Democracy's Shortcomings*

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

― Winston S. Churchill

The above is clearly not in accord with the thinking of our 'betters,' aka the corporate elite, who are now lamenting the terrible things that democracy can bring about.

Billionaire CEO Steve Schwarzman first sounded the alarm in January at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

"I find the whole thing sort of astonishing, and what's remarkable is the amount of anger, whether it's on the Republican side or the Democratic side," he said, in a slow cadence that served to highlight his confusion. "Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of the stuff going on on the Republican side. How is that happening? Why is that happening? What is the vein in America that is being tapped into, across parties, that's made people so unhappy?"

"Now," he concluded, smiling, "that's something you should spend some time on."

Schwarzman's bewilderment gave way to introspection and analysis, leading some to conclude there is too much democracy, thereby paving the way for demagogues like Donald Trump, who 'prey' on the emotions of the masses.

James Traub, writing in Foreign Policy, goes further:

It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”?

Such an assertion provoked a strong response from Jake Johnson:

It is elites — including Traub himself — who have for decades cloaked devastating wars in the soaring rhetoric of "humanitarian intervention." It is elites who have forced upon crumbling economies austerity that has served to prolong and worsen already dire circumstances. It is elites who have peddled the fantasy of neoliberalism, which has created a system that lavishly rewards the wealthiest while leaving everyone else to compete for the rest. It is elites, political and corporate, who have devastated the environment in the name of profit. It is elites who have crashed the global economy.

The masses, for their part, are always there to pick up the costs.

And they're sick of it.

Writing in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi says,

"Voters in America not only aren't over-empowered, they've for decades now been almost totally disenfranchised, subjects of one of the more brilliant change-suppressing systems ever invented.

People have no other source of influence ... Unions have been crushed. Nobody has any job security. Main Street institutions that once allowed people to walk down the road to sort things out with other human beings have been phased out. In their place now rest distant, unfeeling global bureaucracies.

Elites, by forcefully eliminating avenues for democratic progress, have cultivated the environment in which anti-establishment sentiment now thrives.

And the major political parties of the wealthiest nations on earth, in order to curry favor from big business, have pushed aside the needs of the working class, often disregarding workers as racists unworthy of attention. And the punditry has dutifully followed suit.

And so the schism between the elites and the masses continues. What is left unspoken, however, is the role that all of us can play in counteracting this alleged debasement of democracy.

We have a choice. We can choose to go along our merry way, content and narcotized by the trivial diversions available to us, or we can speak forcefully whenever the occasion demands that we do, and we can refuse to cede authority to the uninformed and the ignorant by turning out in droves during elections, debates, etc.

There is nothing inherently wrong with our democratic institutions. It is its potential participants who need to be regularly reminded of their responsibilities in facilitating their effective discharge. To say that there is no real choice in our political leadership may be true to some extent. But to use that as a reason for withdrawal will only serve the interests of a minority at the expense of the majority.

Anger is justified, but it must be tempered with reason. Otherwise, all will indeed be lost.

*Thanks to Kev for bringing this to my attention.

UPDATED: Somedays I Feel Very, Very Old

This is one of the reasons:



UPDATE: If you would like to read about augmented reality and its imminent arrival in Canada, click here.

UPDATED: According To Wood Harrelson, It's Simple

Unfortunately, thanks to the intractable and self-indulgent nature of far too many 'ordinary' people, it isn't.



UPDATE: Marie, over at A Puff of Absurdity, has a very interesting exploration of this issue. Click here to read it.

We Can't Have It Both Ways

Despite Justin Trudeau's sunny assurances that meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and pipeline expansion are not mutually exclusive, most people, if they think about it at all, will see such a position as both risible and impossible.

That is certainly the assessment of J. David Hughes, who writes that we can't have it both ways:

In 2014 (the most recent year for which we have data), Canada’s emissions were 28 per cent above the 2030 target. Meaning, even with existing levels of oil and gas production, we have our work cut out for us.

But Alberta’s new Climate Leadership Plan allows for a 47 per cent increase in oilsands emissions from 2014 levels (up to a maximum cap of 100 million tonnes per year). And B.C. plans to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry, aiming for five large LNG terminals to export fracked gas from province’s northeast. This means a large ramp up of emissions from natural gas production as well.

Under a scenario where Alberta’s oilsands emissions grow to its cap, and B.C.’s LNG industry is developed to the level planned, economic sectors outside of oil and gas would have to shrink emissions by more than half (55 per cent) in order for Canada to meet the Paris commitment. This is simply not feasible, barring an economic collapse.

Hughes, an earth scientist who recently authored a report on the issue, says, in fact, that no new pipelines are needed, as the existing infrastructure is more than capable of moving our fossil fuels.

Detractors of rail should note that bitumen in its undiluted form is highly viscous and much less volatile than the light oil “Bakken bombs” that resulted in conflagrations at Lac Mégantic and in Oregon recently and therefore is unlikely to have such serious consequences in the event of an accident.

Furthermore, the economics of constructing more pipelines make no sense, despite the arguments that getting oil to tidewater will net a price premium on international markets:

Although oil is a globally priced commodity, between 2011 and 2014 the international price (“Brent”) was considerably higher than the North American price (“WTI”). In September 2011 the differential reached $25.26 per barrel. However, the average differential in the six months ending May 2016 was 88 cents per barrel and recently Brent has been trading below WTI.

Not only has the international price advantage evaporated, but Canada’s primary oil export, Western Canada Select, sells at a discount to WTI. That’s because it is a lower grade heavy oil and will sell at a discount whether sold internationally or to North American markets.

There are some very compelling reasons to dampen enthusiasm for new pipelines. However, in the world of high-stakes politics, reason often has but a peripheral role to play in decision-making. Only very strong and principled leadership can promote wise choices.

To say the least, I am not especially optimistic that will play a role here.

Deny All You Want

But it will not alter the truth. Despite anthropogenic-climate-change denier Marco Rubio's publicly professed befuddlement over the causes of the toxic algae blooms in Florida and elsewhere, the answers are not difficult to find: agricultural runoff and climate change are two of the leading culprits.

Says Karl Haven, director of the Florida Sea Grant College Program:

Climate change is expected to result in increased temperatures of nearshore ocean water, and this could lead to increased growth of harmful microorganisms. These include algae that form noxious or toxic blooms, including red tides, and bacteria and other pathogens. This situation could have negative consequences in regard to human health and also Florida’s ocean-related economy.

And there is no reason for anyone to feel smug about this problem, as it can strike anywhere, including the Great Lakes. Especially hard hit over the years has been Lake Erie which, up to this point has suffered largely due to phosphorous runoff. The compounding effect of climate change will undoubtedly aggravate the problem there.

Climate Progress reports on the spreading scourge, which has now claimed even Alaska:

Last summer, one of the largest toxic algal blooms in recorded history hit the West Coast, shutting down fisheries from California to Washington. Scientists were seeing cells of the toxic bloom as far south as Mexico, and as far north as Homer, Alaska. At the time, Vera Trainer, manager of the Marine Biotoxin Program at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center, told ThinkProgress that the bloom was uniquely widespread, “more so than we’ve seen in the past.”

But scientists now are saying that, with climate change, toxic algal blooms like the one seen last summer might become more common along the Pacific coastline, impacting marine communities as far north as Alaska with much more consistency than in the past.

In a new study published in the journal Harmful Algae, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found the presence of domoic acid — the same toxic acid that shut down West Coast fisheries last summer — in marine mammals along the Alaskan coastline. This was a surprise, because Alaskan waters were previously thought to be too cold to encourage the growth of domic-producing algal blooms. [Emphasis added]

That’s because algae thrive in warmer waters, which both encourage growth in certain kinds of algae and discourage a mixing of ocean waters. Alaskan waters are some of the most rapidly warming waters in the world, having risen by three degrees Celsius in the past decade.

“The waters are warming, the sea ice is melting, and we are getting more light in those waters,” Lefebvre told the Washington Post. “Those conditions, without a doubt, are more favorable for algal growth. With that comes harmful algae.”

Given our seemingly endless capacity for denial, scenes like this are sure to become more common and widespread very, very soon:

Meanwhile, In Other Parts Of The World

.... things are hardly going swimmingly:

Torrential monsoon rains along a stalled frontal boundary near the Yangtze River in China have killed 186 people, left 45 people missing, and caused at least $7.6 billion in damage. In the Hubei Province, 1.5 million people have been evacuated or are in need of aid, almost 9,000 houses have collapsed or are seriously damaged and more than 710,000 hectares of crops have been affected, the provincial civil affairs department said. According to the May 2016 Catastrophe Report from insurance broker Aon Benfield, the $7.6 billion in damage from these floods would make them the world's most expensive and second deadliest weather-related disaster so far in 2016. The only deadlier weather disaster in 2016 was an April heat wave in India that claimed 300 lives.

H/t Mike Hudema

Counting My Blessings

No matter what our problems as a country may be, I couldn't help but feel blessed to be a Canadian as I watched this horrifying story: