Marx on Bigamy

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): I'm sick of these conventional marriages. One woman and one man was good enough for your grandmother, but who wants to marry your grandmother? Nobody, not even your grandfather.

[to Mrs. Rittenhouse and Mrs. Whitehead]

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): You know, you two girls have everything. You're tall and short and slim and stout and blonde and brunette. And that's just the kind of a girl I crave.

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): Why, you've got beauty, charm, money! You have got money, haven't you? Because if you haven't, we can quit right now.

Mrs. Rittenhouse (Margaret Dumont): I'm fascinated.

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): I'm fascinated, too. Right on the arm.

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): [to Mrs. Rittenhouse and Mrs. Whitehead] Let's get married.

Mrs. Whitehead: All of us?

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): All of us.

Mrs. Whitehead: Why, that's bigamy.

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): Yes, and it's big of me too.

Animal Crackers 1930

Well as I predicted the Blogging Tory's have blown up over the Supreme Court Ruling that Swinger Sex is Ok cause we're Canadian.

And as I predicted this decision has seperated the libertarians from the Family Values (patriarchical monothiests) coalition of the right.

And of course just as they did in opposing Same Sex Marriage the FV crew raise the spector of bigamy, polygamy, and incest. The latter is just plain stupid, but well what do you expect from folks who will grasp at anything outrageous to say to obscure the point. It's called fearmongering.

As to bigamy, see Marx above. Polygamy is refered to in the old testament, and as practiced by Mormons, and some Muslims, is an extension of patriarchical monogamy into plural monogamous realtionships.

What the right whingers really are refering to is neither, it is rather the concept of the open marriage or the idea of a communal love realtionship; polyamoury. Well swinger sex has had that connotation ever since the sixties when Robert Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land.

It’s hard to gauge just how profound an effect Stranger in a Strange Land has had on Western society (it’s still early yet). It came out in 1961, and was swiftly embraced by the emerging counterculture, so becoming a best seller. The word “grok” entered into the youth’s vernacular (however briefly), and doubtless many aspiring humans-who-would-be-Martians begun to greet one another with the knowing catch phrases, “Thou art God,” “Share water, “ “Never thirst,” and so forth. It’s easy to see why. Stranger in a Strange Land is the most fully convincing Utopian vision, in literature or in any medium, that I know of. It encapsulates the more progressive and creative aspects of cultural “revolution,” and celebrates what were soon to become (again, however briefly) the most treasured tenets of the Sixties rebellion: mind expansion, individual responsibility, and free love.

In 1962 Robert Rimmer published his polyamourous novel The Harrard Experiment.

Intertwined, too, were new ways of social and sexual relating, as written about in Robert Rimmer's "The Harrad Experiment." And here grew the seeds that gave birth to the modern womens movement, the gay movement and new male/female consciousness. Summer of Love

Twenty years later, in 1981, Gay Talese published his now famous journal of his journey through America's sexual underground; Thy Neighbor's Wife which covered the swingers movement, wife swapping, and the then embryonic polyamourous movement.

Talese's book begins with the creation of Playboy magazine and the begining of the sexual revolution ten years later in the sixties. He then documents the movements of heterosexual experimentation with new sexual and human relationships.

What is important to remember is that even with the advent of Playboy magazine, which had as one of its editors libertarian sci-fi author Robert Anton Wilson, that through out the sixties the battle for free speech was also the battle for sexual speech.

Someone once asked me about "1960s porn films." There wasn't actually such a thing, strictly speaking, in North America until the late-1960s. Sexual speech can generally be considered to have been criminalized until then. John Harris Stevenson,
NOTES on the HISTORY of PORNOGRAPHY

In America you can say anything you want - as long as it doesn't have any effect.
Paul Goodman

The sexual revolution was further promoted by the increased knowledge of sexuality promoted by the publication of the Kinsey report, the advent of birth control and a broader acceptance of contraception, the idea that sex was for pleasure not just procreation.

These ideas were not new, they had existed since the 19th century particularly in the socialist and anarchist movements. Anarchists then were attacked for believing and supporting Free Love which in the sixties would be known as open marriage.

With the summer of love 1967, and the hippie movement came the public exposure of the sexual revolution, which coincided with the rise of Alternative religions, paganism in particular, and with the idea of communes, communalism, the rise of the New Left and the embryonic revival of feminism

Oh that libertarian Heinlein little did he know what he unleashed on the world with that ground breaking novel. Actually he did, he often portrayed open, free love relationships in many of his novels.

"I've had people offer to explain Stranger in a Strange Land to me. I was simply writing a novel, but apparently I clicked. (April 1980).

One of the adovcates of pagan polyamourism was the Church of All Worlds influenced as they were by Stranger in a Strange Land.

If any work of fiction will earn Robert Heinlein a permanent place on the collective bookshelf, it is going to be Stranger in a Strange Land, for the impact it has made on American society. If a person has not managed to read Stranger by now, then he has at least absorbed a bit of it osmotically, for it flows throughout our cultural consciousness. Perhaps least of all, it anticipated Nancy Reagan's reliance on astrology and spawned the water bed and the neologism "grok," (Heinlein's Martian verb for a thorough understanding), though "grok" would never have taken hold, had the young rebels of the 1960s not discovered Stranger as their counterculture bible. Some went even further and formed "nests" and churches based on what they found in Stranger; perhaps the most famous instance of that is the Church of All Worlds, a pagan group who lifted its name and logo intact from the book. Stranger has also begun to be included in many canonical college reading lists, and Billy Joel saw fit to mention the title in his 1989 Top-40 hit about history, "We Didn't Start the Fire."

The womens movement and the gay movements that resulted from the sexual revolution of the sixties have now broadened into movements around open flexible personal relationships and a growing bisexual movement that sees gender roles as socially constructed.

In many ways these the feminist sex positive movements developed out of the work of Betty Dodson, following in the footsteps of Wilhelm Reich and anarchist psychotherapists like Paul Goodman and the Gestalt. movement.

A search for the ultimate motives of human conduct cannot
disregard pleasure which many eminent minds have considered to be the
fundamental motive, or at least an important one. Others, to be sure,
have held that pleasures is the outcome rather than the motive or goal of
human striving. But both sides are agreed that there is some relationship
between pleasure and striving.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that many human strivings bear
some kind of reference to pleasure, and likewise that many pleasures
bear some reference to striving. These references are both certain
enough to exist, and obscure enough as to their nature, to present a
genuine and inescapable problem.

Since the days of Aristippus, thinkers have wrangled over the issue of
hedonism. The longevity of the problem bears witness to its importance
as well as to its elusiveness. Like many another time-honored
philosophical problem, the question of pleasure and striving seems to
have been caught in a dilemma neither side of which is truly satis factory.
We shall have to recast the problem. We recognize its existence, but
refuse to strangle it with ill-suited concepts. We propose first to learn
the facts themselves by conducting a comprehensive phenomenological
analysis of the statics and dynamics of pleasure.

While those who believe that we strive for pleasure go under a definite
label, „hedonism,“ the other side which regards pleasure as a byproduct
of successful striving has no distinctive name. „Anti-hedonism“
would be too broad a designation. One may challenge hedonism without,
for that reason, pledging oneself to accept the reverse relationship
between pleasure and striving. Many explanations of pleasure
have been proposed that would be compatible with an anti-hedonistic
position, and yet do not trace pleasure to successful striving.
Metaphysical theories such as Spinoza’s derivation of pleasure from a
transition to greater perfection, physiological theories like those of
Lehmann or Freud - in terms of neural metabolism or „excitation,“
psychological theories tracing pleasure to some sort of harmony
(Herbart, Lipps), value-theories like Scheler’s in which pleasure is
regarded as a „sign“ of felt value, and, last but not least, those many
biological theories ascribing pleasantness to what is beneficial to the
organism - these and similar views do not hold the second alternative:
that pleasure is a by-product of successful striving. Yet they are
perfectly compatible with an anti-hedonistic position. Therefore, since
anti-hedonism is not a precise name for the second alternative, I propose
to call it hormism, following the lead of the latest of its greater
representatives, W. McDougall.1 Hormism, then, is the theory that
pleasure occurs when a conation, i.e., some striving for an object or
goal, is being successful, while displeasure occurs when a conation is
being frustrated.

2. Like the majority of the great rivers of thought, both hedonism and
hormism have springs in the gigantic mountain range of Aristotle’s
philosophy. One spring of hedonism is the book De Anima: „Desire is
the craving for the pleasant“; while those of hormism are in the
Nichomachean Ethics: “Pleasure is the consummation of activity.“

On Pleasure, Emotion, and Striving by Karl Duncker 1941

Anarchist attitudes towards free love, and the positive liberating experience of the sexual revolution were docmented in the seventies by Dr. Alex Comfort in his book; The Joy of Sex.

And this is the crux of the libertarian conflict with those who would impose their morality of false virtue on the rest of us. Their virtous morality denies pleasure, pleasure is to be delayed, all is pain and sin, pleasure is for the hereafter, as Joe Hill wrote 'pie in the sky when you die'. It is the protestant work ethic the core of modern capitalism, that seperates work and play, pleasure and stimulation, into wage slavery for the paycheque.

For anarchists we believe that love should be the condition of companionship, and that love is free, not subject to state or church recognition. In fact it is the recognition of common law, or custom versus legal sanction. This is known as Free Love.

Free Love was the harbinger of feminism in the 19th and early 20th Century, its advocates were feminist socialists like Victoria Woodhull, Stella Browne, Emma Goldman, and Alexandra Kollanti.

It was the bane of church and middle class morality of its day. Today with the liberalization of social relations, the acceptance of no fault divorce and common law relations and even birth control, we forget that these were the social outrages of a mere 40 years ago, and the social improprieties and moral turpitude of the past century. The social outrage of editorialists, church leaders and politicians, was heaped on the advocates of Free Love. Today it is this same outrage that vents against Gay Marriage.

The Sanctity of Marriage Debate

And we can now add to that those in such a moral huff over the Supreme Court ruling that legalizes group sex, and recreational sex, which will end uncalled for police vice raids on gay Bathouses as well as on straight swingers clubs.

For those who talk about freedom and choice it is ironic that they demand the State impose their moral values on the rest of us. This debate seperates the libertarian wheat from the reactionary conservative chaff.

The monothiest monogamists who value the property relations of marriage are right to be afraid. Their social relation is reliant on private property, and the owning of people as property (women and children). It is a fragile myth that denies the indivdual members their freedom.This is not a free relationship between free individuals. It is a socially constructed role, where individuals are enslaved to their gender, not to their ability or talents. It is a relationship of oppression.

The reactionaries have tried to bury the sexual revolution by linking it to violence against women (pornography), child sexual abuse (accusing gay men of being pederasts, or 'recruiters'), aids, sexually transmitted diseases, divorce, blah, blah, blah. The sexual revolution continues, it went back underground but there are liberating relationships that challenge the old family values of the bourgoise and their religious apologists. The Supreme Court decision allowed for an individuals right to choose their sexual partners and to practice recreational sex. Something Canadians would not have been able to do without the Charter of Rights.

One day polyamoury will have its day in court. For like its predecesor, primitive communist familal relations, polyamoury reflects in the present what maybe a future form of communistic love and sharing.

"Love, work and knowledge are the well-springs of our life. They should also govern it."

- Wilhelm Reich

Also see:

Whose Family Values?



Tags
gay
Supreme Court
women
feminism
socialism
Swingers
sex
free love
bigamy
polyamoury
Canada
Robert Rimmer
Heinlein
pagan
libertarian
anarchism
playboy
sexuality
marriage

A Hunting We Will Go

Well I posted my story on the crisis of the Caribou in Alberta, and I tagged it with technocrati.

When I checked for stories about Alberta I found this really offensive blog that appeared this week. It is an anonymous blog promoting Big Game Hunting in Alberta.

Now let's understand something about hunting, if you kill it and eat it, fine. If you use the skin and fur fine. But if all you want is a trophy, well that's where I draw the line. And yes I have my FAC and I have my Hunter Training certification, and I have my principles.

I also draw the line when it comes to hunting species whose only natural enemy is man, and who are limited in their numbers, whether the government decides they are endangered or not. These are not trophies (which is all Big Game hunting is about) they are sentient species and I oppose the hunting of these animals. Which includes cougars, wolves, black bears, and of course the Grizzly which is endangered.

Unfortunately everything in this blog is perfectly legal in Alberta. The influence of the Fish and Game Association over the governments wilderness regulations is only matched by the oil and logging industry. Wilderness and wildlife are 'fair game' (pardon the pun) in Alberta. Which is why we have a Grizzly hunt here annually.

Cougars, like the Grizzly, are rare and the hunt is regulated, thanks to FGA. Why you would hunt this magnificent cat is beyond me, but of course its all about the manly man macho of coming home with a trophy. And why it is fair game to kill wolves any time in Alberta is right up there with the Grizzly and cougar hunts as the stupidest policy this government has when it comes to Wildlife Management and Sustainable Resources. Now there's an Orwellianism for ya.

I suspect that since this blog is being promoted by an outfitter out to make some bucks off American hunters. This is really disgusting so I thought I would share my disgust with you by posting some of the descriptions from this blog.

Try Cougar Hunting In Alberta

The cougar, also known as mountain lion, puma, or panther, is North America’s largest member of the cat family. This alert, secretive animal is rarely seen which makes cougar hunting a real challenge. Cougar hunting is a rugged adventures and a unique hunting experience. Growing up to 10 feet long and weighing in at close to 200 pounds gives the hunter an opportunity to harvest a real trophy.

The cougar lives in ragged, forested areas, canyons and dense swamps at altitudes as high as 13,000 feet. In Alberta, a hunter will usually find cougars primarily in southern mountains and foothills, but occasionally they may be seen in other areas. Cougar hunting is regulated in Alberta. This is an effort to preserve these cats for the future population.

Cougar hunting begins the first of December and continues through the end of February. Cougar seasons are quota seasons that close early for resident hunters if the quota is reached in any given zone. The population has been very well managed which allows for better cougar hunting opportunities.

The best way to cougar hunt is to use hounds. The hounds will follow the cougar track and with alot of hard work and a little luck you will find a treed mountain lion at the end of the trail. The dogs will corner them up trees and hold the cat there. This gives the hunter an opportunity to get a good look at the animal and decide whether or not to let it go. This method gives the hunter an excellent chance of taking home a trophy cougar.

Wolf & Coyote Hunts In Alberta

Wolf Hunting in Alberta
If you are up to a challenge wolf hunting is for you.Many outfitters will add a wolf hunt to their big game hunts and will offer winter wolf hunting trips, when the pelts are at their best, and no other hunting seasons are open. Wolves may be hunted by the holder of a wolf license from the opening of any big game season until the end of the spring bear season. A great method for wolf hunting is using heated blinds over bait, stalking and calling. Baiting wolves is legal and effective and there is no limit on wolves.

In Alberta, wolves are found in mountain, foothill and boreal regions and cover approximately 60 percent of the provincial land area. Wolves are not considered rare or endangered in the province. Natural Resources Service estimates the provincial population (in Sept.) to be about 4,000 animals. This estimate is based on population counts in selected areas, and trapper and hunter harvest information. Go to Wolves in Alberta for an overview of the biology, history and management of this animal in the province.

Black Bear Hunts In Alberta Are Amazing

Once you’ve been black bear hunting in Alberta you won’t want to hunt anywhere else. Approximately 74% of the province is inhabited by black bear and much of it is largely undisturbed, the color phases range from dark chocolate brown to blond, many bear harvested in Alberta have made the Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young record books. If this isn’t enough to convince you, then the 2 bear limit in most areas should! Where else can you have the opportunity to harvest two black bears in one hunt! Contact the outfitters directly to book your black bear hunting trip in Alberta

Spring and Fall black bear hunting provides the hunter with a variety of opportunities. Your hunt will be productive and you will have a great chance of getting trophy black bears. Many outfitters will add other hunts to your fall black bear hunts including moose, whitetail deer, mule deer and elk.

The average male black bear will weigh anywhere from 250-450 pounds and are between 5 - 5 1/2 feet from nose to tail. Many outfitters have harvested black bear above the average ranging from 6 - 8 feet nose to tail and up to 600 pounds. Alberta is estimated to have over 36,000 black bear!.

Baiting black bear is allowed in most areas as is spot and stalk and either method will be productive. Hunting black bear over bait will give the hunter the opportunity to get close enough to see the quality of the hide, this is perfect for the archery or muzzeloader hunter. Spot and stalk hunting can be very productive as well. It’s almost a certainty you will get a shot at a trophy black bear no matter what method you use.

Tag
Alberta
Canada
wilderness
Big Game Hunting
Grizzly
wolves
endangered species
environment
cougar
hunting

Anarchist Communist Orgainizing in the Workplace

I am in the process of writing a paper on Anarchism and Working Class Struggle based on discussions that have occured on the NEFAC (North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists) list serve. They have now published their position paper on orgainizing in unions and the role of NEFAC in working class struggles. Read on!

NEFAC Workplace Position Paper

Adopted at the eleventh federation congress,
November 5-6, 2005, Sherbrooke, Quebec

The struggle toward libertarian communism must be brought about by the whole of the working class, the workplace and labor unions are an essential point of agitation and struggle. Anarchist-communists must organize within the ranks of labor unions, active in this struggle as both advocates of social revolution and as fellow workers in a collective battle against exploitation.

Class struggle is by no means confined to workplace. Class conflict occurs everyday in neighborhood-based battles for decent housing, the fight for welfare, the battles for access to quality education, the struggle against prisons and police brutality, in the arena of popular culture, and especially against racism, sexism, and other oppressions that stratify and divide the working class. However, as anarchist-communists, we have a particular strategic interest in workplace struggles due to the ability to directly challenge the material interests of the capitalist class

Independent rank-and-file tendencies within existing unions, coupled with workplace resistance groups, solidarity networks, and, eventually, workplace assemblies and coordinating councils, provide a glimpse at the kind of self-managed workers movement needed to not only effectively challenge the employers, but also develop the unity and revolutionary class consciousness needed to overthrow the capitalist social order.

Tags
labour
libertarianism
anarchism
economics
socialism

Libertarian Labour

Here are some interesting debates in the Libertarian community around labour, not always an issue that gets such attention, more like it too often gets short shrift by the right wing in the community. And I am being generous at that. Libertarians, particularly American ones, often are followers of the economic mystics of the Austrian School of economics, which denies the Labour Theory of Value, and is focused on distributive economics (much like Social Credit). So they focus more on cost of production and cost of exchange, and the fact that the modern State acts as a regulator of the market. Now some of them are Wobblies, like myself , and they are free marketeers, (NOT privateers which is what the Republicans and the Harper/Klein Conservatives or Campbell/Charest Liberals are) and some are mutualists of the Prodhounian school of cooperatives and credit unions. And some of us are socialists/communists, who believe in worker and community control of society, decentralization and the 'free association of producers' in a federalist model of self government. And this is not much different from those Libertarians that believe in a Voluntarist organization of society. We all believe that governance is a matter of the 'administration of things' not governance over people.

And we define ourselves in the Libertarian community, as being Left Libertarians.

As opposed to Right Wing Libertarians who often call themselves Anarchist Capitalists,l ike Bryan Caplan, but whose ideology is closer to classical fascism, another form of distributive economics, in that they replace the state with the corporation as their model of political economy.

Ok everyone really confused now?! Anyways welcome to our little corner of the universe. I have already written what I believe is a libertarian socialist perspective on the labour movement here and here . So I will throw those into the fray, as well as my populist manifesto for a Peoples Program for Alberta.

A tip o the blog to Freeman for drawing my attention to these articles.


Tags
labour
libertarianism
anarchism
economics
socialism

Liberals Close Day Care

Ok here is a program in Calgary, a successful kindergarten and day care program open to all run by Aboriginals and Metis. And in the middle of the election where Day Care is a major issue the Liberal Government closes the program with no explanation. Just quits funding it. Right before Christmas. Leaving the parents in a lurch.

Here is another reason NOT to trust the Liberal Day Care program.

This wasn't a case of the Alberta Government closing the program, nope this wasn't a case of parents not using the program, nope, it was a case of the Liberal Government closing the day care.

Now mind you I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that this smacks of racism since this was an aboriginal/metis run day care. Yep the Liberals got a lot of explaining to do over this one.

Parents protest closure of children's programs
The group is upset at the closure of two programs that provide day care and kindergarten programs for aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. They say the federal government has cut the funding for the Medicine Wheel Early Learning Centre and the Ke Mama Nnanik parent program for the coming year. The school focuses on preserving traditional aboriginal and Métis culture and language while providing 50 preschool and kindergarten spaces. Michelle Thrush has one child that has gone through the program and another that is currently enrolled. She says the program has helped more than 400 aboriginal families. A spokesperson for Health Canada says the programs are being cut because concerns were raised about the way they were being run. But Lori Anne Houle, the director of the Medicine Wheel and Ke Mama Nnanik programs says they have been run properly for years and have the audits and internal reviews to prove it.

Tags
feminism
Alberta
Canada
Federal Election 2006
Liberal Party
day care
aboriginal

Alberta Sacrifices Wildlife for Profit

Anywhere else this would be an outrage, in Alberta its a dog bites man kinda story.

Let us count the species going extinct as we expand logging, mining and oil extraction into their wilderness. Grizzly, Black Bears, Wolves and now caribou. Oh yes and while the Environmentalists properly blame the government for allowing this the government blames, wait for it, the wolves........

Here is another example of the failure of provincialism, the idea that only the provincial government can manage the 'resources' of the province which include the wilderness and its creatures. When they fail in their duty to protect that 'resource' then it is time for it to be taken away from them. Simple really.

But who in Ottawa has the balls to fight Alberta...hmmmm....sure they will fight in the streets, and bistros and villages of Quebec but who will put up the dukes in Alberta to save Canada's wilderness and its endagered species?

Fighting for herds under threat in Alberta

Eight major conservation groups filed the petition to Environment Minister Stéphane Dion yesterday. It demands that Ottawa stop the precipitous slide in caribou numbers in the province, where largely unrestricted logging and oil exploration have cut the population to 3,000 or fewer from as many as 9,000 during the 1960s.

Without protection, caribou are likely to be wiped out in many areas in less than 40 years, a trend described by scientists as "slow motion" extinction.

The groups are asking for federal intervention because they have lost confidence that Alberta will take any steps to protect the caribou if those actions inconvenience the resource industry. They say the province has indicated its approach by approving new logging in areas in the central part of Alberta inhabited by the most threatened caribou herds, as well as in most areas of the north that the animals use.

Dave Ealey, a spokesman for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, defended the province, saying it is shooting wolves to prevent them from killing caribou for food. Some scientists say that would be unnecessary if habitat was preserved.

Alberta is also using donations from energy companies to buy items such as caribou-crossing signs to reduce highway road kill.

The province has classified the species as endangered and ended hunting in 1980. The population hasn't recovered because habitat destruction, rather than killing by sportsmen, is the major threat.

But Mr. Ealey said the Alberta government is loath to conserve land for animals because it would harm living standards.

And that is the real crux of the matter and also the most despicable excuse. Never truer words were spoken the " Alberta government is loath"some.

Even as the last of the caribou under the Klein dynasty will be sacrificed for the greed of big oil. Soon they will only be found on the 25 cent coin. And even there it may be come extinct replaced by the New Alberta quarter.

The coins tell the story

Tags
Alberta
Canada
wilderness
Caribou
Grizzly
wolves
endangered species
environment

I can't stop laughing....oh please stop...

In response to the Green Party announcement about ending billions in taxpayer subsidies to Canada's (read Alberta, err Calgary) oil industry the voice of big oil had this to say;

it drew a decided shrug from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "We don't believe there are any subsidies to the oil-gas sector right now,"said CAPP vice-president Greg Stringham

Oh puuuuulllleaaaaaaase he said in he best Roger Rabbit, make it stop. I can't write for laughing so hard. Of course he doesn't believe he is subsidized, why would he. Never let the facts get in the way of an Alberta soundbite. You see that comment might work in Calgary, but this is a national media story so watch for the blowback when the National Media start looking into the facts.

Greens Nail It on Energy

The Green Party has nailed it on the head when it comes to energy economics in Canada. And they dared to announce it in Calgary, today. What chutzpah.

What they have said should be sweet music to any libertarians ears, right or left ( and this is where we seperate the real libertarians from the neo-cons). An end to the subisidization of Big Oil and Big Nukes. The biggest corporate welfare bums in Canada.

"Why are we subsidizing oil-gas interests when they're making the highest profits in their existence?" said Harris, adding that $1.4 billion was spent on federal initiatives to the energy industry last year."If you look over the last 30 years, $40 billion of subsidies to oil-gas companies, literally subsidizing global climate change Greens would cut tax breaks to oil-gas sector

And they have taken a page from the NDP campaign over Kyoto, and went one step further than Layton has.

So now the Liberals and Conservatives have to worry about Green Economics which they both fail miserably at.

Now what about coal? Hmmm Jim, didn't see a specific mention of coal here in the program.....now you wouldn't be fronting for Energy Probe on this would ya? Because I searched your web site and found NO specific policy on coal, funding the coal industry, or credits for coal technology. Strange that. Dosen't abstention or failure to mention a particular 'energy' industry mean tacit approval?! Inquiring minds want to know, so does Luscar.

3. Recalculating the balance sheet

Fossil fuels have proven to be one of Canada’s most prized assets. While the projected revenue from oil sands, offshore and Arctic development may seem like Canada’s gain, it is time we consider the other side of the balance sheet. Rising health, social and environmental costs are seldom reflected in government appraisals of energy procurement.

The federal government’s unwillingness to measure the drawbacks of oil dependency leaves future generations in a highly vulnerable position. Rather than lead a global push toward renewable energy alternatives, successive Canadian governments have chosen the path of inefficiency and pollution, which inevitably lead to lower productivity, manufacturing losses, and higher fuel prices.

While the Pembina Institute estimates that the federal government dishes out $1.4 billion every year to fossil fuel production, the figure would be much higher if provincial subsidies were included in the calculation. These actions are known as ‘perverse subsidies’ because public money is being spent to support practices that harm public well-being and incur unintended (though predictable) costs.

Despite the health, environmental and financial risks associated with nuclear energy, the federal government also continues to subsidize Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) with over $100 million each year. Not only would the Green Party end subsidies to AECL, the Green Party would also rescind all uranium-mining permits and prohibit the export of fissionable nuclear material. This is party of the Green Party’s overall strategy to promote life-cycle product stewardship of minerals to ensure full-cost accounting.

The Green Party would empower communities with renewable energy and a renewed confidence in public office by dismantling Canada’s petroleum and nuclear dependency while developing a decentralized energy plan. In order to do this, the federal government must work with the provinces that are responsible for regulating energy production.

Green Party MPs will work to:

· End all federal subsidies to non-renewable energy sectors.

· Work with the provinces to report all public expenditures and tax credits on oil, gas and mining.

· Allow the price of fossil fuels to reflect their true costs to society through new regulations that force polluters to pay for damages and remediation costs.

Tags
Alberta
Canada
Green Party
Politics
economy
oil
Federal Eletion 2006

Bolivia Moves Left

The Globe and Mail, acting like the Voice of Amerika in Canada, is all a flutter over another Left victory in Latin America. In yesterdays editorial they attacked the overwhelming support for Evo Moralies in Bolivia.

Nearly complete official returns Wednesday showed coca activist Evo Morales winning Bolivia's presidency, getting 54.2 per cent of the vote with more than 92 per cent of polling places tallied.

Like we couldn't see that coming a mile away after this springs General Strikes and protests by the miners, the poor and the indigenous peoples movements. The country is another IMF basket case. As Brazil, Argentina and yes even Venezuala, have shown, left wing governments have been able to stablize the national economies and put them on a sure footing within the global market place. Brazil proved that this past weekend when they teamed up with China and India at the WTO and forced through their agenda on trade, much to the chagrin of the U.S. and E.U.

Argentina follows Brazilian lead to pay entire IMF debt
Sum to be recovered from budget surplus, Venezuelan promise to purchase bonds

Hello G&M you are begining to sound like the National Pest.Me thinks that the way it reads the unsigned editorial was penned by Marcus Gee their resident right whing apologist for all thinks Amerikan.

Dr. Dawg does them in with his reply to their editorial. Dawg published the editorial and responds to each accusation. Important note you can't find the editorial the day later, and if you do its 'locked' unless you are a subscriber. So publishing it online is important thanks Dawg. ( and a tip o the blog to Canadian Cynic for pointing this out).

On PBS News Hour they actually had a good overview of the Bolivian election. They had on Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His analysis was cutting edge, pithy and to the point, so I will quote some of the key points he made.

Well I think you're seeing this across South America as you just showed on the map. What you have here is primarily the result of a 25-year economic failure. People here don't really understand or appreciate this. But you've had very little growth in all of Latin America over the last 25 years.

The total growth of income per person, which is the most basic measure that economists have to measure economic progress, has been only 10 percent.

Now if you look at the prior 20 years, 1960 to 1980, it grew by 82 percent. So you've had a 25-year period now; a whole generation-and-a-half of people in Latin America have really lost out on any chance to improve their living standards.

Well, Bolivia is an example of that. They've been under IMF agreements almost continuously for nearly 20 years. And their income -- and they've done what they were told to do. They privatized even the Social Security system there. And their income today per person is less than it was in 1980.

And I don't know what Roger considers to be a success but when your income per person is lower than it was 25 years ago, most economists would call that a failure, a terrible failure.

Unless you are an American State Department hack or an editorialist for the Globe and Mail.



Tags
Bolivia
Latin America
Socialism
elections

The Real Reason for the Iraq War

This past week has seen the Bush administration in the U.S. admit that it was 'misinformed' about WMD prior to its invasion of Iraq. The President has spoken three times in public on the War, more than any other time even prior to the invasion or immediately after. It was Election week in Iraq, and his poll numbers were down, so it was time to come clean. Sort of.

He still justified the war, democracy, nasty dictator, American interests , war on terror. Wait lets go back over that list, American interests. What could those be? Well an issue that the American media has not covered, nor has much of the media in the rest of the world, is the whole issue of Why America needed the war in Iraq. And while it has to do with oil, it was not oil perse that was at issue. It was Petrodollars.

On Guns and Butter:
An Alternative Perspective on the Reasons for Invading Iraq
by Anthony Haynes
The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies (February, 2004)

Much of the commentary on the Iraq War has assumed that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were the primary reason for the Bush administration’s decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein. This reason appears problematic as US weapons inspectors prepare to leave Iraq. By now it should be clear that the administration’s claims about Iraq’s reconstituted WMD were more the result of supposition than hard evidence.

An alternative explanation for Washington’s determination to be rid of the Baathist regime may be found in its interest in maintaining dollar hegemony through the continued recycling of petrodollars. According to this theory, the Bush administration aims to maintain dollar hegemony by arresting momentum towards the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) switching to the euro as an oil transaction currency. Such a change in the oil transaction ‘currency of choice’ would have a devastating effect on the US economy.

The first step in this notional strategy would include invading Iraq and reversing Saddam Hussein’s policy of pricing Iraq’s vast oil reserves in euros. In effect, the Iraqi dictator’s fate was sealed when Saddam decided to convert Iraq’s oil reserves from US dollars to euros in November of 2000, realizing a huge profit as the euro subsequently appreciated dramatically against the US dollar. The events of September 11, 2001 provided the Bush administration with the perfect opportunity to pursue its ‘strong dollar’ policy and reverse any movement by OPEC towards pricing oil in euros.

As President George W. Bush stated during his press conference following the capture of Saddam Hussein in December of 2003, “We have a strong dollar policy. We expect the markets to determine the dollar exchange rate, but we have a strong dollar policy.” Likewise, US Treasury secretary John Snow has been advocating the same policy since the dollar began its accelerated slide against other major currencies.¹ Currency traders have long viewed Snow’s comments as doublespeak - especially given the dollar’s continued slide vis-à-vis major trading partners. The President, however, was being quite honest about his government’s strong dollar policy.

By ‘strong dollar’, Mr. Bush was referring to the US dollar as the standard global trade currency. It was also a veiled reference to the currency that OPEC should be using to price its oil transactions. As such, it was likely Mr. Bush’s intention to avoid a potential devaluation of the US dollar while the euro gained global pre-eminence as a standard trade currency. According to this view, the risk of losing dollar hegemony far outweighed the risk of further upheaval in the Middle East.

While it is a coincidence that both The Wealth of Nations and the Declaration Of Independence were published in the same year (1776), it is no surprise that both Adam Smith³ and Alexander Hamilton⁴ were proponents of the mercantilist system of power politics. If the ends of mercantilism were the unification of the nation state with its industrial, commercial, financial and military resources, it follows that, in foreign affairs, its ends must be to increase the power of one nation against other nations. For more than two centuries before Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Europe was governed by the beliefs and practices of mercantilism. The mercantilist state of Smith and Hamilton’s time was protectionist, autarkic, expansionist and militaristic. Indeed, the security of 19^th century Britain was largely dependent on economic ties to its far-flung colonies, the latter being protected by the guns of the Royal Navy. It was a US naval squadron under Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry that compelled feudal Japan to open its doors to trade with the United States.

With wide experience in economics and politics, Friedrich List⁵ later wrote extensively on protectionist and militaristic political economy. President Eisenhower, in one of his farewell speeches in 1961, stressed the importance of the military-industrial complex.⁶ He also took great pain to point out its potential abuses – namely its potential to distort America’s economic and security priorities. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through to the Cold War and today, America’s willingness and ability to wage war has always been tied to its macroeconomic policies (the example having been set by her western European predecessors). Hence, the present-day US administration would readily deploy its military might to advance its economic policies.

The Bush administration has taken great care to justify its war on Iraq. The always stern but media-savvy Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rebuffed any and all doubts as to the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in the run-up to the war. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a seemingly detailed review of Iraq’s WMD program to the United Nations Security Council. Equally gripping were Mr. Rumsfeld’s musings on the loose associations between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Was the war in Iraq waged to further US economic policy, and not simply to remove a dangerous dictator and his exotic weapons? One could certainly argue that there were other tyrants to confront at the time the US moved against Saddam. Mr. Clark posits in his essay that President Bush had failed to provide a rational explanation as to why Iraq’s dormant WMD program poses a more imminent threat than North Korea’s active nuclear weapons program. He points out that shortly after the congressional resolution on Iraq, it became clear that Kim Jong-Il was processing uranium (a clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1995 Agreed Framework) that would give the North Koreans a nuclear weapons capability by late 2003. In a recent book entitled, The Price of Loyalty, former Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil implies that Mr. Bush was directing his cabinet to find a way to effect regime change in Iraq soon after taking office.

Mr. Clark published his essay in January of 2003. In it he drew attention to the UN’s inability to find a reconstituted WMD program in Iraq, despite over 400 unencumbered inspections. Further weakening the administration’s claims was the intelligence community’s belief that Al Qaeda was more likely to acquire WMD from the fledgling states of the former Soviet Union, or even acquire them from a destabilizing or destabilized Pakistan.

Mr. Clark’s essay discusses at some length the “macroeconomics of petrodollars and the unpublicized but real threat to the US economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.” While he employs published reports (largely European and Asian) to support his arguments, he draws attention to the fact that the US media had not taken up the story.

Critics of President Bush’s foreign policy typically view his administration as a cabal of aggressive, neo-conservative hawks recklessly advocating global military intervention to topple real and imagined enemies of the United States. While this might indeed be the case, one should not discount the possibility that this invasion was planned and carried out in an attempt to maintain a strong dollar policy – a policy that was vital for the economic security of the United States.