working-class and poor women, no such option exists.

While those bits of legislative violence against women happen on a state level, a wider war on women is waged by the US Congress. Right now it focuses on Planned Parenthood, one of the very best - and most necessary - organizations in the US.

An attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on all low-income women and their children, on teenagers seeking health information, on battered women who need confidential help, on people with no health insurance trying to raise healthy children. An attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on affordable health care, pregnancy prevention and safer-sex education.

For almost a century, Planned Parenthood has been filling the gap left by the irresponsible, negligent US government. Now, armed with the results of an anti-choice sting operation that managed to catch one irresponsible staff member, Congress is gunning for Planned Parenthood.

Gail Collins of The New York Times sums up the situation in this excellent column.

As if we didn’t have enough wars, the House of Representatives has declared one against Planned Parenthood.

Maybe it's all part of a grand theme. Last month, they voted to repeal the health care law. This month, they're going after an organization that provides millions of women with both family-planning services and basic health medical care, like pap smears and screening for diabetes, breast cancer, cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

Our legislative slogan for 2011: Let Them Use Leeches.

“What is more fiscally responsible than denying any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America?” demanded Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the chief sponsor of a bill to bar the government from directing any money to any organization that provides abortion services.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t use government money to provide abortions; Congress already prohibits that, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. (Another anti-abortion bill that’s coming up for hearing originally proposed changing the wording to “forcible rape,” presumably under the theory that there was a problem with volunteer rape victims. On that matter at least, cooler heads prevailed.)

Planned Parenthood does pay for its own abortion services, though, and that’s what makes them a target. Pence has 154 co-sponsors for his bill. He was helped this week by an anti-abortion group called Live Action, which conducted a sting operation at 12 Planned Parenthood clinics in six states, in an effort to connect the clinic staff to child prostitution.

“Planned Parenthood aids and abets the sexual abuse and prostitution of minors,” announced Lila Rose, the beautiful anti-abortion activist who led the project. The right wing is currently chock-full of stunning women who want to end their gender’s right to control their own bodies. Homely middle-aged men are just going to have to find another sex to push around.

Live Action hired an actor who posed as a pimp and told Planned Parenthood counselors that he might have contracted a sexually transmitted disease from “one of the girls I manage.” He followed up with questions about how to obtain contraceptives and abortions, while indicating that some of his “girls” were under age and illegally in the country.

One counselor, shockingly, gave the “pimp” advice on how to game the system and was summarily fired when the video came out. But the others seem to have answered his questions accurately and flatly. Planned Parenthood says that after the man left, all the counselors — including the one who was fired — reported the conversation to their supervisors, who called the authorities. (One Arizona police department, the organization said, refused to file a report.)

Still, there is no way to look good while providing useful information to a self-proclaimed child molester, even if the cops get called. That, presumably, is why Live Action chose the scenario.

“We have a zero tolerance of nonreporting anything that would endanger a minor,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. “We do the same thing public hospitals do and public clinics do.”

But here’s the most notable thing about this whole debate: The people trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business do not seem concerned about what would happen to the 1.85 million low-income women who get family-planning help and medical care at the clinics each year. It just doesn’t come up. There’s not even a vague contingency plan.

“I haven’t seen that they want to propose an alternative,” said Richards.

There are tens of millions Americans who oppose abortion because of deeply held moral principles. But they’re attached to a political movement that sometimes seems to have come unmoored from any concern for life after birth.

There is no comparable organization to Planned Parenthood, providing the same kind of services on a national basis. If there were, most of the women eligible for Medicaid-financed family-planning assistance wouldn’t have to go without it. In Texas, which has one of the highest teenage birthrates in the country, only about 20 percent of low-income women get that kind of help. Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack, and the State Legislature has diverted some of its funding to crisis pregnancy centers, which provide no medical care and tend to be staffed by volunteers dedicated to dissuading women from having abortions.

In Washington, the new Republican majority that promised to do great things about jobs, jobs, jobs is preparing for hearings on a bill to make it economically impossible for insurance companies to offer policies that cover abortions. And in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, faced with an epic budget crisis that’s left the state’s schools and health care services in crisis, has brought out emergency legislation — requiring mandatory sonograms for women considering abortion.

You can sign a letter of support for Planned Parenthood, donate to their foundation, or learn more about what they do.

truck day!

What is this truck, you ask, and why does it warm the hearts of Red Sox fans the world over?

This truck, my friends, is the first harbinger of spring. It leaves Fenway Park in the depths of coldest winter and makes its way to Ft. Myers, Florida, carrying equipment, along with our pre-season hopes and dreams. If there's one good thing that can be said about Florida, it's that soon The Truck will be there.

Once The Truck leaves, we know it can't be long.

republicans to women: we'd rather see you and your fetus dead than allow an abortion

I generally don't use this blog to chronicle the hundreds of anti-choice bills proposed in the US every year; I leave that to other bloggers more focused on that specific angle. But every so often, something comes along that is just too perfect in how clearly it exposes the true colours of that hateful movement.

From TPM:

The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House's anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 -- the bill that added "forcible rape" to the lexicon this week -- Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven't heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before.

Pitts' response to the complaints from pro-choice groups? Nothing to see here.

. . .

A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.

In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.)

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.

"This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before."

Crane said she's been a pro-choice advocate "for a long time," yet she's never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts' bill has. NARAL has fired up its lobbying machinery and intends to make the emergency abortion language a key part of its fight against the Pitts bill when it goes before subcommittee in the House next week.

I love when the movement calling itself "pro-life" - the use of that word without quotes being the most successful propaganda campaign of our time - proposes something that very clearly contributes to death. I'm not being sarcastic: I love it.

We know these woman-haters don't give a crap about actual living babies and children. But some of us also know they don't give a crap about fetuses either. Their movement is all about hating women: hating feminism, hating modern life, hating western women's ability to control their own lives, to have sex without consequence, formerly only the province of men. And every so often, they show their hand. As James said when he sent me this story (from AMERICAblog via HuffPost Hill): "Because having both mother and fetus die is so much better than the fetus alone." I'll leave you to tease out the layers of irony for yourself.

solidarity in toronto: "5, 6, 7, 8, let egyptians decide their fate"

Dig this kid! A future leader, for sure. Perhaps he will grow up to see his homeland become a democracy. The video was taken in Toronto this past weekend.

And meanwhile, in Egypt:

Al Jazeera estimated this crowd at 2,000,000! Two million people! I've seen Mubarak apologists refer to this as "mob rule". Apparently some people don't recognize democracy when they see it.

search string of the day

Search string of the day:

bullshit my dr says i have to wait 6 months for a groin hernia operation vancouver island

Perhaps look for doctors in Vancouver. Perhaps try omitting the word "bullshit" from your search. Just a suggestion.

capitalist destruction: our health, our environment, our communities: three great articles

I've been working my way through a trio of long magazine articles, courtesy of our public library, that I must share with you.

From a writer's perspective, these are exactly the kind of journalism I once aspired to (and had a small taste of). Enormous amounts of time and work go into pieces like this - background interviews that don't appear in the story, hours tracking down leads, many more hours spent simply observing, reams of interview transcripts, countless rounds of editing. This is something no blogger or reporter can do on her own. Magazines have to pay for this, or it can't be done - which is why it has become so rare.

From a political perspective, these stories are about widely different subjects, but one common thread runs through them all.

If you read only one of these stories, I strongly recommend "Making A Killing," by Carl Elliott in Mother Jones, an exposé of the corrupt, profit-generating business of clinical drug trials. If there was ever an argument for getting the profit motive out of health care, this is it.

Documents unsealed in related civil suits suggest an alarming pattern of deception. Sales reps were instructed to tell doctors that Seroquel doesn't cause diabetes, even though the company knew about the link to diabetes as early as 1997. Internal correspondence reveals company officials discussing how to hide or spin potentially damaging studies. "Thus far, we have buried trials 15, 31, 56," wrote a publications manager in 1999. "The larger issue is how do we face the outside world when they begin to criticize us for suppressing data."

One of those potentially damaging studies led back to the University of Minnesota. . . . In the late 1990s, a clinical trial known as Study 15 unexpectedly failed to show that Seroquel was any better than Haldol, a generic antipsychotic that's been on the market since the 1960s. In fact, on the main measures, Seroquel performed worse than Haldol. The study also showed that Seroquel increased the risk of weight gain and diabetes. Internal correspondence repeatedly refers to Study 15 as a "failed study," and company officials discuss possible ways to spin or bury it. "I am not 100% comfortable with this data being made publicly available at the present time,". . . .

Even more alarming are internal documents suggesting that AstraZeneca was designing clinical trials as a covert method of marketing Seroquel. In 1997, when Dr. Andrew Goudie, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Liverpool, asked AstraZeneca to fund a research study he was planning, a company official replied that "R&D is no longer responsible for Seroquel research — it is now the responsibility of Sales and Marketing." The official also noted that funding decisions would depend on whether the study was likely to show a "competitive advantage for Seroquel."

Another set of documents from 2003 describes a glucose metabolism study apparently designed to fend off the charge that Seroquel causes patients to gain weight and become diabetic. One slide describes two purposes for the study: a "regulatory" purpose and a "commercial" purpose. The regulatory purpose was to "produce data that will help us defend the Seroquel label." The commercial purpose was to "produce data that will enable us to generate commercially attractive and competitive messages in relation to diabetes and weight." . . .

Many clinical studies place human subjects at risk—at a minimum, the risk of mild discomfort, and at worst, the risk of serious pain and death. Bioethicists and regulators spend a lot of time and energy debating the degree of risk that ought to be permitted in a study, how those risks should be presented to subjects, and the way those risks should be balanced against the potential benefits a subject might receive. What is simply assumed, without much consideration at all, is that the research is being conducted to produce scientific knowledge. This assumption is codified in a number of foundational ethics documents, such as the Nuremberg Code, which was instituted following Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. The Nuremberg Code stipulates that an "experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society," and "the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment."

But what if a research study is not really aimed at producing genuine scientific knowledge at all? The documents emerging in litigation suggest that pharmaceutical companies are designing, analyzing, and publishing trials primarily as a way of positioning their drugs in the marketplace. This raises a question unconsidered in any current code of research ethics. How much risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose principal aim is to "generate commercially attractive messages"?

If you read Elliott's story, don't miss these two important sidebars: "What Happens When Profit Margins Drive Clinical Research?" and "Poor Reviews: Profit pressures gut guinea pigs' only safeguard: institutional review boards".

Next, also from Mother Jones, a series of reports and analysis on the BP disaster and cover-up: BP's Deep Secrets. This was a cover-story package of six different articles; the lead story by Julia Whitty is especially important.

And finally, from the November 2010 issue of Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi reports from Florida: "Invasion of the Home Snatchers: How the courts are helping bankers screw over homeowners and get away with fraud".

The foreclosure lawyers down in Jacksonville had warned me, but I was skeptical. They told me the state of Florida had created a special super-high-speed housing court with a specific mandate to rubber-stamp the legally dicey foreclosures by corporate mortgage pushers like Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase. This "rocket docket," as it is called in town, is presided over by retired judges who seem to have no clue about the insanely complex financial instruments they are ruling on — securitized mortgages and laby­rinthine derivative deals of a type that didn't even exist when most of them were active members of the bench. Their stated mission isn't to decide right and wrong, but to clear cases and blast human beings out of their homes with ultimate velocity. They certainly have no incentive to penetrate the profound criminal mysteries of the great American mortgage bubble of the 2000s, perhaps the most complex Ponzi scheme in human history — an epic mountain range of corporate fraud in which Wall Street megabanks conspired first to collect huge numbers of subprime mortgages, then to unload them on unsuspecting third parties like pensions, trade unions and insurance companies (and, ultimately, you and me, as taxpayers) in the guise of AAA-rated investments. Selling lead as gold, shit as Chanel No. 5, was the essence of the booming international fraud scheme that created most all of these now-failing home mortgages.

The Real Reason America’s Cities and Towns Are Broke

The rocket docket wasn't created to investigate any of that. It exists to launder the crime and bury the evidence by speeding thousands of fraudulent and predatory loans to the ends of their life cycles, so that the houses attached to them can be sold again with clean paperwork. The judges, in fact, openly admit that their primary mission is not justice but speed. One Jacksonville judge, the Honorable A.C. Soud, even told a local newspaper that his goal is to resolve 25 cases per hour. Given the way the system is rigged, that means His Honor could well be throwing one ass on the street every 2.4 minutes.

. . . When I went to sit in on Judge Soud's courtroom in downtown Jacksonville, I was treated to an intimate, and at times breathtaking, education in the horror of the foreclosure crisis, which is rapidly emerging as the even scarier sequel to the financial meltdown of 2008: Invasion of the Home Snatchers II. In Las Vegas, one in 25 homes is now in foreclosure. In Fort Myers, Florida, one in 35. In September, lenders nationwide took over a rec­ord 102,134 properties; that same month, more than a third of all home sales were distressed properties. All told, some 820,000 Americans have already lost their homes this year, and another 1 million currently face foreclosure. . . .

You've heard of Too Big to Fail — the foreclosure crisis is Too Big for Fraud. Think of the Bernie Madoff scam, only replicated tens of thousands of times over, infecting every corner of the financial universe. The underlying crime is so pervasive, we simply can't admit to it — and so we are working feverishly to rubber-stamp the problem away, in sordid little backrooms in cities like Jacksonville, behind doors that shouldn't be, but often are, closed.

And that's just the economic side of the story. The moral angle to the foreclosure crisis — and, of course, in capitalism we're not supposed to be concerned with the moral stuff, but let's mention it anyway — shows a culture that is slowly giving in to a futuristic nightmare ideology of computerized greed and unchecked financial violence. The monster in the foreclosure crisis has no face and no brain. The mortgages that are being foreclosed upon have no real owners. The lawyers bringing the cases to evict the humans have no real clients. It is complete and absolute legal and economic chaos. No single limb of this vast man-­eating thing knows what the other is doing, which makes it nearly impossible to combat — and scary as hell to watch.

Have you spotted the common theme? Clinical drug trials that produce both unsafe drugs and massive profit for university researchers, pharmaceutical companies - and the people who are supposed to be overseeing them. The destruction of the environment by one the world's largest corporations and the bottomless resources they've committed to avoiding responsibility. Millions of Americans losing their homes because of massive financial fraud, in which the perpetrators walk away without losing a penny, the public pays for their privilege, people the world over suffer extreme deprivations, and finally, the corrupt financial and legal systems will profit further from the loss.

What drives each of these human-made disasters? Profit.

Capitalism is collapsing, and we are all paying the price.

save our libraries day in the u.k.

Yesterday was Save Our Libraries Day in the UK: a massive national call to action to protest government austerity plans calling for the closure of 450 libraries, by demonstrating how much libraries mean to their communities.

The Guardian live-blogged the event, and has this interactive map of the UK showing where protests were held. There were read-ins, author appearances, massive book-borrowing, pickets, letter-writing campaigns, and all manner of creative protests.

These closures will devastate communities, while the crooks who caused the financial crisis continue to give themselves seven-digit bonuses.

diane finley and the harper conservatives insult all working parents

How could anyone take seriously a party that would say this out loud? And how could such a party come to govern this country for so long?

“It’s the Liberals who wanted to ensure that parents are forced to have other people raise their children. We do not believe in that,” Finley said in the Commons Thursday, the same day that Liberals were promising to revive the national program scrapped by the Conservatives five years ago this week.

Liberals are calling Finley’s remark an insult to working Canadian mothers and fathers and a clear declaration of bias in favour of stay-at-home parents — a rarity in Canada, where most mothers with children work.

“For decades we’ve realized that women are working, men are working and the second thing we’ve realized is that there’s a great benefit to children from working and playing with others and learning with others,” said Liberal MP Bob Rae. “The notion somehow that child care is some form of alien abduction is just completely preposterous.”

New Democrats, who have put forward their own national child-care legislation in the Commons, were also outraged by Finley’s characterization of child-care programs.

“Finley insulted all teachers, all early childhood educators, child-care workers, organizers of parents’ resource centres and even babysitters. She is trying to inflict guilt on all working parents — a truly shameful, divisive behaviour,” said NDP MP Olivia Chow.

On a sidenote, I find it shocking how this discussion in Canada focuses almost exclusively on working mothers. I was so accustomed to hearing "working parents" in the US that when I moved here, I was really taken aback by the difference. To me, this is akin to seeing the choice of "Miss" on Canadian forms, or "Dear Sir or Madam" instead of "To whom it may concern". But those phrases, although important, are largely symbolic. The unquestioned assumption that women choose between staying home or earning income, while men do not make similar choices, should have been retired at least 30 years ago.

In any case, the Conservatives are neanderthals on this issue. If there was any hope for any kind of coalition government, we'd be rid of them in no time.

us war resisters in canada: calling on our government to have courage to let them stay

As part of Let Them Stay Week 2011, war resister Dean Walcott recently spoke at a screening of "War Resisters Speak Out". Dean served two tours of duty in Iraq, but it wasn't until he was stationed at a military hospital in Germany that he saw the true cost of war, in the dead and horribly dying, and their families who had come to say goodbye.

Here's an excellent letter written to The Peterborough Examiner in response to ignorant criticism of Dean and other US Iraq War resisters in Canada. (No link yet.)

Resisters took brave stand and should be welcomed

Re "Desertion is still a crime" (Letter, Jan. 27)

Nick Butler is claiming that war resisters like Dean Walcott should not be admitted to Canada as they have committed the "offence" of refusing to fight in a war that is widely seen as illegitimate. However, there are some considerations that Mr. Butler seems to have overlooked.

The war Mr. Walcott is resisting against is a war that Canada refused to participate in. Canada has a history of allowing war resisters into the country, and not just during the Vietnam War. For example, Canada has allowed Iranian soldiers in after they refused to fight in Iraq. And while the "crime" of desertion is indeed on the books in Canada, the Canadian military does not attempt to track down and punish Canadians who refuse their orders. Yet if resisters like Walcott are sent back to the U.S.A. they will face lengthy prison sentences.

So instead of calling for Walcott to return home and have the courage to face an illegitimate punishment, perhaps we should instead be calling for our government to have the courage to allow these individuals to stay (which shouldn't be hard, given that the U.S. isn't even looking for them), as they have bravely acted according to their conscience.

Matthew Davidson
On behalf of OPIRG-Peterborough

action alert: harper backs mubarak's transition plan: contact your mp now!

From Toronto Coalition to Stop the War:

Stephen Harper backs Mubarak's 'transition' plan

Contact your MPs to protest now! Canada must support Egypt's democracy movement, not a dictator!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has thrown Canada's support behind embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, despite growing pressure in Egypt and around the world for the 82-year old dictator to resign immediately. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said on February 3 that the Conservative government prefers Mubarak's plan to step down in September instead of now. (Full article here.)

But even the Obama administration in the US believes that Mubarak must resign immediately, in response to nation-wide protests of millions of people in Egypt.

In 2003, Stephen Harper - who was Leader of the Opposition at the time - argued that Canada should join the US-led war in Iraq. Harper was on the wrong side of history then, and he is on the wrong side of history now.

Contact your MPs to protest Canada's decision to back Mubarak. Canada must support Egypt's democracy movement, not a hated dictator.

Step 1:
Cut-and-paste the e-mail addresses of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the opposition leaders, the government house leaders, and their deputies into your address line:

Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, HarpeS@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, Baird.J@parl.gc.ca, bairdj1@parl.gc.ca, Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca, cannol1@parl.gc.ca, Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca, Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca, goodale@sasktel.net, McGuinty.D@parl.gc.ca, Rae.B@parl.gc.ca, Raeb1@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Davies.L@parl.gc.ca, Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca, pauldewar@ndp.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, ducepg1@parl.gc.ca, Paquette.P@parl.gc.ca, joliette@pierrepaquette.qc.ca, Dorion.J@parl.gc.ca, dorioj1@parl.gc.ca

Step 2:
CC your own MP. You can find your MP's e-mail address here.

Step 3:
Cut-and-paste this subject into your subject line:

End Harper's support for Mubarak. Canada must back Egypt's democratic movement.

Step 4:
Cut-and-paste the following message into your message. Feel free to personalize it. Don't forget to sign your name and address at the end of the message.

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

I am writing to express my opposition to your government's decision to back the so-called 'transition' plan of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, instead of the demand of millions of Egyptians that the 82-year old dictator resign immediately. Even the Obama administration in the US has backed the call for Mubarak to step down now. Canada must support Egypt's democracy movement, not a hated dictator.

I, therefore, ask you to take the following steps:

- Add Canada's voice to the growing calls for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down immediately, and not in September

- Freeze the Egyptian government's assets in Canada until Mubarak's regime has been replaced

- Condemn the violence unleashed by Mubarak's supporters and undercover police

The vast majority of Egyptians want Mubarak to leave now. Canada must not support Mubarak in the name of "stability" in the region. There can be no stability in the region unless all its people, including Egyptians, can live in a truly free and democratic system.

I look forward to your speedy response.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Step 5:
Send.

Step 6:
Forward this e-mail to all your networks, asking them to contact their MPs, too.

bibliotheca alexandrina update: now with video

If you were interested in my recent post about Egyptian youth protecting the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, I have updated it with some beautiful video: here.

we like lists: list # 8: downtime pleasures

This week I handed in two assignments, due on consecutive days, one being the worst assignment for the worst class of my entire degree. I am feeling a huge sense of relief at having that behind me! Now I have no deadlines until March. Brilliant.

I am in sore need of some serious downtime, to veg out (as we used to say), to be a mush-brain, a couch potato. Truth be told, during the school term I am a couch potato four nights a week, but it feels so much better with these papers behind me!

What's your preferred method of recharging? This is total downtime, when your brain needs a rest and you need an escape. These are the pursuits sometimes called "guilty pleasures," but I think we should never feel guilty about pleasure.

My number one downtime pleasure, no contest, is baseball. Nothing takes me out of myself - there is nothing I find both so completely relaxing and absorbing - than watching baseball. In times of great stress, baseball is a mental balm.

Another of my prime downtime pleasures is a bit embarrassing, and not something I do very often. If you've been reading this blog long enough, you know about my obsession with "Dallas", the cheesy 1980s nighttime soap. "Dallas" may be my favourite, but it's only a symptom of a larger disorder: I have the potential to be addicted to soap operas.

I prefer the nighttime variety, and although I have watched very few of those shows (since I watch very little TV), it wouldn't take much to get me involved in any of them. Then a few years ago I started watching "Coronation Street" once a week, while folding laundry. It wasn't long before I'd look at the clock and think, can I get in an episode of Corrie in before the game starts...? And now I am addicted to Corrie.

The wonderful thing about this particular downtime pleasure is that it's so readily available, a mental mini-vacation almost every day.

Where do you get your R&R? Let's do five of these.

1. Watching baseball

2. Watching certain soap operas

3. Walking, especially in the woods

4. Sitting in our backyard, watching our dog(s) play, watching birds flit around

5. Watching movies or favourite comedy series

You?

important reminder: deadline for comments on crtc proposed regulations is approaching, please send letters!

An activist friend has alerted me to another proposed change in CRTC regulations that would effect truth-in-broadcasting laws. The deadline to respond to this one is February 7, and the deadline to respond to the other proposal - which I blogged about here - is February 9.

If enacted, these proposed regulations would: weaken media accountability, further blur the already cloudy distinction between news and entertainment, weaken already eroded trust in media, and ultimately undermine democracy.

Naturally this is happening quietly, one might even say stealthily. The period for public comment is unusually short, and the mechanism for public comment is cumbersome.

Please don't let that stop you. Here's what to do.

1. Go to this page on the CRTC website.

2. Find Notice Number 2010-931.

3. Click "submit".

4. Follow prompts until you get to the page on which you comment. Name and postal code are mandatory. Street address is not.

5. Write and submit your comment.

THEN

6. Return to this first page.

7. Find Notice Number 2011-14.

8. Repeat above steps.

On my earlier post, I copied a sample letter written by Antonia Zerbisias. Here's another I received via email forward.

+ + + +

I strongly object to any weakening of the policy prohibiting the broadcast of false or misleading information in Canada.

Firstly, there are no reasonable circumstances where outright lies and deceit, as prohibited by the current policy, could be in the public benefit. On the contrary, there are endless examples where broadcast falsehoods have or continue to endanger the public interest. In Canada, broadcast falsehoods promoted and supported the wrongful confinement of Japanese-Canadians, for which the Government of Canada eventually had to apologize and pay compensation. In the United States of America, a significant proportion of the population currently believes lies about their own president, falsehoods knowingly broadcast by news channels for
political purposes.

Secondly, there is no likelihood that the Supreme Court would uphold any challenge to the provisions. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not elevate private interest over public interest. It is clear that the private benefit of broadcast falsehood (whatever that might be) would not be considered to outweigh the public benefit of the regulation prohibiting it. The only possibility is that the court might determine certain very specific conditions on the restriction, which could be added to the regulations as required by the court at that time.

Thirdly, the modified provisions as proposed are dangerously inadequate. There is no definition as what kind of danger to the public safety is considered. Certainly any promotion of false or misleading information by a major broadcast network is a threat to the people of Canada. Democracy only ultimately falls in countries where political lies come to dominate the media. But given this fact, the modified provisions are entirely inadequate. To put the onus of proof on the truth-tellers is wrong. A broadcaster found to be lying to the Canadian people must be the one responsible to try to defend their actions.

For these reasons, under no circumstances should the proposed regulation change be made.

+ + + +

egyptian youth protect their library (updated with video)

From Bibliotheca Alexandrina, the new Library of Alexandria.

To our friends around the world: The Events in Egypt
30 Jan 2011

The world has witnessed an unprecedented popular action in the streets of Egypt. Led by Egypt’s youth, with their justified demands for more freedom, more democracy, lower prices for necessities and more employment opportunities. These youths demanded immediate and far-reaching changes. This was met by violent conflicts with the police, who were routed. The army was called in and was welcomed by the demonstrators, but initially their presence was more symbolic than active. Events deteriorated as lawless bands of thugs, and maybe agents provocateurs, appeared and looting began. The young people organized themselves into groups that directed traffic, protected neighborhoods and guarded public buildings of value such as the Egyptian Museum and the Library of Alexandria. They are collaborating with the army. This makeshift arrangement is in place until full public order returns.

The library is safe thanks to Egypt’s youth, whether they be the staff of the Library or the representatives of the demonstrators, who are joining us in guarding the building from potential vandals and looters. I am there daily within the bounds of the curfew hours. However, the Library will be closed to the public for the next few days until the curfew is lifted and events unfold towards an end to the lawlessness and a move towards the resolution of the political issues that triggered the demonstrations.

Ismail Serageldin
Librarian of Alexandria
Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Many thanks to David Heap for tagging me on this!

Update! Beautiful video of people committed to keeping their library safe.

q. when is rape not rape? a. never. rape is rape is rape.

Q. What could be worse than being raped and then becoming pregnant?

A. Being forced to carry the pregnancy to term against your will.

In case you haven't seen this yet...

US lawmakers are seeking to redefine rape in an attempt to strengthen already horrendous anti-abortion laws. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except when the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. (Please note: 1976 Hyde, not 2010 Stupak.) This new bipartisan proposal would take away that last bit of protection.

House Republicans wasted no time in declaring their legislative priorities for the 112th Congress. The first: repeal health care for millions of Americans. The second: redefine rape. A day after repealing health care, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, a bill that would not only permanently prohibit some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions, but would change the language exempting rape and incest from rape to "forcible rape."

By narrowing the Hyde Amendment language, Republicans would exclude the following situations from coverage: women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults. . . .

172 Republicans — including sixteen women — and lone Democrat Rep. Daniel Lipinski (IL), chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus — readily support the new standard.

[UPDATE: The Washington Post issued a correction to point out that Lipinski is not the sole Democrat supporting the bill. As of today, Democratic Reps. Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), and Heath Shuler (NC) are also sponsors.]

"Forcible rape" is a redundancy used in FBI crime statistics to denote that a weapon such as a gun or knife was used by the rapist, or that the victim was beaten in addition to having been raped. It is by far not the only form of rape or sexual assault legally recognized as a criminal act. Rapists can be and are charged for rape where no weapon is present and where no additional violence - other than the rape itself - is present.

The rape of a minor by an adult is always legally rape, regardless of weapon. The use of drugs to facilitate a rape constitutes legal rape. And so on.

We should also acknowledge how this law would punish women not only for being raped, not only for becoming pregnant as a result of that rape, but for being poor. Like most anti-choice and anti-woman laws, this law would disproportionately affect low-income women. Which are disproportionately and rapdily becoming most women in the US.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic Congressperson from Florida, strongly denounced the bill and its sponsors on The Raw Story:

"It is absolutely outrageous," Wasserman Schultz said in an exclusive interview late Monday afternoon. "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women. . . . to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself," Wasserman Schultz said.

. . . .

The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL lashed out at the measure's backers, calling it "unbelievably cruel and heartless toward survivors of rape and incest."

"We are seeing more and more anti-choice lawmakers who are willing to deny survivors of rape and incest access to abortion care," NARAL president Nancy Keenan told Raw Story. "If they can't block access altogether, they will work around the edges. Rep. Smith's 'Stupak on Steroids' bill is an example of this piecemeal strategy because it seeks to make the narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive."

Wasserman Schultz also said the bill contradicted the GOP's core political philosophy.

"Even though Republicans say they want government out of our lives, this is the most intrusive governmental act that we've probably seen to date in the personal lives of women," she said.

US readers, please contact your representatives to express your outrage at this bill. Go here: Stop the Attack on Women's Health and Safety: Oppose H.R. 3!.

If you want to help in a more direct way, you can donate to the National Network of Abortions Funds. N-NAF raises money so abortion clinics can serve women regardless of their ability to pay for procedures. A gift to N-NAF is a direct action you can take to help a low-income woman take control of her life.