Haiti

All of my life Haiti has been the poorest of nations in the western hemisphere. It has struggled continuously and endured the dismissive and reproachful attitudes of her neighbours in North, Central and South America. Haiti has always been a disaster waiting to happen.

Only relatively recently (in the 1980s) did we intervene, when the stench of the atrocities perpetrated by "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier became too much of an offense to our righteous sensibilities. Then, when the military committed a coup and President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was exiled to Africa, we did little. The fate of Haiti once again fell into internal disarray and our relationship with them was relegated to the bureaucratic morass of international diplomacy. And the country languished without proper government, institutions, social services or effective international support.

Haiti as a nation was/is the "homeless street person" of the Western Hemisphere. We all continued to go about our daily business, averting our eyes whenever our pursuits led us to pass by them. We watched Haiti's sister nation, the Dominican Republic, raise itself up from its own poverty and comforted ourselves with the thought that "a rising tide lifts all ships". But we believed lies and would not look at the truth. Denial is the strongest of human sins.

On January 11th, 2010, our "homeless person" fellow nation was on fire as we went to work in the morning. Our neglect and indifference over the decades resulted in establishing circumstances that compounded the difficulties of attempting to help Haiti. Our shock and dismay is now mingled with our shame and regret as we trip over one another to rush to aid the wounded and dying - cursing the circumstances that hinder our benevolence. Circumstances that we could have changed if we had chosen to be engaged with Haiti rather than ignore her.

In "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens the ghost of Jacob Marley retorts strongly to Ebenezer Scrooge when the miser offers an excuse for their mutual disinterest in human affairs and benevolent causes. Scrooge says, "It's only that you were a good man of business." "Business!" cries Marley in reply. "Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business!"

I read Dickens' brilliant words every year - and every year I am personally convicted by those lines and compelled to reassess my own engagement with those who have less than I. While I am aware that many, many people and organizations exist to do good and caring works - many already in Haiti before the earthquake - I am also aware that many, many, many injustices lie unattended because political, social, economic and spiritual leadership fails.

In the light of events in Haiti we are - at least I am - sickened by our recent (and not so recent) history that testifies how we will go to extraordinary lengths to address issues in foreign lands, especially when - at least from the perspective of our corporate and political leaders - there are compelling economic reasons to do so. We will send our sons and daughters to die - and they will go willingly - when the stakes seem most likely to threaten our luxurious lives. But we will not sacrifice even a small portion of our opulent lifestyles to lift another people up so they can be stronger, safer and have greater dignity if there seems to be no immediate benefit for us. At least not until they are on fire.

Haiti is a hard lesson. I pray fervently that we, who are blessed beyond what words of any language can adequately describe, might learn this lesson well. That addressing the needs of others is always in our best interests, for when we do so we help ourselves - so intimate is our connection to one another on this tiny planet that we share. And that we might come to realize that when we do offer comfort to others we act in love that touches the very face of all we hold most sacred and good.

In speaking of charity, benevolence and simple care Jesus of Nazareth said, "Whenever you do this to the least of my brothers, you do this to me."

Shalom

Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

I've blogged about my concerns regarding climate change before. Now a recent incident involving the Climate Research Unit located at the University of East Anglia has revealed to the world that the data and methodology used by that institution to create reports intended inform policymakers was corrupt, spurious and deeply flawed - as were the conclusions in those reports.

I was tipped to this by John Gormely on his radio show today where he was interviewing Kate McMillan, author of the weblog "Small Dead Animals". Kate has done a superb job of gathering the most useful links in this emerging story under the ongoing title - "The Sound of All Hell Breaking Loose". If you care at all about the Earth and our economic and political future you need to read up on this - and then remember it at the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that.

The real tragedy in all of this will be the huge damage done to the scientific community in general. If it results in a "cry wolf" response from the public world-wide (as I suspect it will) then I can safely predict humanity will fall victim to a true catastrophe soon - even though we will likely be warned about it. We just won't believe the messenger.

The image linked to this post is not the property of the author and is used without permission with purely illustrative intent and with no intent to defraud or injure the original owner.

No Change to Climate Change Strategy

"When I use a word I choose it to mean exactly what I want it to." - the hookah smoking Caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland

About two years ago the term 'global warming' was struck from the environmentalists' lexicon. The reality was that it has ceased to be a useful pseudo-scientific/political term and actually had become a liability because evidence was already mounting that 'warming' wasn't what was happening. Instead those in charge of shaping the message began employing the term "climate change".

Why?

Thankfully, a few scientists had staunchly adhered to the scientific principle of rigorous observation as a means to develop a theory regarding what was actually taking place. They had remembered that science is never complete or finished with a subject - it is always seeking a deeper understanding and to create a more accurate model. And what these scientists were discovering was coming into direct conflict with the "global warming" descriptor so the name was changed to try to duck the inevitable questions that their findings would raise.

I initially became aware of these changes through a number of articles that were placed in inconspicuous locations in newspapers and magazines by editorial choice and a then by more articles which could not be so easily relegated to the lower left corner of page 6. In particular it was the excellent journalism of Lorne Gunter that brought together for me several of the disparate threads of this emerging story and began to give it a fuller shape and treatment. Beginning in 2008 he wrote a number of articles including the four linked here (one; two; three; four). Read them. Go ahead. I've got time - even if you want to read the comments - it's cool. I'll be here when you get back. The only thing you have to lose is your media-induced ignorance about this subject.

Well, now that you're semi-up-to-speed let me preface the next portion of this blog by saying that I'm an ecologist, too. I recycle - very thoroughly. My wife and I have been purchasing energy efficient appliances and making upgrades to our homes to reduce our use of energy since our first home almost 25 years ago. I am a supporter of efficient and appropriate use of our wealth and resources and I take personal responsibility for the part of creation I am able to influence and steward. That being said, I also do not support public policy and the spending of our tax dollars on initiatives that are useless.

And that is where we are today. It is part of the obvious passion Mr. Gunter has for the truth that he has published his latest article on climate issues now - when nationally and internationally we are engaged in the process of discussing and shaping policy to address these challenges. As you will undoubtedly know the leaders of the industrialized world are currently meeting to discuss a new initiative to replace the ill-conceived, poorly-implemented and ultimately failed Kyoto Accord. But the rhetoric, the science and most importantly, the political perspective at the discussion table has not changed to properly recognize and deal with the truth.

I know the pollsters will say that a majority of North Americans are concerned about the climate and ecology of the Earth, but the polls that have been taken have been constructed to create data that seems to support the view that the majority of people believe the scientists and their reigning theory. This, I believe is far from the truth.

As an example - if someone who believes wholeheartedly that 'global warming' is the greatest threat we face and that the theory that it is largely (if not entirely) the fault of human activity, especially free-market industrialism and life-style - and someone like myself, who does not believe such things, were both asked-

"How concerned are you with climate-based issues?",

-we would both answer that we are and rate our concern at the top of whatever scale we were given by the pollster. But our real underlying concerns and our convictions as to what solutions might be the best to employ would likely be radically different in important ways.

Still, the politicians would see the results of such a poll and conclude that this issue must be addressed and that the advice they have been receiving to attack CO2 emissions must still be a valid strategy to employ. The media, the scientific community, politicians and business have all aligned themselves along this policy vector because they all will benefit in some way through pursuing it. Largely, it will ensure political power and control for the politicians while it will ensure economic power and control for everyone else.

Frighteningly, it is becoming more and more evident that the strategies and initiatives we have been pursuing will NOT result in the Earth's climate becoming a New Age 'Garden of Eden' as so many advertisements for consumer products promise. This is not to say that every initiative and policy has been so flawed that no good at all has come of them. Some good has been done. Certainly public awareness of ecological issues is much more prevalent than over three decades ago when I was in high school. But awareness is not the same as true and useful knowledge - and is almost useless (maybe even dangerous) without it.

What shocks me the most is how the media, the scientific community and the political parties have either ignored or willfully limited free and open debate on these issues. If we all were generally appalled but the discovery that there were no "WMDs" in Iraq to truly give impetus to the US-led invasion of that country, how much more should we be appalled to learn that scientists have known for years that their climate prediction models were not working and that new empirical data was invalidating their predictions of our climate future? How appalled should we be when we realize that billions of tax dollars have been already spent and are yet committed to policies shaped by this erroneous information? How appalled should we be that business, the media and academic institutions have been willing to literally sell us all a "bill of goods" for their own benefit - ignoring the truth and the mounting evidence?

I don't want to be in opposition to those who claim to be concerned about global climate issues, but the leaders of the "global warming" - now the politically correct "climate change" - movement used fascist strategies to vilify and censure those who were as equally concerned for the planet and its future but who questioned the science and its conclusions. I say "fascist" not for its shock value but because it most accurately describes what has obviously been at the heart of this debate - a consuming desire for control, even if motivated by noble intentions. At the heart of all fascism is the desire to control and limit freedom and choice. And the first casualty in the pursuit of that desire is always the truth.

Not once in the last decade have I, or thousands and thousands of others like me, said, "There is no problem". What we have said is, "The problem is NOT as you describe it to be." But our overtures to discuss this and find common ground were drown out beneath the angry rhetoric that labeled those with doubts as "heretics", "immoral" and "evil". We should all remember that the weakness of any position or argument can easily be measured by how low those who support it must stoop to defend it.

Today - this very day - your political representatives are engaged in negotiations that will decide how billions of our tax dollars will be allocated now, and in the future, to deal with global climate issues. I am not here calling for those dollars to not be spent. I am calling for them to be spent wisely and well!

You can have an influence in this issue by writing letters and sending then to your MP, MLA, the Premier of your Province, the Prime Minister, the Leaders of the political parties or whoever your political representatives might be - and to international representatives as well. Ask them to answer - or even if they are aware of - the questions raised by people like Lorne Gunter and others who are speaking out on this topic. Demonstrate that you ARE concerned, but that you no longer want a public opinion polling company with a built-in political agenda to do your talking for you. And keep reading, keep learning and stay engaged.

It's our planet.

This issue affects us all.

Shalom

In Cars

For those of you who recognized my borrowed title as belonging to the lyrics of Gary Numan's semi-hit "Cars", congrats.

I have been fascinated with cars since my very earliest memories. I dreamed of owning the muscle cars of my youth in the '70's - Burt Reynolds' Trans Am, Steve McQueen's Mustang, and the Challenger from the cult classic "Vanishing Point". I have collected Car and Driver and Road & Track mags for years. Once, I was moments away from purchasing $5000 worth of Snap-On automotive tools and beginning a career as an auto mechanic. My first workplace experiences were in service stations and I did the usual "grease monkey" jobs, oil changes, tire repairs and some minor repairs.

I didn't end up owning my dream cars (and my newest one is out of my reach financially) but it may be a moot point as the company that builds it may not exist as it does now in a very short while. While the facts are that GM, Ford and Chrysler are all in dire financial straits currently (Ford being the possible exception) it seems they will die, not because of their own mistakes, but because of the political baggage that will be attached to any attempt by the US government to bail them out.

The short version of this is that President Obama will (already has) attached caveats to the bailout package offered to the US automakers that will severely limit the ability of the executives to run their companies in an efficient and profitable manner. The insistence on demanding that the US companies meet fuel efficiency targets their competition will not be required to, incorporate new technologies before there is a profitable business case to do so and limit the choices they can make regarding how to use the bailout funds will inevitably result in business failure in any case. These issues have been reported elsewhere and are now public record. The recent resignation of the CEO of GM was the only response he could choose in the face of what the US government was demanding. Had he said "yes" to the bailout as offered he would have been unable to do his job effectively anyway. His choice was the honest one.

In addition the the roadblocks the US government is putting up in front of the automakers the leadership of the UAW and CAW have continued to insist that the cost of labor is not a problem for the US car industry. This is in spite of the fact that the huge disparity between the average wages of their members compared to the average wages of competitors' workers in the US is so great a grade 10 student in a Junior Achievement program could spot it as a HUGE problem.

I am now predicting the bankruptcy is inevitable for the US automakers. Even if deluded leadership is found who will accept the strictures of the bailout package the end result will be failure, albeit delayed failure. The sad truth is that this ultimate result will be more the fault if the US administration and the influence of special interest groups than because of the mistakes the US auto manufacturers have made. I will not blindly defend them. They have made serious errors in judgment over the course of their history and have had to deal with their self-delusional corporate culture, but the truth is that all three US companies had already made major changes and improvements before the economic meltdown took place. The evidence of this is certainly in Ford, which currently is still relatively solvent. Every new model GM has introduced in the last 5 years has been a meritorious design, including the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu (both of which won "Car of the Year" in the two previous years). Even my beloved Cadillac CTS-V is considered a "world-class" luxury sports sedan capable of competing with anything in its class and price range.

The truth is that if the economic meltdown had not occurred it was becoming more and more likely that the US auto manufacturers would have begun to regain market share, rebuild their reputations and infuse the marketplace with exciting, innovative and worthy products. Ultimately we as consumers would have benefited with more choices of better vehicles at better prices in a more competitive marketplace. That future is all but a lost opportunity now.

Perhaps the US auto manufacturing industry will be able to rise from the ashes of the oncoming inferno that will consume them. There are historical precedences for companies being rebuilt by those who buy them, but this will most likely not be a "made in America" solution. The irony is that while President Obama is likely to flirt with some protectionist policies during his administration (and perhaps already has), in this case he seems content to throw one of his nations oldest and most storied industries to the wolves - even when there is evidence that they could still survive if aided appropriately.

For my part I'll be shopping for a lightly used GM product this spring. I like what I'm driving now, I just am wearing it out. Maybe this will be my last GM purchase. I hope not, but to me the future looks grim.

Who's In First Place?

By now most people in North America are aware that Flatland has become an island oasis of economic prosperity awash in a sea of financial turmoil. Thanks to a slow news day at CNN, our brothers and sisters south of the 49th Parallel can now add the descriptor "Economic Haven" to their maps - which have previously shown a vast void to the north of the USA with the appellation "Here Be Monsters or Maybe Nothing" emblazoned across them. To be sure it may be a mixed blessing to have the American Giant become more aware of us than he/she/it already is, especially while desperately seeking a cure for the economic woes that plague the "Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave" (with my sincere apologies to Scotland).

But before we become a tasty morsel to be scarfed up I would like to remind everyone that we didn't get into "first place" in the economic race because we were running faster than our competitors. The truth is that everyone else - EVERYONE - simultaneously blew a head gasket. We just happen to be better off than all of the others who were in or near last place. Hardly something to be as proud or smug about as it seems we are becoming lately.

What I find ironic/frightening/disturbing is that it seems our captains of industry and politics are charting a course for us to build upon the model that just blew up so spectacularly. (That the rest of the world also seems intent on rebuilding what failed - mostly because no one seems creative enough to offer an alternative - is no less disturbing.) I guess hard lessons are learned the hard way - by repetition.

Now I do admit that our time seems to have come when it comes to commodities and new commerce. But if we don't go to school on the difficulties and failures of our neighbors, our eventual destination could hardly be imagined to be much different than theirs. I'll be bold and suggest a new model to look at. After all, what have we got to lose? Quite a lot, apparently!

Jesus spoke about money - a lot. And the "bottom line", as it were, was "it's temporary, and it's on loan - so be wise and careful". We are born empty-handed and so too will we die. In between we have opportunity to have control of much - in North America, Europe, Australia parts of Asia, South America and even Africa these days that can amount to quite a bit more than most others have.

So what will we do with it?

Now that's a question much more worth pondering over than "What will I tweet on Twitter today?".

I'm not going to tell you what do do, but if you are curious - and you must be because you keep watching all that stuff in the media about money - why don't you check out this, this, this and this?

It's a much different take on wealth and economy. And judging by the evidence at hand we could use a bit of "different".

'Nuff Said!