I don't know of a good solution. It seems like we have a hard enough time even finding quality people to run for government positions these days. Not long ago, I watched a CBC piece on how many threats there are against politicians. Those in charge of security for politicians say the problem is getting very serious. Then there is all of the online abuse -- which we're actually seeing happening right now with AI and slander, etc.. Hard to imagine why anyone would even want to be in politics anymore. Then take away their investment income as well. I'm not sure who will be left.
I would almost like to see politicians allowed to have investments, but that their investment positions be disclosed so that we can see where they are positioned on issues. It couldn't be that hard to do. For example, I would be interested in knowing which sitting MPs are invested in venture capital funds like Stephen Harper's Awz Ventures that is behind high tech surveillance, facial and behavioral recognition systems, drone communication technology, etc.., like Centaur, Octopus, Elsight, and others in use by Israel in Gaza. I think the public should be able to see who is putting up money for all of this crap - whether it is coming from politicians, from public or private pension funds, from investment funds run by banks and other financial institutions -- so let it not just stop with top officials, but with everyone who is investing in this kind of war stuff. We've already seen how these kinds of investments have infected and contaminated the U.S. with its MIC -- easily spotted as trading volume goes bananas on MIC stocks shortly before some new military misadventure begins.
I think that, if we are to have MIC stocks, then their insider trading information should be available as public knowledge for everyone. That should probably extend to plenty of other things as well -- such as for-profit prisons and hospitals. Chemical companies. Energy companies. Nothing should be obscured from the public.
re: "Not long ago, I watched a CBC piece on how many threats there are against politicians. Those in charge of security for politicians say the problem is getting very serious. Then there is all of the online abuse -- which we're actually seeing happening right now with AI and slander, etc.. Hard to imagine why anyone would even want to be in politics anymore. Then take away their investment income as well. I'm not sure who will be left."
First of all, I would take these alleged "very serious" threats with a grain of salt. With all the surveillance tools at the state's disposal it should be relatively easy to identify and charge those making such threats. Did the CBC report mention any arrests? Elites seeking to extend their own surveillance and control of the population have an interest in exaggerating or manufacturing such threats. Remember George Bush the Lesser's colour-coded alerts? Or the FBI being exposed for repeatedly manufacturing the very terrorist attacks - exploiting the gullibility of some intellectually-challenged social misfit - they then heroically thwarted at the last minute? Or take the fake insurrection of Jan 6, which was full of state agents. Recent history is replete with such subversion.
To take another more recent example from the US, as far as I know the names of those arrested for attacking Teslas have not yet been released. Why not? I wouldn't be surprised if they are also state actors, but we'll see. Same goes for online abuse, which is being used as a pretext for censoring the internet, the last bastion of free speech. We need to be very skeptical of all such reports.
As to having temporarily divest from the stock market or particular companies, I feel Conacher adequately addresses this in the interview. It's not a real barrier for anyone genuinely interested in public service, which incidentally comes with a decent salary and a generous pension. Such a person - if they ever got near the levers of power and tried to make substantial, systemic changes in the public interest - would face far worse problems than losing out on some potential income.
Finally, and unfortunately, I think there's more than Carney's corruption re conflicts of financial interests we have to worry about (not that these shouldn't be exposed). He represents oligarchic institutions and power centres that are incredibly sinister and are remaking our world in terrifying ways. But that's another subject.
Thanks Brooks. Yes, in a number of pieces I've written, including most recently the series titled "Sanctioning Dissent" I've pointed to some of the ways the government manufactures crises in order to justify surveillance and cracking down on dissent. I agree, if a law has been broken then there are laws that deal with that. Use those laws we already have in place to deal with threats and harassment, which are criminal offences. The example I would add to the mix is the use of the Emergencies Act to end the Trucker Convoy -- something the Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged in court and and won -- though it was appealed by the feds and a decision on that is still forthcoming. What was most interesting to me about that was how the protesters were characterized as being ideologically motivated extremists -- and the head of Ontario's intelligence service testified during the Public Order Emergencies Commission that there was no evidence of that at all, but that this was the rhetoric on social media and by the government. I'm much more worried about the mis-and dis-information coming from governments, and I've spent much of my writing career focused on these. I think it's much more dangerous.
I don't know of a good solution. It seems like we have a hard enough time even finding quality people to run for government positions these days. Not long ago, I watched a CBC piece on how many threats there are against politicians. Those in charge of security for politicians say the problem is getting very serious. Then there is all of the online abuse -- which we're actually seeing happening right now with AI and slander, etc.. Hard to imagine why anyone would even want to be in politics anymore. Then take away their investment income as well. I'm not sure who will be left.
I would almost like to see politicians allowed to have investments, but that their investment positions be disclosed so that we can see where they are positioned on issues. It couldn't be that hard to do. For example, I would be interested in knowing which sitting MPs are invested in venture capital funds like Stephen Harper's Awz Ventures that is behind high tech surveillance, facial and behavioral recognition systems, drone communication technology, etc.., like Centaur, Octopus, Elsight, and others in use by Israel in Gaza. I think the public should be able to see who is putting up money for all of this crap - whether it is coming from politicians, from public or private pension funds, from investment funds run by banks and other financial institutions -- so let it not just stop with top officials, but with everyone who is investing in this kind of war stuff. We've already seen how these kinds of investments have infected and contaminated the U.S. with its MIC -- easily spotted as trading volume goes bananas on MIC stocks shortly before some new military misadventure begins.
I think that, if we are to have MIC stocks, then their insider trading information should be available as public knowledge for everyone. That should probably extend to plenty of other things as well -- such as for-profit prisons and hospitals. Chemical companies. Energy companies. Nothing should be obscured from the public.
re: "Not long ago, I watched a CBC piece on how many threats there are against politicians. Those in charge of security for politicians say the problem is getting very serious. Then there is all of the online abuse -- which we're actually seeing happening right now with AI and slander, etc.. Hard to imagine why anyone would even want to be in politics anymore. Then take away their investment income as well. I'm not sure who will be left."
First of all, I would take these alleged "very serious" threats with a grain of salt. With all the surveillance tools at the state's disposal it should be relatively easy to identify and charge those making such threats. Did the CBC report mention any arrests? Elites seeking to extend their own surveillance and control of the population have an interest in exaggerating or manufacturing such threats. Remember George Bush the Lesser's colour-coded alerts? Or the FBI being exposed for repeatedly manufacturing the very terrorist attacks - exploiting the gullibility of some intellectually-challenged social misfit - they then heroically thwarted at the last minute? Or take the fake insurrection of Jan 6, which was full of state agents. Recent history is replete with such subversion.
To take another more recent example from the US, as far as I know the names of those arrested for attacking Teslas have not yet been released. Why not? I wouldn't be surprised if they are also state actors, but we'll see. Same goes for online abuse, which is being used as a pretext for censoring the internet, the last bastion of free speech. We need to be very skeptical of all such reports.
As to having temporarily divest from the stock market or particular companies, I feel Conacher adequately addresses this in the interview. It's not a real barrier for anyone genuinely interested in public service, which incidentally comes with a decent salary and a generous pension. Such a person - if they ever got near the levers of power and tried to make substantial, systemic changes in the public interest - would face far worse problems than losing out on some potential income.
Finally, and unfortunately, I think there's more than Carney's corruption re conflicts of financial interests we have to worry about (not that these shouldn't be exposed). He represents oligarchic institutions and power centres that are incredibly sinister and are remaking our world in terrifying ways. But that's another subject.
Thank you for the excellent interview.
Thanks Brooks. Yes, in a number of pieces I've written, including most recently the series titled "Sanctioning Dissent" I've pointed to some of the ways the government manufactures crises in order to justify surveillance and cracking down on dissent. I agree, if a law has been broken then there are laws that deal with that. Use those laws we already have in place to deal with threats and harassment, which are criminal offences. The example I would add to the mix is the use of the Emergencies Act to end the Trucker Convoy -- something the Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged in court and and won -- though it was appealed by the feds and a decision on that is still forthcoming. What was most interesting to me about that was how the protesters were characterized as being ideologically motivated extremists -- and the head of Ontario's intelligence service testified during the Public Order Emergencies Commission that there was no evidence of that at all, but that this was the rhetoric on social media and by the government. I'm much more worried about the mis-and dis-information coming from governments, and I've spent much of my writing career focused on these. I think it's much more dangerous.
Whew! That was a banger. Thanks for the clarity Linda!