On Turning Sixty

I ponder the prospect of turning sixty next year. My life, my mortality, my existence is coming into focus. This is no longer a rehearsal for what I will do when I grow up. This is it. This is my life. How I put one foot in front of another every day is how I lead my life. There is no escape. I am here. Now. I am responsible for the over fullness I feel when I eat too much. I am responsible for seeing my life as a rehearsal, instead of the real thing. I am responsible for the judgments I make. I am responsible for focusing on the shadows rather than the light that creates them. I am responsible for every particle of my existence. Every step, every breath, every thought. It is up to me to appreciate and experience, or not. It is up to me to choose to be awake and alive in every instant, or not.

Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

I heard that somewhere, not sure where though.

This came to mind as I read today two very different presentations of statistics. First, from Dan Gardner, a columnist I often enjoy to read in the Ottawa Citizen. "Cheer Up", he tells us! "Things aren't nearly as bad as they seem." He then quotes recently published statistics from the United Nations Human Development Report 2010.

"Most people today are healthier, live longer, are more educated and have more access to goods and services. Even in countries facing adverse economic conditions, people's health and education have greatly improved. And there has been progress not only in improving health and education and raising income, but also in expanding people's power to select leaders, influence public decisions, and share knowledge."

He informs us that the report's findings tell us that:

-. All but three of the 135 countries have a higher level of human development today than in 1970.

-. A baby born today in almost any country can expect to live longer than at any time in history.

-. If children were still dying at the higher rates prevalent in the late 1970s, 6.7 million more children would die each year.

-. People around the world have much higher levels of education than ever before. ... No country has seen declines in literacy or years of schooling since 1970.

-. Since 1970, 155 countries -- home to 95 per cent of the world's people -- have experienced increases in real per capita income. The annual average today is $10,760, almost 1.5 times its level 20 years ago and twice its level 40 years ago. These increases are evident "in all regions."

-. Between 1970 and 2010, China's per capita income rose 21-fold, Botswana's more than nine-fold and Malaysia's and Thailand's more than five-fold.

-. The share of formal democracies has increased from fewer than a third of countries in 1970 to half in the mid-1990s and to three-fifths in 2008.

-. Overall, poor countries are catching up with rich countries in the HDI.

And then, later in the day, I pick up from the library the book The Bridge at the End of the World, by James Gustave Speth, where I read the following on the first couple of pages:

Half the world's tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second. About half the wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Twenty percent of the corals are gone, and another 20 percent severely threatened. Species are disappearing at rates about a thousand times fasther than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in sixty-five million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration and desertification. Persistent toxic chemicals can be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.

Human impacts are now large relative to natural systems. The earth's stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before the change was discovered. Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide up by more than a third and have started in earnest the dangerous process of warming the planet and disrupting climate. Everywhere earth's ice fields are melting. Industrial process are fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at a rate equal to nature's; one result is the development of more than two hundred dead zones in the oceans due to overfertilization. Human actions already consume or destroy each year about 40 percent of nature's photosynthetic output, leaving too little for other species. Freshwater withdrawals doubled globally between 1960 and 2000, and are now over half of accessible runoff. The following rivers no longer reach the oceans in the dry season: the Colorado, yellow, Ganges and Nile, among others.

No wonder so many of us are confused. But then...maybe it isn't so confusing after all. Maybe the reason the United Nations can report such a variety of improvement in human development indices is a direct result of humankind's gorging itself on the environmental riches of the planet, as described by Speth. Oh, some of us may be better off, for now. But, can it last?

Criticizing Capitalism Inside and Through Capitalism

A friend of mine regularly emails to a wide network of people articles that he finds of interest. Some of them are from more "mainstream" media such as the Globe & Mail, etc., while others are from the "alternate" press, such as Open Democracy, TomDispatch, Yes Magazine or Asia Times. He includes the full text as well as a hyperlink. I can only assume that he subscribes to Le Monde Diplomatique for when I click on the provided link, I am confronted with a paywall. I am, of course, grateful that my friend has provided the full text in the email for my reading pleasure.

The latest such article is titled "What's Left of the U.S. Left" written by Rick Fantasia. I appreciated his analysis and wanted to share it with friends. Over the past year or so I have usually found Facebook to be a quick way to share interesting links. But, of course, in this instance, the link takes you to a paywall. Now, ordinarily, this wouldn't bother me much. I understand that, the old adage of things being worth what you pay for them is usually true. And, certainly, good writing and critique has value. However, the crux of the argument being presented in this article is that there are "two lefts" in the U.S., which he describes as the "included" and the "excluded". As I read the article, I was beginning to wonder if the divide he described might have something to do with which side of the "paywall" you were on.

In his article he describes the "excluded" workers, otherwise largely known as the disenfranchised low waged non-union workers. He recounts how more than 15,000 activists of this group were in Detroit in June this past year as part of a U.S. Social Forum gathering. Participating in the event were representatives from the Excluded Workers Congress, the Domestic Worker Alliance, the Taxi Alliance, the Alliance for Guest Workers and the National Day Labourers Organizing Network, amongst many others. More than 10,000 of them marched through the streets "full of militancy, anger and colour". He laments that

"(t)here was almost no media coverage of the Detroit Social Forum in the US press, before or after, though the media had been saturated through the summer with reports of rightwing Tea Party rallies (some of which drew just a few hundred people."

He then rhetorically asks,

"Although the Forum took place in the heart of the auto industry, where were the auto workers?"

The answer, of course, lies in the fact that they, the auto workers, are part of the "other left", otherwise known as the "included" workers. They are part of the organized labour movement that has been far more successful in securing better wages and protection from the ravages of the economic downturn. As he points out

while their numbers have declined there are still some 50,000 auto workers and 128,000 retirees.

Fantasia then discusses the activity of this "other left". They were represented most recently by those who showed up at

a large demonstration in October in Washington DC called by a coalition of "progressive" groups, including the AFL-CIO (the country's biggest trade union confederation), the NAACP (national Association for the Advancement of Colored People), the national Council of La Raza, and the national Gay and Lesbian Task Force. This was the established institutionalised left, led by the main labour federation, the official labour movement that was able to bring well over 100,000 workers and others to Washington to show strength and draw public attention away from the Tea Party.

Fantasia pointed out that there

was little attempt to stir up the crowd, no march organized and no real sense of political urgency.

He concludes that these well organized groups have been

too close to power too often to want to jeopardize the position of their institutions.

His analysis certainly speaks to me. He is describing the notion of how power corrupts, regardless of the circle. From the smallest block party organizer to multi-national unions and corporations, for some people, power goes to their head and they often see the world only through organizational or "me first" eyes. Individuals and groups buy into the power trip, and we always need to be honest with ourselves about when it may be happening.

This, of course, brings me back to what "stuck in my craw" as it were, about not so much what this article was saying, but how I came across it. Here was an excellent, and intriguing article that criticized capitalism as well as pointing out that even within the "left" there are the "excluded" as well as the "included". Yet, it was posted behind a paywall that, by virtue of its existence, excluded many. Might one say that those who can afford to read it, don't actually need to, (as they are amongst the educated, financially privileged converted), while those who perhaps most need to read it, the "excluded", can't afford to? What a conundrum.

So, I posed this criticism to my friend, as I questioned why Fantasia was hiding his critique behind a paywall. He quickly came to the defense of Fantasia and Le Monde Diplomatique, saying that it was a struggling "progressive anti-capitalist co-operative" that deserved our support. While I couldn't disagree, I simultaneously wonder how we get the message out to those who most need to hear it, when they can't afford to pay?

I toyed with the idea of posting the article in its entirety, on my blog, but have, for now decided against this course, at my friend's behest. This led me to think of another topic; money, income, and how much is enough. It is rare, if ever, that people in our society are prepared to reveal their income, and what they spend it on. It is considered a "private" matter. I am beginning to think otherwise. I truly believe that, for the most part, we have reached the stage that "enough is enough". Welling up within me is immense criticism of those who draw bulky salaries or fat pensions whose biggest complaint (other than the airport lineups they must endure as they embark on their semi annual vacations), is that their taxes, and welfare rates, are too high. But, yes, that is another topic.

My "Mea Culpa" on Consumerism

I was in the midst of composing a "mea culpa" of sorts, regarding my sense of shame about being a part of western consumer society when I received this link to an article written by Dan Hamburg. He is a former Congressman of California's First District. These words were like a pie thrown in my face.

We're stuck in a culture (ie., a way of thinking), now roughly three centuries old, that has finally proven itself inadequate. All the way up through the years of my childhood in the Fifties and Sixties, this culture (i.e., western bourgeois) was not only acceptable, it was unassailable. It's core tenet has been the inevitability of progress and the "fact" as Margaret Thatcher put it during her reign as British prime minister, that "There is no alternative (TINA)."

If she's right, we're f**cked. Because while globalized capitalism has brought unparalleled comfort and power for the few--conquering the chronic limitation of space and time as never before--the contradictions of TINA thinking have become too odious to ignore.

We humans are literally destroying our own habitat. While a few feast, billions suffer malnourishment, illness and death from preventable disease and lack of basic necessities of life. (Have you ever attended one of those Hunger Banquets first conceived by the international anti-hunger organization OxFam? The top 15% are served a sumptuous meal. the middle 35% eat rice and beans. The leftover 50% help themselves to small portions of rice and water.)

This is the world we live in and these trends--global environmental collapse and mass poverty--are steadily worsening.

Contrary to a popular view, this state of affairs is neither "natural" nor unavoidable. The logic--resulting from a misreading of Darwin but powerful nonetheless--that we humans are creatures who "naturally compete" for scarce resources has finally revealed itself to be illogic, since its consequence is the demise of our entire species!

I read this nodding my head in a knowing fashion. This is me. This is the world I grew up in and the world I have perpetrated for most of my life. I am part of that top 15%. I get the best food, shelter, education and opportunities. I feed at the trough that is constantly replenished with cheap goods and services provided by the bottom 50%. I was discussing this recently with my brother and I thought his words captured our situation best.

We baby boomers as a group have become so obsessed with the accumulation and conservation of tangible assets that we are willfully blind to the environmental carnage and social justice issues which such accumulation causes. (Wal-Mart has big screen televisions on sale for $300. They're built by people who are essentially slaves in factories which cause massive environmental damage? Who cares, they're cheap! Oh, and yeah, someone should do something about that - so long as it doesn't cause me any inconvenience or increase my taxes so that I have the money to buy the $50 blu-ray player to go with the new TV.

This comment strikes at the core of the problem of our western society. Let's be blunt. We know what the problem is: it is us, the baby boomer generation and our offspring whom we have imbued with insatiable desires. We have fallen, hook, line and sinker for the admonitions of the post-war marketers who redefined citizenship to embody a consumer oriented ethic.

Everywhere I look, I see outrageously obscene consumption and an incredibly greedy sense of entitlement, as David Dingwall so selfishly points out to us.

Our demands are far out of proportion to what we should reasonably expect to be anything close to our fair share of the world's wealth. We have adopted the attitude that if we have the money, we have right to acquire whatever we want with it. Well, that approach is killing us, and it must be turned around.

The problem is clearly getting worse, as the gap between rich and poor widens, whether in the U.S. or Canada. We pay ever escalating millions of dollars every year to individual grown men who are "playing a game" in professional sports, yet somehow can't imagine paying sufficient taxes to ensure adequate housing for everyone. We whimsically change our decor to make the latest fashion statement, tearing out perfectly adequate bathrooms & kitchens while complaining about the price of gas. We are never satisfied because we seem incapable of accepting the notion that sometimes "Enough really is enough!" We are stuck in a rut of borrowing money we do not have, to spend on things and experiences we neither need nor appreciate.

I say this, not to mock others, but to recognize this in myself. This is how I was brought up in suburban, middle class Toronto. It is what my loving parents taught me, and, although I offered occasional token resistance, I followed the same path. I got sucked in by the branding, and the pummeling of my senses with advertising. Whether it was my make of car (Volvo or Saturn), sporting equipment (must be MEC!) or how I identified my trips, (I'm a traveler, not a tourist), I continued to hang much of my identity on what I possessed, and how I could obtain more.

In my most downtrodden moments when I review this, I feel like I have lived almost 60 wasted years of consumerism. When I look around at the plethora of "stuff" that fills my modest home, and flip through the memories of acquisition, I am terribly saddened.

We must hold a mirror up to ourselves, and recognize what we have done. What I see is not pretty. We need to find ways to break this downward death spiral of consumerism. What we are doing is obscene. As Hamburg concludes, we need a

"new narrative...a narrative that celebrates community over competitiveness, stewardship over exploitation."

I continually see sparks of light as I look around, but, unfortunately, they are not anywhere near a forest fire yet, but mere shooting stars. These "points of light" are the untold millions of us around the world trying to come to terms with our imbued "sense of entitlement". Unfortunately, there are still ever greater numbers of us who continue to cling to the old paradigm that money ultimately solves everything and that all poor people around the world need to do is acquire more of it. Then, they too can live like us. If it were only that easy.

Maybe I'll Just "Have Less & Live More!"

I was sitting at my computer when I heard the familiar sound of my rusty mailbox creaking shut. A sure indication that mail was waiting for me. "What could it be?", I thought to myself as I headed to the front door.

Real, hard copy mail comes less frequently these days as more communication is electronic. Perhaps this heightens the anticipation of opening the creaky cover to my mailbox.

It was, however, as expected, a couple more blatant appeals for me to "buy more stuff!" The first envelope was personally addressed, but gave no indication of the sender, other than a local P.O. Box number. Tearing open the envelope I was greeted with an uplifting holiday message.

Dear Leonard

It's holiday time - we're just counting the days. Are you ready? do you have the extra cash you need to help handle the additional expenses?
Use the attached Access Cheques to:

Be Spontaneous -Sometimes the best parties happen without a lot of planning
Buy some new furniture - A new sofa or reclining chair is a great addition to your home.
Start new family traditions - A family vacation could become an annual event.

Just think about all the fun you can have in the coming weeks. Use the attached cheques just like personal cheques, and start living your dream.

Wow! This is pretty exciting! Who knew that life can be so easy?!?! No money? No problem! I just need to write myself a cheque, or several if I need to, then I can throw caution to the wind, buy things & go places! I can be whimsical! I can Live Large and Start Living My Dream!!!


Feeling the enthusiasm rippling through my veins of how I will be enjoying life now that these wonderful cheques have arrived, I turn to the other envelope. Hmmmm, perhaps the news isn't as good. This letter is simply addressed to "The Resident". Nothing personal here, but I decide to look anyways, because it does proclaim on the front that "It's shiny. It's new." Opening the glossy enclosure wrapped with what appears to be a big red Christmas bow I discover images of gift cards from Best Buy and Future Shop. In bold letters it proclaims GET A FREE $200 GIFT CARD FROM FUTURE SHOP OR BEST BUY. Apparently, all I have to do is sign up for Rogers Digital TV & Rogers Hi-Speed Internet. Ah, but there is a tiny number 3 at the end of that last line indicating a footnote. Could there be a catch? I turn the four page card over to discover the "fine print" written in an ever so delicate, light gray font on a white background. To read it I need to turn on the big overhead light and reach for my reading glasses. With a bit of squinting I discover:

While quantities last. Offer available for a limited time and for new Digital TV and Hi-Speed Internet customers only, cannot be combined with any other discount and subject to change without notice. 1-year term required. Early Cancellation Fee applies. Excludes Rogers Ultra-Lite Internet tier.

So, what do these conditions mean? There is no mention of how much this will cost me, so, I decide some research is needed, and I head to the Roger's GiftCard promotion website. It takes about ten minutes to compile the figures. First, I discover that I will need to either rent or buy two pieces of hardware. A modem that will service my two computers will cost $4.50/mo. or $149 to purchase and a digital cable terminal costs $4.49/mo. or $99 to purchase. The least expensive Internet connection would cost $35.99/mo. and the least expensive digital TV would cost $31.49/mo. Finally, I need to pay $49.99 for installation. All numbers, of course, need to be multiplied by a minimum of 12 months. So, what does this add up to?

If I purchase the equipment required, that would be $248 upfront, before I have watched a single show, or read one email. Then, I would need to agree to pay $67.48/mo for 12 months for a total annual outlay of $809.76. To this, I add $49.99 for installation. All of these figures, of course, are then subject to 13% HST. So, to get my "FREE" $200 gift card I need to commit to spend $280.24 today for hardware, $56.49 for installation and $915.03 within a year for Internet and TV, for a grand total of $1,251.76. This outlay gets me the next to slowest Internet speed (that charges extra for downloads in excess of 15 GB/mo.) and basic cable, for one year. And of course, they would sincerely hope that have hooked me to pay a minimum of $915.03 every year thereafter, for just about the most basic service they provide. Wow! What a deal!

Yes, the sarcasm is dripping off the screen as I type. First of all, I currently spend $34.97/mo. or $418.64 per year, (taxes included!) for high speed Internet from National Capital Freenet (a local, not for profit group) that includes up to 200 GB of download per month. I obtain a free local digital TV signal from three channels with a homemade aerial that provides an uncompressed signal. The quality is far superior to the compressed cable signal. By next summer all broadcasters in Canada will be required to provide a digital over air signal. Sure, I don't get the cable only, or any American channels, but, why do I need 24/7 advertising streaming into my home?

Of the 33 channels offered on "Basic" Cable, I immediately discount one third of them as being completely superfluous to my needs. Five are in the French language, two are government legislature channels that are available online, two feature children programming, and there are two shopping channels. There are several other channels that I would never count as real channels. These include the TV listings, Rogers TV local, CP24 (it's local news out of Toronto. I live in Ottawa.) or the Entertainment! pop culture offering. APTN, W Network & CTS are marginal at best, essentially showing long forgotten re-runs intermixed with a show that may be of modest interest to a narrow audience. We are now down to about a dozen channels, half of which I can get for free with my antenna. This latter group includes CTV, CBC, Global, OMNI & the A Channel. So, it seems I am being urged to pay several hundred dollars a year extra for a more restricted Internet service, a news channel, the weather network, and three American TV networks. Maybe that gift card isn't "FREE" after all.

Back to my mail, the absurdity of it is that the so called "gift card" urges me to purchase yet ever more junk that will continue the media onslaught that implores me to buy more, and more, and more, while, the marketers hope, I sit on the couch, eat chips, and gaze at the screen imagining how I can spend money I don't have on things I don't need.

But wait! I've got money! I've just got to write myself one of those cheques that came in that other bright red envelope! Just in time for Christmas!

Hmmmm...on second thought,

Maybe I'll Just

and enjoy life, all year round, with less stuff!

How Do We Slow Down the Train?

Those who read my blog or the links that I consider newsworthy on facebook will (or should) realize that I am profoundly concerned about how the 21st century will play out for humanity on planet earth. I believe we are witnessing the slow motion train wreck of human civilization. There we are, gorging ourselves in the dining car as we occasionally glance out the window to gaze upon the passing scenery. Only the sober ones amongst us seem to realize that we need a healthy planet far more than the earth needs healthy humans. If the earth had a say in the matter (and, ultimately, it does), I expect it would rather not have us here at all.

There are many around the planet who share my fear for the future but are despairing as to what to do. We have been convinced by the science that humanity is slowly but inexorably incinerating the planet with the last of our remaining fossil fuel endowment as we desperately seek to satisfy our addiction to economic growth. I will be sixty next year, so I expect that I will not be alive to witness the conclusion of this unfolding catastrophe. I think it doubtful, however that my children and grandchildren will avoid suffering through the collapse of civil society as we know it.

For quite some time I have been trying to do my part to ring the warning bell. I have searched for ways to encourage more of us to appreciate that we must change our ways, not just personally, but at a broad-based, systemic level. I am beginning to sense though, that I may have been going about this in the wrong way. I have been working on the assumption that if I, in conjunction with the millions of other concerned souls linking together around the planet, simply continued to make reasoned arguments, based on fact and logic, that change would happen.

Hmmm. Noble thought. But is the earth going to wait while we humans engage in our anthropocentric "reasoned debate"? Perhaps not. What I hear the earth saying is that it could care less what humans think or decide. It will continue to be here regardless and would probably prefer that we hasten our own destruction so that it can get back to enjoying a flourishing biosphere without humans.

I may have been to one too many "group hugs" of late. You know, those wonderful progressive sessions where like minded people get together and nod knowingly about how important it is to reduce consumption, change light bulbs, lobby governments, write letters to the editor, make noise, or do whatever we can to get our "point" across.

I, in concert with millions around the globe, have been beating this drum for years. Beyond writing a blog I have joined groups such as my local Transitions Town movement, attended rallies, participated in seminars, workshops, meditation sessions, run for political office, written letters to the editor, protested in front of 24 Sussex, given up my car, (almost) sworn off air travel, ridden my bicycles thousands of kilometers, bought a bus pass, tracked and reduced my resource consumption, yet the stark reality is; the train keeps hurtling down the track, and most of the passengers aboard take little if any notice as they look for yet another way to spend money they don't have, on things they do not need. Why is that, I ask myself?

Speaking of things we do not need, I doubt that the person who drove past me recently in his Maserati (yes, it really was a Maserati) while I stood on the Vanier Parkway in Ottawa waiting for my bus cares a whit about climate change or long term sustainability. I have the same opinion about the comfortably dressed thirty something dweeb (I don't know what else to call him without launching into a vituperative rant) I watched a couple of days ago nonchalantly toss his water bottle against a tree (after he urinated against it) in my local park before hopping into his car and driving off. Something tells me that what these two people value is probably not anything close to what I consider to be important in life. Not only that, it is highly unlikely that they are interested in listening to what I have to say. They tuned me out long ago, because to do otherwise would mean they would have to consider a more modest form of transport or, heaven forbid, that they may need to acknowledge that they are responsible for cleaning up after themselves.

And that, perhaps, is the crux of the matter. It is our value systems that are clashing. When I go to one of my "group hug" sessions, I am surrounded by those who are "in synch" with what I value. It feels wonderful, of course, they are profoundly life-affirming events and I have no intention of giving them up, but, something is clearly missing. There are a lot of other people I need to be having this conversation with. I want to know how I can be a part of connecting with that Maserati driver, or, that dweeb in the park.

I find it sobering to acknowledge how monumental this task is. In my view, the Maserati driver and his dweeb brother are indicative of what I see as the slothful plague that is decimating our planet. From their perspective, however, they are pursuing what they see as their inalienable right to move about the earth in whatever way they see fit. We are, I suppose, of two extremes. They value personal freedom, believing that humankind has the absolute right to exercise dominion over the earth. In their view, money is power, they have lots of it, and they resoundingly resent any perceived encroachment on their ability to spend that cash and exercise their power as they please. I, like many others of a similar socialist and/or progressive persuasion value collective responsibility. We believe that as a species humans must rein in their egotistical, domineering ways or we will soon destroy the one and only planet we have. Is it any wonder then that we find it difficult, if not at times impossible, to listen to one another? (I know I go to great lengths to avoid the writings of Ezra Levant or David Warren.) We not only figuratively, but literally don't believe we are from the same planet. We certainly don't talk the same language.

How have we got to this point? And, more importantly, how do we move beyond polarized positions and re-engage in meaningful conversation that may help us uncover our shared interests? I have recently been introduced to an interesting analysis of this issue by reading an article by George Monbiot. He summarizes a lengthy (100+ pages) report written by Tom Crompton, under an initiative developed as part of WWF-UK’s Strategies for Change Project.

At this point I shall let Monbiot speak for himself, as I flagrantly "cut and paste" his comments. (Please contact me, George, if you take offense.)

The acceptance of policies which counteract our interests is the pervasive mystery of the 21st Century. In the United States, blue-collar workers angrily demand that they be left without healthcare, and insist that millionaires should pay less tax. In the UK we appear ready to abandon the social progress for which our ancestors risked their lives with barely a mutter of protest. What has happened to us?

The answer, I think, is provided by the most interesting report I have read this year. Common Cause, written by Tom Crompton of the environment group WWF, examines a series of fascinating recent advances in the field of psychology(1). It offers, I believe, a remedy to the blight which now afflicts every good cause from welfare to climate change.

Progressives, he shows, have been suckers for a myth of human cognition he labels the Enlightenment model. This holds that people make rational decisions by assessing facts. All that has to be done to persuade people is to lay out the data: they will then use it to decide which options best support their interests and desires.

A host of psychological experiments demonstrates that it doesn’t work like this. Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information which confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to change.

Our social identity is shaped by values which psychologists classify as either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic values concern status and self-advancement. People with a strong set of extrinsic values fixate on how others see them. They cherish financial success, image and fame. Intrinsic values concern relationships with friends, family and community, and self-acceptance. Those who have a strong set of intrinsic values are not dependent on praise or rewards from other people. They have beliefs which transcend their self-interest.

This helps me understand the chasm between myself and the Maserati man and his Dweeb brother. I've been thinking all along that all I need to do is "explain the facts" and they and everyone else will understand. Duh, no! It ain't gonna work that way. The more I, and my "progressive" friends talk, the more we challenge the extrinsic value system of those we don't understand. And, of course, the more alienated from each other we become.

Monbiot points out that:

Rightwing politicians have also, instinctively, understood the importance of values in changing the political map. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that "economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul".

Conservatives in the US generally avoid debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more. The progressive response has been disastrous.

Doesn't this sound remarkably similar to the approach of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in Canada? Constant appeal to personal pocketbook issues, every tax is a bad tax, government is bad, turning away from data by dismantling the census and on and on. They are in the process of successfully changing the conversation in Canada by appealing to our personal greed, our extrinsic values, as opposed to "bigger-than-self", collective responsibilities.

Monbiot then chastises progressives,

Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to it. Once progressive parties have tried to appease altered public attitudes: think of all those New Labour appeals to middle England, often just a code for self-interest. In doing so they endorse and legitimise extrinsic values. Many greens and social justice campaigners have also tried to reach people by appealing to self-interest: explaining how, for example, relieving poverty in the developing world will build a market for British products, or suggesting that, by buying a hybrid car, you can impress your friends and enhance your social status. This tactic also strengthens extrinsic values, making future campaigns even less likely to succeed. Green consumerism has been a catastrophic mistake.

Tom Crompton proposes a simple remedy. Progressive campaigners

should stop seeking to bury (their) values and instead explain and champion them. (They) should help to foster an understanding of the psychology that informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – that make us insecure and selfish.

I haven't finished the Crompton article yet, and my response to it is very much a work in progress. It is proving to be a fascinating read. I am continuing to look for ways to be a part of slowing down this greedy train. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Harper is at it Again!

I felt compelled to write our esteemed Prime Minister again lately after he once again prorogued Parliament.

Mr. Harper.
I don't agree with your decision to prorogue. It is being used for crass political expediency. It serves ONLY the interests of the Conservative Party. It does NOT serve the interests of Canada.

Perhaps you don't care about the Afghan prisoner detainee issue. I do. As one concerned Canadian I expect answers on this matter. Don't patronize those of us who are concerned by saying that it is not "on our radar." It most certainly is.

Although I obviously doubt you ever see these emails personally, I do want to let you know that I was the placard waving protester standing outside your residence yesterday afternoon at about 4:45 PM when you returned to 24 Sussex from your interview with Peter Mansbridge. I shall be back again later today. I am one of more than 66,600 (and growing at a rate of more than 1,000 per hour) Canadians who have signed up to a Facebook page called Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. You may want to check it out. There are a growing number of people saying some not very nice things about how you run this country and practice politics in general.

I will be on Parliament Hill on January 23 to register my opposition to you. I shall be on Parliament Hill on January 25 to take attendance of MPs to see who shows up for work. I expect you to be one of them.
Remember that you are, ultimately, accountable to us. We pay your salary. We are watching what you do, and how you do it, and intend to hold you to account on election day, whenever that is.

Regards,
Leonard Poole
Ottawa