sliced bread #2

Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

lifestyles of the rich and self-indulgent

--------------------

Bis dat, qui cito dat (He gives twice who gives quickly or opportunely...)


DeNeen L. Brown of the Washington Post recently reported on the Alfalfa Club, an exclusive circle of the rich and the powerful founded in 1913 for no real purpose except to organize a banquet each year to honor the birthday of Gen. Robert E. Lee. (The club takes its name from the legume whose roots probe deeply for liquid. An Alfalfan, it is said, will do anything for a drink.) After reading this, I needed a drink myself.

"On the guest list of this year's dinner: Chief Justice John Roberts, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. Vice President Cheney, who seems to emerge from wherever he goes when there is something really important to be said. The powerful and the rich sit next to each other at a head table spanning the length of the ballroom. President Bush was to sit next to Roberts, who was seated next to the ambassador of Germany, who sat next to Rice, who sat next to O'Connor. In between was the secretary of the Treasury and the ambassador of Japan. Then came Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. According to a seating chart, to the president's left were places for George H.W. Bush, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Mayor Anthony Williams. And down the line was Laura Bush, who was to sit next to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and OMB Director Joshua Bolten and Alan Greenspan, who was to sit next to Barbara Bush. And somewhere in the room was Karl Rove.

For four hours, they dined on $230-a-plate meals of coriander-poached lobster with artichoke and fried dill lotus root. They ate filet mignon and pistachio-encrusted sea bass with roasted beets and baby carrots and black currant sauce. And they were served a salad with dates and raspberries and brie with table water crackers. The salad course gave them the break they needed to get up and shake hands. The night was filled with speeches. And President Bush would split sides with unexpected laughter."

While New Orleans is in a-shambles and millions of other Americans suffer the ignobility of poverty, their leaders revel in their glut and debauchery, having laughs at the expense of the nation. It's reminscent of the final scene in George Orwell's Animal Farm, when "the creatures outside looked from pig to man, from man to pig and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which." According to an excerpt of the remarks of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell: "I want to acknowledge my wife, our nation's secretary of labor, Elaine Chao . . . And she is the motivation for what will be my platform as president of the Alfalfa Club. It is time we take our culture of cronyism and replace it with a different culture. A new culture, a better culture. It's time we replace a culture of cronyism with a culture of nepotism. Alfalfans one. Alfalfans all: Ask not what this club can do for you. Ask what this club can do for your family."

Indeed.

--------------------

Saturday, January 28, 2006

talking without speaking

--------------------

a good and bad thing happened to me last week...


i came to realize that i'd drifted away from another one of my friends... our friendship has been slowly eroded by time and diverging interests, but it became painfully clear the other day that things just aren't [and maybe never will be] the way they were... it pained me that we couldn't even muster up a conversation with each other, even as we rode the same bus and after several weeks of not having spoken or hung out... instead of showing any enthusiasm at the opportunity to catch up, i was met with indifference and the things that i've recently been involved with -- and truly been excited about -- were derided and summarily dismissed...

this experience isn't new or unique, of course... amongst the many acquaintances and contacts i have, i think it's gotten to the point where i could probably count the number of "friends" [i.e. people who i know that would: a) pick up the phone if i called in the middle of the night in an emergency; b) be in my wedding party should i get married; c) would come to my funeral] on one hand... that probably sounds way more tragic than i intended, but the point is simply that i'm quite disappointed about another friendship that has gone by the wayside...

we could both play the blame game, but what good would that do?


the positive experience that happened was the conversation i had with a total stranger on that same bus ride... although she must have been sorry when she first realized she picked the wrong guy to talk politics with [i.e. i didn't shut up once i got going], in the end i think she was glad she made the comment about my campaign button [which got the conversation started in the first place]... in those short but precious 40 minutes, i managed to defy the post-modernist lament of isolation in urban public space and actually connect, brief as it was, with a random person...

whether or not i see her again is beside the point [although i did invite her to the conference i'm helping to organize]... it was that rare glimpse of humanity in the hustle-and-bustle of the everyday, that rare opportunity to bridge the gaps of urban solitudes, that made that experience stand out...


the irony of the form that this very message is taking isn't lost on me...


I usually love talking to cabbies, those mobile ambassadors who provide news, traffic updates and political opinions — especially during hot election periods like this when I'd have loved some fresh thoughts on Stephen Harper. Nowadays more and more cabbies are on their cellphone the second I sit down and they'll ignore me like a suitcase in the back seat. But cabs are only part of our increasingly anonymous era where random conversations with strangers are getting hard to find.

We used to talk to the butcher, baker and candlestick-maker, but most of them have now been replaced by big-box stores where customer relations matter more than human relations. Sure the clerks at large stores like still ask: "Did you find everything you were looking for, sir?" but they couldn't care less what you answer. Making conversation is practically considered rude. Try to chat with a supermarket cashier and watch her look at you like she's going to press the alarm button. "Attention security! Weird guy in Aisle 3 who wants to talk."

You can't even have an intimate yak with a stranger on the phone any more. You spend too much time pushing buttons and listening for whether to press 9 — or 19 — for English, then 2 for "more choices," or 3 for "way too many choices." When you finally do get a human, they're not much friendlier. I phoned my branch recently to discuss a banking problem and was rerouted to some guy in Toronto, or Texas, or Taiwan for all I know. While old-style bank tellers could greet you by your name, when I told this guy who I was, he just asked for my mother's maiden name and my shoe size to prove I really was me.

When I'd passed the test, I spent several more minutes slowly getting him to sympathize with my problem, and he promised to get right back to me. Instead, I heard from another person who said it didn't matter who I talked to because they all had the same information on their computers. But it did matter — emotionally. I'd formed a tiny relationship with one person, who'd finally started to understand I wasn't a widget. Now, I was stuck with a new person who thought I was.

Our changing workplaces are also conversation-killers as more people work at home alone. There may be more efficiency when you eliminate the water cooler, but there's also less humanity. You lose the chance to hear about your colleagues' children who are getting married, or their nephews who are getting out of prison. You miss the little exchanges of life where you learn surprising things — and sometimes reveal your own.

The irony is we've never heard more about "chat." There are chat rooms, chat lines and text-messaging chats, but real chat is disappearing. We walk in crowds of people, all talking on the cellphone while ignoring those around us. We listen to our iPods, lost in our own soundtracks, and many people now watch TV shows on them too, their heads buried in the cybersand like social ostriches. We send e-mail invitations instead of making phone calls because fewer words are lost in random chatter. But something else is lost, as isolation replaces conversation.

So, what can you do to put the chit back in chat? Next time you're at the supermarket, put down your cellphone and talk to your aisle-mate. When you go to the dentist, ask the assistant how her teeth are. Chat up a stranger today — and help make society more social.

— JOSH FREED, Toronto Star (2006/01/21)
--------------------

Thursday, January 26, 2006

riding the curve

--------------------




grades are out... enough said...

as an upper-year mentor and advisor and student ambassador, i've always told first-years and would-be applicants to take the time to reflect on their personal statement... especially at a critical juncture like this, when the overwhelming pressure to perform and compete takes precedence over what should otherwise be a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, it's all the more important to figure out why one is undertaking legal education in the first place... having a sense of perspective is essential if one is going to survive the challenges and disappointments of law school and keep one's head above the fray...

to offer that perspective, i've borrowed the wise zaniac's words:

Dear Law School,

Please take my creativity and pay lip service to it. Please take my soul and teach me to suppress it. Please take my time and teach me to see it in terms of billable minutes. Please take my classmates and turn them into competitors in a race off the sheer face of a cliff.

Amen. Per legem ad gaudium.
--------------------

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

the best result we could have hoped for...


--------------------


some have argued, less sardonically than i, that Stephen Harper as Prime Minister will steer Canada toward the exact Bush-style neo-conservativism and right-wing social policies that Canadians time and again have disavowed... the results of the 2006 election have once again demonstrated Canadians' generally pragmatic and balanced perspective, despite the oft-cited failures of our electoral system... we've voted for change, but not too much change; we've given the Conservatives a mandate, but held them to a short leash; we've maintained a healthy balance of power for the opposition; we've given voice to our regional diversity; we've voted with our feet but thought with our hearts...

in essence, we've decided that to "choose your Canada" and to "stand up for Canada" means more than just binary and divisive thinking: it means tolerance and acceptance of our differences, and a willingness to work through our common issues by reasoned debate and a pragmatic approach... understood from this perspective, the elections results are the best we could have hoped for...

Stephen Harper will have a chance to prove his mettle, the opportunity to make or break his legacy, either as a right-wing ideologue or a pragmatic centrist... we've chosen change, and now Canadians will be watching for the correct type... the Liberals will be injected with fresh life... Paul Martin's resignation and Michael Ignatieff's successful candidacy signals a revolution inside the party -- a new dynamic of idealism and long-term vision for this country and its place in the world that will once again inspire and take hold of the grassroots and Canadians as a whole... it will be time when it's time... Canadians have also given a strong voice to the NDP, a clear sign that the "moral conscience" of Parliament will have to be heeded in every major national decision (and appropriately so)... as the Canadian constitution enshrines minority rights, Canadians' vote for the NDP has ensured that the voices of the weak will be heard in Parliament... Quebecers voted to give federalists a new chance at bridging our "two solitudes"...

as we Canadians
a mari usque ad mare move forward from this election, let us remember that, greater than some of our political and regional differences, there really are such things as "Canadian values" that bind us... just as we expect our Parliament and our government to work together on the issues that matter to us and to come to a compromise to achieve our common goals, we too must seek common ground with our neighbours and friends across this great country, collectively choosing our Canada and standing up for it...

--------------------

Monday, January 23, 2006

reflection on the election

--------------------

"Electoral tides are powerful things that often wash ashore some very weird fish."


— JIM COYLE, Toronto Star (2006/01/17)


we may not get the government we want, but we'll get the one we deserve...

i've said it once, i'll say it again: vive la démocr --- ah, forget it...

after being a campaign volunteer canvassing and polling, getting up early and staying out late, slogging through the snow and the cold, having doors shut in my face and the phone hung up on me several times; after debating and discussing the issues with family, friends, and strangers; after the frustration of watching negativity and mudslinging dominate the campaign and bemoaning the absence of intelligent debate; after being exposed to the apathy and disinterest of many peers as well as the intractable dogmatism and partisanship of others; and later, having the opportunity to be there to the very end as an election scrutineer when the ballots are countedwell, instead of focusing on the negatives of politics and the failings of democracy, i'd rather think of it like this:

For each candidate who makes it to Ottawa, there will be two or more dedicated Canadians who will not. And when voters go to the polls today, they should remember that they are beholden to all candidates, regardless of which one they support, for giving them a real choice. People from all walks of life — lawyers, teachers, students, business owners, community volunteers — are running for office, from celebrities such as Liberals Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden, to their less well-known but equally committed opponents. Willingly, even cheerfully, they put their names forward, open their lives to the scrutiny of strangers, run the near-certain risk that some day — if not this time — they'll be found wanting, scorned, rejected.

It's madness, really.

Most of the scores of men and women across Greater Toronto running in today's federal election will be defeated. Of those elected, many will never see the government side of the House. Of those elected to government, few will reach levels at which they wield much influence or their names become known beyond their own neighbourhoods. And still Canadians seek the job — committing themselves, honouring the process, serving their country and their fellows. Today, a tip of the battered old bowler to them all.

I like politicians. Always have. I think they're under-appreciated, under-paid, scapegoated and slandered. They don't run, in most cases, to get famous. They don't run to get rich. They don't even run to get powerful. Few ever do. Usually, they run because they have ideas or ideals. They run because they've heard a call to duty. They run because they imagine something better — maybe a New Deal, a New Frontier, a New World Order. By and large, they are men and women who have put their personal lives on hold to make a difference, to give something back to their communities and their country. Many have given up a job and a paycheque to enrich our democracy, and all have sacrificed time with their families and friends in their desire to make the country a better place.

Since the watershed of the 1970s, when Vietnam and Watergate produced generations predisposed to think the worst of elected officials, government and politics have fallen into disrepute. There's been damage done to all by the relentless attack. In a commencement address at Harvard, Al Gore once spoke about the high cost of such cynicism: "Cynicism is deadly. It bites everything it can reach — like a dog with a foot caught in a trap. And then it devours itself. It drains us of the will to improve; it diminishes our public spirit; it saps our inventiveness; it withers our souls."

Neither has the country been well served by the notion that election campaigns are about costing and detailing every initiative for years to come, that straying a step from such blueprints afterwards is a firing offence. The campaigns that make history are those that call us to national purpose, that remind us — eyes on a Just Society, say — the reach should exceed the grasp. For what is government if not just us, our disagreements and dissensions, our aspirations and ambitions, the whole (one hopes) exceeding the sum of the parts.

If by politics one thinks of the shenanigans and scandals that dominate the news, the disdain is deserved; but if by politics, one imagines, as Czech president Vaclav Havel did, the "art of the impossible," it is something admirable and essential. Scuffed as he was by the experience, former Ontario premier Bob Rae saw its value: "I would encourage anyone with a thick skin, a good sense of humour, a love of people and the noise of the arena to take up the torch. I have learned that politics cannot solve all ills, that it is not to be confused with life itself, but that it is a worthy and necessary pursuit."

Like professional sports coaches, politicians are essentially hired to be fired. For most, their rejection will come before they ever get a chance to start. The consolation will be in knowing, as Edward Kennedy did in losing a bid for a presidential nomination long years ago, that "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die."

For all of that, to all of you, thanks.

— JIM COYLE, Toronto Star (2006/01/21)
--------------------

Sunday, January 22, 2006

g-d help us?

--------------------

Canada's Supreme Court rules in favour of private sex clubs...


the haunting likelihood of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister looms...


Oregon's "right-to-die" legislation is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court...


and now . . . Christ's existence is challenged in Italy!


perhaps the crazy homeless guy downtown was right: the Apocalypse is here!

--------------------

Friday, January 20, 2006

Which candidates support Make Poverty History?

--------------------

Make Povery History supporters contacted federal election candidates from the five federal political parties and encouraged them to endorse the Make Poverty History goals of more and better aid, trade justice, 100% debt cancellation and an end to child poverty in Canada. In all, 987 candidates (75% from all parties) responded by our deadline and endorsed the MPH goals, and even now, more are contacting us. This chart lists candidates by province and riding who indicated that they support MPH's campaign goals. You can also consider the different party platforms to see how the different parties plan to act. No matter who wins, let's hold them to account!

--------------------

Thursday, January 19, 2006

exit strategy

--------------------

--------------------

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

silence is the best ally of injustice

--------------------

"All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

With Iraq and the Asian tsunami dominating international headlines in 2005, scant airtime was devoted to other major and devastating conflicts and crises from Haiti to Chechnya, a global aid agency said on Thursday. "Silence is the best ally of injustice," said Nicolas de Torrente, the U.S. director of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). MSF published its annual list of the 10 most under-reported humanitarian stories round the world in a bid to jolt consciences into helping the millions of neglected victims. The world's poorest continent, Africa, accounted for half of the list with five of its worst crises -- the Democratic Republic of Congo, south Sudan, Somalia, Uganda and Ivory Coast. Other neglected hot spots were Haiti, Colombia, north India and Chechnya. The lack of attention on the need for research and development into AIDS completed the MSF list. MSF did not rank the crises in order of importance. But its report gave first mention to the vast Democratic Republic of Congo, where a 1998-2003 war killed nearly 4 million people and 1,000 more a day still die from conflict-related causes. "The extreme deprivation and violence endured by millions of Congolese goes virtually unnoticed to the rest of the world," MSF said, noting that recent fighting between the Congolese army and Mai Mai rebels had displaced tens of thousands.

-- REUTERS AlertNet (2006/01/12)
--------------------

Monday, January 16, 2006

the next Prime Minister?

--------------------

Voters don't cast a ballot based exclusively, or even primarily, on the platforms of competing parties. They vote for the guy they trust most, or distrust least. It is probably fair to say that Stephen Harper is winning this election because he is less distrusted than Paul Martin. But the question still hangs out there: Who is Stephen Harper? What is he like? Is he really that cold and remote? How would he react in a crisis? What kind of a prime minister would Stephen Harper make?

-- JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail (2006/01/14)


with the Globe and Mail's endorsement of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives being all but the final nail in the coffin, and despite Michael Ignatieff's retort that ballots shouldn't be counted before they're casted, i'm certainly not the first liberal bracing for the worst... that's no typo -- i'm simply a l-iberal, but definitely not a Paul Martin L-iberal (nor have i ever claimed to be one -- since being involved in this campaign, i've eschewed that tagline)... despite my previous criticism and lampooning of Harper, i've never been a big fan of Martin either... it will be a sad and ignominious fate that history will resign him to: a mere footnote in the long line of would-be great leaders that became a victim to political expediencies...

and so now we face the very real -- and rather, surreal -- likelihood of Harper becoming Canada's 22nd Prime Minister in a week's time... as everyone else has apparently mused, perhaps this will be good for the country in the long term: it will be time to clear the air, rethink and rebuild, but perhaps more importantly, to give the "Devil" his due... if he has indeed matured (as he and his supporters claim), then it'll be interesting to give him a chance to follow through with his commitments and ideas, if only so we can finally have a record by which to judge him... Harper will make or break his legacy: if he veers too far to the right, if he reverts to the social conservativism of the Canadian Alliance Party, if he diverts from the mainstream, if we see a repeat of the Harris-era nonsense, he will pay and pay dearly (as the Conservative Party did post-Mulroney)...

regretable as it may be, i'm tentatively prepared to accept this likely turn of events, not merely out of simple resignation (i've already cast my ballot), but because -- as disagreeable as his ideas may be (and make no mistake: i fundamentally disagree with the kind of society envisioned by Harper) -- at least we can say he has a vision for Canada...

and that, more than anything, is what we need in a leader...

in the meanwhile, we should also consider who may be the next next Prime Minister... fortunately or unfortunately, change is in the air, and it will most likely be within the Liberal party as it is without...

and that, truth be told, is why i'm volunteering for Michael Ignatieff...

--------------------

Saturday, January 14, 2006

the dumbing down of politics

--------------------

is there room in politics for nuanced thought instead of drive-by smears and mere buzzwords and rhetoric? some days i seriously question whether it's worth volunteering for this election campaign, knowing that i'm doing nothing to change the dumbed-down nature of our political process... despite demands for a "more intelligent debate" -- not only from the electorate, but from Paul Martin himself (at the last leaders' debate in one of his more infamous "pot calling the kettle black" moments) -- there doesn't seem to be as much appetite for it as one would think...

policy-making on the fly has been accepted as sine qua non to electioneering, yet what we really need is long-term vision and big-picture planning -- except that no one seems to have the patience for anything that can't be captured in a 30-second soundbite... there's no real debate... if you are a member of a political party, you vote along party lines, and there's little (if any) communication across party lines... moreover, the name of the game is attrition, not co-operation... somehow, after weeks of slagging each other and dragging each other's names through the mud, we expect our politicians to work together in Parliament after this election is over...

at an all-candidates' meeting in the Toronto-Centre riding, Chris Tindal of the Green Party cheekily remarked in his closing speech that "30-second responses and 2-minute speeches make it seem that solutions are just that simple"... to that i would add: it's not just solutions that are made simple -- it's also the electorate... once again, vive la démocratie insoutenable!

Whatever they do to Liberals across the country, voters in Etobicoke - Lakeshore should rally to Michael Ignatieff. The journalist, author and professor is needed in the national capital for more textured, if not less important reasons. First, there is urgency in attracting back to politics thoughtful people who don't need the job, pension or spotlight. Then, there is the silence in the argument over the future of federalism that only a voice that is passionate and reasoned can break.

Ignatieff is not a fully formed saviour surfacing on the political scene. His nomination became news for all the wrong reasons. Years of nuanced writing on ethnicity got bent out of shape while his support for the Iraq war remains awkward to explain. And even for an academic who spends so much time in the streets below the ivory tower, the rough introduction to retail politics orchestrated by the Prime Minister's operatives left campaign damage and personal bruises.

Nearly lost in all that noise is a nagging question. Has democracy become so brutish that it's now more welcoming to those who in doing little have done nothing to offend rather than those who rub raw emotions by deconstructing complex public policies? Ignatieff's ability to hold one of the party's safest seats is put at modest risk by a long, easily revisited record of musing openly about things that matter.

It's not certain Ignatieff has the miracle solution or the political skills for its application. What he does offer is an articulate alternative to the helter-skelter federalism Martin is rapidly advancing but not revealing. Depending on this election's outcome, Liberals will confront those options sooner or later. Either in a leadership or referendum, a party so fixated on power that it's neglecting nation-building responsibilities must make choices.

Charged moments are not the best time for considered decisions. But the rebirth of Quebec separatism and the fundamentalist Conservative reading of a [dated] Constitution means Canada's best hope may rest with Liberals who must decide who they are and what they represent in a time frame compressed from years to months. Ignatieff brings more to the ruling party than a missing unity perspective. His candour on the failing promise of immigration and the challenges of constructing a common future from heterogeneous histories rise far above the current low babble.

Those are still just bonuses. Apart from raising Parliament's collective IQ, Ignatieff would add an essential voice to the conversation Canada must have with itself. Experience reminds that there is more to winning elections and leadership contests than good ideas. In politics, reach and grasp are separated by the gritty logistics of self-interest, organization and timing.

Of the three, Ignatieff is only rich in the third. A Liberal party now synonymous with pragmatism is overdue for a careful recalibration of its purpose. If what must follow this election is lost on Etobicoke-Lakeshore voters, Ignatieff won't be a central part of that necessary renewal. His loss would be our loss and that would be a shame.

-- James Travers, Toronto Star (2006/01/03)
--------------------

Friday, January 13, 2006

the party lines on poverty

--------------------

click to view the NDP's collective response to the Make Poverty History campaign:




Mike Jones (Green Party, Saskatoon-Humboldt) sent this 5-page response to my e-mail which included his party's position on this important issue:






Brad Trost, Conservative incumbent for Saskatoon-Humboldt, sent the party's response:

--------------------

Thursday, January 12, 2006

the politics of poverty

--------------------
an open letter to all candidates in this election:

Ending poverty, both globally and in Canada, should be at the forefront of this federal election. With over 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty globally and with one child in six in Canada being poor, Canadians want to know what candidates and political parties will do to help end poverty.

Make Poverty History is calling for more and better aid, trade justice, 100% debt cancellation for the poorest countries and an end to child poverty in Canada. I call on you to take leadership and, if you have not yet done so, publicly pledge to work towards ending poverty at home and abroad. Ending poverty
must be an election issue and a priority for the next government.

--------------------

A copy of this was sent by e-mail to the leaders of the major parties: Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, and Jim Harris (given Harper's comments about enshrining property rights in the Charter, I highly doubt he would have anything to say in response). Other candidates were also contacted. Jaipaul Massey-Singh, the Green Party candidate for Brampton-West, and Susan Barclay's (NDP candidate for Kenora) campaign manager replied to confirm that he has faxed in his pledge. The campaign manager for Jagtar Shergill, the NDP candidate for Brampton-West, stated that they "both support and endorse all of the goals of the Make Poverty History campaign". Other candidates, Kevin Modeste (NDP, Ajax-Pickering), Andrew Mason (NDP, Saskatoon-Humboldt), Holly Heffernan (NDP, Calgary Southwest) -- who also bragged about wearing the white band -- and Mike Jones (Green Party, Saskatoon-Humboldt), forwarded their respective party's collective response*. Sue Greetham, Conservative Party candidate in the Yukon, simply wrote "Thank you for making my position that much easier through your support for these essential issues" (but didn't detail her own commitment to the issues).

Four candidates have provided responses that are longer than a few lines or that don't involve an "official" party position. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party candidate for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, provided this response:

Dear Friend,

I have received your e-mail about the Make Poverty History Campaign and feel compelled to write to you directly about it. I agree without reservation that we need to address each of the issues advanced by the Make Poverty History Campaign.

I am proud that Canada is committed to the Millennium Development Goals and that the Liberal government is committed to increasing the effectiveness of our development dollars. Canada has made significant progress in recent years improving its performance on international development assistance. The Liberal government has cancelled all of its bilateral debt to the poorest countries.

Canada’s International Assistance Envelope has increased by 8% annually since 2002-2003 and will continue to increase by 8% each year subsequent. The 2005 Federal Budget provided an increase of $3.4 billion over the next five years for international assistance and commits to doubling this budget to over $5 billion by 2010.

As a member of Parliament I will work hard to advance our national goal of maintaining increases beyond 2010 and accelerate the projected rate of growth in international assistance as our fiscal position continues to improve.

Canada’s direct country-to-country assistance will be focused on 25 developing countries, more than half of those in Africa. These are among the world’s poorest countries but have the capacity to use aid effectively. I believe that targeting our efforts to the sectors of governance, health, basic education, private-sector development, and environmental sustainability, with gender equality as an overall theme, will lead to an increased impact in poverty reductions.

As a human rights professor, I have taught my students that good public policy is built on a stubborn respect for facts, however inconvenient they may be. But good public policy is also disciplined by the art of the possible. I believe wholeheartedly that we can, and we must, continue to work vigilantly to eliminate the scourge of poverty. We must scrutinize, review, and revise our plans for addressing world poverty on a continuous basis; we have this responsibility and we must not shirk it.

Make Poverty History's cause is a just cause and its supporters like you should be commended for your desire to make a meaningful difference in the world we live in. I pledge to work towards fighting poverty here at home and abroad.

Thank you for taking the time to send me an e-mail on this very important subject. Happy Holidays to you and your loved ones.


Most sincerely,


Michael Ignatieff
Liberal Candidate, Etobicoke-Lakeshore

1278 The Queensway (at Kipling)
Etobicoke, Ontario
M8Z 1S3
www.michaelignatieff.ca
T. 416.503.3817
F. 416.503.0232


Roy Cullen, Liberal incumbent for Etobicoke North, wrote:

Dear Mr. Saguil;

Thank you for your email. I commit myself to end poverty at home and abroad. To do this we need to set realistic and achievable goals. Our government has increased our International Assistance by 8% annually since 2002-2003 and in the 2005 budget, Canada increased international assistance by $3.4 billion over the next five years. Budget 2005 committed $342 million to accelerate the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and polio in Africa.

We are also continuing to lead efforts to forgive the debt of the world's poorest countries by providing $206 million for a new Canadian debt relief initiative and contributing $34 million to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief initiative. We have already cancelled the Canadian debt loads of eleven of the world's poorest countries.

We also need to fight corruption because corrupt elected officials and governments slow the fight against poverty. I am very active in the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC).

Should you require any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Roy Cullen
Liberal candidate for Etobicoke North


Gary Gervais of the Green Party (Winnipeg Centre) wrote:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for taking the time to write me about the Green Party of Canada and inquire about our policies on Poverty.

The Green Party advocates child-focused policies on home, health, and family. Poverty goes beyond the deprivation of physical needs to include social and human needs as well. Society pays a large toll for child poverty, including higher health costs, higher crime rates, and a degraded social fabric.

In 1989, the old-line political parties voted unanimously in favour of a motion to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Since then, the rate has remained unchanged, at around 15 per cent, or one million children. As a result of short-sighted cuts to our social programs, many families no longer have a basic income. Canada now ranks a dismal 26th out of 29 ‘developed’ countries in terms of child poverty rates. The Green Party proposes new funding networks for locally run health and social programs, as well as a greater focus on well being and nutrition. The Green Party is also committed to serving the long-term goals of Canadians, without sacrificing the right to security, happiness, and health.

Because we believe that reducing child poverty starts with a stronger commitment to guaranteeing that every family has an equal opportunity to provide for their children, we will work to create a “Comprehensive Anti-Poverty Strategy for Canada”. This strategic attempt to improve child and family well-being will call for tougher wage regulations in order to ensure a living wage for all working Canadians, raise benefit levels and increase eligibility under the Employment Insurance Act, remove GST on education supplies and family products and expand child tax credits and benefits.

The Green Party would support and encourage provinces that adopt a basic income strategy to ensure that the benefits of a living wage are available to every citizen through existing federal programs. The Green Party is committed to creating tax incentives for businesses to implement flexible schedules and on-site childcare. We will support a nation-wide healthy lunch and snacks program from Kindergarten through to Grade 12. We will also support child-focused programs that boost self confidence and foster a love of learning.

The Green Party will seek to boost funding for early childhood education and work with other governments to link local childcare and education centers into a national network. Finally, we will implement affordable housing programs, combat racism in hiring practices and give greater recognition to foreign qualifications.

If you require more information on Poverty, please feel free to contact Katie Boudreau at kboudreau@greenparty.ca. For general background information and the 2006 Green Party of Canada platform, please visit www.greenparty.ca. You can access media releases through the Newsroom, located on the left side of the Home page. The Media Releases section is the first item in the drop-down menu.

The policies of the Green Party of Canada are socially progressive, fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable. They are founded upon six fundamental principles: ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, non-violence, sustainability, and respect for diversity. Thank you once again for taking the time to write to me. If you have any questions, please contact me.


Best regards,

Gary Gervais

Green Party – Winnipeg Centre
Telephone: 998-8448
E-mail: ggervais@greenparty.ca
Web: www.garygervais.ca
Blog: http://greenparty-wpgctr.blogspot.com/


Roger Valley, Liberal Party incumbent for Kenora, wrote:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for raising this issue. I agree that poverty must be an election issue. Especially in a riding like Kenora where there are thousands of people that live below the poverty line, and especially among Aboriginal people. This is unacceptable.

I have advocated tirelessly for the Government of Canada to increase it's efforts to close the gap for Aboriginal people and I welcomed the outcome of the First Minister's Meeting where over $5 billion was pledged to do exactly that. However we must ensure that this money is distributed in a way that will have a direct impact for our communities.

As for global poverty, I couldn't agree more that Canada must increase it's efforts in terms of foreign aid. I sat as a Member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs that recommended exactly that to the House of Commons. It must be understood, in an increasingly global community, that global poverty affects us all. We must do more.

Thank you for your time in writing me with your concerns.

Sincerely,

Roger Valley, MP

* to be posted subsequently
--------------------

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

the violences of everday life

--------------------
"Where is the line we draw in setting out the boundaries for being responsible for others? Is it simply family and close friends? Do we stop at the frontiers of our own country? Does our conscience, our sense of right or wrong, take us as far as the crowded camps of northern Uganda, surrounded by land mines, attacked repeatedly by an army made largely of child soldiers? I believe we in Canada have a special vocation to . . . help in the building of a secure order. We need not be confined to our self-interest."

— Lloyd Axworthy, Navigating a New World


In the documentary We are All Neighbours: Bosnia (1993) by Tone Bringa, one of the displaced villagers summarizes the civil war’s effect in simple words: “My neighbour, she used to come down from her place and have coffee with me. Now she won’t even look me in the eye. I invited her to speak with you [for this film], but she didn’t even come to the door.” In a similar poignant scene from A Child’s Century of War (2001), when a young Chechen boy is asked about what he wants for his future, he responds quietly and solemnly while choking back tears: “Revenge.”

Such stories are often lost in the retelling of war histories, but they speak much more profoundly about the trauma of war and resonate more viscerally than statistics precisely because they speak of loss at a personal level. Rhetorical questions abound: “What must it be like to be so disconnected from your community that you can’t recognize the humanity in your neighbour’s face? What must it be like to have nothing to wake up for, to have no tangible hope for a better tomorrow?”

“What must it be like to be like . . . that?”

The difficulty in intellectualizing about these issues is that one cannot remove the feeling of “missing something” in the analysis. The stories seem to be robbed of their impact, of their dignity, of their ability to stand alone, if we twist them into some relation with ‘concepts’. In some sense, they ought to speak for themselves, to us: “This is the face of human strife. These are the effects of war. What more needs to be said?” With this personal caveat in mind, and with the requisite humility the task demands, I propose to discuss the relationships between these all-too-real, all-too-human stories and some of the scholarship discussing the “forms and dynamics of social violence” and global ethnic conflict.

“Mundane.” The most striking thing about these documented stories is really their ordinariness. The Bosnian villagers are shown going about their everyday business: cooking, cleaning, going to the marketplace, discussing current events amongst themselves. The children in the refugee camps do what children do: they play, they dance around, they amuse themselves. At the same time, there is a pervading disquietude underlying the apparent “normality” of their daily lives. “Perhaps when compared to the extremes of political violence . . . cultural and social violence may seem another order altogether of violent events . . . Yet, for this very reason, the study of violences of every life is significant, because it offers an alternative view of human conditions that may give access to fundamental, if deeply disturbing, processes of social organization” [Kleinman 238]. We realize, then, that their “ordinary” is not ordinary, that it ought not to be considered ordinary, that there is something profoundly disturbing in the concept of an existence whose only sense of certainty is the inherent uncertainty “inseparable from that humdrum background of violence as usual” [Kleinman 239].

How ought we to understand the idea of “violences of everyday life”? In a sense, there is a distinct incommensurability between our and their understanding of “everyday”. Unless we ourselves experience the same trauma (and yet perhaps, some would argue, not even then), we cannot really grasp the emotions and reactions involved in that kind of existence. Even as the filmmakers document their most mundane activities, we are still very much removed from their reality. “The mediatization of violence and suffering creates a form of inauthentic social experience: witnessing at a distance, a kind of voyeurism in which nothing is acutely at stake for the observer” [Kleinman 232]. Can I even claim to relate at any level with such experiences? How could I even hope to presume to understand anything but an ‘empty’ concept of violence?

“Obvious.” How is it that larger political and national issues come to affect the everyday existences of those furthest removed from the seats of power? How is it that those everyday experiences get translated into social politics? One cannot help but attempt, in the larger context of ‘understanding’, to posit ‘explanations’ for why such phenomena occur. “Much recent discussion of international affairs has been based on the misleading assumption that the world is fraught with primordial ethnic conflict. According to this notion, ethnic groups lie in wait for one another, nourishing age-old hatreds and restrained only by powerful states” [Bowen 334]. It has become all too easy to accept such simplified explanations, perhaps precisely because we really are doing nothing more than “witnessing at a distance.” This belies the reality that much more is at work than mere tribalism. “What the myth of ethnic conflict would say are ever-present tensions are in fact the products of political choices. Negative stereotyping, fear of another group, killing lest one be killed – these are the doings of so-called leaders” [Bowen 342].

Yet, even this criticism seems too esoteric for the ordinary people in our story. Their existences seem largely removed from any such high-level political machinations. What is real, what matters to them, what they feel, is the strife and division wrought by war on their daily lives. The Bosnian villagers reminisce of a time when they, as neighbours, would greet each other in the marketplace, visit each other’s homes, break bread together, have their children play together. The refugee children know nothing or remember little of a better existence, of a life not lived in tents and transience, of schools, of being children and not having to fend for themselves. Can I really be so smug in my ‘understanding’, in my ‘education’, that I could presume to explain to them why they live in such a state? Will such explanations about the roots of ‘ethnic conflict’ (and prescriptions to stop it) make a difference to them when it is they who experience its consequences?

“Sobering.” The most personally impacting idea that comes from reflecting upon these stories is the realization that, while there may be a stark difference in our life circumstances, there is something we all share with the victims of war and conflict. Unctuous and clichéd as the concept may be, it is nevertheless true that our common humanity makes these stories personally significant. In the words of the anthropologist Akbar Ahmed, “[m]y analysis and interest in the subject are not entirely of an academic nature . . . I also approach [this subject] as someone who has had to come to terms with it in respect of my own identity” [2]. I reflect on these stories and acknowledge the circumstantial luck that has kept me away from such tragedy: as the proverb says, “there, but for the grace of G-d, go I”. This sober acknowledgement alleviates none of the existential guilt, but only furthers the anxiety about “the global community [facing a] kind of dramatic crossroad, a cusp, a critical point in history” [Ahmed 22].

We who are circumstantially furthest removed from the ravages of war and ‘ethnic conflict’ ought to be no less impacted psychologically and existentially. We all share in this ongoing history: “we need to broaden our frame of reference beyond Bosnia in order to draw universal principles and locate global explanations . . . What is certain is that the changes after Communism, the Cold War and the failure of western modernity have universal implications.” As cultural heirs and guardians of modernization, we have (and therefore, ought to act on) a special responsibility to make positive contributions to the resolution of conflicts borne of post-colonial, post-modern (or, perhaps, anti-colonial and anti-modern) ideologies. More importantly, the apparent ‘vagueness’ of this responsibility (“responsibility to who?” one may ask) ought to disappear if we force ourselves to acknowledge our Bosnian neighbours, the young Chechen boy who needs a future, and all others suffering from the violences of ‘everyday’ life.

Mundane. Obvious. Sobering. Such were my reactions to the particular set of images I have recalled from these documentaries. I share this not because I think I have experienced something profound or even to think that writing something like this will necessarily change what is happening out there in the "real world". It seems necessary to acknowledge the nihilism that breeds indifference to the seeming mountain pile of problems facing our world today. Many people choose to remain oblivious because there is the ultimate question of how much a single individual can actually do to positively affect the course of world history. I am of the ilk that soberly acknowledges the reality and presumes to bear some existential guilt at not being able to do nearly enough of what ought to be done. But I am somewhat hesitant to wax philosophic on this issue because it seems to be fruitful neither academically nor practically.

Thought experiments, with the aid of documentaries, projecting oneself into these circumstances – into the psyche of the Bosnian villager or the Chechen boy – seem to be only a small step in establishing a resolve to make positive global contributions. Engaging in academic rhetoric must be accompanied by practical efforts, great and small, in reality. “Never before in human history have the global and the local, the high and the low, the past and the present, the sacred and the profane, the serious and the frivolous been so bewilderingly juxtaposed and so instantly available to stimulate, confuse and anger the individual” [Ahmed 22]. We appreciate the intrinsic value of documentaries such as these because, in our ideal cultural rhetoric, we prize knowledge for knowledge’s sake. But let us not be immune to the inherent didacticism that frames these portrayals: these scenes, images, and transcripts are purposely arranged to impel us, not just towards esoteric discussions, but towards practical and moral action.

--------------------

Saturday, January 07, 2006

global citizenship and human security

--------------------

a week into the new year, i take time to reflect on the lessons learned and the eye-opening experiences over the holidays... i finally got a chance to pick up and read through (most of) Lloyd Axworthy's Navigating a New World which i had purchased several months ago... at the same time, i got a chance to visit Grassy Narrows, a First Nations reserve in Northern Ontario and where waawaate is from... in addition, i had spent a week in Southern California with extended family, about whom i discovered that they were die-hard supporters of the Bush administration and the Republican Party... there were some interesting dinner conversations to say the least... in any event, this combination of events and experiences really led me to reflect (as usual) on the state of the world and the big-picture issues and problems we're dealing with as a human community...
"[D]efining the issue[s] in terms of impact upon people is crucial. Concerns about globalization aare as much about culture as they are about economics. Once the connection is made between the rash of natural disasters, extremes in climate, shortage of resources, poisonous air and the dangers to health and livelihoods of people in all regions; once the the interdependence between economic inequality and environmental destruction is recognized . . . then there might just be a springboard for action."
[...]

"The difficulty is in translating such a sense of responsibility into political will. It is such a contrast to see the billions of dollars being funnelled into military and border-security expenditures as part of the anti-terrorist campaign while paltry sums are allocated for prevention and peace-building investments where human security is at risk. What if even half that sum had been allocated to deal with immediate problems of poverty, refugees, water shortages, and settling disputes?"

[...]

"[W]e can begin a new course by changing the nature of the debate from one based primarily on sustainable development to one based on economic and environmental security. The concept of sustainable development came about as a way of marrying competing claims between economic development and environmental protection. [But] whenever there is a conflict . . . powerful economic interests usually win. Risks faced by people are not addressed directly by the sustainable development model; it doesn't provide the necessary imperative for protection. By looking at the landscape with people in it, there is a better chance of creating wider political support."

to paraphrase Tip O'Neill, whether the issue is about the war in the Middle East or the plight of First Nations in Canada, all of it is local... the thrust of Axworthy's book and the lesson i came away with from this holiday break is that there is a shared moral impetus to deal with problems of "human security" — his is a philosophy of global responsbility to the interests of individuals rather than to the interests of the nation state or multi-national corporations... the issues we collectively face — global terrorism, civil unrest and ethnic conflict, cyclical poverty, disease and strife, environmental degredation and natural disaster, political disenfranchisement — must be rethought from the perspective of people... our shared humanity ought to create a closer and thicker bond than blood or national ties and thus move us to act more expediently and thoughtfully to protect our security, our needs, our promise, and our dreams...

--------------------

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Canada Votes 2006

--------------------
"The penalty for refusing to participate in politics is that
you end up being governed by your inferiors
." — Plato

The Issues (according to the CBC, but in the order that I've ranked them):
  • Parliamentary Reform
  • Foreign Aid
  • The Future of Federalism
  • Healthcare Funding
  • Taxes
  • Economic Growth
  • National Security
  • Defence Spending
  • Gun Control
  • Employment Insurance
  • Child Care
  • Farming

unfortunately, no one's yet been talking much about the environment, poverty, Aboriginal issues, aid and foreign policy, or education... the irony of the outcome of this quiz — and perhaps more an unfortunate effect of a singular vote, the first-past-the-post system, and the fact that there are many nuances in one's personal values that can't be perfectly captured by party politics — is that i'm volunteering for the local Liberal candidate... despite generally agreeing with the NDP's platform, i don't see standing behind the Liberals as too much of a personal conflict, if at all, given that i have a high regard for Ignatieff and i definitely believe that we need more people like him in politics... although i may be a card-carrying Liberal, i can still exercise independent political thought and will very likely continue to lean left on many social and economic issues...

i'll also give the devil his due... he's been running a smart campaign...


--------------------

Monday, January 02, 2006

the world you can look forward to...

--------------------

In a rapidly changing world it is hard to see the future. Most predictions are linear projections of today’s reality. Forecasts for tomorrow promise more technology, more speed and bigger structures — more of the same. Yet history shows that change is almost never linear. The most important breakthroughs could never have been imagined a generation before. Yet, when later examined from a historical perspective, these changes made obvious sense. They were needed. The moment was right. And there are always those few brave souls who all along were talking about the new times to come. Real change arrives in disguise — the invisible undercurrent that determines the direction of the wave.

But it is imagination — your imagination, rather than experts’ linear projections — that will make the future. As the bumper sticker reads: “The best way to predict the future is to help create it.” So here are 10 new developments already underway that could reshape the world, your world.

It is up to you.

1. Just do it … yourself

The reign of experts and authorities is nearly over. Anyone can do anything. “In the future everybody will be famous for 15 minutes,” said the groundbreaking American artist Andy Warhol. Here’s why. The do-it-yourself society enables everyone to develop his or her unique talents. The interconnected network of the Web is a dreamland for almost every talent and curiosity. That marks a fundamental shift from the days where influence came with status, and status with class and education. Online encyclopedias abound, constantly updated by anyone who wants to contribute. This wealth of collective knowledge and experience beats the wisdom of any professor or specialist.

The message is deep. You don’t need to wait for government or business or someone else to do what needs to be done. You can stop complaining and begin acting. You can plant flowers or trees to beautify your neighbourhood. You can adopt a school or an orphanage in another country to make a personal contribution to a better and more just world — even if your government does not act the way you want it to.

Mahatma Gandhi said: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Now it is even easier: The tools you need are easily available. Most importantly — you can make a unique contribution that will enrich your life.

2. Hello and welcome, everyone

Diversity is key to economic and cultural vitality. Welcome to the multiethnic, multiracial world of open borders where no one needs a passport. The mix of races, religions and nationalities determines the wealth of nations. The most vibrant and attractive cities shall be the most diverse, no longer defined by the nations where they are located but infused with an unique blend of influences from all over the planet. The more diversity, the better. We already see this today in how the best, most creative soccer teams are those that unite races and nationalities. The United States was the most diverse and economically successful nation of the 20th century. Diversity makes economic sense.

New arrivals stimulate economic growth. Immigrants don’t take jobs away from anyone; most start new careers doing the work other people don’t want to do anymore. Not only do immigrants help their host countries with their labour, they also contribute by paying taxes. Together they fight poverty much more effectively than any United Nations or World Bank program. The money they send home every year surpasses by far all foreign aid given by developed nations. And their children become successful engineers, doctors, architects, and entrepreneurs. These people are bridging the painful gap between the rich and the poor.

3. The liberation of education

Farewell to standardized tests, assembly line schools and one-size-fits all curriculum. The liberation of education means every child has the right — not the obligation — to learn. Every child has the right to learn in as many ways as possible, following her interests and developing her unique talents. For that matter: Every adult has the same right. Learning is an individual activity. That is why compulsory education with fixed, one-size-fits-all curricula is outdated. We are witnessing the end of the rationale for conventional schools. There is no need for standardized learning and standardized testing. No need for controlling what children learn. They shouldn’t study just what adults want them to know.

4. Natural health

Healing is less about battling disease and more about cooperating with our own bodies. Medicine is not like an army fighting disease. Cancer is not a war to be won. Above all, medicine is not an industry in which profit-centred companies aggressively sell their products to customers — patients — to please investors. Disease is not primarily something from outside that infects or invades us, but a sign that something within our systems is off balance. Instead of drugging or beaming the hostile invaders to oblivion, there are ways to collaborate with the body to support and strengthen the natural healing process.

5. Countries ... What countries?

The rise of regional power in a globalized world will redraw our maps once again. The rise of economic globalization made the world a global village. The power of nation-states has given way to broader multinational configurations such as the European Union (EU) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Here’s the paradox: While the world is becoming one, we are at the same time seeing the re-emergence of many local identities. The integration of the European Union, for instance, made age-old power struggles between regional and national capitals irrelevant. But this is not just about old sentiments and identities. There are economic and political advantages too. As many businesses have shown, smaller entities — within a larger framework — are more efficient and productive. And bringing decision making closer to the people stimulates democratic participation. Power (closer) to the people! It is an old saying with fresh meaning in a world that is uniting and breaking up at the same time.

6. Who are you?

A revolution of authenticity will bring surprising social change. This may sound obvious: We come into this world to be ourselves. No two individuals are alike. And that is our greatest gift. The mission of our lives is to listen to our calling and to be truly authentic — not only at home or within the close circles of friends and family, but wherever we (inter)act. Our challenge is to participate in society as our true selves rather than as timid, voiceless servants of other people’s ideas. The search for authenticity changes the world. People who follow their calling make a powerful contribution to humanity. They inspire others and give meaning to their own lives. This path often takes the form of a yearning for direct personal experience, which leads to greater involvement in the world. Many become interested in being part of important activities in their communities. They become involved in international issues by making personal connections with people in other places around the globe, bypassing bureaucratic structures. They make sincere efforts to bridge the gap between what goes on at work and what matters everywhere else. They integrate their worlds.

7. Winning for all

Détente in the feud between science and spirituality: we are entering an era where a new balance is being struck between matter and spirit. After centuries of being strictly separated, these integral elements of our universe, represented most frequently today by science and spirituality, are reunited. This marriage had to happen. Physics, biology and biochemistry show us that our world is interconnected at the deepest possible levels. This awareness transforms people and society. Spirituality is not only an individual experience — such as meditating in your own “sanctuary” at home, but also the core of our interactions with the other, any other or anything around us. And society is not just a material structure of organizations, roads, taxes and buildings. It is first and foremost a network of people, spiritually connected in the journey called life.

8. We are family

The return of the tribe — but with one key difference. Families have always been the bedrock of human societies. But they have changed a great deal through the centuries. While big, extended families are still the norm in developing nations, most of us in modern Western nations have withdrawn into smaller nuclear units — parents and kids living alone, often having little contact with cousins, aunts, or close neighbours. But families will become bigger again — and different. As we all grow more multi-dimensional as people, thanks to new opportunities to develop our talents, we will increasingly want to live in a multidimensional social environment. We will seek new “family” members beyond the isolated sphere of our homes. We will become part of a web of relationships all around us which will serve our needs to grow and realize our multi-talented selves. We will increasingly become part of wide-roaming tribes, just as in the past. But unlike the clans our ancestors knew, the tribes of tomorrow will not be concerned only with survival and protection from outsiders. They will be more focused on fulfilling the dreams and visions we share. As we each pursue our search for meaning, we may shift, over time, from tribe to tribe. Through all these webs we will create a unique blend of blood ties and lasting friendships. Humanity, at its essence, is about relationships.

It is about families — in the widest possible sense.

9. Abundance

The hardest lesson may be accepting the bounty of the universe. This one is hard to digest: the end of scarcity. It may be the hardest thing for our human minds to imagine. We live in an endless universe, yet tend to see our futures within the context of present limitations. For us, the end of oil is the end of energy. Oil may be finished at some point. But the atoms that constitute oil will still be around and we will find ways to reconstitute them in different patterns to create new energy. We always have. Indeed: Only two minutes of sunlight provide enough energy for the present annual consumption of the whole world. Nature constantly shows us the abundance of the universe. There’s plenty of energy. We shouldn’t even worry about the money we may need to harness it. That is just a matter of priorities. If only we could stop investing our money in armies and wars, we would have more than enough to create sustainable energy sources. The abundance of energy comes with only one sincere responsibility: to use it wisely in the best interest of humankind.

10. From greed to need

The main purpose of business evolves from profit to service. "Business is the instrument people use to serve the well-being of other people and the planet." Read that line again and look for the missing word: profit. Companies don’t exist to make profits. They are created to serve and contribute. They turn a profit only to be able to continue their service to the world. Money is a tool, not an objective.

This concept emerged in the early 1990s when the idea of "people, planet and profit" was introduced as the principle of socially-responsible business. Sustainable investment became a major trend and helped bring meaning back into business. But “profit” was still the anomaly in that equation, and because of it the circle of greed kept turning until shareholders even in socially-responsible firms were expecting sizable returns. Greedy shareholders created greedy employees and greedy customers. Capitalism works fine after it shifts from greed to need. See a problem that needs to be solved? Start a company to do it. And, yes, take in money and continue to make more meaningful contributions while you earn more money. Capitalism can be a wonderful system and it works on the most basic levels. It can be used to fight poverty. The good news is that crowds of young, energetic people have turned away from old-fashioned corporations that only serve their shareholders. They want to make more meaningful contributions to the world and to themselves. They constitute a new generation of entrepreneurs that is transforming capitalism.

They are changing the world — one business at a time.

11. Let’s get civilized

And one extra idea, that’s the most important of all: Humanity has been around for some 50,000 years, but let’s face it, civilization is a goal we still have yet to meet. Beautiful palaces stand as monuments to glorious times. Ancient scriptures still inspire millions. And today we live among marvellous scientific and cultural achievements. But “civilization” is too strong a word to describe these creations of the past and present.

Civilized people don’t kill each other en masse for stupid reasons. In that sense, animals are more civilized than human beings. They kill for food. Within their species they rarely kill one another. Certain indigenous cultures lived (and some still live) in a way that honoured life These are the only civilizations humanity has known — and we took great care to destroy these cultures or at least to banish them to faraway corners of the planet.

Gandhi said it with a beautiful sense of irony when he visited England in the 1930s. A journalist asked: “What do you think of Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?” He replied: “I think that would be an excellent idea.” Yet we are hopeful there will be an end to senseless killing, to violence and and injustice. As we discover the capacity to create reality on our own terms, it is possible to imagine a really peaceful world.

It begins in our minds.

— "Your world in 2015" (Ode Magazine: Issue 29)
--------------------