Community Gender Issues Health Identity Lifestyle Media Morality Psychology Society
by Stephen Elliott-Buckley
leave a comment
Recent Posts
Society’s Celebrity Bloodlust Complex and Britney Spears
Last Saturday, I sadly missed a special presentation of something called “The Fall of Britney Spears” or something like that on E! Channel, a sad commentary on our society that used to be Vancouver Island’s TV station.
I don’t like Britney Spears’ music or PR thing very much at all, but we are both parents of two children so suddenly I have a good degree of empathy for her. I’ve also always been rather concerned about celebrity microscope effect, long before the death of Princess Diana.
But this show on E! Channel was about reviewing recent events detailing Britney’s “fall.”
Though I missed the show, I thought about it every time I saw the trailer for the film Untraceable. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but it seems that one of the plot elements of the movie is that some killer fellow has set up some sort of murder machine that will kill someone at some point, a point which accelerates closer when a greater number of people visit some website. So people’s participation in the spectacle makes them complicit in a murder.
You can even try out http://www.killwithme.com and take part in the movie/murder/complicity spectacle on your own in an ironic, self-reflexive nod to the plot device.
It seems to me that everyone who watched that Britney Spears show on E! Channel last week [and every other act of celebrity obsession] is complicit in the struggles she is now enduring. And while we can callously wipe it all away by saying she voluntarily chose to become a celebrity, that is insufficient to excuse what truly appears to be a celebrity bloodlust complex. We like to build up people to be larger than life, but at the same time we are always looking for excuses to bring them back down to earth to make sure they aren’t better than us.
I expect sociologists have much more to say on this, and those who have seen Untraceable will be able to confirm how much this observer complicity is significant in the movie, but in the end, the movie may be a strong metaphor for our role in Britney Spears’ tribulations.
Bioregions British Columbia Ecology Economics Environment First Nations Neoliberal Economics Privatization Racism Technology Transit
by Stephen Elliott-Buckley
leave a comment
Recent Posts
Gordon’s New Hoax: Informed Climate Change Policy
Hot on the heals of Steve in Ottawa, Gordon in Victoria is trying to look like he knows what he is talking about with the climate change thing.
Embracing the Gateway Project goals that link in with the North American SuperCorridor, worshiping the car and pretending to care about transit while removing democracy from the TransLink board are pretty cynical.
But worse is Gordon’s idiocy when he was being interviewed by Vaughn Palmer on theVoice of BC TV program last fall almost bragging about how he just made up a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions without any real scientific backing. He should have at least read George Monbiot’s Heat. Here is how Palmer described it in his column on January 16, 2008:
It has been almost a year since the throne speech announced the premier’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases by one-third.
Where did he get the target? I asked him a while back.
“I don’t want to pretend that I went out and asked a scientific panel about how to get there,” Campbell replied. “I didn’t.”
Rather he picked the target out of the air, then set his officials the task of determining the means and cost of hitting it.
It’s clear that window dressing is important as Gordon traipses around the left half of the continent signing non-binding memoranda of understanding with various other jurisdictions on fixing the climate change problem…while twinning our bridges and building more roads.
But today, when my email Inbox received Steve’s crazy treaty ratification nonsense, I received Gordon’s announcement [and below] that he’s going to actually try to come up with some science from a new wonderful scientific panel to back up his desire to be the green premier with the brand new Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.
Not trusting the fellow at all, I watched his government flip from promoting racist policy towards First Nations with a treaty referendum which facilitated open discrimination, to one that uses treaties to skim land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Now our leader is trying to come up with some semblance of expert backing for his whimsical climate change solutions.
Despite not trusting the premier, I expect that there is a chance that this Institute can actually come up with some real contributions to the issue. I worry, though, that its creation–being significantly political and optical–may confine its work to solutions that will allow the climate change deniers and avoiders, as well as the rich and SUV-lovers to keep driving on our smoothly paved, privatized toll roads and bridges.
And in the end, the first sentence of the announcement just made my stomach spin. The province will seek legislative approval for the Institute. It’s almost as if folks in Victoria and Ottawa co-ordinated their press releases to capitalize on the idea that legislative oversight actually matters. BC signed a new corporate bill of rights combined with a de facto economic union with Alberta in TILMA after secret negotiations and won’t allow the agreement to be ratified in the ledge. BC has removed democratic accountability from TransLink, but they are promoting how important it is to get legislative approval for building this Institute.
It’s just too much to bear in one day.
And to rub in the gall is the constant reference to the role of the private sector in the Institute. P3s are so sexy these days for neoliberals. Governments, academics and the private sector: nice. What of labour, NGOs, environmental groups, the rest of civil society? No need. In the privatized commons view of Gordon’s neoliberalism, the business sector is sufficient.
And quite frankly, I don’t want the private sector to have anything to do with the kind of socio-behavioural change required in our society to avert climate change disaster.
Premier’s Office PREM:EX wrote:
B.C. to Fund World-Leading Climate Research
Vancouver – The Province will seek legislative approval for $94.5 million to create the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, which will bring together top scientists, researchers, governments and the private sector to develop innovative climate change adaptation and mitigation solutions, Premier Gordon Campbell announced today.
“British Columbia universities have some of the top climate scientists and researchers in the world,” said Campbell. “This institute will bring together those academics, along with others from around the world, with business and the private sector to develop new policy alternatives, to find ways to educate and encourage greener lifestyles, and to develop new, green technologies into products that can be used by consumers around the globe.”
The Institute will be a unique joint collaboration between the province’s four research-intensive universities – the University of Victoria, University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and University of Northern British Columbia – the private sector and government. It will bring provincial, national and international climate researchers together to work with governments and the private sector to develop ideas that can be applied and transferred to government, industry and the public.
Besides providing research support and developing innovative alternatives such as new energy systems, new forms of transportation, alternative technologies, and socio-behavioral change, the Institute will also provide the public with information and ideas on how to reduce individual greenhouse gas emissions through public forums, publications and online information. It will provide education, training and outreach to business leaders, government staff and non-government organizations via workshops, short courses and publications.
The Institute will be founded on four pillars: Research on climate change impacts; assessment of mitigation and adaptation options, including technology development; education and capacity building; and outreach through knowledge management and technology transfer.
The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions will be hosted and the collaboration led by the University of Victoria, utilizing existing space. The proposed funding will be used to support research projects, staff salaries, graduate fellowships and internships. The endowment will ensure the Institute will operate in perpetuity.
“Linking British Columbia’s climate researchers together and with other national and international researchers will help us develop and apply knowledge to British Columbia situations,” said University of Victoria president David Turpin. “It will also ensure that research is meaningfully transferred to government, industry and the public and secure B.C.’s leadership in this important area.”
“Developing technologies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions represents not only a challenge, but an economic opportunity,” said Environment Minister Barry Penner. “We have at least 18,000 people working on leading-edge technological solutions in B.C., which we can market to the world.”
Advanced Education Minister Murray Coell said the Institute will build on existing climate research initiatives currently operating in B.C., such as the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium.
“This will serve as a linchpin for a Pacific regional network that includes key sch
olars from B.C.’s four research-intensive universities, major Alberta universities, and universities from Washington, California and others,” said Coell. “The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions will be a valuable resource to government and the private sector by providing access to the considerable climate change expertise found in British Columbia’s universities.”
The Institute will be governed by a consortium of British Columbia’s four research universities and will receive advice and guidance from an advisory board made up of public and private sector stakeholders.
The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions’ mission will be: ‘To partner with governments, the private sector, other researchers and civil society, in order to undertake research on, monitor, and assess the potential impacts of climate change and to assess, develop and promote viable mitigation and adaptation options to better inform climate change policies and actions.’
The Institute will stimulate and promote the development and commercialization of world-leading climate change solutions and assist government and the private sector in selecting the best possible solutions to be applied to mitigation and adaptation. It will support and promote societal change and use the synergies of a broad collaboration to leverage funding coming into the province. The Institute will also be a key partner in providing education and training opportunities for graduate students, both in British Columbia and globally.
British Columbia is legally mandated to reduce B.C. greenhouse gases by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020; reduce emissions by at least 80 per cent below 2007 levels by 2050; and make all provincial government operations carbon-neutral by 2010.
$14-Billion Transit Plan for British Columbia
British Columbia Canada Conservative Party of Canada Democracy Executive Overdrive International Relations North American Union Soft Fascism
by Stephen Elliott-Buckley
leave a comment
Recent Posts
Steve’s New Hoax: Legislative Ratification of Treaties
I’ve taken to calling it Executive Overdrive: the urge in BC, Ottawa and elsewhere for the executive branch of government to find ways of secretly doing constitutionally significant things [like the SPP or creating a de facto economic union between BC and Alberta with TILMA [which you've probably never heard of]] without legislative oversight or a large public referendum.
But now I see that the Harper government is pledging to actually put international treaties before the House of Commons. On first blush I got very excited to see something so awesome coming from someone so clearly tyrannical.
But then I read past the first sentence. The whole steaming mess is below and here if you want to see it with its DFAIT webpage background.
Putting a treaty before the House like the Americans do with their Senate is a fascinating nod to the appearance of “democracy”[tm]. But allowing voting to merely be an option is cynical. Calling the idea of legislative ratification “unnecessary and cumbersome” is more Steve’s style.
But the worst part is reserving the right to just skip the whole charade if cabinet thinks it is an exceptional circumstance.
In the end, there is no binding substance to the announcement. It looks like democracy matters, but in the end, it’s just cruel window dressing.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: News Release 20 – CANADA ANNOUNCES POLICY TO TABLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:30:07 -0500
January 25, 2008 (11:30 a.m. EST)
No. 20
CANADA ANNOUNCES POLICY TO TABLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today announced that the Government of Canada has changed the way it signs on to international treaties.
“As of today, all treaties between Canada and other states or entities, and which are considered to be governed by public international law, will be tabled in the House of Commons,” said Minister Bernier. “This reflects our government’s commitment to democracy and accountability. By submitting our international treaties to public scrutiny, we are delivering on our promise for a more open and transparent government.”
In the 2006 Speech from the Throne, Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed to bringing international treaties before the House of Commons to give Parliament a role in reviewing international agreements.
A treaty creates legal obligations for Canada under international law and the government believes that further engaging Parliament in the international treaty process will give it a greater role in ensuring that these treaties serve the interests of all Canadians. Under the new process, members of the House of Commons may review and discuss the treaty—examining, debating or voting—before Canada formally agrees to ratify it.
With the new policy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will have the responsibility for tabling all treaties to be signed for Canada.
- 30 -
A backgrounder follows.
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
www.international.gc.ca/index.aspx
Backgrounder
TREATY PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The government intends to table all international treaties in the House of Commons before taking further steps to bring these treaties into force. It is committed to giving the House an important role in reviewing Canadian treaties.
Description
The procedure is similar to procedures used for a long time in the United Kingdom and Australia.
The government will maintain the executive role in negotiating agreements.
Prior to the government finally binding Canada to an agreement, it will table the treaty in the House of Commons. The Clerk of the House will distribute the full text of the agreement and an explanatory memorandum giving the salient issues in the treaty to each Member of Parliament.
The government will observe a waiting period of 21 sitting days from the date of the tabling before taking any action to bring the treaty into effect. When treaties require legislative amendment, the government is committed to delaying the legislation until this 21-sitting-day period has passed.
The House may debate the agreement, if it chooses to do so. The government offers the House the opportunity to discuss treaties that it judges important.
This is similar to practice in the UK. It avoids an unnecessary and cumbersome procedure where every agreement would be put to a resolution of the House.
Role of the House
Members of the House of Commons may wish to review and discuss the policy of the treaty.
The government will maintain the legal authority to decide whether to ratify the treaty. It will, of course, give consideration to the view of the House in coming to a decision.
Very exceptionally the Government may have to bind Canada to the treaty before the treaty is tabled, informing the House of the treaty at the earliest opportunity.
Canada Conservative Party of Canada Culture Democracy Economics Executive Overdrive Justice Morality Neo-Conservatism Society
by Stephen Elliott-Buckley
leave a comment
Recent Posts
Voting is Optional in the House of Commons
| Subject: | News Release 20 – CANADA ANNOUNCES POLICY TO TABLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN HOUSE OF COMMONS |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:30:07 -0500 |
| From: | |
| To: | <minister ofForeignAffairs-NewsRelease@international.gc.ca> |
January 25, 2008 (11:30 a.m. EST)
No. 20
CANADA ANNOUNCES POLICY TO TABLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today announced that the Government of Canada has changed the way it signs on to international treaties.
“As of today, all treaties between Canada and other states or entities, and which are considered to be governed by public international law, will be tabled in the House of Commons,” said Minister Bernier. “This reflects our government’s commitment to democracy and accountability. By submitting our international treaties to public scrutiny, we are delivering on our promise for a more open and transparent government.”
In the 2006 Speech from the Throne, Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed to bringing international treaties before the House of Commons to give Parliament a role in reviewing international agreements.
A treaty creates legal obligations for Canada under international law and the government believes that further engaging Parliament in the international treaty process will give it a greater role in ensuring that these treaties serve the interests of all Canadians. Under the new process, members of the House of Commons may review and discuss the treaty—examining, debating or voting—before Canada formally agrees to ratify it.
With the new policy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will have the responsibility for tabling all treaties to be signed for Canada.
- 30 -
A backgrounder follows.
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
www.international.gc.ca/index.aspx
Backgrounder
TREATY PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The government intends to table all international treaties in the House of Commons before taking further steps to bring these treaties into force. It is committed to giving the House an important role in reviewing Canadian treaties.
Description
The procedure is similar to procedures used for a long time in the United Kingdom and Australia.
The government will maintain the executive role in negotiating agreements.
Prior to the government finally binding Canada to an agreement, it will table the treaty in the House of Commons. The Clerk of the House will distribute the full text of the agreement and an explanatory memorandum giving the salient issues in the treaty to each Member of Parliament.
The government will observe a waiting period of 21 sitting days from the date of the tabling before taking any action to bring the treaty into effect. When treaties require legislative amendment, the government is committed to delaying the legislation until this 21-sitting-day period has passed.
The House may debate the agreement, if it chooses to do so. The government offers the House the opportunity to discuss treaties that it judges important.
This is similar to practice in the UK. It avoids an unnecessary and cumbersome procedure where every agreement would be put to a resolution of the House.
Role of the House
Members of the House of Commons may wish to review and discuss the policy of the treat
y.
The government will maintain the legal authority to decide whether to ratify the treaty. It will, of course, give consideration to the view of the House in coming to a decision.
Very exceptionally the Government may have to bind Canada to the treaty before the treaty is tabled, informing the House of the treaty at the earliest opportunity.
——————————————————————————–
To update, modify or delete your subscription, please click on the following link: https://w01.international.gc.ca/publicationsubscriber/login.aspx?ChangeLanguage=en&application_id=1.
For all questions related to the distribution service, please send an e-mail to the Publications Administrator at news-nouvelles@international.gc.ca. For further content-related information, media representatives are to contact the Media Relations Office mentioned in the document.
Activism Bioregions British Columbia Canada Class War Corporations Democracy Journalism Neoliberal Economics Privatization Society Soft Fascism Transit Vancouver
by Stephen Elliott-Buckley
leave a comment
Recent Posts
More Corporate Fascism at TransLink
Through a possible combination of a TransLink half-truth, incompetent journalism or the chronic problem of insufficient space for sufficient depth in Metro [and the other crappy free daily commuter papers], TransLink is able to hide another element of its new corporate fascist structure.
The new TransLink “board” [sic] will meet in secret. Its directors were appointed by business interests [almost predominantly]. The directors are accountable to themselves only, not the mayors, provincial government or the public as none can fire them but themselves. The new council of mayors is empowered to approve one of three plan options given it by the “board.” If the council of mayors rejects them all, the “board” has the power to pick one, essentially allowing the board to offer a crappy, crappier and crappiest option to the mayors, wait for them to reject them all, then go ahead with whatever the hell they want anyway.
In today’s Metro [above, click it to see it in full], you can see that TransLink spokesperson failing to claim the above rule about the mayors. Perhaps the Metro reporter didn’t push enough to get that, or perhaps the paper simply can’t be bothered to include enough actual words to complete the story.
Either way, this is nothing new. Since Falcon’s TransLink nightmare came to light last spring, we knew this was coming. How much unaccountable spending of public funds, especially for something so important to the public, will it take to get us mobilized?