Lambda Posters Year Four 1972-1973

This is part of a series of blog posts featuring posters published in the Laurentian University (Sudbury, Ontario) student newspaper, Lambda during the years I worked there while studying Political Science (1969-1973).

Please note: if you wish to read the small appearing print on the posters please enlarge/zoom the images.

1972-10-10 Vol 11 No 5

 

1972-11-07 Vol 11 No 9

 

1972-11-28 Vol 11 No 12

 

 

 1972-12-05 Vol 11 No 13

  

 

1972-12-12 Vol 11 No 14

1973-01-03 V0l 11 Special A

 

1973-01-03 Vol 11 Special B

 

1973-01-09 Vol 11 No 15

 

 1973-01-16 Vol 11 No 16

 

1973-01-23 Vol 11 No 17

 

1973-01-30 Vol 11 No 18

You can access the online archives for Lambda here:

Lambda Archive Laurentian University student newspapers - Lambda: InternetArchive

Lambda Posters Year Three 1971-1972

This is part of a series of blog posts featuring posters published in the Laurentian University (Sudbury, Ontario) student newspaper, Lambda during the years I worked there while studying Political Science (1969-1973).

Please note: if you wish to read the small appearing print on the posters please enlarge/zoom the images.

1971-10-12 Vol 10 No 5

  

1971-11-09 Vol 10 No 9

 

1971-12-14 Vol 10 No 14

 

1972-01-01 Vol 10 No 16

 

1972-02-03 Vol 10 No 20

 

1972-03-14 Vol 10 No 24 A

 

1972-03-14 Vol 10 No 24 B

 

1972-03-21 Vol 10 No. 25 A

 

1972-03-21 Vol 10 No. 25 B

 

You can access the online archives for Lambda here:

Lambda Archive Laurentian University student newspapers - Lambda: InternetArchive

Lambda Posters Year Two 1970-1971

This is part of a series of blog posts featuring posters published in the Laurentian University (Sudbury, Ontario) student newspaper, Lambda during the years I worked there while studying Political Science (1969-1973).

Please note: if you wish to read the small appearing print on the posters please enlarge/zoom the images.

1970-09-29 Vol 9 No 3

 

1970-10-08 Vol 9 No 4

1970-10-22 Vol 9 No 6

1970-10-29 Vol 9 No 7

 

1970-11-12 Vol 9 No 9

1971-01-21 Vol 9 No 14

 

You can access the online archives for Lambda here:

Lambda Archive Laurentian University student newspapers - Lambda: InternetArchive

Lambda Posters Year One 1969-1970

This is part of a series of blog posts featuring posters published in the Laurentian University (Sudbury, Ontario) student newspaper, Lambda during the years I worked there while studying Political Science (1969-1973).

Please note: if you wish to read the small appearing print on the posters please enlarge/zoom the images.

1969-09-24 Vol 8 No 3

1969-11-26 Vol 8 No 13

1970-01-29 Vol 8 No 19

1970-03-19 Vol 8 No 25

 1970-03-31 Vol 8 No 26

 

You can access the online archives for Lambda here:

Lambda Archive Laurentian University student newspapers - Lambda: InternetArchive

Canada Needs a Red-Orange-Green National Unity Government

At a time when the country that has been our best friend, ally, and international partner for longer than we have been a country has decided that we are now the enemy (and the country that was our and our NATO allies’ historical enemy is now their best fiend) we need to be united.

This time in our history is not the time for a snap election, a change of leadership, or for a Prime Minister to be distracted by an election campaign, especially when Justin Trudeau has just proven himself to be the leader we need.

At this time, facing this existential threat, we can certainly not depend on Pierre Poilievre and his MAGA and freedumb convoy sympathetic Conservatives to lead us against the attacks of the Trump regime to the south.

There is however a solution. The Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and Green Party must come together to form a coalition National Unity Government. Justin Trudeau can continue as Prime Minister until after the fall election without the political distraction of having to seek re-election.

In the next election the three progressive parties must pledge to not run against each other, with the candidate from the party with the most votes in the last election in each constituency being the National Unity Government candidate. The new Liberal Party leader will lead the Liberal Party campaign leaving Prime Minister Trudeau free to lead the country in this battle for our existence until a new government is elected.

This war will be continuing and I would propose the continuing National Unity Government (if the voters so choose) appoint Justin Trudeau as a special envoy to deal with the Trump regime.

The National Unity Government should also bring in electoral reform in it’s first term after re-election. Ranked Ballot Voting which essentially keeps our single member constituency system, effectively only changing the way ballots are counted, will probably be the easiest to find a consensus for. 

A Radical Idea to Return to Government by The People Rather Than by One Person

In the United States today perhaps we are seeing the epitome of government by one person, at least in countries that claim to be democracies.

Here in Canada ever since Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau made his alleged famous “MPs are nobodies off Parliament Hill” remarks and started the concentration of power within the Prime Minister’s Office, which was increased by Stephen Harper, and if his control over his caucus is any indication would be increased even more by Pierre Poilievre, we have been heading in that direction.

The Canadian public, and to a degree the Canadian media, overwhelmed by American media and news sources seem to have come to accept that, and people tend to think they are voting for a Prime Minister (or Premier) when they go to the polls.

But that is not the way our system works. We have a parliamentary system where Parliament governs and the executive function is shared by a Cabinet where the Prime Minister is considered “first among equals”. The Prime Minister is not elected as Prime Minister but serves as Prime Minister by virtue of, not only the confidence of the House of Commons as a whole, but also the confidence of their caucus and Cabinet. It is because Trudeau last the coincidence of his caucus, not the electorate or his party, that he announced his intention to resign.

How do we change this attitude that the Prime Minister is elected as “ruler of Canada” rather than chosen to be Prime Minister by virtue of having the confidence of the House of Commons.

I propose we get rid of party leaders as they are now selected by the parties in what could be considered an undemocratic manner where new party members have a disproportionate amount of influence.

Parties should contest elections based on their party platforms and local candidates, not a mythical claim by their leaders to be running to be Prime Minister. Let us bring the candidates the voters actually cast their ballots for to the forefront of the election process and put the emphasis on local constituency debates. There could also be a series of debates on subjects where the parties select different spokespersons to debate in each subject area.

After the election each caucus of elected Members of Parliament should elect their leader and the Governor General will ask whoever is best positioned to have the confidence of the House to become Prime Minister.

Let us bring back government of the people back.

 

Postscript: for a more comprehensive look at our democratic system see On Democracy.

TRUMP

The American Trump Timeline:

• It can’t happen here.

• It won’t happen here.

• It isn’t happening here.

• It didn’t happen here.

• How did we let it happen here ?

I am a cisgender heterosexual white male of European descent, with a Christian upbringing (though an atheist), so essentially one of Trump’s chosen people, so even if I was American I would presumably have nothing to fear from Trump’s politics of hate of “the other”, except for my political views.

As a Canadian I am also somewhat isolated from the direct impact of the Trump regime. Living in Ontario, some have compared Doug Ford to Donald Trump. But I disagree. While there are some similarities Ford does not preach the politics of hate that Trump does. Ford is more of an old fashioned anti-big government, pro-business and privatization populist.

Federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre’s rhetoric echoes Trump’s to some extent, especially his reliance on slogans over policy and while he does sometimes play to the worst elements of his party, particularly his support for the #FuckTrudeau convoy types, his emphasis is also not on the politics of hate. At least we hope.

The Canadian leader that is closest to Trump and who is implementing dangerously similar policies is Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a stain on all of Canada.

So as a Canadian I feel somewhat protected from the impact of Trump on America.

I believe we all feel a sense of disbelief in what is happening, that it cannot be as bad as it seems even though he is doing nothing he did not say he would do.

In some sense there was a sense of relief that his first term in office was not as catastrophic as it could have been. I believe to a large degree that was because his leadership team and Cabinet was made up of primarily traditional Republicans.

His new team and Cabinet are MAGA loyalists who have no allegiance to anyone but Trump, after themselves perhaps, and certainly not to the American people or Constitution.

Many believed America’s system of checks and balances would protect the country from any excessive or constitutional acts of Trump but when The President owns both Houses of Congress and even the Supreme Court there are no checks and balances and he can function as an elected dictator.

For many of us I believe the seriousness of the situation has not sunk in yet leading us take the situation lightly as a self-protective measure. It is hard to believe that this is taking place in a country once proud to call itself a beacon of democracy.

Perhaps it is the pettiness of it all that makes it all seem so unbelievable. But if there is one thing Donald Trump is, it is petty. Indeed, among all the words one could use to describe Donald Trump perhaps the most accurate and telling is “cruel”. He seems to relish being cruel and making people suffer more than anything else, even more than being worshipped.

The only hope is the emergence of an American resistance movement, the signs of which are already emerging.

Sorting The Canadian Senate

If I had my choice I would simply abolish the Canadian Senate but that would require a constitutional amendment and open a whole new Canadian proverbial can of worms.

However as far as the selection of Senators other than set regional distribution the only requirement is that they be summoned by the Governor General.

Summons of Senator

24 The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator. (Constitution Act, 1867 )

This means that Parliament is free to legislate the process of the selection of Senators by the Governor General however they wish.

Many would suggest an elected Senate, but besides the issues with constitutional wording that strongly implies the Senate must be appointed, the Constitution also provides a regional representation that does not reflect representation by population. An elected Senate might try to claim legitimacy it does not have to overrule or thwart the will of the House of Commons leading to a potential constitutional crises. There is no need for two elected Houses though there may be a need to make the House of Commons more representative through a system of proportional representation.

So how do we make the Senate more effective.

The Senate’s traditional role has been as a place of sober second thought in regards to ensuring the soundness of legislation originating in the House of Commons. Senatecommittees have also taken on the role of studying the issues of the day and issuing reports.

These roles do overlap with the House of Commons functions so how can we make the Senate better complement the role of the House of Commons. The current government has attempted, and succeeded to a degree, to make the Senate a less partisan body than the House of Commons but it is still by virtue of the type of people appointed a political body with appointment until retirement at age 75 (or earlier at the Senator’s choice).

What if we made the Senate representative of the Canadian public in a different way than election or appointment by the government of the day, with shorter terms.

What if we selected Senators randomly in a similar manner to selecting jurors taking into account the regional representation requirements. This is not a new concept, it even has a name.

Sortition

In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors at random, i.e. by lottery, in order to obtain a representative sample.[1][2][3][4] (Wikipedia)

Implementing sortition for the Canadian Senate will not be completely random and representative because of the geographic requirements and because many people will not accept the post for various legitimate reasons but it will still provide a different perspective than the House of Commons because the membership will mostly consist of non-politically active citizens.

I would propose appointment for a four year term with half of the Senate changing every two years so there is always fifty percent membership with some experience. Unlike a few weeks commitment for jury duty this would be too long a commitment to make it mandatory.

There would need to be some mandatory exclusions such as anyone holding public office and probably also judges and I would also exclude lawyers. Others might request exclusion because it might affect their career prospects negatively or they might have other obligations.

Fortunately the one group that most lacks representation now, the unemployed and underemployed or those with precarious employment would likely welcome a guaranteed four years of employment, with the bonus of being able to serve their fellow citizens.

A sorted Senate might be the unique Canadian solution we are looking for.

If I Was Teaching Writing

(Disclaimer: not a professional writer or teacher)

If i was teaching writing I would teach that writing is a process.

The first step is putting all your thoughts down on paper as quickly as you can before you forget any points. This can be a point form outline or stream of consciousness text but don’t interrupt your thought process to organize the material or optimize the sentence structure, That can come later.

I have ignored this advice and regretted it as I looked at the page thinking there wa something else I wanted to say but cannot remember it now.

Next you want to order your points in the most effective order to make your arguments. This may be something you redo as you go along, particularly as you add points you did not think of in stage one. Always jot those new points down as they come to you you can order them and refine them later.

So far grammar and sentence structure has been irrelevant as it has been all about ideas.

So now let’s make it look like writing, turning what you have into organized readable writing recognizing who your audience is and tailoring the style, academic, journalistic, or other to your audience.

After you have a properly written text it is time to optimize it by making sure you are using the most appropriate qualifiers, adjectives and adverbs, and that your spelling and grammar are correct. Everyone has their favourite errors so check especially for those. One of mine is thinking like I’m talking and not paying attention to there, their and they’re.

When you think you have it right do a read through to make sure everything flows correctly and you have not missed any necessary corrections,

If you are writing for the web, nearer the end is a good time to add any “code” you need for links. My blog uses Blogger so if I am writing for that I embed the links in Libre Office because they will translate directly to Blogger, only requiring a quick edit in Blogger if I want them to open into a new window, which i always do. Alternatively, near the end is a good time to add traditional footnotes. Most word processor will handle the formatting for you.

Time for a last read through to make sure everything is correct and flows well. Unless you are me. My process includes a final read through, but if I make any changes during that read through I do another and continue until I read the full text through without making any changes.

I have saved the most important advice for the end. The best way to improve your writing is to read a lot, especially they type of writing that you want to write.

The Tyranny of Growth – How Raising Our Standard of Living Destroys Our Quality of Life

In 1972 the world respected Club of Rome issued it’s report, Limits to Growth which concluded:

Conclusions

After reviewing their computer simulations, the research team came to the following conclusions:[2]: 23–24 

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.[c] The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.

3. If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

— Limits to Growth, Introduction

The introduction goes on to say:

These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns, and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition – the transition from growth to global equilibrium.

We can contrast this with the general societal term for economic disaster, referred to as a recession, although in reality it is more a matter of economic decline rather than disaster, but mention the word and wait for the ensuing panic.

The Canadian Encyclopedia defines recession as:

A recession is a temporary period of time when the overall economy declines; it is an expected part of the business cycle. This period usually includes declines in industrial and agricultural production, trade, incomes, stock markets, consumer spending, and levels of employment. In purely technical terms, a recession occurs when two or more successive quarters (six months) show a drop in real gross domestic product (GDP), i.e., the measure of total economic output in the economy after accounting for inflation. In this sense, recessions are broad and can be particularly painful and challenging times for a country.

It is ironic that we have a problem, unrestrained growth that we know is not just bad for the planet environmentally but also a threat to our economic system and yet we consider the solution, degrowth as the worst thing that can happen to the economy.

The middle class of western industrialized countries have been taken in by the myth of raising one’s standard of living being the be all and end all. The point of an increased standard of living is to increase one’s quality of life which is about more than just producing and consuming more stuff at the expense of the habitat we have to live in. Indeed this myth is used to promote an anti-taxation theology that leads to the under-funding of the very things that increase a society’s quality of life, health care, education, social safety nets and environmental protection among others.

Yes a certain level of income is necessary for a good quality of life and this can be provided by raising minimum wages to a living wage and providing a guaranteed annual income (universal basic income) for everyone.

The problem is that we measuring the wrong things when we want to measure how successful our economies are. A strong economy must be a reflection of a strong society. If we want to measure the success of our society it is not by measuring how rich the wealthiest people are or even so-called per-capita GDP numbers that are distorted by excessive wealth and income levels of a minority of privileged people. If we want to improve the quality of life of a society we must improve everyone’s economic status and build a society that provides everyone with more than just more stuff.

We need to start by measuring poverty and inequality and setting our economic goals at reducing those rather than increasing abstract measures of stuff acquired.