The People March

Here is What Happens to Protesters in Tehran

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

Hans Rosling on Displaying Statistics

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

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

All data used was obtained from the Energy Information Administration.

The Daily Me

Nicholas Kristof - The Daily Me - NYTimes.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristof admits to being

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

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

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

Dear Prime Minister Mr. Harper.

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

--
Leonard Poole

Mayor Larry O'Brien on How to Build Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

Assigning The True Cost of Transportation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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