Even foreign money pours into Romney coffers

Controversial loophole allows Toronto-based insurer to make $1million contribution to Romney
Tara Perkins, Globe and Mail, October 5, 2012
An American subsidiary of Toronto-based insurer Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. has stirred up political controversy by making a $1-million donation to a super political action committee that backs Mitt Romney. OdysseyRe says it chose to make the large contribution to the Restore Our Future super PAC because it supports Mr. Romney’s corporate-tax proposals. The move is generating attention because while there are rules barring foreign companies from contributing to the super PACs, donations by U.S. arms of those businesses remain a grey area. Peter Lovell, general counsel for OdysseyRe, said the company has traditionally restricted itself to charitable donations but took a special interest in the upcoming presidential race because of Mr. Romney’s view on corporate taxes.
“As an international reinsurer domiciled in the U.S., OdysseyRe has one of the highest corporate tax rates in its industry,” Mr. Lovell said in an e-mailed statement. “Governor Romney has proposed meaningful corporate tax reform that would help to level the playing field; consequently, a victory by Governor Romney in November would be beneficial to OdysseyRe.”

Mr. Lovell added that the contributions committee of OdysseyRe’s board made the decision, and that committee is composed of only U.S. citizens. “Neither our Canadian parent nor any other foreign nationals were part of the decision-making process to contribute to the super PAC,” he said.
Prem Watsa, Fairfax’s chief executive, is also the chairman of OdysseyRe’s board. Fairfax is an insurance conglomerate with multiple divisions, but in recent years has become more well-known for its investments. Prior to the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, it made financial bets that a number of major banks would see their fortunes tumble, bets that became highly profitable when the crisis occurred. It has recently bought up about 10 per cent of BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, and Mr. Watsa now sits on RIM’s board. While Mr. Watsa has developed a reputation over the years for shying away from the spotlight, the company has found itself in the limelight often. It sued a group of hedge funds in New Jersey court, accusing them of conspiring against it. (The judge recently dismissed that case and Fairfax is appealing).

Is America's fear of a Black President crippling Obama?

The lackluster performance of President Obama in last night's first of three debates in the presidential campaign, has triggered the wringing of hands among the 'left' and many Obama supporters, including media pundits, are pointing to the Vice-presidential debate between Biden and Ryan, October 10, as one of the routes to a come-back in the second debate one week later.
Obama, sluggish, head-down, writing notes ("for the second debate?" chimed Chris Matthews on MSNBC)refusing to fire the loaded rifle with bullets that would "take Romney out":-

•  on the 47% video,
• on the chicanery of his calculations,
• on the turn-about on Obamacare,
• on his pretentious 'care' for the middle class,
• on his persistent beagle-bark demanding the last word, overriding the moderator, 
• on his contemptuous smirk that accompanied all of Obama's responses
• on his running-mate's misguided, middle-class-gutting budget proposals
• on his mis-representation of the source of Obama's $716 million from Medicare (from efficiencies, insurance companies and providers, and not from patients)
• on his refusal to come clean on the gap between his tax cuts and spending increases
• on his phoney pledge to create 12 million new jobs, without supporting evidence of where or how

Will these shots now be fired by Obama surrogates, whose powder is relatively "dry" compared with that of a sitting president, seeking re-election?
Were these "missed opportunities," as they have been characterized by many observers, deliberate or missed because American racism still requires a black President to remove all trace of anger from his consciousness, and certainly his vocabulary and demeanour.
In a compelling piece, Fear of a Black President, in the September 2012 The Atlantic (p.79), Ta-Nehisi Coates, writes the following:
By virtue of his background-the son of a black man and a white woman, someone who grew up in  multiethnic communities around the world-Obama has enjoyed a distinctive vantage point on race relations in America. Beyond that, he has displayed enviable dexterity at navigating between black and white America, and at finding a language that speaks to a critical mass in both communities. He emerged into national view at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, with a speech heralding a national uncolored by old prejudices and shameful history. There was no talk of the effects of racism. Instead, Obama stressed the power of parenting, and condemned those who would say that a black child carrying a book was"acting white." He cast himself as the child of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas and asserted, "In no other country on Earth is my story even possible." When, as a senator, he was asked if the response to Hurricane Katrina evidenced racism Obama responded by call the "ineptitude" of the response "color-blind."
Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others, Black America ever lives under that skeptical eye. Hence the old admonishments to be "twice as good." Hence the need for a special "talk" administered to black boys about how to be extra careful when relating to the police. And hence Barack Obama's insisting that there was no racial component to Katrina's effects; that name-calling among children somehow has the same import as one of the oldest guiding principles of American policy_ white supremacy. The election of  an African American to our highest political office was alleged to demonstrate a triumph of integration. But when President Obama addressed the tragedy of Trayvon Martin, he demonstrated integration's great limitation--that acceptance depends not just on being twice as good but on being half as black. And even then full acceptance is withheld. The larger effect of this withholding constrict Obama's presidential potential in areas affected tangentially--or seemingly not at all--by race. Meanwhile, across the country, the community in which Obama is rooted sees this fraudulent equality, and quietly seethes.
Obama's first term has coincided with a strategy of massive resistance on the part of his Republican opposition in the House, and a record number of filibuster threats in the Senate. It would be nice if this were merely a reaction to Obama's politics or his policies--if this resistance truly were, as it is generally described, merely on more sign of our growing "polarization" as a nation. But the greatest abiding challenge to Obama's national political standing has always rested on the existential fact that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin. As a candidate, Barack Obama understood this.
"The thing is, a black man can't be president in America, given the racial aversion and history that's still out there," Cornell Belcher, a pollster for Obama, told the journalist Gwen Ifill after the 2008 election. "However, and extraordinary, gifted, and talented young man who happens to be black can be president."
Belcher's formulation grants the power of anti-black racism, and proposes to defeat it by not acknowledging it. His is the perfect statement of the Obama era, a time marked by a revolution that must never announce itself, by a democracy that must never acknowledge the weight of race, even while being shaped by it. Barack Obama governs a nation enlightened enough to send an African American to the White House, but not enlightened enough to accept a black man as its president.
Along with the possible explanation of battle-fatigue, espoused by Jon Meacham on NPR's On Point with Tom Ashbrook, certainly a note-worthy explanation for Obama's performance, could the judgement of American history and culture hanging over his head, as outlined in The Fear of a Black President, continue to haunt the president?
And could it eventually lead to his becoming, as Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, declared his primary objective, "a one-term president?"

UN Report: Make seniors growth drivers and value creators

Unless steps are taken now to improve income, housing, health care, and the rights of the elderly, the report says, extra years could be more of a burden than a blessing in countries that are ill-prepared to deal with the dramatic demographic shift....
“We must commit to ending the widespread mismanagement of aging,” wrote Richard Blewitt, chief executive officer of the London-based advocacy group HelpAge International, which contributed to the report. “Concrete, cost-effective advances will come from ensuring age investment begins at birth — fully recognizing the vast majority of people will live into old age.”
The key, he added, is global and national action plans to make over-60s “growth drivers and value creators. Social protection and age-friendly health care are essential to extend the independence of healthy older people and prevent impoverishment in old age.”
“The social and economic implications are profound, extending far beyond the individual older person and the immediate family, touching broader society and the global community in unprecedented ways,” wrote UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his preface to the report.
“It is how we choose to address the challenges and maximize the opportunities of a growing older population that will determine whether society will reap the benefits of the ‘longevity dividend.’ ” (from the column by Olivia Ward, Toronto Star, October 3, 2012, included below)
Making over-60's 'growth drivers and value creators' requires some significant, and highly unlikely transformation to current attitudes, policies and practices.
Just as in so many other files, advances in health care and nutrition have out-paced political and cultural attitudes. Living in a celebrity-based-youth-fixated-lean-and-mean culture driven by the profit motive, seniors are the "nobodies" of the times.
Paradoxically, seniors, ignored at the peril of all of the achievers, still have brains that work, experience that seasons their perspective, and history that could be used as signposts in the public discourse over most pressing issues.
Seniors are not moth-filled cob-webs of grumpy old men and women.
Seniors are not frail wimps who resist opportunities to profer their insights, when asked.
Seniors are neither victims nor bullies, neither irrelevant nor dependents, at least in their own minds.
Seniors want to be integrated into the culture, in more meaningful ways than as "greeters" at the local WalMart store.
However, for the most part, seniors are without political voice, except at election time. Seniors do not have a seat at the table when social policy issues are being debated, designed and delivered to the public.
There is a stereotype of seniors, varied in various countries, that seniors have played our part, and must now be relegated to the 'wings' of the public theatre.
Ironically, that stereotype is precisely counter-intuitive to the core of the UN Report on our relevance to the economic and cultural vision that is both needed and mutually beneficial, for all generations. We have to change the stereotype of seniors, from warehousing them/us in "homes for the aged" to integrating them/us into the mainstream of public life.
And that includes into the legislatures, into the planning boards, into the city councils, onto the hospital boards, onto the school boards, onto the sales floors of the boutiques and box stores in our commercial districts, and even into the classrooms of our schools, colleges and universities.
And such integration requires curricula for senior advocates delivered in more faculties that merely the medical faculties of our universities. Such curricula need to be delivered in our Political Science departments, our English departments, our Sociology departments, in a multi-disciplinary approach in order to bring about the kind of cultural shift that can and will underpin the vision of this report.
Will that happen?
Doubtful. It is far too dramatic a shift for one generation and will likely require two or three generations to take shape, and to bring the kind of change that will only enrich the lives both of the community and of the seniors within those communities.
Live long and prosper? UN report says we need to act now
By Olivia Ward, Toronto Star, October 3, 2012
The good news is that prospects for a long life were never better on planet Earth.
According to a new UN report, strides in nutrition, health, sanitation and medical science are boosting life expectancy by years, even in poor countries. More than 3 million people will see their 100th birthday by mid-century, and in 2050 the population of over-60s will reach 2 billion.
But if we live long, will we prosper?
Unless steps are taken now to improve income, housing, health care, and the rights of the elderly, the report says, extra years could be more of a burden than a blessing in countries that are ill-prepared to deal with the dramatic demographic shift.
That could mean that in the next three decades, Japanese in their 70s will be struggling to find care for their longer-living parents. In China, more elderly people will be scrambling for a living, alone and poor. In India, numbers of centenarians will burgeon, but their quality of life will decline.
These are some of the warnings from the United Nations Population Fund’s new report Ageing in the 21st Century: A Celebration and a Challenge.
“Aging is a triumph of development,” says the report, by a collection of UN agencies and advocacy groups. “Increasing longevity is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. People live longer because of improved nutrition, sanitation, medical advances, health care, education and economic well-being.”
The horizon seems bright, but already clouds are gathering. By 2050 the vast majority of elderly — 80 per cent — will be in developing nations that can least afford to provide care and support.
The world’s over-60 population will be larger than the under-15 generation, putting more burden on taxpaying workers and family members — and straining health care, welfare and pension funds. That means planning for the shift should happen sooner rather than later.
“We must commit to ending the widespread mismanagement of aging,” wrote Richard Blewitt, chief executive officer of the London-based advocacy group HelpAge International, which contributed to the report. “Concrete, cost-effective advances will come from ensuring age investment begins at birth — fully recognizing the vast majority of people will live into old age.”
The key, he added, is global and national action plans to make over-60s “growth drivers and value creators. Social protection and age-friendly health care are essential to extend the independence of healthy older people and prevent impoverishment in old age.”
The worldwide demographic shift has occurred gradually over the past half-century, but as birth rates shrank in developed and emerging countries, and lifespans lengthened, social scientists sounded the alarm. Ten years ago the UN’s non-binding Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing was the first attempt to write a bill of rights for older people.
It led to new policies, plans and laws on aging in dozens of countries. More than 100 have brought in government pensions to help ease old-age poverty. But, the agency said, much more needs to be done to help aging populations lead healthier and more self-sufficient lives.
“The social and economic implications are profound, extending far beyond the individual older person and the immediate family, touching broader society and the global community in unprecedented ways,” wrote UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his preface to the report.
“It is how we choose to address the challenges and maximize the opportunities of a growing older population that will determine whether society will reap the benefits of the ‘longevity dividend.’ ”
One of the biggest problems is that of an aging population, when the proportion of older people is a larger share of the total. Statistics Canada says that by 2031 this country will have just three workers for every retiree: half the number of workers for each retiree 30 years ago.
The shift means people may have to work longer, and retirement will be postponed or even eliminated for those without means of support. But older people are also subject to discrimination, especially women, who live longer than men. They’re also more likely to suffer abuse, denial of the right to own or inherit property, and poorer access to social security and health-care benefits.
But a key finding of the report shows that better health and longevity of the aging generation can come back to their communities in a good way. Seniors have “incredible productivity as caregivers, voters, volunteers, entrepreneurs and more.” With the right measures in place to support them, the report says, current and future generations can reap the longevity benefit.
Those measures include:
• Social protection “floors” to guarantee income security and basic social and health services.
• Access to health-care information and services that include preventive, acute and long-term care.
• Policies that promote healthy lifestyles, as well as rehabilitation services.
• Training of community caregivers for the frail elderly.
• Affordable housing and easily accessible transportation.
• Protection of rights of the elderly against discrimination, violence and abuse.
Aging by numbers
810 million people are currently aged 60 or over, 11.5 per cent of global population.
2 billion will be over 60 in 2050, or 22 per cent of the global population.
78 Current average life expectancy in developed countries. By 2050 newborns are expected to live to 83.
68Life expectancy in developing regions. By 2050, newborns there are expected to live to 74.
84Life expectancy in Japan, the world’s longest.
81 Current life expectancy in Canada.
48 Life expectancy in Sierra Leone, the world’s shortest.
28 Percentage of the global population that has comprehensive social security protection.
47 Percentage of older men in the global workforce.
23.8 Percentage of older women in the global workforce.
84 Number of men for every 100 women aged 60 or over worldwide.
Source: United Nations Population Fund

Renewed aspirations for this blog...need your help!

Perhaps this blog has been too cautious in the recent past.

• In supporting Obama, rejecting Romney,
• opposing Harper, supporting Mulcair,
• seeking more international co-operation and collaboration especially on issues that impact everyone on the planet, (environment, poverty, hunger, disease, educational opportunities, terrorism and the global economic crisis),
• in calling for a return to responsible unions and a stop to the union-busting that is the ideal of all corporate board rooms,
• in positing a more broad, international perspective in Canada, and especially in calling for more scholars and more research in this area, and
• in calling for the male half of the species to "wake-up" to our own internal, subconscious, inexorable and unstoppable emotional messages, and then to share those messages with our families, especially our spouses,
• in calling out the massive amounts of hidden cash in foreign, untaxed bank accounts, by rich individuals and corporations as unpatriotic, even a form of white collar terrorism
• in calling out Republicans for their obstructionist narcissism, in daring to have the gall to announce, "Our number one priority is to assure that Obama is a one-term president," barely veiling their own hidden race baiting
• in pointing to the many innovations in both scientific and educational thinking and practice
• in pushing back against the "end of men" theme captured in both The Atlantic and in a book with that title

perhaps the writer has taken a far too comfortable position on too many isssues.
Maybe it is truly time to take the gloves off on  issues that rarely receive front-page coverage in any of the world capital cities:

• the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the various and complex treaties required to move in that direction
• the elimination of discrimination against women in all countries, not only through the efforts of NGO's but also through UNESCO educational programs (61 million kids do not attend school every day, largely because they do not have a school to attend...source, Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain, now the UN envoy to solve the problem)
• the reconciliation of the various world religions, specifically Judaism, Islam and Christianity, through the promotion of the words and work of Karen Armstrong
• the restoration of truth-telling from all public leaders in all fields including academic, political, economic, financial, medical, pharmaceutical and diplomatic...with pressure on the media outlets to demand full and complete answers, even if and when their acquisition costs social disapproval and perhaps losing a "source" for a period of time
• the income disparity that has grown around the world, as the rich get richer and more powerful, becoming both the literal and the fugurative "puppeteers" of the decision makers in government
• the dramatic deterioration of the planet's eco-systems, through the production of human waste, the over-consumption of fossil fuels, the resistance to both research and deploy alternatives, and the resistance to change that infects all large institutions
• the need for increased and enhanced global treaties and bodies through which to litigate various disputes, in a balanced, and funded and sustainable manner, with all countries participating in their design and execution
• the pursuit of new technologies, funded both by governments and private sources, that will  compile, analyse and distribute the details of the mountains of information that have already been gathered and will continue to be gathered, in such areas as how we learn, how shop, how we maintain our own health, how we develop and grow, how we sustain relationships....and support the design of both public and private agencies capable of objective analysis, and objective distribution to all sectors of the society, in vocabulary and vehicles accessible to all
• the generation of flagging interest in public affairs, through programs in citizenship, not only for new immigrants, but also for all secondary students, training that includes the contributions of labour, women, minorities and off-shore ethnicities to the world culture as well as to the national culture where the learning is to be offered

There is a crying need for better coverage, better provocation, enhanced citizen engagement in all countries, by more people representing increasingly diverse interests, ambitions, philosophies and belief systems and to that end, we will dedicate this space to meeting that somewhat vague objective.
It will mean, perhaps, fewer actual blog entries better researched, more bibliographies, more references to the best and brightest minds to which we have access and more interactivity.
How to achieve this last goal: interactivity?
We really need to solicit the participation of those among our readers whose interest has been peeked, whose curiosity has been aroused and whose talents and contributions to our decision making would significantly enhance the reading opportunity we are attempting to offer.
If you have any interest in exploring these ideas, goals, objectives and larger purpose, please feel free to e-mail me a jta@kingston.net with your comments...
I look forward to growing this publication, with your support and guidance!

Baby retailer: "You don't have to be Disneyland for your child!"

When nothing's too good for baby: the price of conspicuous parenting
By Sean Silcoff, Globe and Mail, October 3, 2012
Mark McGregor’s wife isn’t due until the end of October, but for the past two months, he’s been wheeling about his sleek new stroller. Officially, he’s taking out his god-daughter, but everywhere he goes, heads turn to check out his wheels.
His stroller, the Origami, has serious curb appeal, and looks like nothing before it. With the push of a button, it unfolds robotically on its own. It charges his smartphone, measures his distance and speed on an LCD screen and guides his way with headlights.
Mr. McGregor knew he had to have the $900 stroller – used by celebrity moms such as Natalie Portman, and hailed by gearheads – when he saw it online and became one of the first people in Canada to own one.
“It’s kind of an ego-booster” when people gawk, the 31-year-old Thornhill, Ont., resident admits.
In an era of conspicuous parenting, the Origami is a statement: The trend of increasingly sophisticated, stylish and expensive baby gear is entering a new phase.
The Origami is one of a slew of new products that are upping the ante, redefining not just the infant market, but the act of child-raising itself for modern parents whose demographic reality has shifted significantly from the previous generation.
Consider the new “Foonf” car seat by Toronto-based Clek Inc. It sells for $450 – the most expensive on the market – and imports vehicle safety technology to reduce the force of an impact on children in accidents.
The $350 Summer Infant Peek Plus Internet Monitor System, also new, links a live video feed to a secure website so parents can watch their baby on their smartphones wherever they are – such as out on a rare date.
But do parents need smarter strollers and constant video surveillance? Even upscale boutique owners admit it’s too much. “For sure, we’re preying on their guilty conscience,” said Karen Judd, owner of Toronto’s Moms To Be … and More. “The whole industry does it.”
First-time parents are older on average than in the past, likelier to live in two-income homes and have fewer children. They have more to spend per child, but also believe they won’t be as well off as their parents, so “they’re going to give their child every advantage they can,” said Ipsos Public Affairs pollster Darrell Bricker. For a group whose defining brands are Apple and Starbucks, style also matters, said Environics Analytics vice-president Michele Sexsmith. “They tend to be drawn toward things that are aesthetically pleasing,” she said. “That will extend to all purchases.”
They research extensively online and know exactly what they want when they walk into baby boutiques, Ms. Judd said.
Reflecting back at them is a celebrity culture obsessed with the offspring of the rich and famous, a byproduct of the fact more women in the United States are in their prime childbearing years than at any time since baby boomers outgrew the bracket, said Bonnie Fuller, editor-in-chief of HollywoodLife.com. Gossip magazines dedicate pages to stars with their kids and highlight the products they use, driving sales.
As a result, upscale baby products have become aspirational “affordable luxury” items, aimed at the clientele of high-end boutiques that have opened in the past decade. But they are also bought by middle-class parents and sold to some extent at Babies “R” Us and Sears, forcing mass market suppliers such as Montreal-based Dorel Industries to offer more higher-end wares. Sales have been resilient despite sluggish economic times, said Chicago retail consultant Neil Stern.
Every infant category has had a recent makeover. Many strollers, inspired by the $1,000-plus Bugaboo (which led the shift to higher-end products a decade ago) cost $700-plus and adapt to fit two children without sacrificing style or ease of use. Sippy cups come with weighted, bendable straws so tykes don’t miss a drop. Bloom’s Fresco high chair looks like a funky bar stool. It reclines, swivels, and costs $600. Diaper bags used to be homely $30 satchels; now they are high-fashion $180 handbags from Petunia Pickle Bottom. Leather bibs from Mally Designs of Abbotsford, B.C., retail for $40 – but can be customized for up to $60 extra. “You’d be surprised how many people add those options,” Mally co-founder Nicole Garza said.
Nurseries are no longer pink or blue juvenile ghettos but sleek extensions of the home, with muted colours, $1,500 leather gliders and $400 organic cotton crib mattresses. “Parents want something they can look at and feel comfortable with in their homes,” said Ying Liu, co-owner of three Fab Baby Gear stores in Ottawa and Toronto. “You don’t have to become Disneyland for your child.”
Are parents getting better products or being manipulated? The answer is both.
For every Foonf, there is a product like Baby Brezza’s $50 kettle that heats water for formula to exactly 36.7C for the baby’s comfort. And then there is the mamaRoo, a robotic seat from 4moms, the Pittsburgh-based maker of the Origami. It’s not a rocker or swing; rather, it simulates a parent’s swaying motions – and sells for $270, compared with a $60 Fisher Price bouncer. It’s very popular, but Cristina Lewarne, co-owner of upscale Vancouver boutique Crocodile Baby, refuses to stock it. “It’s one more babysitter you don’t need,” she said.

Harper-Baird: critical parent macho diplomats, offensive and ineffectual

Mr. Baird denounced the UN for “endless, fruitless inward-looking exercises,” for “preoccupation with procedure and process” instead of “substance and results.” He excoriated the UN over its failure to confront the civil war in Syria. “While the brutal and repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad continues the slaughter of its own people, the United Nations continues to fail to impose binding sanctions that would stem the crimson tide of this bloody assault,” he declared.
In vowing “to work closely with the United States and other allies to put pressure on Iran to comply with its international nuclear obligations,” Mr. Baird implicitly dismissed any meaningful role for the Security Council in containing the regime. And in condemning “the early and forced marriage of young girls … the criminalization of sexuality” and “suppressing – sometimes suppressing with brutal force – the rights to worship freely” he was indicting many UN member states for failing to honour the principles on which the organization was founded.
In his own foreign-policy speech last week, at a ceremony honouring him as an international statesman, Mr. Harper similarly dismissed “trying to court every dictator with a vote at the United Nations or just going along with every emerging international consensus, no matter how self-evidently wrong-headed.”
Henceforth, he vowed, Canadian foreign policy would take three approaches: to make common cause with democratic allies – “our true friends” – to deal “openly and fairly” with other nations, though “we will not deceive ourselves about those relationships,” and finally “to recognize clear and unequivocal threats” to global security and to speak out against them.
For Mr. Paris, the Tory rhetoric shuts off the flow of the first of two traditional streams of Canadian diplomacy: multilateral engagement combined with close co-operation with allies.
“This reliance on high-minded principle,” while preferring to talk to allies rather than potential antagonists, “is a way of dealing with complexity by simplifying it down to something that’s more comfortable and less confusing,” Mr. Paris observed. (from John Ibbitson column in Globe and Mail, October 1, 2012)
Back home, Baird's huffing and puffing about Syria and the international community's impotence to reach a consensus will likely receive a polite nod of agreement. After all, the UN is, by all accounts, emasculated, impotent and completely ineffectual, in both attempting a consensus on Syria and in having its diplomats negotiate an agreement to halt the slaughter of the innocents at the hands of the Assad regime.
However, it is one thing to slam the international body for its impotence on this file and quite another to try to punch "above our weight" in world diplomacy.
Simplification, reductionisms, binary headline grabbing are not, and never will be the centrepiece of diplomacy.
In fact, that is the kind of approach taken by this government on most issues: to reduce the nuances by eliminating them, and to paint a stick-picture of the context, one that fits their "frontier-macho-Marlboroman-OKCorral" mindset, and that keeps their political election campaign on full throttle, no matter the mountains, the curves nor the weather conditions. In fact, when there is wind, ice and limited visibility, this gang seems to put its foot to the "metal" even further, believing, one has to suppose, that competence, skill, subtlety and balance are for 'lesser mortals or for those who consider themselves "evolved" males of the species.
George W. Bush and his, "I do not do nuances!" would fit very nicely into this political backroom, where only action matters, and where the subtlety of the human imagination, intellect, sound judgement, intuition, sensitivity and sensibility are considered too effeminate for their taste. There is also a clear leaning toward "working with the U.S." as opposed to the UN, in the Baird speech and that smacks of another unwelcome tilt in the position of this government, especially if and when such a tilt in foreign policy might bring Canada into an unwanted and urgent need to put planes, ships, and troops into open conflict with and 'for' the U.S., as they would have desired in Iraq, and most likely, if Harper and Baird had been in power then, Canada would have followed lock-step in line with Bush-Cheney and the Pentagon warlords, Perle and Rumsfeld.
Not only does this Harper-Baird approach not pay homage to the long, honourable tradition of Canadian foreign policy, (as middle power, power broker, peace-keeper, and also highly respected among the international community) but it clearly does not represent the majority of Canadians or even a majority of those who could and would be considered informed and seasoned in diplomacy inside Canada.
Canada gives cold shoulder to the UN
By John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, October 1, 2012
Does John Baird’s loss of patience with the United Nations, as revealed in the Foreign Minister’s scathing address to the General Assembly Monday, estrange the Harper government from more than 60 years of Canadian commitment to multilateral diplomacy?
That speech, coming after Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to receive an award and to deliver a foreign-policy speech in New York last week instead of addressing the General Assembly, “abandons any remaining pretense of Canada’s support for the United Nations,” said Roland Paris, director of the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa.
While there is no suggestion Canada would withdraw from its funding commitments, when it comes to investing time, effort or respect, the Conservatives and the UN appear to be reaching the end of the line.
Mr. Baird denounced the UN for “endless, fruitless inward-looking exercises,” for “preoccupation with procedure and process” instead of “substance and results.” He excoriated the UN over its failure to confront the civil war in Syria. “While the brutal and repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad continues the slaughter of its own people, the United Nations continues to fail to impose binding sanctions that would stem the crimson tide of this bloody assault,” he declared.
In vowing “to work closely with the United States and other allies to put pressure on Iran to comply with its international nuclear obligations,” Mr. Baird implicitly dismissed any meaningful role for the Security Council in containing the regime. And in condemning “the early and forced marriage of young girls … the criminalization of sexuality” and “suppressing – sometimes suppressing with brutal force – the rights to worship freely” he was indicting many UN member states for failing to honour the principles on which the organization was founded.
In his own foreign-policy speech last week, at a ceremony honouring him as an international statesman, Mr. Harper similarly dismissed “trying to court every dictator with a vote at the United Nations or just going along with every emerging international consensus, no matter how self-evidently wrong-headed.”
Henceforth, he vowed, Canadian foreign policy would take three approaches: to make common cause with democratic allies – “our true friends” – to deal “openly and fairly” with other nations, though “we will not deceive ourselves about those relationships,” and finally “to recognize clear and unequivocal threats” to global security and to speak out against them.
For Mr. Paris, the Tory rhetoric shuts off the flow of the first of two traditional streams of Canadian diplomacy: multilateral engagement combined with close co-operation with allies.
“This reliance on high-minded principle,” while preferring to talk to allies rather than potential antagonists, “is a way of dealing with complexity by simplifying it down to something that’s more comfortable and less confusing,” Mr. Paris observed.
But it ignores, he said, the reality that the United Nations is dysfunctional because the world is dysfunctional and that the best hope for incremental progress lies in multilateral engagement rather than simply throwing in one’s lot with one’s friends.
Fen Hampson agrees that “the Harper government is turning its back on the UN.” The director of Global Security at the Centre for International Governance Innovation made that point in an article he co-wrote with Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the United States, Monday in iPolitics. While “the Prime Minister’s UN bypass last week seemed snubby and small … the message was clear – the UN is far removed from Canada’s international affections.”
But Mr. Hampson is less convinced than Mr. Paris that the words and actions of the Harper government reflect a fundamental break with Canadian commitment to multilateralism. In an interview, he noted that Mr. Baird’s call for international action in defence of citizens persecuted by their own government reflected the long-standing Canadian commitment to “Responsibility to Protect,” which was first promoted by the Liberals in the 1990s. And Canadian efforts to become more engaged in Pacific trade and diplomatic forums represent what might be called a multilateralism of convenience.
Tone may be as important as substance, whenever Mr. Baird speaks on behalf of Canada. While previous Canadian foreign ministers used the language of diplomacy to discuss diplomacy, the Conservatives have only one language, that used during election campaigns.
Foreign leaders taken aback by the harshness of the government’s rhetoric may not know that, publicly at least, this is just how Canadian Conservatives talk.

Poverty expert:"foreign aid likely to be replaced by national politics"...unlikely

“In the past, there was an easy relationship between rich and poor countries,” Dr. Sumner tells me from his office at London’s King’s College. “There was a moral and ethical argument for global redistribution – essentially taxing citizens in the rich countries to pay for poverty reduction.”

But now that the inequality is no longer international but within nations, there’s a “need for a fundamental reframing of global poverty as largely a matter of domestic distribution.” As a consequence, he says, “it also suggests that national politics will start to replace aid.” (From the piece by Doug Saunders in Globe and Mail, September 29, 2012, below)
Two or three things leapt out when reading the Saunders piece.
First, change, especially with respect to foreign affairs, comes inexorably glacially, when that meant extremely slowly.
Second, replacing aid with 'national politics' is even more unlikely given the apparently unwillingness of those on the right in every country, to recognize legitimate needs of the poor.
Third, taxing citizens, always the bane of most politicians, is even more unlikely when the money is going to the poor.
Fourth, even the word "redistribution" has fallen on hard times in recently political parlance, especially in the U.S. According to the politically correct "right" in that country the word smacks of socialism, communism and the 'nanny state' and is nothing short of evil incarnate to them.
Fifth, there is a kind of romance in providing for aid for the poor in underdeveloped countries, a kind of panache even, that takes the imagination on a trip across a bridge "too far" in our comfortable little worlds in the developed nations. Such romance is missing if we have to shift our focus on the poor in our own country, so long abandoned by representative governments in virtually all countries.
Drive through the streets in most North American cities, and witness the gaping disparity between the wealth in some parts of those cities, and the squalor, the unspeakable conditions for those living "on the other side of town"...and there is always "another side of town" just as there always is a "snob hill" where the rich dwell.
The cultural change needed to bring about a different perspective on our own poor, as compared with the "real poor" in "Africa" for example, will be seismic, and will require more real-life orientation sessions in more schools and colleges and universities for students to gain the necessary insight into the size and scope of the issue, before they will sanction changes in legislation and in national budgets which will be required. And that could take at least a couple of generations.
The hope that redistribution of national income does have a bright future, if we examine the parochial interests of the "haves"and their ignoring the plight of the "have-nots" in our own country, seems quite remote if not outside the possible. In fact such a prospect, although grounded in the promises of most world religions, to care for those unable to care for themselves, is quite literally and consciously abandoned, in both good times and in hard times, for opposite reasons:

• in good times, we become complacent;
• in hard times, 'there is not enough to go around' as the rationalization has it.

And as with so many other gaping abscesses crying out for solutions, we will continue to oscillate between the two polarities, without pausing to reconnoitre why we are so "stuck" all the while blaming political opponents, whoever they might be.
The poor ain't what they used to be
By Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, September 29, 2012
As the world’s most powerful leaders met at the United Nations General Assembly this week, another annual ritual was bringing hundreds of scholars, officials, aid workers and journalists to gatherings on the UN’s fringes to discuss the fate of the world’s least powerful people.
There’s a sense, this year, that everything has changed. The poor are still with us, but they aren’t who they used to be. And “ending poverty” doesn’t mean what it used to mean. It’s time to change the game.
The idea of ending world poverty from above – that is, doing something about the dire circumstances that leave about a billion people trying to survive on family incomes of less than $1 a day – is about as old as the UN, and it emerged from a similar sense of postcolonial guilt and beneficence.
At first, it seemed fairly simple: Very poor people lived in very poor countries, and the solution lay in making those countries less poor. To address this challenge, the years after the Second World War saw the birth of an entire multibillion-dollar, million-employee industry known as “development.”
The past 60 years have been a race to spend more public and charitable moneys on improving nations, economies, regions, cities and villages containing very poor people – the “Third World,” then the “underdeveloped countries,” then the “developing countries.”
Now they’ve developed. The 1990s and 2000s saw the most dramatic reduction of poverty in human history, with those living on almost nothing dropping from a more than third to less than a quarter of humanity. Foreign-aid spending and development projects had almost nothing to do with it – the poor became non-poor through economic growth and urbanization.
Now we face what Andy Sumner, who’s probably the most talked-about scholar of poverty, calls the “poverty paradox.” The problem, he says, is that “most of the world’s extreme poor do not live in the world’s poorest countries.”
That wasn’t true 20 years ago. In 1990, about 90 per cent of the world’s poor lived in “low-income countries,” where average incomes were close to the incomes of the poor. Your nation’s wealth determined your wealth. Today, nearly 80 per cent of the world’s poor live in “middle-income countries” – states, most formerly poor, that now have buoyant economies, large middle classes and surging economic growth propelled by exports to the West.
Significantly, these countries aren’t dependent on foreign aid; rather, they’re large-scale givers of aid. They no longer need our “development”; they’re developing themselves. And, as Dr. Sumner has calculated, they have enough money to end poverty within their borders – at least in theory.
“In the past, there was an easy relationship between rich and poor countries,” Dr. Sumner tells me from his office at London’s King’s College. “There was a moral and ethical argument for global redistribution – essentially taxing citizens in the rich countries to pay for poverty reduction.”
But now that the inequality is no longer international but within nations, there’s a “need for a fundamental reframing of global poverty as largely a matter of domestic distribution.” As a consequence, he says, “it also suggests that national politics will start to replace aid.”
Countries such as Canada that spend on foreign aid will face two problems. Their own taxpayers may not like the idea of anti-poverty money going to countries that are already selling them most of the goods on their shelves. And the governments of those countries won’t take well to being told how to manage their domestic inequality problems.
Those countries will need help, though, because they seem to be caught in a trap. They earn enough to end poverty. Dr. Sumner estimates it would cost them between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of GDP to eliminate the worst of it. (This is what these states typically spend on their militaries.)
To free up that money, they’ll need to tax the middle class. But this “middle,” like the countries themselves, often consists of people who have recently escaped poverty and aren’t making much more than $2 a day.
“Growth by itself isn’t going to do it,” Dr. Sumner says. “There will still be a lot of poor. They’re going to have to find a way to put their wealth to work – and that’s where aid could help.” We’re no longer the wealthy superiors, but fellow countries facing a common problem.