U.S. filmmaker repeatedly detained at border

One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.

In an age of international travel — where large numbers of citizens, especially those involved in sensitive journalism and activism, frequently travel outside the country — this power renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment entirely illusory. By virtue of that amendment, if the government wants to search and seize the papers and effects of someone on U.S. soil, it must (with some exceptions) first convince a court that there is probable cause to believe that the objects to be searched relate to criminal activity and a search warrant must be obtained. But now, none of those obstacles — ones at the very heart of the design of the Constitution — hinders the U.S. government: now, they can just wait until you leave the country, and then, at will, search, seize and copy all of your electronic files on your return. That includes your emails, the websites you’ve visited, the online conversations you’ve had, the identities of those with whom you’ve communicated, your cell phone contacts, your credit card receipts, film you’ve taken, drafts of documents you’re writing, and anything else that you store electronically: which, these days, when it comes to privacy, means basically everything of worth.

Does Using Paper Take CO2 out of the Environment?

Of all types of recycling, paper is probably the most ubiquitous and was the earliest to take hold. Long before I was rinsing out soda bottles and composting moldy tomatoes, I'd accumulated a stack of repurposed "scratch" paper (always higher than my scribbling needs required) and chucked paper that had all its sides used into a recycling bin.

But then, isn't paper a renewable resource? That is, unlike gasoline or coal or uranium, trees aren't mined, burned, and gone forever. For every tree cut down, a new one can be planted and later cut down and replaced by a new tree—a cycle that can theoretically happen forever. What's there to conserve?

And then I stumbled on this entry in Wikipedia:

"Paper production may not be as harmful as it seems. Paper is known to sequester significant amounts of carbon dioxide, since it is derived from plants, which sequester carbon dioxide by photosynthesis. Paper can, even after manufacture, printing, distribution, and eventual disposal, still carry a significant carbon credit, in some cases equal to 200 kilograms (440 lb) of carbon dioxide per tonne of paper."

The Gullible Center

So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon?

And yes, I mean the phenomenon, not the man. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the principal author of the last two Congressional Republican budget proposals, isn’t especially interesting. He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class.

No, what’s interesting is the cult that has grown up around Mr. Ryan — and in particular the way self-proclaimed centrists elevated him into an icon of fiscal responsibility, and even now can’t seem to let go of their fantasy.

The Ryan cult was very much on display last week, after President Obama said the obvious: the latest Republican budget proposal, a proposal that Mitt Romney has avidly embraced, is a “Trojan horse” — that is, it is essentially a fraud. “Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.”

The reaction from many commentators was a howl of outrage. The president was being rude; he was being partisan; he was being a big meanie. Yet what he said about the Ryan proposal was completely accurate.

Actually, there are many problems with that proposal. But you can get the gist if you understand two numbers: $4.6 trillion and 14 million.

"He Lied to the People of Wisconsin"

It was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's surprise assault on public-employee unions in 2011 that set in motion the statewide recall campaign to oust him from office. But don't expect Wisconsin's Democratic Party to make workers' rights a central focus in their quest to oust Walker.

In an interview, an official with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin downplayed the importance of the anti-union provisions in Walker's "budget repair" bill in the Democrats' broader recall strategy. "Collective bargaining is not moving people," says Graeme Zielinski, a Democratic Party spokesman. And in the party's new strategy memo (PDF) for defeating Walker, there's little mention of collective bargaining or organized labor in the Democrats' messaging plans.

Walker's controversial anti-union legislation, known as Act 10, curbed collective bargaining rights for most public employees and made it harder for unions to recertify and collect dues from their members. (A federal judge later ruled that the recertification and dues provisions weren't legal.) When Walker introduced the bill—"dropped the bomb," as he put it—and threatened to sic the National Guard on angry public workers, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets of Madison, the state capital; thousands more occupied the Capitol rotunda.

F-35s: It's Not that They are Expensive. It's that They are Useless.

In July 2010, I wrote a column for my local paper, Island Tides, on the government's decision to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets. Now that the Auditor General has confirmed what everyone knew -- that the planes were wildly over budget and that we were being misled (lied to?) at every turn -- I decided to go back and look at my column.

On the costs I wrote:

"Like many military contracts in the US, the costs of the F-35 have spiralled and are way over budget. In March 2010, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates told the Congress that it was 'unacceptable' that the F-35 is 50 per cent over-budget. Costs of developing the new fighter jets is approaching $300 billion. With bureaucratic baffle-gab that takes your breath away, the Pentagon critique of the fighter jet programme concluded: 'affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.'"

Trayvon Martin Case Spotlights Florida Town's History Of 'Sloppy' Police Work

SANFORD, Fla. -- In the summer of 2010, a masked man gunned down Ikeem Ruffin, 17, in an apartment complex on this city's north side. When police arrived, they found Ruffin dead and another teenager beside the body calling for an ambulance. The next day, police charged the teen with robbery and murder.

Prosecutors dropped the murder charge last August and said another man, still unidentified, pulled the trigger. Teresa Ruffin, the victim's mother, said the police overlooked important evidence -- including a witness who pointed to another suspect -- and allowed her son's killer to go free.

"They didn't do their job," Ruffin said of the police.

Ruffin, who is black, said she sees parallels between how Sanford police officers handled her son’s murder and how they investigated the killing of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed teenager shot to death Feb. 26 by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who told police he acted in self-defense.

Police said they couldn't refute Zimmerman's claim and haven't arrested him, unleashing withering criticism over perceived missteps and favoritism.

"All this with Trayvon is just bringing the light on the Sanford Police Department," Ruffin said. "This happened for a reason."

Ottawa makes no apologies for Air Canada clampdown

When baggage handlers heckled Lisa Raitt last month in a protest that spurred a 14-hour wildcat strike, it was because her moves to prevent a full-scale work stoppage at Air Canada were viewed as a clampdown on labour.

But the federal Labour Minister’s actions may actually have come at a high cost to industrial relations at federally regulated companies. The truce with unions brought about by Ottawa’s intervention short-circuited the bargaining process and damaged the airline’s already-fractious relations with its unions.

The temporary peace is a Band-Aid solution that may carry long-term financial pain for Air Canada as the airline struggles to contain pension expenses and seeks to start a discount division that would pay lower wages to staff, say employers and labour experts.

While Ottawa appeared to be siding with management, federally-regulated employers have watched Ottawa’s clampdown on walkouts with some trepidation, contrary to the conventional wisdom in union circles that corporations are thrilled by the Conservative government’s intervention in labour contract fights.

Oil tankers hottest button on West Coast

Last week's federal budget is raising a lot of eyebrows in B.C. -- especially the vow to speed up the review of Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project.

Two polls released this past week indicated this is going to be a hot-potato issue for B.C. politicians, and the announcements out of Ottawa only increase the urgency for the province to take a stand one way or another

A Mustel poll commissioned by NDP MP Kennedy Stewart found growing opposition to the Enbridge proposal (although, due to differing methodologies, this is actually hard to back up).

Mustel tracked a question based on a project description designed by Ipsos-Reid on behalf of Enbridge and last asked in December. Here's the wording they used:

"As you may know, Enbridge is the company leading the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which is a proposal to build an underground pipeline system between near Edmonton, Alta., and Kitimat, in northern B.C. One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta.

"Based on what you know to date, would you say that you generally support or oppose the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project? Is that strongly or somewhat?"

Third-time gone

Katimavik has never stood a chance against a federal Conservative government, Progressive or otherwise. The demise of the 35-year-old volunteer youth program was guaranteed the moment Stephen Harper squeaked into a majority in the House of Commons. He’s not the first blue prime minister to try to kill the inoffensive program, but it looks like he’ll be the first to succeed once and for all.

The Conservatives’ persistent dislike of Katimavik has nothing to do with the cost, despite this being the excuse they are giving for using their 2012 budget to finally eliminate it altogether. A fair accounting of expenses and benefits would most likely conclude that the cost of housing and feeding small groups of young Canadians in hundreds of communities throughout the country is more than offset not only by the considerable amount of necessary work they do that would not otherwise get done, but also by the value of the enriching experiences they gain and the knowledge they learn.

In Labrador, as in every other region of Canada, Katimavik youth are providing free, yet vital and irreplaceable services to schools, hospitals, museums, animal shelters, municipal councils, aboriginal organizations, elderly citizens, service clubs, libraries, needy families, recreational centres and youth groups. In determining, according to the budget, that Katimavik “reaches a relatively small number of participants annually at a relatively high cost per participant,” one can only assume the federal government and all its MPs, local or not, are ignoring the thousands who benefit every year the program operates and how expensive it will be to pay for all the work the participants have been doing for free for so many years.

No amount of talk can stop the budget

OTTAWA -- More than 13 hours.

That's how long NDP finance critic Peter Julian took to deliver a marathon budget speech in the last two weeks in an effort to shut out government MPs from delivering Prime Minister Stephen Harper's talking points over and over again.

As the first opposition member speaking to the budget, Julian, by the rules, could use as much of the allotted budget time as he wanted. So he did, using nearly three of the four days set aside for budget debate.

When he finally wrapped it up last Tuesday, there was only enough time remaining for three Conservative MPs and five NDP MPs to add their voices to the mix.

Much of Julian's gargantuan budget speech consisted of reading tweets, Facebook messages and emails sent from across the country from people who oppose the budget policies outlined in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget papers.

"People wanted to let us know what the budget means to their lives," said Julian.

People who were concerned about cuts here and there, programs being eliminated, changes to environmental regulations.