With his latest album, “Living With War”, Neil Young has produced a masterpiece – a clarion call for action against the misguided and destructive foreign policies of the Bush administration.

I am no music critic, so I will let others critique the riffs, melodies and harmonies that Young uses to drive home his message. That message is one for the ages; a scathing, devastating and eloquent attack on President George W. Bush and his decision to invade Iraq.

As one of hundreds of thousands who futilely marched in the streets in the spring of 2003 to attempt to dissuade Bush and Blair from launching their “shock and awe” campaign, I hope that this brilliant piece of work empowers those who feel they lack the ability to influence the decisionmakers.

The album can be heard for free at www.neilyoung.com

God and Allah bless Neil Young!

Opponents of the B.C. Government’s plan to build a multiple lane highway through the unique ecosystems above Horseshoe Bay have squared off in B.C. Supreme Court against the government, the P3 partnership and the construction contractor.

The court proceedings were triggered by the contractor’s legal action against Dennis Perry, Bruce McArthur, John Doe and Jane Doe. The contractor, Peter Kiewit Sons Co., is seeking an injunction against all those who have been camped out in the area of the Bluffs in a peaceful demonstration designed to express their opposition to the government’s plan. The demonstrators’ non-profit society has responded with a legal action of its own alleging that environmental considerations have not been adequately taken into account. It too seeks an injunction, to shut down the work until all applicable environmental protection rules have been followed.

Mr. Justice William Grist has heard from lawyers for both sides on May 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11th, 2006. The hearing continues at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 12th with more legal argument.

For more, please go to www.eagleridgebluffs.ca

Finally, on a Thursday before a four day holiday weekend, and three and a half months later than its self-imposed deadline, Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. (“CLCO”) has issued its “Final Project Report: Competitive Selection Phase”, complete with a “Review Engagement Report of the Auditor General of British Columbia”.

CLCO has trumpeted that its report concludes “Canada Line expected to deliver value for money” and that the Auditor General’s report “fairly describes the assumptions, context, decisions, procurement process and results to date of the Canada Line rapid transit project.” What smoke and mirrors.

First, the smoke: The report has an effective date of July 29, 2005 and says nothing about what has happened over the last nine months. Further, as Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer has pointed out, CLCO reached its optimistic conclusions by comparing its yet to be built P3 project with an imaginary public project, called a “public sector comparator”. For reasons that are not clear, and cannot withstand scrutiny, the Canada Line is said to generate prospective ridership revenues that will be $148 million higher than a comparable project built by the public sector. These revenues have themselved been calculated using ridership projections that have been roundly criticised as unrealistic. As if the wispy projections of costs aren’t enough, costs remain shrouded in mist. The Concession Agreement has had all its financial data on costs expunged, and nobody has yet explained how a project said to cost $1.72 billion in February of 2005 suddenly cost $2.05 billion by July of that same year.

Next, the mirrors: How do the folks at the Auditor General’s office look at themselves in their mirrors in the morning? Here’s what the Auditor General has concluded about his review of the one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in British Columbia history:

“…actual results and future events, in particular ridership and ridership revenue, could differ materially from the results discussed or implied. Accordingly, I express no opinion as to whether the expected results will be achieved.”

No opinion? Are we, the province’s taxpayers, paying this supposed watchdog to provide no opinion on something as fundamental as the project’s revenues?

Last week, a cow wandering near the Spokane Valley Mall in Washington state died after it was repeatedly Tasered by police. Last year a dog in Oregon died after repeated Taser strikes.

How do the police, coroners and other Taser advocates explain these animal deaths? It’s a pretty safe bet that neither of these animals were high on cocaine when they were zapped. I’m no animal psychologist, but I doubt whether “excited delirium” played a role either. Is it possible that, just maybe, the 50,000 volts of electricity pulsing through their bodies may have had fatal consequences?

More than 200 North Americans have died after being Tasered by police, 69 last year alone. Although there have been 14 Canadian fatalities, no independent safety tests have ever been done in this country.

The British Columbia government has announced that it will employ “traffic calming” in the area of Cathedral Grove, rather than bulldozing old growth forest to create a parking lot. The announcement ends a two year struggle by environmentalists and residents opposed to the government’s original plan.

We are proud to have played a small role in this important victory, having successfully opposed the BC government’s application for an injunction that would have had the effect of removing protesters from the public lands where the parking lot was to have been built.

In May of 2004, the late Madam Justice Gina Quijano dismissed the injunction application in a courageous decision that bucked conventional judicial trends.

Read Madam Justice Quijano’s 2004 decision here:
2004 BCSC 720 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Sager et al