Embracing Redundancy

We've all been sold a bill of goods.

All the time we are told that efficiency, productivity and profitability are the most important things in the world. Heck, we've even folded sustainability into this model. As we continue to mix more and more ingredients into this cake we're increasingly at risk of choking ourselves to death as we consume it.

Whoa, Anon, you are going off half baked dude.

I'm afraid not. Let me dish out some examples that will help you understand what I'm going on about. As many of you will already know there are companies such as Monsanto that are locking up the worlds food supply by accumulating locked in farmers worldwide. Their profits are good. Yay, isn't that wonderful.

Alternately, most of the western world purchases food products from increasingly large operations located further and further away. We've got increasing economies of scale. Our food is grown or raised in another country. We've shaved five cents off the price of each of our meals. Hooray! The world is a better place.

We're all busy working eight hours a day, if we are lucky enough to have full employment. Our spouses are busy working too. We're all too stressed and tired to raise our children effectively. We have to do this to afford health care, education, good food and a safe place to live. Thank goodness some of our lives are going so well.

Anon, you've described a veritable utopia, what could possibly be the problem?

Yes, I know, if you buy the corporate mantra we do appear to have a utopia, for corporations. However, even these stalwarts of progress and common good for all mankind, if it generates a profit, have blind spots. What I'm talking about is risk. We've all seen risks manifest themselves recently.

Perhaps you felt the impact of the global financial crisis? If not, perhaps you've at least seen others impacted by that event? Luckily, we saw the tip of the iceberg just in time, panicked, yanked on the wheel, and avoided a directly collision. By we I mean the world. Risk is a tricky business and we aren't managing it well.

Perhaps you have noticed natural disasters happening here and there from time to time? What happens when the infrastructure is no longer available for us? How does food get delivered? How do people stay warm? How do people earn money? If they are lucky, and the disaster didn't knock out too much there will be aid distributed while recovery efforts take place. This is true in places like New Orleans, more recently New York, as well as more remote places.

Anon, are you going to let me know why you are talking about redundancy? Who cares about natural disasters?

Don't rush me, I'm getting there. First, let me ask you a few questions. What happens when Monsanto eventually releases a strain of food that has some type of unexpected catastrophic failure? What happens when a man made emergency interrupts the flow of oil and prices skyrocket for months? What happens when a single sourced item from another country is no longer available and we depend on it completely?

Let me give you a more personal example. All the food in local grocery stores arrives via trucks. If there is a hurricane and a few key roads are knocked out then there will be no trucks for some period of time. How long do you think the food will last? What if a local power plant has some type of minor catastrophe and the power goes out. If you have electric heating what will you do?

These are examples of very efficient systems that have no redundancy. We are making ourselves so efficient that we cannot handle interruptions. Companies often run on a "just in time delivery" principle in order to reduce inventory costs. Competitors merge and facilities get larger so that more customers can be served at lower prices. The economic principle of comparative advantage has companies focus on core value alone such that they cannot provide a service without a large interlocking set of other services.

Whoa, dude, don't go all survivalist on me!

Don't worry, I'm not a survivalist but I would mention that most movements have at least a kernel of accuracy under them somewhere or they would not attract followers. Survivalists are right in that we are designing inflexibility and vulnerability into our homes, our communities, our food supplies, our infrastructure our businesses and even our nations. Seeking profit is not the same as building a robust system.

Some amount of redundancy is appropriate. If I'm growing vegetables in my backyard then I might be able to rely on external resources slightly less the next time a hurricane comes through my neighborhood and takes out chunks of infrastructure. If we embrace some level of renewable energy then we might not be quite as susceptible to wild swings in energy prices due to world events.

If we ran our companies in a slightly less efficient manner, while still ensuring profitability, then we might be able to withstand interruptions in supply chains without immediately curtailing production. If we grew our food with a little less concern for absolutely maximizing our profitability we might be able to reduce our risk on one single mistake causing a massive catastrophe.

A little bit of redundancy would not hurt us. It would in fact increase chances of dealing with both man-made and natural disasters effectively.

I don't get it, what's your problem with corporations?

Weren't you listening? I don't have any problem with corporations. I don't even have a problem with profits. I'll even agree that the profit motive is indeed probably the most efficient way to apportion capital to competing uses.

I have a problem with the fact that the world has created a huge complex system that is optimizing itself for profits. There are things that the quest for profits does not take into account. For example, it might be acceptable to run a manufacturing company in North America that produces an 8% return on investment instead of running it overseas for a 12% return on investment.

I mean, we can certainly argue the economics of comparative advantage and decide that only the most advantageous efforts should be allowed. However, what happens if all out meat comes from overseas and there is a disease outbreak in the source country? Wouldn't it be great to have a reasonable sized herd somewhere else to help recover from such a disaster?

We need to have backup plans -- but they aren't efficient unless you are in a state of disaster. They will potentially impact profits and total rates of return on investment. They will also reduce our exposure to systemic risk. This risk has been slowly growing for a long time and we should think about where it is leading us.

What happens the next time there is an asteroid collision with Earth? What happens when a new volcano erupts and creates a cloud covering half the planet? What happens when there is a massive crop failure or worldwide epidemic affecting animals or humans? How are we going to deal with these things when our resources are so "efficient" that none of us know anything except our particular small slice of work and there are no "replacements" around to deal with the loss of input from affected areas.

I, for one, would like to see just a little bit of redundancy remain in the world. I also wouldn't mind a little less pressure to be more and more efficient during working hours so I could be a little more human when at home with the family. Maybe we could even employ a few more people and offer a little bit more job security.

Hmm, you might have a point, but I still think you are half baked.

Yes to Capitalism, No to Greed

The political arena is strange. So much of the time it's about "defining" the opposition. News flash - the left is not against capitalism.

---

Greed is visceral. We all know what it is. It is all around us every day but it is no longer directly visible to us. The direct connections have been disguised, hidden or broken completely.

It is often greed that drives someone to knowingly dump toxic wastes instead of handling and disposing of it appropriately. It was greed that drove the housing market and the eventual global financial crisis several years ago. It was greed and a feeling of elitist entitlement that lead bankers to grant themselves huge bonuses after being bailed out.

Greed has been pushed on us as the best way to make financial decisions. When it comes to large organizations, large dollar values or large groups of people it is not. Greed is a force that will cause many people to abandon their ethics. We all know that. It's something that we never talk about.

At some point it became wrong to talk about the flaws in our system. We can't mention the flaws in capitalism. We can't mention the flaws in our democratic system. We certainly can't mention the strong points in other systems. Well, you know what, our entire system is based on greed. One of the seven deadly sins is the driving force currently setting the course for our entire planet.

Capitalism is wonderful. It allows for very efficient movement of resources to worthy companies and purposes. However, we need to protect ourselves from the failings and flaws of people. We can enumerate simple common human flaws quite easily. As well as greed we know that rising to power causes people to forget where they came from -- or believe themselves to be better than others.

Throughout human history we have seen what happens due to greed and a sense of being better then others. This leads to abuse of power. The powerful know best, they will make decisions for the rest of the incompetent world, they will tell us what is good for us. They will recreate society in their view. This is not very good for anyone who isn't sitting near the top of the food chain.

We all know this. We all understand this and have seen people change in front of our eyes when the get promoted or otherwise develop a sense of power. While it is not universal it is incredibly common. So, yes, capitalism is great. However, greed and other human flaws are very bad. This means creating a system that allows people to accumulate a lot, through greed, also means that we need to build in strong protections against those flaws.

Those protections have always been regulations. Government regulations. Everyone plays on a level playing field when regulations are enforced fairly and the natural flaws that are expressed in some quantity of people are kept in check. Unfortunately, the powerful have been very successful in declaring regulations as one of societies ills. And yes, when it comes to administration, there can be too many regulations. We have to be able to differentiate between types of regulations.

Many of us, the general public, simply went along with this castigation of regulations. However, something important happened. Reduced regulations and poor enforcement led us to the point of global financial collapse. We all saw it. We all lived it. There can be no doubt that wise regulations, appropriately enforced, are much better for society and commerce than a commercial wild west.

If we can capture this message, this simple to understand truth that everybody knows and understands, then we can open the door to preventing all the ills that greed leads to. If we don't, and continue to battle resulting issues one by one, we may win many battles but we will lose the war. We need regulations. We need everyone to understand that regulations, protections from power, are required.

From there we can talk about poisoning the environment, as an example of harmful greed, and regulate it. We can talk about predatory lending practices, as an example of harmful greed, and disallow it. We can look at people proposing that we allow the rich and powerful to further enrich themselves at our expense and make appropriate decisions. This is simple, true, and can reach everyone. We need to stop getting distracted and start talking in visceral terms.

Yes to capitalism, no to greed.

HOMEWORK: Find examples of greed in society. Find examples of business greed influencing government policy. Identify regulations that are meant to protect society from abuses of power.

Canada: It's Worse Than I Thought

Recently I was writing an article about Stephen Harper and how his previous actions imply his future behavior towards First Nations.  However, accumulating background information for this suggests that things may be worse than I thought.

I am going to simply present a list of articles, in no particular order, with minimal annotation in the hopes that you, the reader, will take the time to sift through things and make up your own mind.

Election Problems

Former Tory MP's Speak Out Against Campaign Financing
Conservative Pleads Guilty to Election Overspending
Study of Misleading Calls in 41st Election
Top Strategist Provides False Leak to Sun Media [election issue]

Media and Communications

Tory Insider Furious After Sun Debacle [close ties to Sun Media]
Canadian Government Muzzling its Scientists
Scientists Escorted by Handlers During Polar Conference
Harper Tightens Grip on Media Message Control

Harper Governments

PM Abuses Prorogation
House Falls in Contempt of Parliament
Access to RCMP Controlled by Minister
Former Harper Aide Charged With Influence Peddling
Emails Contradict MacKay's Explanation for Chopper Request
Drunk Driving Charges Dropped Due to Tory Connections
Radicals Working Against Oil Sands says Ottawa
Gazebos and the Governing Morality
F-35: A Case in Deficient Decision Making

Environmental Issues

Canada Cuts Environment Spending
Stephen Harper Faces Revolt by Scientists
A Bleak Year for Environmental Policy
Budget Gives Cabinet Free Hand on Environmental Assessments
Environmentalists Decry Changes to Navigable Waters Law
Federal Documents Spark Outcry by Oil Sands Critics
Energy Industry Letter Drives Environmental Law

Aboriginal Affairs

The Man Behind Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan
Cabinet Mulls Massive Chinese Arctic Resource Project

So, as you can see, the Harper team cheats during elections. They work to contain scientists and control the general media. As a government they have no respect for Parliament, laws or even citizens who they declared to be radicals for daring to have their own opinions about the best path for Canada.

If you have done any reading you know a bit about Harper's background. It seems pretty clear, especially being so close to Tom Flanagan, that Harper is anxious to redress the West's anger over the National Energy Policy of a bygone era and to stampede over the objections of environmentalists and First Nations both of whom his government considers enemies or radicals depending on which statements you view.

I also have to point to a few locations on my blog, which are admittedly lesser by way of journalistic tradition, but do highlight ties between so-called grassroots organizations, Ezra Levant, the CPC and of course our government:

Ethical Oil: Domestic Puppets
Canada II: Link Library

And, as well, one recent post and a bonus link:

AAND and First Nations Under Harper
Stephen Harper's Ministry of Truth

The fact that the CPC operates in concert with astroturf (faux grassroots) organizations, appears to coordinate with Ezra Levant (on Sun News) regularly and has goons monitoring/participating in social media strongly suggests that we are on the receiving end of a continuous propaganda campaign.

All of which is unconscionable.

AAND Under Harper Government

I will be the first to admit this post is somewhat speculative.  However, given the blatant actions of the Harper regime over the years I don't think I'm going to be proven wrong.  Additionally, the Harper regime may not be the first Canadian government to enact this type of campaign but it is certainly the most brutal.

Consider recent events.

Harper government involved in a myriad of tiny scandals from poor accountability, spending boondoggles, astroturf (faux grassroots) organizations, massive CPO communications (propaganda) staff, and so on. We aren't exactly dealing with an ethical organization here.

We can see them getting control of media. We see them muzzling scientists. We can see the government attempting to shut down environmental monitoring for the majority of waterways while we are seeing reports of tar sands impact. We can see them "streamlining" the approval process for energy projects.  We see them deciding that we don't really need census information anymore. We see them cutting funding for public broadcasting. We see them cutting funding for science.  We even see them involved in social media. Basically, anything that might stand in the way of their policy decisions has either gotten the axe or has operatives assigned to it.

So, what does this imply for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAND)?

It's clear that Canada has long recognized treaty obligations towards AFN communities. While these have been loosely defined they have been supported by the courts and explicitly mentioned in the constitution in order to allow for ongoing improvements.

It's also clear that Harper does not like impediments to commerce. He is working hard to find ways to smooth the path for increased resource exploitation -- as per many of the steps defined above.  The biggest impediment now is that Canada has obligations with respect to First Nations.

So, in a manner true to form Harper's communications arm has been working very hard to discredit the First Nation communities. Nowhere is this more evident than Attawapiskat. In this case we have seen all manner of invective applied to Chief Spence in order to discredit her personally. Nobody in the CPC propaganda arm seems to be attacking the message -- they are all attacking the messenger.

What I suspect is that the Harper regime has enacted policies that will ensure that First Nations cannot succeed.  You see, the more they fail at providing for their people appropriately, the more the government can spin this. We're already hearing that First Nation leaders are greedy, making too much money, not using money for their own people.

What we don't hear is that government plays the largest role in deciding how money is the spent by these communities and how it is to be accounted for.

With a careful analysis is it clear to see that Harper views every aspect of the government as a resource to help him mold Canada into his view of what it should be. We have MPs unable to have a private meeting with the RCMP.  We see important government oversight and funding being cut -- so that we won't know the impact of Harper's own policies.  We see incredible lapses in ethics during the election process. We see incredible lapses in humility with respect to understanding that his electoral majority represents only a minority of the people in Canada.

I have no doubt that he will work to push First Nations to the edge of collapse in an attempt to force them to accept what he has in mind. Push them to the brink of economic collapse and then tempt them with lucrative resource contracts under the cover of limited environmental oversight.That's already happening. At the same time he'll manipulate policies to allow him to label First Nation leaders as incompetent and greedy and castigate them in the court of public opinion in order to discredit their claims.

Perhaps he even believes this will work. It would fit in with the narrative. However, First Nations have traditionally been stewards of the land. It's a Faustian bargain at best. If we are lucky the Idle No More movement, a grassroots awakening among AFN, will also wake us non-natives up. If we aren't lucky... we are all going to be paying the price for Harper's vision -- or more accurately, our children will.

UPDATE: Homework -- what changes to policies have been enacted over the Harper years and what stresses have they placed on AFN communities? Do these actions fit into the narrative above?

UPDATE: Here's an illuminating look at Tom Flanagan, a former adviser and chief of staff for Harper, and his views on First Nations.

UPDATE: I have linked to a variety of supporting documents... and feel I must link to this informative post about information manipulation by the "Ministry of Truth".

IdleNoMore: A Short History

Today the Harper Regime capitulated to the request by #idlenomore and First Nations to meet. This seems like a big win but I can only look at this with skepticism.

Now that the pressure is off of Harper there is every danger that public interest will flag -- that ongoing work to discredit #idlenomore by attacking messengers instead of the message will find a way to sour interest.

Any public disagreements between leaders and grass roots movements will be give intense scrutiny. Now is the time to ramp up activity and have an even bigger show of solidarity and support before the meeting takes place on January 11th.

Here are some recent, and less recent, actions in the #idlenomore saga:

Now Comes the Real Test for IdleNoMore..., Rabble.ca
First Nations Appeal to Queen Elizabeth..., Straight Good News
Treaties are Between Nations..., Rabble.ca
Idle No More - Sarnia's Mayor (re: Audio)..., CBC
Statement in Support of Chief Spence..., Amnesty International
Harper Government Attacked First Nations Rights..., UBCIC
Cabinet Mulls Massive Chinese Project..., Winnipeg Free Press
Why Idle No More is Gaining Strength..., The Star
Legislation Affecting First Nations..., OKT Law
Questions About Attawapiskat - Answered..., Attawapiskat.org
How Ottawa Spent $90 Million at Attawapiskat..., National Post
History of Residential Schools in Canada..., CBC
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples - Highlights..., Canada

A couple of related posts from your local blogger:

Ezra Levant and Sun News Network...,Canada II
Harper vs First Nations..., Canada II

We've created a small opening. Now is the time to seize advantage of that opening before Harper and his minions can find a way to shut it again without awakening the public ire. Now that you've gotten hold of the public view do not lose it. Do not let it go. Once the energy dissipates it is much harder to regain it.

Please note, I am of European descent but I fully support that Canada has recognized treaty obligations and that we must stand by them.

UPDATE: Almost forgot, I plan to take part in the #idlenomorefast taking place tomorrow.

Ezra Levant and Sun News Network

Today both Ezra Levant and the Sun News Network have been asking scary questions about uses of money by the Attawapiskat community.  They are suggesting malfeasance in an effort to discredit Chief Spence for political purposes.

• Why was Chief Spence's partner paid so much per day?
• Why did they buy a new Zamboni when they already had one?

This is blatant.  And, importantly, most of the information has already been debunked. Any organization approaching a competent media outlet would know this.

Questions About Attawapiskat - Answered..., Attawapiskat.org
How Ottawa Spent $90 Million at Attawapiskat..., National Post
Financial Statements..., Attawapiskat.org

So...what does this difference between Ezra's statements about Chief Spence and reality mean?

It means that Sun News Network makes no pretense at being a news organization. Everyone in the political arena is already aware of this -- but the man or woman on the street doesn't. Basically, whenever the public gets uppity and starts complaining about the Harper Regime, Ezra Levant and Sun News Network jump out with blatant propaganda meant to deflect and discredit.

This was done with the so-called Ethical Oil campaign - an astroturf (faux grassroots) organization created to generate propaganda in support of exporting tar sands oil and building pipelines to do so. This was widely discredited by online social media participants but I'm sure many non-political people are not aware.

All of this leads to a pair of important conclusions.

• The government has a propaganda arm which may or may not be operating at arms length from various people and departments -- as high as the PM or PMO itself.
• We know that whenever the Sun News Network is attacking something with intent to discredit that the Harper Regime is likely concerned about the public attention it is getting.

Additionally, it is vital that we help people understand the real issues and why the allegations and innuendo have no impact on those issues. I don't know Chief Spence. It is possible she has done things that I might not approve of (who hasn't). However, Canada's ethical and legal obligation to uphold treaties with First Nations has nothing to do with that.

From a political point of view we need to find ways to disarm this propaganda. The government should not be engaging in propaganda against its own citizens. This is unabashedly wrong. How do we stop this tactic from being effective on the non-political public?

From an ethics point of view -- how come people, news outlets and a certain political party can maintain any aspect of credibility when they use such tactics. Can we make the general public aware of these things - is it as simple as spending money to run some ads that make these behaviors publicly visible?

What's the playbook on these things? Can I simply put up a donate button and describe what I'll do with raised funds and expect anything to happen?

Please leave a comment (anonymously if necessary) if you have any ideas to share. I want to find a way to do things about this type of activity. It is damaging to democracy and our entire country - not to mention our international reputation.

UPDATED: Some additional links concerning Ezra Levant: On Being Called Anti-Semitic, Ordered to Pay $25000, Court Decision against Ezra Levant, Ezra Ordered to Pay Additional $32500, On Ezra's Blatant Gypsy Racism, and Ezra Levant Investigated for Hate Speech.

UPDATED: Here's a nice discussion on the politics of wages from the rabble.ca site.

UPDATED: I just watched an exchange on Twitter detailing how those big scary stock holdings that Ezra refers to are in a trust fund with the beneficiary to be the people of Attawapiskat. Such insinuations are recklessly and act as an incitement for racism and bigotry.  It's shameful.

NOTE: To avoid hammering the Attawapiskat.org web site I've taken the liberty of uploading the answers PDF to a shared Google Docs file.

Harper vs First Nations

The following article, in a nutshell, provides the basis for all of Harper's actions with regards to First Nations. He does not believe they should be able to stand in the way of so-called "progress" for Canada.  He also believes, being of the religious right, that the Earth is for us to plunder at will.

Cabinet Mulls Massive Chinese Project

We've seen comments from him in the past pointing in this direction. We've seen actions taken to "streamline" approval processes before.  We know where this is going.

Personally, I'm not against economic progress, but I am against the headlong rush to do things. We don't need to crush the concept of First Nations just because they stand in the way of financial gain. Sure, we can make life miserable on reservations and then offer them jobs destroying the land.  What a bargain that is for people who live off the land.

What an asshole Harper is.

Why does the right hide behind words like freedom and then make choices for everyone else? They impose their view of how things should be all the while trumpeting how they are enhancing freedom. I don't want to be free to live in mean-spirited squalor.

I like having a society. I like everyone receiving a decent education. I like it when consenting adults can do whatever they like as long as they aren't hurting someone else.  I decry commerce without regulation. I decry disregard for environmental issues. I decry the apparent goal of changing the nature of the First Nations whether they are willing or not.

This is not in the will of the majority of Canadians. We've been hijacked by a minority interest and a split vote. This is the most important issue on the plate. We must fix the disconnect between the will of the majority and the actions of government. We must fix this while we still can.

After we fix our government representation problem we can spend decades working to undo the crap Harper has been foisting on us, and the world, since his surprising brown-streaked arrival on the seat of power.

Oh Canada, I miss you.

Update: Some background information concerning Harper government actions... via UBCIC (courtesy of a tweet from @deepgreendesign).

Update: Perhaps worthy of a new blog post... wouldn't "steward of the land" views fall under freedom of religion? Aren't non-political conservatives sensitive to religious persecution?

Republican Party of Canada?

Should they really be thought of as the Conservative Party of Canada? I don't think so. Let's inject a little bit of honesty into the political arena because it is otherwise so strikingly absent.

What we have here is the Republican Party of Canada.

A few things that make this so...

• Complete disregard for environmental issues.
• Secretive and my-way-or-the-highway administration.
• Antipathy towards First Nations -- otherness, immigrants, etc.
• Electoral shenanigans involving voter disrespect.
• Policy lip-lock with US Republican playbook.
• Despicable shills such as Ezra in the "Rush Limbaugh" role.
• Media influence and outright funding threats.

As we've seen in the USA lately the conservative movement is getting a little bit off the rails (otherwise known as bat-shit crazy). Something for us to look forward to as this administration continues to season itself with power.

What we need is a system of proportional representation that does not eliminate the concept of local ridings. Seriously, that we have to be lead around by a group with the support of a clear minority of the public is a major flaw.

A democracy is not about minority rule. What we have here is the Republican Party of Canada ruling in an undemocratic environment.

When I think about it I am at a loss for words.

Political War on Words

I think that progressives need to wake up.

You see, the conservatives have been at war with us for decades now. It isn't simply that they prefer slightly different policies than us. They want to dismantle all of the positive work done over the last few generations and put in place a system, a state, that reflects exactly their own beliefs.

Yes, it's true.

The reason the general public doesn't know this is the war on words that is going on. And, sadly, they are winning.

The age old term for this is spin -- but that term doesn't do the incredible effort that is taking place justice.

The word play hides their beliefs and often their intent behind mild sounding phrases that the general public can sleep through.

A few examples? Climate change instead of global warming. Picking winners and losers instead of fiscal policies. Income redistribution instead of having higher earners pay their fair share.
It's time to define an attack. We need to hit them where they live.

To get the ball started here are a few thoughts aimed at the center of their ability to grab the attention of voters and pull them from progressive ideals:

• Religion and Faith:
  Central to the right is their faith. However, it is clear to see they don't actually adhere to it. To have faith suggests one should trust in God. However, the right does not do so. They don't trust God to punish the sinful, they feel it is necessary for them to do so -- when their own religion admonishes them not to do so (judge not). So, we get laws that reflect their particular morals.
• Evangelicals:
  This group is very clever about defining their preferred version of the bible as inspired by God. This means it is perfect and absolutely correct, according to them. This is also bullshit. It was written by men. The flaws of men were clearly in operation when it was written and it is clearly open to interpretation.

You may ask why this is important. You may think this is a waste of time. You are wrong.

These two areas taken together provide an apparently unassailable base from which the conservatives have been sallying-forth to kill progressive ideals. The undying belief that the are doing Gods bidding makes it very difficult for anyone else to reach their ears. Reach them we must.

Don't believe me? Where do you think the abortion shenanigans (and the mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound) come from? Where do you think creationism (and an anti-science viewpoint) comes from? Where do you think marriage laws and denial of gay rights comes from? Where do you think the concept that we are free to rape and plunder the earth comes from (unregulated capitalism)?

This is the wellspring from which all the low-minded actions of the right receive their justification and support. This is the place that is used to wipe away the words of progressives by simply declaring it wrong in God's view -- as if they have any more of a relationship with God than anyone else.

Believe in God or not. Choose not to believe that they are united around a belief system that provides the same strength of conviction that drives fundamentalists of all types and you will underestimate the amount of vitriol driving them and the goals that they have.

We aren't talking about the mainstream person here... but a large, unified, political movement with big funding and low ideals. Wake up or feel the boot of their beliefs on your neck unless you are exactly like them.

Don't see it? Please, take some time, look at what is going on. Then, sit back, and find ways to speak their language -- erode their base's strengths -- or watch all our hard won progress be undone.

They are not doing God's work. They are not good stewards of what has been given to us -- God will be pissed if we destroy the gift we were given (Earth). Just because one is given the keys to the car doesn't mean one should drive it off a cliff.

Finally, if we were created, then we were given brains for a reason. It is just possible that God would intend us to actually use them. Otherwise, why forgive us for eating from the tree of knowledge at all? Unfortunately, for the right, using our brains means ending up with progressive ideals.

Hence the war on science and education (and competent media).

NOTE: I didn't intend to get into so much religious mumbo-jumbo. However, it forms a core base from which the right gathers support and launches their attacks on reality (so to speak).

A Temporary Coalition?

I've been thinking about the state of affairs in Canadian politics. In case you haven't noticed we have a single conservative party winning majorities while getting a minority of the vote. This isn't a good thing for Canada and we need to do something about it.

Ideas that come to mind include some type of proportional representation. However, this will never happen while the conservatives are in power -- as they know they would immediately lose the ability to govern. At the same time we face an inability to enact proportional representation until we kick them out of office.

The solution, a coalition of the left. Now, everyone is scared of this for some reason, as if coalition is a bad word. Of course, it's the same bad word that has been winning the conservatives control of the government.

We need to pool our votes, take office, enact proportional representation, and only then go back to voting for whatever flavor of progressives we prefer. Realistically, this is the fastest and surest path to undoing the damage that the conservatives are doing to our long term prospects.

We can do this. We can do this without having to give up our individual parties that we prefer. We just have to be smart about it. We have to put this action on the agenda, be clear about it, and then follow through when the election gives us back the house of commons.

Who's with me?

Still Alive

Yes, I'm still alive. I haven't been shut down because I solicited leaks or anything silly like that.

Online Anonymity with Tor

I doubt many people in the general public have inspected their browser request headers recently. An edited version of a request from my own browser is below:

HTTP_HOST: ...
HTTP_CONNECTION: ...
[snip]

SERVER_SOFTWARE: ...
SERVER_NAME: ...
SERVER_ADDR: ...
SERVER_PORT: ...
REMOTE_HOST: redacted.cable.rogers.com
REMOTE_ADDR: ...
REMOTE_PORT: ...
SERVER_PROTOCOL: ...
REQUEST_METHOD: ...
REQUEST_URI: ...
REQUEST_TIME: ...

See the line "redacted.cable.rogers.net" in the list? The redacted portion is a unique identifier that would allow a remote site to ask Roger's which subscriber initiated a certain request. Depending on which ISP you have it is quite likely that you provide identifying information to every single page you request.

However, doing the same with the Tor Browser Bundle installed and active yields the following:

HTTP_HOST: ...
HTTP_CONNECTION: ...
[snip]

SERVER_SOFTWARE: ...
SERVER_NAME: ...
SERVER_ADDR: ...
SERVER_PORT: ...
REMOTE_HOST: torland1-this.is.a.tor.exit.server.torland.me
REMOTE_ADDR: ...
REMOTE_PORT: ...
SERVER_PROTOCOL: ...
REQUEST_METHOD: ...
REQUEST_URI: ...
REQUEST_TIME: ...

For all the details you'll have to read the Tor site on your own. Here is the the download page for the Tor Browser Bundle.

Why am I telling you this? Because, as a recent post highlighted, I'm soliciting leaks from the Harper government. I want you to know that if I do receive something I should be able to keep my identity very hard to trace by using Tor at a variety of public WiFi sites.

Similarly, if our recent Vikileaks30 account had of been using Tor the IP address returned would not have identified the user as coming from the House of Commons.

Soliciting Harper Government Leaks

This post serves two purposes. First, I'm willing to collect leaked information in a way that does not directly reveal either my identity or the identity of the revealing party. Second, this outline serves as a relatively private manner of information exchange for anyone to use.

Leak to Canada II

You have information you would like to leak. You would like to be anonymous. I would like to receive said information without you learning my identity either.

• I can’t guarantee to leak all material received.
• I can’t specify in advance how any leaked material may be distributed.

Instructions: Tor and Hushmail

First, you will want to install Tor, as discussed in this post, so that web sites you visit will not be given your IP address or other identifying information.

Then, set up a free Hushmail account while using Tor. When you create a free Hushmail address you do not need to provide identifying information. However, the first thing you should do when you set up your account is to use the preferences -> reading option to disable loading of images, colors and formatting (just in case you access Hushmail without using Tor).

This will allow you to set up a Hushmail account and leave an anonymous comment in my blog without letting Google or I know anything about you. Later, when I moderate your comment I will delete your message so that your Hushmail account is not revealed. I will then email you from my Hushmail account (assuming you left a hushmail account address) and we can exchange information in a reasonably secure manner.

Security Thoughts

In the event that a serious investigation was undertaken you would want to consider the issue of who would have access to the information to be leaked. This can often help identify the leaking party. 

You would also need to consider whether or not the material would be important enough to have the affected parties entice Google or Hushmail to trace back our activities (in the event that my own identity was eventually compromised).

Update: Removed alternate leak methodology and added use of Tor when using Hushmail.

OilGate: Selling our Sovereignty

Harper's government is guilty of projection if nothing else.

Yesterday's article in the Ottawa Citizen clearly points out how foreign interests have taken ownership of the oilsands from the inside:

Defenceless: Canada has no idea what foreign activity...
But what Harper and Oliver inadvertently opened up was a nasty and troubling question that nobody in Ottawa is particularly happy to hear people asking. Just what legally constitutes a foreign activity in Canada that is detrimental to this country's national security interests these days, anyway?

As it turns out, Canada is practically incapable of answering that question with any enforceable coherence. When it comes to the recent and rapid-succession manoeuvres that have given Chinese state-owned entities the spigot key at critical flow points in Canada's oil and gas industry, mysteries abound. But it is now clear that slowly but surely, Canada's regulatory defences have been almost completely hollowed out.

However, I'd argue that there are worse things than projection when it comes to the issue of foreign interests. Much worse indeed.

I'd like to believe that our government was only inept, but I can't.

As the article above noted it was only recently that the Harper government was bemoaning foreign ownership of a mining company. This same group then allowed ministers to exercise their own discretion when making a determination of what was in the national interest. This is a recipe for disaster.

Our government is not inept. Our government is criminally complicit and has gone out of its way to court a relationship with China and Sinopec. We have our government declaring ordinary citizens "radical" and "enemies of the state." This is simply unconscionable and in all likelihood represents more projection on behalf of our ruling junta.

My concern is why the 180 degree turnaround?

There are two things that I can easily imagine given the nature of international intrigue. We are either looking at enough financial incentive to overcome personal ethics or we are looking at enticement, threat or blackmail. I suppose one could consider it ideology -- but ideology rarely does a 180, does it? No, far more likely a country desperate for access to oil, such as China, to make it impossible for our government's ethically challenged high level bumpkins to not give them what they want one way or another.

Regardless of your ability to follow me on my route to conjecture I think you should agree that selling control  of our oil, our national treasure, to a foreign entity directly controlled by a communist country, represents an action by "enemies of the state."

What are CSIS and the RCMP doing?

If they aren't trying to look after our national interests, to determine what influences have caused such a massive turn around in policy and foreign control of vital resources, then they aren't doing their jobs. I can guarantee you that the USA and in particular the CIA is all over their national security interests surrounding access to Canadian oil.

If our own government doesn't find a way to get itself on the right side of this issue we'll end up a surrogate battlefield for US and Chinese oil interests.

What kind of government puts Canada into such a position? One that has been compromised.

Addendum

I realize I do not have anything approaching definitive proof. I also am not an investigative journalist or an organization that has the capability, or the need, to be able to answer the questions I ask.  It's the raising of the questions that is the key...

Hacks and Douchebags

Well, well, well. It gets more interesting all the time.

Here we have a hack writing an opinion article who's real purpose is to blame unions for the ills facing our economy in terms of the Caterpillar situation.

Nasty As Caterpiller May Be
Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, vowed to mobilize workers from across the province to help the CAW stop “scabs” from crossing their picket lines. There was the usual handwringing in the press that the dispute could become “volatile,” journalistic code for violence. All of this was discussed as if it were the most normal thing in the world, in the 21st century, to be resolving disputes by the use of hundreds of big heavy men to prevent or intimidate others from going about their lawful business: physical force, in other words.

Now, I don't call him a hack because I'm necessarily pro-union. I think there are other issues at work that are very worthy of discussion if you wish to pretend to offer an economic analysis:

• A strong Canadian currency hurts us.
• Desperate levels of incentives from US quarters hurts us.
• And yes, higher wages do certainly hurt us.

Blaming the unions for all our problems, or government efforts to compete with US subsidization, is the problem I have with all this.

As if this isn't bad enough we have douchebag economists making appearances for some back patting on this trite little article.

I think I see something here. We are having partisan viewpoints being spun, or at least positively commented on, from both the educational and media arenas.

We're being invaded by hacks and douchebags. Lucky us.

Joe Oliver: Confirmed Denier

It's time to pick a side. Joe Oliver is a denier.

In case you live under a rock here is the basis of the issue at hand.

Do you believe?
Mr. Speaker, we really do have a minister for the 19th century because the Minister of Natural Resources fails to understand the impact of Conservative inaction on jobs, on the environment and on future generations. Instead, he attacks people who actually care about the environment. It makes me wonder if the minister actually believes in climate change. Is the minister a believer or a denier?

Now, Mr. I-can't-be-bothered-to-answer referred to theology when asked this question. What does all this mean? It means nobody has any gonads.

Joe Oliver isn't man enough to state his ridiculous stance.

The media isn't brave enough to state outright that this ignoramus is a denier.

Let's take a look at what happens if we brand Joe as a denier. Either he gets upset and corrects the concept or he does not. If he doesn't, and he believes in climate change and subsequent damage to economy and species, then he has zero ethics and deserves to be anywhere but in a leadership position. Or he stands up and says he is not a denier. Then he either has to address climate change issues or he has zero ethics and deserves to be anywhere but in a leadership position.

Somebody grow some 'nads and stick a fork in this asshole, he's cooked.

The alternative is for media cowardice to allow this idiot to play both sides of the issue and avoid having to stake a claim.

Addendum

In case you can't see it already. Joe is caught between a rock and a hard place. To embrace his denier stance he must face ridicule by serious science worldwide and embarrass Canada. To embrace science he must shame his base and promote policies based on science.  Neither is a winning position.

If Joe is too much of a coward to represent his opinions, or the opinion Harper wishes him to express, then he needs to be stuck in a stance fitting with his behavior. He is a denier. He refers to climate change as a matter of ideology.

Now, for you media participants out there, get out there and drive this home.

Electoral Reform: Recalling an MP

In a fit of pique I was searching for the concept of recalling the government or at least an MP.

I found an article discussing this concept and how it might strengthen our democracy. Giving it a read I realized it seems like a very good idea. For example, when a member crosses the floor, it might very well be a time for the constituents to get upset and force the MP to come back to the riding and convince them why they should not issue a recall.

The Recall of Elected Members
This article explains the recall idea, looks at how it has been used in other countries, outlines how it would might work in Canada and offers some suggestions about what difference recall would make to Canadian politics. This article, based on research done for the Lortie Commission on Electoral Reform is an edited version of a presentation to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on March 15, 1994.

I hope you read the full article. Combining a recall option, senate reform, and some type of proportional representation might make a lot of sense. I wonder if a party could run on a democratic reform platform and get traction?

By the way, you can subscribe to this quarterly publication as described here.

Escaping to Canada II

Harper is violating the Canada that I know and love.

Private member bills to stop all funding to the CBC are not random events. They are surely payback for the accidental public outing of government front group Ethical Oil.

Other abominations are floating around such as reductions in corporate taxes, billions being spent on aircraft, ships and prisons while old age security seems likely to be pushed a few years further away for future generations. Don't forget branding everyone opposed to the oil sands pipelines as "radicals" or "enemies of the state" now referred to as Enemy Gate.

This is not my Canada.

I'm left wondering how to be effective and how to do so quickly. It's not easy to get people who are trapped in their daily lives to spend the energy to care. It's harder getting them involved to the degree of helping to donate resources and harder yet to get physically involved. Even so, how can we do anything but slowly build an avalanche of voters determined to clean up the mess that Harper is creating with his majority?

I've got half a mind to create a second Canada. A virtual Canada. An online Canada. As you've surely guessed I'll call it Canada II. This country will have a policy stance. Citizens will join and will have two duties. They will prove that they are willing and able to vote in a physical election by naming their riding, MP and local polling station. They will also pay a small citizenship tax, perhaps $5 per year, to prove their willingness to do something more than simply complain online.

Canada II will be a non-profit organization founded to work on issues important to the majority of Canadians. It will work for environmental stewardship, human rights, legalization of marijuana, proportional representation, carbon reduction, sustainability and renewable energy. Canada II will not be anti-business but it will exclude business and monetary influence from it's policy decisions. It will advocate policies purely for the public good.

Canada II will be filled with citizens who will vote, know where to vote, and have put their money where there mouth is with respect to their beliefs.

Will anyone join me? At the very least we could organize and connect with other like minded people online and locally. With success we would have a large enough advocacy group to make politicians concerned about our deliberations.

What is your alternative... complaining on Twitter until 2015?

An Alternate Economic Strategy

It has become clear that the Harper government is all about exploiting resources. In particular, there is a large push to shrink government, curtail government programs, and aggressively expand natural resource exploitation even at the risk of alienating a large segment of the population - which they are willing to brand as radicals or even enemies of the state.

It's also clear that Canada's sustainability indicators, perhaps meant to demonstrate sustainability in terms of our so-called sustainable development strategy, are a joke. Sustainability is not simply about pollution levels. Sadly, Environment Canada is now simply a department meant to foster resource development.

---

A CANADIAN ECONOMIC STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY

We know that there are three or four high probability scenarios that will have large economic consequences on the world economy:

• Reduced petrocarbon availability.
• Global climate change.
• Systemic economic dependency and fragility.
• Stratification of economic participation

Based on these issues, and the need to better integrate input from all sectors of Canadian society, the following strategies have been constructed.

Constructive Carbon Policy

It's clear that our dependence on oil and gas will eventually consume available reserves and have destructive effects on the climate in the progress. We must find a way to break our addiction to oil while working towards protecting ourselves from catastrophic climatic shifts.

Canada should implement a National Energy Tax (NET). This tax would impose an additional cost to the consumption of gas, oil and electricity. Basically, all of our high-energy products have a well defined sales path that would make it easy to calculate the amount of energy consumed and allow taxation at a relatively low rate, such as $1/barrel of oil equivalent.

Energy producers selling non-carbon based renewable energy resources would apply to be granted tax collection exemptions based on the percentage of energy provided from renewable sources.

Monies collected by this tax would be earmarked specifically for the development and promotion of sustainability practices and policies. These would include scientific research, experimental pilot projects, promotion of energy conservation, and promotion of sustainable practices. Such a program would fund and encourage sustainable energy practices until such a time as carbon based energy sources were no longer a major percentage of our energy consumption. 

A reasonable tax rate, applied to all consumers, would have an insignificant direct impact on current energy suppliers but it would exert a subtle pressure on all consumers towards a preference for renewable energy sources. This is a responsible way to move towards reduced petrocarbon reliance and reduced impact on our climate.

Systemic Dependencies

The recent global financial crisis demonstrates how interdependent the world's economies have become. It is clear that we must trade with partners but it is also clear that we must be able to protect ourselves from the risks involved in doing so.

Canada should create a department of Systemic Risk Research (SRR). This department will study and report on risks to Canada originating from economic sectors such as global finance, agriculture, and resource depletion.

Risk, when realized, has a very large cost. Risk reduction, often thought of as hedging in the business word, is a prudent way to manage risks. The SRR department will be responsible for publishing policy proposals in terms of protecting the public good for consideration by the general public as well as world economists. In particular, the concept of public good and the governments role in determining how it can be protected are vital to the public decision making process.

First Peoples Consultancy

Our First Peoples have a long history of living from the land and respecting nature. Canada should, as a strategy, connect with this history and provide incentives for the development of Native Canadian ability to promote sustainable land use within Canada and internationally.

At a rough guess making available unlimited higher education in history, economics, business, politics and environmental issues would be a good start. Western society speaks in terms of money, technology, business and politics -- we can't hear anything else.

This isn't an attempt to bring anything to Native Canadians, participation is obviously voluntary, but it is instead an attempt to bring the knowledge of Native Canadians to both Canada and the world. Finding a way to inject their philosophies in term of environmental stewardship into our western discourse could have a striking effect on the long term course of humanity which, quite frankly, faces a challenging future.

Economic Opportunities

We need to understand that economic opportunities, and in particular widespread economic participation, are the basis for a healthy and happy society. We also need to understand that there are always taxes, laws and regulations in a civilized society. However, in recent years lobbyists and corporate interests have been able to direct government activity specifically to their benefit with respect to tax breaks, legal changes and relaxed regulations.

Canada should create a taxation policy that favors the working class. Taxes on wage income should be at the lowest possible rate. Taxes on corporate profits and capital gains should be at a higher rate as it is blatantly obvious that lower income workers direct all their income back into the economy while higher income entities do not.

Canada should create a department of Economic Mobility and Participation (EMP). This department will develop policies and programs to enable Canadians to re-enter the education system or retrain for higher demand positions at any stage of life. Working with accredited education institutions in all regions of the nation EMP will provide and administer a nationally recognized exemption exam policy which will allow all Canadians to acquire university credits for courses through experience and independent study.

EMP will provide guidance to government at the community and regional levels with respect to removing the obstacles to economic reintegration faced by lower income citizens. In particular, this may involve dealing with existing debt levels, housing costs, educational costs, child care and other items that make it difficult to take the time needed to develop skills and education needed for an improved economic outcome.

Harper's Agenda and Playbook

Well, I wish I had of been wrong, but it all adds up so far. I'm sure more will show up, in terms of graft, when cracks finally show up in Harper's government.

First, do yourself a favor and read Federal Documents Spark Outcry by Oil Sands Critics.

In the document, environmental organizations and aboriginal groups are shown as "adversaries." Industry associations, energy companies and the National Energy Board – which is supposed to serve as an independent body evaluating new projects – are listed as "allies."

Now lets rewind all the way back to the Chaquita Banana nonsense.

This is a fantastic way to change the debate to an issue that doesn't really matter. Has anyone seriously thought that we would not be able to sell our oil? Come on. This is much ado about nothing. Actually, I'm sure the outrage has more to do with the fact the claim is based on the carbon footprint reasoning than anything else.

Soon we hear about a National Energy Strategy that may be in the works.

This answer to this question is simple. So that either BC can be forced to accept a pipeline, the government of BC can be given a means of avoiding blame, or most likely provide a means of funneling enough money around to ensure public opinion is ignored.

Before long we start to hear the government use Radicals as a description for pipeline opposition.

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth.

The whole issue turned into the foreign interests nonsense by Ethical Oil and Our Decision - a pair of government front groups.

Now, as you know I've been stating that it's obvious that Ethical Decision (really, why pretend they are truly different organizations) is a government shill wrapped in the pretense of being a grass-roots organization. If you were paying attention a few weeks ago you would have seen clear synchronization between Harper, key players, and the Ethical Decision team.

Recently Harper spoke at the Crown-First Nations Gathering and I think you can read between the lines a bit.

I've ignored you completely, ignored the Kelowna accord, and now that I'm leading a majority government I have the ability to deal with you from a position of strength without having to worry about the collapse of my government. This bodes well for me.

And, tonight, coincident with the first story, Harper has unveiled his Grand Plan at Davos.

Although short on details, Mr. Harper’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday made clear the sweep of his ambition. He will change how Canadians finance their retirement. He will overhaul the immigration system. He will make oil and gas exports to Asia a “national priority” and aggressively pursue free trade in India and Europe.

Our government has a plan born in the days of conflict between East, West and a Federalist Ottawa. Harper, a product of the West's anger over that period is now rewriting Canada in a West first manner. I have no desire to condemn the West but I don't think any one region should be the basis for a national grand plan.

The Harper government is on the wrong side of history. We are facing climate change issues and now is the time to start getting ready for the issues that we can already see on the way. We don't need to cut corporate taxes. We don't need to build prisons. We don't need to dismantle the things that brought Canadians pride for generations. We don't need to import right wing thinking from the USA.

I want my Canada back. I've been calling the Tar Sands the Prime Minister's undoing, his Moby Dick. I hope I'm right. We've got to dump this "grand plan" and get things back on track before we've gone completely over the cliff.  A massive shift to corporatism is not what we need. The world is starting to question the merits of capitalism in its current form while we are about to embrace it more tightly than ever before...