The future isn't what it used to be. In my younger days I was an avid reader of Popular Science and magazines of that ilk. It was common for these periodicals to feature the newest and latest gizmo or idea. The future was bright with hope and promise. We were all supposed to be driving flying cars by now. But during the 60's and 70's the prognosticators missed predicting the internet and the impact of computers and mobile devices. Details.
Predictions are virtually impossible to get right. My neighbourhood psychic is still in business (the lights are still on anyway), not yet independently wealthy by predicting the winner of a horse race or winning stock in the market, or anything really.
Predictions lately have been downers, bird flu will cause a pandemic (not yet), H1N1 will cause a pandemic (didn't), the planet is in peril, well that remains to be seen. Al Gore thinks it is, but he is rich and now single again! He also has tons of credibility, Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar winner on his only movie and he lives in a great house - but its green, not the colour.
One of my favourite prognosticators of late is David Suzuki, whom I've actually written about in my other more local blog. Suzuki is a metamorphosed-fruit-fly-geneticist-become-environmentalist. He's making lots of predictions, kind of like the Canadian version of Al Gore, but poorer, leaner and more grizzled but just as gloomy. He also travels lots and I bet he lives in a great house in the woods of British Columbia, but I'm just jealous. Lately he is getting lots of press, a new movie doc about him is out, he has a new book and a foundation and his thumb in every "green-program" in Canada. He is worshipped by some and he is a first class bullshitter, much like Al Gore.
David Suzuki is mentioned in a column by Dan Gardner in the National Post this week. Gardner wrote a book coming out soon called:
Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail and Why We Believe them Anyway (Oct. 12, 2010). The article outlines some of the classic previous failed predictions by environmental groups and people: Limits to Growth, The Population Bomb and so on. It's an interesting read and I can't wait for the book.
Out of necessity I try to shield myself from bad politics, which is to say any politics that has coercion as its modus operandi. Lately that has meant subscribing to a different newspaper, listening to different radio stations, following libertarian "friends" on FaceBook, generally just not dealing with the real world, I think it brings down my blood pressure. Sure I keep up with the news of the day and sometimes blog about it, but meeting others is restricted to family, friends, and libertarian pub nights (preaching to the converted). I'm in a libertarian cocoon much of the time and its comfortable.
This past Sunday presented a chance to interact with the unwashed masses. The Ontario Libertarian Party with my help, presented Operation Politically Homeless (OPH) at Toronto's Word on the Street book festival. Our primary goal is to uncover latent libertarians and bring them out of the closet by joining our cause. Sunday was a good day for the cause, we spoke to hundreds I'm guessing, and some of those were interested in what we offered.
As far as my blood pressure, lets say there were some moments. One of my favourite rebukes goes like this: I had just finished explaining that eliminating various government programs may reduce taxes and give individuals more spending power. It may also lead to larger charitable donations so that those people who depend on charity will get the help they need. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, but I know people who have their mindset on the state as the source of all good, never buy the argument. Several times during the day I was told: "but many people don't or won't contribute to charity, that's why we need those government assistance programs that alleviate poverty and taxes to pay for them!" If you don't give voluntarily, you will be forced. Coercion is a tough nut to crack.
Earlier in September at one of our pub nights we invited Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio (FDR) fame. We had a great turnout including several that had never been to one of our pub nights. We had asked Stefan to speak about morals and ethics with respect to libertarians (see video below from an older FDR posting about the morality of coercion), which he was happy to do. During his talk he used the example of the paradigm shift in thinking that occurred between the time slaves were freed in one country to the present day when just about everyone views slavery as abhorrent. Certainly that was not the case throughout much of history. Even Thomas Jefferson who penned the Declaration of Independence, owned slaves. It took more than a thousand years from the time of Cyrus the Great of Persia until 1981 when Mauritania finally abolished slavery. Of course most of Europe and the Western World was free of slaves by the end of the 19th century. The brief exception being the slave labour camps of the Nazi's, composed mostly of Jews (including my parents and inlaws) and the Japanese Prison camps of the Second World War. Stefan Molyneux likened this shift from 'slavery is good - to slavery is bad' as the requirement before libertarians will form governments in the West. The idea that people/governments have the right to coerce individuals to pay for goods and services they would not support voluntarily, needs to become as abhorrent as slavery is today. I hope it doesn't take a thousand years, but I fear we are still a long way from it.
During that OPH day, some suggested that we (meaning libertarians) can "ride the wave" of protest that exists particularly in the States, you know the Tea Party protests. Our day has arrived they said, wait until the next election! That was not the impression I got from most of the people I spoke to. On the contrary when I mentioned 'libertarian' to many, they linked us to Tea Party lunatics they had seen or read about in the media. No, the Tea Party is not helping our cause.
Towards the end of the day while speaking to an older woman I asked the question "does government do a good job?" She asked, which government? I said we are a provincial party, but any level of government will do, they're all the same, you choose. She looked at me like I had just stabbed her cat, she was indignant. "No, they NOT all the same" she whined, and stomped off. Yes, they are!
FYI, here is the video where Stefan Molyneux explains why Ron Paul will not achieve power and even if he did why the population is not yet ready for a libertarian type government. It's the slavery paradigm, the shift in thinking must happen first.
That is a picture is of an American Food stamp, one of the myriad ways the US government has tried to end poverty. That government currently operates 122 programs which spend $15,000 for each and every individual in the US that is designated as poor. This information and much more was presented by Neil Reynolds in his most recent column this week. The American war on poverty continues, 46 years after Lyndon B. Johnson fired the first shot in 1964.
That futile war is fought in the States, in Canada, and every "well-meaning" democracy on the planet by each particular local government.
The other day a colleague of mine repeated an old aphorism that applies to this sort of futility: What's the definition of insanity? Repeatedly doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome each time. Buying the end of poverty doesn't work.
Aside from blogging I keep the editors of the local and national newspapers busy with a regular stream of letters. My letters have appeared in a variety of newspapers and magazines over the years. This week I sent my first letter to the National Post, it was published and the online version appears above. My record is more spotty with other papers, this was first-time-lucky and I appreciate the opportunity. However my letter was edited so much that my argument was altered, see if you can spot the differences.
Re: Alberta Sands praised as ‘ethical oil’. Adam McDowell, Sept. 22
To the Editor:
I think that reframing the debate by called Alberta’s Oil Sands ‘ethical oil’ is disingenuous, like putting lipstick on a pig, its still a pig. Any kind of oil exploration and production is dirty business; witness the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle.
The ethical focus should be on the producers. Are they responsible enough to clean up after themselves; are they minimizing the impact of production so that the people of Alberta are not stuck with an environmental mess for generations afterward?
Oil is an essential ingredient of modern civilization, it should be traded with as few restrictions as possible, and the market should dictate its price. Alberta should not be ashamed of its good fortune as a major player in oil production. Calling it ‘ethical’ or ‘fair trade’ oil because it comes from Canada as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Nigeria is of no consequence to me, I shop for the best price.
Danielle Smith should reconsider her support of Ezra Levant’s book; it is shortsighted thinking. If ethics dictated trade we should refrain from travel to Cuba or from purchasing Chinese manufactured goods because of human rights issues. That’s wrong, it is trade that brings about change.
If the Americans don’t want our “dirty” oil, someone else will.
My letter was based on this article. It talks about Ezra Levant's book and how Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Alliance picked up the argument. Full disclosure: I haven't read the book, but I have read about it, this fairly positive review was in the Financial Post the day before my letter was sent.
I admire Levant and I agree with him on many issues, probably even this issue, given the provisos in my unedited letter. But the day after I wrote the letter the National Post ran a lead editorial supporting ethical oil, and not mentioning Levant or Smith. My letter appeared the following day, edited so as to make it look like it was written in response to the lead editorial. While I know the newspaper reserves the right to edit whatever it is sent, this seems fishy to me.
