Starting the Conversation

Attaching Mirrors (& a Lot of Other Stuff) to My Surly Long Haul Trucker

2011-12-04T13:13:00.001-05:00

I found attaching usable rear view mirrors to a bicycle with drop bars to be an exercise in futility, particularly with my Surly LHT which utilizes bar end shifters. There simply was no place to attach them that didn't interfere with the operation of the brake & shift levers. Whenever I did find a mirror that was advertised as suitable for attachment to drop bars, I found them to ultimately be either too small, shaky, and/or poorly positioned. That is, until I came upon the idea of attaching a second stem and bar. In a nutshell, this second bar provides additional "real estate" to which I can attach, not only mirrors, but also a handlebar bag and the lever for an air horn. As shown in the pictures, by attaching the bag to the lower bar, I then have sufficient space for a second set of brake levers, a Cygo-Lite headlight, a couple of "Incredibells" (I'm left handed, so one beside each left hand brake lever.) and a place to mount a GoPro video camera on the upper bar. My LBS, Full Cycle, installed Tektro AL726 cyclocross brake levers which I find quite useful, particularly when cycling around town in traffic. It also means that I now have three distinct hand positions with full access to brake levers. The Cateye Strada odometer is then mounted to the upper stem. It is the only brand I have found so far that can be mounted in this fashion on the stem. I purchased mine at Bushtukah in Ottawa on Richmond Road.

If you have a bicycle with a threadless stem and enough height on your steering tube to attach a second stem then this set up should work for you. First, I removed spacers equivalent to the height of the second stem. To allow for maximum versatility, I purchased an adjustable stem at Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) for about $22. (Unfortunately, I can't find a link to it on their website.) I then cut a discarded handlebar to an appropriate length and attached bar ends to each end of the cut bar. I already had a pair, but a pair can be purchased new for less than $20. (If you are in Ottawa I would suggest you head to Re-cycles Bicycle Co-op at 473 Bronson where they should be able to provide you with used parts at a good price.) To these I attached a pair of unglamorous but eminently useful bicycle mirrors purchased from Canadian Tire for $5 each, which I then wrapped with reflective tape. There are infinite possibilities for placement of the mirrors given the adjustable stem and the ability to rotate not only the second bar within the stem, but also the bar ends around where they attach to the second bar. Where I placed my mirrors ensures that my hands do not block the view in any way yet they are close enough to allow me to easily reach them should they need adjustment.

I then attached my handlebar bag to this second bar as well as the lever for my Samui Air Zound Cycling Horn. Whether I am commuting in the city, or touring on the open road I find them extremely useful. In the city I am regularly checking my mirrors, keeping alert to traffic coming up behind me. Having mirrors on both sides is invaluable when cycling down one-way streets. When touring, as soon as I see an approaching vehicle, I immediately check my mirrors to see whether or not they will be meeting a vehicle coming in the opposite direction when they pass me.

Bell underneath light, behind left cyclocross brake lever. Odometer mounted on upper stem. Horn lever on lower bar, right side, immediately next to bar end shift lever.

Adjustable stem angled down.

Bent bar ends protrude outwards, allowing mirrors to be further away from handlebars yet in close enough proximity to outer brake levers to allow for easy reach to make adjustments to the viewing angle. Bag attaches to second bar, riding lower, & ensuring it does not block the headlight or the camera view.

Cyclocross brake levers provide easy access to braking when riding in an upright position.

A bonus to the installation is that I now have a significantly wider profile in traffic. Vehicles have more of me to get around, and I find that I get that extra space. Not only do I see better, but there is more of me and my bicycle for the other users of the road to see.

Multigrain Bread Recipe

2011-11-18T11:34:00.000-05:00

This is another one of my favourite bread recipes from Salt Spring Island Cooking, page 220, by Rodney Polden & Pamela Thornley, published Macmillan Canada in 1993. Below is a direct transcription from the book, followed by my notes.

Makes 4 big loaves.

6 cups   (1.4L)        warm water
2 Tbsp      (30 mL)     yeast
2 Tbsp      (30 mL)     sugar
9 1/2 cups (2.3L)        whole-wheat flour
1/2 cup      (120 mL) oil
1/2 cup      (120 mL) buckwheat flour
2 cups        (480 mL) barley flour
2 cups        (480 mL) rye flour
2 Tbsp       (30 mL)    sea salt
1 cup         (240 mL) rolled oat flakes
1 cup         (240 mL) sunflower seeds
1 cup         (240 mL) flax seeds
1 cup         (240 mL) sesame seeds
                  additional whole-wheat flour as necessary

In your largest bowl, dissolve the yeast in warm water, then add the sugar, and let stand for 10 minutes until the yeast bubbles up.
Add 6 cups (1.4L) of the whole-wheat flour to the liquid. Beat quickly and strongly, until the mixture forms threads, (like spun fibres). This will take about 300 strokes - but it's not as long a job as you might think.
Let the sponge rise for at least 1 hour, then add the oil and beat it in.
Mix the salt with the remaining flours, oat flakes and seeds, then work them into the sponge thoroughly.
Knead for at least 10 minutes, working in up to 1 1/2 cups (360 mL) of additional whole-wheat flour as you go. Try not to add more than this.. Instead, if the dough is still wet and sticky, oil your hands and the kneading board and keep at it.
When the dough is smooth and elastic, place it back in the bowl, cover it with a tea towel and let it rise in a warm plce until doubled in bulk (about 1 hour). In the meantime, go read a book, weed the garden, or pet the dog.
Punch down the dough and divide it into 4 pieces. Shape each piece into a loaf, place in well-greased, regular loaf pans and let rise again until the dough is an inch or more above the top of the pans. Go finish the last chapter of that Agatha Christie novel.
Bake the loaves at 350F (180C) for 35-40 minutes.

My additional notes:

I usually mix (about half & half, but I don't think it matters much) whole wheat with white flour.
I have also started adding about half a cup of psyllium fibre to the flour when I add it to the yeast and sugar water mix.
Although the recipe as written leads off with "Makes 4 big loaves", I find the loaves to be relatively dense, & not that large, although very tasty. I plan to add more yeast, perhaps an additional 1/2 Tbsp or more to my next batch.

I find bread making to be a lot of fun, & it also provides for a bit of exercise in the kneading process! I usually start by strictly following a recipe. Once I feel confident with it, I start to experiment. Let me know if this recipe works for you and what improvements you are able to come up with. Happy baking!

Rye Bread Recipe

2011-08-07T09:29:00.002-04:00

Several years ago I was fortunate to find the book Salt Spring Island Cooking by Rodney Polden & Pamela Thornley (published by MacMillan Canada in 1993). It is chock full of great recipes. Here is one that stands out and is a hit every time I make it. (from page 223)

Rye Bread

A simple, tasty, sandwich rye loaf. When making a toasted rye sandwich, slice the bread thinly so that the toasting fully enhances the rye flavour.

Makes two good-sized loaves.

3 cups (720 mL) warm water or warm potato water

1 Tbsp (15 mL) active dry yeast

1 Tbsp (15 mL) sugar or honey

1 Tbsp (15 mL) Inka (or other coffee substitute)

¼ cup (60 mL) molasses

4 cups (960 mL) whole-wheat flour

3 ½ cups (840 mL) rye flour

1 Tbsp (15 mL) salt

Optional:

grated rind from one orange

1 Tbsp (15 mL) fennel seeds OR caraway seeds

Dissolve the yeast and sugar in the warm water and allow it to stand for 10 minutes or so until the yeast foams up.

Add the Inka, molasses and the 3 cups (720 mL) or wheat flour.

Make a “sponge” by beating this mixture at least 300 strokes, until the gluten forms in strands. (I haven't found those “strands” yet. I just beat it for 3-4 minutes with a wooden spoon. LP)

Allow the sponge to stand in a warm, draught-free place for one hour or more. The sponge needs to double in size.

In another bowl, combine the rye flour with the salt and any optional ingredients you want.

Stir down the sponge and add the rye flour mixture.

Knead this dough for 10-20 minutes, adding as little additional whole-wheat flour as possible to keep it from sticking to the kneading surface.

The dough should become smooth and elastic.

Divide the dough into two pieces and form them into oblong loaves.

Place on a greased baking sheet, cover with a tea towel and allow to rise in a warm place for an hour or so. The loaves should double in size.

Bake at 350F (180C) for 35-40 minutes.

With fennel or caraway seeds added, this bead makes a fine “wry” comment of its own!

“WITHOUT BREAD, EVEN A PALACE IS SAD, BUT WITH IT, A PINE TREE IS PARADISE.”

Slavic Proverb

Electoral Predictions

2011-05-02T13:58:00.000-04:00

Politicians love to say "The only poll that counts is the one on election day." especially when they are down in the polls leading up to that day. Well, that day has arrived, and in a few hours we will either be crying in our beer, or raising our glasses deliriously in celebration. Well, perhaps it will be a bit of both, as I expect there to be some unexpected results. (How's that for an oxymoron? Sort of like expecting the unexpected, or predicting the unpredictable.)

The polling tells us that the NDP have vaulted past the Liberals, closing within a few points of the Conservatives. These polls also suggest that a lot of these gains are in Quebec, where Bloc support has seriously eroded. The NDP is also showing gains in other parts of the country. The big question of course, will these polling results translate into seats in Parliament?

For what it's worth (and it probably ain't worth much;), I have pulled some numbers out of a hat, done some basic arithmetic, and come up with some predictions. I have made no secret of how much I loathe the current government of Stephen Harper. I have written Stephen, and protested out side of his house, to let him know how I feel. However, I am only one voter, and, apparently, I am not representative of a plurality of voters in this country. (There are a lot of us, but, sadly, I don't think, enough of us yet to turf this guy and the rest of his entourage.)

I don't think the Conservatives have been able to cobble together enough support to yet extract a majority government from the electorate. I don't think I am basing this on hope, but on facts. (I'll be the one crying in my beer in a few hours if I am wrong on this one.) I do think though, that they will be re-elected with another minority, possibly with a few more seats. I think they will lose most of their seats in Quebec, perhaps retaining, at most, half a dozen in that province, but probably only two or three. They will make up for these losses in Ontario, gaining a few from the Liberals.

The Bloc will lose out to the NDP big time in Quebec, if the polls are anywhere in the ballpark of being accurate. Quebecers are much more progressive in their outlook, generally, than any other provincial electoral group. The NDP gives them that federal progressive outlet.

The Liberals, sad to say, still haven't got over the debacle of the Martin/Chretien fight. It was a barroom brawl that wrecked all the furniture and they still haven't yet rebuilt the place. They seem to have lost any sight of what they stand for, other than, "vote for us, you always have!"

The NDP appear set to gain from this, as they pick up progressive support across the country from those who are appalled (as I am) by the current Harper lead conservative government. They will gain in the Maritimes, big time in Quebec as mentioned, perhaps modestly in Ontario, and in BC.

Finally, I expect Elizabeth May to be the first Green Party member of Parliament.

So, (drum roll), the envelope please. Here are the predictions that fell out of my hat:

Conservatives - 147, NDP - 77, Liberals - 61, Bloc - 22, Greens - 1

My hopeful side would love to predict less seats for the Conservatives. My morose pragmatic side says don't let your heart get in the way of the facts. From where I sit, the Conservatives have been more successful at pedaling fear than the progressives of this country have been in promoting hope and positive vision for the future.

Am I close, or am I crazy? I'll know in a few hours.

Which Wolf Does Stephen Harper Want Canadians to Feed?

2011-05-01T07:38:00.000-04:00

A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt about a tragedy. He said, “I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.” The grandson asked him, “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” The grandfather answered, “The one I feed.”

If the Conservatives Get a Majority

2011-04-24T20:53:00.001-04:00

If the Stephen Harper Conservatives get a majority in Parliament, they will take actions that will fundamentally change Canada during their mandate.

Here is what I see happening:
Within One Year-

The gun registry will be gone.
Canada will have agreed to spend in excess of $30 Billion on the F35 fighter jet.
Spending billions on constructing new prisons will have begun.
Proposals will be made to privatize some, if not all of the new prisons.
A Conservative back bencher will introduce a private member's bill to restrict abortion.
Funding of the CBC will be significantly decreased with hints of future privatization.
They will begin the process of appointing Supreme Court Justices with a much more socially conservative legal approach.
Plans will be put forth to increase privatization of health care.
The government will announce plans to continue to reduce taxes as the best way to "stimulate growth" in the economy and reduce the deficit.

By the End of Their Mandate- 2015-16

The fighter jet purchase will have proven to be a monumental money pit.
There will be significant cost overruns on prison construction and operation.
A larger percentage of the population will be in jail as part of the Government's "tough on crime" approach to dealing with social issues.
The CBC will have largely been privatized.
The make up of the Supreme Court of Canada will be radically different with the appointment of several Chief Justices who have more socially conservative views.
Canada will have a structural deficit as it stripped away its tax base while simultaneously increasing spending on military hardware and prisons.
The gap between rich and poor will have increased significantly.
Canada will have an increasing number of "gated" communities as the wealthy seek to protect themselves from the poor.
The Conservative Party image will have been shattered by a number of scandals, most to do with influence pedaling.
Canada will be a nation divided between those that have, and those that do not. It will be a sad place.

Voter Disengagement

2011-04-03T08:26:00.004-04:00

With Canada one week into an election campaign I have been quite struck by my total lack of interest in the political theatre that surrounds me. I glance periodically at the headlines, grimace and shake my head at some of the inane posturing, then move on to something that has more substance. I note that I just don't seem to care what ANY of the politicians have to say, including those that I may agree with. Why is this?

Well, it all seems so predictable. Everyone strategizes to win, appealing to what their handlers tell them their base is. Our first past the post electoral system guarantees this behaviour on the part of our political parties.

The vast majority of the Federal electoral districts are considered "safe" seats for one party or another. My riding of Ottawa-Vanier is one of them. I will vote for the Green Party candidate Caroline Rioux. However, the odds are better that I will win the lottery, (and I don't buy lottery tickets), than is the possibility of her winning this vote. Other than giving two dollars to the Green Party of Canada, my vote will not affect the outcome. It is exactly the same for the NDP and Conservative voters in this riding, (although their odds of upsetting the incumbent may be slightly better).

This scenario is replicated across the country in every riding that might be deemed "safe" for one party or another. Do those NDP, Green or Liberal voters in Calgary Centre really think their vote has anything other than symbolic meaning? Do they really think that they could possibly unseat Stephen Harper in this election? Oh yes, we will hear the cry that "every vote counts" and "you can't complain if you don't vote", etc. etc. But, the truth is, more and more voters feel they are being treated like sheep as they are herded into various voting pens. They don't see their vote making a difference.

I want every vote to count. Every voter in every riding needs to know that their vote makes a difference. Whether you are a lonely Conservative in Liberal red Ottawa-Vanier, a despondent dipper in Alberta, or a Green anywhere in the country you will be more encourage to participate in democracy if you have a sense that your vote will make a difference. Sadly, that currently is not the experience of the majority of voters.

This election will be decided in those 40 to 50 "swing" ridings where the seat may change hands, that are not "safe" for one party or another. Voters in these ridings will be showered with an inordinate amount of attention. All kinds of promises will be made to appeal to these voters in the hopes of scoring the big win. As to the rest of the voters across the country? More of them can see the manipulative game that is being played. Yes, many of them are voting, but not necessarily at the ballot box. Increasing numbers of them are voting with their feet, as they walk away from those ballot boxes, and they will continue to do so until they feel their vote counts.

Don't worry - I'll be voting, at a ballot box, but I certainly understand why increasing numbers of us don't bother anymore.

A Personal Journey of Evolving Consciousness

2011-01-22T14:21:00.005-05:00

Born in 1951, I was part of the leading charge of baby boomers growing into the sixties. Contrary to the myth of that decade that stated "if you remember it, you couldn't have been there", I still do retain fleeting glimpses of that time. It was nothing if not turbulent. I entered that ten year stretch of my life a starry eyed child of the fifties, filled with my parents ambitions for me. I left it a dark, surly, aging teenager, desperately searching for meaning in life.

I didn't know where I would find it, but I kept peering under rocks, rummaging through rubbish, opening different doors, looking for something to hold onto in the midst of everything that seemed so meaningless. What I did know was that my heart was not inspired by the Middle American dream that surrounded me.

Entering University in the fall of '69 I began to meet others who were picking through the same detritus of society. "What is all this about?", we were asking. It was an explosion of questioning and being introduced to new ideas. Whether it was studying Marxism, reading Nietzsche, Sartre, or a host of others, we felt challenged by new perspectives of being. Personally though, I really did feel bombarded. It often was hard to handle. Truth be told, I didn't handle it very well at all.

There was, however, one corner of my intellectual universe that calmed me, introducing me to the notion of "aha!" I developed an interest in Buddhist philosophy. Through reading the works of Shunryu Suzuki, Daisetz Suzuki, Allan Watts, and others, I found that I was constantly saying to myself "This speaks to me! This makes sense!" Not having been raised in a particularly spiritual home, by the age of twenty I had harshly judged all organized religion. I could not abide the bible-thumping guilt that I heard coming out of so many pulpits. It was adding fuel to our societal discord, splitting us into "us versus them - we are the chosen ones you are not" camps. It was part of the problem.

I heard no words in Buddhism, however, that spoke in such disrespectful tones. It didn't ask us to consider what divided us, but rather, what brought us together. The one phrase I loved from Allan Watts at the time was "As the ocean waves, the universe peoples." We were but points of exquisite light of universal consciousness. This spoke to my sense of uniqueness in experiencing "my" consciousness, whilst simultaneously breathing life and meaning into what was beyond. Yes, I was intimately connected with all that surrounded me. I was embarking, ever so slowly, on a path of appreciation of non-duality.

Over the years I found much debris on this path. I would choose dead end branches heading into the bushes, or leading to swamps. Sometimes the adventure was fun, other times, not so much. I would get lost, and need to confront my aloneness as I tripped and stumbled down a dark road. I was fortunate, however, to meet the occasional guide along the way.

Although I knew meditation to be an integral part of Buddhism, I spent more time reading about it, rather than actually doing it. It was part of the "practice", but that was where I seemed to get stuck. Having totally (and I mean totally) rejected the dogmatism and ritual of organized religion, I found it virtually impossible to integrate into my life the concept of doing something because I was supposed to. I would do what I wanted, thank you very much.

I also, however, had the sense of something missing. Over the years I articulated to myself and close friends my recognition that a religious or spiritual community was greater than its "dogma". It provided community, a sense of connection with others. This was something I did not have in my life.

Recently, I have met another one of those precious guides I spoke of earlier, Dr. Ian Prattis. He was giving a talk at a local community meeting hosted by Interfaith Sandy Hill last fall. In response to a question I posed about the "how" of becoming more engaged in social change he invited me to the Pine Gate Sangha. I really had no idea what to expect, but he seemed like a wonderful individual. I had first heard him speak on CBC radio about two years ago as he discussed his recently published book "Failsafe - Saving the Earth from Ourselves".

What I am discovering is that missing link of "community", or, in Buddhist terms, the Sangha. For me, I feel like I am coming home. Don't get me wrong. It is not that Pine Gate, per se, is home. Community is home, or, once again to switch to the Buddhist term, Sangha is home. Home is a place to nurture the seeds of life. Home is where you garden. Yes, I can garden on my own, without others, but I am finding it so much more enriching as I garden with others. This is what I am learning about at Pine Gate, as I garden and nurture in community, in Sangha. And, believe it or not, I've actually started the process of integrating meditation into my life! Home is where you make it, and, Pine Gate is becoming part of my home.

Corporations Are Not the Problem - We Are

2011-01-07T10:31:00.006-05:00

I like to think of myself as committed to social change, and very concerned about what I see as a consumer driven society hurtling virtually out of control down a dead end track to environmental disaster. I know there are many around the world who share my concerns. What I often hear are screams of outrage against one corporation or another that is characterized as poluting the planet in its relentless search for profit while constantly urging us to buy things we do not need with money we do not have.

Yes, that rings a chord in the hearts of so many who are despairing at the plight of the world. We love to bleat about the horror of the oilsands, resource depletion or any other short term profit seeking corporate practice. But, when we start to dig a little deeper, are the actions of these corporations the root cause of this destruction? I don't think so. We are taking the easy "let's find someone to blame" route. Let's be clear, corporations can only sell something if someone else buys it, and we keep buying boatloads of the stuff. From Ipods to flatscreens to sushi to constant jet travel to cut roses in winter we the consumer keep lining the pockets of corporations with the proceeds of our insatiable desires. The planet is littered with the detritus of our consumption.

Rather than stamping our feet, going to protests and writing letters about these "terrible corporations" and the "capitalist footprint" on the planet, we need to be holding up a mirror to ourselves and our neighbours about how we are behaving. I don't like what I see.

If we want corporations to stop sucking the planet dry, we have to stop giving them the money to do it. Unfortunately, it seems that most of us are too addicted to consuming to really make this happen.

And yes, I am looking in the mirror as I say this.

On Turning Sixty

2010-12-21T10:57:00.002-05:00

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

2010-12-17T22:50:00.006-05:00

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

2010-12-15T11:37:00.010-05:00

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

2010-12-05T11:50:00.009-05:00

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!"

2010-11-30T11:55:00.013-05:00

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?

2010-11-13T17:30:00.028-05:00

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!

2010-01-06T15:03:00.003-05:00

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

What the Focus of the School Board Should Be

2009-11-29T10:02:00.003-05:00

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

2009-11-29T09:56:00.003-05:00

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

2009-11-29T09:46:00.002-05:00

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"

2009-10-17T11:49:00.001-04:00

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"

2009-10-16T12:02:00.003-04:00

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

2009-09-19T10:31:00.005-04:00

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

2009-06-24T14:48:00.003-04:00

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

2009-06-16T23:34:00.003-04:00

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

2009-06-16T22:33:00.004-04:00

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

2009-06-16T20:34:00.005-04:00

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

2009-06-16T14:59:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-15T15:37:00.000-04:00

Here is What Happens to Protesters in Tehran

2009-06-14T21:10:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-09T21:24:00.006-04:00

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

2009-06-08T09:07:00.005-04:00

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

2009-05-30T11:54:00.003-04:00

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

2009-05-27T12:09:00.017-04:00

"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

2009-05-25T16:29:00.010-04:00

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:

Taxes paid when fuel is purchased.
Annual Licensing fees.
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.)

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.
Annual license fee of $72.
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

2009-05-25T13:46:00.010-04:00

"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

2009-05-17T21:29:00.007-04:00

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

2009-05-16T11:11:00.004-04:00

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...

2009-04-28T12:42:00.006-04:00

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

2009-04-26T18:51:00.004-04:00

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

2009-04-26T18:46:00.002-04:00

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

Ten Years Out

2009-04-24T08:21:00.019-04:00

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

2009-04-12T21:09:00.003-04:00

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

2009-04-11T12:01:00.006-04:00

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

2009-04-10T22:31:00.002-04:00

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

2009-04-10T22:14:00.003-04:00

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

2009-04-09T12:03:00.003-04:00

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!

2009-04-09T10:02:00.006-04:00

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

2009-04-08T21:13:00.004-04:00

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?

Derrick Jensen on "Toxic Mimics"

2009-04-01T20:44:00.004-04:00

"If your experience is that your food comes from a supermarket and your water comes from a tap, you will defend to the death the system that brings it to you because your life depends on it. If, on the other hand, your experience is that your food comes from a land base and your water comes from a stream, you will defend to the death that land base and the stream because your life depends on it."

A Troubling Aspect of the "Green" Revolution in Agriculture

2009-03-31T22:50:00.004-04:00

A clear explanation of the science of the most radical transformation of agriculture in 10,000 years. The "green" revolution in agriculture that began to unfold fifty years ago, has simply postponed the inevitable. A century ago it was estimated that a typical farmer expended 1 calorie of energy to produce one calorie of food. With the advent of the oil age, and the introduction of mechanized farming, pesticides and herbicides, the average 1 calorie of food production now requires 10 calories of energy input. Is agriculture, and humanity, prepared for the withdrawal of oil from the food cycle?

Peak Oil Smoke & Mirrors

2009-03-29T09:42:00.001-04:00

This is a great video that clearly explains how the peak in oil production will affect everyone.

Transit drivers limited to 17 hours

2009-03-25T07:45:00.001-04:00

Transit drivers limited to 17 hours
Does it make you feel safer to hop on a bus in Ottawa knowing that your driver will have been on the job for less than 17 hours? Not to worry though, for they will have had at least six hours of rest since their last shift.

Watch this video to view a small part of an OCTranspo driver's day. In less than ten minutes approximately 100 buses, (about 10% of the entire fleet), makes its way through one four way stop intersection on the transitway. They are joined by dozens of pedestrians trying to negotiate their way. I feel particularly reassured when I hear, (about the 2:30 point in the video), with the intersection gridlocked, the sound of a bus backing up into traffic as pedestrians try to make their way. Yes, I feel safer already.

Ottawa Stadium Dilemma: Opportunity Missed?

2009-03-22T08:05:00.000-04:00

In the summer of 2003 on behalf of the Community Council of Overbrook, I gave a presentation to the transportation committee of the City of Ottawa. In it we detailed how we could greatly increase the value of the city owned baseball stadium located on Coventry Road by connecting it to the Transitway. Almost six years later, the stadium sits empty and forlorn, yet simultaneously the city fiercely debates counter proposals for two other stadiums that will require countless more millions of dollars of taxpayer money. It is yet one more example of a lack of long term vision. We built a $20 million stadium but failed to connect it to the transitway, even though it was less than 250 meters away. Now, we debate two more proposals, neither of which are accessible to the transitway.

What follows is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation we gave almost six years ago.

Slide 1

Good Morning.

Our community is one which, like much of Ottawa, has experienced significant growth in the past few years, particularly since the construction of the Ottawa Lynx Baseball Stadium in 1992. Such growth has put considerable pressure on our transportation infrastructure. Development has accelerated since 1999 and I would like to review these recent developments with you.

Slide 2

At 330 Coventry Road, at the corner of Lola Street, a large Canadian Tire Store.

Slide 3

At 100 Coventry Road, where it intersects with the Vanier Parkway, a Hampton Inn.

Slide 4

Last year, the Department of National Defense completed construction of a large complex at 295 Coventry Road, across the street from the Lynx stadium.

Slide 5

Also in the past year we have seen completion of a new intensive housing development at 1126 Lola Street. This fronts directly on Coventry Road, stretching from almost in front of the Hampton Inn property, to well behind the DND complex, which you can see on the far right of the screen

Slide 6

As we speak, even more development is occurring, with a 10 storey hotel complex and meeting facility being constructed at 200 Coventry Road. It is located behind the Hampton Inn, and in close proximity to the stadium, as can be seen in the photograph on the screen.

In addition, although I don’t have a photograph, considerable expansion has also occurred at the RCMP headquarters building at 1200 Vanier Parkway. Over 2000 employees are located in this one facility.

Slide 7

The question is, what is missing?

As you can see from the past few slides, very intense development has occurred, and continues to occur in a stretch of Coventry Road between Lola Street and the Vanier Parkway, a distance of less than 600 meters.

All this expansion, hundreds of new employees, lots of commercial activity, but no improvement in access to the transportation infrastructure to service this growth. It is the contention of the Community Council of Overbrook that a transportation solution exists less than 250 meters away.

Slide 8

Yes, less than 250 meters from the city-owned stadium is an under-utilized Octranspo transitway station. All it lacks is access. Improved access is one of the key components of our proposed Official Plan. As has been noted in this document, and I quote:

Shifting from an emphasis on mobility to one of accessibility means creating land use patterns that reduce the need to travel great distances across the city and encourage alternatives to car travel. More compact and mixed-use development throughout developing areas of the city and a stronger series of urban centres to anchor the transit system is essential to achieving our transportation goals.

The importance of such a link was recognized in 1991when the stadium was first developed. Once again I quote, this time from a study conducted by the Region:

From a regional perspective, the site is highly accessible being located at the intersection of the Vanier Parkway and the Queensway. However, while the site is easily accessible by automobile, there is relatively poor transit access. A pedestrian bridge linking the site to the transitway at the Train Station may be considered which would improve this situation.

The Community Council of Overbrook agrees with the goals of the proposed Official Plan and urges the city to include construction of a pedestrian overpass linking the Octranspo station at the Via Train station with Coventry Road as a priority in this document. As you can see on the map, an area of intense development is located on Coventry Road, on the north side of the Queensway. Valuable transportation infrastructure is located less than 250 meters from a potential access point, on the south side of the Queensway.

Slide 9

As you can see from this list, there are many businesses within 500 meters of a potential access point. At the top of this list is a city owned facility, the Ottawa Lynx Stadium. It would enjoy greatly improved access to our premier transportation infrastructure. As our city becomes more congested, it is vital that this link be established to maintain and enhance the viability of this excellent facility.

By reviewing this list, however, you can also see that thousands of employees and customers would benefit from improved access to mass transit on a daily basis.

Slide 10

To conclude, the key phrase here is improved accessibility.

This pedestrian overpass would connect the transitway with over two dozen large and medium sized businesses, linking thousands of employees and customers. It would greatly improve access to the Ottawa Lynx Stadium, an excellent city-owned facility. It would reduce automobile congestion and the resulting air pollution. It would increase use of the under-utilized Octranspo infrastructure at the Via Train Station. And, it is compatible with the goals of the proposed Official Plan.

The Community Council of Overbrook understands that development will happen in our community, as it will throughout the City, in the next twenty years and beyond. We feel it is imperative, however, that the necessary accessibility infrastructure be put in place to support and service this growth. This will help us ensure that we attain our ultimate goal of sustainable development. We then will truly find ourselves in a liveable, prosperous city.

Slide 1Slide 1

The Power of Community - How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

2009-03-18T22:26:00.001-04:00

A 53 minute video that includes an excellent explanation of peak oil.

Transitions Towns - How Communities Can Power Down - Peak Oil as an Opportunity, Not a Crisis

2009-03-18T19:53:00.006-04:00

So far, only one city in Canada, Peterboro, is embarking on this process. This is a lengthy, in-depth interview with Rob Hopkins, a co-originator of the concept.

Matt Simmons on Peak Oil

2009-03-18T17:27:00.002-04:00

Matt Simmons on The Agenda

The Credit Crisis Visualized

2009-03-10T13:36:00.001-04:00

The Crisis of Credit, or how we got into this mess.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Thomas Friedman on the Economics of "Stuff"

2009-03-10T12:37:00.006-04:00

Questioning the concept of infinite expansion of consumption is receiving mainstream media attention.

In an article intriguingly titled "The Inflection is Near?" three time Pulitzer prize winning writer and New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman suggests we need to

...step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

He then points out that:

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...
We can’t do this anymore.

He then links this to the issue of climate change and long term sustainability.

“We created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on to our children,” said Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org. We have been getting rich by depleting all our natural stocks — water, hydrocarbons, forests, rivers, fish and arable land — and not by generating renewable flows.
“You can get this burst of wealth that we have created from this rapacious behavior,” added Romm. “But it has to collapse, unless adults stand up and say, ‘This is a Ponzi scheme. We have not generated real wealth, and we are destroying a livable climate ...’ Real wealth is something you can pass on in a way that others can enjoy.”

What I see him describing is the inevitable consequence of unrestrained globalization fed by the ever increasing consumption of energy during the latter half of the twentieth century. Everyone thought (and most continue to believe) that expansion of economic growth is not only inevitable but necessary. Few people, it seems, are satisfied with what they have and constantly search for more. It is what the western way of life seems to be built on.

Interestingly, though, Friedman has been a promoter of globalization in his books The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat. Does this recent column represent a shift in his thinking?

The comments on this article are quite telling. More and more of us are starting to understand that we are on a freight train that is recklessly heading out of control in the fog. It is time to slow down.

Redefining "Standard of Living"

2009-03-10T11:39:00.002-04:00

This is a comment posted at the New York Times in response to Thomas Friedman's article "The Inflection is Near?"

"We created a way of raising standards of living that we can't possibly pass on to our children."

The problem, Mr. Friedman, is how we define "standard of living." The conventional definition needs an overhaul.

If Person A owns a mansion, several cars and a yacht, he is said to have a high standard of living. If Person B owns very little, but takes his daughter fishing, watches his son play baseball, reads Tennyson, listens to Mozart, and visits the local art museum, no one comments on his living standard. Why?

There is no reason we cannot improve our standard of living. We just need to revise the definition.

— Steve Blevins, Oklahoma City

So true.

Barrack Obama Comes to Ottawa

2009-02-19T12:16:00.002-05:00

I happened to be standing in the right place at the right time to capture the arrival of President Barrack Obama as his motorcade drove down Colonel By Drive next to the Rideau Canal in Ottawa.

Letter to the Editor Re: Virgin Radio Ads

2009-02-01T15:22:00.003-05:00

I have fired off the following "Letter to the Editor" of the Ottawa Citizen, with copies to management at Virgin Radio. I'll be curious to see (1) if it's published and (2) what response I get from Virgin, if any.

To: Letter Editor, Ottawa Citizen

To use the serious social problem of unwanted teenage pregnancy as a vehicle to promote a business as Virgin Radio has done is disrespectful and hurtful. This campaign is counter-productive to developing a comprehensive solution as it serves to stoke the baser predatory instincts of some men.

I am a male who enjoys hard rock music. This does not mean, however, that I will be whipped into a sexual frenzy by listening to the tunes played on Virgin Radio. I have more control than that, as should every one of us. To suggest otherwise is not only offensive, it is wrong.

The marketing moguls of Astral Media view this campaign as part of an effort that "...will build on its heritage to feature a re-energized rock format aimed at 25- to 54-year-old men." This campaign seeks to attract their target audience by, in part, legitimizing the portrayal of men as sexual predators. Unwanted teenage pregnancy as a result of irresponsible sexual behaviour is not a joke. It should not be used as a marketing tool.

I have written to the local management team at Virgin Radio asking them not only to remove the offensive ads, but also publicly state that they understand that they have trivialized a very serious social problem. I believe a public apology from them is in order. A campaign on their part that encouraged donations to our area women's shelters may be a good starting point. Perhaps then they could refocus their "heritage" as one built on social responsibility instead of exploitation of our societal ills. The true "Goddesses & Gods of Rock" do not demean others and instill fear. They inspire us! Virgin Radio should consider doing the same.

Yours truly,
--
Leonard Poole

Are These Virgin Radio Ads Sexist?

2009-02-01T11:13:00.004-05:00

I like hard rock like so many other men. Apparently, though if I listen to it on Virgin Radio in Ottawa you would be well advised to lock up your daughters, as I, and many others may not be able to control ourselves. The "Gods of Rock" are about to be unleashed, and unless precautions are taken, your young daughters will be impregnated.

These ads came to my attention in a letter to the editor published this morning. Laura Sparling states:

The ads support the notion of women as property that can and should be supervised, controlled, and even locked up. They suggest that controlling women is the solution to teen pregnancy. They imply that women are not educated enough to make informed decisions about sexual health.
And besides being a slap in the face of all women, the ads are also insulting to men as they portray men as potential sexual predators. Lastly, these ads reinforce the idea that all good music is produced by men rather than including "goddesses of rock."

I couldn't agree with her more, and am doing what I can to draw attention to this issue.

Ms. Sparling has also organized an online petition. It deserves our support.

I also suggest you consider other means to let Virgin Radio know your concerns. I have sent the following comments to the staff at the station:

Greetings to everyone at Virgin Radio in Ottawa!

I tried to send a copy of the email below to your sales dept., but it bounced back. Just wanted to keep you all in the loop that I find your current ad campaign to be quite offensive and am letting my friends and neighbours know my views.

Unwanted teenage pregnancy is a very serious social problem, worldwide. To have it trivialized for a radio station ad campaign is, in my view, appalling. No doubt, we live in a part of the world where free speech is the accepted norm. I am very supportive of that. However, it goes both ways, and I am exercising my freedom as well, as I shall also be commenting on my blog.

Just because I am a male who loves hard rock, doesn't mean that I am going to be stoked into some kind of sexual frenzy by listening to your radio station. I have more control than that, and so should EVERY person. To suggest otherwise, as you do, is wrong.

At this point, the only reason I would be listening to your radio station is to find out who advertises with you, so I know who to avoid.

Not only do I expect you to remove these offensive ads, I also urge you to publicly state that you understand that you have trivialized a very serious social problem, and that you apologize for doing so.

I know, so often any kind of publicity is viewed as good publicity. In this instance, I wouldn't be so sure.

Regards,
Leonard Poole

If you share my concerns, I urge you to let Virgin Radio and your friends and neighbours know!

Virgin Radio ads give slap in face for women

2009-02-01T09:44:00.000-05:00

Virgin Radio ads give slap in face for women: "ipetitions.com/petition/nosexisminmyottawa"

Richard Branson gives a great interview, and can seem like such a nice (albeit exceedingly wealthy) guy. How does he defend this type of advertising? More on this soon........

I'm looking for a Petition that says "I Demand Less!"

2009-01-27T07:47:00.015-05:00

I must be obsessed with the notion of "peak oil". Recently I woke up in the middle of the night trying to calculate the worldwide average daily per capita consumption of this incredibly concentrated energy resource. I was thinking about what Thomas Homer Dixon had pointed out to us in his book The Upside of Down:

Three large spoonfuls of crude oil contain about the same amount of energy as eight hours of human manual labor. When we fill our car with gas, we're pouring into the tank the energy equivalent of about two years of human manual labor.

I wanted to know, if we divided this precious stuff out in an equitable manner, how much I would get. Upon rubbing the sleep out of my eyes in the morning I unearthed these numbers from Wikipedia:

(A) Total World Oil Production as of March 2008 = 87.5 mb/d
(B) Total World Population as of January, 2009 est. 6.756 billion
(C) One barrel of petroleum = 158.99 litres

A divided by B multiplied by C = my equitable share, or about 2.06 litres per day (.54 U.S. gallons/day).

I then compared this to recent U.S. consumption figures:

(A) Total U.S. Consumption as of 2005 = 20.7 mb/d
(B) Total U.S. Population as of Oct. 17, 2006 = 300,000,000
(C) One barrel of petroleum = 158.99 litres

A divided by B multiplied by C = what America takes, per person, about 10.97 litres per day (2.9 U.S. gallons/day)

I sat stunned looking at those numbers for some time. I re-calculated them. I crunched them some more. I knew this was a gross over-simplification. Yet, it was quite obvious that Americans (and I expect Canadian numbers to be similar, although I haven't searched out our numbers yet) consume far in excess of their equitable share of world oil resources daily. And why do we consume so much? Because we can. And, of course, just last week, we all heard Barrack Obama say:

"We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense."

How can he say with a straight face to these people living in this neighbourhood in Indonesia:

That Americans have nothing to apologize for when they use fuel for the likes of this:

I like Barrack Obama. I like him a lot. However, ultimately, someone needs to start saying it the way it is. Americans, and the rest of us in the gluttonous western world, have a lot to apologize for. It's time someone started speaking the truth to the masses. As pop psychologist "Dr. Phil" likes to tell us:

"You can't change what you don't acknowledge."

After looking at these very sad and disturbing numbers and photos, it helped me understand why I cringe every time I hear another populist demand for "more of this" or "more of that". A union wants higher wages, or this sector of the economy must be bailed out, or we must protect our pensions, so that we can be secure, retire, and play golf during our "golden" years. Actually, no. It is the constant demand for more that is killing us. We not only appropriate through our profligate spending far in excess of what is our fair share, we also, in essence, are stealing from our own grandchildren. Bring me a petition that will demand less. Where do I sign!?!?

Exploring Google Streetview - Brooklyn Bridge Then, and Now

2009-01-07T08:32:00.020-05:00

It's Cool - But Is It Ethical?

My curiosity in Google Streetview was first raised a couple of years ago when I saw a small car with California plates and a camera spinning around on its roof driving up and down the streets of my neighbourhood here in Ottawa. Expecting to see myself on the net I kept checking, but, I never appeared. Apparently, this latest incursion of Google hasn't yet extended into Canada.

However, it certainly covers the U.S. Want to check out where you went to college oh so many years ago, or perhaps re-visit that vacation you took? Fly over and zoom in, surreptitiously. No one will know you are watching. (Then again, perhaps "they" will, whoever "they" are. More on this issue further down the page.)

This morning, then, I decided to go for a drive in Google "Streetview" and explore the streets of Lower Manhattan. I began my journey using an old photo I took of the Brooklyn Bridge back in 1970 as a starting point. I wanted to see if I could figure out, at least approximately, where I was when I snapped the shutter.I took this shot while on a "field trip" of The Big Apple organized by my Urban Geography class from Queens' University. I could recognize the Brooklyn Bridge, but, did it look anything similar today, I wondered? Not about to organize another field trip, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to use "virtual" reality to help me answer the question.

This is what I found:

View Larger Map

Thirty eight years later, the roadway is essentially untouched, with the same concrete barricades. It seems more people friendly, however, with cyclists and pedestrians enjoying the view. Gone is the derelict abandoned dockyard look. Massive roadway signage, though, is blocking the previously open view of the Brooklyn Bridge, and office towers now dominate.

A fascinating aspect of Google "Streetview" is that if you put your mouse over the above photo, you can use the controls to move around 360 degrees, left right, or up and down, progress along the street or go back simply by clicking on the arrow. Can't do that on my old photo!

This morning I watched an interesting BBC piece on Google. They discuss the corporate philosophy of promoting innovation by encouraging employees to devote at least one fifth of their time to pet projects which may not necessarily "go anywhere". Perhaps they could start collecting dated photos and video and put them together in a sort of "timeline" through the ages.
Want to see New York in 1900, they ask? Click here! Then again, perhaps Toronto's Union Station or its Highway 401 "bypass" during the 1950's would be more interesting to you.

This of course begs the question; Do we really want to be seen, everywhere? Or, the corollary, do we really need to see everywhere? This is simultaneously cool, and scary. Lots of questions that most of us never visioned we would ever be posing. Is this the Orwellian future that we thought was impossible? Or, is this open access to virtually limitless information the dawning of a new age of populist empowerment? Who gets to see what information? Who gets to decide what to collect, what to keep, and what to share? Is the information world flat, or are there multitudes of hidden, (and not so hidden) barricades to data?

I and many others wouldn't be asking these questions if Google hadn't launched this, and other projects. That, in itself, is stimulating. But, what will the outcome be? How do we ensure ethical behaviour in the use of these technologies? But then, who gets to determine the definition of ethics?

To what extent might Google get to define ethics? Should they? "Don't be evil", the motto of Google proclaims. It "is tailored to the popular image of the company - and the information economy itself - as a clean, green twenty-first century antidote to the toxic excesses of the past century's industries."(1) But, how green is it? As has been noted in such publications as the Economist, every time we click the "search" button a Google server takes another sip from the energy straw. In 2006 American data centers consumed more energy than American televisions. In 2005, as Google prepared for the ever increasing demands for power to feed their server farms, they concluded a deal at The Dalles, Oregon (site of a significant hydro-electric power source) with local officials that included access to federally subsidized energy and other tax breaks. This one server farm will consume enough energy to power 82,000 homes. According to IDC, a market-research firm, America alone has more than 7,000 data centres. And the number of servers is expected to grow to 15.8m by 2010—three times as many as a decade earlier. The EPA estimates that data center power consumption will double by 2011.

Perhaps, then, we need to better understand the full cost of seemingly limitless computing power. Ginger Strand, in a March, 2008 Harper's article offers this conclusion:

As the functions long performed by personal computers come to be executed at these far-flung data centers, the technology industry has rapturously rebranded the Internet as "the cloud". The metaphor is apt, both for our foggy notions of a green web and for the storm that awaits a culture that squanders its resources.

Youtube, and searches for American Idol (the top search on Google News in 2007), powered by the energy grid. Is this an ethical use of a dwindling resource? Would some ethicists consider it evil? How would Google or any of their cloud computing competitors respond?

Google is proud to point out that their business model is different. They seek to promote computing in the cloud that is based on server based software that is "free" to use. While it is true that users such as you and I are forking over less cash to install software than we did in the past, we are now subject to Google's advertising based business model. As we know, the purpose of advertising is to promote consumption. That is how they get paid. And so, the consumption cycle increases. Any thoughts on how this will play out? I guess somehow, they just think that we can continually increase our consumption, and the wheels can keep spinning. They may want to consider the words of Kenneth Boulding:

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

Perhaps we should include technology gurus in this list of believers. Consumption growth needs to be reversed. How do we turn the tide? Is Google interested in the answer to that question?

And yes, I know, that with every keystroke and click of my mouse, I am part of the problem. My hope is that in some small way, these actions can also be part of the solution. And, of course, perhaps Google is as well. Time, as "they" say, will tell. The final question then for this post is:

Do we have enough time to wait for the answer?

Dan Gardner on Why He Writes

2009-01-02T12:43:00.006-05:00

Dan Gardner-Provocateur

Dan Gardner opens his article by provocatively telling us that he doesn't care what his readers think. Now firmly gripping our attention, he moves on to a discussion of Sir Francis Bacon's observation that

"human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it".

Fast forward 300 years and Bertrand Russell tells us:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

Modern psychologists have dubbed it "confirmation bias." As Dan points out, once we have an opinion of any sort, we seek to confirm it. He equates surrounding oneself with opinions that confirm our beliefs (imagine George Bush, in bath robe and slippers, watching Fox News), with slipping into a warm bath.

As an opinion writer, he sees his role as akin to turning on the cold tap while we relax in comfort. He encourages us to:

look for information that contradicts your views and give it real consideration -- while remaining aware that the brain that is doing the considering is biased against it.

Yes, he makes me think. A cold shower is good for the soul and wakens the brain. Of course, that being said, I notice that I continue to hold tightly on to many opinions, such as:

A world that continues to increase consumption of material goods is on a collision course with physical reality
George W. Bush has been the worst President of the United States in my living memory
The term "Fox News" is an oxymoron, and
Stephen Harper and his brand of Conservatism will never get my vote

Of course, truth, as is often said, is stranger than fiction. What is most important is that I own my biases, and keep an open mind. However, in the same breath, I am deeply concerned that the planet may not afford us the time for such petulant navel gazing. It has been suggested by many that ultimately, the planet doesn't care one way or the other if the human species continues to exist. It will continue to exist with, or without us. If it had the opportunity to voice an opinion on such a matter, it probably would prefer that we not be here, given the mess we are creating.

Workers of the World Relax

2009-01-02T11:05:00.006-05:00

Here is an interesting video that explains how the traditional view that we can have economic growth forever is bumping into the harsh physical reality of biology and physics. It also points out that increasing energy efficiency often results in more, not less energy consumption. Confused? Watch the video.

Herman Daly's Views on The Current Economic Situation

2009-01-02T11:04:00.001-05:00

Herman Daly: The Disconnection Between Financial Assets and Real Asssets

According to Wikipedia,

Herman Daly (born 1938) is an American ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park in the United States.

He was Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, where he helped to develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development. While there, he was engaged in environmental operations work in Latin America.

Before joining the World Bank, Daly was Alumni Professor of Economics at Louisiana State University. He is a co-founder and associate editor of the journal, Ecological Economics.

He is also a recipient of an Honorary Right Livelihood Award (the alternative Nobel Prize), the Heineken Prize for Environmental Science from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Sophie Prize (Norway) and the Leontief Prize from the Global Development and Environment Institute, Man of the Year 2008 Adbusters.

In his view,

The current financial debacle is really not a “liquidity” crisis as it is often euphemistically called. It is a crisis of overgrowth of financial assets relative to growth of real wealth—pretty much the opposite of too little liquidity.

Essentially, we have come to believe that our dreamlike ability to increase how much "stuff" we produce through increased borrowing actually equates to real wealth, that is, what we have actually paid for. Follow the link for more.

"Demotorization"?!?! Could it Happen Here?

2008-12-31T17:26:00.001-05:00

TheStar.com | Wheels | Japan's cars popular abroad, spurned at home

Japan's younger generation is turning away from car ownership. The automotive industry calls it `kuruma banare", roughly translated as "demotorization".

The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association predicts auto sales in Japan will fall to 4.86 million in 2009 – the first time below five million in more than three decades. This year, sales are projected at 5.11 million, the worst since 1980.

Could this ever happen in North America? Well, we can dream, can't we?

From globeandmail.com: Prime ministers in exile

2008-12-31T10:22:00.000-05:00

Prime ministers in exile

Yes, on this issue, we could learn from the Americans.

Economic Armageddon - Or Re-Birth?

2008-12-24T09:39:00.020-05:00

Many people must view my stated aim to "promote a Post-Carbon World, where we are learning to consume less, while enjoying life more" as akin to promoting economic Armageddon. For those who believe that humanity should forever expect to produce and consume more it must seem heretical to propose that we need to consider ways to enjoy life by consuming less. It can seem particularly galling to people who are becoming unemployed during this economic slowdown.

The history of my anti-consumerist slant goes back decades. I first started to shy away from the "buy-buy-buy" mentality of Christmas during the early seventies as I finished university. A self-described "hippie" at the time, I turned to making gifts rather than buying them. At the same time I started my still held practice of shopping at thrift stores such as the Salvation Army for clothes and other items whenever possible. I took on the "Reduce, Re-Use, Recycle" mantra long before it was embraced by the corporate world.

I expect I was viewed as eccentric by many of my friends and family, but, the concept worked for me. It wasn't until much later, just over the past few years, that I began to fully grasp the extent to which humanity's promotion of a collectively wasteful lifestyle of over consumption was destroying our planet. I realized that we were, quite literally, consuming ourselves. Much more than fouling our nest, we were eating it whole, and burning the refuse without a thought to cleaning up after ourselves. Ever increasing growth in world wide consumption levels of goods and energy was not a sustainable option. In the words of Kenneth Boulding: Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

I saw the world as being on a drunken binge of over consumption fueled by the promotion of greed. Fueled by the greed of those who already owned and consumed far in excess of their fair share and told us that we too could dream of unending riches. The ultimate Ponzi scheme. As the American economy lurched toward recession a couple of years ago, George W. Bush urged Americans to go shopping.

Like sheep being herded to slaughter, Americans took the advice of their President, borrowed against their homes, and went ever deeper into debt.

This never was a situation that we could simply shop our way out of. It was the encouragement of irresponsible spending and taking of debt that exacerbated an already shaky world economy. As Dan Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen recently pointed out, "this is going to hurt and hurt some more." We aren't in Kansas anymore, and closing our eyes, clicking our heels together and wishing we were elsewhere will not get us out of this mess.

For my part, for several years now, I have endeavoured to rein in my over consumptive ways and expectations, in preparation for what I saw as the ultimate crash. I felt that it would be a necessary life lesson to be "learning to consume less, while enjoying life more. " (I guess I wanted to be ahead of the curve on at least one thing.) Seriously, though, believing in ever increasing material riches and consumption simply seemed such an empty pursuit. I have sought to replace it with an appreciation of the more intangible yet just as real riches that I am surrounded by. These include family, friends, and, fortunately, good health. I live in a part of the planet that is peaceful, where citizens enjoy freedom of conscience. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but, when I look around the world, I am very grateful for where I happen to live.

Unfortunately, it appears that restructuring is being forced upon us. It is very painful for so many people to have their dreams of undulating wealth into retirement smashed on the rocks of this current economic shipwreck. People have seen retirement investments vanish, and those dreams of unending travel and leisure vanish with them. What to do?

It may seem ephemeral, and of little solace during these very difficult times, but, I urge everyone to consider the possibility that forever pursuing material consumption really is a trap. It traps us not only financially, but spiritually. Humans, apparently, are the only creatures on the planet to excessively consume beyond their need. We readily allow ourselves to be manipulated into having our whimsical desires transformed into wants and then into needs. We need to step back, and take a breath, and appreciate.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, to all. In the words of my good friend Paul, received in email earlier today,

Hug everyone who will let you!

The Speed of Social Media - Twitter, Blogs, etc.

2008-12-23T13:31:00.004-05:00

Nora Young Interviews Ethan Zuckerman on Xenophiles and Cultural Bridge Figures

It was only a few days ago that I decided to sign up for "Twitter", primarily so I could learn more about it. Didn't really know why people would want to know what I was doing "right now", but I dove in. I then learned that I could "follow" others. This lead me to receiving twitter feeds from people such as Nora Young, host of the CBC Radio One show Spark, and Steve Paikin at "The Agenda" on TVO.

The above link, which I received only an hour or so ago, (via Twitter), takes you to an interview Nora did with Ethan Zuckerman that will air on January 7. Well worth listening to. He speaks very well about the transformative age we live in and the opportunities that exist for building cross cultural bridges. Have a listen.

For the time being, Twitter, (and Spark!) are providing food for thought.

The Crush of the Automobile

2008-12-18T09:47:00.017-05:00

My decision to give up car ownership several years ago has required me to turn to other forms of transportation. For local travel I initially turned to cycling and walking, while carrying a strip of bus tickets in my wallet as backup. Since June, for several reasons, I have been using the local bus system more (known as OCTranspo here in Ottawa) , so I have purchased a bus pass, in conjunction with membership in a car sharing organization, vrtucar. So far so good, until, a week ago, within hours of the city being hit by its first major snowstorm, and in the midst of the already increased traffic generated by the holiday season, the bus drivers went on strike.

I now recognize the extent to which I had become dependent on OCTranspo for my sense of freedom. Over this past six months I have enjoyed the hop on hop off freedom that a bus pass provides. Now, my world feels a little bit smaller.

So much of this sense of a "smaller" world though, can be attributed to the expansive landscape that I have come to assume to be my rightful place on the planet. Back at the turn of the last century people shopped and socialized locally because, well, there really were no other options. Britannia Bay (part of what is now western Ottawa), was considered a summer retreat area because people went there seasonally, for recreation. It was not part of the daily commute of the masses.

Historic street scenes, as shown below in this 1900 photo of Mulberry Street in Little Italy, New York, inevitably show cities teeming with people who had everything they needed within walking distance.

Similar scenes can be observed in modern day European cities where the streetscape came before the automobile, as shown below in Dublin Ireland in 2003.

But, here in North America, this is what we contend with daily. Not a human being to be seen, yet so much activity over such a wide area.

Several years ago, as our community of Overbrook wrestled with yet another public school closure and its conversion into an upscale private school (tuition $10,000+), much of the concern was about the traffic that would be generated. My comment was that I didn't mind visitors to the community, but I wished they didn't feel it necessary to bring two tons of metal with them every time they dropped in to bring their kids to school.

Our cities have become great car dumps. Is it any wonder we are so spread out? We don't have any room left for people.

More than Newspapers are Closing

2008-12-17T17:23:00.003-05:00

As the cars whiz by, does anyone notice that the Newstand has closed? (One bare light bulb is left on, but, sadly, no one is home.) Less newspapers being published, less places needed to sell them.

News You Can Lose: The New Yorker

2008-12-17T14:03:00.000-05:00

News You Can Lose: Financial Page: The New Yorker

The future of our news media is unfolding. What will be left in a couple of years? As James Surowiecki points out in this New Yorker article, strangely enough, it isn't that people are using print media less, in fact, they are using it more.

The difference is that today they don’t have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free. That’s a consumer’s dream, but eventually it’s going to collide with reality: if newspapers’ profits vanish, so will their product.

Dan Gardner at the Citizen Shouts the Warning. Is Anyone Listening?

2008-12-17T08:49:00.002-05:00

Don't be fooled by low gas prices -- the crunch is nearly here

Dan Gardner understands that the second economic shoe is going to drop in the not too distant future. Short term economic thinkers (which, sadly, is indicative of the approach of most of us) see falling gas prices as relief. It will prove to be the reverse. Lower prices will inevitably encourage consumption and once again the world will bump up against the limited supply, and the upward price spiral will start again. I certainly hope Dan Gardner is correct when he suggests that the election of Barack Obama is going to make a difference. He may get it, but will he be able to convince enough of his colleagues and the American public that they must begin to think long term on this file if their children are to have a future?

I will only begin to believe we have started to turn the corner on this in public attitude if personal fuel consumption continues to drop even if prices drop. Then we will know that collectively, consumers are paying attention. People need to stop wasting the stuff irrespective of price. Anyone think that will happen? That is my approach, but, I am probably the oddest eccentric on my block. That's what the world needs, more eccentrics! (Of course, then we wouldn't be deemed eccentric if we were the majority, now would we?.)

Facebook second thoughts.

2008-12-16T21:31:00.003-05:00

Watching this video does present Facebook in a very creepy light. However, I also have this image of myself as the marketer's worst nightmare. I am very low on the consumer totem pole. I go out of my way to find alternatives to making purchases. Whenever I purchase a "durable" good, I expect it to be ultimately durable, ie it will be the last time I purchase such an item. I would be curious to know what these so called "data miners" would make of my profile. Somehow, I expect that they would wish they had been digging a hole somewhere else.

IEA begins to accept the reality of Peak Oil

2008-12-16T17:37:00.004-05:00

Global oil supply will peak in 2020, says IEA

With investment collapsing in the oil patch, the International Energy Agency (IEA) is now predicting that conventional crude output could plateau by 2020.

As much as the discussion of peak oil has now penetrated into the mainstream media in recent years, it still seems to have very little traction with the general public.

Prices have collapsed in recent months, so many consumers have been breathing a sigh of relief. The cost of that long commute has been halved since July '08 and fingers are as firmly as ever gripped around the steering wheel. Inevitably, these lower prices will be a part of encouraging increased consumption. Of course, as this ultimately starts to "fuel" the economy to "recovery" increased demand will face the wall of diminishing supply, and the upward price spiral will start again.

For those who are thinking long term, now is the time to be developing a post carbon world, not waiting until there is precious little carbon to burn.

Economics cannot overcome geologic reality. We may already have reached a peak of squeezing, at most, 87 million barrels per day out of our sad planet.

This Shouldn't Be About Who Shouts the Loudest or Has the Biggest Advertising Budget

2008-12-03T08:06:00.006-05:00

If Stephen Harper's blustery performance in the House yesterday is any indication, the Conservatives apparently want to boil the Coalition debate down to who can shout the loudest. He once again is showing his true colours. The sign 'I am a Consensus Building Democrat' is not one that would hang easily around Mr. Harper's neck without evoking laughter. It is one thing to hold firm to your beliefs. We all have that right in a democracy. But to bluster and berate as he has sunk to is not impressive.

Making derogatory comments that the coalition partners have made a 'deal with the devil' by aligning themselves with 'separatists', may play well to his core constituency, but whether he likes it or not, these 'separatists' were duly elected by more than 1.3 million Quebecers. Mr. Harper may disagree with their view regarding Quebec's future within Canada, as I do, but tossing insulting hand grenades at whomever you disagree with is not helpful and shows an unseemly amount of disrespect from the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Harper, show some respect for those who disagree with you. I urge you to call off the attack dogs. To those in the coalition, I urge you to not sink to Mr. Harper's level.

It's Too Bad...

2008-12-02T22:53:00.003-05:00

That so many of the participants in this current Canadian political dilemma see it in an "us versus them" perspective.

We all are in this together. We all want the same thing. We want a safe and secure place to raise a family. We need to know that our parents are well looked after, and that our children are safe when they go to the park. That is what we all want.

We need to know that not only our family, but our friends and neighbours are properly fed and have adequate housing, and access to a good education.

We have so much to learn about sharing power, and listening to those who do not agree with us. Let's work on getting wth that program.

Responding to the Critics of the Coalition

2008-12-02T14:59:00.009-05:00

I find it is interesting to listen to the unfolding debate regarding the current Canadian political situation. There is virtual universal condemnation of the heavy handed politically motivated "economic update statement" made by the the Conservatives last Thursday. There has been serious questioning of the judgment of Stephen Harper. Randall Denley of the Ottawa Citizen deemed it "one of the dumbest stunts in the history of Canadian politics". It is hard to imagine that if Harper had the power to wind the clock back a week that he wouldn't want to tweek that "economic update statement" just a bit. Looks like it is too late to put that genie back in the bottle. (Or, Jack back in the box.)

Now, however, there is serious criticism being leveled at those of the Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloq who have negotiated the terms of a proposed coalition government. Much of it, I don't necessarily disagree with. John Geiger, The Globe & Mail editorial board editor views Stephane Dion as

...a guy who could not control his own party, pretending that he can now control a government populated with his former political enemies in the NDP, propped up by separatists — the very people that Mr. Dion entered public life to defeat. Now he's going to give them legitimacy, he's going to also give them more power in Ottawa than they have ever enjoyed. More smart, yes. But this isn't smart. This is dumb.

He further opines that:

...if Mr. Dion becomes prime minister, he's only going to be there for a few months. And to accomplish that, he has had to enter a pact with union-beholden social democrats and separatists. Mr. Dion lacks the moral authority to form a government.

He characterizes the proposed coalition as

...inherently unstable. These three leaders have been at each others throats throughout their political lives. They have no common policies, only a common interest in attaining power through the back door. No matter what their agreement states, it seems highly doubtful that a Prime Minister Dion could keep this together for long, nor is there much hope that Mr. Dion could deliver the kind of leadership required during such uncertain times. That's the point: it's time for leadership in Ottawa, and since the incumbent prime minister and opposition leader are incapable of providing it, we need look elsewhere.

It is this final sentence that leads to the recommendation of the G&M that Harper resign. And the chances of that happening? I can see the headline now;

Harper Resigns! Leaderless Conservatives Beg Canadian Public For Time!

It is true that the Coalition proposes to install a lame duck leader as Prime Minister responsible for governing what may be a rickety coalition. Some have characterized it as akin to "herding cats." But, whether we like it or not, they represent a majority of the Members of Parliament that we elected less than two months ago. It is unfortunate for Stephen Harper and his supporters (which numbered just under 38% of the electorate in our recent election) that he is apparently about to lose the confidence of the House. He, and the rest of us will now have to deal with the consequences of his ill thought out "economic update statement" of last Thursday.

Ultimately, while we can argue ad nauseam about the viability of the proposed coalition and whether or not it would be the correct path for the country, there is no disputing the right of those making the proposal to do so under our current parliamentary system. If it goes ahead it will be a very difficult process. My hope is that if it does proceed, that those involved will truly start to behave like consensus builders who seek to find what unites us rather than hyper partisan politicians whose primary goal is to find what issues divide us so that they can exploit it for there own political gain.

The only alternative to the coalition proposal is more of the same from Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Does anyone honestly believe that they will ever evolve into a group that truly understands that for a minority parliament to work, it requires compromise and communication with your opposition? Can anyone foresee a time when they would would be able to regain the trust of the current opposition? I think this is why people such as Bob Rae are saying "There is no going back." The trust was broken, and the opposition is now intent on changing the face of parliament. Call it a power grab, call it partisan politics, isn't that the game the Conservatives have been playing all along? The real question is, will anything change if this new group comes to power? That will be the real test.

Reflecting the Will of the People

2008-12-02T08:53:00.005-05:00

To suggest that only having a Conservative government in power somehow reflects the 'will of the people', as Stephen Harper would have us believe, is quite a stretch. The Conservatives, with support of less than 38% of those who chose to vote, were, as a result of the traditions of our parliamentary democracy, rightfully given the first opportunity to form a government. Such a government however, only remains in place so long as it has the confidence of the House.

When Stephen Harper points out that "Canadians didn't elect Stephane Dion to be Prime Minister of Canada", he is correct. However, Canadians didn't elect Stephen Harper either. We don't have a Presidential system in this country. We don't elect the Prime Minister, we elect Members of Parliament who in turn choose the leader of the country. Apparently, a majority of our MPs are choosing Stephane Dion.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are treading on very dangerous ground when they try to whip up sentiment that the proposed coalition is "an affront to the democratic will of Canadians". They may not like it, but they need to understand that this is how parliamentary democracy works. If this coalition does become the government, it will be far more reflective of the "will of the people" than the less than 38% of the electorate that the Conservatives represent.

Greg Sorbara Says It Well

2008-12-01T08:30:00.003-05:00

An historic opportunity to put Canada ahead of partisanship

Here is an excerpt of Greg Sorbara's comments directed at the federal Liberals.

For the federal Liberal caucus members, they must come together and create something larger than each, something larger than three very talented colleagues among them – Michael Ignatieff, Dominic LeBlanc, and Bob Rae – who must set aside personal goals in the short run and assume a shared responsibility at this critical moment in concert with Mr. Dion. These four are thoughtful Canadians very capable of a sense of doing the right thing that we need so desperately at this moment.
The Liberal caucus must choose both a process and outcome worthy of the short term moment at hand, with concurrent concern for its future, and the nation's, in mind. They must opt for stability, integrity, humility and respected and respectful collective leadership.
Regarding a more permanent expression of leadership, my Federal cousins need to construct a process and plan, along with a historically composed Cabinet that must serve our nervous nation with calm and strategic intellect. Over the next number of months, their work must be free of distractions of a personal and political nature if a promising accord of fiscally prudent and progressive decisions are to be made and set in motion.

Another reasoned voiced from "the others". Yes, if all involved in contemplating the removal of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives from office can heed the call to rise above partisanship and walk the talk of true leadership, this could work. The big fear is that no sooner will they form the government, but that the silly name calling and quest for power driven infighting will begin yet again. I can only hope that the likes of Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stephane Dion and others who may be at the helm of this collaborative effort are really listening to what people like Greg Sorbara are saying. The last election result did provide them with the legitimacy to act as a coalition. Behaving as a coalition, however, requires quite a different skill set from behaving as a majority government. It requires ongoing compromise within as well as with those on the opposing bench.

Can those Liberals questing for power within the Party (are you listening Bob, Iggy and Dominic?) put asside their aspiration and understand that there are larger issues at stake? Can they park their egos somewhere?

Once Again, Denley Nails It

2008-11-30T09:33:00.001-05:00

Now is the time to lead the country, not pick fights

As I've said before, I don't always agree with Denley, but he nails Harper to the wall on this one.

What in the world motivated Prime Minister Stephen Harper to bring his own government to the brink of defeat? Is he bored? Did he bet one of his colleagues that he could find a way to exhume Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and make him prime minister?
Harper's retraction of his pointlessly antagonistic plan to stop public financing of political parties puts an end to what will long be remembered as one of the dumbest stunts in the history of Canadian politics. Consider it. The guy wins an increased minority and everything is cruising along as he says the right things about the economy, until he comes up with virtually the only issue that could possibly unite the three opposition parties. Then, Harper dares his opponents to defeat his government over political party financing, something that matters not a whit to the average Canadian.

A Coalition!?!

2008-11-29T08:03:00.011-05:00

Who would have thought it possible. A demoralized Liberal Party with a lame duck leader joining forces with the 'Dippers' to form our national government, kept in power by the Bloc. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I am part of the majority of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative Party in the last election. I therefore feel a certain sense of elation at this window of opportunity for the opposition to unite and form a coalition. The question on the minds of many is: Can they pull it off? Cobbling something together, in the short term, although it seemed unimaginable 72 hours ago, I believe will actually prove to be the easy part. It is becoming clear that the 'throwing for the head' approach of Mr. Harper has so incensed the opposition that they now are beginning to dream the impossible dream of replacing the Conservatives. The much bigger question is: Can they rise above the absurd and childish partisanship bickering so prevalent in Canadian politics and be honest with us as they propose a new path for our country? Can they actually start behaving like the consensus building leaders that we need?

Last night, just in time for the supper hour newscasts, Stephen Harper delayed by one week a confidence vote in his government. The headlines read Harper Buys Time.

I have no doubt that his intent is to provide time to demonize the opposition as a bunch of sore losers who want to pervert the results of the last election. (Perhaps he needs to be reminded that a majority of Canadians voted for his opposition in Parliament, yet his party, with about 38% support, gets to run the government.)

I urge the opposition to take this gift of time to properly consider their strategy. What are they going to tell Canadians about how they shall govern as a coalition?

What I am looking for (which sounds laughable even as I try to write this next phrase), is honesty from my politicians, regardless of political stripe. I want politicians to stop pandering to me with nauseating sound bites and start explaining why they think their proposals are correct for our country. (Note to Jack: I know you like to sit around the kitchen table, and that you are trying to build your NDP 'brand', but, really, enough is enough.)

If a coalition is to have any hope of succeeding it must be based on an honest appraisal of the Canadian political scene. A joint statement needs to come from those who propose to lead the coalition that speaks to the aspirations of as broad a base of the electorate as possible. Here are some elements that need to be addressed by the coalition partners:

Speak directly to the 38% of voting Canadians who chose the Conservatives and respect their choice.
Recognize the immensity of the task before them. Acknowledge that they are seeking to do something that has never been done before.
Provide concrete examples of what they intend to do with a timetable.
Explain how they shall resolve conflict within the coalition.
State clearly that they do not want to continually play political chicken with the everyday lives of Canadians. State their intention to rise above childish political oneupmanship and make a solid commitment to principled governance.

All of those involved need to take some water with their wine as they proceed. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives may lose their grip on power because they began to act as if they had a majority when in fact they had no such thing. The Liberals and the NDP need to understand this concept if their proposed coalition is to work. With less than 20% of Canadians voting for the NDP, Jack Layton should not reasonably expect to be Canada's next Finance Minister. He needs to remember that more than a third of voters picked the Conservatives, and their right wing approach to economics. A potential coalition needs to present Canadians with a workable plan for the next couple of years and then actually walk the talk on conciliatory consensus building.

I know that this is wishful thinking in the extreme. I realize it is a lot to ask of politicians whose strongest motivation is to seek power instead of building consensus.

As has been said many times, a week is a lifetime in politics. Our politicians have that amount of time to make a case for truly representative political action in this country. I urge the opposition parties to use this time wisely, and change the face of politics in Canada.

Lets see what this next 'lifetime in politics' brings us. It should be an interesting ride. The Conservatives will be out in full spin mode as the PM urges his MPs to "use every tool at your disposal." Will Canadians continue to buy what they are selling?

(Since writing the above, Scott Reid has said it much better than I in a blog posted at the Globe & Mail.)

Retired Carleton professor tackles 'culture of greed'

2008-11-09T14:28:00.002-05:00

I thoroughly enjoyed this brief article in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, not so much for what it said, but where it ultimately took me in my search for more information on this intriguing individual.

Retired Carleton professor tackles 'culture of greed'

Someone recently asked anthropology professor Ian Prattis what future society will look like.
"I told him we would have a lower standard of living," Mr. Prattis recalls. "Second car -- no. Cottage -- no. We'd have different infrastructure just to move around, because the infrastructure in our city is not sustainable."

Here are some lines that really intrigued me.

...he sees a lower standard of living as a good thing, in the long run.

...economics is "a failed science" and ... our society suffers from a pathological "culture of greed." He has asked the Nobel committee to stop awarding a prize for economics and give one for ecology instead.
We need to abandon greed and capitalism and return to our instinctive understanding of sustainable, he argues.
Greed "is pathological. It makes people ill. It kills them. It will kill any possibility of our species being alive on this planet past this century."

Once I read this, I knew that I wanted to learn more about Ian Prattis. It turns out, according to his website, that he is

a poet and scholar, peace and environmental activist - has trained with Masters in Buddhist, Vedic and Shamanic traditions and gives dharma talks, seminars and retreats around the world.
He is the founder of Friends for Peace - a coalition of meditation, peace and environmental groups that works for peace and planetary care and also the resident teacher of a Buddhist meditation community in Ottawa, Canada - the Pine Gate Sangha.

I am hoping to meet him in the near future.

Time to rethink public transit

2008-09-04T07:09:00.000-04:00

Time to rethink public transit

I couldn't help but fire off a response to Randall Denley on this morning's article. He insists we need to gather 'all the facts' before proceeding on investment in transit. Then he fails to even mention the incredible subsidy provided to all car users; the roads.

Here is what I had to say to him this morning.

Randall,
I am hoping to have time to write a proper 'letter to the editor' response on this one.

I fully agree with you that we should be making these kinds of decisions being fully apprised of the facts. However, in your cursory analysis I believe you, like every other commentator I have read on this subject, fail to mention one of the biggest subsidies provided for automobile users; the provision of a road system. Yes, buses use roads, but they are completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cars.

And, I know, car users pay a vast array of taxes directly related to their auto use, but, the question is, do these taxes fully pay for the capital and operating costs of these roads?

Also, no one ever points out the imposition of the massive space required by all these cars. Is it any wonder that our cities lack population density when every person of voting age seems 'driven' to bring their own two tons of metal with them? A car sits idle for more than 90% of its lifetime, but we have to find space for all of them 100% of the time. They require a road to drive on, as well as a parking space at home. Such parking requirements put immense pressure on the design of our urban space. In my years of participation with my local community association, the number one question that always comes up revolves around traffic congestion. Yet, time and again, people drive to these public meetings to voice their complaint without every seeing the irony.

Yes, lets gather ALL the facts. Once compiled I believe they will state the obvious that providing sufficient infrastructure at public expense to enable everyone to own a vehicle that will provide for all of their transportation needs is much more costly than having a long term vision of redesigning our urban environments to reduce car use. Mass transit will never compete with sheer convenience of having a car in your driveway and a set of keys in your hand. My point is that the cost of providing such convenience should be born fully by the car user, not the taxpayer.

I am like you, I want to know all the facts. Lets gather them.

Leonard Poole
Overbrook

Deep Green: peak oil changes everything | Greenpeace UK

2008-08-05T22:19:00.002-04:00

Deep Green: peak oil changes everything | Greenpeace UK

Although I am skeptical of his unreferenced claim that the EROI (Energy Returned over Investment Ratio) for Alberta Tar Sands production approaches 1:1, over all I find this to be a well written article that paints a very clear picture of the approach that society needs to take in response to not only peak oil, but the the inevitable down ward slope of production of all non-renewable resources on this planet.

The way we live

2008-08-02T07:30:00.000-04:00

The way we live

Not half an hour after writing my hydrogen economy comments, I come across this column by Leonard Stern in the Citizen.

I see this kind of writing, and I begin to think there may be a glimmer of hope.

Enough is Enough!

2008-08-02T07:06:00.002-04:00

2009 Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Vehicle Review – Full Review of the 2009 Honda FCX Clarity - Honda FCX Road Test

I received this link from an acquaintance recently. "I'm sold," he enthused! "Have already started saving my nickels and dimes!"

It is easy, I suppose, to get quite excited about the wondrous possibilities that technology can bring. An apparently endless supply of fuel whose only waste is water. Who could ask for anything more!

Unfortunately, such proposals don't deal with what is the root of the problem. There are simply too many of us trying to do too many things on the limited confines of our planet. There is nothing sustainable about a world population of 7 billion people that doubles its population within its own lifetime that also collectively thinks that it is reasonable for all of us to aspire to have and consume more. If only we all had a hydrogen fueled vehicle we could all travel around whenever we wanted is what the hydrogen car implies. Instead, we should take the massive investment required to build a hydrogen fuel infrastructure for individual transport and put it into redesigning our urban infrastructure such that it truly is sustainable over the long term.

We need, as a civilization, to find a way to rein in our expanding desires, not feed them. We need to start saying "Enough is enough!"

Why did the boomers cross the road?

2008-07-27T07:51:00.002-04:00

Randall Denley asks a very good question in his Sunday morning article, Why did the boomers cross the road?

Why indeed.

He opens by imploring us to take a long look in the mirror:

One of the curses of being a member of the boomer generation is that everywhere you go, you find that a crowd of similar-aged people just got there ahead of you. We used to flock to inexpensive, unspoiled countries, driving up the cost and spoiling whatever was there. Then we all decided to move to certain popular urban neighbourhoods, driving up the cost and changing the neighbourhoods for the worse with our demand for condo buildings and upscale coffee shops. Now we're flooding to the countryside, buying up waterfront, lakeview properties and even properties with views of lakeview properties. Costs are heading in the usual direction. As a generation, we're like a plague of locusts, destroying everything we touch.

I often note the cynical touch to his articles. He doesn't disappoint with his conclusion:

By my observation, my generation is well on the way to ruining the attraction of rural living. But hey, we're boomers. Ruining things is what we do.

I don't always agree with him, but this article prompted the following emailed words of encouragement:

Good Morning Randall,

Spot on with your Sunday morning article!

We have met the enemy, and, so often, it is us. If we could only understand that for every action, there is a consequence. Over the long term, nothing is free. There is always a price. What you speak of is one more consequence of our consumer driven, must always have more society. For this to be turned around, everyone of us must start taking the concept of stewardship to heart. I am deeply concerned that this will not happen within my life time as too many of us continue to believe that we can build/buy/consume our way out of the mess we have created.

Over dinner with friends just last evening we discussed how essential it is that we begin moving far beyond simply changing personal habits. We need policy change at at all levels of government that start to shift the focus of our society to long term sustainability. If the activity is not sustainable over the long term, why do we as a society allow it to happen? Because we continue to believe that the promotion of ever expanding unrestrained personal wealth (what else can you call it but greed), is a good thing. I enjoy experiencing the comforts of what our society has to offer as much as the next person, but, when is enough, enough? The Europeans, particularly Scandinavian countries, are more than a generation ahead of us in this regard. We are so caught up in chasing our own tail in the blind pursuit of excessive material and experiential consumption. So sad. If only we could learn to Consume Less, While Enjoying Life More!

Thanks for writing this, and keep it up.

Leonard Poole

Building the Consumer Fixated Society

2008-05-05T12:05:00.002-04:00

The Gospel of Consumption | Orion magazine

In this Orion Magazine article, Jeffrey Kaplan details the evolution of what one industrial consultant of the late 1920's called "the gospel of consumption" - otherwise known as the notion that people could be convinced that however much they have, it isn't enough. As President Herbert Hoover's 1929 Committee on Recent Economic Changes observed: “By advertising and other promotional devices . . . a measurable pull on production has been created which releases capital otherwise tied up.” They were flush with excitement about this conceptual breakthrough: “Economically we have a boundless field before us; that there are new wants which will make way endlessly for newer wants, as fast as they are satisfied.”

Kaplan points out what this has led to in the U.S.:

...by 2000 the average married couple with children was working almost five hundred hours a year more than in 1979. And according to reports by the Federal Reserve Bank in 2004 and 2005, over 40 percent of American families spend more than they earn. The average household carries $18,654 in debt, not including home-mortgage debt, and the ratio of household debt to income is at record levels, having roughly doubled over the last two decades. We are quite literally working ourselves into a frenzy just so we can consume all that our machines can produce.

Spinning our wheels ever faster. And then we wonder why the environmental systems are collapsing around us.

The Elephant in the Global Living Room

2008-05-04T23:36:00.000-04:00

Confronting the inevitable: Population reduction, voluntary and otherwise

It is such a difficult topic for so many of us to respond to, but, it must not be ignored.

Dr. Ken Smail (PhD, Yale, 1976), Professor of Anthropology at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, opens his essay with sobering food for thought.

It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 8 to 9 billion by mid-21st century, only two generations from the present. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an “adequate” to “moderately comfortable” developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion. It may in fact be considerably less, perhaps in the 1 to 2 billion range, particularly if the normative life-style (level of consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that currently characterizing the United States.

Although, as I read his essay, I sense how much he wants to be a positive voice of hope for humanity, he struggles to be optimistic. He concludes that he can only be:

...cautiously optimistic that the human species will be able successfully to confront the complex and interrelated problems we have managed to create for ourselves -- what some have begun to characterize as an ecological, economic, political, sociocultural, and moral “perfect storm.” In fact, when I see how little traction various mitigating (or ameliorative) efforts have gained over the past 30 to 40 years, I have become increasingly pessimistic that humanity -- potentially some 9-plus billion of us within our children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes -- will be successful in staving off some very difficult times over the next several generations (throughout the 21st century and beyond).

Read his full essay. It is sobering.

The Bridge at the End of the World

2008-04-29T11:11:00.003-04:00

Heating System - washingtonpost.com

James Gustave Speth is the dean of environmental studies at Yale, a founder of two major environmental groups (the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Resources Institute), former chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (under Jimmy Carter) and a former head of the U.N. Development Program.

I have only just begun to read reviews of his most recent book "The Bridge at the End of the World". At first glance, he seems to be addressing what I view as a serious conundrum in current thought on responding to the threat of human induced climate change.

On the one hand we hear the strong cry that it is only by using the market to properly price carbon (capturing the cost of environmental externalities), that we can change human behaviour. But then, there are those who believe that it was the slavish promotion of overconsumption of material goods by our growth driven capitalist system that created the problem in the first place. How can we expect a system that depends on perpetual growth to cut off the hand that feeds it?

It is for this reason that Speth lays the blame of our current crisis on "a result of systemic failures of the capitalism that we have today". In the Washington Post, reviewer Ross Gelbspan describes this goal of perpetual economic growth as one that "has brought us, simultaneously, to the threshold of abundance and the brink of ruination."

I have been convinced that capitalism has brought us to this brink. However, I am in a distinct minority who hold this view. To re-state the now oft-used Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." Most of us don't know when "enough is enough", thinking instead that if enough is good, then more must be better. Our society firmly believes that our wellbeing is absolutely dependent on perpetual economic growth. To think otherwise is usually viewed as bordering on heretical. Mainstream pundits are virtually unanimous in the view that the projected slowing in growth of the North American economy is bad. Is it any wonder that everyone believes that only the market can save us? But, is this a problem that we can consume our way out of?

Clearly, I want to be part of convincing more people that in this instance continually clamouring for more is actually ensuring that we will have less. I want more of us to understand that, in fact, we have enough, and that fueling our aspirations for more is making things worse, not better. The fundamental problem is the distribution of the incredible wealth that is available. It is concentrated in the hands of the few. They have the power and they don't want to let go. This, however, is a very tough argument to make across large segments of our society. How do we reach the tipping point on this?

Unfortunately, although the market has provided us with untold riches, it could also be responsible for our ultimate downfall. How do we unpack that conundrum? This is what Speth is attempting to do.

Commentary from the Archdruid

2008-04-24T16:29:00.004-04:00

The Archdruid Report: Business As Usual:

Once again I find myself drawn to the analysis of John Michael Greer, otherwise known as the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America (AODA). Here is an excerpt from this week's column.

"What we most need to realize at this juncture is that the way things have been in the world’s industrial societies over the last century or so is in no way normal. It’s precisely equivalent to the new lifestyle adopted by winners of a lottery whose very modest income has suddenly leapt upward by $1 million a year or so. After a few years, the lottery winners might well become accustomed to the privileges and possessions that influx of wealth made possible, and children growing up in such a family might never realize that life could be any other way. The hard fact remains, though, that when the lottery money runs out, it runs out, and if no provision has been made for the future, the transition from a million dollars a year to the much more modest income available from an ordinary job can be very, very rough.

The huge distortions imposed on the modern industrial nations by the flood of cheap abundant energy that washed over them in the 20th century can be measured readily enough by a simple statistic. In America today, our current energy use works out to around 1000 megajoules per capita, or the rough equivalent of 100 human laborers working 24-hour days for each man, woman, and child in the country. The total direct cost for all this energy came to around $500 billion a year in 2005, the last year"

Watching commentary today on the CBC news, one analyst was asked,(and I paraphrase), "With these rapidly increasing prices at the pump, have consumers begun to change their choices about where they work and live?" "No, not yet, but I expect to see this coming in the near future."

And that is the challenge, isn't it? Gas prices are increasing much more rapidly than the cycle that people usually choose where they live and work. When a family chooses where to live, they make assumptions about expenses. Since the fifties most families have sought the refuge of the suburbs, where they have determined that they can expect to enjoy more space at less cost. The additional expense of the longer commute was worth it to most people.

This equation, however, is in the process of changing. What we thought were sane and reasonable expectations about an ever secure and modestly priced energy source are now being shown to be a blip in the history of civilization. We are victims of our own success. We have built our expansive, seemingly limitless society by burning through most of the easily obtainable oil. We are now beginning to realize that what is left will be increasingly more expensive to extract.

Sadly, in the process of releasing all this energy so quickly, we have often used this energy to lay waste to our planet. Whether it is climate change, reduction in bio-diversity or resource depletion, it is a terrible legacy we are leaving for future generations. We are also more than doubling the population of the planet within our own lifetimes. This puts exponentially increasing demands on the limited resources we have available.

It is beginning to sink in with the general population that "We aren't in Kansas anymore". For those who have chosen to incorporate a daily hour plus driving commute into their lives, many are starting to consider alternatives. For those contemplating a move, the suburbs may not seem quite as attractive as before. In the words of James Howard Kunstler, who wants to be "...stuck up a cul-de-sac in a cement SUV without a fill-up."?

CIBC Analyst Predicts Forced Transformation of Economy as Fuel costs Double in Five Years

2008-04-24T12:04:00.000-04:00

reportonbusiness.com: Oil prices, gasoline costs to double: CIBC report

Increasingly, mainstream analysts and oil industry watchers are predicting that we are about to embark on a fundamental shift in how we do business on the planet. Such views are no longer seen coming on from the 'fringe' forecasters.

In a new report, Jeff Rubin, chief economist with CIBC World Markets Inc. forecast a continued run-up in crude prices, despite a slowing world economy and slumping petroleum demand in United States, the world's leading oil consumer. He predicts that

...crude prices – now trading at above $116 (U.S.) a barrel - to average $150 by 2010, and more than $200 by 2012. That would translate into pump prices of $7 (U.S.) per gallon in the United States, and $2.25 per litre in Canada, double the current levels.

He points out that world oil production levels has essentially stagnated at about 85-million barrels per day over the last two years, while demand is escalating from the emerging powerhouse economies of India and China. He observes that “millions of new households will suddenly have straws to start sucking at the world's rapidly shrinking oil reserves”.

This, of course, comes at the same time as surging world food prices. The price of Thai rice has now topped $1,000 per ton, which is more than triple the price from the start of this year.

Of course, those with money will continue to be able drive their SUVs to buy their rice and meat, and snow peas imported from half a planet away, while increasing numbers go hungry. Quite the world we live in.

The Saudis Decide that they must preserve for the future

2008-04-21T22:50:00.001-04:00

Saudi King Abdullah drops quiet bombshell; U.S. media sleep through it

Have you always thought that the oil companies are just trying to squeeze more out of us? You might want to rethink that judgment.

This link to the Energy Bulletin website provides interesting analysis from a variety of mainstream financial and industry analysts regarding a recent pronouncement from King Abdullah. Apparently they are beginning to accept that oil is not inexhaustible, and we need to preserve for future generations. I may be going out on a limb, but I expect to see gasoline reaching in excess of $2/litre by 2010. There will be bumps on the road. Only a significant drop in demand will bring about a fall in prices. Demand will fall either because a/ Consumers start to seriously conserve, b/ The worldwide economy seriously tanks, or c/ a combination of the two.

What scenario are you betting on? or, Do you discount this notion entirely and think that this rapid rise in price is just an anomaly and that we will return to the good old days real soon?

More and More People are Going Hungry - Every Day

2008-04-18T23:34:00.003-04:00

Little Blog In The Big Woods: Hunger compilation - and ACTION

A perfect storm is brewing. It hasn't swept across Canada yet. We are, however, beginning to feel the harsh winds and the sting of the salt spray. There is a tremendous need for vast numbers of us to educate ourselves and begin to take action. We need to understand that our irresponsible, profligate ways are destroying this precious planet we call home. It is becoming more difficult with every passing day for increasing numbers of people to simply provide nourishment for themselves and those they love and care for.

Why are we converting arable land to the production of biofuels so that those with money can still drive whenever they want? What is so difficult about unwrapping our fingers from the steering wheel? Why must we always have the latest gizmo brought to us from the other side of the planet? Why can't we be satisfied with locally grown fresh food? Why do we think it is acceptable to expend 50 calories of energy to bring a strawberry containing five calories of energy to our tables in the middle of winter? When will enough of us insist that enough is enough and start to reshape what is acceptable?

Denley Nails It This Time

2008-04-17T11:51:00.002-04:00

Review panel provides reality check

I don't always agree with Randall Denley, but this time, I think he nails it. He discusses a review of the most recent proposals for light rail in Ottawa. Here is his conclusion:

The key concept for councillors to remember is that this expensive new transit plan will only be justified if it can change our travel behaviour and development pattern, making the central part of our city one where people can live without cars. If it's all just to justify past and future suburban expansion, it's a bad way to spend public money. (emphasis added)

I couldn't agree more. I forwarded the following comments to him after reading his column:

It needs to be recognized that the bulk of our planning decisions for the design of our cities have been based on the assumption that we can always depend on the automobile. It is becoming clear to increasing numbers of us that this is not possible. The 2020 vision in Ottawa of increasing transit use will not be fanciful and a 'nice to have' in a few short years. The clamour for automobile alternatives will be demanded by more people because of the ever increasing cost of automobile use.

This fundamental redirection of our thinking is not going to be easy. It will require substantive compromise. The inner urbanites (self included) are going to have to deal with the pressures of increased densities in their own backyard. The suburbanites and beyond are going to have to accept that they can't have taxpayer supported instant mass transit at their doorstep while living in sprawling communities. Mass transit only is sustainable with sufficient density. If Kanata/Orleans/Barrhaven want mass transit, they will have to become dense enough to sustain it. They will not be viable simply as 'bedroom' communities.

We have been getting it wrong for a very long time. Whether we like it or not, we will be forced out of our vehicles as our primary source of transportation. The type of expansive living we have accepted as the norm is coming to an end within the next generation or two. The convergence of the pressures from peak oil and climate change are narrowing our options. The sooner that individuals and communities come to terms with this reality, the better off they will be in the future. Those that continue to deny reality do so at their peril.