The Issue: Privatization of the LCBO in Ontario
It was once accepted that alcohol was the only monopoly product in Canada. This was the case for most of the 20th century in North
America. Today, beer, wine, spirits and other alcohol-related products
are sold in state-run corporation stores, agency outlets and other
licensed establishments. In the province of Ontario, liquor retailing
policy has remained unchanged compared to other provinces. As most
other provinces have moved towards various degrees of privatization of
alcohol sales, there have arisen pressures for the government of
Ontario to sell off the Liqour Control Board of Ontario and for the
get out of the retailing business.
However, the LCBO has become the largest single purchaser of alcohol
in the world and generates nearly $3 billion in profits and taxes for
the provincial government. At issue is the fact that the provincial
government could eliminate budget shortfalls left behind by the last
government by selling off its stores as the province of Alberta did in
the 1990’s. Other advocates of privatization justify their positions
through the fact that the government ought not to profit off a market
that it owns; that the sector be opened up for competion. Also, some
take the moral position that alcohol is a drug, and the government
should not be encouraging and thus profiting from the sale of drugs.
Proponents of the status quo argue that the governemnt is the one body
that can control the product best through regulating its availability,
prices, and selection, not to mention that any short-term gains would
be negated by the loss of long-term revenue.
Questions:
1. What is the best role of the LCBO in alcohol retailing and
distribution in Ontario?
2. Should the LCBO open up alcohol retailing to competion from the
private sector?
Further reading
www.lcbo.com
www.opha.on.ca/advocacy/letters/lcbo.html
Campbell, Murray. “LCBO Could Use a Splash of Competition”. The Globe
and Mail (Toronto), February 9, 2006.
MacLellan, Stephanie. “No Need to Privatize LCBO, Outgoing Boss Says”.
Guelph Mercury, February 10, 2006.
Torture, the meaning is horrific yet unclear. Its terror comes from our most basic fears for survival. In a cruel twist of fate, its limits are partially determined by the one being tortured, making it that much more frightening. For the purpose of this discussion torture is defined as severe physical or mental pain and suffering inflicted upon a victim by perpetrators with the aim to obtain information or confessions.
The argument is not whether torture is right or wrong because it is simply wrong. But can it ever be justified?
The use of physical torment to obtain valuable intelligence has been a staple of humanity dating as far back to biblical times with acts like crucifixion. Today, organizations like Amnesty International are against interrogation torture by claiming everyone has the right to live free of the threat of torture. However, the US Central Intelligence Agency employs torture interrogation as the outcomes of failing to torture terrorists (e.g. those that possess information about the planned use of weapons of mass destruction) could weaken state security. Since the tragedy of 9/11 calls for torture during interrogation of terrorists have come from unlikely places. According to one online poll conducted by About.com, 65% of those taking the poll approve of torture interrogation (49% in all circumstances, 7% to prevent acts of terror and gain information about other terrorists, and 9% just to prevent upcoming terrorist action).
For the purposes of this discussion we will be limiting our talk to its use as a form of interrogation. Also, the point of this discussion is not to come up with new forms or go into gory details for two reasons: 1) There are too many ways and not enough time to cover them all and 2) we’re at a restaurant. As interesting as your upside down, water droplet, thumbscrew combo is, that family at the next table is trying to eat (and so are we).
Please note that while discussing how it can be prevented, use of the terms “society”, “UN”, “peacekeepers”, and “make people understand” is strictly prohibited. How do you make people understand? Under threat of torture?
Questions:
1. We will be looking at the why, not the how of torture, focusing on if and when it could be deemed acceptable. If so, who decides this?
2. How do these people reach that point of desperation?
3. What are the long-term effects on those involved (for both parties)?
4. Are some forms more acceptable, if so why? Can it ever really be stopped?
5. What is torture interrogation’s presence in popular media and how this affects the public’s view of torture?
Suggested Reading:
1) Torture & the Media http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/torture.html
2) Basic Definition of Torture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
3) Theoretical arguments for & against torture http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Casebeer03.html
When: Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 5:30pm
Who: Hosted by Andrew Raven & RSVP with An at thewordottawa@gmail.com
Global Warming is an issue that pervades the front pages of newspapers on a daily basis. The issue of climate change (caused by CO2) seems to be victorious as many non-traditional actors have joined the “green” crusade. From a former vice-president (Al Gore), to corporate alliances with various green sounding names promoting alternative energies, the environmentalist movement has hit mainstream culture. Even a former die-hard denier such as our Prime Minister is hopping on board, and promoting ‘green plans’ under massive popular pressure and public opinion.
But is it really grass roots education and the truth of science that has motivated the population to passionately force politicians and the mass media to act? Or has something else happened that has pushed Global Warming to the forefront? Some might argue that global warming has been broadly accepted as truth, in the presence of murkily bogged down and uncertain scientific details.
This being said, have all scientists suddenly become convinced that atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the most dangerous and pressing issue facing mankind? Or has dumbed down science allowed for dumbed down solutions, that later get proposed by policy makers ( e.g. carbon sequestration, carbon trading, bio-fuels, nuclear energy, etc.)?
Two Canadian professors have grappled with some of these questions from an empirical and social science perspective. In a new theory spearheaded by Denis Rancourt (specializes in Environmental Physics at the University of Ottawa) and David Noble (a Historian from York University), both professors argue that Global Warming is a corporate led campaign based on inconclusive science. This mainstream campaign is meant to create profit, distract from real social justice issues, and co-opt the environmentalist movement into selling a problem easily solvable through technical and economic solutions that do not threaten power.
Interestingly, Rancourt and Noble’s theory has invoked a backlash not from those tied to power, but from fellow activists associated with the environmental movement. These critics disagree with Rancourt & Noble’s critique of the science as well as their approach. The most extensive critique so far is an essay by activist Justin Podur (ZNet Commentator-online news forum) in which he argues that “people need sensible green proposals that are also in accordance with values of justice, equality and solidarity,” instead of dismissing the elite strategy all together. He argues that it is wrong to reject the science and dismiss the solutions like Kyoto or Co2 markets, not because they are inadequate (which to him they are) or because they serve elite agendas (which to him they do), but because they conclude that there is no problem to solve in the first place. To Pondur, Rancourt and Noble are trying to open up the wrong debate. No matter which side of the debate you are on, here are some questions to get you thinking:
Questions:
- Why has the global warming movement won over mainstream popular opinion?
- Will the solutions being proposed to stop or mitigate Global Warming solve the problems attributed to Global Warming?
- Does it matter whether or not the science supports Global Warming? Is social justice the key to addressing the problems regardless of ones view on the science?
Suggested Background Reading:
- Dominion Interview with Denis Rancourt: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1110
- Justin Podurs Essay Critiquing Rancourt/Noble’s theory: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12796
- David Nobles detailing how Climate Change became mass marketed: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/05/01/1090/
- How to Talk to A Global Warming Skeptic FAQ: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.ht
- Taking CO2 Seriously – Denis Rancourt’s blog- http://climateguy.blogspot.com/
When: 5:30pm, Monday, May 28th, 2007
Who: Hosted By Dave Mandelzys and RSVP with An via email: thewordottawa@gmail.com
Filed under: Captain America, Comic Books, Marvel, Politics, Popular Culture
****CIVIL WAR & CAPTAIN AMERICA SPOILER WARNING****
Captain America, a hero from the pages of comic books widely regarded as a symbol of America’s spirit, has perished – shot on the stairs of the court of law where he would have stood trial for opposing the government and defending civil liberties. This was the bitter end to a Marvel comic’s event entitled Civil War. (Actually, it was just after the bitter end of the Civil War if we want to get technical. I’m pretty sure no one besides me wants to be overly technical, BUT the actual end of Civil War was EVEN MORE symbolic, I’ll get to that in a sec.)
ACADEMICISH SYNOPSIS OF CIVIL WAR:
Basically, there was this dude Nitro who exploded the shit out of this place called Stamford, killing hundreds of people, many of whom were children. A team of superheroes called the New Warriors was there when it all happened (filming a reality TV show), and the whole disaster seemed like it was due to the incompetence of a team of heroes who were neither trained nor accountable to anyone for their actions. So, the Superhero Registration Act came into force, requiring all superheroes to register their identities with the government, or become criminals and get sent to a prison in a place called the Negative Zone which is basically like a concentration camp. Captain America wasn’t down with that. He didn’t just follow the law because it was the law – he was more into defending civil liberties. So, he formed an Anti-Registration movement. Iron Man, being a twat, started working for the government and rounding up all superheroes who opposed the law.
Some things happened, losses on both sides and whatnot.
In the final battle the Anti-Registration side (Caps’ side) was wining, and Captain America was beating the snot out of Iron Man. THEN, a group of civilians stopped Captain America from pummelling Iron Man. In that moment, Captain America realized that he was no longer fighting for the people, that he was no longer the symbol of the spirit of America. So he turned himself in, ending the Civil War.
As you’ve heard on the news Captain America was shot, but that was the end of an elaborate plot by his long-time foe the Red Skull, after the end of the Civil War.
Get this: the law he was opposing – the Superhuman Registration Act (SHRA), was widely regarded as an allegory for the US PATRIOT Act (US ’s version of the Anti-Terrorism Act). After all the SHRA was rushed through the legislative process and passed after a bombing and ever since civil liberties have been given up in favour of state security.
There is some serious symbolic and political shit going on here. Even if you have never seen – let alone read a comic book, you’ll probably find something to talk about at this month’s discussion group.
Discussion Questions:
- Captain America is supposed to embody the American dream- what is that dream? Is his death supposed to represent the effective end of that dream or is it being squashed right now? And is it something anyone other than Americans take seriously anymore?
- What sort of heroes (comic book or forreals) will usher in the post 9/11 era?
- How would a Captain Canada be different given all the Canada/U.S. relations/antagonism people love to talk about?
Want to Know More?
If you read anything, read this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17534644/site/newsweek/
For those with more spare time/interest:
(Video: The Colbert Report) THE WORD: COMIC JUSTICE http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=83559
Pretty solid blog gives some insight into Cap’s history… http://www.sideshowtoy.com /behindtheshow/?p=2769
But where better to turn then the Marvel Directory for info on Cap? http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/c/captainamerica.htm
And if you have some forserious free time:
Believe it or not, there are comics about comic books. These ones are particularly cute, hilarious, and awesome.
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=356
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=361
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=362
http://yearone.spiderspawn.com/?comic_id=366
What sort of heroes will usher in the post-9/11 era?
(Video: The Colbert Report) Colbert himself may be just the sort of hero we need (at least Cap thinks so, apparently): http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9964
IS THIS THE NEW CAPTAIN AMERICA ? http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9962
(Oh man, The Punisher as Captain America ? Let’s just hope it’s a new outfit.)
In other news (from the realm of comic books)…
MAINSTREAM MEDIA REACTS TO DEATH OF CAPTAIN AMERICA http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9902
When: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
This year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mohammed Yunus, is known as the godfather of micro credit, i.e. the practice of giving small loans to the world’s poorest people to help them set up businesses so they can support themselves and their families. Yunus founded the Grameen Bank to carry out his goal of some day eradicating poverty entirely. Yunus was not making profits off the Grameen Bank’s success, and since then there have been many organizations (NGOs) – carrying out the same task, throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The Grameen Bank alone has distributed more than $5.3 billion to almost seven million borrowers – 96% of them women. Interest rates can be as high as 20%, and Grameen claims to recover 98% of its loans. Any profits made are reinvested in the community.
However, other entrepreneurs are now arguing that it would be more efficient if, instead of NGOs, which rely on grants for survival, there was instead a regular banking system that could cater to the world’s poor. Investors could invest their money in these banks for a certain rate of return. This would mean that the poor people to whom the loans are being paid out would in fact be helping Western businessmen make a profit. Citibank is an example of a company wishing to establish a for-profit micro-credit system in developing countries which would benefit private investors.
The proponents of this method argue that these banks would be able to gather much more capital, to reach out to a much broader potential target population – i.e. achieve “scale” – and, ultimately, have a much more profound impact than the non-profit organizations.
Many prominent philanthropists are engaged in this debate, including Pierre Omidyar, the developer of eBay, who recently devoted $100 million to the development of the for-profit microfinance industry; the Michael and Susan Dell foundation (of Dell computers), which possesses a $1.2 billion fund that has started investing in micro finance institutions in India; Google.org, a philanthropic organization with about a billion dollars to invest in health, environmental, and poverty issues worldwide; and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
There’s no required reading involved, but here’s a link if you’re interested in getting more information.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061030fa_fact1 .
Questions:
Do you think that private actors (for profit) should be engaged in poverty alleviation practices like micro-financing or should we leave development work in the hands of NGOs and international actors e.g. the UN, IMF, World Bank?
Should investors be allowed to make profit off of the world’s poor since certain models of micro-credit have successfully drawn people out of poverty?
This month we’re opening up the vault and talking about SEX & POLITICS. One of the more prominent sex scandals in Canada involves Dr. Keon (prominent politician and former heart surgeon in Ottawa). No outside reading is required for this event. All you need to know are the following key facts.
The Issue:
• Wilbert Joseph Keon, is a heart surgeon, researcher and a member of the Senator of Canada. Born in Sheenboro, Quebec, he received a Bachelor of Science from St. Patrick’s College, Carleton University and a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Ottawa.
• After a period of studying and teaching at Harvard University in Boston, he returned to Ottawa in the early 1970s, where he founded the University of Ottawa Heart Institute at the Ottawa Civic Hospital and acted as its CEO for more than thirty years until his retirement in 2004.
• In 1986 he was the first Canadian to implant an artificial heart into a human as a bridge to transplant.
• In 1990 he was appointed to the Senate by Brian Mulroney where he sits as a Conservative. In 1960 he married Anne Jennings. They have three children: Claudia, Ryan and Neil. They are still married today.
• In the 1990s Wilbert Keon was arrested for soliciting a woman for prostitution, as part of a police sting. He participated in a program, and was never charged or convicted with any offence stemming from the incident. He offered to remove himself from his position on the board at the “Heart Institute” but he did not offer to remove himself from being a “Senator”.
• After the initial arrest, Doctor Keon was of course publicly humiliated and subsequently apologized for his actions. Although the issue was hotly debated in newsrooms and daily newspapers, a good majority of Ottawa citizens were upset that Doctor Keon had even been arrested given the important work he had done in the community and felt that he should have only received a warning for his actions.
Question:
Given the preceding events should a well respected community leader such as Doctor Keon be subjected to a lighter punishment given the relatively minor crime he was involved in?
The African continent has been the location of some of the bloodiest and violent conflicts of recent decades. In Rwanda, for example, there was genocide on an unprecedented scale. In Europe and the USA there has been strong criticism of international organisations such as the United Nations for their slowness in reacting to crises in Rwanda and Somalia. However, from another point of view it could be argued that non-African organisations and former colonial powers (such as France and Britain) have no legitimate role to play in African politics and African conflicts. In this debate the proposition side is putting forward this view – that African conflicts need African solutions, not artificial resolutions imposed by non-African nations and organisations.
Question:
- Should African disputes and conflicts be handled by African countries themselves, rather than by external international organisations?
