Posts tagged future

“Internet Kill Switch” phrase leaves the public in the dark

…I truly don’t know of another area of public policy where relevant facts and salient debates are more divorced from the public discussion — where ignorance and fear have more currency — than is the case with tech policy. The unreality of the debate tends to work out fine for the defense contractors, industry consultants, and major corporations involved in tech policy. But that state of affairs leaves the public in the dark.

Nancy Scola, writing for The American Prospect blog on the INTERNET KILL SWITCH (!!!!1) and “The Trouble With Tech Reporting

This is what the end of the oil age looks like

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/oil_06_03/o01_23681845.jpg

A bird is mired in oil on the beach at East Grand Terre Island along the Louisiana coast on Thursday, June 3, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, via The Big Picture)

This is what the end of the oil age looks like. The cheap, easy petroleum is gone; from now on, we will pay steadily more and more for what we put in our gas tanks—more not just in dollars, but in lives and health, in a failed foreign policy that spawns foreign wars and military occupations, and in the lost integrity of the biological systems that sustain life on this planet.

Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute on what the ongoing BP oil spill disaster means for humanity’s need for energy.

What is Reboot Alberta?

There’s sure been a lot of talk about Reboot Alberta lately. But ever since the first meeting in Red Deer last November, much of Alberta’s political chattering class seems completely puzzled over just what Reboot Alberta actually is.

Is it a “standard unite the left” movement? Or maybe it’s a right wing plot?

Is it a bunch of out-of-touch “elitists” as Hugh MacDonald would have us believe? Or is it a nearly irrelevant “debate society” ?

Could it simply be a vehicle for a new political party? Or maybe it’s a support group for those fed up with partisan politics and yet somehow, simultaneously, group therapy for committed partisans?

Is it a group of people focused on democratic reforms that will re-engage Albertans in the political process, or just another division of Alberta’s rapidly shrinking pie of voters?

File:Blind monks examining an elephant.jpg

Alberta's pundits examining the Reboot Alberta elephant

There’s an ancient parable from India about seven blind monks touching different parts of an elephant and jumping to conclusions about what an elephant must be:

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.

“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

… and so on.

The moral of the story is that each monk was partly right, but none could describe the true essence of the elephant.

Reboot Alberta is our elephant.

It began as an experiment without predetermined outcomes or set expectations starting from this simple premise: put a bunch of politically engaged Albertans in the same room for a weekend and encourage thoughtful, respectful discussions about politics and Alberta’s future.

What emerged was a buzz of new ideas, new discussions and new relationships among the politically engaged.

In hindsight, the first Reboot conference was about creating a space for these important conversations to take place. The beauty of this idea was its simplicity. Tapping into a deep desire for renewed engagement, a decentralized community formed around Alberta’s political blogs and the #rebootab tag on twitter.

But who were these people? What bound them together?

Having actively engaged in this online community and participated in both conferences, here are the four things that I believe characterize the Reboot Alberta elephant, as refined by the discussion at my table on the bright Sunday morning of February 28th at Reboot 2.0.

Rebooters are already actively involved in their communities and share a desire to:

  1. create a better Alberta -  a place where we all can “live and flourish.”
  2. course correct with meaningful democratic reforms to address broken aspects of our system and encourage more Albertans to “dust off their citizenship.”
  3. connect with other people who want to foster democracy and establish a new vision for Alberta’s future.
  4. link together our existing organizations, communities and political vehicles to work towards these goals, both together and independently.

Some participants’ high expectations for the second conference were not met. And there are some genuine and very legitimate concerns about how to make these in-person meetings more accessible to those Albertans without a few hundred extra dollars to spend on a luxury hotel for a weekend. Yet I remain optimistic about these simple, action-oriented goals for Reboot Alberta.

So if you have something important to contribute to this ongoing discussion, I encourage you to take ten minutes and start a blog, sign up for twitter and start sharing your thoughts on how best to advance these goals.

I’ll be listening.

Rebooting our language

Adaptability, understanding, and interconnectivity.

That’s a definition of what it means to be a “progressive” that several people settled on at the Reboot Alberta conference several weeks ago.

While it is a reasonable attempt at defining a notoriously vague concept and political label, I’m more than a little skeptical about how these multi-syllable words will resonate with the 1.3 million Albertans that didn’t vote in the last election. Is a vision steeped in words like “interconnectivity” really going to inspire people to shrug off their cynicism, get involved in public and political life and start voting in elections?

I’m not holding my breath.

In the comments on Dave Cournoyer’s thoughtful post speculating on the coming 21st century political tidal wave, Matt Grant makes an excellent point – and quotes from one of my favorite political essays – noting how the wrong choice of words has the potential to lead progressives astray.

“Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.

So how would *I* define what it means to be “progressive” in Alberta using simple and direct language?

Being progressive is about looking to the future.

It is not an outright rejection of the status quo, but a recognition that our politics will fail to address many of our present and future problems if left “as is.”  It is a hopeful but realistic vision that embraces empathy, inclusiveness and respect for others’ views. It is about starting the “reboot” of our thinking necessary to build a better Alberta.

I believe much of the pent up frustration, cynicism and apathy with politics in Alberta is a reflection of the fact that nearly all of our leaders are silent on two of the most important questions for any leadership position:

“Where are we going?” and “How are we going to get there?”

I have some ideas about how to answer part of these questions, but I’m still considering the best way to present my thoughts clearly.

If you have an idea about how we should be answering these questions I encourage you to participate the #rebootab conversation and join us on rebootalberta.org

The difference between science and ideology

The difference between science and ideology is that science tries to explain all known observations, whereas ideology selects only those observations that support a preconceived notion. As world leaders negotiate this week in Copenhagen, let’s hope science, not ideology, guides their discussions.

Thomas Homer-Dixon and Andrew Weaver in today’s Globe and Mail debunking four common nonsensical statements about climate change.