Letters from the Past

Writers are time-traveling telepaths. They encode their ideas and send them into the future. Readers receive these messages, decode the squiggly symbols on the page or screen, and hear the author's words recited in their heads. It doesn't matter whether the messages were written down weeks, months, or years ago: it always reaches the reader in the present.

This isn't always a one-way street, either. Some literary works provide readers with a window into the author's mind, offering insights into the social and psychological conditions that shaped it. Through such works readers get to experience bygone eras, extinct cultures, and the ideas that populated both, all through the author's eyes.

These works allow readers to be time-traveling telepaths, too!

That's certainly how I feel when I read Seneca's Letters from a Stoic. 

This excellent book is a collection of letters written by the philosopher Seneca to his friend Lucilius, the procurator of Sicily. In his letters, Seneca offers his friend advice on a wide range of topics pertinent to Romans living in first century CE.

What fascinates me the most about these letters is their relevance today. It appears that the human condition hasn't changed much in the 2,000 years since Seneca put pen to parchment. We traded gladiator games for pro sports, Latin for English, and slaves for the middle class, but our concerns remain the same.

We're anxious about the future. We struggle to make meaningful connections with others. We seek purpose and strive to be happy. We attempt to maintain a work-life balance.

If our concerns are timeless, so too is Seneca's advice on how best to deal with them. But more on that later. First, let's meet Lucius Annaeus Seneca, aka Seneca the Younger.

Living at the very dawn of the Roman Empire (4BCE - 65CE), Seneca wore many hats. He was a dramatist, statesman, and philosopher. He wrote a dozen plays and a number of philosophical essays and letters. He also tutored Nero and served as the emperor's adviser for 15 years.

Fun fact: Seneca's philosophical writings had a profound influence on early Christianity and he was well-loved by early church leaders. Tertullian, the father of Latin Christianity, called him "Our Seneca." In the Middle Ages, he made posthumous appearances in the works of Chaucer and Dante. Some Medieval writers even claimed that Seneca converted to Christianity before his death, though no proof of this exists beyond the accounts themselves.

One need not look far to see how Seneca influenced Christian scripture and theology. He often writes his letters with a scathing moral authority so that his "advice" to poor Lucilius comes off sounding more like preaching. For example, when Lucilius complains that he can't trust some of his friends, Seneca responds:

But if you consider any man a friend whom you do not trust as you trust yourself, you are mightily mistaken and you do not sufficiently understand what true friendship means.

Ouch.  Or this:

He who begins to be your friend because it pays will also cease because it pays.

Seneca doesn't sugar coat a damn thing!

He also brings a bit of controversy to the table. While preaching self-restraint, discipline, and the insignificance of material wealth, Seneca supposedly had numerous illicit affairs with married women and accumulated a vast fortune under Nero's rule. While in exile, Seneca also wrote pleading letters that contradicted Stoic tenets like accepting one's fate and finding joy in the simple life.

Robin Campbell, one of Seneca's translators, summarizes the above succinctly when he writes that "the stock criticism of Seneca [has been] the apparent contrast between his philosophical teachings and his practice."

There's one final intrigue surrounding Seneca's letters: they are completely one-sided. Even though he often makes reference to something his friend wrote in a previous letter, none of Lucilius' letters have ever been found.

In fact, there isn't a shred of proof that Lucilius existed outside of Seneca's letters. As procurator of Sicily, there ought to be some record of Lucilius out there, but no luck.

This has led some to question Lucilius' existence, and rightfully so. Philosophers in the Hellenic world were fond of writing dialogues between fictional characters in order to advance their points. Add to this the fact that Seneca was a famous playwright and the case for a fictional Lucilius becomes even stronger.

I don't think that Seneca was a hypocrite preaching what he couldn't practice; rather, I believe he was a flawed genius trying to reinforce his Stoicism by writing letters to himself. Interestingly enough, this is exactly what Marcus Aurelius did in his Meditations, which were originally entitled "To Myself."

Through Lucilius, Seneca strengthens his own resolve. He draws on his flaws, weaknesses, and past experiences to outline a path to the good life. There is no contradiction between Seneca's lifestyle and seemingly contradictory message: he is simply reminding himself of the facts, so easily forgotten in the face of wealth, fame, and power.

Seneca is doing what we should all do: honestly examining his past, learning lessons, and improving his future.

When Seneca says that "the acquisition of riches has been for many men, not an end, but a change, of troubles," he is speaking from personal experience.

That Seneca might have been incapable of practicing what he preached does not tarnish the wisdom, beauty, and truth of his words. Those who cannot do, teach, and Seneca has proven himself to be a most excellent teacher.

Seneca and the Stoic philosophers of Rome were onto something. They had uncanny insights into the human mind and I'm convinced that their ideas are just as pertinent today as they were 2,000 years ago. I will try to pass some of Seneca's lessons down through a series of Seneca-inspired blog posts in the weeks to come. I hope you will find as much value in them as I have.

Sometimes ancient solutions are needed to solve modern problems.

/rant over

Two Cent Rant: Pipelines

Hey Sarita: you wanted to know my opinion on the Northern Gateway pipeline?

Here's my two cents.

***

You may have seen this commercial on TV recently. It offers stunning vistas of pine-cloaked hills, azure waters, and pristine coasts.

If you didn't know Enbridge, you'd probably think they were an environmental group.

Not so.

Enbridge would like to pump thousands of gallons of bitumen (dilbit) from the desolate wastelands of northern Alberta to the BC coast where it would be loaded into tankers and shipped across the Pacific Ocean.

You probably heard that Uncle Stephen recently approved the construction of such a pipeline. You may have also heard about the supposed economic benefits of such a project.

So what do you make of it?

Are you comfortable putting the safety of our beautiful coastline in the hands of Enbridge, a corporation whose sole purpose is to turn a profit? And don't you find it strange that, as much of the world scrambles to beat its addiction to fossil fuels (all the cool kids are doing it!), our government is doubling down on this destructive substance?

You shouldn't. Uncle Stephen's cronies declared Green Peace "a multi-issue extremist group," forbade meteorologists from uttering the words "climate change," and muzzled scientists whose findings contradicted the party ideology.

Then there's this Conservative MP who claims that the science behind climate change is inconclusive.

When 97% of experts in a certain field agree on something, it's tough to argue. It's especially tough if you have no credentials in that particular field. Yet that is precisely what James Lunney is doing. Who elected this clown?

If you read my post about the NNP you will recognize the stark contrast between evidence-based decision making and decisions based on pseudo-religious fundamentalist ideology.

Do you believe in climate change? I don't believe: I look at the facts and I know.

Florida is drowning. What was once considered a storm of the century now occurs every few years. The arctic ice is melting so quickly that atlases are being redrawn.The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached highs unseen in the last 2 million years.

I know, I know, I'm supposed to be talking about the pipeline. Haven't you caught on yet, friend? Everything is connected. You can't approach a topic on its own. You have to look at the big picture, which is this: no amount of profit can reverse climate change.

Why not invest in green energy? Won't that create jobs and stimulate the economy too?

Let's set climate change aside for now and talk about the other reasons you should oppose this silly pipeline and any others like it.

Reason number 1

I'm not fear-mongering here folks, just looking at the facts.

Who is designing this pipeline? Who is building it? Who is responsible for maintaining it?

Who is manning the tankers that will crowd our coast eagerly?

Oh yeah, people are doing all that! Flawed, imperfect people who get tired, distracted, have bad days, and make mistakes.

And make mistakes they will. Let's take a quick stroll through memory lane, shall we?

On March 24th, 1989, a tanker called the Exxon Valdez struck the Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels of crude oil that went on to cover 2,100 kilometers of coastline and 28,000 square kilometers of ocean. 

Guess what caused this disaster?

Human error and negligence.

25 years later, scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 gallons of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles away. All of it was easily preventable.

The best part? ExxonMobil still owes Alaska $92 million for the disaster.

Prince William Sound is so remote it can only be accessed by helicopter, plane, or boat. Its inhabitants are salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds. Imagine now if such a spill occurred on the West Coast. Imagine the damage to our tourism and fishing industries.

So long as humans operate the companies responsible for shipping oil across the world, we will continue to experience disastrous spills. Don't believe me? Here's a list of all the known spills since 1907 for your perusal. Hope you have some time on our hands: it's a big list.

While you're looking at it, I'd like to draw your attention to the three spills recorded for September 16th, 2004, and the eight spills recorded for August 30th. These weren't due to human error. You can thank Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Katrina for those.

Humans might have a knack for messing things up but it pales in comparison to mother nature's wrath. Think about all the "unusual" weather we've been seeing these past few years (due to climate change). Think about BC's location in the Ring of Fire, where 75% of the world's seismic activity takes place.

Does that sound like a good place for a pipeline?

"But aren't pipelines supposedly the safest way to transport crude?"

Allegedly! But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of pipelines burst. Go back to the list and start at the top with the most recent spills. You'll find a shocking number of pipelines spewing their contents into nearby rivers and creeks.

Here's one story of a pipeline gone sideways:

On July 25, 2010, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured. The rupture caused a 877,000 US gallons spill of diluted bitumen into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River. On July 29 2010, the Calhoun County Health Department asked 30 to 50 households to evacuate, and twice as many were advised not to drink their water.

The oil was contained to a 40 km stretch of the Kalamazoo River as several hundred workers took part in the cleanup. Originally estimated at $5 million, by September 2011 cleanup costs passed $585 million and were expected to rise by 20 percent more. The cleanup expense by summer 2012 had totaled $765 million.

That sucks.

We shouldn't have to worry about that with the Northern Gateway pipeline, though. I mean, Enbridge isn't some reckless company putting profit before the environment. Watch their commercials! They're dedicated to protecting nature and exceeding all safety regulations. They even threw in an additional $500 million to make the pipeline safer!

Why don't you guess whose pipe it was that ruptured into the Kalamazoo River?

Who else but our good friends at Enbridge! More on that:

Though alarms sounded in Enbridge's Edmonton headquarters at the time of the rupture, it was eighteen hours before a Michigan utilities employee reported oil spilling and the pipeline company learned of the spill. Meanwhile, pipeline operators had thought the alarms were caused by a bubble in the pipeline and, while for some time it was shut down, they also increased pressure for periods of hours to try to clear the possible blockage, spilling more oil.

I could go on and on but I've already exceeded my 1,000 word limit so I'll leave you with some parting thoughts.

Taken alone, the issues listed above are manageable. Taken together they paint a clear picture. Climate change, Enbridge's gross incompetence in Michigan, the likelihood of a spill, and the harm such a spill would have on our economy and environment, make this proposal a no-brainer.

Does our hunger for money overshadow our love for the land and sea that feeds, sustains, and houses us? How long are we going to listen to the lies and disingenuous reassurances of politicians and tycoons before we learn?

There are other ways to stimulate the economy and create jobs but the same ideology that causes the Conservatives to deny and disregard climate change also prevents them from exploring more holistic options. They would rather continue along our current path, which 97% of climate scientists assure us leads to our destruction, than rely on evidence to make informed decisions.

So to the pipeline, I say "No thanks!" 

/rant over

Blame the Mechanic

If we can’t transform our secular humanist, consumerist worldview into one in which we have this sense of responsibility, awe and wonder for the planet and all life, then we can’t invent a global ethic. Yet we need it to create a transnational, mythic structure to sustain the global civilization that’s emerging. 

- Stuart Kaufmann

Pretend your car breaks down. You bring it to the mechanic who assesses the problem and tells you to come back in a few hours. You run some errands, have lunch, and return at the appointed time.

"All done," says the mechanic as he hands you the  keys. You pay the man and drive off.

Now say you drive a block or two and hear that clanking noise again, or smell something burning, or notice the temperature gauge rising quickly. Say you're at a red light and smoke starts billowing from the hood.

Upon returning to the garage, would you give the mechanic a piece of your mind for doing such a piss-poor job or would you criticize his tools for the faulty repairs?

When people attack religion and blame it for humanity's problems, they're blaming the wrench for the mechanic's mistake.

***

Just as a wrench can be used to repair or bludgeon so too can religion be used to unite or divide.

Just as it can bring people together, give them hope and purpose, and promote love, peace, and cooperation, so too can it be used to justify racism, sexism, and bigotry, ignite conflicts between different faiths, and control the masses.

The tool is always without blame. Those who wield it inappropriately, on the other hand, should be reviled.

One can't argue that people have perpetrated atrocities of the worst kind in the name of religion. But that's just the point, isn't it? Religion can't be blamed for the actions of tyrants and con-artists. Religion isn't a person, it's a notion. It's formless and without power until it takes root in someone's mind.

And even then religion can't force someone's hand. It can't transform an otherwise loving individual into a hateful bigot. The believer is always responsible for his actions not matter how he justifies them.

Every holy book contains virtue and vice and rarely in equal parts. It's up to individuals to decide what principles they take to heart and which ones they disregard altogether.

Scripture and doctrine belong to us: they aren't written in stone or divinely inspired.

Primitive men scrawled their ideas on clay tablets and launched them into the future where they eventually fell into our hands. On their own scriptures are neither good nor evil, only a jumble of words. It's our interpretation that determines their value.

The problem is that most believers are spoon-fed their beliefs.

Don't rely on the guidance of so-called authorities. Self-proclaimed prophets, visionaries, and spiritual leaders are mere humans, no less flawed or biased than you or I. 

Don't let scripture intimidate you: you possess the only tool necessary to decipher verse and passage. and separate timeless truth from primitive nonsense. The rational mind, when stripped of distractions, points to truth as a compass points north. Put your faith in reason and you wont easily be deceived.

As a tool, religion may yet guide humanity to salvation--not a future-salvation but something both tangible and possible in our lifetime.

Any salvation worth pursuing must exist in this world, not a hypothetical future time.

By salvation I mean the continued survival and prosperity of the human family; the elimination of war, poverty, and needless suffering; the destruction of imaginary borders; and freedom from oppression and injustice.

Things are changing rapidly and our stubborn refusal to adapt, to learn, and to evolve threatens our very existence.We must replace the supernatural, the subjective, and the historical with the scientific, the objective, and the timeless. We must abandon old doctrines that promote divisiveness, violence, hatred, and divine authority in favor of those promoting unity, peace, love, and personal sovereignty.

Where should we find these new doctrines?

In  the very faiths we endeavor to supplant.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all promote principles of love, peace, acceptance, generosity, and forgiveness. Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism promote principles of oneness, interconnectedness, and harmony. Add to these the various secular and new-age philosophies and you begin to form a concrete picture of what a truly modern, truly universal religion might look like.

We humans yearn to give ourselves over to something greater, a cause, principle, or belief system that transcends the flesh and makes us feel connected, not only to others like us but to the universe itself--to God.

In the absence of something meaningful to fill this void, people worship money, celebrities, national identities, and sports teams--to disastrous effect.

Or worse, they fall prey to the desperate spokesmen of repugnant pseudo-religions and cults. These ones are keenly aware that their time is drawing to a close and they wish to delay the end as long as possible.

Until there's a viable replacement or alternative to the world religions of old, we will continue to see progressively more backward and dangerous fringe movements and sects rising to fill the vacuum of belief and propagating a culture of false dichotomies. 

In order to regain our collective center again, we need a modern belief-system rooted in the knowable universe that forgoes super-naturalism in favor of principles of peace, love, and harmony. 

Whatever you think of the old religions, you should at least admire the minds that birthed and carried them from the dawn of civilization 5,000 years ago to the present day. Clearly there is something compelling in these holy books or else they would've died out centuries ago. Sure, they got a lot of things wrong but they also contain slivers of truth that might not have survived otherwise.

It would be a shame to ignore timeless human truths simply because we hate the vehicle in which they come to us.

/rant over

A Modern Political Party: Redux

Democracy is in dire need of an upgrade. It is too old, too rigid, and too convoluted. It no longer serves its intended purpose and has fallen prey to rampant corruption. Furthermore, political parties are unwilling to address these problems and it's no wonder: they are the ones who benefit the most (at our expense) from their existence.

If we can't count on the current crop of political parties to repair the system and start representing us, who can we count on?

The answer is no one. The time has come for us to represent ourselves.

What we need is a political party made by the people to serve the people's interests. More importantly, we must ensure that this party is incorruptible and committed to resolving issues that affect the many instead of the few.

I tried describing what such a party might resemble in this post but I was too naive and inexperienced to tackle the topic adequately. So I put my work aside and vowed to return to it at a later date.

As I was cleaning out my computer few days ago, I stumbled onto an unfinished draft I had been working on shortly before taking a break from political writing. To my surprise, many of the ideas I proposed in this draft aligned almost perfectly with the ideas of several authors and groups I've had the pleasure of connecting with in recent months.

So I dusted my unfinished draft off, gave it a polish, and posted it below with commentary. Italicized quotes are from the draft while all other quotations have been attributed to their sources.

Without further ado, meet the NNP, my imaginary political party.

NNP stands for "No Name Party" or "Ninety-Nine Percenters." See what I did there?

Who is the NNP?

We are those without representation, without voice, and without choice. We are the victims of corrupt governments and greedy corporations. We are the inheritors of a planet in peril and an uncertain future. The time for waiting on hollow promises and rhetoric has passed. We are the NNP and we don't demand change: we make it happen. 

Who knew I had a flare for political propaganda?

Mission statement:

The NNP’s mission is simple: to repair our nation’s dysfunctional political system by eliminating corruption, facilitating public participation, and using evidence to build policies that benefit the Greater Good. The NNP’s ultimate goal is to establish a collaborative democracy where citizens represent themselves and influence political discourse directly instead of through elected representatives.

The advantages of a "collaborative democracy" are outlined in  Robert Steele's book The Open Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and Trust:

"Normal average human beings, when they share information openly with one another and engage in respectful deliberative dialogue, always, without exception, arrive at better conclusions than experts or elites who rely on 'secret' information and generally have hidden agendas enabled by secrecy combined with public ignorance and apathy."

Steele, by the way, is a former CIA clandestine services case officer (spy) who has been promoting open source intelligence for a number of years. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't gotten much press. Here's a recent article about what he has coined the open source revolution.

Back to the NNP.

The NNP believes that government is a tool by the people, for the people. As such, we are committed to operating under complete transparency and enacting transparency laws that will strip government of secrecy. At the click of a mouse, Canadians will be able to trace every tax dollar's path through the system, see how MP's and senators have voted on past and current bills, and peruse the content of every caucus or meeting that takes place. In short, Canadians will have full access to every facet of government in near-real time, all the time.

Transparency is also central to Steele's Manifesto:

"The objective: to implement transparency, truth, and trust across all boundaries."

Amun, brother.

We are also committed to using all available technologies to give card-carrying NNP members unprecedented control in the management and direction of their party.

There's a new political party starting up in Australia that operates under similar principles. MP's and Senators of SOL (Senators Online) vote in accordance with the clear majority vote when making and deliberating proposed laws. How do they determine what the clear majority wants? Easy! Registered members use an app to vote on bills in parliament! From the SOL website:

Using the internet we can return to a system that reflects your true positions on important issues. Taking back power from politicians, special interest and lobby groups and putting it back where it belongs: in your hands — Now We Can!

I've discovered five other applications like SOL currently in development. The technology is nearly here: all that is lacking is public demand to have it integrated into our political system. Do you think any of the current political parties will fight to give us a louder voice and more say in how our country is run?

Highly unlikely.

Okay, let's talk economics.

The first step toward achieving a healthy, sustainable, and prosperous economy lies in strengthening our weakest links--the poor, disenfranchised, and sick--while investing in new technologies and industries. What worked a hundred years ago doesn't work today; we must ride the wave of change or be drowned by it.

And environment:

The NNP is confident that there is greater long-term profit in restoring balance and harmony to our planet than in abusing it for the short-term gain of a few. By converting existing energy infrastructures to renewable systems and rewarding industries that adopt green practices, we can lay the foundation for a holistic economy that will sustain us for generations to come while preserving the only home we have, planet earth. 

Paul Hawken's book The Ecology of Commerce makes a compelling case for the establishment of a restorative economy that mimics nature, produces little to no waste, and internalizes costs instead of externalizing them. Rather than fight against nature, such an economic model would work in concert with it to restore balance and increase jobs and prosperity worldwide.

I'll conclude the NNP manifesto with what I believe is the most important part:

In order to represent Canadians, we must base our policies on facts, no beliefs. We won't rely on subjective ideologies or pretend to have all the answers. Instead, we will consult experts from relevant fields, analyze all available data, and make the findings available to all citizens so that they can contribute to the discourse directly. 

So what do you think? Ready to be a part of the NNP? Going to vote for us in 2015?

Too bad we don't exist.

Not to worry! Since I shelved the NNP manifesto 9 months ago, I've discovered a slew of movements and ideas that align with my imaginary political party's mission, so if the above sounds intriguing to you, there are actual parties out there that need your help.

The one that I've chosen to ally myself with is the Futurist Party. Founded on the three E's--Evidence, Education, and Exploration--its members are regular people who have had enough. They've decided to take action and are starting to mobilize.

In order for the Futurist Party to stand a chance, it will have to make up with sheer numbers, ingenuity, and organization what it lacks in money. It will have to recruit allies from all walks of life, some like-minded, others not so much, or else it will falter and fail.

We can no longer afford to stand divided. We must set aside our petty, superficial differences in favour of a common cause: that of humanity. Together we must rise up and, through non-violent means, take back control of our planet.

And on that note, I'll leave you with the final words of my unfinished draft, the official NNP slogan:

Together we can.

/rant over

Two Cent Rant: Justin Trudeau

Hey +Crystal and Kyle: you wanted to hear my opinion about Justin Trudeau?

Here's my two cents.

 ***

Imagine going to a high-class restaurant and finding out that they only serve three meals. Furthermore, imagine that the only real difference between those three meals is their name and a little seasoning. You'd probably be disappointed, right?

Welcome to Chez Canadian Politiques, where the service sucks, the food is bland, and it gives you indigestion.

This is what we have to choose from, my friends: three rigid viewpoints, three stances, three ideologies to cope with such crucial topics as climate change, income inequality, and political corruption.

That's 35 million opinions crammed into three little boxes.

Talk about options! Talk about representation!

Throw in the fact that MP's, once elected to office, answer only to their parties, who in turn answer to special interest groups and wealthy benefactors, and you start to see how broken our political system truly is.

In this context you can probably see why I have difficulty putting my faith in any politician. The race between Uncle Stephen, Tommy "The Troll" Mulcair, and Justin Trudeau is little more than a contest to crown the least-worst of the bunch.

On paper, Justin Trudeau appears to be the winner of this sorry contest. 

I say appears because what Trudeau says and does on the campaign trail is irrelevant. A candidate can and often will say anything necessary to get the votes. Once victorious, all bets are off.

Remember Obama's promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay and protect whistle-blowers? Remember the hope he inspired in the American people?

Once elected, Obama quickly forgot about shutting down Guantanamo and if Edward Snowden is any indication, he also forgot about protecting whistle-blowers. Under his watch, drone strikes have become commonplace and the surveillance state has further tightened its grip on the American people.

"But we won't."

Let Obama and the many politicians like him serve as a sobering reminder: words are wind and deeds are the only accurate measure of a politician's integrity.

Keeping that in mind, here's my assessment of Justin Trudeau.

Pros/Advantages:

• Youth and good looks
• Family name
• Ballsy
• Progressive
• Takes the high road
• Innovative

Cons/Disadvantages

• Hesitant
• Missteps
• Inexperienced

Let's start at the top. 

Trudeau's youth and good looks give him a clear-cut advantage over Uncle Stephen and Tommy "The Troll." What do looks and youth have to do with politics, you ask? First off, just look at that smoulder. He's so dreamy.

I could get lost in those eyes.

Secondly, perception is everything. We live in a materialistic world and though it should have no bearing on a political campaign, youth and good-looks have a profound effect. Remember Nixon vs. JFK? Ever heard of Warren G. Harding?

Sometimes looking the part is enough to get the part.


Having the Trudeau name probably doesn't hurt his image, either. Everyone loves a dynasty!

But enough about perception. Let's talk tangibles.

Trudeau is ballsy. He takes calculated risks. Whether it's getting in the ring for a charity boxing match, admitting he smoked pot after becoming an MP, dropping "F" bombs, or giving Liberal senators the boot, he is willing to put himself out there and take chances.

And most of the time his risky behaviour pays off.

Furthermore, he's not afraid to take stances that might alienate some of his supporters or make him an easy target for his political opponents. His position on marijuana, for example, has drawn plenty of heat from Uncle Stephen's Northern Republicans but to his credit, Trudeau hasn't flip-flopped.

In fact, Trudeau has taken the high road, refusing to respond to his opponents' goading despite their best efforts.

This might be the thing I like most about him. Attack ads are repulsive and a testament to all that is wrong with our political system. Shouldn't politicians be telling us why we should vote for them instead of telling us why we shouldn't vote for the other guy?

Lastly, what we have seen of Trudeau's platform is surprisingly progressive. It includes making government more transparent, legalizing and taxing cannabis, and conducting earnest research into the implementation of a Universal Basic Income. And even though his stance on the environment is a little ambiguous, it certainly can't be worse than the thinly-veiled climate-change denials coming out of Uncle Stephen's camp.

On the flip side, Trudeau has been criticized for being too hesitant. He hasn't divulged the full details of his platform yet, stating that he would wait until 2015 to do so. Is this really a sign of reluctance, though? Or does he have a legitimate reason to hold off? In the article linked above, Trudeau says he wants to consult and work with Canadians to "build a platform that reflects both the priorities, concerns and solutions that Canadians are generating across the country."

In other words, he's trying to represent the Canadian people. Novel concept, I know.

But it's not all roses and rainbows. Trudeau has taken a few missteps along the way. Declaring that all Liberal MP's should vote pro-abortion and flip-flopping on his open nomination pledge are the most prominent examples that come to mind.

My problem with the first is not that Trudeau is pro-abortion--I too support a woman's right to choose--but that he is telling his MP's how to vote. The only people who should have the right to tell MP's how to vote are the people who elected them into office.

And the open nomination thing is only a partial flip-flop. Out of 338 ridings, 328 were open, meaning Trudeau only appointed candidates in 10 ridings. The comparisons to Mao Zedong are a little premature.

Finally, the biggest knock against Trudeau is his lack of experience. To me, this is also the weakest argument against him.

I've seen what the seasoned veterans are up to, how they run things, and more importantly, who they represent. And quite frankly, I've had just about enough. 

Experience isn't the end all, be all. Just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you've been doing it right. Poor experience is worse than no experience because it leads people to think that their way is the best way and refuse to consider potentially better alternatives.

Maybe it's time we turn to someone who hasn't been completely corrupted by our Industrial Age political system, someone young, optimistic, charismatic, and well-meaning, an earnest politician who actually wants to enact positive change, not just for himself and his small group of advisers and benefactors, but for all Canadians.

Could Justin Trudeau be that guy? I don't know. I'd love to believe he is but I've seen too many flip-flops to trust anyone on their word alone.

What I do know is that he can't be any worse than Uncle Stephen and his Northern Republicans.

/rant over