CANADIAN POLITICS/AMERICAN POLITICS:

TAR SANDS OPPONENTS APPEAL RULING:

As the supply of conventional oil declines energy companies are increasingly looking not just to unconventional areas for drilling (such as the Arctic Ocean) but also to unconventional sources such as the Alberta Tar/Oil Sands. Petroleum extraction from bituminous deposits is such areas is controversial for many different reasons-its effect on the local ecology being the primary question. In recent years the American government has looked at the Alberta Tar Sands as a potentially significant (there may be more oil in this area than under Saudi Arabia) and, above all "strategically safe" (given a couple of weeks the US Marines could probably walk to the area in question) source of petroleum. Reliance on this source, however, has met with considerable opposition, not just within Alberta but also within the USA itself. The simple fact is that petroleum extraction from areas such as the Tar Sands is inevitably the dirtiest way to get oil, both in its effect on the local ecosystem and in terms of its contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. The greatest barrier to the tar sands development is that there simply is not enough water available to meet the needs of even a fraction of the proposed (let alone the potential) development. This, of course, raises the question of whether some substantial water engineering projects- such as diverting much of the flow of the Mackenzie River south- may not be part of the hidden agenda of the oil companies and governments.

The opposition in the USA is now appealing the recent Presidential Permit for a pipeline to the USA from the Tar Sands. Here's the story from the Act Up in Saskatchewan website.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP
International Coalition Appeals Tar Sands Pipeline Permit:
Contributed by Jim Elliott
On August 20th, an international coalition of environmental and aboriginal organizations have vowed to challenge a permit given to a pipeline to bring the dirtiest oil on earth from the Tar Sands in Alberta to the United States.

“The State Department has rubber-stamped a project that will mean more air, water and global warming pollution, particularly in the communities near refineries that will process this dirty oil,” said Earthjustice attorney Sarah Burt. “The project’s environmental review fails to show how construction of the Alberta Clipper is in the national interest. We will go to court to make sure that all the impacts of this pipeline are considered.”

The groups involved in the challenge are Earthjustice, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Sierra Club of the United States. They pointed out in their statements today that this decision to allow the pipeline contradicts President Obama’s promise to cut global warming pollution and America’s addiction to oil while investing in a clean energy future.

The intended plan is to allow Enbridge, a Canadian company, to build the Alberta Clipper pipeline across northern Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin and the Southern Lights pipeline to carry hazardous liquids back into Canada.

The continued support of the Tar Sands development in Alberta is creating an environmental catastrophe, with toxic tailings ponds so large they can be seen from space and plans to strip away the forests and peat lands in an area the size of Florida. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from Tar Sands production are three times that of conventional crude oil and it contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen and five times more lead than conventional oil. These toxins are released into the U.S. air and water when the crude oil is processed into fuels by refineries. So, in addition to the toxic mess and damage inflicted on Alberta and Saskatchewan, this proposal will expand the number of point sources for increased pollution.

“The tar sands pipeline connects U.S. refiners and consumers with the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive crude oil on earth,” said Kevin Reuther, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy’s legal director. “Tar sands crude is causing massive environmental degradation in Canada and results in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions. This is the absolute wrong step to take if we want to create a greener energy future.”

It is said that building this pipeline to the United States would be in the national interest of the United States. If fact, these pipelines would hurt the United States. By having this pipeline cross the border, it will entrench the United States to depend on this dirty oil for as long as it flows. It will also obligate Canada to continue to provide oil in the same proportion as it now provides for the forseeable future even when the Tar Sands are depleted.

“Importing dirty tar sands oil is not in our national interest,” said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope. “At a time when concern is growing about the national security threat posed by global warming, it doesn’t make sense to open our gates to one of the dirtiest fuels on earth. This pipeline will lock America into a dirty energy infrastructure for years to come. This is exactly the kind of project the State Department should be protecting us from.”

Many of the same groups involved in this court challenge are also appealing the U. S. Forest Service permission to allow the pipeline to cross parts of the Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota. In addition, a group of tribal members have apparently gathered enough signatures on a petition to hold a referendum on the Leech Lake tribal council’s agreement to allow the line through tribal land.

"We are saddened by the news that the Presidential Permit was signed today,” said Marty Cobenais of the Indigenous Environmental Network, a Bemidji, Mn.-based non-profit. “The voices and rights of the Leech Lake Band members are not being listened to by the Obama Administration. According to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Constitution they are allowed to hold a referendum vote and allow the members to decide to accept the agreement with Enbridge or not. Nearly 700 signatures were obtained. If they vote against the agreement, the pipeline route would have to go around the boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation, which would require a new Environmental Impact Study, plus other permits including a new Presidential Permit.

“This project is being approved without all the federal regulations completed. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is still waiting to receive a completed application from Enbridge Energy and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe to begin their approval process for allotment lands affected by these pipelines.”

CANADIAN POLITICS/CANADIAN MEDIA:

THE SASQUATCH STOMPS IN SASKATCHEWAN:

The ever spreading influence of new models of media, internet based, are threatening the older mass media, newspapers, television and even radio with irrelevance. There are many responses, and some on the left see this as an opportunity for a progressive media to gain influence. Out in Molly's old stomping grounds, Saskatchewan, there is one such project, the Sasquatch, which aims to be both a print and internet effort. In their ambitions, if not their politics, they resemble the more libertarian and successful Z Communications (see our Links section).

I do, of course, wish them well, but I do have to say that a quick glance at their August issue shows it to be not quite my cup of tea. Some of the articles are quite good, but the plunge into "opinion" revolves around the 60 year old question of whether a)the NDP is perfect in every way or b)how much better it is than its one perennial opponent and what minor adjustments could be made or c)has serious deficiencies that could, of course, be remedied by capturing the party and moving it to the left. Some of the revelations were new to me. The Saskatchewan NDP's new leader Lingenfelter is, apparently, an ex-oil executive. And silly me- all these years of thinking that they couldn't find a leader any more right wing than Roy Romanow. Well, I still think that they will never find one who was equally 'assholeish' and so given to low cunning. I await my disillusionment.

Another revelation added to my long standing opinion that Saskatchewan politics are trapped in an eternal time loop that they will never exit. One of the pro-NDP writers added as evidence for optimism that the same conference that had elected the oil executive as leader passed resolutions demanding the end of the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan. Speaking of time loops lets jump into Molly's Magical Time Machine and transport back about 30 years to a barroom in Regina Saskatchewan. This was shortly after yet another anti-nuclear resolution had been passed by an NDP Convention (ie not the first and hardly the last over the past three decades). By this time Molly has quit the NDP, and it hard to tell whom she is more pissed off with- the fools who keep valiantly soldiering on to pass resolutions that never have any effect or the political bosses in the NDP who cynically let the rhetoric spouting lefties blow off steam with such noneffective busywork. My drinking buddy for the night just so happens to have been the Premier's chief flack runner. He is all ice to my fire, all control to my moral outrage. You don't, of course, achieve such a position without having shed any vestige of principle to the last thread.

There is, of course, no disagreement with the central idea- that the lefties are fools, wasting their time by passing resolutions at party conventions that will never translate into policy. Nor is there any disagreement with the secondary idea, that the party brass knows this very well and uses it intelligently. Nor is there, finally, any disagreement with the tertiary idea, that the lefties would be of far more use to their ideals if they were to come down off their academic high horses and actually go to the people rather than try to imitate Sisyphus by rolling a rock up an eternal hill. My drinking buddy, however, has no interest whatsoever in the goals of the lefties. To say the least he "won the argument" by summing up the attitude of the party brass very well. He looks at me like the total idiot he must have thought I was and answered, ""It's not a world for babies". That sums it up pretty well. The lefties in the NDP were (and even more so are now) childish for imagining that their eternal plotting could change the course of the party. I was childish for imagining that morality (such things as honesty and principle) had anything whatsoever to do with the political process. So...more beer and let's change the subject. Nowadays I know very well that the lefties could never "go to the people" because of the simple fact that the lefties represent a class whose interests are only sometimes in agreement with those of the majority, and I also know that the term "lefty" contains at least some cynical manipulators who are worse than the bosses of parties such as the NDP. That doesn't mean that I accept the point of view of my booze buddy that night. Yes, "it is not a world for babies", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying to make it such a world.

Enough of my trips down memory lane. Here's the Sasquatch announcement from the Act Up in Saskatchewan website. Think about subscribing.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP

Feed the Sasquatch

This is a time of great upheaval in Canadian media. While corporate-owned, ad-heavy, top-down media are stumbling, slashing newsroom staff and local coverage, new and exciting media forms are rushing in, finding cracks in the system and spreading deep roots from which to grow.

That's where The Sasquatch comes in. And you can play a leading role in helping it thrive!

The Sasquatch – a new, independent print and online publication – focuses on stories that affect you and that reflect discussions in kitchens(you have to have come from a Saskatchewan CCF/NDP background as I did to appreciate the significance of "kitchen meetings"-Molly) and living rooms across the province and around the country. The Sasquatch tells stories that get swept under the rug by mainstream media but that desperately need to see the light of day.

But to succeed, The Sasquatch needs more subscribers. Please take a moment to subscribe today at our discount, introductory rate.

This is your chance to show your support for local, non-profit, independent news. For only $20, you'll receive 8 biting issues of The Sasquatch featuring thoughtful political analysis and important stories on Saskatchewan life and politics that aren't being told elsewhere.

Here are 3 simple ways you can get involved:

1. Go to our online webstore at http://www.sasquatchnews.com/store or call 1-866-431-5777 (525-2949 in Regina) right now to subscribe. Use the coupon code "promoSasquatch" to receive our special introductory rate.

2. "Attend" the Facebook event for this subscription drive. Invite your friends to attend, too.

3. Spread the word to your email networks, prefaced by a personal message encouraging them to subscribe.

We need 250 new subscribers by the end of the summer in order to meet our targets. Please take a moment to subscribe and spread the word right now.

By subscribing to The Sasquatch, you are contributing to healthy democratic debate, supporting the work of local freelance writers and ensuring that underreported stories and marginalized voices(this term is definitely not CCF nostalgia-Molly) are heard.

Buying a subscription gets you a hard copy of The Sasquatch delivered to your door every six weeks. Or buy a combo package and get Briarpatch Magazine (http://www.briarpatchmagazine.com) along with it. Or, if you'd prefer, just make a donation -- because, as much as we wish it were otherwise, good media costs money.

Even if you can't subscribe right now, or if you're already a subscriber, please spread the word, tell your friends, browse our website and email an article to your friends (or enemies!). Let them know that they can choose media that gives priority to local news and that's hard-hitting and meaningful to them.

Participating in our subscription drive gives you the chance to give something back. Again, we need 250 new subscribers by the end of the summer or we may have to scale back. Every little bit helps, and we appreciate any and all of the support we receive from our readers.

Check out what you'll be getting here: http://sasquatchnews.com/the-august-2009-issue/ and join us as we embark on this exciting independent media project!

Signed,

Shayna Stock, Publisher

The Sasquatch

p.s. Important new initiatives like The Sasquatch sometimes fail in the early stages because supportive, sympathetic people are slow to rally to them. Please don't let that happen. Subscribe right now, and encourage your friends to do the same.

p.p.s. Remember, use the coupon code "promoSasquatch" to claim your introductory rate of $20 ($45 for a combo subscription).

DON'T WAIT -- SUBSCRIBE RIGHT NOW!

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP

All politics aside I think that the people at the Sasquatch are going about this in a backasswards way. To my mind it would be better to begin as simply an internet publication, with minimal costs, with an ambition to produce occasional printed specials. Concentrating on this would allow the website to be much more topical. Sooner or later someone is going to ask about whether an every six weeks edition of the Sasquatch is any worthwhile addition to a monthly edition of Briarpatch. I'll get a bit "political" here and point out that what I say is obvious to anyone who has had to operate in the 'real economy', but it is far less obvious to those who have come to depend upon grants (usually from government) that prop up projects that couldn't succeed on their own. This is one of the bad habits that has been inculcated by the sort of leftism that I dislike, and if I cannot convince those who hope for such grants of the immorality of what they do I may, at least, be able to convince others of its impracticality and unintended consequences. Too much ambition guarantees failure. Good luck to them anyways.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-ICELAND:

ANOTHER OPINION ON ICELAND:

The following is from the Act Up In Saskatchewan site. I reprint this here, note because I agree with the author's politics-I obviously don't- but because it gives a little more background on the events in Iceland than I have published here so far. As an ex-member of the NDP Molly has a certain lingering sympathy with left social democrats, of which the "greenie" version are one example. The sympathies of the author of the piece below are pretty obviously of that sort. All that I can say here and now is that the adherents of such politics are, in my view, childishly naive. That's all well and good. I can think of adherents to the anarchist name, especially in the USA, who are even more so and who add moral turpitude to their list of faults. As to the province of my birth-Saskatchewan- the best that I can say for their "greenies" (leaving aside the subcultural nature of their beliefs) is that they can maintain a certain "purity" because they, unlike other Green parties in other parts of the world, have not even advanced 1/10,000th of the way to any political influence. Let them advance 1/1000th of the way and you will see the same sort of retrograde motion that Green parties in Europe have performed. In actual fact the "greenies", based as they are on subcultural conviction (and a class basis of managers that they cannot admit) have far less sociological basis to prevent them from giving in to the temptation of "opportunism" than traditional class based social democratic parties have had."Ideas", after all, are much more subject to change than "interests". Anyways, enough ranting. Here's the article.

..........................

Protests Bring Down Iceland's Government:
Contributed by John W. Warnock
Sunday, 25 January 2009
The financial crisis has claimed its first victim. On Saturday Iceland’s government resigned and called elections for May 9, two years early. Protesters, who have been in the street since October 2008, began large rallies at the Parliament on Tuesday, demanding the resignation of the coalition government. On Saturday, Prime Minister Geir Haarde announced they were giving in to public opinion.

Large demonstration began the week when Parliament resumed from a long break. Commentators said they were the largest protests in the country since 1949, when people objected to the government’s decision to join NATO. Women shouted and banged on pans. Eggs, paint, firecrackers and yogurt were thrown at the Parliament building. A large bond fire was set in front of the door of Parliament. When the prime minister exiting the building, his car was surrounded, rocked and covered with paint. The police replied with pepper spray and batons.

In this small country of 320,000, thousands turned out for demonstrations during the week. They carried signs proclaiming “Yes We Can!” Banners stated: “USA is getting rid of Bush – We want to get rid of you!”
Financial deregulation

Following the policies of Tony Blair’s government in the UK and Bill Clinton’s in the United States, the government of Iceland deregulated the financial industry. This was part of a general move to embrace free market economics. The three major banks in Iceland put a high priority on expanding abroad, going deeply into the shaky derivatives market.

The bubble collapsed in October, with foreign debts rising astronomically to almost ten times Iceland’s gross domestic product. Following the pattern set by Labour Prime Minister George Brown in the UK, and the George Bush-Democratic Congress in the United States, the banks were bailed out by the government and the taxpayers.

Icelanders went to the banks to withdraw their money, and the banks said no. They went to the store to buy groceries and found that the shelves were bare. No one would ship anything to Iceland without being paid cash up front. Like a poor Third World country, the government went to the International Monetary Fund and begged for a bailout. It was granted with the usual free market free trade conditions.

Iceland’s coalition government

Since the election of 2007, Iceland has been ruled by a “grand coalition” government of the right wing Independence Party and the centre-left Social Democratic Alliance. In a public opinion poll taken on Saturday, support for the Independence Party has dropped from 37% to 22%. Support for their coalition partner, the Social Democratic Alliance, has fallen from 27% to 19%. The surprise has been the growth of the Left-Green Movement, which received 14% in the 2007 election but is now at 33% in the polls. The party has announced that it is willing to lead a coalition government after the May 2009 election. They are the only party which wants to renegotiate the agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

Rise of the Left-Green Movement

Political parties were re-aligned in Iceland in 1999. The Social Democratic Alliance was formed when the Social Democratic Party merged with parts of three smaller parties. They are described as a “centre-left” party and follow the general policy position of the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown “New Democrats” in Great Britain.

Because of their ideological support for the social democratic version of neoliberalism (well known in Saskatchewan), supporters from the Women’s Alliance and the National Movement broke with the new party. They joined with the Left Green Alliance to form the new Left-Green Movement.

The Left-Green Movement is a Green socialist party, with a strong feminist orientation. They are affiliated with the Nordic Green Left Alliance of similar parties. Their four basic principles are:

(1) Conservation and protection of the environment.

(2) Equality and social justice.

(3) Commitment to promoting labour and the labour movement.

(4) An independent foreign policy, with no military alliances. Their general policy position is similar to that of the New Green Alliance, the original Green Party in Saskatchewan.

This week the European Union warned governments that popular opposition to existing governments over the financial collapse and the onset of the deep recession is rising and there will be more social unrest and radical political activity. Mass protests are now taking place in Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece.

COMMUNITY POLITICS-REGINA:

TENANTS VERSUS LANDLORDS AND THE CITY IN REGINA:

Here's a little item from the Act Up In Saskatchewan website about community politics in Molly's old neighbourhood there, the 'Cathedral Area'. It seems that some things never change.

..........................

Condo conversions proceed - mayor dismisses tenant concerns:

Written by Trish Elliott
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Landlords tell the truth, while tenants and community associations make unfounded allegations, seems to be the message from a recent City of Regina planning commission decision. The commission voted to approve three condo conversions last night, despite the city staff's recommendation that the applications be denied.

In a presentation to the commission, Paul Dechene and Aaron Murray of the Cathedral Area Community Association outlined renters’ complaints about intimidation and unfair tactics during the conversion application process, and called on the city to follow its own condo conversion rules regarding vacancy rates and due process.

In remarks to the press following the meeting, Mayor Pat Fiacco referred to the complaints as “hearsay" and said it was unfortunate they had been brought forward.

Murray and Dechene said the CACA was not opposed in principle to conversions at first, but became alarmed when tenants began to tell stories of undue pressure from Nicor, the property management company. According to the rules, 75 per cent of tenants must agree to the conversion when city vacancy rates are less than three per cent.

“At a summer meeting at Connaught School between tenants, Nicor and the city, we listened to the testimony of many tenants who expressed deep mistrust of Nicor and who indicated that the hardships they would experience from their buildings being converted was not being satisfactorily remedied,” Murray said.

The community association felt the concerns had been addressed when the city administration, after further investigation, recommended on Nov. 5 that the applications be denied.

“We are surprised, then, to find ourselves at Council faced with a recommendation for acceptance of the conversion applications.”

The CACA also took issue with the landlord’s statement that the slumlike condition of the buildings would only be remedied by condo approval.

“We have a situation where a landlord has come before planning commission and confessed that their properties are dangerously decrepit. In such a situation, for the sake of the tenants still residing in these buildings, shouldn’t the first step be an inspection from Public Heath and City Bylaw Enforcement, not a condo conversion approval?”
Trish Elliott is a CACA board member

CACA PRESENTATION
CATHEDRAL AREAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION BEFORE REGINA CITY COUNCIL
RE: REPORTS RPC 08-57, RPC 08-60 AND RPC 08-61

The Cathedral Area Community Association is here to urge council to accept the original recommendations of city staff in reports RPC 08 57 through 61 as presented to Planning Commission on November 5, and deny the three condo conversion applications: 2060 Lorne, 2358 Rae and 2125 Lorne. Also, we’d like to note that we are not in favour of approving the applications for the conversions of 2121 and 2141 Rae which have been tabled and will be considered at the Dec 3 Planning Commission meeting.

When the possibility of these condo conversions was brought to our association’s attention, we were somewhat concerned. However, we are not opposed to development in the Cathedral Area, nor are we in principal opposed to apartment blocks being converted to condominium dwellings. We do, however, want to ensure that when such conversions are being considered, the process that developers have to go through is fair both to them and to tenants, and that issues such as the availability of rental accommodation in our area be considered.

After discussions with city staff, we became convinced that the process they were going to enter into with Nicor in this case seemed to address most of our concerns. We opted to wait and see how the situation would develop.

Over the course of the process, we began to worry that all was not well with these conversions. And there seems to be a disconnect between the process that was laid out to us and the result.

Once it was underway, we began to hear complaints that Nicor was not conducting itself professionally and may in fact have been placing undue pressure upon tenants to get them to agree to the conversions. Moreover, at a summer meeting at Connaught school between tenants, Nicor and the city, we listened to the testimony of many tenants who expressed deep mistrust of Nicor and who indicated that the hardship they would experience from their building’s being converted was not being satisfactorily remedied.

We heard how Nicor meddled in the second tenant survey even though they’d been requested by city staff not to. If this is the case, then the survey system appears deeply flawed and open to abuse. This must be rectified or we cannot expect the public to have any faith in the process. The applicant should not have any impact, whatsoever, on the survey process. And we should not reward their interference at the end of the process.

The original, November 5 city staff reports, addressed our concerns. They seemed thorough. Their recommendations to deny the applications based on the problems that arose during the process seemed sound.

We are surprised, then, to find ourselves at Council faced with a recommendation for acceptance of the conversion applications.

Planning commission, we feel has failed to ask some important questions about these applications.

For instance, Nicor claims that many of their tenants are in support of the conversion. Many, however, may or may not meet the city’s policy minimum that 75% of tenants must support such an application. Also, all five staff reports seem to suggest that information coming from Nicor about tenant attitudes has not always been reliable --- this was the reason for the second tenant survey. We would think, then, that a vague suggestion from Nicor that some number of tenants are in their corner would not be sufficient for Planning Commission, and some burden of proof would be shifted onto the applicant.

Also, Nicor has suggested repeatedly that these conversions must go through because these five buildings are “slumlike” and in need of millions of dollars worth of repairs. To our knowledge, no breakdown of this figure has been requested of Nicor. Is this “millions of dollars” the amount necessary to get these buildings up to condo-resale condition? Might a reasonable maintenance investment be less costly? We simply don’t know.

Also, we have a situation where a landlord has come before planning commission and confessed that their properties are dangerously decrepit. In such a situation, for the sake of the tenants still residing in these buildings, shouldn’t the first step be an inspection from Public Heath and City Bylaw Enforcement, not a condo conversion approval?

Again, the CACA is not in principal opposed to condo conversions and we want to see smart, sustainable development in our community.

But, as was to our satisfaction demonstrated in the staff reports, in this case the applicant has not acted up to a level of professionalism that we would think is acceptable. Because of this, 20 other condo conversion applications have been languishing in a queue. We feel that such behaviour should not be rewarded and council should deny these applications. They should be put at the end of the line, and staff should be allowed to proceed to other applications that have been sitting in limbo.

In addition to all of this, we are concerned about the effect that approving these applications will have on the range of housing alternatives available in the Cathedral Area. If we are to have a sustainable rental market in the central zone, we wonder how much closer to a 3% rate we can skirt and what effect taking these 3 buildings off the market will have.