Federal Election 2015: The Politics of Improvisation (Part 3), minor players / lessons learned?

Elizabeth May: age 61, American born, environmentalist, activist, lawyer - federal Green Party

  
               
            May is ethically appealing: she has a very long history of activism for social justice and environmental issues. She has authored eight books on these subjects and served as founding executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada from 1989 to 2006. Her contributions have been recognized by several awards and honors conferred. She is committed. She is also, alas, an underdog. Aside from May herself, the Greens have only one other elected serving federal member.

          One of the things that has always puzzled me about this strange world: why, if everyone (or nearly everyone) is "for" the environment, are the Greens not in power? As a civilization - and as Canadian citizens - we seem to speak the serpents' language: each word has two meanings..  

           Perhaps it is time to consider the building of coalitions, perhaps even the merging of parties, to produce a viable opposition to the pro-business coalition that is the federal Conservative Party..





Gilles Duceppe: age 68, professional politician, separatist (proponent of secession of Québec from the Canadian confederation) - Bloc Québécois

 
            The Bloc Québécois is the federal arm of the (nominally) separatist Parti Québécois. The goal of the Bloc is to represent Québec in Ottawa, to get us the best deal possible, during the time it takes for Québec to separate from Canada and become an independant Republic.


             The Bloc is losing support among Québec voters. The reasons are multiple and various but the effect of this disenfranchisement is to free a lot of voters who may tip the volatile three way federal race in one direction or another, either toward Trudeau (Liberals) or Mulcair (NDP). Harper is very unpopular in Québec and Bloc voters definitely would not vote for him. Disenfranchised Bloc voters could tip the Trudeau / Mulcair balance in this key province and thus determine the outcome of the election. Remember - as of this writing (September 2 and 15, 2015), it is still a (very) tight three way race..


             When all is said and done, we Canadians don't have much on our platters! Our "leaders" lack vision. (In this we are neither worse - or better - than the rest of the world. I am merely making an observation.)


            With the exception of Elizabeth May of the Greens, not one leader has understood, has made any effort to teach the populace that the natural "ecology" is the very foundation stone upon which the human "economy" is founded. Nor have they addressed the reciprocal feedback links between ecological crises, demographics, social justice, terrorism, war and youth radicalization in our "globalized" world. Apparently globalization has only one allowed set of meanings: those referring to the profits and control of multinational corporations, the legal and fiscal regimes they operate under and other such matters.. People don't count.

            Thus the persistent failure to divert first world economies from heavily "extractive" energy sources - coal, oil, gas, uranium; thus the failure to promote decentralized, environmentally friendly, (inherently) democratic , renewable energies both at home and in the third world. These failures are at the root of many social and geopolitical problems today: witness the waves of immigrants / refugees flooding Europe, witness international terrorism (including youth radicalizaion in the West), witness religous fanaticism, witness social decay, witness dangerous and unsustainable levels of Climate Change and Global Warming.. The central issue of sustainable development has not been accorded the priority it deserves. Why? That is the central question.

Hervé Kempf: fin de l'Occident, naissance du monde

Texte de réflexion

      Pour limiter les dégâts du Changement Climatique dus au gaz carbonique (CO2), il a été proposé de limiter l'émission de CO2 à 700 milliards de tonnes d'ici 2050.

Hervé Kempf: fin de l'Occident, naissance du monde (Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 2013), page 60 (emphase ajoutée):

       "Sur quarante ans, ce budget de 700 milliards de tonnes représente environ 2 tonnes et demie par humain et par an. C'est à peu près le volume émis aujourd'hui par un Indien ou un habitant d'Amérique latine, mais en dessous de la moyenne mondiale, qui est de l'ordre de 5 tonnes. Un chinois émet en moyenne 6 tonnes, un Européen ou un Japonais 9, un États-unien 18, un Africain, moins d'une tonne.

       La logique des chiffres est claire: les habitants des pays riches doivent réduire fortement leurs émissions. Mais aussi, de plus en plus, certains pays émergents comme la Chine, qui excèdent déjà le niveau souhaitable du point de vue du bien-être mondial et durable.
 ...
       Récapitulons:

- Nous vivons un moment historique de convergence, ou d'égalisation, des conditions matérielles d'existence.

- Il se produit dans un contexte de dégradation écologique tel que, si nous laissons se poursuivre celle-ci, l'amélioration de la condition humaine ne sera plus possible.

- Le mur écologique (limites à la croissance, physiques et écologiques) implique que l'égalisation mondiale se produise par un abaissement de la condition des plus riches, et donc par une réduction de la consommation matérielle des pays occidentaux.

        La conjonction de ces phénomènes historiques - la convergence de l'ensemble du monde vers des conditions matérielles d'existence semblables et la gravité de la crise écologique - dessine l'évolution de l'histoire dans les prochaines décennies.

         Il y aura deux façons de vivre cette évolution:

- soit les pays occidentaux et les autres pays riches tenteront de bloquer cette tendance historique, et les rivalités pour l'accès aux ressources, notamment, s'accroîtront, jusqu'à multiplier les guerres;

- soit les sociétés occidentales s'adapteront volontairement à ce courant historique, et le monde pourra alors faire face à la crise écologique de manière pacifique, tendant vers la formation d'une société planétaire certes traversée de tensions, mais rendue cohérente par l'intérêt commun de la survie dans les meilleures conditions possibles.

           Le choix entre ces deux adaptations n'a pas encore été fait, ce dont on ne saurait s'étonner dans la mesure où la situation est encore confuse et où les enjeux ne sont pas encore perçus par les populations. " (fin citation)

          J'ai choisi ce morceau parce qu'il illustre bien le nerf de la guerre de nos défis actuels: surpopulation, développement soutenable, équité sociale et accès à la richesse - naturelle ou culturelle - collectives,..
  
         "Tout le monde" - ou presque - est d'accord. On devrait réduire nos émissions de gaz carbonique. Sauf que.. les émissions continue à grimper.

 Concentration atmosphérique de CO2 en parties par million depuis 1960
(observatoire de Mauna Loa, Hawaii)

 PPM de gaz carbonique depuis 1700 provenant des carottes de glace des glaciers avant 1958, l'observatoire de Mauna Loa après

            Effectivement, comment convaincre le monde des pays riches à réduire leur "consommation matérielle"? C'est pas facile! La publicité nous "programme" de faire exactement le contraire!

            Pire! Les profits - donc les ventes - donc la consommation - sont le sang et la vie des corporations multinationales, celles qui sont les vrais Maîtres du Monde actuel. Tout ce qui touche à des profits des "Multis" est défendu, on comprend..

           Mais, parce que tout le monde veut paraître vertueux, ces mêmes Multis lancent des "produits verts" qui détruisent un peu moins l'environnement soit dans leur production, soit dans leur usage, soit les deux. L'acheteur se sent rassuré: il a fait "sa part", il "protège" le monde pour que ces enfants et petits-enfants peuvent vivent bien et s'épanouir. Le hic: ces produits n'adressent pas le vrai problème que M. Kempf a souligné. Il faut que les gens des pays riches voit la lumière: il faut changer nos façons de vivre, de faire, d'agir.. Il faut que les gens des pays riches se donnent le temps d'analyser la situation actuelle et se proposent des solutions concrètes et faisables. En fait, nous avons déjà pas mal de solutions en main mais la volonté de s'en servir collectivement nous manque encore. Des campagnes de désinformation très efficaces provenant des industries de l'énergie fossile et des "think tanks" à leur solde ont émoussé des tentatives de lancer l'économie verte (surtout aux États-Unis):

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-organisation-of-denial-conservative.html

          Il faut que les populations des pays riches prennent l'initiative et commence à s'organiser (! Auto-organisation !) aux niveaux locaux et régionaux, qu'elles commencent à réduire leur empreinte écologique. Surtout, il ne faut pas attendre que nos gouvernements fassent quelque chose! Nos gouvernements ont été infiltrés par les lobbys des Multinationales afin de maximiser les ventes et les profits de ces dernières. Il faut plutôt que les citoyens s'affirment et exigent l'engagement actif de l'État. L'État doit régler la pollution et le gaspillage des matières premières et de l'énergie. Où il y a volonté, il y a moyens. Aujourd'hui c'est la volonté collective qui manque dans les pays riches. On voit partout les indices qu'une telle volonté existe déjà  - dans un état "latent". Le fait que les "produits verts" sont vendable l'indique. Se rendre au bureau à vélo est devenu chose banale dans biens des grandes villes. Des gouvernements commencent à se rendre compte de l'importance future du transport commun. La volonté du changement existe, ou, mais il est encore "latente", trop latente - le temps presse..

          Qu'est qu'on peut faire pour accélérer cette prise de conscience dans les pays riches?

         - ou bien, faut-il attendre de grandes mortalités à cause de la hausse du niveau de la mer avant d'agir? Et si l'on attend, sera-t-il trop tard pour agir?

Hervé Kempf: ibid, page 72: "La grande convergence historique pose fondamentalement la question de l'équité mondiale, tandis que la crise écologique historique pose celle de la répartition de ressources biosphériques limitées.

          Mais ce n'est pas le chemin que prennent les classes dirigeantes dans le monde d'aujourd'hui. Face aux difficultés, que appellent de leur part un changement radical d'optique, elles se cabrent au contrarie et tentent conserver à tout prix l'ordre ancien - leur ordre." 

Federal Election 2015: The Politics of Invprovisation (Part 2), the main opposition

Justin Trudeau: age 44, son of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Bachelors in Arts and Education, taught school, advocate for liberal causes, professional politician - federal Liberal Party

         Trudeau is a wild card. Boyish, affable but lacking his father's feistiness (Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister 1968 - 79, 1980 - 84). To date he has been something of a disappointment on the federal political stage. In parliamentary debates he has shone less brilliantly than the (definitely) feisty, pugnacious New Democratic Party (NDP) leader, Tom Mulcair. If he played his cards right the Mr. Nice Guy image could have been asset for Trudeau, contrasting with the petty, mean-spirited, authoritarian Harper team style. Many people today desire change (and a change of government above all). The Mr. Nice Guy image could have embodied or symbolized the desire for real change. Unfortunately Trudeau was not able to back up his Mr. Nice Guy image with other required leadership qualities: affirmed competence, assertiveness, confidence, steadfastness. On several occasions Trudeau has been indecisive. He has failed to take ownership of any cause with which the electorate can identify him (in the way, for example, that Harper has claimed ownership of the "economy" card or the "defense of Israel" card). Tudeau remains somewhat politically amorphous: he may be against Harper, but what is for? His boyishness and, at times naive, off the cuff, improvisation have made him seem immature - which the Harper, spin doctors were quick to catch and exploit in attack ads.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/conservative-ad-uses-isil-propaganda-and-anthem-to-attack-trudeaus-foreign-policy 

           Trudeau, they say "is in over his head", "is just not ready".

           Speaking here of his projected public image,Trudeau does not appear to be a deep thinker at a time when deep re-thinking of old ways of doing things is primordial. Reflecting his inability either to  capitalize on his family name or to forge his own political persona, he has slipped in the polls and is struggling to gain lost ground.

 Voting intentions as of 28 August, 2015:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html 

New Democratic Party: 33.2%
Conservatives:              29.1%
Liberals:                       27.6%

             I get the impression that Trudeau is constructing his political platform on the results of focus groups. Thus echoing Harper's populist appeals to his hardcore, redneck base, Trudeau - himself a teacher - recently appealed to financially strapped teachers by promising to reimburse out of pocket classroom expenditures. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-promise-tax-refund-for-teachers-out-of-pocket-school-supplies/article26106853/ 

         Mickey-mouse vote grabbing tactics like this ($60 million per annum) may be "worthy" of dangerous populist reactionaries like Harper but utterly fail to address the real systemic problems and deficiencies of our educational system. For example, considered as an investment in future national development, how much is our educational system worth? How much should we invest in it at the public (federal, provincial) level? What are the overarching goals of our national public system and how should these evolve over time? And so on..

        Recently, in an attempt to woo the Left, Trudeau has shown interest in a few truly progressive measures: spending money to build needed infrastructure including green energy and climate change adaptation measures.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2198876/trudeau-pledges-6b-over-4-years-for-green-infrastructure-projects/ 

       In a bold gesture - probably born of desperation following his drop in the polls - Trudeau has even demonstrated a Keynesian willingness to run deficit budgets to build the base of future prosperity (note 1). Will Trudeau continue to push the envelope of political possibilities to the Left? With his falling popularity, he has little to lose and much to gain..

Thomas Mulcair: age 61, lawyer, professional politician, leader of the official opposition, former Québec Liberal member of parliament, humble (socio-economic) origins - New Democratic Party

Unlike Trudeau, Mulcair does project the alpha male image and since he is perceived as far to the Left of Harper, it probably serves him well: at least it gains him air time. He is now number 1 in the polls, edging out Harper by a nose (don't forget: the vote on the Center - Left is split between the Liberals and the NDP). Mulcair is seen as more effective in opposition to Harper than Trudeau during parliamentary debates. Mulcair's people probably don't know what to do with the NDP's rising popularity. They must realize that their current popularity is not ideologically rooted but a reaction to ten years of Harperism (don't they??). The recent popularity of the party is fragile. It could vanish like frost at sunrise. It is an ephemeral gift of the political gods to be seized and exploited - but how?            Accordingly, Mulcair works to dispel the NDP's scary "socialist" image. At the same time, he wants to win votes from the Left wing of the Liberal Party and appeal to Red Tories disgusted by the negative atmospherics, the cheap populism and the openly anti-social justice policies of Harper's government. It's not an easy call: appealing to the Left of both opposing parties while trying to shuck off the scary socialist bogeyman! It's not surprising Mulcair's recent positions appear a bit contradictory..          Recently, for example, he announced his attention to work for a zero budget deficit as soon as possible. The paradox here is glaring! Here we have the "social democrat" Mulcair, taking a stance on fiscal policy to the right of the Liberal Trudeau! Will Mulcair's transparent opportunism cost him the election? (For the moment he has a slight lead, despite the vote splitting on the Left.) Mulcair is treading dangerous waters, given that, traditionally, a large part of the appeal of the NDP was their image as clean, honest, morally engaged players.           The NDP has recently made surprising gains in the polls (now slightly in the lead). This raises the risk of a split vote on the Left, allowing Harper to skittle down the middle to yet another term in office. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP accept the idea of a formal or informal coalition to unite the Left and defeat the Harper gang. Perhaps we need a proportional electoral system..

notes:

1- Keynesian deficit spending: simply put, governments should spend money in economic downturns in order to stimulate the economy. Thus, if Trudeau wins and holds to his word, he would invest in green energy projects (even if this meant running the federal budget in the red), creating both short term employment and long term fossil energy Independence.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm

Federal Election 2015: the politics of Improvisation (Part 1)

 abbreviations used:

CC - Climate Change
GW - Global Warming
NDP - New Democratic Party
 
       Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. After ten years in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is feeling the hot breath of scandal on his shoulder: senators accused of claiming rebates for living expenses they are not entitled to.. So he decided to bite the bullet and call an election before things got worse. The election will be 19 October, 2015.

        Like all contemporary politicians (or most, anyway..), Harper seeks power, either for its own sake or to implement some God-forsaken 18 - 19th century ideology (in Harper's case: the "Free Market" / neo-conservative idiotology imported from the United States)

The Real Issues: the four major challenges facing humanity at the dawn of the third millennium are

The Four Principles of Sustainable Economy or how to create a sustainable economy in conformity with the laws of

- physics (particularly thermodynamics)
- ecology (particularly protection of vital ecosystem services)
- social psychology (collective decision making)
- the ethical, spiritual dimension: what is the good life? what values to die / live for?


internal blog link: four-pillars-of-sustainable-economy

          So how do our current leaders measure up to the challenges we collectively face?

Stephen Harper: age 56, Master's degree in Economics, professional politician - federal Conservative Party, elected Prime Minister three times (into his 10th consecutive year)

  
         Stephen Harper's buzzwords: steady the course! "It's the economy, stupid".

         Harper, let's be honest, is the lapdog of the petroleum industry.

book-review: tar-sands-dirty-oil

         Harper, while still an Albertan provincial politician, appealed to populist and reactionary sentiment by claiming that Global Warming (GW) and Climate Change (CC) are part of a socialist plot to destroy the economies of the West.

harper's-letter-dismisses-kyoto-as-socialist-scheme

        Reality Check: As a PHYSICAL phenomenon - studied by Atmospheric Physics - GW / CC has diddly-squat to do with politics. As the sun shines equally on the good and the wicked, so GW / CC respects no political ideologies (or idiotologies). The politicization of GW / CC in North America is a cultural aberration, a folly, designed - constructed - to maximize the short turn profits of the fossil energy sector and its industrial / financial network: finance banking, heavy industrial infrastructure manufacturers (steel, pipelines, boilers, construction..) and associated service industries. One hardly need add that Big Coal / Oil / Gas and Nukes have a controlling, distorting influence in the flow of information reaching the public through their advertising contracts with the mass media.

https://theconversation.com/what-happened-to-climate-change-fox-news-and-the-us-elections-9814

        Harper, of course, is part of this "nexus of influence" designed to hinder the transition to a sustainable green energy / post-industrial economy. As one might expect from those great neo-con defenders of "democracy" and "liberty", Harper has done his share of suppression when it comes to earth scientists who dare to challenge the wisdom of his business-as-usual policy.

internal blog links: suppression of science in Canada under Harper

the-organisation-of-denial 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/12/are-we-well-decadant.html

new-face-of-authoritarianism-in-Canada

are you a fanatic?

         Harper likes to present himself as a great economic strategist and pragmatist, rather than what he is: a narrow minded ideologue with an incredibly narrow tunnel vision of reality - economic, political, ecological.. For example, as an economic "strategist" he has managed to put all our eggs in the petroleum sector, neglecting the manufacturing sector (most especially, small and medium scale enterprises) and the emerging green energy sector. He has failed to meet the challenges and opportunities of the Post Cheap Fossil Energy Economy. In his ten years as Prime Minister he has (totally) failed to direct our national resources, talents and energy into vital sectors of the emerging economy: 

- green energy infrastructure (windpower, solar, tidal energy..)
- public transport, 
- energy conservation, 
- improved product design, 
- new service industries,
- small scale finance, 
- participatory public policy making, 
- decentralized decision making,
-  the revivification of local / regional economies,
-  the development of new and profitable expertises and skills, etc.

          Ten years is a long time, and, as a nation, we have nothing to show for it.

          Worse, Harper's tunnel vision has left Canada a diminished, less resilient nation, less able to adapt to the tsunami of change we are living through. Our international reputation as a fair and objective player has been shot to hell. Successive short-sighted governments - Liberal and Conservative - have reduced us to the level of buffoons on the world stage. It began with our failure to act on our Kyoto Accord Greenhouse Gas Reduction commitments - thanks to the Liberals under Jean Chrétien who hypocritically ratified the Kyoto Accord for that one! Later, the pathetic attempts of the Harper government to openly sabotage the Accord signaled that we were no longer in the progressive camp. Finally, Harper's kneejerk support of right wing Israeli government policies finished off whatever shards of reputation that might have remained. In the race to the bottom, Liberals have been about as guilty as Conservatives. The Conservatives are simply a bit more honest and open about what they stand for.

nytimes: the-closing-of-the-canadian-mind.html?

"The early polls show Mr. Harper trailing, but he’s beaten bad polls before. He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions."
  
          Amen!

Book Review: Mark Lilla, The Stillborn God - or what went wrong with Liberalism

Mark Lilla: The Stillborn God, religion, politics and the modern West, Alfred A Knopf, New York, 2007, 309 pages, notes, index, references in chapter notes.

        Prof Lilla addresses a perennial problem of forecasters and prophets: the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. We live in a society at a particular point in time. The "structures" of our society - our institutions like the army, parliament, political parties - seem stable fixtures. Generally, our lives are too short to see these structures evolve much over time. Today, with our accelerated pace of change, is a historical exception. I am old enough to have lived, as it were, under two "regimes". Growing up in the US in the 1960s in an affluent, reactionary town, the greatest bogeymen were ("International") Communism (generally conflated with socialism and Social Democracy) and the threat of nuclear annihilation. The Paranoid Right feared the "numerous" communist moles secreted away in all American institutions - especially universities, the Federal Government and the labor unions. "Intellectuals" and any other group seen as "deviant" in some way was also suspect (note 1). 

        Back in those(supposedly) simpler days, there was no Internet, no AIDS, no gay marriage. The things people fear today - climate change, resource depletion, Muslim terrorism - were unheard of.. It was, in retrospect, quite a different world.

       I have come to suspect that a good part of the seeming unpredictability we perceive in the "World Process" is due to our ignorance of the larger, deeper currents that move society. We don't see the Big Picture. We are too close to the trees to see the forest, all we see are tree trunks, branches and foliage around us.

        Prof Lilla has attempted to provide the Big Picture to help us understand the (apparent) sudden "rebirth" of Religion - and religious tensions - in our supposedly "secular" world.

 Background The Renaissance brought a new interest in the affairs of this world. Martin Luther, the Protestant reformer, attacked growing corruption and opulence in the church. His goal was to return to the pristine virtue of Primitive Christianity. Instead, he provoked a vicious cycle of religious wars in Europe which shattered Christian unity, perhaps forever.

        Secularized thinkers, disgusted by the excesses of religious zeal and fanaticism, attempted to constrain - if not control and regulate - religious passions. One of their proposals, which has been universally adopted in the West, is what prof Lilla calls the "Great Separation", that of the Church and State. For Lilla - and I concur - we make a big mistake in assuming that such "watertight compartmentalization" of life into "secular" and "religious" bins is "natural", inevitable or universal. In many earlier societies - perhaps most - social life was highly ritualized, organized around the enactment of collective rites. Harvesting grain wasn't just a way of getting food or producing some trade good. Harvesting was also - and perhaps primarily! - a "participation" in a "cosmogony", the enactment of a "sacrament", with religious feelings and emotions attached.

         Our early modern world, scared by the horror of the religious wars between Catholics and Reformers, turned a blind eye toward religion. "The Great Separation" was an attempt to confine religious sentiment, and practices and activities inspired by religion, to the sphere of "private life". We pretend religion does not exist or matter (much). This blind spot becomes evident in a quote from Samuel Johnson:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel -  April 7, 1775

        Indeed! How curiously the omission reads in the 21st century. Today we would be inclined to say,

Patriotism and religion are the last refuges of a scoundrel.

         Think: 9-11, the Twin Towers; ISIS, on line video atrocities filmed by contemporary religious fanatics.. Think: the hatred between Israeli Jews and Muslims. The link between religion and thuggery is too evident not to see today.. is omnipresent..

                         A cheery looking Thomas Hobbes, author of the (notorious)                  Leviathan, sometimes considered an apologetic for Totalitarianism
 
        Hobbes, a now forgotten British philosopher who lived from 1588 to 1679, played a crucial role in forging and shaping the modern western political ideal of "Separation of Church and State". Hobbes may also have been the founder of the "scientific", anthropological, "evolutionary" approach to the study of religion. It is from within this new intellectual tradition that Stillborn God is written. Rather than debate unanswerable questions on the existence, nature and will of God, we now ask "What functions(s) does religion perform?", "What competitive advantage did engaging in religious behaviors have for early human - or protohuman - societies?"

        Ultimately, Stillborn God is a plea for secular humanism. We must divorce ourselves from messianic politics. We must refuse to build societies on ground plans drawn from Holy Writ, the fiery inspirations of prophets.

        At one time I would have sympathized fully with such views. Today, I think the evidence is in: secular humanism has failed. Recent  history records one resounding failure after another: World War I, the rise of fascism and Marxian Communism, World War II; the global demographic, environmental and climatic crises; the depletion of non-renewable resources and the atrocious management of renewables, the failure of our "leaders" to deal with these challenges, etc. The litany of woes and screw-ups is incredibly long! In such a world, facing accelerating and mutually reinforcing crises, it is hard to see much hope for secular humanism. And - given secularism's patent failures - it is only natural to turn to forces outside and beyond the merely human for succor (even Lilla admits this..)

         Another point needs to be made. Is it even possible to disengage the spiritual and the secular, the theological and political? All human cultures in the past were founded on systems of religious belief and practice. Secular humanism wishes to replace religious cosmogonic frames of reference by a scientific cosmological one, based on  "fact", evolutionary history, empirical psychology, physical knowledge of the environment. The project is indeed a laudable one, but is it sufficient? Is it (even) feasible?

          Lilla likes to contrast humanism's benefits (toleration of differences, freedom of speech, "realism"..) to the risks imposed by taking religion seriously (intolerance, oppression, delusion.. ) However, one may legitimately ask how much of Lilla's humanism is ultimately derived from biblical texts like the Epistle of James. This curious text is the sole surviving teaching of James, the brother of Jesus, who became head of the nascent Christian community after his brother's execution by the Roman occupying forces for "highway robbery" (that is, for engaging in Anti-Roman guerrilla). James' epistle is a mere four and a half pages long and deserves reading by humanists (secular or not). How much of what modern liberals, progressives, social democrats and democratic socialists profess is found in those four short pages! One sees a pre-echo of Marx's fiery pronouncements  in the epistle's cry for social justice in the here and now.

          Some revelatory verses from the Epistle of James (New King James Version):

2: 13-17:  "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or a sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and if one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled", but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

           Can't be clearer than that, can you? "Social justice" in the here and now.

           Again, James 5: 1,4 - rather "proto-Marxian"..

           "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you!.. the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts."

         The point at issue: can we really segregate the religious and the secular as Lilla would have us do if, in fact, some of humanism's deepest values are inspired by or drawn from the good book?

          Another problem. If we reject the religious - or values derived from religion - as a frame of reference defining what a morally good life consists of, what, exactly, do we replace "religion" with? The consumer society? It's destroying the life support systems of the planet! Marxism? Fascism? Monarchy? Been there, tried them..

          Humans seem to require - most of us anyway - a "Road Map of Reality" for guidance and direction, to situate ourselves in the Universe and to gain significance, meaning or purpose relative to that situation. Given the state the world is in, secularism (humanistic or not) has simply failed to provide an adequate "road map" (the fact that religion has also failed to provide an adequate map doesn't change the outcome..)

         Indeed, it is arguable that the current planetary crises are due, in part, to the adoption of just such a "secular (humanist)" worldview as Lilla recommends!

        "Ostentatious rank-assigning consumption" (Hervé Kempf) is in direct defiance of Christian charity. Ayn Rand in her philosophy of selfishness explicitly rejects compassion and charity as "mystical" - therefore false and life-negating. She provides the ethical / value system justifying "ostentatious rank-assigning" hyperconsumption. "Ostentatious rank-assigning consumption" is environmentally destructive: our "worth" or "value" is determined by our capacity to "look down" on those who consume - and waste - less than we do. Rank is determined by how much we waste and deplete the earth, in other words..

        Responsibility for environmental crises has often been laid on the Church's doorstep: the famous (over-cited) passage in Genesis giving man "domination" over the earth. Yet, ostensibly, the destruction of the world has actually accelerated in "post-christian / post modern" times! Fifty percent of wildlife has died off over the last 40 years (unbelievable as that may sound).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf 

         Looked at objectively, on can just as easily argue that most modern woes rise from the vices and attitudes Christianity (and Judaism) most strongly reject like greed, inequity, hypocrisy, hubris - "values", or anti-values, that form the very base of the neoconservative worldview and economic system. In this sense I feel Lilla's thesis is unconvincing from both a historical and psychological perspective. Secularism has not led to a fairer, more egalitarian culture. Rather, the contrary is true: never in history has the gap been the haves and have-nots been greater..

         Lilla is correct in rejecting the sectarian lunacies of religion and the savagery of fanatics. But we render Truth bad service if we fail to reject the lunacies propagated by non-religious ideologues: neocon economics, neo-Nazism, Right-wing militias, geo-engineering projects to "undo" the damage done to the environment by industrial technology by massive doses of "compensatory" industrial technology, (hyper-) consumerism, the possibility of infinite growth on a finite planet (neo-classical economic theory actually teaches this lunacy in universities).. The secular world has generated plenty of its own lunacy..

        Secularism and secular humanism especially fail to address the problem of "disaffected youth". How do we in the West explain / understand why our children go to Syria and join ISIS? How do we explain homegrown acts of terrorism? Well, the short answer is, we don't! We don't understand them. They are walking enigmas, moving unseen till they strike. And then we strike back with invective and hatred against all Muslims..

       We are not handling things well. Here again, secularism - and even secular humanism - seem to have let us down. Why are so many young people feeling so alienated, alienated to the point they would take the lives of fellow citizens whose names they don't even know? This is certainly a surprising development to say the least.. So why did secular scholars not give us a heads up? Did they not see these challenges approaching? If they did not see these challenges approaching, what good is their philosophy..

          The secular world has left many young people without a moral compass. They seem lost. The frenetic activity of pop culture: violent video games, extreme sports, the cult of entrepreneurship.. hides an inner void, an existential vacuum that seems to compel to nihilistic violence.

       When all is said and done, the secular world often seems to lack significance or motivation. These figures - easily verifiable by a google search - are terribly revealing: the number of American religious missionaries is nearly nineteen times as large as the number of "secular missionaries" serving in the Peace Corps! Today, an increasing - and alarming - number of people show signs of - or "suffer from" - narcissism and anomie (note 2). It seems to me that many of these individuals are also prey to radicalism be it "Muslim" terrorism, neo-Nazism or the New Right. Often these lost souls are trying to build a better world. Some would lash out against those who are seen as oppressors. Perhaps it is time to ask if the "secular project" is not bankrupt..

internal blog links:

 http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/10/climate-change-is-threat-multiplier.html

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/01/book-review-zealot-cautionary-tale-for.html 

         Secularism died a double death in the twin failures of Liberal Theology and Liberal Political Theory. For Lilla, the liberal god died in the trenches of World War I: for many the (naive) belief that the Kingdom of God had arrived with the philosophy of Progress and the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie in the 18th century was simply no longer tenable after the butchery of the trenches. Likewise the political philosophy of Liberalism as espoused by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill has failed to prevent the rise of new un-freedoms in industrial societies. In his foundational essay, On Liberty (1859), Mill argued that a free society with a minimal state breeds strong men, mature citizens, who are the people most suited to advance the project of civilization.

                                   John Stuart Mill, 1806 - 1873

           Unfortunately, Mill's political philosophy no longer applies to the contemporary industrial state which represents neither the interests of the individual citizen nor the "work of civilization". Rather, the corporate elite through their formal and informal; legal, paralegal and illegal, lobbies acquire enormous control over policy making and state regulatory powers.

internal blog links:

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-organisation-of-denial-conservative.html

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/08/lac-megantic-inferno-transport-safety.html 

Fascism: control or seizure of the State by the corporate elite

        The multinational corporations and the financial sector are in the process of establishing a "neo-feudalistic" regime. The destruction of Labor as a political force over the last half century is telling in this regard. Globalized capital flows freely between Asia and North America, following the cheapest labor. Chinese laborers and Pakistani sweat shops compete against North American blue collar workers. Who wins? Global capital! They get to play one group of workers against another: divide and conquer! Witness America's rust belt (de-industrialized zones) and the working class' declining real wages since Nixon opened the door to US trade with China in 1972.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2012/02/23-china-nixon-bader

         In short, secularism and Liberal Political Theory have failed to protect the laborer or the common citizen and his rights from the accumulated power of globalized oligarchic power. This, I hold, is why our young people are joining ISIS while Right wing extremist groups multiply like slum roaches in many western societies today.
 

                       
      The Great War, liberal theology's discomfirmation?

        Despite my reservations concerning secularism and its future, I found prof Lilla's book agreeable reading, reasonably argued (his faults are generally those of omission rather than of commission..) Especially useful was his excellent presentation of Thomas Hobbes' philosophy / psychology of religion.

         The title, Stillborn God refers to the failure of liberal theology which tried to reconcile the prophetic tradition of the Bible with modern bourgeois society by presenting the latter as the fulfillment of the former. This view died in the trenches of the Great War of 1914 - 1918. This is quite clear from the list of young disaffected German religious thinkers, Christian and Jewish, cited by Lilla. Stillborn God also suggests - perhaps unwittingly - that we  are living through an interregnum, a transition from one era to another..

                          The 20th century: the death of utopia?

notes:

1- One can get a feeling for the extreme Right's intense paranoia - not to mention sheer wackiness! - by visiting conspiracy sites and the flakier American conservative interest group sites 

http://www.hiddencodes.com/h1n1.htm

The racism here is flagrant: the "Maitreya" - future Antichrist - spoken of is, for Buddhists, the next incarnation of the Buddha.

Vaccines kill!

http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/allvaccinescontaminated29nov11.shtml

Hot off the press - all the news that print to fit. This one is too good not to include, NASA's phony mission to pluto (the moon landings were also faked..)

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/for-pluto-truthers-the-new-horizons-mission-is-only-the-latest-lie/

2- Are we becoming more narcissistic? You bet we are!

http://www.ipearlab.org/media/publications/JoP2008a.pdf 

 Anomie? How many people do you know with this condition?

http://www.britannica.com/topic/anomie

New Energy: Cogeneration

       Cogeneration: using the waste heat of power production for useful purposes, for example, for industrial processes requiring steam or for commercial and domestic space heating. Capturing and recycling the waste heat from power plants (thermal or photovoltaic solar, fossil fuel, nuclear..) boosts their overall effective (thermodynamic) efficiency from about 50% to over 80% in the best conditions. This means that to get 1 watt of energy out a typical power plant you need to put in 2 watts. To calculate this you simply invert the efficiency (which tells you that you get .50 watts out for every watt of fossil fuel burned). For a cogeneration plant you need only 1.25 watt in fuel for every watt delivered as power or useful work: 1.0 watt out / 1.25 watts in = .80 (or 80% efficiency). If we compare the energy requirements, the cogeneration unit delivers burns 1.25 watt for every watt delivered, compared to 2 watts for the conventional plant. This gives us 1.25 / 2.00 = .625 or 62.5%. Thus the cogeneration plant requires only 62.5% ( or 5 / 8) of the input energy of a conventional fossil fuel burning electrical production unit, a saving of 37.5% (or  3 / 8). It also means that cogeneration is about 40% less polluting per unit of power produced (or useful work delivered)!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

http://www.thegreenage.co.uk/article/chp-cogeneration-comparison-of-uk-to-sweden/ 
  

          The Scandinavian countries are way ahead of us North Americans in terms of extracting the environmental benefits of cogeneration. About two thirds of commercial and domestic heating in Sweden is from some form of renewable energy (hydro, solar..) including burning organic wastes (wood chips, household waste). Cogeneration schemes are often employed. In these, a conventional electrical production unit burning, say, natural gas provides heat to the local community. Hot steam is piped from the plant through a system of pipes into homes and local commerces. The heat can also be used to drive air conditioning devices thus providing the option of heating or cooling in addition to power production.

  
          When cogeneration is integrated into a distributed energy production / consumption network, it can reduce the cost of distribution infrastructure greatly. In this scheme, institutions and factories produce their own power internally (for example through solar energy). Excess power would be sold back to the local utility. When power was needed it could be extracted from the common grid. Because most power is generated and / or consumed close to the point of production, distribution losses are cut to near zero. In addition, distribution infrastructure need be simpler and less costly.

           Cogeneration need not be dependent upon fossil fuels. The main source of energy could be solar, for example, with back up production kicking in when solar production dropped off or at night. A solar power unit might also store excess energy in the form of stored heat, using solar energy to melt chemical mixtures of salts. At night the heat stored in molten salt could power steam turbines to produce electricity and hot steam for domestic heating.

           We have failed to exploit the options opened by cogeneration as we should have because the fossil fuel lobby has its fat arm up the back side of federal politicians in all western countries. In addition they are a major client of the mass media, providing much of their advertising revenue..

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-organisation-of-denial-conservative.html?spref=fb
               

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

Picked up some interesting "light" reading for the weekend.. A major article in Environmental Politics

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism
Environmental Politics: vol 17, No.3; June 2008, page 349 -385

Article abstract:

"Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed "sceptics" claim to be unbiased analysts combating "junk science" This study QUANTITATIVELY analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical BOOKS published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 PERCENT of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are LINKED TO CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS (CTTs). Further, we analyze CTTs involved with environmental issues and that 90 PER CENT of them ESPOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL SCEPTICISM. We conclude that SCEPTICISM IS A TACTIC OF AN ELITE-DRIVEN COUNTER-MOVEMENT DESIGNED TO COMBAT ENVIRONMENTALISM, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection."

        The stats are revealing to say the least :-0

        92 percent (that's 12 out of 13!!) of  environmentally "sceptical" books are linked to conservative think tanks, reactionary propaganda machines.

        Flipping things over and considering CTTs actually INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: 90% - or 9 out of 10 - take the side of reactionary agitation-propaganda ("espouse environmental scepticism") Talk about loadin' the dice in one direction..
  
Here's the pdf file:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644010802055576

        It's not as long as it looks. At least half the pages are tabulations: Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) with their noses into environmental issues, anti-environment publications and their affiliations with CTTs. For this type of publication - academic, in the social sciences - it's actually a fairly decent read (mercifully low on jargon..) 

                          large scale solar energy production: Spain

       What is aggravating to me is not so much the dissemination of lies per se but the fact that the that the CTT attack on environmentalism is a de facto attack on Green Energy and all that implies: 
 
       Green Energy has the potential to create a freer, more participatory, more just, more egalitarian society. For example, contrary to CTT lies, Green Energy actually tends to create more jobs per dollar invested than fossil energy or nukes (which are capital / infrastructure heavy and manpower light).

       Green Energy is well suited to decentralized, locally owned and controlled implementation which, in my mind, fosters more participatory, empowered communities. Fossil fuel and nuclear energy foster centralized power structures which suck life, cohesion, political clout and conviviality out of local communities.

       Green Energy is more environmentally friendly (in terms of climate, human and ecosystem health and also, often, in terms of aesthetic beauty).

       If you are still sitting on the fence regarding the reality of climate change you should read this paper and peruse the table of anti-environment publications and their links to CTTs, Table 1. Or Table 2, environmentally concerned CTTs and their position (negative, "sceptical") toward environmental issues: climate change, habitat protection, worker safety.. The CTT agenda is really quite clear: clear the decks for the uninhibited profit making of large multinationals. These companies, through their powerful lobbies, have their arms up the backsides of national politicians just about everywhere (maybe not so much North Korea, but that's an exception..)

        The Union of Concerned Scientists (USA) has this to say concerning the linkages between climate "scepticism" and fossil fuel controlled Right wing think tanks:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.V6jikKJApQI 

Fascism: control or seizure of the State by the corporate elite.

        My favorite definition of fascism.. We're not where fascist Europe was in the 1930s yet, but we're headed there..

          In reality, the corporate agenda has been clearly stated by New Right on numerous occasions.. for those who have ears to hear. According to the authors, several factors converged to launch the concerted, corporate driven, anti-environment movement post-1990. The first was the sudden, unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union (and of what was left of communism globally). The resulting power vacuum deprived the Right of the Communist / Socialist /"godless atheist" bogeyman which had served so well to scare the "masses" into ideological compliance. The problem was solved by replacing the Red Scare of the now defunct Cold War era by the Green Scare of the dawning millennium. Such a reconfiguration of political theater was rendered plausible by the emergence of environmental concern as a geopolitical force after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. 

       Anyone who grew up in the emotionally charged Cold War era in the States, as I did, will recognize

- the fanatical hatred, 

- the brazen and cynical manipulation of populist sentiment (often under the guise of patriotism), 

- and the  craven sacrifice of objectivity to self-interested corporate business agendas. 

       During the Cold War era Right wing propaganda was directed against "leftists", "commies", "socialists", "liberals", feminists and civil rights activists - anyone, in short, who was not a craven supporter of the militaristic, protofascist American Right. Today the invective and lies are directed against those struggling for an ecologically viable planet to pass on to the next generation. The goals of the Red Scare and the Green Scare seem similar though, 

- the maximization of profits for multinational corporations and their shareholders, 

- the furtherance of social inequities, 

- the suppression of true democratic voices.. 

        Some people might find it curious that a goal might be the furtherance of social inequities, given the negative impacts these create: higher crime rates and infant mortality, with reduced national life expectancy, social cohesion and socio-economic mobility (the much-loved and emulated "American Dream"). In addition, psychologists have shown that social status is a very weak indicator of self-reported "happiness" (only 10% of the "variance" in happiness is due to social status while genetics and self-effort account, about equally, for the other 90%). Looked at from the perspective of the multinational, however, sharpening the sense of social status and linking status to "ostentatious rank-identifying consumption" is a sure-fired money maker for multinationals.

http://mecteam.blogspot.ca/2008/04/herv-kempf-how-rich-are-destroying.html