China - The United States of the 21st Century?

I've been thinking about this for a while. As the US finds its economy faltering, and its wars abroad gradually becoming unsustainably expensive, China is positively soaring with an economy that is booming, and arguably an aggressive desire to advance themselves.

In the latter half of the 20th Century, we saw the post-WWII era United States being similarly successful both economically, but also in their desire to stretch beyond where they once were. The space programs were something of a hallmark for showcasing progress. Somewhere after the Challenger disaster in the 1980s, the US relegated its space programs to the back seat, starving them for funds and questioning the value of the results (mostly because it seems that neo-con politicians can't see beyond the end of their fiscal noses).

Fast forward 25 or so years, and we see the US economy in shambles, its manufacturing sector mostly gutted as the holy grail of the "free market" has moved most manufacturing offshore and public education levels dropping dramatically. (The legacy of Reaganomics?)

On the flip side of the coin, we see China aggressively growing their capabilities, and spending huge amounts of money on the kind of space exploration programs that NASA can only dream of.

Does the first half of the 21st Century belong to China in much the same way that the latter half of the 20th belonged to the United States? It's hard to say for sure, but at the moment, it looks to me as if the US has a deep canyon to climb out of while China is aggressively beginning to assert itself as a power to be reckoned with both politically and economically.

Making My Point For Me...

I don't know who the scumbag is that perpetrated this assault, and I can think of a dozen consequences I'd like them to face, it also underscores some of the points I was raising yesterday in my diatribe about so-called pro-life positions.

I hope for her sake that the victim of yesterday's attack isn't pregnant as a result of whatever was done. However, I believe absolutely that she has a legitimate right to decide if that hypothetical pregnancy goes forward or not. If that means an abortion, so be it.

Pro-Lifers will argue that the unborn child is being punished for the sins of the father. I'm sorry, but that's absolute crap. Being a parent requires emotional strength and fortitude - I cannot even begin to imagine how I would feel raising a child - or even giving birth to one - that was a result of something as heinous as what happened yesterday. The word resentful comes to mind as a starting point, but I can imagine a gamut of emotional states that would be unhealthy for all parties involved. Additionally, given the biological cost to the woman (besides healing from the ravages of assault) exacted by being pregnant is huge. Why should she pay that price because some violent low-life happened to attack her at the right time?

The propensity for some men to use their relatively greater strength to violently get their way with a woman is reason enough to ensure that women have access to safe abortion. Otherwise, we tacitly condone violence against women - as long as it gets them pregnant. (*shudder* - what an evil world that could be!)

Dear Jack:

You're starting to sound like a CPC party member. His latest blathering about abolishing the senate is pulling a line straight out of Stephen Harper's underwear drawer.

He said the Senate is outdated and undemocratic, but the NDP still wants Canadians to have a say on its future.

So...you just throw it away? Sorry Jack, but you've just demonstrated how little you really understand. Like Harper's piddling Bill C-43 which he couldn't seem to ram through parliament, simply abolishing the Senate isn't doing us any favors either.

I suggest that Mr. Layton review the legal constructs that surround the Senate, as well as its practical role in parliament (which is actually quite limited). Simply abolishing the Senate leaves us with a parliament that has no natural "counter check" on bills passed. While the Senate may irritate me in a dozen different ways, having a second set of eyes that is not beholden to the often turbulent currents of public opinion is a good thing for Canada. In the past it has forced the House of Commons to go back and place limits on the more dangerous clauses of legislation that could be used to unjustly abrogate the principles of civil rights, and equality before the law.

Senate Reform, whether it is making the senate elected or removing it altogether is not trivial, nor should we treat it as such. Among other things, any meaningful reform involves a constitutional amendment - anything else is little more than legislative window dressing. If we are going to go down the path of creating an elected Senate, that's fine, but let's examine what we expect the role of that Senate to be.

Similarly, if we are going to outright abolish the Senate then we must ask what kind of structure do we put in place to act as a counterweight to the House of Commons.

If we fail to do so, we will create a situation where even greater powers will devolve to the courts and the Governor General. (and, I would argue that both bodies would find themselves swamped with demands to overturn Parliament's excesses)

Layton needs a wake-up pill ... or a serious boot to the head. If he doesn't focus his efforts on countering Harper's legislative agenda in a meaningful way - instead of playing to it - the leader of "Canada's Effective Opposition"(™) will have allowed the CPC to damage Canada very badly indeed.

He may think he's scoring political points right now, but what Layton's really doing is pissing off everybody who might consider voting for him - largely because he is acting more and more like a Conservative Party shill every day.

This Is a Good Sign

Apparently Ted Byfield has decided that he doesn't like Stelmach's reworking of the royalty scheme.

Given Mr. Byfield's illogical arguments on so many other topics, it probably means that Stelmach actually took a step in the right direction.

Sez Ted:

He has turned Albertans against the industry that has made them prosper and has made their province great.

How else can you interpret his new royalty regime, imposed without negotiation on the province's central economic engine?

I've said this before - governing is about a lot more than just money. It's about people, and the interests of the people. The oil patch has had a great deal of say to date in the royalty arrangments in this province, and has slowly and steadily wormed into the minds of people like Mr. Byfield that it would be a "Bad Thing"(™) to touch anything to do with the oil patch.

What has been made clear is that the free lunch of profits at the oil trough is over. Remember, those resources belong to all of us, not the oil companies per se. They may sulk for a while; and a few may well stomp off in a huff and move their focus elsewhere in the world. It's not a bad thing - slowing down Alberta's economy right now would be good from several standpoints - like trying to hire staff for smaller businesses.

If the oil sits in the ground a bit longer, what's the big deal? It stays, and the odds are that the prices will go up on the resource as supplies begin to run out. So, from an investor/taxpayer perspective looking a little more than next quarter down the road, I have to ask myself just what we lose? Not much. Get it out today at today's prices and a higher royalty fee, we win. Leave in the ground for a while and get it out at higher prices due to reduced availability, and we still win.

Unless the world's need for oil drops dramatically in the next few decades, we come out ahead either way.

Somehow, I think I'll put a little more stock in what Peter Lougheed comes up with over what Byfield tries to pass off as wisdom.

The Hypocrisy of "Pro Life" Politics

Phrases like "Pro Life" and "Family Values" have become overly simplistic catchphrases used by so-called "right wing" politics.

Recently, I found myself in a discussion with someone who was taking a rigidly "Pro-Life" stance, arguing that abortion was simply wrong, no matter the circumstances - in the name of 'protecting life'.

Upon further consideration, it strikes me that the so-called "Pro-Life" argument of absolutes is deeply flawed. Consider the notion of "protecting life at all costs". The argument is made that we are morally obliged to respect and protect life from its first moment to its last.

Okay, that's fine - to a point. However, if we take it to the absolute conclusion that the anti-abortion crowd wishes us to arrive at, several very troubling issues arise:

(1) Absolute prohibition on abortion effectively changes a woman's status when she becomes pregnant from social equal and participant in our society to that of "vessel of procreation".

(2) The second problem with such absolutes is that it presupposes that a woman who is pregnant is unable to make moral (or ethical) decisions for herself regarding her pregnancy, its progress and its conclusion.

(3) Biologically speaking, pregnancy is a very expensive process for the woman. It is also a very risky process that can, in some circumstances be quite dangerous as well. The question of protecting life in a case where a woman's life is endangered by being pregnant raises the question of just whose life are we to protect?

(4) There are circumstances where a woman may become pregnant through no fault of her own - rape comes to mind as one possible scenario. How many women would want to carry a child forced upon them by a man they would never choose to mate with?

Clearly, women are not merely inert vessels for babies - anyone who asserts so is not looking around them with their eyes open. It is the height of illogic to think that a woman loses all other value in the world the moment that she becomes pregnant.

The view that women are primarily vessels for producing babies echoes throughout human history. This view has given rise to some pretty horrible behaviours - such as "rape as a right of conquest", seen most publicly in the aftermath of the conflict the region of Serbia in the 1990s. It seems to me that the absolutist view of 'abortion as evil' lands smack in the same space, as it disregards the status of woman as a moral, intelligent human being capable of understanding and making difficult decisions.

As a society in the last century or so, Western society has gradually come to recognize that women are every bit the equal of their male counterparts. It's been a slow, often conflict-riddled process, whether it has been the arguments over granting women the right to vote, or the sexual revolution of the 1960s where women began to assert their right to govern their reproductive capabilities for themselves.

With the recognition that women are active, and equal participants in society, we must accept the logical notion that a woman is able to make complex moral judgments and decisions. Clearly, if we devolve woman to the status of "vessel" when pregnant, it is quite trivial to justify absolute proscriptions on topics like abortion, as we no longer recognize the validity of the woman as a discrete individual.

If, however, one accepts the notion that the state of being pregnant is a normal part of being a woman, and that state does not otherwise inhibit the individual's ability to reason (as I claim is unquestionably true), then absolute proscriptions such as the anti-abortion crowd demand, become troubling.

First, I would argue that a woman is unquestionably in full rights to control what is done with her body.

But one might argue that abortion involves someone else - the unborn. Few women do not take their ability to bear children seriously. (there may be some, but there are always exceptions) The notion of terminating a pregnancy is a deeply emotional decision, filled with implications both short term and long term. The reasons for terminating a pregnancy, and the point after which a woman will not end a pregnancy are going to differ, based on the experiences of that individual.

Second, a woman has an implicit right to be in control of her ability to reproduce. This includes access to contraceptive methods and surgical intervention. How many are going to be thrilled with paying the biological price for bearing a child as a result of rape? The argument is often raised that this child "shouldn't be punished for the sins of the father", but why should the woman - who will be burdened in the long term with the tasks of raising that child be similarly punished? {and yes, raising a child that is fathered by someone you would not willingly partner with is a punishment, one riddled with emotional and psychological challenges for the mother and the child}.

We entrust parents (and women in particular), to make subtle and complex decisions for their children on a daily basis. Most such decisions turn out just fine, and every so often, one goes horribly awry. What on earth makes anyone believe that a woman who is carrying a child doesn't think about what it means for her and the fetus growing inside of her when she considers allowing the pregnancy to run its course or to end it?

The next problem with absolutism in the topic is the obvious clash between the interests of the mother and that of the fetus. If, for example, the mother would likely die in childbirth, or would be seriously debilitated as a result of carrying the fetus to term, whose life are we protecting by prohibiting the notion of abortion entirely? If we insist that the woman die by preventing her access to abortion, how is that "protecting life"? Or perhaps, the woman is already a mother to several children, and the pregnancy would kill her, leaving the children without family? How is this "respecting life"?

The whole notion of "consequences" ripples through the puritanesque anti-abortion arguments. It fails to acknowledge that the only person who pays the "consequences" they are talking about is the woman. If you think in these terms, then the whole notion of "she was dressed provocatively" once again becomes a valid defense in rape cases - a very troubling notion that few would argue is a desirable outcome. (and those who would probably should be subject of further investigation themselves!)

The problem with absolutism is that it fails to recognize the myriad shades of grey in life. Few things fall into absolutes, and the pregnancy/abortion topic is among them. Unless you are willing to claim that a pregnant woman is legally incompetent to make decisions for herself because she is pregnant, I fail to see how any absolute proscription has any validity - morally or ethically.

Treading On Thin Ice

I've said before that you don't handle China by trying to push them around.

I thought that Harper's handling of the recent visit of The Dalai Lama to Canada would ruffle some feathers in China. Sure enough, it did.

The Chinese embassy in Canada confirmed Thursday that Robert Wright had been “called in by the Chinese Foreign Ministry for a representation.”

No details were provided but it's believed the move was designed as a dressing down of Canada for the red-carpet treatment accorded to the Tibetan spiritual leader, regarded by China as a separatist who is undermining its national sovereignty.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has refused to discuss the issue. Repeated calls and e-mails from The Globe and Mail asking whether a protest had been lodged with Mr. Wright were met with delays and promises from the departmental spokesman to call back, but no confirmation of the news.

Okay, if HarperCreep has sent out orders to STFU about it to Foreign Affairs, that probably means the Chinese have started returning the favour when it comes to Harper's posturing and blowhard rhetoric about human rights.

The Dalai Lama repeated in Canada this week that he is seeking only autonomy for Tibet within a sovereign China and is not interested in separation.

The summoning of Mr. Wright mirrors Chinese actions in response to recent similar face-to-face meetings between the Dalai Lama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President George W. Bush.

German Ambassador Michael Schaefer was called to the Chinese Foreign Ministry before the meeting with Ms. Merkel took place in September, while China lodged its protest with U.S. Ambassador Clark Randt a day after Mr. Bush's meeting with the Dalai Lama, who was given the Congressional Gold Medal.

Now, there's a slight difference between "lodging a protest" and what the Chinese are doing here. I suspect after Harper's lecturing of Chinese leadership on human rights issues, China's more than a little ticked off right now.

Dermot Travis, executive director of the Canada-Tibet Committee, said he believed “China is posturing at best” and that Beijing's latest move would have little real impact. “I noticed that Bombardier yesterday was awarded a $590-million deal in China to supply rail cars to China,” Mr. Travis said.

Nice attempt to minimize things here, but Mr. Travis is quietly ignoring something - China needs those rail cars, and any country that it would buy them from has been hospitable to the Dalai Lama. China's gearing up for the Olympics in 2010 - they desperately need to complete a plethora of infrastructure projects, and starting a diplomatic / trade war isn't going to help them. Once they are closer to the Olympics, then you can expect China to get a whole lot harsher about things.

Oh yes, let's not forget the increasing signs of economic weakening in the US economy, which will inevitably bring Canada along for the ride to some degree - by 2010, the world economic power picture may well look quite different than it does today.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - China does not respond to the kind of strongarm tactics that Harper seems to want to use. It never has, and likely never will. Canada trying to play "strong man" in this situation is almost laughable, as we are a relatively small nation.

So Much For Protecting Canadians Abroad

Our Con$ervative Government has gone one step further in chiselling away at its job to protect and serve Canadians. This time, it's a blanket statement about intervening on behalf of Canadians sentenced to death abroad.

The short message from the Con$ boils down to this: don't get convicted of a crime abroad - they won't help you. Period.

The Tories have announced a change in Canada's foreign policy when it comes to Canadians on death row.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has said his government will not plead for the life of Alberta-born Ronald Allen Smith, who faces lethal injection in Montana for the 1982 murder of two men.

The government also announced that it will not attempt to save other Canadians who were given the death penalty following a fair trial in democratic countries like the U.S.

Now, I'm not going to speak to the particulars of the Smith case - that's irrelevant here since the government has made declarations that are far more sweeping than the Smith case. They have essentially said that if you get into trouble with the law abroad, they aren't going to lift a finger to help you.

The words of "fair trial" and "democracy" have to be called into question when we look at the current environment in the United States. Since 9/11, we have seen a plethora of people detained without trial (Canadian Omar Khadr for one), deported to foreign countries for the purposes of interrogation that falls outside the bounds of lawful activity (for example Maher Arar, another Canadian) - on the assumption that a trial in the United States or other "recognized democracy" is going to automatically provide a "fair trial".

The US government's respect for due process and the law these days is questionable on good days. Every bill that passes Bush's desk seems to receive some kind of "signing statement" that basically says that the executive branch will ignore the law if it is convenient to do so. Other countries may be democratic on paper, but that doesn't mean that these countries engage in "the rule of law" in the same sense we understand it.

The Con$ have already made it clear that they don't give a fig about Canadians abroad in the first place, and the HarperCons are now signalling that they will quietly roll over for their American masters in the interests of peace in their 'marital bed'.