UCP LIES
Collapsed oil prices and an increase in spending amid the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed Alberta into a historic projected deficit of $24.2 billion.

The UCP government’s fiscal update, presented Thursday in the legislative assembly by Finance Minister Travis Toews, shows a projected deficit for 2020-21 that is $16.8 billion more than was previously forecast. The February budget had predicted a $6.8 billion deficit, however the government revised that to $7.3 billion in March.

Toews said the pandemic and energy price war “blindsided our economy, just as it was beginning to show signs of improvement and approaching pre-recession levels of economic activity,” pointing to markers such as increased drilling rig activity and building permits.

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach said Toews’ speech gave a false impression of what the situation looked like before the pandemic hit.

For instance, GDP growth was forecast at 2.7 per cent in October’s budget and revised to 2.5 per cent in February.

“Even their own budget documents had downgraded their 2020 outlook, employment was decreasing, bank projections for GDP growth for Alberta were decreasing, we had negative growth in 2019,” he said Thursday.

“All of these things, … if you watch the finance minister’s speech, you’d have no sense that that was true.”

NDP Opposition finance critic Shannon Phillips said the government failed to create jobs before the pandemic and was neglecting to make the investments in health care, education and child care that the economy needs to recover.

“We do not work if child care doesn’t work. We do not work if the school plan does not work …The choice here instead has been to give away large sums of money to already wealthy corporations in the hopes that they would create jobs, which they were not doing before the pandemic,” said Phillips.

Earlier this year, the government accelerated its corporate tax cut to eight per cent from 10 per cent, which took effect July 1. Thursday’s fiscal update said that move will reduce government revenue by between $200 million and $300 million.

POSTMEDIA  



Many Albertans remember the iconic image of former premier Ralph Klein holding up the “Paid In Full” sign to symbolize a debt-free Alberta government.

“I’m very, very proud to announce that Alberta has slain its debt,” the late premier told a cheering crowd on July 12, 2004.

Albertans, in fact, lead the nation in consumer debt. Plus, many people in our province are living paycheque to paycheque. Nearly half of Albertans say they are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.  

Another credit rating agency, TransUnion, reported last November that Alberta used to fall below the national average delinquency rate. That changed in the second half of 2015

See the provincial delinquency rates here. 

Average debt in Calgary is $28,421 excluding mortgages, while Edmonton's average debt is $26,479 compared to average consumer debt nationwide of $21,458. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-calgary-consumer-debt-equifax-1.3484940

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/road-ahead-brooks-alberta-debt-deficit-politics-1.4574465


'Ralph Bucks' 14 years later: Could the Prosperity Bonus have saved Alberta’s bottom line?

Matthew Black  CTVNewsEdmonton.ca Digital Journalist
  Tuesday, January 14, 2020



The Prosperity Bonus checks were mailed to all Albertans who were residents of the province as of September 1 and filed a 2004 tax return.

EDMONTON -- It’s hard to imagine now, but this time 14 years ago Alberta literally had more money than it knew what to do with.

A series of seemingly unending oil-fueled budget surpluses eventually peaked at $8.7 billion in June of 2006.

With so much cash on hand, Premier Ralph Klein announced the Alberta Prosperity Bonus in September of 2005: a one-time $400 rebate for every Albertans carved out of $1.4 billion of the provincial surplus.


“He came up with a typical populist approach,” said MacEwan University political scientist Chaldeans Mensah.

“Ralph was simply trying to placate his base, ordinary Albertans, to reward them for the difficulties he’d put them through to balance the books.” 

VIDEO: 'Ralph Bucks' come to Alberta

While the “Ralph Bucks” initially proved popular with many, the policy wasn’t enough to sustain Klein’s political future, or shelter the province’s bottom line from the boom-and-bust energy industry and the financial slump that was to come.

“It was strongly supported by ordinary Albertans but the political establishment had some issues with the approach,” said Mensah.

HOW TO SPEND?

Cheques started arriving in mailboxes during January of 2006, sparking sudden spending splurges.

“Dear Albertan: Enclosed is your Alberta 2005 Resource Rebate. This $400 per-person rebate is being provided by the Government of Alberta as a non-taxable, one-time bonus to all Albertans in recognition of their role in building this province," the letter accompanying the check read.

"Congratulations, and thank you for helping build this province.”



With inflation, $400 in 2006 equates to just under $500 in present-day value.

“To be perfectly honest, a lot of people will be going out to buy an iPod,” university student Dan Arnold said in 2006.

“A big shopping spree,” said Grade 8 student Shelby Airth when asked how she would spend her bonus.

Her mother was less enthused, saying “every kid I know is pumped about the $400 that they're getting. That money should go towards offsetting high energy bills, but of course these guys don't see that.”


Savvy businesses picked up on the boom as well, including the Fairmont group of hotels which offered $400 packages encouraging Albertans to "Stay with the Fairmont and let Ralph pick up the tab!"

Others called for a more charitable use for the bonus, with websites like ProsperityInPerspective encouraging donations to local causes.

“I think Albertans are intelligent enough to spend their own money and that’s what this is,” Deputy Premier Shirley McClellan told CTV News in 2005.

CASH BOON BACKLASH

But the cash giveaway wasn’t a smash hit.

The Opposition and others called for a more planned approach to spending the surplus including on ideas like a provincial endowment fund, heightened education funding and a high-speed rail line linking Calgary and Edmonton.

"What's the point of even having a budget? What has happened to the discipline that this government was known for?" asked then-Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

Even the right-leaning Calgary Herald took issue with an op-ed headline reading,

“Nice gesture, wrong message.”

“Our issues were very different than they are today,” remembers Scott Hennig with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

He wrote an Edmonton Journal editorial opposing the bonuses as a bait-and-switch shortly after they were announced in September of 2005.

“If your government unfairly imposes a regressive $528 ‘premium’ and then refunds you $400 of that money as a ‘prosperity rebate,’ do you thank it?”

In 2005, Hennig called for an end to the province’s health care premiums, saying it would have amounted to an annual $884-million tax break.

“It would have meant more to a lot of people,” he said looking back years later.

“We thought it was a really ham-fisted way to give a tax cut.”



RALPH BUCKS LEGACY

Hennig says had the government of the day handled its surpluses differently, the province would be in very different economic shape today.

“Even with oil prices down we’d be nowhere near deficit if they’d taken corrective action,” he said.

“It was all very avoidable had they had more modest spending and put it into long-term savings.”

Politically, any popularity boost Klein got from the bonuses was short-lived, within his party at least.

Two months after the cheques were mailed out he announced his intention to resign after his fourth term on Oct. 21, 2007, some 19 months later.

“He was beginning to lose his edge,” said Mensah. “The Ralph edge, the common touch.”

But by the end of March, the Progressive Conservatives had had enough with delegates giving Klein an underwhelming 55 per cent show of support at a party leadership review.

“It was a combination of bumbling leadership … [Klein] ran into problems with his health care reforms and he had some clashes in the legislature,” said Mensah.

“He was done in by the party establishment.”

Klein eventually resigned near the end of September of 2005.

Oil prices crashed in 2008 and the province has posted deficits in every year since, save for one.

“I don’t think any other government is going to follow that path,” said Mensah. “That path was a unique period in Alberta’s history where the government was simply flush with all the money coming in.”

“In hindsight, we see that was not an appropriate approach given what we are now facing as a province.”

With files from the Canadian Press

.

Thanks largely to rapid spending increases that actually began in the later stages of the Klein era, Alberta’s net assets started falling in 2008-09.

By 2016-17 the province had burned through all its net assets and started racking up debt.

Alberta has been adding an average of nearly $10 billion in debt annually since 2015-16, and provincial net debt is projected to hit $35.6 billion this year (2019-20).

The Kenney government’s recently-released 2020 budget calls for gradual deficit-elimination and a substantial slowdown in the pace of debt accumulation.

But energy prices have fallen so far that the budget’s revenue projections are no longer worth the paper they’re printed on.

And stock markets have crashed.

And the coronavirus, trade wars and other factors threaten to trigger a global recession.

So what happens if Alberta’s debt accumulation continues at something like its current pace?

Alberta’s net debt has climbed to almost $8,200 per person, which puts us in spitting distance of British Columbia ($8,782) and Saskatchewan ($10,210).

If Alberta continues to rack up debt in the next five years like it has over the past five — now a plausible scenario — the government’s net debt will hit $85.1 billion by 2024 or $18,500 per Albertan.

Under this scenario, Alberta will carry more debt per person than any Maritime province, where fiscal problems are well documented.

And while it once seemed unthinkable, formerly “debt free” Alberta is in danger of catching Quebec, once the poster-child for fiscal mismanagement, in per-person debt, hitting approximately $20,500 by the middle of the decade.

The consequences of this type of debt accumulation would be painful.

Government debt interest, negligible as recently as 2009, has climbed to $2 billion annually.

The 2020 budget forecasts an increase to $3 billion annually by 2022-23 — but again, that now looks very optimistic.

It’s been two decades since Ralph Klein held up his “debt-free” sign.

Since then, irresponsible choices have derailed Alberta’s finances.

BY THE PC PARTY NOW REBRANDED UCP

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-opinion-alberta-careening-towards-fiscal-disaster

1999 ALBERTA BUDGET

Revenue Variability – Alberta has been described as having one of the most volatile economies in North America. We are vulnerable to swings in commodity prices and changes in the North American and world economies. While the economy has become more diversified over the last decade, unexpected changes, especially in energy prices, continue to have a significant effect on government revenues. Alberta’s revenue has varied, and will continue to vary, considerably  

Overestimating revenue is a recipe for disaster in Alberta. It resulted in $21 billion of debt being accumulated from 1985-86 to 1993-94. A debt that Albertans are still repaying. It is critical for the government and Albertans to maintain a longer-term perspective on what is affordable. What appears to be affordable one year may not be the next. The events of the last year clearly demonstrate why Alberta needs to be prudent in its budgeting. As a result of weaker world economic growth and low oil prices, provincial government revenue declined from $17.8 billion in 1997-98 to $16.6 billion in 1998-99 – a decline of $1.2 billion or 7%. 

If 1998-99 spending had been based on 1997-98 revenue, we would have had a $1.2 billion deficit. Annual Percentage Change in Revenue 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 (per cent) "A legislatively mandated revenue cushion provides additional comfort to withstand price volatility in the energy sector and possible revenue downturns." - Moody's Investors Service September 1998 from year to year. During the 1990s, revenue grew by an average of 7% in six of the nine years. However, in the other three years, it declined by an average of 4.5%. Protection Against Uncertain Revenue – Revenue cushions were required in the Deficit Elimination Act and the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act to help protect against revenue variability. They ensured that spending was not based on overly optimistic revenue forecasts and provided insurance against in-year revenue declines. Since first introduced in Alberta, similar concepts have been adopted by a number of other governments in Canada. However, the complicated calculation formula and method of presentation of the revenue cushion made it difficult for the public to understand what the ‘real’ forecast of government revenue was and what debt payment was really expected at year end. Also, due to the way the cushion was determined, its size varied considerably over the last few years. It ranged from about 4% of revenue in 1996-97 and 1997-98 to only 2.7% in 1995-96 and 1998-99

1

OPINION

Rio's latest mistake: Putting a price on the priceless

Elizabeth Knight Business columnist
August 28, 2020

The biggest problem with this week’s response from Rio Tinto to its management-made destruction of an archaeological treasure is that it put a $7 million price on destroying something that was priceless.

Three senior executives, including the chief executive Jean-Sebastien Jacques, had a portion of their bonuses docked and were absolved of any blame because, as Rio says, the mistakes had been made collectively over a number of years under different management regimes.

Rather than quelling concerns and placating stakeholders, including traditional owners, shareholders and the broader international archaeological community, the findings of Rio’s internal investigations into the destruction at Juukan Gorge would be incendiary.

While Rio’s board and management are sticking with the line that there is nothing more to see here, even they must understand that this issue is a slow burner, and is far from over yet.


Anger over Rio's destruction of the Juukan Gorge and its subsequent handling of the matter keeps building.CREDIT:MICHELE MOSSOP

That $7 million price tag won’t even hit the sides when it comes to accountability.

When it comes to corporate governance and accountability it was Graeme Samuel, the co-author of the report into the Commonwealth Bank’s Prudential Inquiry, who distilled a board’s decision making into answering two questions: Could we? And should we?
The Rio management knew it could legally blow up the Juukan caves. Yet the second question some anonymous Rio person or group asked instead of 'should we?' unfortunately was ' when can we’?

It is now up to the shareholders to impose their own governance standards on Rio’s board and management.

AustralianSuper boss Ian Silk has this week set the standard, saying that $7 million of punishment is not enough to compensate for the Juukan destruction. In doing so publicly he was signalling to other major shareholders that he would like a bit of company on the ethical high stool.

Others, like Hesta, are becoming a bit more courageous. "[Rio's report] doesn't address strongly who is ultimately responsible for ensuring adherence to its standards and for ongoing oversight, and that is something we continue to engage on’, its chief executive Debby Blakely said.

"We do remain concerned about the gap in their public commitments and their actions, and we want to continue to engage on that."

Does the company feel that £4 million is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage?Louise Davidson, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors

Meanwhile, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ Louise Davidson’s eyebrows were also raised at the findings from Rio’s internal investigation.

"Remuneration appears to be the only sanction applied to executives. This raises the question – does the company feel that £4 million ($7 million) is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage?

"The report from the Rio Tinto board review does not deliver any meaningful accountability for the destruction of some of the most significant cultural sites in Australia. The company should explain why greater accountability was not applied in light of this disaster," she said.

AustralianSuper seeks tougher penalties for Rio Tinto cave blast

A string of other investors including Aberdeen and Legal & General have also voiced their concerns, albeit not as strongly.

Over the past couple of days, having read the Rio report the UK’s Local Authority Pension Fund Forum described the company’s actions as an appropriate first step, but said it was looking to see what further action is taken when the findings from the current Senate inquiry are released.

Meanwhile, the really big owners of Rio’s British and Australian shares are the international investment giants BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These are passive investors that tend to talk big on their environmental, social and governance credentials but have a spotty history when it comes to pushing these issues or voting against boards.

One thing Rio does have in its favour is the Chinese-owned Chinalco as a 14.6 per cent shareholder. Last year it voted, unsuccessfully, against the board’s share buyback proposal, but this was because it was prohibited from taking its stake over 15 per cent. It's considered less concerned though about Rio's social licence to mine culturally sensitive areas.

If there is sufficient groundswell from investors in Rio to vote against directors at next year’s annual meeting it could be enough to embarrass one or two into not seeking re-election.

But history has shown boards tend to throw their chief executives under the bus before it comes to that.

Nation 'woefully unprepared' for climate change, business groups warn

By Nick O'Malley
August 28, 2020 — 

Australia is "woefully unprepared" for the scale of the climate change threats it faces, and suffers from a public debate focused too much on the cost of action rather than the costs of failing to act, says a coalition of environment and business groups.

"There is no systemic government response (federal, state and local) to build resilience to climate risks," says a paper published by the Australian Climate Roundtable, which includes climate groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and business bodies including the Business Council of Australia, Australian Industry Group and the Australian Aluminium Council.


Black Summer: Fires jump the Monaro Highway outside Bredbo, near Cooma.CREDIT:DEAN SEWELL

"Action is piecemeal, unco-ordinated, does not engage business, private sector investment, unions, workers in affected industries, community sector and communities, and does not match the scale of the threat climate change represents to the Australian economy, environment and society," the group said.

"Even with ambitious global action in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, Australia will experience escalating costs from the climate change associated with historical emissions," said the paper, written after months of consultation between the member groups


OPINION
GLOBAL WARMING
Draining the nation's energy: how Canberra lags industry on green power

"These costs will be significant and will require a concerted national response to manage these now unavoidable climate related damages."

The Roundtable is calling for climate change to be made a standing item for National Cabinet and for Australia to "play our fair part in international efforts" to keep global warming in check by pushing for net zero emissions.

"To this end, and in addition to the resilience measures outlined above, the Australian Climate Roundtable encourages the Commonwealth Government to guide its policies by adopting a long-term objective of net-zero emissions by 2050," says the paper.

It says the delay of the planned Glasgow international climate talks give the government time for more "deep consultation" with the Australian community.

Jennifer Westacott, Business Council of Australia chief executive, said the Australia not only risked that embracing a net zero by 2050 policy could, "drive billions of dollars of new investment, create new jobs, create new industries, boost our resilience and build the stronger regions we’ll need to supercharge our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic."

That a group representing business, union and conservation groups could arrive at such strong language in its call for action suggested that the Morrison government was becoming more isolated in its climate change stance, said Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy.

"The conversations we are having [at the Roundtable] are not the same as the ones we were having six years ago. Everyone except the government is on the same page now."

NSW environment minister Matt Kean, who is among the government leaders sent the statement, said that for too long climate change politics had been simplified to either stoking fear about the cost of reducing emissions or inciting guilt for living in a modern economy which emits carbon.

"It is time that debate moved on. The science is in, climate change is already taking a toll on our country," he said. "The reality is that the world is moving to low carbon economies with ratings agencies, global investors and our trading partners looking to reduce their emissions.

"This represents a huge opportunity for Australia. No country is better positioned to export clean energy and help support global emissions reductions," Mr Kean said.

"Every State and Territory in the country has committed to the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050."

A spokesman for federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor said Australian emissions had been coming down since the Coalition formed government in 2013 and that it was committed to meeting international commitments.

"The Technology Investment Roadmap and our response to the King Review will position Australia to beat that target, and support jobs and productivity growth as we recover from COVID-19," he said.

"Now more than ever, a technology not taxes approach to reducing emissions will be critical as we grow our economy in the years ahead."

Former Aussie PM Tony Abbott's new British trade role called into question as gig exposes European jaunt

Greens called for Abbott to be stripped of his parliamentary pension, worth $300,000 a year 

By Latika Bourke Sydney Daily Herald
August 27, 2020 — 
London: British Labour is stepping up its opposition to the appointment of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott as an adviser to the British Board of Trade and is demanding UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson explain the details of the plum job.
In Australia, Abbott's critics have called on him to be stripped of his $300,000-a-year parliamentary pension while he is working for a foreign government that is negotiating a trade deal with Australia.

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has been hired by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a role in the British Board of Trade.
Abbott, born in Britain, was appointed by British Trade Secretary Liz Truss and the pair had breakfast together in London on Tuesday to confirm his new role.
A spokesman for Abbott said he applied to travel overseas under the rules and was granted approval by the commissioner of the Australian Border Force
Abbott's successor in the federal seat of Warringah, independent MP Zali Steggall, questioned the double standards of Abbott being allowed to travel when families trying to reunite had been barred, as well as his work for a foreign government.
Abbott's travel costs, including the mandatory two weeks of hotel quarantine upon return, would be met privately, his spokesman said. Abbott had not sought an exemption from any of these requirements nor would he, the spokesman said.



Abbott does not intend to make any further comment, he said.
Originally a Remain supporter, Abbott won over arch-Brexiteers after the referendum by advocating that Britain follow the most economically disruptive form of leaving the EU – a so-called no-deal Brexit.
But mystery surrounds the exact nature of Abbott's appointment, which was met at an official level with silence. No statement was issued on Wednesday, London time, by either the British Department for International Trade nor No.10, despite widespread reporting of the appointment.
Abbott's exact title with the Board of Trade is still to be confirmed. Questions about whether the job is paid or not have also gone unanswered by both the British government and Abbott himself, and neither Johnson nor Truss have said anything of the decision to recruit Abbott to their ranks.


Zali Steggall, federal MP for Tony Abbott's old seat of Warringah, has asked why Abbott was allowed a travel exemption to leave the country.
Labour's trade spokeswoman Emily Thornberry told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that she would be demanding answers, amid concerns over the secretive nature of the appointment.
"Boris Johnson needs to explain why he believed Tony Abbott was the right person to appoint to this role, but he also needs to explain the appointment itself," Thornberry said.
"What exactly is the job? Is it paid? Will Abbott be accountable to the British Parliament? Did the appointment process follow Cabinet Office rules? When was the job offer made, and when was it accepted?"
Thornberry also queried what personal meetings were held in the lead-up to the job offer.
"What meetings did Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have with Tony Abbott over the last year, and were they conducted in line with the Ministerial Code?
"The rules around public appointments and ministerial meetings exist precisely to stop the government cutting corners to suit their cronies, or hiding their dealings from public scrutiny.
"That’s why the answers to these questions matter, and we’ll be demanding them loudly in the coming days."
Tony Abbott granted travel exemption to take on UK Brexit job
Arch-Brexiteer and Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg acknowledged the move, saying it was "an excellent appointment".
The report was also welcomed by Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage but strongly criticised by a range of MPs in both Britain and Australia, who questioned Abbott's trade credentials, his opposition to gay marriage and his climate-change denialism.
Steggall said she was surprised to see Abbott's new role, given he had supported both Leave and Remain.
"Like many Australians, I’m surprised at his appointment in light of his previous changing positions on Brexit and his very divisive and combative style.
"I would also question the appropriateness of a former Australian prime minister in a senior trade role now negotiating for the benefit of another nation.
"What would the reaction be if a former prime minister like Kevin Rudd was appointed in a trade advocacy role for China?" she said.
Greens leader Adam Bandt called for Abbott to be stripped of his parliamentary pension, worth $300,000 a year.
"Tony Abbott’s job is now to promote another country, even if it means disadvantaging Australian farmers, producers and exporters," he said.
"The Australian public should not be paying him to advance another country’s interests.
"He should be stripped of his hefty prime ministerial pension," Bandt said.
Former South Australian premier Mike Rann, a former high commissioner to Britain and Italy, questioned whether Abbott, who infamously gave a knighthood to Prince Philip, was after his own title.
"Maybe this could be Tony’s pathway to a knighthood," Rann said, speaking from his home in Puglia, Italy.
"If the story is true, it is an indictment of the UK’s capacity to take back control from unelected foreigners".
Travel ban exemption
This masthead revealed that Abbott had breakfast with Truss in London this week to confirm the role after being granted an exemption by the Australian government from its ban on citizens from leaving the country.
Abbott would not respond to questions about why his travel, which included attending a golf tournament in Wales, warranted an exemption.
He is in Italy and is due in London again next week to give a speech to the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange about the international response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Steggall said Abbott's travel exposed the double standards at play, with many of his former constituents denied the chance to see their loved ones overseas.
"I wonder whether he has had to make numerous applications like many of his former constituents.
"His permitted travel unfortunately only adds to the perception that there is a double standard in who can travel in and out of Australia and will be distressing for those who have repeatedly been turned down for important travel."

If You Think Coronavirus Profiteering Is Bad, Wait Till the Climate Heats Up


From testing for coronavirus to treating the health impacts of climate change, universal healthcare and publicly owned medicine production are critical components for adapting to the coming crisis.
by Josue De Luna Navarro




Rich or poor, Americans already spend more on medicine than any other people in the world. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)


COVID-19 is testing the U.S. public health system. And, unfortunately, things don’t look so good — especially if you’re one of the 87 million underinsured people in this country.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has promised that coronavirus tests would be free. But that doesn’t mean that you can expect a free trip to the hospital. The New York Times recently reported that hospital trips for even a “free” test can cost thousands of dollars — which could be devastating for a family that doesn’t have insurance.

Hospitals aren’t the only winners here — Big Pharma and biotech companies are cashing in, too. Take Novacyt PLC, a French biotech company that developed a test for COVID-19. The day they released the tests to the public, their stock surged more than 30 percent.

But if you think companies profiting off the coronavirus is bad, wait until the climate crisis worsens. Beyond even novel outbreaks like COVID-19, more familiar health threats are set to spread like wildfire.

A sick planet, in short, means a sick public.

Already, hotter temperatures are increasing the rate of heat strokes and heat exhaustion, while expanding the range of diseases like malaria or West Nile virus. Droughts spread food insecurity, wildfires cause respiratory illnesses, and floods expose people to unsanitary conditions.

A sick planet, in short, means a sick public. And, as Naomi Klein and other journalists have reported, corporations have devised a number of ways to profit off our planet’s sickness — from companies patenting “climate-ready” crops to property insurance companies contracting private firefighters for rich clients in the path of wildfires.

One of the biggest beneficiaries, again, is Big Pharma. According to the European Pharmaceutical Review (EPR), the pharmaceutical industry expects to “benefit from a warming planet, as the spread of disease will become more prevalent, revealing opportunities for medicine markets.”




Even before coronavirus was a household name, the EPR estimated that between 385 and 725 million people worldwide will be exposed to infectious diseases as the climate crisis worsens. No wonder they find that “almost 70 percent of biotech, healthcare and pharma companies have climate change integrated into their business strategy.”

According to Morgan Stanley, $50 to $100 billion will be needed to produce vaccines alone in the coming years. Unfortunately, many pharmaceutical giants are investing in reducing access to these medications. Pfizer, J&J, and Merck Co. together spent over $19 billion in 2019 alone on lobbying efforts to keep prescription drug and health care costs high — and thus inaccessible to many vulnerable communities.

Indeed, like everything else in the U.S., the climate crisis doesn’t impact everyone equally. The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, concludes that the poor, people of color, the elderly, and children are most at risk from the health effects of pollution and climate change. And communities of color, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports, are most likely to be uninsured.

Rich or poor, Americans already spend more on medicine than any other people in the world. Numerous studies show that Medicare for All could reduce these costs while expanding coverage. So could investing in a “public option” for prescription drugs.

After all, taxpayers already heavily subsidize pharmaceutical development. One study published last year found that National Institute of Health (NIH) funding — that is, taxpayer money — “was associated directly or indirectly with every drug approved from 2010–2016.” If it’s our own tax money funding this business, why not make medicine production benefit the people who need those medicines the most?

Another recent study by the Democracy Collaborative imagines a publicly owned supply chain to produce needed medications — a “public option” for drugs. Publicly owned drug production, they find, would “combat the increasingly harmful impacts of Big Pharma which decades of regulation have failed to counteract,” from skyrocketing drug prices to the opioid epidemic.

It would also ensure that all communities get the medicine they need as the climate crisis worsens — especially communities disadvantaged by the health care system today. From testing for coronavirus to treating the health impacts of climate change, universal healthcare and publicly owned medicine production are critical components for adapting to the coming crisis.

Josue De Luna Navarro is the New Mexico Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Find him on Twitter at @Josue_DeLuna.

Lightning Siege' Sparks Hundreds of Fires in California as New Flames Overwhelm Resources

"Throughout the state of California right now, we are stretched thin for crews."

by

Andrea Germanos, staff write

A sign warning people about Covid-19 is surrounded by flames during the Hennessey fire near Lake Berryessa in Napa, California on August 18, 2020. The Hennessey fire has merged with at least 7 fires and is now called the LNU Lightning Complex fires. Dozens of fires are burning out of control throughout Northern California as fire resources are spread thin. (Photo: by Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images)

Authorities in California announced Wednesday evacuations for thousands of people as multiple wildfires left firefighters facing "depleted" resources and area residents dealt with rolling blackouts, high heat, poor air quality, and possible loss of homes—all as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to rage.

"This is bad," climate advocacy group Rainforest Action Network said of the situation in the state—which just days ago may have recorded the hottest temperature officially verified.

Those battling the blazes expressed concern about adequate capacity. 

"Throughout the state of California right now, we are stretched thin for crews," state fire spokesperson Will Powers told the Associated Press.  "Air resources have been stretched thin throughout the whole state."

At a press conference Wednesday, Cal Fire spokesperson Jeremy Rahn said, "Over the past 72 hours, California has experienced a historic lightning siege." An estimated 11,000 lightning strikes sparked 367 new wildfires, he said, adding that over 300,000 acres have burned across the state.

The fires include the LNU Lightning Complex, which encompasses multiple fires spanning five northern California counties and has blamed for the loss of at least 50 homes. "Two other lightning-caused fire groups, the SCU Lightning Complex fires and the CZU August Lightning Complex fires, have similarly impacted residents and firefighters across the greater Bay Area," CBS San Francisco reported.  

In California, the current outbreak of wildfires has completely overwhelmed the state's fire protection system.

"firefighting resources are essentially depleted" https://t.co/LjnTsX8lJn

— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) August 19, 2020

"Firefighting resources are depleted as new fires continue to ignite," said Rahn. 

Bay Area dealing with some of the worst air quality in the world. #BAAQMD has some tips:
- Avoid going outside
- Keep windows closed
- If you have AC, put it on circulate
- If it's too hot inside your house, find a cooling center.https://t.co/Z4yrsD1wz3@nbcbayarea #purpleair pic.twitter.com/1JDd5EpBiQ

— Janelle Wang (@janellewang) August 19, 2020

The #GOESWestgeocolor imagery shows smoke over much of central and northern California this morning as a result of the numerous wildfires. #CAwx #CAfire pic.twitter.com/3WcOFwMDTP

— NWS Sacramento (@NWSSacramento) August 19, 2020

Journalists and others on social media have been sharing dramatic images of the fires:

Hairy conditions as the #LNULightningComplex fire burns along both sides of Berryessa Knoxville Road near Lake Berryessa. @GettyImagesNews @CAL_FIRE pic.twitter.com/EVWKsgsump

— Justin Sullivan (@sullyfoto) August 19, 2020

#Timelapse: Sudden explosive development of the #CZUAugustLightningComplex #fire burning tonight in San Mateo & Santa Cruz Counties. @NWSBayArea @CALFIRECZU #CAwx pic.twitter.com/pADZ3B4Trk

— Jeff Boyce (@Negative_Tilt) August 19, 2020

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who on Tuesday declared a statewide emergency, said at a press conference Wednesday, "This fire season has been very active and, not surprisingly, that activity is taking shape in a number of counties up and down the state of California."

Among those who were forced to evacuate their homes was Taylor Craig.

Speaking to the Marin Independent Journal Tuesday from a Walmart parking lot in Santa Cruz County, Craig said, "I'm a climate refugee."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Opposition Urges EU to Follow Suit in Cambodia After Decision to Pursue Sanctions For Belarus

2020-08-19

Opposition supporters protest after polls closed in Belarus' presidential election, in Minsk, Aug. 9, 2020.  AFP

The European Union should sanction officials responsible for human rights abuses in Cambodia, the country’s banned opposition party said Wednesday, citing the bloc’s decision to prepare a list of Belarusian officials to be hit with sanctions following a post-election crackdown on demonstrators.

In a statement, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) expressed “great concern” over developments in Belarus, where President Alexander Lukashenko has violently suppressed protesters and strikers in the capital Minsk who have rejected what they say was a fraudulent Aug. 9 election that resulted in an extension of his 26-year rule.

The recent events had prompted an emergency summit Wednesday in which Charles Michel, the head of the European Council, called the polls in Belarus “neither free nor fair” and promised sanctions “on a substantial number of individuals responsible for violence, repression and election fraud.”

“The events in Belarus remind us of the oppressive methods used by the Cambodian regime, which has captured the state in the hands of limited circle of people close to the dictator Hun Sen through abuse of institutions and sham elections without participation of the opposition,” the CNRP said.

“Both Belarus and Cambodia face orchestrated unconstitutional oppression of the citizens by dictators who identify the state with themselves and want to destroy any notion of free thought.”

The CNRP was dissolved in November 2017 for its role in an alleged plot to topple the government. Along with a broader crackdown on the political opposition, NGOs, and the independent media—the removal of the popular party paved the way for Hun Sen’s ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) to win all 125 seats in parliament in the country’s July 2018 general election.

“Just like in Belarus,” the CNRP noted, authorities in Cambodia have in recent months been arresting those who speak out against Hun Sen’s nearly three decades of rule and driven much of the opposition into self-imposed exile to avoid what they say are politically motivated charges and convictions.

The opposition party pointed to the arrest two weeks ago of outspoken union leader Rong Chhun, who was charged with “incitement to commit a felony or create social unrest” after alleging that the government had allowed Vietnam to encroach on Cambodian territory, as well that of six of his supporters who had joined near-daily protests in the capital Phnom Penh calling for his release.

“The situation in Cambodia, just as the situation in Belarus, requires the immediate attention of the international community,” the statement said.

“Those who oppress the people cannot enjoy the privileges of free communication, travel, cooperation and business with the democratic world. They need to bear the consequences of their actions, being directly and severely sanctioned by the international community.”

The CNRP said it welcomed a decision by the European Council to begin the process of sanctions against those in Belarus deemed responsible for violence, arrests, and fraud in connection with the election, as well as calls from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to bring “additional sanctions against those who violated democratic values or abused human rights” in the country.




European Council President Charles Michel gestures as he addresses a press conference at the end of a European summit in Brussels, Aug. 19, 2020. AFP
EBA withdrawal

On Aug. 12, the EU implemented the withdrawal of duty-free, quota-free access to its market under the “Everything But Arms” (EBA) scheme for some 20 percent of Cambodia’s exports—a decision that was announced in February.

The EU’s move came in response to the Hun Sen government’s failure to reverse rollbacks on democracy and other freedoms required under the trade arrangement—demands the prime minister has said are an encroachment on Cambodia’s sovereignty. Affected exports include goods from Cambodia’s vital garment and footwear industries.

Following the withdrawal, the CNRP last week condemned the government for failing to implement reforms required by the EU to avoid trade sanctions and called on the bloc to sanction Hun Sen and other officials deemed responsible for rights violations in Cambodia through visa restrictions and the freezing of their assets, saying that the tariffs would largely only impact the country’s workers.

However, the recent developments in Belarus and the EU’s decision to pursue sanctions against officials in Lukashenko’s government for similar violations, prompted the opposition party to redouble its efforts Wednesday.

Responding to the CNRP statement, CPP spokesman Sok Ey San told RFA’s Khmer Service that the situation in the two countries is “completely different,” adding that the opposition in Cambodia is “jealous” of development under Hun Sen’s government and will do anything it can to disrupt peace.

“They envy us—when they could not have power, they fled overseas and urged the EU to withdraw the EBA,” he said. “And now they want the EU to punish Cambodia just like Belarus.”

But CNRP Deputy President Mu Sochua told RFA that if Hun Sen does not accede to EU demands, which also include the reinstatement of the opposition, he and his officials will also face sanctions.

“I believe sanctions can include travel to the EU and the freezing of their assets,” she said. “These kinds of sanction won’t affect regular people.”

An investigation by Reuters last October revealed that Hun Sen’s niece Hun Kimleng and her husband, National Police Commissioner Neth Savoeun, were among eight politically connected Cambodians to obtain citizenship in EU member state Cyprus through a controversial scheme that allows anyone willing to invest U.S. $ 2.2 million in the prosperous island nation’s business or real estate sectors to obtain it.




Supporters urge the government to release and drop charges against union leader Rong Chhun at a protest in Phnom Penh, Aug. 3, 2020. Reuters
Use of violence condemned

The CNRP call for EU sanctions came a day after a group of 80 Cambodian civil society groups issued a joint statement condemning the Cambodian authorities’ use of violence against peaceful demonstrators and the recent arrest of more than a dozen activists since the arrest of Rong Chhun.

The groups noted that in addition to six more individuals who have been sent to pre-trial detention after advocating for the union leader’s release, authorities have also beaten and arrested relatives—most of whom are women—of former members of the CNRP who were protesting against their family members’ arrests.

“It is not a crime to call for your family to be released from prison. It is not a crime to speak out against your friends' arrest. It is not a crime to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with people in your community and demand justice,” the statement read.

“All Cambodians have the right to peacefully protest without being shoved, beaten or dragged off by police. We call on the government to immediately release those arrested, drop charges against them and fully respect the Cambodian people's rights to free expression and assembly.”

Responding to the statement on Wednesday, Ministry of Justice spokesman Chhin Malin called on the Ministry of Interior to investigate whether the civil society groups had violated rules of impartiality as defined by the controversial Law on Association and Nongovernmental Organizations (LANGO).

Chhin Malin said that some of the group who signed Tuesday’s statement are “inactive” and sought to criticize the government “without foundation.” He added that the Cambodia’s courts are “independent” and would not yield to pressure from civil society.

“The government has implemented the law in general without targeting any specific group—if someone acts in breach of the law, they will be punished,” he said.

“The statement from the civil society groups is not the legal way to protect a defendant in a democratic society. If they want to help the defendants, they can only do so through due process.”

Koul Panha, the former executive director of and currently an advisor to local electoral watchdog Comfrel, questioned Chhin Malin’s right to make such a statement on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

“This institution was not established to defend the authorities’ actions; it is supposed to uphold justice and human rights,” he told RFA.

“Our rule of law is very weak. The people can’t rely on the government and the government doesn’t understand its own role. The people are weak and powerless, and they don’t know who to ask for help.”

Reported by RFA’s Khmer Service. Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

Morneau’s office, Kielburgers described as ‘besties’ in newly released documents

PAUL WALDIE
PUBLISHED AUGUST 19, 2020

Co-founders of WE Charity Craig, left, and Marc Kielburger, right, arrive for WE Day California at the Forum in Inglewood, Calif., on April 25, 2019.
ROBYN BECK/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Former finance minister Bill Morneau’s office was so close to the co-founders of WE Charity that his department referred to them as “besties” and Mr. Morneau pushed hard to ensure the charity administered the government’s $543.5-million volunteer program, newly released documents reveal.

The documents include 5,000 pages of internal memos, e-mails and handwritten notes made by officials as they scrambled to put together the Canada Student Service Grant in April and May. The program was supposed to pay students up to $5,000 for volunteer work over the summer. The government expected as many as 100,000 students to participate and WE Charity was in line to receive up to $43.5-million to cover expenses for administering the program. The charity pulled out on July 3, weeks after the program was announced, amid a growing controversy over WE’s close ties to Mr. Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Open this photo in gallery

Michelle Kovacevic, an associate deputy minister at finance, added in another email to officials that 'WE is connecting with my [minister]. They are all besties.'

HANDOUT

The documents portray the chummy relationship between WE co-founders – Craig and Marc Kielburger – and government ministers and bureaucrats. E-mails from Craig Kielburger to Mr. Morneau begin with “Hi Bill” and in one, Mr. Kielburger thanks the minister for a phone call about the volunteer program. “It was incredibly thoughtful of you to call,” Mr. Kielburger wrote Mr. Morneau on April 26. Youth Minister Bardish Chagger also had high praise for Mr. Kielburger and added in a memo on April 20: “I believe there is a lot of complementarity in our efforts.”

In another e-mail, Michelle Kovacevic, an assistant deputy minister at Finance, thanked departmental colleagues for “keeping the relationship with WE strong. I think this is the right organisation for a call to action for national service. They are pretty snazzy. Like me.” She added in another e-mail to officials that “WE is connecting with my [minister]. They are all besties.”
Open this photo in gallery


In another email, Michelle Kovacevic thanked departmental colleagues for 'keeping the relationship with WE strong.'

HANDOUT

Rachel Wernick, a senior assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development Canada, which developed the volunteer program, held so many weekend phone calls with Craig Kielburger that he told her in an e-mail, “I embrace our Sunday phone calls.” In return, Ms. Wernick thanked Mr. Kielburger for his “thoughtful engagement.” In an e-mail to Marc Kielburger, she joked about him being late for a meeting because of a speaking engagement. “No rush if your speech runs a bit late (or you want to keep listening to all the applause),” she wrote.


Prime Minister Trudeau and WE Charity: The controversy explained

How WE got here: A timeline of the charity, the contract and the controversy

Mr. Morneau, who resigned as finance minister this week, and Mr. Trudeau have apologized for not recusing themselves from a cabinet meeting on May 22 when the program was approved. It was announced on June 25. Mr. Morneau later revealed that he and his family had taken trips with WE to Kenya and Ecuador. He also confirmed that his two daughters had ties to WE. Last month, Mr. Morneau paid WE $41,000 to cover the cost of the trips. Mr. Trudeau’s family also has close ties to WE and his mother, Margaret Trudeau, received $312,000 for speaking at 28 WE events.

The documents were released by the House of Commons finance committee, which is investigating the volunteer program and the WE contract. However, on Tuesday Mr. Trudeau prorogued Parliament until Sept. 23, which will suspend the committee’s work.
Open this photo in gallery


Rachel Wernick, a senior assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development Canada, which developed the volunteer program, held many weekend phone calls with Craig Kielburger.

HANDOUT

The documents reveal that in early April, Craig Kielburger approached Mr. Morneau as well as Small Business Minister Mary Ng and Ms. Chagger about a $12-million Social Entrepreneurship Initiative that WE would run to encourage up to 8,000 young people to become engaged in voluntarism. Mr. Kielburger said the charity would leverage its network of corporate sponsors, including Royal Bank of Canada, Telus, KPMG and Microsoft, to provide mentorships. Participants would also take a course and receive a $500 grant to help set up a social enterprise along with a letter from Mr. Trudeau.

Officials contacted WE in late April to rework the idea so that it would fit into the national volunteer program the government was drafting at the time. On April 21, Mr. Morneau earmarked $900-million toward the volunteer program and approved WE’s social entrepreneurship venture. A few days later, his staff pressed officials at Employment and Social Development to pull the volunteer program together. Amitpal Singh, a policy adviser in the Department of Finance, said in an e-mail that Mr. Morneau was “concerned the government will drop the ball” on the idea.
Open this photo in gallery


The documents portray the chummy relationship between WE co-founders – Craig and Marc Kielburger – and government ministers and bureaucrats.

HANDOUT

The social enterprise venture was eventually dropped, but WE’s role in the volunteer program intensified despite indications the charity had run into financial issues. In an e-mail on May 23, WE’s executive director Dalal Al Waheidi told Ms. Wernick that the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly affected the charity and that it had to suspend its travel service, which operates tours to countries such as Kenya and India, and halt its annual WE Day events for 18 months. As a result, she said the charity had to “significantly reduce our staffing numbers.” Ms. Al Waheidi did not say how many jobs were cut and she insisted that WE would still be able to deliver the volunteer program. The documents don’t include any follow-up from Ms. Wernick or any indication that bureaucrats examined WE’s operations more closely.




During testimony to the finance committee last month, WE Charity’s former chair, Michelle Douglas, indicated that the organization was embroiled in turmoil in late March. Ms. Douglas said she was asked to resign on March 25 by Craig Kielburger after she raised concerns about more than 200 layoffs and expressed discomfort at the lack of financial transparency. Several other directors were replaced in April. Craig Kielburger has said the board was fully informed of the financial situation and that changes to the board had been planned.
Open this photo in gallery


In an email to Marc Kielburger Wernick joked about him being late for a meeting because of a speaking engagement.

HANDOUT

Officials also raised few questions about the WE Charity Foundation, which WE initially set up in 2019 to hold the organization's real estate assets. No assets were put into the foundation and it had no operations. It was repurposed for the volunteer program and the government contract to run the Student Service Grant was with the WE Charity Foundation, not WE Charity.

Sofia Marquez, who handled government relations at WE, told officials in an e-mail on May 26 that the foundation had been created to “receive, hold and disburse funds to other registered charities in the WE family for greater accounting ease and administrative simplicity.” The documents don’t indicate that there was any follow-up by government officials about why the contract was with the WE Charity Foundation.

Craig Kielburger told the finance committee last month that the foundation was used for the volunteer program to shield the charity from legal liability. Ms. Douglas told the committee that the board had “a number of concerns” about the foundation and did not understand its purpose.
Open this photo in gallery


What appears to be messages between officials after the program is cancelled. Wernick starts to worry about her conduct.

HANDOUT

WE Charity did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The documents show that some concerns were raised about the volunteer program. The charity Volunteer Canada refused to participate because it was “uncomfortable with the notion of providing a grant for volunteer work.” Some government officials also objected to one of WE’s volunteer proposals, which involved students writing and collecting recipes that were “easy to make” for seniors and front-line health care workers. The idea drew a rebuke from Ms. Wernick, who said in an e-mail to colleagues that it was “going to become the poster child of not being ‘quality’ – I have to say it doesn’t communicate well.”

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story said documents revealed that Bill Morneau was so close to the co-founders of WE Charity that they were referred to as "besties." In fact, the documents refer to his office, not Mr. Morneau himself.

OPINION
The body cam video of Masai Ujiri’s (PRESIDENT OF THE RAPTORS) NBA Finals encounter with a cop will only further erode public trust in police

CATHAL KELLY
PUBLISHED AUGUST 19, 2020
O
Toronto Raptors president Masai Ujiri, centre left, walks with guard Kyle Lowry following an altercation after the Raptors defeated the Golden State Warriors in Game 6 to win the NBA Finals, in Oakland, Calif., on June 13, 2019.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Shortly after the story broke that Toronto Raptors president Masai Ujiri had been in a courtside altercation with a cop after the end of the NBA Finals, a spokesperson for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office explained what happened.

In that telling, Ujiri was the aggressor. He’d been asked to display his credential and would not.

“And that’s when he tried to push past our deputy, and our deputy pushed him back, and there was another push that kind of moved up and struck our deputy in the face,” Sergeant Ray Kelly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

It’s not that none of that is true. It’s that it bears just enough resemblance to the truth that you can hide a bunch of nonsense behind it.

At the time Kelly was speaking, he said he’d already seen video of the incident.


A few days later, he doubled down: “I’ve watched the video. The video is very compelling and descriptive and shows that our deputy was acting in accordance with his training and within the guidelines to work that event.”

More than a year later, the rest of us have now seen that footage. And it shows how much dirt you can hide behind phrases like “acting in accordance” and “within the guidelines.”

The officer who had the set-to with Ujiri, deputy Alan Strickland, has been off work since then, claiming a variety of injuries. He’s in the midst of suing Ujiri.

On Tuesday, Ujiri launched a countersuit. As part of that filing, the footage Kelly used as reference was released publicly. It hit the internet like the wave that flattens Manhattan at the end of Deep Impact.

In it you can see (and, in one case, hear) Ujiri approach Strickland, who is manning the perimeter of the court moments after the Raptors won the championship. A man who appears to be an arena security staffer is also standing there

As he nears Strickland, Ujiri is in the midst of taking his NBA credential out of his inside jacket pocket. The security staffer is the one who asks to see it. Before Ujiri can get it out, Strickland shoves him, two-handed, hard enough that he staggers backward. The shove is so ambitious that Ujiri almost takes down the staffer, bowling-pin style.

“Back the fuck up,” Strickland shouts. Ujiri stands there stunned for an instant.

“What are you pushing me for? I’m the president of the Raptors,” Ujiri says. With his hands at his side, he advances again.

Strickland shoves him once more, just as hard. Ujiri is a big guy and less caught by surprise the second time. He opens his arms in the universal gesture for “Are you for real, man?” 

At this point, bystanders jump in, one shouting, “Please, please, please.” The longer-range security footage then shows Ujiri shove Strickland in the chest. The shove does not “kind of move up” or strike anyone in the face. It’s just a shove. This time, Strickland is staggered.

By this point, several people are involved, and the fight is broken up. This is where the TV footage from that night picked up. After a few beats, Raptor Kyle Lowry finds Ujiri, wraps a protective arm around him and escorts him onto the court.

So after a year of flights to Oakland to parlay with cops and prosecutors, back-and-forth lawsuits, getting knee-deep in lawyers’ fees and aggravation, Ujiri is vindicated – at least in the public square.

Some will still say he should not have tried to walk past a cop who wanted him to stop. To which I would say: When did people stop using their words to solve problems?

Other people may say it is never right, under any circumstances, to manhandle a police officer. To which I would say: If “law,” as a concept, means that anyone in uniform can put their hands on me, with or without cause, and that I cannot do similarly to protect myself, then they ought to put the word “martial” in front of it.

You don’t want people shoving you? Then don’t shove people. Like most good rules for life, we all learned that in kindergarten.

In a lot of ways, this incident went well in its aftermath.


There was no rush to pillory Ujiri on the say-so of some random guy with a beef. Strickland’s story – that in Ujiri’s moment of joy at reaching the pinnacle of his professional life he decided to celebrate by attacking the first person he encountered – never passed the sniff test. Common sense still rules in most corners of real life, if not on the internet.

Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment backed Ujiri immediately and resolutely, as did the NBA. As is his habit in all things, Ujiri played the incident super-cool.

So one way of looking at this is that good intentions won the day (a year later).

The loser in this, as far as I can see, is public trust as it applies to cops. Not just the cops in Alameda County (based on this chain of events, if I lived there and saw one coming, I’d run), but cops everywhere.

Strickland may be the prime mover in this, but he is not the worst offender. The Sergeant Ray Kellys of the world, the ones who saw what happened and then backed Strickland’s play, what’s their angle here?

Did they not think the video would get out? Do they honestly believe that it is within their rights to manhandle the citizens they are sworn to protect just because they’re feeling frisky? Is it their understanding that, by law and “acting in accordance” with “guidelines,” nothing they do can ever be wrong? And that those protections then extend to (this is being charitable) massaging the truth after the fact?


I assume most police officers do not think this way, because I’d like to believe we live in a civil society and – this part is more important to me – that most people don’t like hurting other people just because they can.

But after listening to what was claimed and then watching those videos, it’s clear I may be wrong.