There are many reasons why this limited vision is utterly failing to stop the surge of the far right around the world, but the main one is this: It does not have nearly enough to offer. It does nothing to address the real and legitimate grievances that supercharge the search for scapegoats, nor does it give the people most endangered by the rising right enough hope for a better future. A society with extreme inequality, unmasked neofascist tendencies, and an unraveling climate is sick, and neoliberalism, as one of the major drivers of all of these crises, is grossly inadequate medicine. It offers only a weak “no” to the forces responsible, and it lacks a “yes” worth seizing.

A great many of us are clearly ready for another approach: a captivating “yes” that lays out a plan for tangible improvements in daily life, unafraid of powerful words such as “redistribution” and “reparation,” and intent on challenging Western culture’s equation of a “good life” with ever-escalating creature comforts inside ever-more-isolated consumer cocoons, never mind what the planet can take or what actually leads to our deepest fulfillment.

And perhaps we should thank Donald Trump for this newfound ambition, at least in part. The shamelessness of his corporate coup has done a tremendous amount to make systemic change seem more necessary. If titans of American industry can eagerly line up behind this man, with all of his viciousness, venality, vanity, and vacuousness; if Wall Street can cheer on news of his plans to let the planet burn and the elderly starve; and if so much of the media can praise his cruise-missile strikes, ordered over chocolate cake, as “presidential,” well then, a great many people are coming to the conclusion that they want no part of a system like that. With this elevation of the basest of figures to the most exalted of positions, the culture of maximum extraction, of endless grabbing and disposing, has reached some kind of breaking point. Clearly, it is the culture itself that must be confronted now, and not policy by policy, but at the root.

What we have seen with insurgent left candidates and parties in the United States, Britain, Spain, France, and elsewhere are not perfect politicians or perfect platforms that have everything figured out. Some of the figures who have led these runs sound more like the past than the future, and the campaigns they have built often do not mirror the diverse countries they seek to govern, or at least not enough. And yet the very fact that these long-shot candidates and often brand-new political formations are coming within an arm’s reach of power—repeatedly stunning pollsters and establishment analysts—is proof of a very important fact, one that has been denied and suppressed for the many decades of neoliberalism’s stranglehold on public discourse: Progressive transformational change is popular—more so than many of us would have dared imagine as recently as just a year or two ago. In the many domains Trump does not control, we need to aim higher in our ambitions.

Here is what needs to be understood in our bones: The spell of neoliberalism has been broken, crushed under the weight of lived experience and a mountain of evidence. What for decades was unsayable is now being said out loud by candidates who win millions of votes: free college tuition, double the minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy as quickly as technology allows, demilitarize the police, prisons are no place for young people, refugees are welcome here, war makes us all less safe. And the crowds are roaring their agreement. With so much encouragement, who knows what’s next? Reparations for slavery and colonialism? A Marshall Plan to fight violence against women? Prison abolition? Democratic worker co-ops as the centerpiece of a green jobs program? An abandonment of “growth” as a measure of progress? Why not? The intellectual fencing that has constrained the progressive imagination for so long is lying twisted on the ground.

The left-wing almost-wins of the past two years are painful, but they are not defeats. They are the first tremors of a profound ideological realignment from which a progressive majority could well emerge—just as geopolitically significant as the rise of authoritarianism and neofascism on the right side of the spectrum. Indeed, the weaknesses and missteps of these left candidates should be a cause not for despair but for genuine hope. It means that a much larger political tent is possible—it’s just a matter of collectively, and carefully, planting the right poles from day one.

As many movement leaders are now arguing, a very good start would be accepting the premise that widening economic inequality and climate disaster are inseparable from systems that have always ranked human life based on race and gender, while the capacity to pit populations against each other based on skin colour, religious faith, and sexuality has been the single most potent tool for protecting and sustaining this lethal order. And if the political formation that has the guts to say all that also has a bold plan for humanizing and democratizing new technologies and global trade, then it would quickly seize back populist ground from the right, while feeling less like a blast from the past and more like a path to an exciting, never-before-attempted future. A deeply diverse and insistently forward-looking campaign like that could well prove unbeatable.

Excerpted from No Is Not Enough by Naomi Klein. Copyright © 2017 Naomi Klein. Published by Alfred A. Knopf Canada, a division of Penguin Random House Canada Limited. Reproduced by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved.

Our southern neighbours have taken another step towards recognizing the need for equal pay for women.

This past Tuesday, president Obama vocalized his support for the Paycheck Fairness Act to be passed. The act points out the loopholes in the ironically titled Equal Pay Act and, if passed, would strive towards proper payment for working women across the nation.

Obama went as far as to taunt the Senate into making the correct choice.

“If Republicans in Congress want to prove me wrong, if they want to show that they, in fact, do care about women being paid the same as men, then show me,” Obama said. “They can start tomorrow. They can join us in this, the 21st century, and vote yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act.”

Unfortunately, the Congress did not pass the bill. Shocked? No. But you can’t blame a girl for hoping against hope.

Thankfully, Canada has its own warriors who are devoted to the cause. Toronto’s Mary Cornish, human rights lawyer and chair of Ontario’s Equal Pay coalition, has been gathering information on this for years. Cornish was the driving force behind the Pay Equity Act in 1987. Last year, she requested that Ontario’s premier Kathleen Wynne make April 9 Equal Pay Day.

It didn’t happen then, but good news, it’s happened now. This past Wednesday, our provincial government moved ahead and announced April 16 as Ontario Equal Pay Day.

The coalition’s website celebrated the government’s actions but acknowledge the war’s not won. Especially not for marginalized women.”Women of colour, aboriginal women and women with disabilities face the worst discrimination,” the website said.

Angella MacEwen, a journalist for rabble.ca, spoke on this issue in her piece “From he-cession to precarious she-covery”.

Her post included a table on “employment gains and losses” which identifies the vast gaps between payment for the two genders. But MacEwen also reminds readers that women of colour, women with disabilities and women new to the country were not included on this specific table. And let’s not forget about trans women.

But any and all visibility matters. The coalition recently posted a video reenacting the ridiculousness of the wage gap, featuring a male voice over. In it, the narrator calls the gap a “mystery of nature.” But the main character calls him out on his bull.

“[The wage gap] happens because society undervalues women’s work,” she informs the narrator. “But together we can change that.”

Hear, hear!

Earlier this week, Canadian doctor Danielle Martin battled the rather patriotic U.S. Republican Senator Richard Burr at a subcommittee meeting in Washington, D.C. to discuss different health care systems around the world.

Okay, maybe I’m being a little melodramatic here but it sure seemed like a battle—and Martin, the vice-president of the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, effectively defeated the North Carolina senator every time he tried to point out flaws in Canadian health care, and by extension Obama-care.

The video, posted above, is filled with quips and ripostes between the two, but my personal favourite has to be the golden response Martin gave when Burr asked her how many Canadians died while on waiting lists: “I don’t, sir, but I know that there are 45,000 in America who die waiting because they don’t have insurance at all.”

Here’s hoping this becomes a new Canadian saying.

I imagine most of the conversation will centre around talk like: “Hey, remember that time we pushed through legislation that would allow us to become even more fabulously wealthy while those in emerging economies sifted through garbage piles, with distended bellies, to find small morsels of food that could never satiate their perpetual hunger? You do? Let’s toast to Evil!” *clinks drink*

The press release announcing the gala boasts that former chiefs of staff to Brian Mulroney and Bush 1.0, Derek Burney and James Baker III will be joining the party to “reminisce about the negotiations leading up to the historic agreement.”

Which, again, I imagine will go more like this: “And then remember James, and you guys will love this, I thought of you guys — when we discussed how we didn’t really give a shit about the middle class and just as I said that a factory worker walked by and gave us a dirty look. Remember that James? Remember how we giggled?”

While these two rascals reminisce about their halcyon days of late night sleepover negotiations and the endless games of phone tag they played, representatives from Mexico will not be attending the gala.

Also contained within the press release email was this gem: “To mark the anniversary of the historic agreement, the election, and the years of prosperity for both nations since 1988…”

Prosperity for who exactly?  Was this email sent by a time traveller from 1997? Sadly it was not. It was sent by someone who is aware that the years from 2008-2013 have happened. We can all rest easily knowing that the time space continuum has not been co-opted but seriously, is this a joke?

Even if the fallacious claim that both nations have been gleefully prosperous since 1988 were true, which it isn’t, there’s still a third party to this agreement. You know, uh, Mexico. Would you ever put the words Mexico and prosperity in the same sentence? Of course you wouldn’t because Mexico is essentially embroiled in a civil war killing tens of thousands of its citizens each year. Their government doesn’t have the ability to protect its population from murderous drug cartels, but we can sell them grain at reduced prices and edge out their peasant farmers, so alls well that ends well I guess.

And while our jobs go overseas, the income gap widens, foreign investors take over our industry, and our labour force is reduced and powerless  — those who want to become even wealthier will use NAFTA as a cute example of why free trade should be international. Because in their minds wealthy nations should be able to go to resource rich third world countries, strip them of anything valuable, impugn their citizens human rights, corrupt their sovereignty and then hold a gala toasting to their own genius. Yuck.

http://emmyk.wordpress.com/

In an unprecedented move France has actually banned something that wasn’t strictly for the purposes of race-baiting. (Sorry Tom Tucker.) Earlier this week, the country’s senate announced children’s beauty contests will be banned, pending adoption by France’s National Assembly—a move that’s sure to send the glitter and baby-thong markets reeling in France.

Thong market aside, the bill is designed to fight against the now buzz wordy “hypersexualistion” of children (particularly girls) under the age of 16. Senator Chantal Jouanno initially introduced her concerns in a parliamentary report back in March 2012.

Apparently, like creepy berets (the next ban?) child beauty pageants had a “proud” tradition in France and have become more popular in the past few years. Jouanno defended the senate’s decision, saying: “Lawmakers are not moralisers, but we have a duty to defend the superior interest of the child.”

Sadly, in Canada no such legislation has been proposed or debated in Parliament and Americans would probably go all Alex Jones if you tried to take their pageants away. USA! USA! USA!

When I first saw this story I expected there to be very little dissenting opinion but the Internet, as always, has proven that people will take up any cause no matter how stupid (usually with a vaguely libertarian bent).

CBC’s The Current even couched the topic in a segment they ran Thursday as a “debate” that is “ongoing beyond France’s borders.” A debate? We’re calling this a debate? A debate would imply that there are two valid arguments on opposing sides of an issue. This is a debate in same sense that this discussion between Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley is a “debate”.

But arguments in favour of pageants feel hollow, and equating them to other children’s activities (like team sports or dance) completely dismisses the proven sociological and physiological benefits that those activities have.

Does a child parading on a stage in a halter-top, weighed down by two pounds of makeup, dancing suggestively while being judged by a panel of adults (who have enough expertise in the area of—Children Gyrating to Lady Gaga’s Born This Way—to be considered authority figures) have a social or physiological benefit? If you answer “yes” to that question please light yourself on fire.

But wait! It’s the parents you say. The parents are the problem. You can’t legislate against bad parenting, or else all of our parents would be in jail (KA-POW take that mom!) and I say to you yes, you’re right Mr./Mrs. mom-zinging contrarian, the parents are the problem. But how does one propose we prevent adults from exploiting their offspring and validating a completely toxic stereotype linking women’s value to their aesthetic appeal if not by banning that exploitative or damaging activity?

Also, the idea that governments should be worried about bigger, more substantial issues than children’s hobbies is thoroughly flawed.  Maybe governments do have more important things to be worried about but I grow tired of arguments that propose we neglect acting against behaviour that is wrong because there are other issues or behaviours that are worse.

And while I don’t generally like to play armchair-anthropologist (Ok. I do), my observation is that these pageant moms are simply bored. They need to find meaning in their lives and like most emotionally troubled people they find the worst possible outlet to satiate their boredom. In this case, at the expense of their child. Well I say to these people what Bill Clinton said in 1994 to gun advocates who were against an assault weapons ban because target practice was their favourite hobby—”Well, they need to read a good book.” Maybe start with Lolita?

Kudos to France for taking this incredibly commendable step. Not convinced? Check out this creepy website.

Obvious connections and/or jokes I chose not to make for this blog post include:

Honey Boo Boo, France’s perceived lack of military prowess, JonBenét Ramsey, French berets, Flippantly using the phrase zut alors or sacrebleu.

The case centred on controversial Myriad Genetics, the (now former) patent-holder of the gene mutation responsible for hereditary breast cancer. Perhaps, like many others, you first heard about the gene mutation after Angelina Jolie spoke openly about her preventative double mastectomy last month—launching the subject into hot topic territory. Jolie had the surgery after tests revealed she carried the gene mutation which gave her an 87 percent chance of developing breast cancer.

In that New York Times op-ed, Jolie encouraged other women to be tested for the gene. However, the property rights to the patented gene mutation push the cost of the test over $3,000—even for those likely to test positive, such as women with mothers and grandmothers who’ve had breast cancer. Jolie’s double mastectomy, though seemingly extreme, was a preventative cancer treatment. But with the cost of the test so high, even the option to consider this preventative care was available only to those with the money to spare.

The case was, of course, more complicated than the coverage of celebrity health, though Jolie did bring hereditary breast cancer and this particular gene mutation into the limelight. The biotech industry is up in arms about the Supreme Court’s ruling, afraid the decision will reduce funding for research—gene patents lead to bigger payoffs when treatments hit the market, an attractive prospect for investors.

But many, including civil rights activists, say it’s a win, as the decision opens the field to independent research and study, particularly at universities.

The judges voted unanimously on the issue, and reportedly in line with President Obama’s opinions on the topic. But the decision did not outlaw synthetic gene patenting; companies are still allowed to patent cDNA, the synthetic DNA produced by cloning.

So, here’s hoping healthcare becomes more affordable in the U.S., preventative cancer treatments become more accessible, and clones don’t take over the world.

Last year on January 18, thousands of websites protested against the major U.S. internet censorship bills, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protest IP Act (PIPA). Wikipedia blacked out its site for a full 24 hours and Reddit took down its services from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Google—still browsable—blacked out its logo for the day and prompted users to get informed on internet freedom.

The bills aimed to punish websites “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” But shutting down these rogue copyright infringers would also mean blocking legitimate websites with loose, inadvertent connections. Companies, big and small, couldn’t afford this. So two days after massive protests on the web and in the streets, congress shelved SOPA and PIPA.

But now internet censorship is back on the table. Haven’t noticed? That’s because web giants have gone silent—not black—on the issue.

Hacktivist group, Anonymous, called for another blackout on Monday, this time to protest Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). But instead of blocking content for internet freedom, major tech companies—like TechNet, whose members include Google and Facebook—are actually supporting the “cyber-security” bill.

In an attempt to protect the U.S. from hackers, CISPA, if passed, will let companies share web users’ information with the government. Essentially, it will override websites’ privacy policies while letting the government have at your info warrant-free.

So why—after all the fuss over SOPA and PIPA—is CISPA so weakly contested?

It’s because the bill is only bad for internet users—not websites or tech companies themselves. It could actually benefit companies by letting them unload responsibility on the government when fishy online activity arises. And since the bill immunizes companies against lawsuits, they risk nothing by breaking privacy contracts and giving it up to The Man.

The House of Representatives passed CISPA on April 18 with 288 to 127 votes. But before taking effect, it has to go to the Senate. This is the second year in a row the Senate will vote on the bill. It was blocked last year, but this time there’s less hope the Senate will be so reasonable.

For one, CISPA promises protection at a time when Americans are sensitive to security breaches. The Senate may take this opportunity to flex some defensive muscle and pass the bill (in part) to repair the vulnerable American psyche.

But more likely, CISPA may succeed where SOPA and PIPA didn’t because it protects corporations and targets individuals. And those in favour are paying good money to see the bill legislated.

According to MapLight, lobbyists who support CISPA donated about $84 million to House members, while opponents donated just $18 million.

“I am not surprised to see corporations spending significant amounts of money lobbying on CISPA,” Rainey Reitman, activism director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and vocal CISPA opponent, told U.S. News & World Report. “Keep in mind that CISPA has sweeping liability protections for companies, making it a sweetheart deal for companies. That’s no coincidence.”

If the bill does pass, internet users in Canada could be at risk too. Last spring, Harper and Obama signed the “Beyond the Border” declaration, committing to (among other things) harmonizing cyber-security practices and objectives, and “assessing and addressing threats together.”

Sure, these “commitments” aren’t exactly binding, but it wouldn’t be terribly un-Canadian to follow suite with American policy. Plus, renewed support for CISPA may breathe new life into bill C-30—Canada’s own attempt at internet surveillance law, ridiculously spun as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Protest against bill C-30 took off last year when safety minister, Vic Toews declared “You can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Ultimately, we chose the latter.

Now, it’s a year later and the States are in the same awkward dilemma—sacrifice web freedom and privacy, or join the ranks of us child-porn supporters up north. True, the Senate may still strike down the bill or Obama may act on his threat to veto CISPA. But at this point, clinging to the successful SOPA and PIPA protests may just breed false hope, because—let’s face it—corporate interest is what got those bills defeated and corporate interest is what’s helping this new one pass.

A public opinion survey released earlier this month shows that 67 per cent of Alaskans think gay couples deserve some form of legal recognition. So, in a meeting of the Alaska House Majority Caucus February 15, Mark Miller, a reporter for the Juneau Empire newspaper, asked, “would the caucus support the idea of having domestic partnerships or civil unions open to same-sex couples?”

Cue laughter.

Nothing like a gay joke to prime Republican Law-makers for President’s Day long weekend.

By law in Alaska, LGBT couples do not exist—their relationships have illegitimate, bastard status in the eyes of government. People who identify as LGBT are exempt from hate crime laws and they’re not protected against housing and workplace discrimination.

After recovering from the knee-slapper of a question, the caucus justified the reaction, saying the idea of gay couples’ rights was so funny because it wasn’t on the agenda (lol, duh!).

Lance Pruitt, the House Majority leader Rep. says, “What’s important about this caucus is that we focused on the things that really allow people to have a great life.”

Ohhhhhhh. A great life! Which has NOTHING to do with personal relationships. Gotcha.

Aside from the caucus’ totally inappropriate reaction to the idea of better gay rights, it’s yet another example of the disconnect between elected officials and the people they supposedly represent. Silly Americans.

But wait! Here in Canada, we too send mixed signals about our stance on sexual identity and orientation. We tout ourselves as the leader of human rights and acceptance, but we have found loopholes (in true Harper fashion) through which to thread homophobia.

Since 1999, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has been funding Crossroads Christian Communications—a Burlington, Ont.-based evangelical group with staunch views against LGBT rights, as in, they consider homosexuality and cross-dressing as “sinful” and “perverse” as bestiality and pedophilia (Crossroads recently had these opinions removed from its website). CIDA has given Crossroads more than $2 million for humanitarian work in Africa. Some of that money has gone towards HIV/AIDS education, and right now Crossroads is building a water filtration system in Uganda with $544,813 from CIDA.

Uganda, by the way, is notoriously homophobic. Since 2009, the Sub-Saharan country has been considering an Anti-Homosexuality Bill that, if passed, could mean the death penalty for homosexuals and jail time for people who don’t report anyone they know to be gay.

The international community has lambasted Uganda over the “Kill the Gays” bill. Amnesty International launched a campaign to stop the bill, and along with other Western nations, Canada dutifully denounced Uganda’s homophobia.  So why are we still supporting programs lead by homophobic organizations in a homophobic country?

Early this month, CIDA announced it will halt funding to Crossroads until it completes a review of the organization. Meanwhile, the Canadian government continues to justify funding Crossroads. Minister of International Co-operation, Julian Fantino stated, “We fund results-based projects, not organizations.”

Funding an organization’s projects, however, implies support of that organization’s values. Whether it’s building toilets that flush or exorcising the gay out of religious deviants, by giving Crossroads money, CIDA is backing the organization and what it stands for. Maybe Canada’s not laughing in the face of LGBT rights—just doing it behind their back.

Southern Poverty Law Center has released some new information about the alleged killer, Wade Michael Page. He was founder of white-power hardcore band “End Apathy.” He says also played in other hate bands, like “Blue-Eyed Devils.” According to Last FM, that band’s discography includes songs titled “The Final Solution,” and “Vandalize and Victimize.” Other song names the band has are arguably even more offensive than that so I’d rather not repeat them and I don’t want to give them the glory of an incoming link. You can look it up if you really feel compelled to on a search engine.

I’m really not sure how to give this story the appropriate analysis it deserves. I do know America is hurting right now, and that the Sikh community is hurting right now, and I want to give both all the empathy and space I can muster.

Then, after that space is given, we talk. An incident so surrounded by racism demands discussion of cultural xenophobia. Page says he was in multiple racist music groups—he bonded with others over his violent ideology on websites, even at music festivals. How does our culture allow for people to hold and perpetuate such awful beliefs? How could a mindset like Page’s have gone unchecked in the first place? An incident so shortly after the Colorado shooting also demands the discussion of gun control.

I do know one thing: whatever analysis you choose, whatever discussions you start, they’re going to be political.

Only a few weeks ago ago after the massacre in Colorado, presidential candidates were skirting issues around the shooting, saying that the wake of tragedy was not the time to talk about the bigger picture. It was not the time to ‘politicize the issue.’

But as MSNBC newscaster Melissa Harris Perry said then, national tragedy and how we deal with it is about policy. And policy is political.

When tragedies like this one shock a nation, mourning is not enough. Working through the grief means learning from the rage. In this case, as in so many others, people have to ask themselves: ‘How do we prevent something so heinous from happening again?’

It’s a wee bit more complicated than our single-payer health care, but let me put it this way: by January, if you are female bodied, American, and have insurance through your employer, you will have access to contraception with no co-pay. Neat, right? Pop the champagne? Pull out an encore of the celebratory Bollywood videos?

Well, not for everyone. A couple right-wing extremists, in fact, were downright incensed.

Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, described the mandate as “unjust”. And Republican House representative Mike Kelly called August 1 a date that will “live in infamy” alongside Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center attacks. Why? Kelly thinks that forcing companies to provide contraception coverage for their employees goes against employers’ religious liberties and is an attack on America.

That’s right. Kelly is comparing birth control provision to the attacks that killed his country’s civilians and provoked large-scale military actions.

Mike Kelly called the mandate an “attack on our religious freedom.” But, as I noted yesterday, Reverend Harry Knox of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice alleges that those who challenge the mandate are the real attackers of individual liberty.

You know, when people say unbelievable things in the Internet age, you pretty much have two choices:

You can get mad.

Or you can post animal videos.