Instructions
“Our dreams don’t fit on your ballots” is a common rallying cry amongst anarchists, anti-globalisation activists, and a whole slew of other lefty-type “radicals.” Despite its provenance, I’m starting to think that it applies readily to just about anybody.
As a white male aged 18-36, I suppose I should feel almost as empowered as the people who actually hold the reigns: the old white boomers. But I don’t, not in the least bit. In what has been a steady slide since I came of age to vote, I have felt less and less involved in Canadian politics. The last year has been especially harsh. To say the least, the system is broken.
Though we have more than two functional federal parties with in this country, there are only two that stand a chance at holding power - and I despise both of them. Despite myself, I voted for the Federal Liberals in the most recent election, because Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift represented the best chance Canada had at getting any sort of climate change policy to speak of. (More on this in another post, perhaps, but suffice to say - I have basically become a single-issue voter. Climate change is the single most important challenge facing the whole of humanity right now. If we don’t act very strongly, and very soon, then we are all well-and-truly Fucked. Period.)
As everyone in Canada knows, the “Green Shaft” (sometimes I hate puns) and its sadly uncharismatic but intelligent architect failed in the polls, sending a bleak wave through Canadian politics. The defeat of Dion’s heavily environmental policy has left all major parties afraid of environmentalism, bolstering Canada’s willing participation in the Global Doom.
This shockwave also passed through provincial politics, an area in which some (very) small inroads have been made for environmentalism and climate policy. The result is that BC’s Provincial NDP party (who correlate more closely to the Federal Liberals) based their major platform plank on an “Axe the Tax” policy. This referred to a miniscule carbon tax put into place last year by the Provincial Liberals (who correlate more closely to the Federal Conservatives… the provincial Conservatives correlate most closely with whichever Federal party is the most batshit insane) and could only be described as political pandering at its worst. This is especially noteworthy since the NDP did actually have a Carbon policy of their own — but they refused to even list it on the bulleted policy list on their website. After writing a letter telling the NDP why I would not be voting for them, I wound up voting Green. (I almost voted for the Liberals in a symbolic single-issue gesture, but I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself.)
The fact is, of course, that it doesn’t matter one lick who I voted for. The NDP were safe in my riding, and won easily. The main reason I bothered to vote at all in the provincial election was because of the referendum on a proposed voting system called Single-Transferrable Vote. A form of proportional representation, this system would have returned a semblance of franchise to disaffected extremists such as myself. I was hopeful that the system would win, given that it got 58% of the vote the last time a referendum was held (it needed 60% to pass). Instead, STV faced a massive scare campaign organized by various vested interests (BC Liberals and BC NDPs included) since STV would have done away with “safe” seats, and would have ensured that representatives would actually have to listen to their constituents or risk getting turfed. As I whined the next day, BC was offered democracy and turned it down.
The only thing that has left me with a glimmer of hope is that Vancouver’s Municipal election in 2008 saw almost entirely “progressive” representatives get elected. The lion’s share went to Vision Vancouver, a liberal/centrist type party. Most of the rest went to COPE and the Municipal Greens. The ruling right-wing NPA was left with a single member on the city council. Good riddance.
What have been the results of this progressive turn in Vancouver? Well, the Burrard Street Bridge now has a dedicated bicycle lane, for one thing. That’s nice. Unfortunately I can’t find a reference at the moment, but sometime over the past couple months I read that Vancouver’s Mayor requested that the Provincial Housing Minister put new rent control laws into place, in order to prevent “renovictions” (kicking tenants out for renovations, and then raising the rent to unaffordable levels) and other kinds of rent increases in the lead up to the Olympics. The result? The Housing Minister refused, claiming that rent-control laws would be “unfair” to landlords. Puke. (If anyone has a reference or can correct any mistakes I might have just made, please comment.)
If the Mayor of Vancouver can’t affect change on something as simple and common sense as rent control, what hope has a lowly animator? Even our political figures are disenfranched. The system is broken, and since nobody in this country (except for a small group of persistent protestors to whom I occasionally add my voice) is willing to make any noise about it, all I can really do is wait for the next political cycle and hope people smarten up a little.
PS. Sorry for the many months of silence. It’s been a hectic summer. Hopefully this rambly mess represents a return to a semblance of consistent posting.
Nice to see you writing again. The system isn’t broken. It wants to be this way.
And you want it to be this way, as written about in your FlatPlant.org post “Totalitarianism now!”
To save the environment you want a vanguard of sages who will save the day from the pandered masses of carbon-consumers. That is exactly what “the agenda” is pretending to be, the savours of the economy , the savours of the environment. While we both know Government will only ever provide lip service based on Market Data, and then will do nothing pertaining to their promises or claims, you still seem to participating in Federal and Provincinal elections as if your ballot alone was a carbon antigen.
Your contradiction is that you ask for demoracy while simultaneously making a tyrannical conspiracy your “single issue.” Make no mistake that any government environmental policy does nothing to solve “the problem” and does more to profit from it for a small cabal of insiders. This is what government does, whether a threat is real or promulgated.
And this is the biggest hoax ever, Mr. “Lowly Animator.” It goes without saying that I beleive you are being swept up in a Left-control paradigm. Global Warming, as agenda, convinces people that Freedom, Individuals, and Liberty are the most dangerous things humanity has ever birthed: So dangerous it could destroy the world with its car farts. This is the obvious sequel to human individuality being So Dangerous it could bring down a sky scraper by sheer willpower alone (okay, box cutters and an jumbojet) but never the less it is this distorted and disproportionate fear of humans which is constantly pushed on us. The fear that gives people no choice but to throw bottles of water and shampoo in a bin as they are hearded into a airplane. Ridiculous absurdities are thrust upon us by government, and you want to give them more power, or to tailor their power towards your single-issue, all because we need to save the world, and as a lowly animator you certainly can’t do it yourself….
My point is, as ever, the only single issue that mattters is Liberty. If you want to pay a global carbon directly to Al Gore, why not just writing him a cheque. Or better yet, since humans are are so dangerous, why not start right away by thinning their numbers? What’s wrong with a litle genocide when you’re talking about saving the Earth. That is exactly why this agenda exists. Scientific justification for the purge.
An agenda you refuse to admit could exist. A purge you refuse to admit is intended.
Climate change could be driven by solar, environmental or anthropromorphic changes. The point is the science is not trustworthy and much less trustworthy are the institutions jumping on board to “Green Shift.” I’d much rather let the oceans rise than let a global fascism rise. Think about it.
I’m sorry dude, I just can’t even debate that the science of climate change is not trustworthy. The debate is closed, and it’s not something that I’m prepared to re-open because those with your mindset do not listen. 99% of climate scientists agree that the cause is anthropogenic. There are thousands who have studied reams of data, and they have all come to more or less the same conclusion. The idea that these thousands of scientists are all a part of the same agenda, are all trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world, is patently absurd. Far more absurd than the idea that there are people in power who give genuine thought to the idea of a genocidal purge. I am prepared to accept the latter before the former.
I don’t know how many scientists you know, but those with scientific training view the world with an extremely critical eye. Most are skeptics, and most take a lot of convincing before they will agree that something is true.
What’s more, the scientists who are behind these reports hardly stand to benefit monetarily. Scientists never get rich. “Well-funded” experiments in Europe to develop “in vitro meat” get sums on the order of 2 million Euros over five years. All scientific research (including things like NASA) get funds in the order of ones-to-tens of millions if they’re very, very lucky. Do you really believe that these thousands of scientists are falsifying data for the sake of a payout? Is the entire scientific community so corrupt? And if yes, who can we turn to?
Balance your radical libertarian blogs with some of these, please:
Climate Progress
Grist
Real Climate
George Monbiot
Worldchanging
That last one is especially important, because nearly every post puts the lie to the idea that action against climate change should or would result in any significant loss of freedom or prosperity. The whole point of the site is to show that it is possible to live a carbon-free sustainable lifestyle in a way that would make people more prosperous and happy, not less.
Climate Deniers are dinosaurs. Don’t drag us into the tar pits with you.
I apologize if my tone is a little harsh - but I have no patience left for climate denial. It is the most blatant display of willful ignorance I can conceive of.
As for voting, I vote because I believe that one can only affect change by working both within the system and without it. Government has power, as you know. As such, it can affect change faster than people working individually - especially if they’re working against an entrenched system. Multinational corporations also have power. Multinationals have more power than government. With a weak government, we would be ruled by vampiric multinationals, taking full advantage of their “liberty,” leaving us with none. At least with a government you can vote for your leaders (or slave-masters if you so desire). Corporations leave no such stop-gap. It’s certainly true that goverment and corporations often work in tandem, but historically, governments have actually done some pretty good things for “the masses” to the detriment of business/industry/etc. Do you think that the history of government is one solely of oppression?
Canada’s “big government” had certain regulatory laws in place before the “financial crash” happened last August/September. The result of these laws, these restrictions of liberty, is that Canada’s financial system survived with minimal losses - to be held up as an example at the UN as how a reasonably functioning banking system should work. Materially, Canadians have suffered far less in this recession than almost anyone else in the world.
Leaving aside the fact that I think Canadian banks are just as parasitic as those operating elsewhere in the world, you can’t possibly tell me that a weaker government would have left us better off - when examples of weaker governments (and far greater financial damage) abound across the globe.
And… I’m going to be honest– I disagree with you about fascism versus oceans. If it were a choice between those two things (which it is not) I would pick fascism in an instant. Totalitarianism can be defeated, and often defeats itself. People are vulnerable. A world with massively increased droughts and floods, inconsistent growing seasons, and submerged coastlines, would be completely unlivable for the bulk of human civilisation. For what it’s worth, such a situation would nearly guarantee global fascism - and a return to the perpetual wars of the middle ages.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply and have bookmarked your links so that I may know what you are reading and it may inform me as to your perspective. Well done rebuttal and good points on government! I don’t want to argue any more even though I could write another response however I’m surprised by the reply to you; I’m not typically pushing this stuff any more, perhaps I felt like it was my job to reply along these lines. Like, a dialog characters are having. Well I don’t want to be a character in either of our doomsday stories whether yeigh or neigh in veracity. I really don’t think there’s any danger and if there is I don’t think I can do anything so I’m not sure why I bothered pushing any sort of opion-to-save-the-world arguement. I am “zen,” and I am “now,” and I am more powerful than I have ever been, in terms of aptitude in career, love, and friendship, even music and art. I am a node that energy passes through. I am eternal, as energy, and cannot be destroyed, because I am a part of the great everything, which is also eternal. No sinister force can threaten me except my own fear. If death comes will I say — if only I had just spent more time promoting Liberty then my death would never have happened! No, it makes no difference what i warned people about when i’m suddenly struck by a car … at the age of 70 … on an ice cold August noonhour, or death by stray meteor minutes after submiting this comment.
I am approaching the world (my minds formation of my surroundings) as “now is good” instead of “now should be good but isn’t” or “it’ll be good later” or “it was good then” or “its good now but later is danger!”
I prefer making decisions in context, not ideology. That allowed me to vote Liberal in the last federal election as you suggested. It was useless and an honoured ritual of appreciation for those who created our traditions of democracy. lll vote again. It’s fun to participate instead of complain all the time! If I vote for someone… maybe someone will vote for me!
It seems to me that whatever does happen is supposed to happen: Causality works. There are no abominations, only acts of power and reactions. Rising oceans, rising fascism, rising liberty, rising costs, if something caused those things, then those things will happen. I can do nothing to stop the tide of history from overtaking me except build my boat. Contrarily, it could be said that none of those things mentioned above rely on causality to exist. They’re just nouns. Concepts. A neatly packaged way to refer to an array of possible configurations of policy, or molecules. And ocean is an ocean and the water level has only gone up if you remember when it was lower. Otherwise, the ocean is just the ocean. Liberty and fascism are much less tangible and I’d say are mental constructions which depict the characteristics of that which we want or fear.
Choas comes no matter what order we are in, yet our job is to find order. And we do.
Order is what life is: a constant battle against entropy. Ordo ab chao is the nature of energy in the universe. Humanity, or reality, and the progress of it will continue into order no matter what happens on the moral plane.
Given all the absurdity facing our respective realities there is no point to worry and much more reason to live our lives to the maximum in this wonderful moment we each have called Now and ever more Now. Fear of doom in future has lost its power over me. I chose to be happy and I have worked on tangible interactions not ideological struggles. Real work is much more gratifiying that arming up and battling through an ideology war.
Despite my ostencible climate denial I am nevertheless promoting sustainability. Today I appeared at council as my colleage sort of stammered his way through some sembalance of a presentation. Next time it will be me speaking instead. We GCAST.org and our event for international car free day Sept 22. I am doing this because the city of St. Catharines downtown needs revitilization and Car Free day is an excuse to shut down a sheet (”Open it to pedestrians”) so we can have a street party “Celebration Transporation.” GCAST supports downtown revitlization, innercity creek revitlization, and transportation initiatives. All of which are good for active transportation benefits in the community. You can worry about climate change if you want. Where I am working with people who are creating a climate of change.
I remember reading about the single transferrable vote thing ages ago, I had no idea it was still around. I still vote because federal parties are funded by the popular vote…otherwise I’ve been in this argument like a billion times. It’s a given that no political party is going to represent my views, that’s what activism is for, that doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the parties. I’m not talking about you here, but the segment of the left that sees activism and recognizing the existence of conventional politics as it affects our lives as mutually exclusive, or thinks that the act of not voting is some supremely clever thing to do annoy the hell out of me.
I hope summer’s been hectic in a good way and not the bad kind.