Now I'm Angry!

Now Canada's Information Commissioner John Reid, after reviewing the new Conservative Accountabilty Act is saying the act actually makes the government less accountable and makes it easier to hide information from the public. Although I would expect dirty tricks from Stephen Harper's top-down corporate-government model, this is going at the root of what his campaign was based on, as if restricting media access and barring government officials from speaking publicly wasn't enough.

According to today's Toronto Star:

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done a complete about-face,
introducing plans that would increase government secrecy after campaigning on
openness, says Canada’s information czar.
The proposed Accountability Act,
now being debated in the House of Commons, will actually make government less
accountable when it comes to making information available to Canadians,
Information Commissioner John Reid said Friday.
In a special report to
Parliament, Reid said no government has ever put forward "a more retrograde and
dangerous" set of proposals to change the Access to Information Act since the
legislation first came into effect in 1983.
The Accountability Act, and
other reforms being proposed, will "increase the government’s ability to cover
up wrongdoing, shield itself from embarrassment and control the flow of
information to Canadians," says the scathing report. Reid noted that while in
opposition, Harper railed against the Liberals for failing to reform a system
that encouraged civil servants to withhold information and allowed abuses such
as the sponsorship scandal to flourish undetected.
But the Tories are now
guilty of the same abusive behaviour as they try to make government less
transparent, he said.
“The new government has done exactly the things for
which its predecessor had been ridiculed,” says the report.

Can somebody please explain to me why the Harper government seems to be getting more popular at the polls? This is just making me sick. MP's that hide from their constituents and are unable to speak freely without Harper's approval, shooing the media away from anything controversial, and now this. We better hope that this stuff gets spread around, and maybe a few more scandals just in time for the next election. We cannot let this guy have a majority!

Better Not Get Hurt if You're Serving in the US Army

I saw this referenced on another blog that I read, and it seemed so ridiculous, I wanted to relay it here:

Army specialist Tyson Johnson of Mobile, Ala., had just been promoted in a field
ceremony in Iraq when a mortar round exploded outside his tent, almost killing
him.
"It took my kidney, my left kidney, shrapnel came in through my head,
back of my head," he recounted.
His injuries forced him out of the military,
and the Army demanded he repay an enlistment bonus of $2,700 because he'd only
served two-thirds of his three-year tour.
When he couldn't pay, Johnson's
account was turned over to bill collectors. He ended up living out of his car
when the Army reported him to credit agencies as having bad debts, making it
impossible for him to rent an apartment.
"Oh, man, I felt betrayed," Johnson
said. "I felt like, oh, my heart dropped."

The Bully Makes the Rules

I keep hearing this rhetoric about the four poor teachers in Merritt who crossed the picket line in a strike by their own union. It keeps getting pointed out that the picket line-crossing teachers were law-abiding, which is one of the spun buzzwords of the Campbell government that makes laws to impose its bully aganda onto those who might say otherwise. Now Jinny Sims and the big bad BCTF (Have unions ever been made to look good in the news? I really wonder why that is...) are being portrayed as monsters who would dare punish a law-abider.

Anyways, I think it should be pointed out that this last "illegal" strike was not the first time the BCTF has clashed with the Campbell government. While it was fairly widely reported in labour newsletters, there wasn't much talk, as far as I remember, and there isn't much today, about how the International Labour Organization (ILO), the branch of the UN concerned with workers' rights condemned the legislation declaring teaching an essential service and thereby removing the right to legally strike. This is from the last time the Liberals did this, back in 2001:

The Committee notes that this complaint, by contrast to Case No. 2166, concerns the
education sector, which it does not consider as an essential service in the strict sense of the
term where the right to strike could be restricted or prohibited [see Digest, op. cit.,
para. 545]. Recalling that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which
workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social
interest [see Digest, op. cit., para. 475], the Committee concludes that the provisions of Bill No. 18 which make education an essential service are in violation of freedom of
association principles and should be repealed.

Gordon Campbell the bully makes internationally illegal laws to get what he wants. Unions are one of the best and only methods we have to stand up to tyrant employers. Jinny Sims is not a gangster. She is standing up for principles that are enshrined by the United Nations.

No Surprises Here

At least we can rest assured that the Harper government is living up to its name as a typical conservative government.

From today's Globe and Mail:

OTTAWA — Low- and middle-income families will realize the smallest net
benefit from the Harper government's $1,200-a-year child-care payment in part
because the Conservatives are scrapping a separate assistance program.
The
Conservative plan for meeting the country's child-care needs is to give families
a direct payment of $100 a month, $1,200 annually, for every child under 6. The
specifics of how that plan will be unveiled are expected to be in next Tuesday's
budget.
But the young-child supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, which
currently pays $20.25 a month to parents who do not claim child-care expenses
for their preschool-age children, will be eliminated at the same time. The
benefit is due to increase in July to $249 annually.
The [Caledon] [I]nstitute
has calculated that the families who will benefit most from the child-care
allowance, after taxes and clawbacks, are those making $200,000 a year or more
with one parent at home. They will keep $1,076 of the $1,200
annually.
Families with two working parents and a combined income of $30,000,
by contrast, will keep just $199 annually of the new payments.

While highly frustrating, I can't say that I'm that surprised by this latest seeming gift to the wealthy.

Short but Sweet

The Harper government has decided to bar the Canadian public from viewing
today's ceremony to repatriate the remains of four soldiers killed in
Afghanistan on the weekend, evoking parallels with the Bush administration's
controversial policy of barring photographs of the coffins of U.S. soldiers
killed in Iraq.

The statement from Mr. O'Connor's office said the decision was made "on behalf of the Government of Canada."
Knowledgeable military officials, who were not authorized to speak to journalists, said they were not aware of any specific privacy requests that came from the Canadian Forces.

Childcare and Hatred: Harper Family Values

According to yesterday's Globe and Mail, the Harper Conservatives are recruiting the help of several socially conservative lobby groups in order to promote its childcare plan of offering $1200 per year to parents instead of any form of subsidized daycare.

I would assume that the groups being recruited to spread the message would share some of the same values as the current government, so from the few groups listed in the Globe and Mail article, I decided to check out the websites of a couple of the groups.

In a link directly off the main page of the Canada Family Action Coalition, one of the to-be-enlisted lobby groups, is a document entitled "Stop homosexual presentations in your child's school,":

How Parents May Stop Homosexual Presentations Made to their
Children in School

1.
Write a letter to your child's principal and teacher politely
expressing your concerns about the promotion of homosexuality in your child's
school.
Be aware that such topics as family diversity or anti-bullying are
used as a cover to promote the homosexual agenda.

a)
It's important to state in your letter that you object to your child being
involved in any presentation which portrays homosexuality as a normal, equal
lifestyle choice. Because many school boards have a so-called "equity" policy on
homosexuality, it will always be portrayed sympathetically.

b)
Request that you be notified of any presentation by school
staff or outside presenters which includes or is likely to include a homosexual
component.

c)
Specifically request in your letter that
you be advised well in advance of any outside presentation because the school
may subsequently argue that presenters are from outside the school and "we
weren't aware that they were going to include a homosexual element in their
presentation." This is unlikely. School personnel are usually well aware when a
presentation is going to include homosexuality. If they don't know, then it is
their responsibility to ask in advance and then inform you.

d)
Request in your letter that the teacher and principal
inform any other teachers who work with your child, of your request about the
homosexual issue. Ensure that your child communicate with you any breaches of
this request.

e)
Request the teacher keep your letter on
file in the classroom and request that the principal place one in the official
Student Record file in the office.
2.
Follow up your letter with a
phone call, email, or, better yet, a personal interview with the teacher and
principal. This makes it more difficult for the teacher and principal to argue
that they "forgot" to follow your instructions. When you visit the school, ask
to see your child's Student Record and check to be sure your letter is on file,
as requested.

That this group is aligned with the social values of the Conservative Party and that they would be elicited to promote a social program on behalf of the government speaks volumes about Stephen Harper's toleration of hatred.

The Profits of Fear

What do you get when you combine the information from this Oct. 31, 2005 CNN article:

The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the
globe, but it's proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the
California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy
that's now the most-sought after drug in the world.

"I don't know of any biotech company that's so politically well-connected,"
says analyst Andrew McDonald of Think Equity Partners in San Francisco
[referring to other US politicians who stand to gain by sales of Tamiflu].

these excerpts from a speech by the US president on Nov. 1, 2005, just one day after the above article:

While avian flu has not yet acquired the ability to spread easily from
human to human, there is still cause for vigilance. The virus has developed some
characteristics needed to cause a pandemic: It has demonstrated the ability to
infect human beings, and it has produced a fatal illness in humans. If the virus
were to develop the capacity for sustained human-to-human transmission, it could
spread quickly across the globe.

[In addition to funding vaccine research w]e're also increasing stockpiles
of antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu and Relenza. Antiviral drugs cannot prevent
people from contracting the flu. It can -- but they can reduce the severity of
the illness when taken within 48 hours of getting sick. So in addition to
vaccines, which are the foundation of our pandemic response, I am asking
Congress for a billion dollars to stockpile additional antiviral medications, so
that we have enough on hand to help treat first responders and those on the
front lines, as well as populations most at risk in the first stages of a
pandemic.

and this article from today's Tacoma News-Tribune:

Federal health officials at a meeting Friday in Tacoma downplayed the risk
bird flu poses to humans, contrasting earlier warnings from the federal
government.
“There is no evidence it will be the next pandemic,” Dr. Julie
Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta,
said of avian flu. There is “no evidence it is evolving in a direction that is
becoming more transmissible to people.”

But Gerberding noted that, though the disease has killed “gazillions of
birds,” it has killed about 100 people out of about 200 sickened worldwide. The
victims were in intense, daily contact with sick flocks, often sharing the same
living space. Two people have become infected from person-to-person contact.

She did not say what had changed the thinking of health care officials
about bird flu, but said that, at this point, there is “no reason to think it
ever will” pass easily between people.
Given those facts, bird flu, like
SARS, swine flu and other once widely publicized health threats, might never
become a significant human illness.

You get yet another example of the many ways that governments and industry team up to funnel wealth from the powerless masses to the powerful few. On top of the over $1 billion of taxpayer money used to by Tamiflu, there would also be a significant increase in individual sales, as people's fear is exploited to relax them into complicity in the voluntary and involuntary transfer of their money to the already wealthy.

Part 3 or Enough is Enough

Perhaps I should of called this blog Stephen Harper's Lies and Deceit...

Another short story here illustrating the lunacy we are descending into. From today's Globe and Mail:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is choosing which Conservative MPs will
become chairs of Commons committees, reversing a parliamentary reform that he
championed while leader of the Official Opposition.

Opposition members are concerned that the role of MPs will be significantly
weakened as a result, because the chairpersons' loyalties will be to the Prime
Minister rather than the MPs on the committees, who may at times wish to publish
reports critical of government policy.

Well, this seems to fit with what we've seen so far concernign Mr. Harper's view on anything that might criticize his policy. Silence the media. Silence the military. And now begin the appointment of loyal Commons committee members that won't possibly have anything bad to say about the direction of government, more and more subject to the oversight of the PM's tightly-controlled "hub and spoke style management."

To add insult to injury, the new practice of appointment is to be tested next week when Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott is expected to be appointed chair of the Commons aboriginal affairs committte. I had not previously heard of Mr. Vellacott, but this article, also from today's Globe and Mail gave me a little insight:

Maurice Vellacott drew fire in 2004 for defending two Saskatoon police
officers convicted of leaving a drunken aboriginal man on the outskirts of town
on a -25 winter evening.
Now, the outspoken Conservative MP says he is
Stephen Harper's choice to lead the Commons aboriginal affairs
committee.
Stories of young native men turning up dead in the snow outside of
town led to the firing of the Saskatoon police chief in 2001 as local aboriginal
people accused the police of driving natives out of town and leaving them to
make their way home.
No police officers were charged in relation to the
deaths, but officers Ken Munson and Dan Hatchen were convicted of unlawful
confinement when Darrell Night alleged he had survived such treatment.
In the
summer of 2004, Mr. Vellacott held a press conference announcing the creation of
a legal defence fund to help the two men clear their names.
Letters to the editor and a local columnist criticized Mr. Vellacott's
actions, which, combined with other statements, led one Saskatoon writer to
describe the local MP as someone who is "on the far right" and "no longer part
of the mainstream."
Mr. Vellacott, an evangelical pastor, is perhaps best
known as a vocal critic of legalized abortion, a subject he has frequently
raised in press releases and in the House of Commons. He is one of a handful of
MPs who has proposed private member's bills to criminalize abortion.

Sure sounds like the right guy for the job. I'm glad that the era of Liberal patronage appointments is over. What a joke.

Accountability Part 2

Not 15 minutes after making my last post, I have come across some more wonderful news from the Harper camp. Doubtful that many have heard of Mark Tushingham. Indeed I hadn't before today, and if our Prime Minister has his way, it's doubtful that many will hear his name anytime soon. Mark Tushingham works for the Oil, Gas and Energy branch of Environment Canada, and as evidenced in this article, a novel penned by Mr. Tushingham must contain too many government secrets:

Mark Tushingham's new book is called Hotter than Hell, but yesterday he was
plunged into the icy reality of the new Conservative communications regime,
where ministers, MPs and the media are encountering strict new controls over the
flow of information to the public.
Shortly before Tushingham was due to give
a luncheon speech in Ottawa about his novel — a futuristic account of Canada and
the U.S. at war over water resources in a globally warmed world — he received an
email from the environment minister's office, warning him not to attend the
event.
Paradoxically, the incident takes place during the same week the
Conservatives unveiled new "whistleblower" protection, designed to shield
outspoken public servants from intimidation and threats to their livelihood.
Also yesterday, the government said it was axing 15 research programs
related to the Kyoto climate-change protocol and aimed at reducing the
greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.

Tushingham was also warned not to speak to reporters and spent much of
yesterday in hiding, said his publisher, Elizabeth Margaris, head of
DreamCatcher Publishing. Margaris flew into Ottawa from New Brunswick
specifically to introduce her author at the luncheon, only to learn upon her
arrival that he was not allowed to speak.

Margaris was visibly shaken by the gagging. "Isn't this outrageous?"
Margaris said. "This has never happened to me before."

The PMO insists that the information chill in Ottawa is more perceived than
real — a product of a media culture that got too accustomed to the hyper-availability of former prime minister Paul Martin's
regime. [emphasis added]

What the hell is going on? Are public book burnings next? Too accustomed to the hyper-availability of Paul Martin's regime? Are we in the twilight zone? This is scary folks. This government is not showing that it deserves our trust.

In a final note, I suggest having a look at this article from last Friday's Globe and Mail. Here's the thesis statement:

People who work for cabinet ministers could still walk out
the door and take a job with a lobbying firm through exemptions in the
government's proposed federal accountability act.

Even though I don't agree with Mr. Harper's politics, and would never vote Conservative, I had given him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps his portrayal of himself as honest might have been sincere. I stand truly disappointed.

For Stephen Harper, Accountability and Censorship Go Hand in Hand

When the Conservative Party was elected to form the current minority government, one of the major, if not the most prominent plank in its platform was the restoration of a standard of accountability in government, an apparent reaction to scandals that plagued the outgoing Liberal government. Sounds like a reasonable idea to most, I would imagine.
However, with seeming increasing frequency, Mr. Harper believes that increasing government accountability is possible while severely limiting the amount of information (ie. censoring) that is able to reach the public regarding the operation of government.
I was first quite disturbed that Mr. Harper's government was

ending the third-floor interviews [with the press] because the crowded area was not
safe for reporters and the traditional shouting of questions did not help
either the politicians or the media look good.

After allowing his ministers a new back way out of cabinet meetings so that reporters would not necessarily be able to ask questions, on March 28,

[l]ess than a half dozen of the 26 ministers came through the new waiting area
for the media after the cabinet meeting, including Finance Minister Jim
Flaherty, who held a brief scrum with reporters and photographers scrambling for
position at the top of a marble staircase.
As he answered questions on a wide
range of topics, Mr. Harper appeared visibly annoyed when he was asked about his
new media rules.
"I'm available regularly to answer questions if there are
questions of substance," he said.
Reporters who asked about the lack of
access to ministers received short answers, and Mr. Harper would signal to his
press secretary Dimitris Soudas to call the next reporter's name. Mr. Soudas has
been assigned to control which reporters are allowed to ask questions during the
Prime Minister's press conferences.

Is this for real? Since when did press interaction with government ministers have the purpose of making everyone look good? Perhaps Mr. Harper is confusing the press with a royal scribe. They are not there to make him look good. If anything, just the opposite should be true. Any healthy democracy must have a press that is not afraid or barred from challenging power structures.

I was just pondering what else might be next when I read this, just from this last weekend:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has forbidden Canada's top military brass from
speaking publicly for fear of detracting attention from his government's top
priorities.
A top military officer said the Prime Minister's Office recently
told Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier his speaking engagements had to be
approved and his speeches would be vetted by Harper's staff.
Hillier was
told to advise his top generals, admirals and commodores that the order applies
to them.

Detracting from his government's top priorities? What might those be? Lying to the public? Putting up smokecreens? I must say that these are very disappointing developments to me, reminiscent of a certain administration south of the border that has been shown to have had very much to hide and to be most unaccounable indeed.

The Morally Bankrupt Should Not Be Trying to Make a Withdrawal

I happened to flip to CNN over the weekend and saw one of the many viewer polls that seem to be so prominent in this era of TV "news entertainment". This particular poll was referring to the recent much-publicized enrichment of uranium by Iran. The question being posed was along the lines of:

How should the current situation in Iran be dealt with?

1. Diplomacy
2. Sanctions
3. Military Actions

Now here are three very different choices, but to me this seems like the now-too-common practice within the mainstream media to premise an outcome and the make it seem as though there are several different choices that could be taken to arrive at said outcome. To even engage in this question is to assume that the outcome is valid and to take at face value the premise that Iran has been bad and needs some sort of disciplinary action by the world community (read the United States). From all I can gather, this enrichment of uranium for stated peaceful energy purposes is the only action that is being stated as being the problem. According to Paragraph 1 of article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the UN document regulating the spread of nuclear technology amongst the world's states,

Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right
of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity
with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

With Articles I and II stating, respectively:

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to
any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or
control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not
in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive
the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly,
or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the
manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

As far as I can tell, and I imagine it would be quite widely circulated if it were not the case, Iran has not breached any of the conditions of the NPT. All I have seen is a repeated fear-mongering that Iran's enrichment of uranium for any purposes whatsoever is a necessary step in the potential creation of a nuclear weapon. Does anybody else see the problem with this logic? In the words of British Labour Party MP Jeremy Corbin, written in a letter to the Guardian:

Saying Iran is a step closer to a nuclear bomb is akin to saying that Britain
will invade France due to the breakdown in negotiations over the CAP [Common
Agricultural Policy].

Also from the same letter:

Inherently the technologies of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are similar,
but not necessarily a stepping stone, as nuclear activities can be monitored to
ensure they remain peaceful - the aim of Mohammed ElBaradei's current visit.
Iran's breakthrough was in its civil nuclear programme; failure to differentiate
paves the way for another illegitimate war in the Middle East. Iran's
announcement is not a breach of international law or regulation. Whatever our
views of nuclear energy, Iran is allowed to be in the nuclear club as a
signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It voluntarily halted its
uranium enrichment plans to negotiate additional protocols to the NPT. But when
negotiations landed them before the security council, Iran overturned its
voluntary ban and resumed enrichment.

So what does one suppose is going on? With an ongoing war nextdoor in Iraq that was started on completely false grounds, with claims such as:

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United
Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and
must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic
weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best
achieve it?

How similar does this sound to the CNN poll referenced above? Who is wanting to get on the same ride all over again? Who will this benefit? Has anyone been following how much financial gain has been had by US Corporations, many with close ties to the White House, during the Iraq war and subsequent "rebuilding". This is just one angle of the slew of not publicly disclosed reasons for the removal of Saddam Hussein. More on this later.

Stephen Harper: Misleading or Delusional About Crime?

As it is well documented that governments can try to induce fear into the population in order to implement otherwise unpopular measures. Harper's big focus on crime seems to be one of these pushes, or else he is just out of touch with the facts. In either case, we should be weary of what measures he may try to bring forward under the guise of "protection."

This from The April 4 edition of the Globe and Mail:

Harper wrong on crime
BRUCE KETCHUM -
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
White Rock, B.C. -- Re Harper Outlines Crime-Fighting
Efforts As Parliament Looms (on-line edition -- April 3): According to the full
text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Canadian Professional Police Association
(available on the Prime Minister's website), he said that our way of life is
"threatened by rising levels of crime." Statistics Canada, in its latest crime
statistics report, released last July, states that "the crime rate has generally
been falling since 1991" and that the 2004 rate was 12 per cent lower than a
decade ago.
Mr. Harper goes on to say that "the homicide rate is on the rise
as well." What he should have said is that, again quoting the same Statscan
report, "Canada's homicide rate rose 12 per cent in 2004 after hitting a 36-year
low the year before" (my italics).
In discussing crime in cities, the Prime
Minister clearly wants to leave the impression that it is on the rise,
"especially in the city of Toronto" as witnessed by "growing media reports."
Instead of relying on tabloid journalism as the basis for federal government
decision-making, Mr. Harper should refer to his own statistical agency, which
reports for 2004 "large decreases in reported crime in the census metropolitan
areas (CMAs) of Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and St. Catharines-Niagara."
It is
apparent that Mr. Harper's propensity for hyperbole was not entirely left behind
when he assumed the role of Prime Minister.
We expect better.

What Have We Learned?

Came across this article today, and even though it's a few months old, thought it might not be a bad start, just to see what's at stake here and what we are doing to ourselves. These are excerpts:

Is it possible that global civilisation might collapse within our lifetime
or that of our children? Until recently, such an idea was the preserve of
lunatics and cults. In the past few years, however, an increasing number of
intelligent and credible people have been warning that global collapse is a
genuine possibility. And many of these are sober scientists, including Lord May,
David King and Jared Diamond - people not usually given to exaggeration or
drama.

The new doomsayers all point to the same collection of threats - climate
change, resource depletion and population imbalances being the most important.
What makes them especially afraid is that many of these dangers are
interrelated, with one tending to exacerbate the others. It is necessary to
tackle them all at once if we are to have any chance of avoiding global
collapse, they warn.

Many societies - from the Maya in Mexico to the Polynesians of Easter
Island - have collapsed in the past, often because of the very same dangers that
threaten us.

Unlike these dead societies, our civilisation is global. On the positive
side, globalisation means that when one part of the world gets into trouble, it
can appeal to the rest of the world for help. Neither the Maya nor the
inhabitants of Easter Island had this luxury, because they were in effect
isolated civilisations. On the negative side, globalisation means that when one
part of the world gets into trouble, the trouble can quickly be exported. If
modern civilisation collapses, it will do so everywhere. Everyone now stands or
falls together.

The enormity of such a scenario makes it hard to imagine. It is human
nature to assume that the world will carry on much as it has been. But it is
worth remembering that in the years preceding the collapse of their
civilisation, the Mayans too were convinced that their world would last
forever.