Who is interfering with Facebook?

Guest post by Deb Prothero

Although I am trying to get some work done today, I was curious about the Liberal Campaign Launch, so I went online.

Facebook is one of the places I check out for recent activity that might be interesting. Under updates, I was online as this one came in:

Anyonebutharper.ca
From Mean People Suck
Hey folks,

I’m part of a non-partisan movement Voting to Win against Stephen Harper. You can check out our website at www.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://anyonebutharper.ca. The movement is comprised of hundreds of Canadians — Liberals, NDP, Green, Bloc -- from across Canada all working collaboratively to promote strategic voting. We’re not the only group doing this, by the way. Vote for Environment http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://(http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://voteforenvironment.ca), Department of Culture http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://(http://www.departmentofculture.ca) and even the CAW are all urging Canadians to vote strategically. If we work together, we may prevent a Harper majority government from becoming a fait accompli.

I’m writing this message because I need YOU to help spread the word.

Please visit http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://anyonebutharper.ca and choose ONE of the Anyonebutharper videos and share it with your network. The “SHARE” plug-in with the green icon allows you to easily share this video on Facebook, Myspace, Digg, and so on. It even lets you post it on your blogs and send it to friends via email. If you are so inclined you may even share One Video a Day for the next FOUR days.

And lastly, if you could please copy/paste this message and send it to FIVE of your friends, that would be great!

I know that if we all work collectively and harness the power of our networks, we can stop what seems inevitable from happening!

Vive la revolution!
(read less)
Today at 10:13am | Opt Out | Report Spam

I chose to click on the link and lookie here:

The following website has been identified as malicious:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://anyonebutharper.ca
The link you have clicked has been identified by Facebook as a malicious web site. For the safety and privacy of your Facebook account, we strongly suggest you avoid visiting this address.

Has someone been tinkering with Facebook or are the Conservatives really scared now after Nik Nanos' numbers yesterday showed that Dion has the momentum now and Harper is yesterday's news. Just because a majority of Canadians do not want Harper and are trying to organize a strategic response, does this mean the Conservatives or individuals supporting the Conservatives should interfere with that online effort? What about free speech or is that only for Conservatives?

And if I were to label something malicious, it would most certainly be the last two years of activity directed against Stephane Dion by the Conservatives in parliament and the Conservative Party of Canada's attack advertising campaign.

Stephane Dion has been a superhero in handling the malicious attacks, in my opinion.

Why Uranium?

Guest post by Deb Prothero

Ever since last week's announcement by Harper about implementing some of the recommendations of the Competition Policy Review Panel's "Compete to Win" Report from June 2009, I've been wondering why in the world did he specifically talk about uranium? Who was that message for? Commodities investors, Bay Street, the average voter? It just didn't add up.

When things don't add up, I smell a rat and try to follow its tail.

Starting with the make-up of the Competition Review Panel: L.R. (Red) Wilson, CEO of BCE, chair; N. Murray Edwards, CEO of Canadian Natural Resources (one of the largest investors in Oil Sands); P. Thomas Jenkins, CEO of Open Text; Isabelle Hudon, CEO Montreal Board of Trade and Brian Levitt, Partner and Co-chair Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt (also member of board of BCE).

The Panel was appointed in June 2007 and issued their report in June 2008. Little commentary by the media or criticism by others of the report can be found online. Report here: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/cprp-gepmc.nsf/en/h_00040e.html

Their recommendations are worth considering but in the environment of a balanced analysis of the impact on the Canadian economy prior to implementation.

So, back to uranium.

I had recalled a CBC radio interview which I heard recently, discussing an agreement with the US for a "cradle to grave" approach to uranium. The agreement is called Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a "cooperation of those States that share the common vision of the necessity of the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner," according to the website of the organization (http://www.gneppartnership.org/). Did you know that Canada signed this? I didn't.

Reports (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=96ca068c-5191-4829-b63d-767648f0522f&k=76488) last fall claimed that, "The cornerstone commitment of the partnership is its 'cradle-to-grave' plan to have all spent fuel from the world's reactors shipped back to GNEP uranium-supplier nations for secure disposal at nuclear-waste sites."

Hey, wait a minute. Did that just say that the SPENT FUEL will be shipped back to GNEP uranium-supplier nations? Does that mean that Canadians get to take back all the spent fuel from the US? Well, yes on the surface and in the writing of the agreement that's exactly what it says.

But wait a second, our fearless new government, now dissolved and seeking reelection, wants to reassure us. Remember the brilliant star in Harper's cabinet who fired Linda Keen the evening before she was to give evidence to a parliamentary committee. Yeah, that Gary Lunn. Here's what he has to say.

"We made it unequivocally clear that we will, under no circumstances, ever accept any nuclear spent fuel back from any other country," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said in another CanWest article (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=532e51e0-089b-4f55-a5af-6d99960282a7&k=23825). "So this is a good initiative and Canada should be at the table to ensure that we have a voice."

But how can he say that, when Harper has signed an agreement with the US (or has he not signed and its in the negotiation phase) indicating that in fact we will be required to accept their spent fuel, if we supply the uranium. Guess Gary Lunn is smarter than me. Or maybe Harper/Bush have a different concept of what cradle-to-grave means. I thought it was about much-valued social safety nets which we adopt from Scandinavian countries with a Canadian twist. They seem to be talking about protecting investors from risk and responsibility from cradle-to-grave for every penny they invest!

So how about other agreements with the US... what do they say?

Uranium production and management is definitely an SPP priority being discussed by the North American Energy Working Group: http://www.pi.energy.gov/naewg.html. See the following quote on the Department of Energy website in the U.S.:

"Specifically, the trilateral working group explores policies, regulations and technological innovations with a view to encouraging the most optimal, efficient and sustainable development of hydrocarbons, energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean power, and nuclear energy and their related infrastructure as well as ensuring frameworks are in place for markets to work most effectively."

Reducing the barriers to foreign involvement in Canada's uranium industry is, in a big sense, about creating a more seamless North American uranium and nuclear market, which is an SPP priority (probably the U.S.'s biggest priority.)

Now I'm getting worried. Harper is going to allow greater foreign investment in Canadian companies, especially uranium. Doesn't that mean that the profits leave Canada? So not only will the American-owned multi-nationals get the profit from our uranium. Canadians living in uranium rich areas will get the pollution from the extraction. Then once the Americans are finished with the uranium, they're going to ship us the spent fuel!

I thought the softwood lumber deal negotiated by Harper and Emerson was the sell-out of the century but this uranium deal takes the cake. The Americans couldn't convince the residents around Yucca Mountain to accept the spent fuel so now they're adopting the unique approach of shipping the used uranium back to where it came from - Canada!

When are we going to see some discussion about this agreement? If uranium is one aspect of the "Compete to Win" report, when are we going to see some healthy criticism of its recommendations and ideas? And when I say healthy criticism, I am serious. There are aspects of the Competition Policy Review Panel report's recommendations which may in fact be necessary or important since some parts were implemented 20 years ago and need updating.

BUT, I have not heard anyone in this campaign offer any information about this issue and I'm listening. When are the Canadian media going to inform us about our choices? When are all the parties going to give us some real information about our choices?


Tip of the hat to the local Council of Canadians for some tips and links.

A "Phishing" Expedition?

Stephen Harper's announcement in Winnipeg yesterday will bring a failed "Made in the USA" policy to our justice system. Harper's War on Drugs has been predicted as a failure even by leading conservatives in the US. Their article "The War on Drugs is Lost" is a fascinating compilation explaining why.

It is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.

"The prosecution of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens every year is both hypocritical and an affront to individual, civil and human rights." (Raymond Kendall, Secretary General of Interpol).

So why would Harper proceed with a plan that has failed elsewhere. Why would he want to spend more money on a failed plan?

From the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy reports:

"Much of the cost of illicit drugs in Canada is attributable to policing and the criminal justice system. Yet studies have repeatedly shown that prevention and treatment are far more cost-effective than are approaches which depend on the criminal law. Methadone and other forms of treatment can cut down on the amount spent on illegal drugs, and so can reduce crimes committed to obtain drugs.

Treatment can also reduce other criminal behaviour through reducing alcohol and drug use.The result is a saving not only in terms of economic loss due to theft but also in terms of legal and prison costs. Drug treatment is a more cost-effective method than confinement for reducing drug use and crime: about two-thirds of the benefit for one-tenth of the annual cost. Such reduction in criminal behaviour, however, occurs only as long as the user stays in treatment and only as long as treatment is effective. Effectiveness of treatment and whether the user stays in treatment or not depend on the type of treatment they receive. Flexible treatment programs, where multiple options exist for each person, appear to be the most effective in keeping users away from illegal drugs and the most successful at retaining clients.

A recent study by bipartisan public health researchers in the United States found that medical treatment for drug dependence works as well as treatment for diabetes and other chronic diseases, dramatically reduces crime and is much cheaper than jail. The report concluded that: every dollar invested in drug treatment can save $7 in societal and medical costs. These findings confirm those of previous studies of comparative approaches to drug dependence."

So again, the question, WHY spend tax dollars on enforcement?

Why, then, does prohibition persist and alternatives remain such an anathema to law enforcement and many politicians? Gil Puder, an outspoken member of the Vancouver police force puts it bluntly: "The reality is that policing’s make-work project called drug prohibition has been so successful that society can no longer afford to pay for the crime wave we’ve created..." Regarding the relationship between prohibition, weapons, and the industry of law enforcement, Puder writes that the "violence of prohibition is simply good for business."

There it is: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Puder concludes that: "There are simply too many people who have formed their value system around an idea, an idea that has back fired to magnify social misery and run roughshod over our justice system. Critical thinkers might ask why prohibition advocates are content to blame others for the disaster left in the drug war’s wake. There’s a simple reason for this, going far deeper than the overt examples of personal gain and empire building. The defining characteristic of the drug war is that it enable people to form a self-concept, based not on the quality of their character, but through disparaging the morality of others."

Ah-ha, there we have it again! FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Could Harper be buying off the social conservatives with a little bit of self-righteous and morally superior legislation? A piece of legislation that will cause progressive thinkers to wail in protest. Why would he do that, you might ask? Divide and conquer is a tried and true practise for conservatives.

And well, elections are expensive. If the social conservative base of the Conservative Party of Canada get a little of what they want, maybe they'll pay for his election. Just enough so his "fish or cut bait" threat looks more like a phishing expedition for donors.