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.

On October 16^th, 2007, Parliament came back into session, and the speech from the throne highlighted that Canada would extend its Afghan mission until at least 2011.

So how did Canada get involved in the first place???

After the September 11 attacks, the Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton advised the Governor General (Adrienne Clarkson) to authorize more than 100 Canadian Forces members serving on a military exchange programs in the US and other countries to participate in US operations in Afghanistan. The goal was to identify and neutralize Al Qaeda members and topple the Taliban regime (thought to be supporting international terrorism). At the time of the invasion, the Canadian government defined Canada’s reasons for participating in the Afghan mission as follows: 1) Defend Canada’s national interests; 2) Ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs; and 3) Help Afghanistan rebuild. A Naval Task Group was immediately dispatched to the Arabian Sea to support coalition interdiction efforts, and a Canadian Army battle group landed at Kandahar Airfield in February 2002, prepared to hunt down the Taliban and Al Qaeda. After the Taliban fled from Afghanistan, Canada offered to participate in the NATO-led stabilization mission in Kabul.

Okay, We’re Involved … Now what?

Canada‘s role in Afghanistan encompasses peace building, monitoring elections, well digging, infrastructure building, education, development, and aid assistance. For example, in January 2002, Afghanistan became the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid. According to Foreign Affairs, Canada has allocated a total of $616.5 million to Afghanistan, covering the 2001 to 2009 period. More recently, Canada’s commitment to Afghanistan has included the most intense combat since the Korean war between Canadian soldiers and a resurgent Taliban movement intent on reconquering areas held by NATO. As of September 29, 2007 the Canadian Forces have suffered 71 fatalities and over 300 wounded.

Opposing Views on the Afghan Mission… What Do Canadians Think?

When the first survey was done in 2002, 38 per cent said they strongly approved of Canada’s presence in Afghanistan. When asked whether Canada should focus on peace building or on active combat roles with our allies, 80 per cent said peace building, while only 16 per cent said in an active combat role. However, support for Canadians staying in Afghanistan is falling.

Opponents of War:

These people are mainly activists who believe the mission lacked clear objectives and measures of success, and that the counter-insurgency operation was undermining reconstruction in Afghanistan. They also look at the number of casualties and the amount Canada has invested in this mission and see this cost being too high.

People who think Canadians Should Stay:

These people think that the mission in Afghanistan offers a perfect venue for Canadians to demonstrate their 3-D abilities ( e.g. defence, development and diplomacy) to the world. Also, given the recent attacks in London, Madrid and Bali, it seems only a matter of time before terrorists attack Canadian soil. By neutralizing the terrorist movement in Afghanistan Canada’s borders will be more protected. Improve the rule of law and promote democracy is important in this region in order stabilize a potentially radioactive and unstable region in Central Asia. Not to mention, Afghanistan has substantial untapped natural resources, natural gas and copper and hydro-electric power sources as well. Canadian corporations would be ready to take part in such major development projects (financial gains would benefit Canada and Afghanistan alike).

Questions:

1. Should Canada stay in Afghanistan and if so what should our role be? What does Canada gain by staying? What does Canada gain by leaving?
2. What is Canada’s current role in Afghanistan? Is it working?
3. In the summer of 2006, the Prime Minister stated that Canada was at war in Afghanistan. Is this true? How does this war compare with those in the past?
4. Is this mission an example of liberal internationalism at work or is it realpolitik at play?

Suggested Readings:

1. In depth CBC Article- Canada In Afghanistan: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html
2. Who are we defending in Afghanistan? http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Opinion_Editorials/989
3. Ten Reasons to Stay in Afghanistan: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=45072
4. Lessons in Terror: Attacks on Education in Afghanistan http://hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/2006/education/letter1.htm

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).

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

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:

1. Why has the global warming movement won over mainstream popular opinion?
2. Will the solutions being proposed to stop or mitigate Global Warming solve the problems attributed to Global Warming?
3. 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:

1. Dominion Interview with Denis Rancourt: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1110
2. Justin Podurs Essay Critiquing Rancourt/Noble’s theory: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12796
3. David Nobles detailing how Climate Change became mass marketed: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/05/01/1090/
4. How to Talk to A Global Warming Skeptic FAQ: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.ht
5. Taking CO2 Seriously – Denis Rancourt’s blog- http://climateguy.blogspot.com/

When: 5:30pm, Monday, May 28^th, 2007

Who: Hosted By Dave Mandelzys and RSVP with An via email: thewordottawa@gmail.com

Given the intrinsic need of human beings to lead meaningful lives, salaried professionals tend to positively identify with the institutions they serve and to legitimize those institutions’ broader effect on the ‘society’ at large. For example, a professional working for a pharmaceutical firm may convince herself that the patent application she is working on is beneficial to the basic process of developing new drugs. Or a government policy analyst working for the Canadian International Development Agency might convince himself that the department does a lot of good around the world, when in fact its programs have at many times done a lot of damage. Instead of questioning the nature of the work they engage in, salaried professionals learn to think critically only within the boundaries set by their institutions. For instance, policy recommendations formulated by government bureaucrats will not diverge from options that are considered ‘realistic’ – meaning options that fall within the range of acceptable opinion. Thus, if a bureaucrat working at the Department of Foreign Affairs were to argue that Canada should sever its military partnership with the United States because the latter is regularly engages in gross violations of international humanitarian law, this would be viewed as absurd. Indeed, to make such recommendations, which run counter to the basic orientation of the institutions they serve, can negatively affect the salaried professional’s career, especially in corporations, where unions are usually absent.

Much of the reason for why all this happens is that the institutions that employ salaried professionals are hierarchical, which means that the agenda and parameters of work are set at the top. If workplaces were democratic, however, salaried professionals would have more leeway to question the basic orientation of the institutions they ‘work’ for and to reorient their institutions if necessary. But what does a democratic workplace mean? It means a place where decisions are made collectively, and where the executive branch, which today makes the important decisions, does not exist.

To get to this end goal, today’s salaried professionals must work within their respective institutions to reform them from the inside and bring slowly bring a greater degree of democracy to their workplaces. This agenda elicits a number of questions, which we’ll discuss together:

QUESTIONS

1. In your experience as a salaried professional, do you believe that you have the freedom to think independently at work?

2. Can you change the world by working from the within the system – meaning within a corporation or government department that does harm?

3. Given that corporations are ‘owned’ by shareholders, do employees have the right to pursue a democratic workplace?

4. Should we strive for democratic workplaces? Or will this be too chaotic?

5. Why or why not should salaried professionals have more democratic rights within the institutions they work for?

6. Should salaried professional ‘steal’ their employers’ time to fight for internal or external reform/causes?

FURTHER READING

Disciplined Minds Reviews:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVP/is_2001_Winter/ai_90530892

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/february02ryan.htm

When: Monday, April 30, 2007, 5:30pm

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:

1. 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?
2. What sort of heroes (comic book or forreals) will usher in the post 9/11 era?
3. 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

We all seem concerned with protecting our privacy from governments and corporations, but what about malicious individuals?

In September 2006, Jason Fortuny, a 30 something Seattle-area graphic designer posted a fake-ad on Craig’s list (a large “community classifieds” website that posts numerous personal ads). Fortuny pretended to be a woman into serious S&M seeking a man to dominate her and inflict pain. He posted the 178 responses, in full, including identifying photographs and personal contact details on his website, claiming that anyone who would engage in such behaviour deserves to be exposed.

The stunt was publicized and later duplicated, by Michael Crook who went as far as to contact some of the respondents.

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/18/in-the-company-of-jerkoffs/

Dan Savage, the syndicated sex-columnist, who supports individuals exploring their sexual fetishes and fantasies (as long as they pertain to consenting adults) condemned Fortuny for causing the most harm to the most honest individuals who were merely playing by the rules of online dating.

Adding to the debate law professor Jonathan Zittrain argued that, “The men who replied to Fortuny’s posting did not appear to be doing anything illegal, so the outing has no social value other than to prove that someone could ruin lives online.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Zittrai

At the same time, some argue that individuals need to take some level of responsibility for personal information they voluntarily post on the internet.

Although there was some attention given to the issue in alternative media, the mainstream largely ignored the issue. Would our reaction be the same if he had ousted homosexuals in red state America? Would we feel the same if he was exploiting the privacy of teenaged girls?

Questions:

Do you think that Jason Fortuny should be criminally charged for his actions? If so what would be a fair punishment?

Do you think that all 178 respondents should be able to file a class action (law suit) again Fortuny? If so on what grounds?

Do the individual “victims” lose their right to legal action because they willingly supplied their personal details online?

Suggested Readings :

Wikipedia Internet Privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy#Jason_Fortuny_and_Craigslist

Dan Savage’s Original Column:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=74787

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?

Dove’s Campaign for “Real Beauty” promotes its line of skin-firming creams and other products by using six regular women of varying sizes and ethnicities posing cheerfully in white underwear. Dove says their models are in their 20s and range from size 6 to size 12. The average American woman is somewhere between a 12 and 14 according to a 2004 survey by Size USA. Dove’s marketing director Kathy O’Brien says that the company wants the ads to “change the way society views beauty,” and “provoke discussion and debate.” Some feminist critics point out the hypocrisy of Dove’s real beauty campaign, as Dove contradicts its “self-esteem enhancing” ads by selling anti-cellulite creams.

Questions

What do you guys think of these ads?

Are these commercials a revolutionary rejection of the super thin media ideal?

Do you think this is a positive move from both a business and/or social point of view?

Here is the main Dove photo we are talking about:

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat3.asp?id=2287

Here are some Dove commercials:

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1731400614466797113

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?