What the Focus of the School Board Should Be

I recently passed on these additional observations with respect to Rideau High School to community members. It was suggested that they may be of value to the discussion.

Everyone

I felt a need to put some additional thoughts in writing. I trust you do not mind that I share them with you and that they add value to the discussion.

As many of you may know, I am very concerned about what I consider to be the very loose transfer policy of the ocdsb. Personally, I went to school in Toronto, and I raised my children in Kingston, Ontario. I had never previously witnessed such an easy transfer procedure. The way I see things, in Ottawa it is now an accepted practice for parents to shop for schools for their children, basing their decision on what they "hear" is the best school for their child to go to. Essentially, it allows parents (primarily, I believe, those with more resources), to distance themselves from the notion of community when it comes to their child's education.

Putting aside for a moment my concerns about the policy itself, I believe the school board should be very concerned about the perception of schools that these families have. The board should be aware of what these perceptions are. To ascertain these perceptions, the public should be surveyed by the board so that they really do know what the perception is. They need to know what school is "perceived" as no 1, down to what school is "perceived" to be at the bottom. Then, the board needs to compare this with the reality of how well schools are providing for the students in their respective catchment areas.

If perception matches reality, they need to develop an action plan, and execute it, to address what is wrong with the schools needing help. (I can only hope that they are doing this now. I'm a newcomer to this discussion and am not knowledgeable in this area.) To the extent that the perception does not fit the reality, the board needs to take action to address these mis perceptions.

To those who might suggest that this is beyond the board's purview, I believe that it was the liberal transfer policy that opened the door to the "shopping" in the first place. It is a policy that undoubtedly favours those with greater financial resources as they can better afford the added travel burdens. It has encouraged a downward spiraling "ghettoizing" of our schools that feeds on itself. It also encourages an elitist "I'm better than you are" attitude which I see as very troubling. Long before it got to this juncture, the board should have been aware of whether or not there were any community mis perceptions and addressing them with facts.

Every child should genuinely feel pride when they respond to the question "What school do you go to?" Any school board should be very concerned and take effective action whenever this is not the case.

I was very impressed with Rideau High School upon visiting it. It very effectively responds to the needs of its community. Given the chance it could do much more. This school has much to be proud of and the board should be doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to assist Rideau in proclaiming this from the rooftops to encourage this sense of pride.

Rideau High School has a lot to teach other schools about developing a respectful and accepting school environment. I heard a lot of pride about this sense of community when I listened to the students over the brief time I have come to know them in the past month. They deserve the opportunity to feel this respect from the community at large. To be frank, I think that those community members who "look down on" Rideau, should be ashamed of themselves. To me, Rideau is a place that shines, and we need to make sure that Ottawa knows this.

Let me know if there is ever a way that I can help in this endeavour. I'll be there.

Regards,
Leonard

My Presentation to the Ottawa-Carelton District School Board - November 25, 2009

Good evening and thank you for providing the opportunity to speak to you this evening on the matter of the possible closure of Rideau High School. I have been a resident of Overbrook since 1998. I have been an active volunteer in my community, serving on the board of the Overbrook-Forbes Community Resource Centre since 2001. Currently I am the chairperson of the Steering Committee of the No Community Left Behind Project. This is an initiative of the City of Ottawa that strives to develop a collaborative approach to community building. It was first implemented in the Banff-Ledbury community, and its success is well documented. The area of Overbrook West McArthur was subsequently identified through extensive research as one of four neighbourhoods most in need of this new approach.

It is my intention this evening to shine a light on a serious problem, and then redirect that light toward solutions.

Lets review some facts. The statistics are sobering. Rideau High School has by far the highest school age population within its area with almost 8,000 students, yet the lowest number of students in attendance. Conversely, Colonel By, with the lowest school age population of only 1,800 students, is above capacity with over 1,000 students, attracting them from far and wide. Most disturbingly, the median household income of Rideau families, at about $45,000, is less than half the roughly $103,000 median income of Colonel By families. The bottom line is that the richest area has the most attractive school.

It is the saddest thing that the most economically disadvantaged area has, in the eyes of many of its residents, the least attractive school. They are choosing to go elsewhere. If residents consistently choose schools outside their area, I believe the board should be asking “Why?”, and implementing measures to stop the hollowing out of a school. Instead, you are contemplating its closure.

I am particularly concerned that you would take such a decision in advance of your expected review of your very liberal school transfer policy, which I believe is overdue. Given that Rideau has by far the highest number of students in its catchment area, does it make sense to close this school in advance of this important review? I think not.

For a community identified as being most in need of capacity building the closure of its school must not happen. It would be beyond cruel. It is not unreasonable for residents of every community to expect a school board to provide attractive local schools, especially when the population base is there to sustain it. It is inspiring that the 1,800 school age children in the Colonel By catchment area have an attractive school. I was impressed by their presentations. They can be justifiably proud. It begs the question though: “Why can't the almost 8,000 students and their families in the Rideau area have something that is equally attractive to them?” Secondly, and, most importantly, “What do we need to do to make this happen?”

Let’s now refocus this light on solutions. As noted above, the City of Ottawa has identified this community as in need of capacity building. It is targeting resources and developing strong partnerships in this effort. Participants include the Boys & Girls Club, Ottawa Police Service, Ottawa Housing, and many others. They have recognized a problem and are working together to foster a healthy community. To lose our school, which is part of our heartbeat, at this critical juncture, would be devastating. We need the school board to be a part of this collaborative process. As chair of the Steering Committee that is leading this effort to rejuvenate our community I personally will do what it takes to connect you with the decision makers involved in this process.

Find out how you can be a part of creating not only an attractive school for almost 8,000 students and their families in the Rideau area but learn how you can participate in the partnership that is working toward a healthy and vibrant Ottawa where truly, No Community Is Left Behind. Together, we can make it happen. Thank you.

Rideau High School is MY High School

Until about a month ago, I had never visited Rideau High School. It is my local neighbourhood high school, about a 2 kilometer walk from my home. I had never been within its walls because my children had left the public school system by the time I move to this part of Ottawa. School matters, I guess, from my perspective, were for others to be concerned with.

How my views have changed. I owe a debt of gratitude to my neighbour, Chris Ellis, who recently invited my participation in efforts to lobby the school board to not close this local school. If he had not invited me, I would have missed an opportunity to meet some very fine and engaged young people and many others who live near me who are very concerned about the possibility that this local school may close. To learn more about these efforts, visit Chris's website.

Another Disturbing Excerpt from "What We Leave Behind"

This is another lengthy quote from the disturbing book What We Leave Behind by Derrick Jensen & Aric McBay. (Aric lives on a farm near Kingston, Ontario. He was interviewed last spring on CBC TV for a feature on the “doomers”.)

WHAT SHOULD, OR WOULD—or do—any of us do, living in this culture that is alienated from and destroying the earth, if—or when—we realize that this world would be better off had we never been born, if we were to die?

For now, at least, I see several options that many people take.

The first option, taken by nearly everyone within this culture, is to do everything we can in increasingly frantic, desperate attempts to keep this realization at the unconscious and not conscious level. Thus jetskis and off-road vehicles, thus Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Magic Mountain, and Six Flags over Everywhere. Thus scuba diving and whitewater rafting. Thus the existence of hundreds upon hundreds of television channels, with movies and movies and movies and Deal or No Deal and Dancing with the Stars and basketball game after basketball game after football game after football game after baseball game after baseball game. More and more. Faster and faster. Thus the internet, with its ever-increasing ways—spectacular ways—to kill time. Thus Doom 1, 2, and 3. Thus Half-Life 1, Half-Life 2 and Half-Life episodes 1 and 2. Thus Second Life, MySpace, and YouTube. Thus the tidal wave of pornography, sports, and financial news, all with their simulacrum of diversity, all with titillation, all with excitement, all promising to transport us somewhere, somehow. Thus the obsessions with Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt. Anyone but those in front of us. Thus the abuse of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines. Thus so many other addictions, like the stock market, the economy, politics. Thus the frantic-happy, frantic-smiling faces—all of them just alike—on the evening distraction—I mean, spectacle—I mean, news. Thus toys and more toys and more toys. Thus the obsession with playtime by adults who work at jobs they hate. Thus diversions to divert us from the diversions that divert us from the diversions that divert us from the myriad realizations we must never have if we are to maintain this way of living and to maintain our role in the ongoing destruction of all that is real. And beneath these myriad realizations are more diversions, and more. There is phony meaningless optimism and phony meaningless hope and phony meaningless actions like putting plants on truck factories, all keeping us from staring into the abyss of destructiveness that is right now staring straight at us. And all of these phony meaningless diversions divert us from the understanding that our failure to stare at this abyss will not stop it from swallowing us, as well as everyone and everything else. Beneath these diversions there are phony fears of despair, phony fears of hate, phony fears of rage, phony fears of sorrow, phony fears of love and loves: real loves, fierce loves of self and others that cause us to at all costs—and I mean all costs—defend our beloved. And beneath all these fears? A dreadful fear of responsibility, a fear that if we get to this point, if we survive the annihilation of the self that is so meticulously, so violently, so repetitively, so mercilessly, so relentlessly, so abusively, so obviously forced upon each of us in order to allow us to continue to breath, to work, to labor, to produce, then we will need to take responsibility for our actions and for the wonderful and beautiful and stunningly extravagant gift of our life that this planet has given us. Indeed, we will need to act and to act in such a way that the world is better off because of our actions, because of our life, because we were born. And as with sustainability itself, what was at one point as easy as eating, shitting, living, and dying, is now more and more difficult.

We fear death. And not just the death that all experience, but another that scares us far more than the real death that comes at the end of our phony lives. This other death that we fear even more comes before the real death—sometimes long before—if it comes at all. This is the death of our socially constructed self. Once that self dies, then who will we be? We cannot face the possibility of actually living, of actually becoming who we really are and who we would be had we not been so violently deformed by this culture. We cannot face the possibility of being alive, of living so we turn, to return to the beginning of discussion, to jetskis and off-road vehicles, to Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Magic Mountain, and Six Flags over Everywhere. Most of us would prefer our real, physical selves die, and indeed the world die, rather than face the realization that, given our socialization, the world would be better off without all of us who allow our socially created selves to continue to breath, to work, to labor, to produce—and that, of course is the real point.

That is the most popular option for members of this culture.

Derrick Jensen & Aric McBay on "What We Leave Behind"

I am currently reading a very important and disturbing book by Derrick Jensen & Aric McBay titled What We Leave Behind, published in 2009. I have just finished Part I. Its conclusion speaks eloquently (and, for many of us I am sure, harshly) of the reality of the type of lifestyle we humans have been taking for granted. It is not so much that this must not continue, but that it cannot. It is a physical impossibility. If humanity is incapable of taking corrective action, we ultimately need not worry, for the planet will do what is necessary for its survival, whether humanity continues to exist or not. Here is a lengthy excerpt from the last chapter of part I that is currently touching me.

Reciprocity is the key to survival. Reciprocity is the essence of life. It is life. It is what we do. It is what we all do.

We are told, more or less incessantly, that survival is based on being the meanest, strongest, most selfish, best able to exploit.

But those who say that are wrong. They have forgotten—or do not care to remember—that nature loves a community. This is true on every scale, from the largest to the most personal. It's simply true that nature loves a community more than nature loves you or me. Nature loves a community more than nature loves a community-destroying culture. Nature loves a community more than nature loves industrial civilization.

I'm sorry to report that it is not true that all of evolution has taken place so that humans will exist. It is not true that all of evolution has taken place so that for a short time a relatively few (fiscally) rich humans can look at computers, watch televisions, and buy (and throw away) cell phones. It is not true that all of evolution has taken place so that humans can create industrial civilization. It is not true that all of evolution has taken place so that industrial civilization can deform humans to fit the needs of industrial civilization. It is not true that all of evolution has taken place so that humans can destroy life on this planet in the service of industrial civilization.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to deliver that news.

This culture is extraordinary, but not so much for the reasons so many people like to pretend; its vast military capabilities, its art, literature, music science, philosophy, (such as it is). Instead, it is extraordinary in that it does not give back to the land, the water, the air, the nonhumans, the vast majority of humans.

This culture is even more extraordinary in that many of its members seem to think they can continue to not give back, and survive.

Or maybe they can survive, all the while keeping their jetskis and RVs, their gold and brass rings, their interstate highways and disposable diapers, their aircraft carriers and superdomes. They can keep this culture until they die.

Personally.

Only if they are already very old.

The planet is collapsing. Now. This culture is causing this collapse.

I'll say it again, since not enough people seem to be listening: this culture is killing the planet.

This culture is killing the planet.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the planet.

But a refusal to listen is part of the problem. We're taught (some explicitly, all implicitly) to become masterful at refusing to listen, and then to become just as masterful at refusing to acknowledge--to others, but most especially to ourselves--that not only are we not listening but that there is even anything to hear in the first place.

Many members of this culture--evidently an overwhelming majority, given the relatively small number of people actually doing anything to stop the destruction--simply don't care. Many of them were taught (once again, some explicitly, some implicitly) that if they ignore (in fact, foreclose) all possibility of relationship, and if they don't mind harming those around them...and if it doesn't bother them that they're destroying the land and air and water that those who come after them will need to survive, then they can take advantage of the short-term competitive advantage that not giving back gives them, and thus they can more effectively dominate, enslave, exploit, or simply kill all those who do give back (and who therefore must be inferior), and who have the misfortune to come into contact with them. Then when they reach to every part of the earth-meaning that more or less everyone has the misfortune of coming into contact with them-as this narcissistic nonreciprocal culture now does, they will kill the planet that (or rather, who) supports them. But many of these individual narcissists will die before then. And so they can say, and mean, that statement most famously said by King Louis XV's mistress Madame de Pompadour; when the king's ministers complained that her extravagance (and the extraordinarily expensive wars her advice helped cause) was going to lead to their own destruction, she laughed them off with the phrase, “Après nous le deluge,” literally translated as, “after us, the deluge,” more loosely translated as , “When we are dead the deluge may come for aught I care.” And she was right. She died in 1764, some fifteen years before the deluge of the French Revolution and nineteen years before the Reign of Terror, with its deluge of blood-both royal and otherwise-flowing from the guillotine.

Après nous le deluge.

I guarantee this statement will be far more accurate and deadly for those who say it now than for those who said it before. This time, as the entire world collapses, it is not just the French but everyone who pays. Everyone.

For those who are willing to have their view of the world, and their place in it, shook up, read this book.

Taking a Look at the GPO results in St. Paul's - Without the Rose Coloured Glasses

Irrespective of the actual results in any election, it is always expected that supporters of a particular party will do their best to put a favourable spin on the results. That is part of the political game. Congratulations are offered on a "great effort" and all the "hard work". Having been involved in the electoral process as both a campaign manager at the municipal level and later running as a provincial candidate I appreciate the immense amount of energy and commitment required. ANYONE who chooses to become involved in a campaign deserves our thanks and admiration. They are participating in a democratic process and encouraging debate.

However, there also is a time for supporters to take off the rose coloured glasses when they review the results. This is of particular importance for members of the Green Party of Ontario as they analyze the figures in the recent provincial by-election in St. Paul's. Yes, I suppose it is appropriate for Jim Harris to post warmly on Facebook his "Congratulations to Chris Chopik who ran a fantastic campaign in the St Paul's by-election!" However, if the campaign was so "fantastic", why are the numbers down so much? Comparing the results to the 2007 general election the Green share of the total vote dropped by more than a third from 8.3% to 5.4%. The total vote count for Greens in St. Paul's was cut by more than half from 3744 to 1514. Where did those 2200+ voters go?

Does anyone know? More importantly, does anyone care?

If the GPO is to ever elect members to the provincial legislature, it must start finding answers to these, and many other difficult questions.

Basij as Mercenaries

According to a report posted at the Guardian, (scroll down to 3:32PM on the blog), the baton wielding Basij who have been wantonly bashing heads for several days now in Iran, are well paid mercenaries.

3.32pm:
Newspaper Roozonline has an interview (in Persian) with one of the young plainclothes militiamen who have been beating protesters.

UPDATE: Robert says the man is paid 2m rial per day, which would be about £1220 for ten days of work. A hefty fee, even by UK standards. A reader writes: "You can imagine what that kind of money means to a villager from Khorasan".

The Guardian's Robert Tait sends this synopsis:

The man, who has come from a small town in the eastern province of Khorasan and has never been in Tehran before, says he is being paid 2m rial (£122) to assault protestors with a heavy wooden stave. He says the money is the main incentive as it will enable him to get married and may even enable him to afford more than one wife. Leadership of the volunteers has been provided by a man known only as "Hajji", who has instructed his men to "beat the counter-revolutionaries so hard that they won't be able to stand up". The volunteers, most of them from far-flung provinces such as Khuzestan, Arak and Mazandaran, are being kept in hostel accommodation, reportedly in east Tehran. Other volunteers, he says, have been brought from Lebanon, where the Iranian regime has strong allies in the Hezbollah movement. They are said to be more highly-paid than their Iranian counterparts and are put up in hotels. The last piece of information seems to confirm the suspicion of many Iranians that foreign security personnel are being used to suppress the demonstrators. For all his talk of the legal process, this interview provides a key insight into where Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, believes the true source of his legitimacy rests.

How Our Communication Has Changed

The Internet allows the receiver of information to also be the producer of information. We have the power, like never before. How shall we use it?

Dispatch from a province far from Tehran | 16 June 2009

Two Iranian soldiers kiss before they go to battle (Iran-Iraq war).

I feel compelled to immediately post this "dispatch from the field".

I was born in 1984, amid a devastating war that had laid waste and destruction to my country. I was born between two subsequent nights of bombing raids. I was born into rationing, despair and hardship. I was born when young lives perished at the fronts. My father later told me that when I was born 1984 sounded so much like the 1984 predicted by Orwell. But my birth had turned over the glum outlook for my parents and 1984 had become a sign of hope, a hope for a future to come, or as my father put it, “a better future for my child to live.”

My parents were not alone in this. During the baby boom of 1983 to 1986, millions of us came into this world, mouths to feed and miracles to be cherished. There and then a new generation was born, a generation who would bear witness to the legacy of generations of their parents, a legacy that was mainly composed of one thing, “the Islamic Republic.”

In later years, in our schools, on TV, in books and newspapers they told us that before our time lived a tyrant who held a firm grip on our country, and that the defiant and valiant nation of Iran had risen up and overthrown him to establish three things, “Esteghlal, Azadi, Jomhouri Eslami.”

Independence.

Freedom.

Islamic Republic.

We were fascinated by the epic tales of young students, some as young as thirteen who during the war had sacrificed themselves for the greater good of the society. We were made to believe that we were living in Utopia, but the delusion only lasted a few years. Before long, that once naïve and innocent generation of 1984 had grown to be the young men and women of Iran, the so called third generation of the revolution.

Faced with harsh realities of life we quickly came to realize that our world was far from the Utopia painted for us. It was more like a Dystopia where we had to fight for every single right, every single freedom.You have denied us so much.

Out of this dark age one day emerged a man with qualities of a hero who would lead this generation out of this Dystopia and into that promised paradise. His name was Mohammad Khatami. Yet it turned out that he was neither the hero everyone expected him to be, nor did he have the capacity or desire to lead them out. To be fair things started crawling toward progress and modernization; there was a smaller degree of social rights and freedom, but it did not come at the pace that this restless third generation wanted.

Thus a hero fell, and four years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started.

By the end of the four years, we were desperate for change. Hope materialized in the shape of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who happened to be the prime minister that now long gone 1984. But the totalitarians ruling the Dystopia swooped in and crushed that last bit of hope.

In Brecht’s “Life of Galileo,” Galileo’s students condemn him at the end of the court proceedings with these words: “Pity the nation that doesn’t have a hero.”

“Pity the nation that needs a hero,” he responds wisely.

My generation is tired of being disillusioned. We refuse to accept the status quo and we have risen up in defiance. I am not sure how long it will take for the totalitarians to crush our resistance. For now though, we’re holding up just fine. We’re holding up fine even though our brothers at Basij and the police are murdering their dear fellow Iranians. We’re holding up even though you bash us with clubs and batons and try to suffocate us with your tear gas.

A nation stands tall refusing to succumb that easily.

Yesterday among the crowds who were just back from the warzone with their wounds and anger and sadness, I spotted an old friend of mine.

“Welcome to 1984, my friend,” he said in great anguish.

I nodded in agreement; we’d come full circle.

He went on, “There we were facing the bloodthirsty riot police, hand in hand, like that ‘Brothers in Arms’ song from Dire Straits.”

It was in that moment that I realized why the French Revolutionaries added “Fraternity” to their revolutionary slogan.

“Liberté, égalité, fraternité,” indeed.

A Declaration of Peace. May it be Heard

I visited Imam Khomeini (former Naqsh-e Jahan) Square several years ago. It is one of the largest and most beautiful squares in the world. Measuring 500 x 160 meters, it was set up in the second half of the 16th century AD by the Safavid King, Shah Abbas I. The photo above shows a view looking north, of a protest in response to the announced election results of June 12, 2009. For those who may not know, this is in the exquisitely beautiful city of Esfahan. On the south side of the square is the Imam Mosque. The Ali Ghapou monumental compound is on the west and Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque is on the east.

It was March 25, 2004 when, upon leaving Tehran I wrote:

Looking down on the vastness that is Iran, I ponder what will allow it to be free and expressive of its beauty. So rich, yet so sad, physically choking on its own effluent, emotionally it is being strangled by fear. Fear pervades so many decisions made by the people of Iran that we in the west take for granted. Fear of speaking openly; fear that a satellite dish may be taken, in other words, fear of speaking, and listening.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is afraid of information. As with any totalitarian state it must impose its view through fear and intimidation. I realize that only now, as I fly away from Iran over European airspace that I feel free to openly discuss, even with myself, the large contingent of various security forces that are ever present throughout the Republic. From the fighter jets that greet you on the tarmac of Meherabad Airport to the police officers stationed at 50-meter intervals up both sides of Vali Asr Street surrounding a park during the Narooz celebration, the imposition of government security is pervasive.

Such a beautiful, beautiful country. This is one of the rarest of occasions when I feel compelled to evoke prayer. I pray, with Iranians, and all who may join, that a way to peace, through these most difficult of times, can be found.

Green Takes on a New Meaning

Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.

- Saadi

The People March

Here is What Happens to Protesters in Tehran

The streets are filled with protesters. Then the crowd is charged by police riding double on motorcycles as they swing their truncheons.

Hans Rosling on Displaying Statistics

I have embedded video from Ted.com before, including James Howard Kunstler & Barry Swartz. Today I came across another fascinating one, this time from Hans Rosling. Part way through, I was beginning to wonder, could I do this too? By the end of the video, he had explained how. You can learn more about his organization, and the software he developed at www.gapminder.org

Three hours after the video, I had configured some stats on world wide oil production since 1980 to create my own "bubble graphs". After clicking on the link then click on "gadget1" on the bottom left and watch the bubbles move. You can also reconfigure it to represent the data in a variety of ways.

All data used was obtained from the Energy Information Administration.

The Daily Me

Nicholas Kristof - The Daily Me - NYTimes.com

I came upon this article through a link from Dan Gardner's blog, Citizen Katzenjammer. How I got to this article is indicative of how news aggregators are changing journalism. The fear is that they may be responsible for much greater narrowing, rather than expanding, of our viewpoints. As Kristof points out

...the public is increasingly seeking its news not from mainstream television networks or ink-on-dead-trees but from grazing online.

When we go online, each of us is our own editor, our own gatekeeper. We select the kind of news and opinions that we care most about.

Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. has called this emerging news product The Daily Me.

As much as I claim to be open to the ideas of others, I admit that I succumb to gatekeeping of my news. I usually cringe and quickly dismiss the writings of David Warren, (whom I perjoratively judge to be just to the right of Ghengis Khan), but will peruse for hours the postings at Energy Bulletin or Culture Change. I embrace the ideas that support my viewpoint, and quickly dismiss those that don't.

Kristof argues that this can lead to intellectual ghettoes as people are attracted to likeminded communities.

The effect of The Daily Me would be to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers. One of last year’s more fascinating books was Bill Bishop’s “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.” He argues that Americans increasingly are segregating themselves into communities, clubs and churches where they are surrounded by people who think the way they do.

Almost half of Americans now live in counties that vote in landslides either for Democrats or for Republicans, he said. In the 1960s and 1970s, in similarly competitive national elections, only about one-third lived in landslide counties.

“The nation grows more politically segregated — and the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions is lost to the righteousness that is the special entitlement of homogeneous groups,” Mr. Bishop writes.

Kristof admits to being

...guilty myself of selective truth-seeking on the Web. The blog I turn to for insight into Middle East news is often Professor Juan Cole’s, because he’s smart, well-informed and sensible — in other words, I often agree with his take. I’m less likely to peruse the blog of Daniel Pipes, another Middle East expert who is smart and well-informed — but who strikes me as less sensible, partly because I often disagree with him.

Who knew that keeping an open mind could be so challenging?

Open Letter to Stephen Harper - Why I Tune Out the Conservative Party of Canada

Dear Prime Minister Mr. Harper.

There are many policy reasons why I do not vote for your party. Traditionally I have voted Liberal, occasionally Conservative or NDP, but now vote Green, for reasons that are beyond the scope of my brief letter to you now.

First and foremost, though, I choose not even to consider the policies of the Conservative Party Of Canada because of the way you practice politics. To me you and your party epitomize the divisive nastiness that has evolved in the past twenty years or so in politics. The Conservatives have lead the way in bringing about this unfortunate change in Canada, emulating the practices of your Republican soul mates to the south. You seek to find wedge issues that divide us, rather than forward thinking visionary points of view that bring people together. You seek power at any cost, rather than consensus. You practice a regressive, "winner take all" type of politics that does a disservice to the majority of Canadians. (Please remember that a majority of Canadians did NOT vote for you in the last election.)

Rather than spend millions of dollars telling me what is wrong with Michael Ignatieff, why don't you mount an extensive campaign that will detail how your policies are better? Why don't you explain to me why I should vote for you, rather than why I should not vote for the other guy? Obviously these questions are rhetorical; I know why you do it. It is for short term electoral gain, as you attempt to score cheap points. It does nothing, however, to advance serious political debate in this country. You seek to exploit and promote the sound bite aspect of our society. It is a sign of desperation when the only way someone feels they can build themselves up is to pull down their opponent. How sad that you must exploit our sense of petty mean spiritedness in an attempt to win.

The only political parties that will receive my vote and support are those that practice listening and consensus building. These are qualities that I find to be seriously lacking in Canadian politics in general and especially in the Conservative Party of Canada. Your party represents to me the worst aspects of old style win at all cost politics. I know, all political parties at times are guilty of this, but you guys have mastered the art. What a sad legacy. It is for this reason that I also support election reform that will take us beyond First Past the Post elections so that every vote counts.

I realize that the chances of you reading this brief letter are slim to none. I don't expect you and your party to change your tactics. But, your office staff can put me in the column of Canadians who do NOT support you, your party, or your tactics. If you change your divisive tactics, I may consider your policies. Until then, I tune you out.

Respectfully,

--
Leonard Poole

Mayor Larry O'Brien on How to Build Consensus

"People who get on side with me win, people who don't get on side with me lose."

The above is a quote from the Mayor of Ottawa, Larry O'Brien. He said this in the final ten minutes of an hour plus long interview conducted by the OPP as they investigated him on charges of bribery and influence peddling. I don't know what, if anything this comment says about his guilt or innocence. However, it does speak to the type of leader he is. Here is someone who thinks the world is divided into winners, those who agree with him, and the losers, those unfortunate souls who may see things differently than he does. So much for the win-win approach to consensus building.

In an Ottawa Citizen editorial titled "Macho Man" Kate Heartfield discusses another quote from this very telling interview. In it, Larry O'Brien describes his first meeting with mayoralty candidate Terry Kilrea, several months prior to the November, 2006 election.

"It was a big dick swinging contest with me telling him I could likely beat him and him telling me he could likely beat me and uh him telling me all the good things that he had going for him in terms of of um lists of of supporters lists of people who might want to vote for him ... and myself I was sort of swinging the dick back saying that I thought I was you know gonna be a better candidate for him because I was a successful businessman who had who was um well respected in the community ..."

Once elected mayor, Larry O'Brien told us he wanted Ottawa to be redefined as a "city with swagger". Is this the type of testosterone fueled "swagger" he was talking about? Is this the type of leadership Ottawa needs to guide it into the 21st Century?

Assigning The True Cost of Transportation

I haven't yet gathered all the facts and figures but I believe it highly unlikely that the taxes and fees remitted to the government as a result of vehicle operation come anywhere close to paying the full cost of the provision of highway infrastructure. I can already hear the vehicle owners screaming as they insist they pay too much already with their gas taxes and licensing fees. Let's do some number crunching on the back of an envelope.

First, let's consider what remittances the vehicle owner makes to the government directly related to their car ownership. I think they can be divided into the following categories:

1. Taxes paid when fuel is purchased.
2. Annual Licensing fees.
3. P.S.T. & G.S.T. paid on operating expenses such as maintenance & insurance.

I am now going to make up some numbers to calculate how much car owners pay. (I know these are ball park numbers.)

1. According to OntarioGasPrices.com Ontarians pay taxes of 14.7c/l plus 5% G.S.T. for gasoline. To make it real simple I will assume that the average owner drives 20,000 kms./yr in a car that uses 7 liters/100kms. and that gas costs one dollar a liter. Such a driver would consume 1400 liters of gas, paying $280 in taxes to the government.
2. Annual license fee of $72.
3. Annual additional operating expenses of $3,000 results in $390 of P.S.T. & G.S.T. payments.

So, it looks like an "average" car user can expect to pay at least $750 in taxes and fees to the government annually, depending on how much they drive. I'm willing to round that up to $1,000 per year and then double it again to $2,000 per year. I then multiply that by the roughly 7,000,000 vehicles on Ontario roads and I come up with a total vehicle owner contribution of $14 billion toward the cost of providing and maintaining our road network. Does that come even close to paying for unlimited access to tens of thousands of kilometers of roads across this province? What does it cost to build and maintain all these highways and byways? In Ottawa alone, we pay tens of millions of dollars every winter just to clear the snow.

Now, I also know that I haven't accounted for the vastly increased taxes paid by the trucking industry. However, they should pay more, as they are responsible for most of the heavy pounding our roads take.

Calculating the expenses involved in providing and maintaining our extensive public road network is a massive undertaking. First, we need to know what the province as well as every municipality is spending annually on development and maintenance of their roads. We also need to know the cost of policing these roads versus the revenue collected from fines. It would also be valuable to know the total number of lane kilometers in the province.

My goal in collecting this information would be to determine the total cost of providing the Ontario road network and compare it with the total amount of money paid by all drivers for this network. I understand that the network provides a benefit to all Ontarians, whether one drives or not, but I do believe that by far the greatest benefit is accrued to drivers. I simply want them to pay an amount commensurate with the service provided to them.

With this information in hand I would propose that we start to re-allocate the benefits more equitably. I am now going to again to the back of my envelope to paint a broad picture. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that after all the numbers are calculated, that the taxpayer provided subsidy for the use of the road network amounts to $1,000 per year. This is a subsidy not received by non car users. If automobile users are getting $1,000 transportation subsidy, every citizen should have access to the same benefit. The question is: How do you rectify this imbalance?

I have decided to engage in some "blue sky" thinking to get us to where I think we should be. First, I propose the development of a province wide "Transportation Card" which would replace the current driver's license. If you are a driver, it would include information about the class of vehicle you are permitted to drive. It also, however, could be used as a transportation pass for any transit system in the province, including inter city bus and train travel. As every citizen requires transport, every citizen would be entitled to receive a card. Public policy would determine the total amount of taxpayer provided subsidy to the transportation system. This would include the cost of providing a road network for all users as well as the provision of publicly funded mass transit systems. The per capita value would then be embedded annually in each card distributed to Ontarians.

Public policy would need to establish a hierarchy of what form of transportation receives the highest subsidy. I advocate that the most efficient and sustainable forms of transportation should receive the highest subsidy, such as walking, cycling and mass transit, with ultimately no subsidy being provided to individual automobile users. You are free to use your car, but expect to pay the full cost for such convenience. To develop a user pay system I would want gasoline taxes and licensing fees to move toward paying for the full cost of the road network.

The ultimate idea of the"Transportation Card" is that every citizen would be able to use the subsidy embedded in the card for the type of transportation they wanted. If the car driver wanted to use the entire $1,000 subsidy to pay for gasoline or licensing fees, go right ahead. Swipe your card at the pump until the money is used. Alternatively, it could be used for a bus pass or intercity travel. Use it to buy a bicycle. Spend it on whatever type of transportation service you want. However, the more efficient and ecologically friendly your transportation choice is, the greater the subsidy from the taxpayer, and the farther you will be able to travel.

I know I am in the extreme minority on this issue. The vast majority of people I know are wedded to their vehicles. I can hear the laughter already. It is hard for most people to imagine being without a car. The point is, though, that one day personal automobiles will be a thing of the past. The question is: What is the best replacement for such an inefficient system?

Another criticism would be that this is another form of "social engineering" as I am having the government try to shape individual transportation choices. But, don't we do that already by providing a taxpayer subsidy that promotes automobile use?

The idea of having the taxpayer pay for the infrastructure of an auto-centric road network was based on the twentieth century assumption that ultimately everyone would own (or at least want to own) a car. With that in mind it was a no brainer to keep subsidizing this system. We are beginning, slowly but surely, to understand that this is not sustainable into the future. We need to start thinking about travel in entirely different ways if we are to respond effectively to the twin threats of peak oil and climate change.

Jeff Rubin on the Effects of Peak Oil

"We shouldn’t be looking at oil prices as the effect of the recession. They are the cause." - The Globe and Mail:

One often hears disparaging comments about those that suggest that there will ever be any substantive "peak oil" effect on how we live. They are portrayed as radical doomsayers. Those expressing concern about the impact of climate change are often discounted in a similar fashion.

The question I put to those who toss aside such concerns is this: Can we afford to be wrong about this?

Consider the following numbers:

• There are 6.7 billion people on this planet
• The world population has more than doubled since 1950, predicted to reach at least 9 billion by 2050
  
• Since 1980 the world daily consumption of oil has increased by more than a third
• Even with oil reaching more than $140/bbl in July 2008, the oil industry was unable to increase production to match demand
  

As everyone will tell you, whether one accepts the concept of peak oil or not, there is plenty of oil still in the ground. The fundamental question is not how much supply is ultimately available but what will be the cost of extracting that oil at a flow rate that our economy, as currently construed, demands? Are you willing to bet the farm on the prospect that the oil industry can continue to supply an expanding population with sufficient quantities of fossil fuel energy at a price it is able to pay?

It will cost ever increasing amounts of money, time and energy to extract the remaining oil and bring it to market. It is an accepted fact that the oil we have extracted to date has been the easy stuff to get out of the ground. Although there is a lot more to exploit, it will become increasingly more costly to do so. If we want the oil, we will find ourselves paying a lot more for it over time.

Of course, as the price does inevitably rise, there will be those who will start to change behaviour and demand less. As the cost of commuting inexorably rises, people will attempt to find ways to reduce their costs through a variety of means. Some people will switch to transit or look at carpooling or other alternatives. Others will move closer to work. Such changes take time, but they will happen.

This reduction in demand will have a negative impact on the price of oil. If it has a big enough effect, some people will continue to maintain their energy consumption at previous levels. That is why I expect we will continue to have a roller coaster ride of undulating pricing in oil. When the price drops, there will be many proclaiming yet again that the "peakists" are simply doomsayers who are wrong yet again. When it starts swinging back up, while the "peakists" will be saying "I told you so", their opponents will simply blame the oil companies for profiteering. Over the long term though, year after year, decade after decade, the price will be going up and up and up. The only thing that will keep prices down is if the entire world collectively consumes less.

As Jeff Rubin points out, we are currently mired in one of the deepest world wide recessions in more than sixty years, yet oil prices are more than $60/bbl. If the economy ever does start to rev up, he predicts it will be beaten down again by rapidly increasing oil prices as supply constraints kick in. It is not a matter of if, but when.

Attack Ads - A Desperate Attempt to Solidify a Shrinking Base

Attack Ads as Schoolyard Tripe - Macleans.ca

Numerous editorials have commented on the negative ad campaign of the Conservative Party of Canada initiated a few days ago against Michael Ignatieff. None that I have read have viewed them favourably. This may be the best kind publicity the Liberals could hope for in these current economic times: free.

Many of us would like to think that such negativity would backfire, but often, it does not. Liberals and Conservatives alike have used such tactics at least since the 80's to varying degrees of success. This may explain why the Conservatives launched this most recent volley. "It worked before", may be their thinking.

This time may be different. Such a strategy is much more problematic when used from a position of weakness. Using such attacks when your support is slipping has the unfortunate side effect of shining a light on your desperation. Such a characteristic is not usually something we look for in a leader and likely repels more voters than it attracts.

Following the Money - Following the Energy

The oil we eat: Following the food chain back to Iraq—By Richard Manning (Harper's Magazine)

So many things I take for granted, like the food I eat, and the air I breathe. Then, Richard Manning points out how profoundly humanity has distorted the natural rhythms of this precious biosphere we call earth.

He starts with the observations of James Prescott Joule

(who) discovered in the nineteenth century (that) there is only so much energy. You can change it from motion to heat, from heat to light, but there will never be more of it and there will never be less of it. The conservation of energy is not an option, it is a fact. This is the first law of thermodynamics.

He then points out to us that:

Special as we humans are, we get no exemptions from the rules. All animals eat plants or eat animals that eat plants. This is the food chain, and pulling it is the unique ability of plants to turn sunlight into stored energy in the form of carbohydrates, the basic fuel of all animals. Solar-powered photosynthesis is the only way to make this fuel. There is no alternative to plant energy, just as there is no alternative to oxygen. The results of taking away our plant energy may not be as sudden as cutting off oxygen, but they are as sure...

(W)e humans, a single species among millions, consume about 40 percent of Earth's primary productivity, 40 percent of all there is. This simple number may explain why the current extinction rate is 1,000 times that which existed before human domination of the planet. We 6 billion have simply stolen the food, the rich among us a lot more than others.

Richard then leads us through an interesting history of the distinctly human development of farming, and what it has done to the earth, as we have harvested the energy of seeds.

When we say the soil is rich, it is not a metaphor. It is as rich in energy as an oil well. A prairie converts that energy to flowers and roots and stems, which in turn pass back into the ground as dead organic matter. The layers of topsoil build up into a rich repository of energy, a bank. A farm field appropriates that energy, puts it into seeds we can eat. Much of the energy moves from the earth to the rings of fat around our necks and waists. And much of the energy is simply wasted, a trail of dollars billowing from the burglar's satchel.

Farming has allowed humans to exploit the planet like no other species. We accept no limits to such activity. Limits, however, are about to be imposed on us, and it won't be the first time. Plato provides one of the earliest known records of the imposition of humanity on the planet.

What now remains of the formerly rich land is like the skeleton of a sick man. . . . Formerly, many of the mountains were arable. The plains that were full of rich soil are now marshes. Hills that were once covered with forests and produced abundant pasture now produce only food for bees. Once the land was enriched by yearly rains, which were not lost, as they are now, by flowing from the bare land into the sea. The soil was deep, it absorbed and kept the water in loamy soil, and the water that soaked into the hills fed springs and running streams everywhere. Now the abandoned shrines at spots where formerly there were springs attest that our description of the land is true.

Humans stroll about this planet with a profound sense of entitlement. Blessed with seemingly unmatched intellectual capacity we simultaneously fail to comprehend our collective destruction of the only home we have: earth. Like lemmings headed for a cliff.

It Can Be Depressing Sometimes...

globeandmail.com: New York-sized ice cap collapses off Antarctica

No, I'm not talking about the reports of ice melting in Antarctica. I'm talking about the "discussion" (if it can be called that), that follows such reports.

Within an hour of the above article appearing on the Globe & Mail website, numerous comments were posted bashing the integrity of G&M for posting the article and ridiculing any suggestion that Global Warming/Climate Change was either a threat to the planet or that humans had anything to do with it even if it was happening.

I'm not a climate scientist, and don't expect I ever will have the credentials or qualifications to identify myself as such. I am a layperson who seeks out the expert opinion of those qualified in their field of expertise to help me form my own opinion on such matters.

I said as much to Professor Denis Rancourt a couple of years ago when he fired off a rant on his own website ridiculing those who were concerned about global warming. Back in June, 2007 I told him that...

I am of the opinion that some aspects of climate change are attributable to an anthropocentric source. However, I accept that, as a "layperson" I am out of my depth in discussing this with you on a scientific basis. My rather "simplistic" notion is that I find it very difficult to believe that the massive increase of human population and the subsequent large scale increase in emissions would not have some form of impact on the earth's climate systems. Maybe I am naive, but I note that it took over a million years to sequester carbon in oil and coal. It was, in the human time scale of things, a fairly lengthy process. We, as humans, have managed to release into the atmosphere roughly half of it in, essentially, the blink of an eye of time. Call me crazy, but it seems to me it would have an effect.

I don't believe that you need a Doctorate in Climatology to reach this conclusion.

However, to this day, whenever there is another report in the media of melting ice in polar regions, or anything else which may be supportive of the peer-reviewed IPCC scientific reports, comment blogs light up with ridicule from the masses. Almost inevitably, they question the motives of the scientists they mock, often suggesting they are only in it for the money. I get it. These scientists are somehow manipulating the data that purports that human activity is affecting the weather to keep them employed. Furthermore, they have been able to dupe every scientist who participated in the peer review process, not once, not twice, but hundreds of times. Talk about a conspiracy!

At this point, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that those who claim that any suggestion of human induced climate change is a hoax are themselves simply trying to protect their own profligate ways. They actually can see the writing on the wall. They see the big picture. They have more intelligence than I have, until now, been attributing to them.

They understand that if in fact the science is true, that the only way to protect the earth from human induced climate change is to greatly curtail the release of CO2. Such a prospect, of course, scares the hell out of them. What, cut back their automobile use, give up that annual trek to the Caribbean because it's too cold in Canada for them? Stop eating strawberries in February? They really are in a state of denial, but not just about climate change. What they categorically refuse to accept is that the way we have been living is completely unsustainable. No wonder they say such stupid things.

James Howard Kunstler on the Tragedy of Suburbia

Kunstler can be so cynical and rude, but he tells it as he sees it. His passion shines through as he implores us to promote communities "worth caring about".

Barry Schwartz on the Paradox of Choice

Choice is good, right? Therefore, more choice must be even better! Well, not so fast.

Ten Years Out

The year 2019 seems, in some regards, unfathomable - a distant time only written of in futuristic sci-fi novels. But 1999, the same length of time - over my other shoulder - doesn't seem that long ago at all.

What future were we envisioning for ourselves "ten years out" in 1999? The phrase 9/11 was not part of our lexicon, except as a 3 digit phone number for assistance. The dot com bubble was just that - an as yet unexploded bubble. We didn't view it as such at the time. No, we saw only expanding wealth, choosing to believe it was a payoff of the computer age. In 1999 the future was now - and wealth and prosperity was to become everyone's reality.

Did anyone think then that within ten years they would live through the infamous redefinition of 9/11 or witness wars in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq? Who amongst us thought that $100+ oil and food riots were ever possible? Climate Change? That was for others to worry about. Worldwide recession? Not a chance!

There were a select few, however, who were very concerned about all of these issues. Some foresaw part, if not all of what ultimately unfolded. I, however, certainly wasn't amongst that elite group in 1999. I blithely went about my existence, not engaged in long term speculation as to such possibilities on the world stage. I had recently purchased a new car and home. All was well with my corner of the planet. Like many, I was benefiting from the aforementioned stock market bubble of the day. What was there not to like?

Like most, I had never heard of the concept of "Peak Oil", let alone "Peak Everything". I did not understand the extent to which my lifestyle was entirely dependent on the provision of cheap carbon based energy. Who understood, other than agricultural scientists, that the "green revolution" of the past few decades that fended off world starvation had only been possible with vast increases in the use of oil based fertilizers? To the majority of us who spent an ever decreasing proportion of our income on food we simply interpreted it as a sign of the improving times. Life was good, our bellies were getting bigger, and we had to find other things to complain about - like the cost of cell phone rates, or hockey tickets.

So, here I am in the spring of 2009, contemplating how my existence will unfold "ten years out", by the spring of 2019. At times I even raise my gaze further to the spring of 2029. I ask myself - are we making the decisions now - on both a societal and personal level - to prepare for the reality of the world to come? Are we ready for the inexorable decline of energy resources? Do we understand that food has been cheap because energy has been cheap?

Like Matt Simmons, I certainly hope I am wrong, but I expect that the energy and economic shocks the world has experienced in the past two years is only the beginning of overwhelming change. I expect that the globalization of trade will be reversing. By 2019 we won't have sufficient flow of cheap energy resources to sustain that type of exchange. One of the perversities of the future will be that at an informational level the world will continue to flatten, allowing us to instantly see and have infinite interpretations of what is going on virtually anywhere on the planet. Simultaneously though, with the shrinking availability of energy per person, we will, out of physical necessity, be developing a more localized economy. Local food production - no, local production of everything- will be much more than cute. Increasing numbers of us will have accepted it as a necessity of survival.

By 2029 these changes will have gone far beyond the tipping point. Those expansive dreams of encouraging unrestrained material wealth envisioned back in 1999 will have long been recognized as unsustainable. My only hope is that it will have been replaced with more enduring, locally based, and sustainable ways of being. One of the biggest battles will be over how we divide up the ever shrinking benefits of economic wealth to an ever increasing population. The friction will intensify as those who feel they must continue to have the right to increase their wealth is confronted by the needs of the growing number of desperate people the world over (and in our local communities), who are fighting for their very survival. I am curious to see how things shall unfold, and, in many ways, quite fearful. Unless we can resolve issues of greed, these shall be very difficult times indeed.

Gwynne Dyer - Climate Wars

George Bush may not have accepted the science of climate change but his military did. According to military analyst Gwynne Dyer the U.S. and British military have for several years been making advanced preparations for future climate wars. A chilling interview as the temperature rises.

Guns in America - A Visit to Knob Creek, Kentucky

Just when you think you have seen it all. Take ten minutes to watch as thousands of shooters, some as young as nine years old, fire machine guns, flame throwers - even using these weapons from helicopters or bringing their own armoured tank, for recreation, and sport. Seeing is believing.

Tamil Protest at Parliament Hill

Went for a walk on a sunny afternoon and ended up in the middle of a Tamil protest at Parliament Hill.

Greenland is Warming Up

My adventurous soul wants to travel to places such as Greenland. I want to witness it before the glaciers disappear. My travel to such distant lands, and that of countless others, however, only hastens their demise.

Rick Steves Discusses Iran

Rick Steves presents a refreshing perspective of an American view of Iran. This is an excellent video. What he says connects very much with my own visit in 2004.

Let's Predict the Future!

I feel in the mood to predict. I figure I can do no worse than Jim Cramer, or Wassily Leontief.

Within the next year, (let's say April Fool's Day 2010), I expect the following to have occurred on the world stage:

• The stock market will, in the short term, continue its rise, perhaps into the summer of 2009. The Dow will struggle to break through 9000, maybe even toying with the 10,000 mark. It will not reach it though. The rise will be fueled by unwarranted speculation that "the worst is over" and the economy is starting to "recover". Inflation, however, will start to dampen those spirits, and by next spring, the Dow will have retreated, probably testing if not falling through the lows of early 2009. Therefore, the Dow at 5888 on March 31, 2010. (How's that for breaking all the prediction rules!)
  
• The oil industry will report at least one of the "super giant" oil fields has peaked and gone into decline. There will be more reports, now carried in mainstream media, that world oil production may already have peaked at 87.5 mb/d and that the world economies need to prepare for the reality of a relentless decline in the flow of oil. Most people though, will fail to understand the ramifications of this and think that oil prices are too high, continuing to blame the oil companies, their government, or Santa Claus for the price of energy. There will continue to be very little recognition that it is our own highly consumptive ways that is to blame.
• The price of a barrel of oil will rise to at least the $65 range by early summer, 2009. Without much trouble, it could peak near, or perhaps even top $100 if there is major trouble in the middle east, or, at the height of the summer "driving season" supply is tightened because of storms or the collapse of a major oil field. All bets are off, however, if inflation starts to kick in and the U.S. dollar drops in value. This could be precipitated by OPEC deciding to price oil in Euros, or perhaps a basket of other currencies.
• IF OPEC decouples the price of oil from the U.S. dollar, watch out below. The value of the stock market could be cut in half again.
• IF OPEC continues to price oil in U.S. dollars, then I expect the price to have fallen back down to the mid to upper fifty dollar range in March, 2010. Demand will have continued to dampen, based on my prediction of lessening economic activity. However, we will start to see the impact of reduced supply, as the geologic reality of peak oil flow takes effect. Of course, this also will be influenced by the extent to which economic activity drops. Less activity will mean that it will still be possible for oil producing nations to supply the need, and there would be less pressure on prices. The unfortunate consequence of this is that it will delay the day when a majority of consumers understand that peak oil flow is a reality.
  
• Steve Paikin will continue to believe that everyone should rightly expect to travel whenever they want.
  
• There will no longer be a "Big Three" in Detroit. They will have been replaced by a mid-sized one, or two or three small ones. Their total size will be dwarfed by the Japanese and European automakers, who also will have shrunk in size by at least 15%.
  
• It is highly likely that a major terrorist event will unfold to challenge world leaders, and specifically President Obama.
  
• There will be at least one reported attempt on President Obama's life.
• China and Eastern Europe will experience increased social unrest as a result of the economic situation. There will be reports of significant troop movements in China to deal with this unrest.
  
• There will be an increase in nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe, threatening the structure of the European Union.
• There will be increased factionalism within Iraqi society as Obama attempts to remove U.S. troops. He will find it to be an increasingly difficult promise to keep.
• Obama will find it very difficult to rally support for more troops in Afghanistan. The Europeans will have become increasingly insular, and unwilling to participate, as social unrest increases on their home turf.
• Those of us who believe that the combined challenges of climate change and peak oil are the greatest threats to humanity will be greatly disappointed as world leaders focus instead on restoring "economic growth" as the answer to our problems. They will continue to fail to recognize that fueling economic growth without taking into account the ramifications of such growth is the root of the problem.
• Harper and the Conservatives in Canada will continue to characterise any effort to price carbon as a "tax" that will destroy Canada's competitiveness. They have drawn that line in the sand and will continue to stand behind it.
  

I look forward to coming back to this list in a year or so and tally my score. Who knows, I may have read the crystal ball correctly on one of these predictions! Here's to hoping I am wrong, and we will all be back in Kansas in a year, sipping Mai-Tai's. ;)

I remind myself once again of the words of Wassily Leontief: "Regarding the projections, the only thing I am certain about is that they are wrong."

Hot Air, and other Prognostications

In recent reading I have felt, at times, overwhelmed by a sense of "gloom and doom". Richard Heinberg and Matt Simmons both warn of the impending perils of peak oil flows and how it has the potential to catastrophically change civilization. Thomas Homer Dixon speaks darkly about the current economic crisis in his most recent interview with Peter Mansbridge. Jeffrey Kopstein, interviewed by Steve Paikin on The Agenda draws eerie parallels between the current eastern European banking crisis and the collapse of the Austrian banking system in 1931 that was a precursor to Nazism.

And then, just this morning I read Jeffrey Simpson's latest book "Hot Air" where he quotes Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontief. In 1981 he commented on his own forecast of population and energy consumption for the United Nations. "Regarding the projections, the only thing I am certain about is that they are wrong."

Simpson then refers to an oft used remark from perhaps any economics professor to his or her students: "When making forecasts, give a number or a date, but never both."

To say that prediction of future events, even with availability of vast amounts of data and computing power, is an "inexact" science is, without doubt, an understatement. Just ask Jim Cramer. (Better yet, watch Jon Stewart ask him.)

Does this mean, though, that we must stop listening to prognosticators? Should we just throw up our hands in despair and leave ourselves to whatever may happen?

Obviously, no. We need some means to prepare ourselves. We need to seek some kind of understanding of what is happening around us. How did it start? Where are we going? We all, to one degree or another, grapple with these questions. None of us, though, have the BIG picture. Some of us may, in hindsight, have a better grasp on what is going on than others, but, ultimately, the best we can do, to paraphrase Nobel prizewinner Wassily Leontief, is make an educated guess. We attempt to gain a sense of that BIG picture by sucking whatever information we can from a variety of sources, to make sense of it all.

On top of all that, we must attempt to maintain perspective; that is, recognize our biases and own them. Do our best to keep an open mind.

Pretty tall order, for anyone.

Especially when, personally, my bias is that we are going to hell in a handbasket.

As I have oft stated on this blog, in one way or another, there are way too many of us on this planet consuming way too much way too quickly to sustain the kind of activity I witness on a daily basis. The only question in my mind is when is the whole sh*t house going to come crashing down on us.

Yes, I admit that I seek out those who reinforce this bias. This is why I subscribe to Richard Heinberg's museletter and Jan Lundberg's column at Culture Change. Try as I might to keep an open mind to free market boosterism and climate change skeptics (among others), my eyes almost invariably roll back when I hear the predictable rant. To me, this isn't rocket science. We live on a finite planet, yet the vast majority of us lead our lives as if we can continue to expand our consumption. Everyone blithely walks around as if there will be no end to this mindless consumption. It is a tired old saying but This is NOT sustainable!" This will end. The only question is, when? In my lifetime, or after?

There, I have made my prediction, and followed that sage economist's advice: "When making forecasts, give a number or a date, but never both."

My final questions are: Why have we lost the ability to look beyond ourselves, and our immediate selfish needs, and consider seven generations? What happened to stewardship?