by Marc Zwelling
Why did the Royal Bank of Canada apologize for letting a contractor hire offshore workers while the bank was downsizing its Canadian payroll? Public opinion is why.
from the Violence Policy Center
WASHINGTON DC, April 15, 2013 — “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes” according to the new Violence Policy Center (VPC) report Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use. The report analyzes national data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
VPC Executive Director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann states, “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes.
Key findings of the 19-page study include the following:
Justifiable firearm homicides by private citizens are rare.
In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. This ratio does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.
Victims of attempted or completed violent crimes rarely use firearms in self-defense.
For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.
Victims of attempted or completed property crimes rarely use firearms in self-defense.
For victims of both attempted and completed property crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.1 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 84,495,500 victims of attempted or completed property crimes.
During this same five-year period, only 103,000 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And that number as well may also include off-duty law enforcement officers.
In comparison, new data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from US households from 2005 to 2010.
Total numbers of actual self-defense firearm uses are only a small fraction of pro-gun claims.
According to the NCVS, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same five-year period guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense (applying to the five-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year).
More than a third of persons shot and killed in justifiable homicides in 2010 were known to the shooter.
In 2010, 35.7 percent (82 of 230) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 56.5 percent (130) were strangers, and in 7.8 percent (18) the relationship was unknown.
Additional information in the VPC report includes sex, race, relationship, and weapon used in justifiable homicides for 2010 and the five-year period 2006 to 2010. The study also includes justifiable homicides by state for the years 2006 to 2010.
"What is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”
The study concludes, “The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”
by Arya M Sharma
Recently, a Samoan airline announced that they would begin charging passengers by the pound, touching off media and Internet suggestions that people with obesity should pay more for airline travel. Norwegian economist Bharat Bhatta fueled debate by suggesting that heavier passengers pay a surcharge while lighter passengers are offered discounts.
The logical argument of course is that larger individuals take up more space and use up more jet fuel. This line of reasoning is sure to find ample supporters, as people who "choose" to be fat must clearly bear the consequences of their gluttony and sloth.
But why stop at airline travel? Here are some additional ideas for where businesses could charge larger individuals more:
by Stephen Leahy
Canada's opposition to anything that might help developing countries is “mind-boggling,” a delegate from Mali told me during a UN conference to slow the widespread extinction of species. “Canadians are known to protect the environment. I cannot understand why they are pushing policies that are clearly unsustainable," he said.
by Jill Richardson
As this spring began, another branch in the biotech giant Monsanto’s sweep around any meaningful regulation of its products burst into bloom. Monsanto and its fellow “Big Six” pesticide and biotech companies — Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, BASF, and Dow Chemical — pulled off a legislative coup when Congress passed its latest budget bill with a gift to them quietly (and anonymously) tucked into it.
As comedian Jon Stewart put it, “the laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as Internet comments.”
This new law — quickly dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by its critics — was snuck into the routine spending measure. After President Barack Obama signed it, Politico discovered that the “anonymous” lawmaker behind the provision was Roy Blunt. The Republican senator represents Missouri, Monsanto’s home state.
The biotech companies themselves prohibit any independent studies of their products by scientists.
Biotech companies produce the seeds of genetically engineered crops that have genes of another species tucked into their DNA. The foreign genes give the plants new traits, like the ability to manufacture their own insecticide. These newfangled varieties of soy beans, corn, and other crops are found in an estimated 70 percent of our food supply. Yet, most consumers are unaware of them because they aren’t labeled.
In fact, the biotech industry’s strategy around genetically engineered crops has avoided a meaningful debate from the start. It began in the 1980s when companies like Monsanto first began working on these “crops of the future.” They’ve ensured a relatively easy path for themselves.
Our government even works to influence the legal systems of foreign countries to increase the adoption of genetically engineered crops in other nations. And the biotech companies themselves prohibit any independent studies of their products by scientists.
When the legislative and executive branches fail to protect consumers, the judicial system should set things right. That’s what checks and balances are for.
In the past decade, Monsanto’s been making regular US Supreme Court appearances to defend its genetically engineered crops. Luckily for the Big Ag giant, its old lawyer, Clarence Thomas, is one of the justices. And, he doesn’t recuse himself from their cases.
Despite a massive legal budget and tight ties to Justice Thomas, Monsanto has suffered some Supreme setbacks. Two of the lawsuits involved their products — sugar beets and alfalfa — that were genetically engineered to survive being sprayed by Monsanto’s bestselling herbicide, Roundup.
In both cases, the courts decided that the Department of Agriculture hadn’t performed the necessary environmental review before legalizing Monsanto’s products for commercial sale. The government had to go back and do its homework before it could give Monsanto the green light. Monsanto had to stop selling its products — if only temporarily.
But while the government performed the environmental reviews, some farmers had already bought — or even planted — Monsanto’s seeds, which were now no longer legal to sell. Would the courts make those farmers rip their crops out of the ground? They didn’t. In both cases, farmers who had already purchased and planted Monsanto’s seeds were allowed to grow them, harvest them, and sell them, even though new sales were prohibited.
Thanks to the “Monsanto Protection Act,” the next time a court finds that the Department of Agriculture wrongfully approved a variety of genetically engineered seeds, the court will be 100 percent powerless to stop any further planting.
Thanks to the “Monsanto Protection Act,” the next time a court finds that the Department of Agriculture wrongfully approved a variety of genetically engineered seeds, the court will be 100 percent powerless to stop any further planting. Our laws were established for a reason. Following them should be required, even for companies selling the latest new inventions. Just because a company like Monsanto has patents and lobbyists doesn’t mean that it should be allowed to wriggle out of the American legal system’s checks and balances.
by Daniel Moss
Chewing on a mouthful of locally grown lettuce, I wondered if the claims I’d heard about the global food-justice movement were true. Was there a line to follow, however crooked, between my purchase of these greens, land reform in Brazil and opposition to genetically modified seeds in California. Or was it all just empty calories?
by Gordon Laxer
For years I was a voice in the wilderness calling for an oil pipeline to bring western oil to Eastern Canada. Now that TransCanada and Enbridge each have plans to build one, I should be pleased. But I'm not.
by Linda McQuaig
There is something almost quaint about the little ritual we go through every year at tax time.
Ordinary citizens diligently spend hours calculating their income and deductions and meticulously filling out forms, fearful of the probing eye and relentless reach of the tax man. At the same time, some of our richest citizens quietly park billions of dollars on faraway islands where the sun delightfully reaches but the tax man delightfully doesn’t.
by Antoine Blua
It merited just one line in US President Barack Obama's State of the Union address in February, but it could change the very nature of manufacturing, alter the global trade balance, and potentially spark a new industrial revolution. It is something known as 3D printing, which Obama claimed "has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything."
So what exactly is 3D printing?
The term is actually a colloquial phrase for something called "additive manufacturing" — a process of assembling products by sending a digital file to a machine that stacks layers of plastic, resins, ceramics, metal, or other materials on top of each other.
“It’s going to open up so many new possibilities for new businesses, new business models, start-up companies, entirely new types of products that before were very expensive or impossible to produce.”
But just as was the case in the computing industry a generation ago, 3D printing technology is advancing rapidly and its cost is falling dramatically. And this means something that was once restricted to a few elite industries is quickly becoming more widely available and affordable. Some three-dimensional printers, for example, now sell for as little as $1,000.
According to Terry Wohlers, president of the US-based Wohlers Associates and a pioneer in the field of 3D printing, the possibilities are practically limitless.
"It's going to open up so many new possibilities for new businesses, new business models, start-up companies, entirely new types of products that before were very expensive or impossible to produce," he says. "So there's a very exciting array of possibilities that are developing as a result of this technology."
The technology is already catching on in some niche industries, including those producing figurines, smartphone cases, handbags, and lamps. Fashion designers are also using additive manufacturing to produce jewelry and clothing, employing materials such as nylon.
Architects, meanwhile, are working on ways to use 3D printing to manufacture building components in concrete. There is even a race afoot to construct the world's first house built entirely with 3D printing products. Researchers are also seeking ways to use the technology to make body parts with biological material, such as cartilage, bone, and skin.
There is a race afoot to construct the world's first house built entirely with 3D printing products. Researchers are also seeking ways to use the technology to make body parts with biological material, such as cartilage, bone, and skin.
Wohlers Associates predicts the additive manufacturing industry will be valued at $3.1 billion worldwide by 2016 and $5.2 billion by 2020.
Futurist Thomas Frey, director of the DaVinci Institute in the US state of Colorado, believes 3D printing will “affect virtually every aspect of society" and enable producers to cheaply and efficiently customize their products to meet the specific desires of individual consumers.
“If you can imagine yourself going into a clothing store in the next few years, the first thing that will happen is that they will scan your body and they will send that information to a machine that can print out the clothing that you want," he says. "So you can pick out whatever fashion you want, whatever colors you want, and they'll print it out right there on the spot. And it will not only be your clothing, but it will also be your shoes."
While the "gee whiz" factor of this emerging technology is certainly high, it could have far-reaching implications for the global economy. Many see 3D printing as an opportunity for developed economies to reclaim certain sectors of industrial manufacturing from developing countries.
London-based economist George Magnus suggests that 3D printing could “tilt [the] competitive edge" in manufacturing back to the United Sates, Western Europe, and Japan.
“Why manufacture in China — with all the problems from rising labor costs to governance and [intellectual-property] protection, and with all the costs of shipping raw materials in and finished products out — when you can do all this close to your markets and customers much more cheaply?” he says.
“Why manufacture in China — with all the problems from rising labor costs to governance and [intellectual-property] protection, and with all the costs of shipping raw materials in and finished products out — when you can do all this close to your markets and customers much more cheaply?” he says.
With 3D printing, it is no longer necessary to construct complex assembly lines before production can begin. Factories using the technology also require fewer workers and materials, reducing production costs.
But don't write the obituary for traditional assembly-line manufacturing just yet. Additive manufacturing also has its limitations, according to some analysts.
"Today, 3D printing is less than 0.1 percent of conventional manufacturing in the total services and products made," says Hod Lipson, an associate professor at Cornell University in the U.S. state of New York and co-author of the book Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. He believes additive manufacturing still "has a long way to go" before it becomes completely commonplace.
3D printing makes sense for manufacturing highly technical products with complex designs, Wohlers says. But it is less efficient for simple goods produced in high volumes, like stadium seats and trash cans.
The impact of the technology will also be felt in the workforce in developed Western economies. It is much less labor intensive than traditional assembly-line manufacturing, but at the same time it will create a market for more high-tech jobs.
“Programmers, designers, software and IT personnel, machine minders, and supervisers are the brains — and the brawn input won't be as big,” says Magnus.
As 3D technology spreads, it is bound to raise some important legal issues, specifically regarding intellectual property, copyright, and liability.
"If you print a steering wheel and the steering wheel breaks, who is to blame?" asks Lipson. "Is it the designer, is it the equipment manufacturer, [or] is it the material manufacturer? There are a lot of people in the chain. Responsibilities are not clear."
Lipson adds that the technology is also not without its dangers. He notes, for example, the possibility of printable firearms.
"It's not going to be a military-grade firearm, but it can be in a kind of plastic, disposable firearm that can shoot only a few rounds," he says. "But even that can do damage, especially to the person who is firing the firearm. And that's something that we need to think about."
In Texas, a group called Defense Distributed already runs a website from which gun lovers can download the files needed to produce firearm parts using a 3D printer.
The group has also posted videos on YouTube of rifles firing rounds with 3D printed magazines.
by Dennis Gruending
The RCMP security service spied on Tommy Douglas, the former Saskatchewan premier and federal NDP leader, from the 1930s until shortly before his death the 1980s. We know this only because Jim Bronskill, an Ottawa-based Canadian Press journalist, has battled with the federal government and its agencies since 2005 to make public Library and Archives Canada's files on Douglas.
