I won't be a stock character in the play of life

I won't be a stock character in the play of life

I am developing a growing interest in the weekly Sunday column of Janice Kennedy in the Ottawa Citizen. I happened upon her article this past weekend titled A religious life, as Jesus knew, is a life of peace It speaks to a regularly heard theme; How does someone reconcile celebrating Christ, the Prince of Peace, during this holiest of times, while simultaneously calling for war in distant lands? She picks on the usual punching bag, George Bush, in this regard.

Digging a little deeper, I found her column I won't be a stock character in the play of life of the previous week to be equally interesting. There is a certain freshness and appeal about someone who, while making clear her liberal and feminist take on issues, also knows that perspective, when not acknowledged, can cloud how she sees others.

The world is not black and white, left and right, anti or pro. It is a mosaic. When engaging in discourse, whether in the broadest of spheres, or, one on one, it is so important to know where you are standing in the forest. Are those with whom you are speaking standing in the hot sun or are those trees offering shade? Maybe they like it hot, but, then again, maybe not. Perhaps that is why they are squirming, or, impatient.

I always need to remind myself to listen, really listen, to what the other person is saying. I need to listen intently not only to the words, but, more importantly, to the context of those words. They have a reason for saying what they do. If I develop an appreciation of the reason, the meaning of the words becomes much clearer. Part of communication is coming to an understanding of those reasons through open discourse. It is perhaps an overused quote since being popularized again by Al Gore, but, it is worth repeating:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. ~Upton Sinclair

People are willing to risk communicating more openly when they feel respected. They usually are more receptive to allowing their ideas to be challenged when they feel safe as a person. Perhaps this is what has happened in the break down of communication that has been making news recently in the brittle discourse between the Federal Finance Minister and the Provincial Government of Ontario. They have stopped respecting each other, and subsequently, they have stopped listening. Each vainly attempts to score points, while they learn little if anything from each other.

I remember several years ago catching the last few minutes of a documentary being aired on TVO. A rich baritone voice was speaking about aspirations of people the world over, as a panoramic view of a variety of communities, rich and poor, third world and first world, unfolded.

"All anyone wants", the voice intoned, "when you look around you, is a safe place to raise their children, a place where they know that parents can age with dignity and grace. That is really all any of us really wants, wherever we are, whatever our station in life."

And isn't that so true? Once you strip away all of the extraneous trappings of life that our hyper-consumer driven society encourages us to seek, what we really want is a safe place to call home for our family. What we incessantly debate are the finer details of how to make it happen.

This is why, in the midst of all the discord we may see around us, it is so important that we find ways to discover what brings us together, as opposed to what separates us. Disagree with the ideas, but offer respect to those whom you disagree with.

Yes, I admit it, I think the ideas of the Harper Conservative government are heading us in the wrong direction. I think that they will reduce the opportunity for everyone to have a safe place to call home. I think they will increase disparity, not reduce it and their approach perpetuates the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. In my view, they are too attached to the concept of ever expanding economic growth that as if by magic will allow all of this "wealth" to ultimately trickle down to those less fortunate.

Alternatively, I believe that we have reached our "Limits to Growth" on a planetary scale. Encouragement of over consumption has just about squeezed that trickling spigot shut. We are seeing this now as we witness climate change, environmental degradation and dwindling access to life-sustaining resources such as food, water and arable land.

Should I then, stop listening to them? Should I write them off as unhelpful participants in community dialog? As tempting as that can feel sometimes, (and so does pulling the covers over head in the morning when I hear the wind whistling outside), I ultimately view such an approach as counter productive. This is when I need to challenge myself to listen, while respectfully dissecting those ideas with which I do not agree.

I seek to understand how they arrived at their conclusions, while simultaneously sharing my perspective. I want us to find our common ground. The best way for me to do that is to be part of encouraging dialog. I also readily admit that I am often not up to the task. However, when we continue to shout at each other disrespectfully, nothing changes. We go to our chosen corners, pointing fingers at each other while we plan our next move to win the argument. In the meantime, the planet, the home we all seek to share, is lost.

The Obama effect

The Obama effect

This was an interesting article in the Good Friday edition of the Ottawa Citizen written by Susan Riley. She begins by talking about Barrack Obama's appeal not only to voters in the upcoming U.S. election, but how he strikes a chord with Canadians as well. She reflects on how many of us are drawn to his more conciliatory and collaborative approach to politics. Here is an excerpt:

From the sponsorship scandal to the Cadman affair, our own politics have been driven by distractions for years, with no end in sight. The economy is on auto-pilot, the dangers of climate change are ignored and the opportunities missed, nothing gets better for aboriginal Canadians, the health care system continues to stagger while this vibrant country is poorly-served by its menial-minded, risk-averse leaders.

That is why Obama's message is echoing north of the border. Is there an Obama here? Not yet. But the Green Party and its articulate leader, Elizabeth May, while still on the political margins, offer a glimpse, at least, of less destructively competitive, more positive, vision. It started with May and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's agreement not to run candidates against one another in the next election, an unorthodox, principle-based alliance aimed at advancing a green agenda. As the Greens become more threatening -- their surprising surge in Vancouver Quadra apparently came at the expense of Liberal votes -- the relationship may fray. For now, however, says May, "if Stéphane Dion can keep trying to be collaborative, I'll try too, even if we're in a system that discourages cooperation."

It is telling to contrast this approach with comments made earlier in the week by Bill Tieleman, who was communications director for NDP BC Premier Glen Clark back in 1996. He was discussing the by election results of March 17, 2008. Here is an excerpt from his blog titled NDP Needs Some Class!

The popular perception about the byelections is that the only real winner was the Green Party, appropriately enough for a St. Patrick Day's vote. The Greens increased their support considerably, more than doubling their vote in Vancouver Quadra, finishing in second place ahead of the NDP and Conservatives in Willowdale, and a very close third to the NDP in Toronto Centre.

That's all true. But it's not necessarily bad news for the NDP.

Crazy spin? Demented analysis of electoral politics? Not at all.

Because what both the federal byelections and the provincial poll clearly show is that the New Democratic Party can perform dramatically better -- if it does two simple things -- move sharply to the political left and embrace populist positions.

Tielemen then puts forward a strong argument for the NDP to focus on the "class" differences between those who vote for the NDP and those who vote for other parties. He takes issue with current NDP leader Carole James. He points out that she "has gone out of her way, for example, to speak to chambers of commerce and business organizations, telling them the NDP wants to work with business and is not a threat."

He then quotes James and what she told the Surrey Chamber of Commerce:

"As leader of the NDP I have worked hard to reach out and build bridges to BC's business community -- small, medium and large -- and to make the case that the traditional political divides in this province should no longer shape our relationship," James said. "As I have said many times, in today's economy New Democrats and business leaders share far more in common than ever before."

In Thieleman's view

...that's the wrong message. NDP voters want to see the party defend them against their bosses and the powerful business community, not work with them.

As much as the NDP often like to claim to be "grassroots" and collaborative in their approach, in this instance, they are falling into the trap of playing"winner take all" politics. Tieleman is clearly advocating this type of old style divide and conquer tactics that focus on "class versus class" struggles, as opposed to finding what brings us together in common interest. It is such a tired
argument, the existence of which should clearly be pointing us in the direction of electoral reform that moves us away from our current First Past the Post electoral system.

Tieleman is not making his "move sharply to the political left" argument based on policy, but because it is, in his judgment the way to "win". Let's find our "wedge" issue and sculpt out some votes, he seems to be suggesting, as opposed to presenting policy that is correct and sustainable for our constituency in the long term. He certainly wouldn't be getting my vote based on that appeal strategy.

Yes, elections are about winning. However, speaking as a Green, the desire to win should not get in the way of us behaving in a collaborative manner that seeks to focus on our shared interests, as opposed to constantly hammering at the differences of our positions. On this I shall always be advocating that we take the high road. If we practice divide and conquer politics, we are no better than those we criticize. We need to walk the talk on this, and all of our issues, and model the behaviour we want to see around us.

Snowing us on the budget

Snowing us on the budget

The budget forged last December was less a budget and more a series of wishes. It did not take into account money for a snowy day."

The Ottawa Citizen, Published: Thursday, March 20, 2008

It is hard to disagree with the suggestion that the taxpayers of Ottawa have been "snowed" in more ways than one recently. After detailing the bizarre tactics engaged by City Council and the Mayor to try to convince us that we really could get something for nothing, The Ottawa Citizen points us in the right direction when it concludes:

We simply need better city budgeting and a better tax system. Property taxes just don't work. They leave cities in constant shortfall. Premier Dalton McGuinty, are you listening?

Long before the dust has settled (or the snow has finally melted in early July) from this current mess we need to start a serious conversation in this city, and in all municipalities across this country, about the structural flaws endemic in our current system of municipal financing.

Canada stands out amongst OECD countries in how it expects urban centres to be financed almost exclusively by the regressive property tax system. Ontario further exacerbates the problem with its imposition of social welfare costs on this strained tax base.

Numerous expert commentators in the arcane area of municipal taxation have pointed this out to us. In Local Taxation: A Comparative Analysis Dr. Harry Kitchen, of Trent University points out that as of 2001 Canadian municipalities derived more than 91% of their total tax revenue from property taxes. In comparison, the average amongst the federal states of the OECD was 48.8% and within the unitary states it was a paltry 31.8% of municipal revenue. Drs. Enid Bird and Richard Slack of the Institute of Municipal Finance and Governance at the University of Toronto tell us that among OECD countries Canada has the highest property tax to GDP ratio in the world, at 4.1%, followed by the U.S. and Australia at 2.9% and 2.5% respectively.(1)

These commentators are not suggesting that we need to stop using property taxes to fund municipal expenditures. They are saying, however, that we need to expand our horizons so it isn't our only source of revenue. Jurisdictions the world over use have reduced their dependence on the regressive property tax system to fund municipalities. Canada, and particularly Ontario, lags far behind in this regard.

For the property taxes that we do collect the Green Party of Ontario proposes that part of the solution lies in moving toward a system that assesses land value, but not the value of buildings and improvements made to such buildings, to determine municipal tax rates. This would vastly simplify the responsibilities of MPAC, as the relative value of building improvements would not be considered in their calculations.

Such a plan would encourage development more along the lines of a municipality’s official plan. Land value is proportional not only to its quantity, but also to the scale and type of development permitted. It would create a disincentive to land speculation, as the property would be taxed according to its full potential for use, as reflected in its assessment and class.

It also would remove the disincentive of higher taxes on home improvement. A property owner is more likely to invest in best building practices, and erect a carbon neutral facility with the threat of higher taxes removed. This enhances not only the value of the building, but the community at large, with cleaner air.

Depending almost exclusively on our current regressive type of tax system understandably encourages short term reactionary thinking on the part of many voters. From year to year a significant number of property owners are justifiably outraged at the level of increase of their municipal tax bill. These increases have no relationship either to their ability to pay nor to the cost of the service being provided. They howl and scream to their councillor, the media, and who ever else will listen. Much newspaper ink is spilt as a media frenzy is created with everyone proclaiming "Our taxes are too high already! We can't afford these increases!" Newspapers are sold, talk radio screams, and local politicians get up on their hind legs and proclaim "Zero means zero!" Meanwhile, our infrastructure crumbles, the snow piles up, and the next news item insists that the feds or the province must help the cities.

What is so fascinating is that all these taxes, be they federal provincial or municipal, are paid by the same taxpayer. Why is it that we continue to believe that if our federal and/or provincial tax rates go down, that somehow, as if by magic, our municipal taxes should go down as well. One of the reasons our income taxes went down was because the higher levels of government thought they could look like tax cutting heroes by ultimately downloading costs onto the most regressive and unbalanced form of taxation, namely the municipal property tax system.

As taxpayers we all need to give our collective heads a really good shake. We have been snowed, not only by our municipal council's failure to engage in effective and meaningful budgeting, but by every politician, be they municipal, provincial or federal, who has promised us something for nothing. As taxpayers to all of these levels of government we need to demand that they start to work together immediately to re balance how our municipalities are funded. The current system was designed more than 100 hundred years ago when Canada was essentially a rural outpost with a few small developing urban areas. Things have changed dramatically since then but our method of funding municipalities, where the vast majority of us now live, has not. A substantive overhaul is urgently required.

Smart homeowners plan for proper maintenance of their homes. Smart cities should be able to as well, and look forward to making the investments needed to ensure the long term sustainability of the place we call home. Only then will we start to bring down our costs over the long term. Fiscal responsibility does not mean spending the least amount of money every year. It means spending the correct amount of money every year, so that in the long term we spend the least amount of money.

Religion, Faith, and Other Sensitive Concepts

Although ostensibly raised in a traditional "Anglican" home, I was never inculcated with any particular faith as a child. God was a non-subject as I grew up, at least in my home. I essentially viewed it as one more subject of study, which I did, taking a survey course on religion and ethics offered by the Department of Religion at Queen's University while I was an undergraduate.

During my early twenties I developed an abiding interest in Buddhism, and have written about it previously. I cultivated a fond appreciation of its non-theistic approach to explaining reality. It spoke to my search for a sense of moral compass without insisting that I accept any particular dogmatic preaching. I realized that I could be "moral" without the requirement of "faith".

Just a couple of weeks ago I picked up an interesting textbook during one of my regular prowls through my neighbourhood Sally Ann. Titled simply "World Religions - Western Traditions", it is edited by Willard G. Oxtoby and first published in 2002. Some of it I find tedious, as I can't always follow the various names and tribes that are mentioned. (Will I ever understand the diference between the Kenites, the Kenizzites and the Kadmonites?) However, much of it is quite enlightening, as history.

I was reading this book this past weekend as I traveled by bus back from Toronto. A young man sat next to me, and we soon struck up a conversation. He was immediately curious about my reading material, particularly fascinated in that it covered his own religion, Islam. I conveyed how I was learning more about how Jews, Christians and Muslims all prayed to the same God, that they were all "of the book".

The conversation then turned to the question of my own "faith". A peaceful smile came over his face as he told me how important it was for Jews, Christians and Muslims to appreciate how their faiths are inextricably linked through God. Apparently, he had assumed I was Christian. I mentioned my interest in Buddhist philosophy, but decided I didn't want to delve more deeply into the issue. At this point I reminded myself of another chat I had had with a Muslim acquaintance, who was quite shocked and distraught when he heard that I didn't actually believe in a supreme being. "You must believe in God!" he exclaimed, incredulously. The term "non-theistic" had no place in his reality. It was only the intervention of our mutual friend that directed the discussion to safer ground.

I tell this story because for me it relates to how sensitive many of us are about the issue of faith and religion. It clearly touches deeply within the core of many. I mean no disrespect to others when I reject the concept of religious or spiritual "faith" in a "higher power" or "supreme being". I simply don't have it.

For some, it seems that being without "faith" is equivalent to being without morals or direction. If I don't believe in God, I must be misguided and lost. From the perspective of many, I need to be saved. Well, I don't feel lost at all, thank you very much. I may have more questions than answers, but I actually think that is a very healthy way to engage in the world. I view questions of ethics and morality as fundamental to every step I take on this planet. I may not always make the correct choices, but I question my behaviour every day on issues that matter.

I usually find myself shying away from discussing this topic, particularly with my friends who "believe", largely out of fear of being disrespectful of their "faith". I do not wish to be shy about this any longer. I find it so curious how over countless centuries humanity has developed its entire belief structure on a collection of stories handed down, re-interpreted and re-transcribed over time based on dreams and visions described by a handful of influential and perhaps unusual individuals 2-3,000 or more years ago. We argue incessantly over the correct interpretation of our daily news, yet Christians, Jews and Muslims accept on "faith" what has been passed on in their various holy books over a millennia or more. We then proceed to kill each other over conflicts between these various interpretations of who "God" gave or did not give some land to, or who he holds in highest esteem. Incredible. And to think we call ourselves civilized.

When I read, for example, the story of Abram's conversation with God in Genesis 17 it is just that; A Story. It, and the rest of the Book of Genesis tells a fascinating tale, but I don't believe for a minute that it in anyway relates to real conversations that someone had with "God" or with the beginnings of the universe. God didn't create the universe in seven days a few thousand years ago. People were not visited by "Angels" nor have conversations with "God". They had dreams, quite powerful and perhaps really scary dreams, but dreams nonetheless. Being good story tellers, and quite likely influential members of their respective communities, they were able to weave such experiences into a developing belief structure as to the nature of the universe. They sought a way to explain the unexplainable. Bertrand Russell describes it well in Proposed Roads to Freedom:

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

I have dreams every night. I always feel that I have a much more refreshing sleep when I know that I have been dreaming. It is an important means by which I work out the trials and tribulations of my day. Through my lifetime, I have experienced a handful of powerful, emotion laden dreams, some of which I have retained as a conscious memory. At no time, however, did it occur to me that I was in conversation with God or any other ephemeral being.

In Biblical times though, that was the standard interpretation given. Dreams were seen as messages coming from beyond the mortal world. God, angels or the devil were speaking to us. What other explanation could there be?

Emotional experiences really do have the feeling of touching us in our "core". We physically feel it. Who hasn't woken up from a powerful dream, shaking or sweating? When afraid, we may often feel the hair stand up on the back of our neck. Others around us may view it happening. We feel the "knot" in our stomach and physical observation can readily detect these subtle yet very real changes in our body chemistry. Powerful? Most certainly. God tapping on our shoulder or the Devil whispering in our ear? I think not.

The explanations offered for these very real and powerful experiences three thousand years ago made sense in the context of the time. They do not make the same kind of sense today.

I am attracted to and interested in all religions for the moral teachings they have to offer. Being without religious faith should not be seen as justification for immoral behaviour.

...to be continued.

What's next in driving green building | Cleantech.com

What's next in driving green building | Cleantech.com

A new trinational report gives green building a green light, but who should drive? The industry weighs in.

'We're trying to elevate the importance of buildings as it relates to an overall climate change plan; right now it's not high on the radar.'

That was how Jonathan Westeinde, managing partner of The Windmill Development Group in Ottawa, summarized a new report, released yesterday, from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Westeinde chaired an advisory group behind the report, which calls green building the fastest, cheapest and most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in North America."

I listened to Jonathan Westeinde speak at an event at OttawaU in January, 08. He is a mover and shaker in his field, with his company already responsible for several innovative green projects, including the recently completed GCTC building in Ottawa located at the corner of Holland and Wellington.

In 2006 he was selected as one of the "Forty Under Forty" by the Ottawa Business Journal. His profile is refreshing!

Council cool to complaint about turf war

Council cool to complaint about turf war

Council cool to complaint about turf war
Harder stepped in to help constituents in colleague's riding"

Apparently, Glenn Brooks doesn't appreciate involvement of those "outside" his ward in his "local" issues. With all due respect, Councillor Brooks needs to understand that, in a democracy, we not only have the right to be involved, but that it is healthier for our community when more of us see it as an obligation of citizenship to express our concerns.

The decision making process of how Manotick is developed may have profound effects on my community of Overbrook. We are continually in the process of setting the rules for how intensification of our city will proceed. What is ultimately planned for Manotick will be part of the precedent for future development in Ottawa. Whether Councillor Brooks likes it or not, that concerns all of us.

Who Do We Think We Are?

As an inhabitant of the developed world I consume far in excess of my fair share of the world's resources. I accept that the level of consumption in our society is not only unsustainable, but is leading to tragic consequences for those in the remainder of the world who have access to less than their fair share.

"In 1950, there were about two poor people for every rich person on Earth; today there are about four; in 2025, there will be nearly six."(Homer-Dixon)

I want to develop my vision of the type of world I believe we need to move towards. I want to connect not just with my friends and neighbours, but with the skeptics amongst you to encourage discussion and activity on this issue. I want to challenge us all to understand that, for our children, and all future generations, we must begin to re-orient our lifestyles in radical and substantive ways. I urge us to consider voluntary simplicity as an important step in this evaluation process. Consider the words of Mohatma Ghandi, who asked us to...

"Live simply that others may simply live."

I believe it essential that we recognize that we cannot grow our way out of this problem. We need to encourage a SteadyState economy that is based on and promotes quality of life, not ever increasing quantity of consumption. To do this, each of us must begin the process of evaluating how much we consume and accumulate. If we find we are taking more than our fair share, then we need to change our behaviour. Once again, to quote Mohatma Ghandi,

"There’s enough on this planet for everyone’s needs but not for everyone’s greed."

To continue to build and believe in a society that encourages us to have and consume more in the face of dwindling resources is the greatest problem we are creating for future generations. It is a sad and most shameful legacy. Regardless of your age, try to visualize for a moment the type of world you are leaving for your grandchildren, if the world continues to consume and pollute as it does today. Will there be anything left for our future generations, our children and grandchildren, to enjoy? Would you want to live in that world with them?

As Ted Mosquin and J. Stan Rowe have stated in A Manifesto for Earth:

Humanity's 10,000-year-old experiment in mode-of-living at the expense of Nature, culminating in economic globalization, is failing. A primary reason is that we have placed the importance of our species above all else. We have wrongly considered Earth, its ecosystems, and their myriad organic/inorganic parts as mere provisioners, valued only when they serve our needs and wants. A courageous change in attitudes and activities is urgent.

We have failed to understand that we are part of the environment. We have been treating it as one more commodity to be bought and sold. How foolish of us. The environment ultimately will find balance and heal itself. The question is whether or not we, as humanity, shall choose, through our actions, to continue to be part of the equation.

I am seeking ways that I can be a part of re-directing society. For me, it is not enough that I may be able to proclaim how I have reduced my consumption. I need to be part of the movement that is convincing others that this issue must be confronted. If anything that I create here persuades one person to reduce the size of their footprint on this planet, or participate in the discussion, then I have succeeded. My hope, of course, is for far more.

It is essential to hear from the skeptics. I want to engage with those who do not believe that climate change is a result of human activity. I want to debate with those who believe that we can continue to consume at our current rates. I seek to understand the reasoning of those who argue that the best way to deal with the deleterious effects of continual economic growth is to continue to invest in growth for growth's sake. We need to talk. To those of you who share my perspective, we also need to talk. We need to find ways to work together to further our understanding of where civilization is headed and how we can be a part of the solution to the greatest threat facing humanity. We need to find ways to engage with those who do not share our perspective.

So, Why Blog?

The concept of blogging, for me, at least, speaks to a desire to simultaneously understand myself and be known.

People have written in diaries, and journals, for centuries. Even before more formalized writing, we passed down knowledge and views through story telling. Some become immortalized in legend, while others are forgotten before the hangover subsides.

I have a collection of several binders full of writing that date back to the sixties, when I was in high school in Toronto. Squirreled away, I bring them out periodically, to review their contents. They tell a story of who I was then. The fact that they remain in existence tells another story of who I am today.

I hold onto things, and ideas. I am a collector, a note taker, who at times finds it difficult to let go. Blogs, as they are evolving are perhaps another way of holding on to who we were, and may help us redefine ourselves into the future. They also are often full of much prattle about nothing; a whimsical walk through our daydreams and fanciful thoughts, desires, and regrets.