Two Cent Rant - Je Suis Charlie

"It is clear that not in one thing alone, but in many ways equality and freedom of speech are a good thing." 

- Herodotus 

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." 

- Soren Kierkegaard

Let me preface this little rant with the following statement: I rate all acts of unprovoked and unjustified violence, whether against individuals or the masses, as despicable and inexcusable. There is in my opinion no valid reason to harm or kill people who haven't attempted to harm or kill you first.

I also support freedom of speech. You should have the right to voice your opinion whenever you like without fear of violent retaliation. You should also have the right to ignore other people's opinions or to engage those who hold opinions you disagree with in open discourse.

That being said, I believe that freedom of speech, when placed in the hands of the ignorant, short-sighted, and ego-driven, is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways. The shootings in Paris last week are a painful example of free speech backfiring on those most eager to exercise it.

Before you accuse me of victim-blaming, allow me to elaborate.

Let's pretend for a moment that you hate Mike Tyson with a passion. If you ran into him at the airport, would you exercise your free speech? Would you tell him he's scum or call him a wife-beater, rapist, and ear-biter?

Why not?

Body, head.

There aren't any laws against insults but there are laws against assault so you should have nothing to fear, right?

It's not that Tyson would be justified in beating you senseless for insulting him, only that you should know better than to poke an angry bear.

Al Queda, ISIS (or ISIL, or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves now), and other extremists are crazed, wounded bears. Free speech your ass off bro, but if you toss insults at those bears, you should expect to be mauled.

Is this to say that radical Islam should be left untouched? That we should reprimand people who criticize religion or sensor magazines, blogs, and news articles to avoid offending certain people?

Of course not.

Radicalism, be it theological, ideological, or political, is a mind-virus that spreads like wild fire under the right conditions. These conditions are ignorance, poverty, oppression, and disillusionment. Anyone who tells you that all the answers to your problems can be found in a 1,500 year old book is a bold-faced liar, and the only way you'll believe that lie is if you're poor, ignorant, and angry enough.

The answer is never found at the polar extremes but somewhere between the two, in the nebulous grey zone. Radical ideologies are oversimplifications; they create the illusion that only two valid answers exist to a certain question. They force a "this or that" scenario onto people even when no such scenario exists.

When you buy into one of these answers, you trade freedom of thought for freedom of speech.

A lot of these "new" (see: radical) atheists pretend to be modern-day crusaders liberating believers from the shackles of religion. They claim that, behind the sarcasm and venom lurks a concern for the wellbeing of their fellow humans.

They would have us believe they champion truth and education, but one need only look at their methods to see that words and deeds don't align.

If radical ideologies perpetuate themselves best when certain conditions abound, and we know what those conditions are, shouldn't we try to alleviate them? Isn't that the best way to fight the good fight?

I'm no teacher but I'm pretty sure scorn, mockery, and insults are horrible ways to teach anyone anything. You want to convince a group of people that their ways are wrong? Try not profaning their holiest symbols first. That sorta kills the dialogue.

These anti-theists and radical atheists aren't solving any problems: they're making them worse.

Charlie Hebdo, the magazine targeted by the radicals in Paris, made a point of taunting some of the most unstable and dangerous people on the planet. These terrorists are so disillusioned with the world they live in and so hateful of Westerners that they would gladly die just to take a few of infidels down with them.

Those twelve people certainly didn't deserve to die, but is it surprising that they did? Not really, especially considering Charlie Hebdo was bombed only three years ago. The people who worked and died for that magazine are the sorriest martyrs I've ever heard of, but they're martyrs nonetheless: they died for their cause.

Do you own a magazine and want to wage war against radical Islam? Here's what you do: superimpose pictures of atrocities committed in Allah's name with passages from the Qu'ran that prohibit said atrocities.

"What actions are most excellent? To gladden the heart of human beings, to feed the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful, and to remove the sufferings of the injured." 

Or point out the contradictions between radical Islam and its moderate cousins. Or highlight the good, selfless deeds of Muslims around the world. Or educate people on the different branches of Islam.

"How is that a solution? Terrorists are beyond educating. They don't want to talk or 'be saved;' they just want to kill infidels."

True, education and respectful dialogue won't stop terrorists, but neither will drawing pictures of Muhammad blowing the pope. Truth is, the most extreme cases are beyond repair.

The goal isn't to save the guys wearing bomb-vests--once you resolve to give your life in Allah's name, it's probably too late for you--it's to prevent Muslims from putting on the vest in the first place.

If you want to help, do anything but troll.

Unless of course you never wanted to help in the first place. In that case, be a troll. Say what you want, poke fun, satirize, whatever: it's your right and I'll defend it with you if anyone tries to take it away.

Just don't pretend you're on a noble crusade to spread truth and save those who have been deceived by evil organized religion.

/rant over

(P.S. Terrorist attacks always spark off a bunch of this "Islam is a religion of hate" nonsense. People love to demonize the youngest of the Abrahamic religions, quoting brutal passages as evidence that it is far worse than both Judaism and Christianity. I'll tackle this topic in my next post so stay tuned.)

Restless

Have you noticed what's going on around the world lately? Whether it's Mexico City, Hong Kong, Ferguson, or New York, the story is the same.

People are starting to wake up to reality and their reaction is one of outrage and anger.

When cops shoot unarmed kids, governments place corporate interests ahead of planetary ones, and laws are broken by the very people paid to uphold them, we should push back.

I probably don't need to tell you that all these protests are connected. If you trace the issues back to their source, you will find the same three culprits grinning sheepishly: greed, hatred, and ignorance.

Thankfully information technology is helping dispel ignorance all around the world. Try as they may, the 1% can't keep a lid on all the dirt they're doing. All it takes is one brave whistle blower  and the whole world finds out.

If you want to know why so many people across the planet are taking a stand, it's because, for the first time, they actually know what's really going on.

Our honeymoon of blissful ignorance is coming to an end. Soon enough we'll have to take a stand and affirm what we all know intuitively and factually: that rule by the few at the expense of the many is a broken model which has and always will result in corruption.

Things simply can't go on like this indefinitely. Sooner or later, something is going to have to give. Either we let short-sighted elitists drag our planet into the dumps or we rise up and take charge, not so we can install a new oligarchy to rule over us but so we can tear the rotten system down and replace it with something better.

Before we can get to this stage though, we have to learn a few important lessons.

Love Your Enemies

Moral outrage is good. So is unrest. It motivates people to get off their asses, put down the gossip mags, and act against the destructive forces lined up against us. The problem, as I outlined at the end of this post, is that we can't combat greed, ignorance, and hatred with greed, ignorance, and hatred.

We have to be above the scum, not swimming in it. Our cause might be righteous but when we employ violence, we defeat ourselves.

I totally understand the impulse to act violently in the face of corruption. I can only imagine the acidic hate that would boil in my veins if one of my (unarmed) kids got shot by a cop.

That being said, police officers are not the root of the problem, only a symptom.

Sure, there are plenty of racist cops out there. Then there's the straight arrow who got bullied in school and signed up so he could finally get a taste of power. And guess what power does? It corrupts. Aside from these unfortunate cases though, cops are just like everyone else, average Joe's and Jane's trying to make a living.

There are easy and effective remedies for police brutality. You could equip cops with body cameras, as some departments have already done. Here's another idea: you could stop giving them second-hand tanks and military-grade weapons. That might slow things down a bit.

So why isn't this happening on a grand scale?

Who do you think is giving police departments enough artillery to take out a middle-eastern dictator? The same people who have the power to mandate body cameras on all officers but choose not to.

The same people who are trying to kill net neutrality, spy on their own citizens, and allow corporations to ravage our planet.

There's no conspiracy anymore: our would-be masters do their dirt right out in the open. Their arrogance borders on madness. They think they can do whatever they like, that they stand above the unfair laws they themselves set up.

They're confident because they've met resistance before and overcame it with ease by sewing discord, distracting, and downplaying. Which leads us to lesson number 2.

Move with Purpose

In a lot of ways, Occupy Wallstreet was a massive blunder. It raised awareness on the widening gap between the richest 1% and everyone else but it failed to produce a coherent strategy to level out the playing field.

Occupy Wallstreet was a child's tantrum. Mom and dad know we're pissed, but they also know that we're powerless, leaderless, purposeless. All they have to do is keep baffling us with bullshit and we'll never rise up and take what's rightfully ours: the world.

As I said, outrage and unrest are great motivators, but alone they lead to... nothing. Corrupt governments are immune to protest because they don't give a shit about what protestors think. What do they care if a few thousand people make a fuss? So long as their bills get passed and donations keep coming in, all is well.

Protests send a statement, but without follow-through, without a way to hold those in charge accountable--without leverage, in other words--those in charge wait patiently for protestors to get tired and disperse.

The way I see it, protests are networking opportunities. "Oh, you're against this pipeline too? Let's be friends!"

A protest is the birthplace of revolution, not revolution itself. A protest is the means, not the end. It's where like-minded people meet and design a proper strategy for change.

More than protests, we need plans. More than anger, we need wisdom. More than violence, we need purpose. What's the endgame? What's the goal? To stop a pipeline from being built? To put an end of police brutality? To eliminate political corruption and strip corporations of their influence in government?

Whatever the cause, it starts with you.

People's Platform

I was scrolling through my Facebook feed the other day when I came across this excellent article by Nora Loreto. The title--Laying the Path to Defeat Harper in 2015--immediately captured my attention. I'm glad that more and more people see Uncle Stephen and his cronies for what they truly are--a bunch of ideological hypocrites, liars, cheats, and thinly-veiled fundamentalists--but I'm also worried that many are missing the point.

Harper and his lot are not the disease; they are a symptom. The Conservatives are merely the most recent in a long line of corrupt politicians dating all the way back to the days of Sir John A. McDonald and you can bet your bottom dollar that the next party to take charge--whether it's the Liberals or New Democrats--will resort to similar behaviour sooner or later.

Getting rid of Harper is a temporary fix at best.

Instead of thinking short-term and plotting Harper's political demise, we should be thinking of ways to implement checks and balances so that we never have to tolerate another Harper again. This mandate takes precedence over all other issues at hand. If we cannot hold politicians accountable for their actions and drastically limit corruption in politics, we'll never be able to address any of the other problems facing our country.

The good news is that we are poised to hit two birds with one stone. We have the opportunity here and now to get rid of Harper and enact changes that would make rampant corruption a thing of the past. We just have to play our cards right.

Loreto mentions a key part of the winning approach in her article: strategic voting.  She is also quick to point out the pitfalls of this tactic:

Strategic voting is dangerous to democracy because it demands that people suspend their desires and vote against their own interests. It requires citizens to vote against something rather than for something. It places way too much faith in polls and is easily corruptible. The result is deep disenfranchisement and the election of a party that is not actually supported by the people.

Ethically speaking, I have no problem with strategic voting. It's the population's way of gaming the system, something politicians do on a regular basis, and I'm all for fighting fire with fire. What I'm against is giving a political party widespread support in exchange for nothing. I want to get rid of Harper as much as the next person but not if it means giving the Liberals or New Democrats the same unregulated power that got us into this mess in the first place.

Loreto encapsulates this as well:

Fact is, either party (Liberal or NDP) would be much better than Harper's Conservatives but neither would bring about the change that we desperately need.

What then?

The ever-astute Loreto lands a glancing blow on part two of the winning approach:

Progressives should unite around a set of demands and push all left-of-centre candidates to unequivocally support these demands. And, where no candidates will support these demands, progressives should put themselves forward as candidates.

Now we're talking! If we're going to offer our votes to a party, why not get something in return? I have a few minor disagreements with Loreto's plan though.

First, why should we limit ourselves to progressives only? I know for a certain fact that many Conservative voters are disillusioned with the Tories. Why not reach out to our brothers and sisters across the political spectrum?

"Because progressives and conservatives don't get along!"

Is that true? Or is that what we've been conditioned to believe after years of bipartisan propaganda? Sure, left and right disagree on a variety of issues, but I'm confident that there are issues on both sides of the imaginary line we can agree on. Why not identify those issues and work together in resolving them? More on that in a moment.

Second, I've already pointed out that certain systemic flaws must be resolved before we can move forward as a nation. I'm not saying that children, women, the environment, indigenous people, and workers--Loreto's hypothetical top five--shouldn't be our priority, only that the best way to address those issues is by repairing the system first.

Until we can install checks and balances to keep our "representatives" in check and doing their job, issues that matter to Canadians will remain unresolved. So long as our government can make policy decisions based on wishful thinking, belief, and ideology, Canadians will never know true representation.

Okay: here's how we hit two birds with one stone.

First, we identify the systemic problems plaguing our government, then list their remedies. Here's what I think such a list would look like:

• Transparency
• Accessibility
• Accountability
• Proportional Representation (or anything but First Past the Post)
• Evidence-based Decision Making

Second, we use these items to create a People's Platform, a list of demands that preferably includes specific bills demonstrating how our Platform should be enacted. We'll need the help of various experts to draft these bills but I don't think we'll have much difficulty finding them. In fact, many of the items on my list are already championed by MP's on the left, be they New Democrats, Greens, or Liberals.

Third, we take our finished product and begin an aggressive media campaign. We educate Canadians about the People's Platform in plain, accessible terms and invite people from both sides of the political spectrum to join us. Corruption, lack of accountability, and misrepresentation affect all Canadians regardless of political leaning. Let's put our differences aside while we give our government a much needed upgrade. After that, we can resume our petty bickering (though I hope we won't).

Lastly, we make an open offer to the political parties: our support in exchange for the enactment of our People's Platform. When a party steps forward, we demand that their leader sign a legal contract ensuring follow-through.

And if no party wants to play ball, we have a backup plan: we start a party and take matters into our own hands.

Loreto's article is a breath of fresh air. Finally, someone who understands the power of the masses and thinks outside the box! To my great pleasure, she also understands that the people have a duty to nurse our ailing democracy back to health:

Together, working from outside the formal mechanisms of politics, we have to offer a peoples' alternative, invite everyone to join us, and challenge those people who refuse.

I'm ready to go to work. Are you?

/rant over

Future First

"We are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP."

--Paul Hawken 

In order to address emerging problems and thrive in our rapidly changing world, Canada needs a government that will trade the vestiges of the past for the ideas of tomorrow; abandon its “this-or-that” attitude in favour of balanced solutions; collaborate with its citizens; encourage public participation; and strengthen its weakest links.

The solution to yesterday's problems cannot solve the problems of tomorrow. It should be no surprise that the political parties of yesterday are helpless to address the issues weighing on the minds of Canadians and people around the world. Climate change, income inequality, political and corporate corruption, and the rise of extremist ideologies form a threat, not to any single person, commercial entity, or political party, nor even to a single nation, but to all humans.

For the past 200 years we have operated within the confines of a socio-economic system forged in the Industrial Age. Such systems are inherently rigid, hierarchical, and secretive. They discourage public participation and encourage the fragmentation and compartmentalization of information. The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing, allowing for rampant corruption.

“What is the alternative?” you may ask. “Free market capitalism and representative democracy may not be perfect but they are better than everything else we tried in the past.”

No one will argue that our current paradigm is superior to the ones created by feudalism, despotism, fascism, and communism. Does this mean we should accept our flawed system as it is because "it's the best one around?"

At one point in time, the Model T was the best automobile around. Based on the above logic, we should all be driving Model T's right now.

Why aren't we?

Because we are constantly learning new things and applying them to our industries and everyday lives. We're constantly innovating and developing new technologies. Everything in the world, from automobiles to computers, is in a state of perpetual improvement.

Except our government.

Our government has regressed. It has become less efficient, less accountable, and less functional. It has lost sight of its purpose--representing the people--and has become a selfish organism concerned with one thing only: self-preservation. Rather than invest in the future, our government--and many other governments across the world--is borrowing from our future in order to finance its selfish endeavours in the present.

It's time to put the future first.

Our detractors will accuse us of oversimplifying issues. They will call into question our ability to lead and cite our lack of experience as proof. They will say that the people cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves.

Yet who could be better at representing the people than the people themselves? We've put our trust in career politicians and look where it has landed us! What started as a noble idea—a political system that gives voice to the masses—has devolved into a corrupt oligarchy bent on preserving its power and wealth at all cost.

Elected officials no longer work for the people: they work for industries, corporations, special interest groups, and above all else, themselves. They do not make informed decisions based on facts: they make decisions based on belief systems and subjective ideologies.

The time has come for us to rise up and form a government that works for all people, not just a select few. Together we can restore Canada's reputation on the international stage as a forward-thinking, socially conscious, and economically robust nation.

We can lead by example. We can show the world that a country can preserve the environment and stimulate its economy; that the people, when working together toward a common purpose, can do a better job than career politicians; that socialism and capitalism can and should co-exist; that lifting the poor and downtrodden out of misery does not require taxing the rich; that transparency is always better than secrecy; and that evidence always trumps ideology when making decisions that concern the masses.

We can embody these ideals as a people and a nation. We can use them to build something remarkable, admirable, functional, and valuable: the world's first  truly Innovative State. We can spread these ideals outward to our neighbours and watch as the world rearranges itself from a place of violence and conflict to a place of peace and cooperation.

I know it sounds Utopian but we're already halfway there.

We have entered the Information Age. Some institutions are fighting hard to keep us trapped in the past but together we form an irresistible force. If we move as a collective those institutions will be powerless to stop us.

As Napoleon Hill said, "Our only limitations are those we set up in our own minds."

True, there are obstacles barring our path, but so what? Our ancestors overcame larger obstacles with less. We are fortunate to be alive in this age of technological wonder. We can start a revolution without leaving our homes and take power without shedding a single drop of blood. We are part of the first generation of humans capable of liberating themselves from oppression.

We need only act.

And if you feel that the obstacles before us are insurmountable, that we're better off just settling for what we have, remember these words from the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius:

The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.

Let's take the obstacles barring our path and transform them into advantages. Let's leverage those advantages and achieve victory.

Together we can change this country--and the world--for the better. Together we can drag the rest of our society into a world of plentitude, peace, and freedom.

#togetherwecan

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

Policy by Other Means

(Tom Ippen is a History graduate from the University of Victoria who is currently pursuing his Teacher’s Certification. He also runs By the Gods, a blog on comparative mythology, and is a true dork among dweebs for all things historical and fantastical.)

Carl von Clausewitz, perhaps the most esteemed military theorist in the history of western civilization, described war as “the continuation of policy by other means.” Clausewitz was a Prussian General and scholar writing in the middle of the 19th century; he was a firsthand witness of the Napoleonic campaigns that rocked Europe from Lisbon to Moscow, but had no difficulty reconciling the horrific acts of violence he’d seen with the practical rulebook of European politics. Philosophers, soldiers, leaders and historians have set out to define war—that inescapable human phenomenon both reviled and worshipped, feared and obsessed over—but no single definition has won universal acceptance.

When war is a continuation of policy, it is unremarkable; it becomes predictable, mundane, and (most dangerously) acceptable. The idea that war is in itself an understandable or tolerable means to achieve political ends asserts that the people—the foundation of our state’s executive leadership—have put our stamp of approval on large-scale murder. It’s a bit of a drag to think about, right? But is war an inevitable human act? Is it the only guarantee when humans trade in their hunting spears and nomadic ways for ploughs and static settlements? If so, maybe seeing war as a continuation of policy isn’t so tragic after all.

The “Anti-War Camp” has become crowded in the last century. Gone are the days of Emperors, Generals and the nouveau aristocracy seeking glory through conquest. Humanitarian and economic achievements have taken the stage as the new benchmarks of both local and international esteem. Our elected representatives must reject and be seen to abhor violence of any kind, or else risk condemnation. Vocal warmongers in the west receive little notice and less credit on the political stage, in no small part due to a decade of expensive conflict in the Middle-East. These engagements provided little booty to parade around and plenty of casualties to consider. The most pro-military candidates must insist that war is “a last resort” carried out for reasons of self-defense. The shrinking “Pro-War Camp” is the refuge of the fundamentalist, the extremist, and the lunatic. But when war is still an option, even the last option, we should probably take a minute to think about whether we’re really “Anti-War” or not.

If we define “human behavior” based on our history as a species, it’s difficult to deny that war is a core piece of who we are. Ever since we started rolling in groups, we’ve been killing each other. And since there’s nothing on Earth more lethal than a group of pissed off humans, it’s understandable that the lion’s share of our technological and social advancements have been made with killing in mind.

That sounds pretty cynical, I know.

It doesn’t really matter how passionately non-violent you are when your neighbor feels differently. If he kills you, your peaceful ideology doesn’t live on; but the person who killed you, took your resources, and used them to procreate does live on, passing his DNA and ideology forward, his actions vindicated by his very survival.

Fast-forward through the ages and you’ll find the world today is still comprised of individual states with individual armies but with one key difference: today’s nation-state is permeated by an ever-growing backlog of knowledge from antiquity and beyond all the way to now. We have more knowledge than ever and, slowly but surely, we’re deciding—as a species—that killing each other en masse isn’t a viable solution. This, at least, is the fervent hope of Humanists and ordinary people all across the Earth.

The problem is that we’re still divided by borders.

Borders are arbitrary lines that define what can only be described as large-scale, extended families. A thousand years ago, my ancestor told your ancestor “stay on that side of the river, or I’m going to kill you.” Your ancestor agreed and now we’ve got France and Germany; Iran and Iraq, Yemen and Oman, Georgia and Armenia. Yes I’m oversimplifying, but I’m building up to something here so give me a second.

We’ve already drilled little holes into these walls: our ancestors, to their credit, realized that they could accomplish amazing things if they maintained their own ethnic or national identities, but agreed to trade materials with their neighbors. Today, we trade not only metals, grains, and energy, but information—constantly. Have you seen the internet? They’ve got some cool stuff on that internet!

Fighting to defend your country, community, and family is understandable. It’s always been about protecting your genes. But in a world where every state is connected in a web so extremely fragile and complex, the act of large-scale murder and devastation is nothing but a net loss for humanity.

Despite the imaginary lines we have drawn in the sand, and regardless of the arbitrary distinctions we make between cultures and ethnic groups, globalization has made a single state of our nations and a single family of our species. Given our past and our tendencies, yes, war is understandable. But it is also pathetic in the most profound sense, a futile method of conflict resolution, and another item on the long list of threats to our prolonged survival here on earth.

If war is a continuation of policy by other means, our “policy” is one of contempt for the species as a whole, nothing more.

Baby Steps

I've been following the so-called "Fair Elections Act" lately and I have yet to see a bill so unanimously and vehemently opposed by such a wide range of characters. The chief electoral officer of Canada did a particularly good job picking the proposed legislation apart, as did a group of international researchers  with no personal interest in our country's politics.

Not that anyone's opinion matters: the Tories are well-versed at ignoring expert testimony, especially of the scientific variety.

And while everyone is busy pointing out the various problems with the Fair Elections Act, that beady-eyed little rodent Pierre Poilievre insists it's a terrific piece of legislation.

A face only a mother could… actually, not even.

I don't know what it is about Poilievre. The mere sight of that smug, smarmy smile makes me want to punch him right in the nose. I know it's uncalled for. I don't care. We're all entitled to our irrational moments.

Reading about all that's wrong with the Fair Elections Act, one has to wonder which part of this monstrous omnibus bill Poilievre thinks is "terrific." Is it the fact that it makes it harder for people to vote? That it could hurt plans to increase voter turnout? Wait, I think I know. Is it because it muzzles Elections Canada, the organization tasked with ensuring that no funny business takes place come voting time?

I could paste link after link about all that is wrong with this piece of garbage--how it creates loopholes for campaign spending and party fundraising; how Stephen and his friends didn't bother consulting the leading expert on election law while crafting the bill; and how the Tories moved to shut down debate an hour after the bill was introduced--but I'm not going to. I like to cultivate positive thought and my heart's already racing from looking at that photo of Poilievre's face.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Instead of criticizing and mocking, I'd like to congratulate MP Kennedy Stewart whose e-petition bill passed by a vote of 142-140 on January 29th. Why is this worthy of congratulations? Let me summarize:

1. Stewart is a rookie MP
2. He's a member of the NDP, aka the opposition
3. The Conservatives, aka the majority government, opposed the bill
4. Several Tories decided to cross the party line and voted yes for the motion, causing it to pass

Typically when a motion put forth by the opposition lacks the support of the majority government--especially one that is notorious for whipping its members into voting along party lines--it is thoroughly squashed. And that's what would've happened to Stewart's e-petition bill if a few Tories hadn't broken rank and supported the motion.

You may also recall that I mentioned Kennedy's motion in one of my first posts where I claimed it was a step in the right direction. Here's an excerpt from Stewart's page:

Currently, only paper petitions can be accepted in the House of Commons. Online petitions receiving thousands of signatures from Canadians cannot be submitted and often go unanswered. I believe this system needs to be brought into the 21st century through electronic petitioning – as has already been done successfully in several provinces and numerous other countries.

My motion also proposes that short debates be triggered in Parliament in cases where a petition receives a significant number of signatures and is sponsored by at least five MPs. Not only would Canadians be able to easily express themselves by signing petitions online, their views and concerns could then be directly addressed by Members of Parliament.

And now to quote myself from 7 months ago: " I propose that we wrest control of our nation away from the crooked politicians before it is too late and that we drag this democracy of ours into the 21st century."

Maybe I was being a little dramatic with the "wresting control" part but I am totally serious about modernizing our political system. This ought to be our main priority! Imagine going to the corporate head office of some massively successful transnational company and finding that the receptionist is using an IBM 610.

Let me find you in our system, sir. Should only take 4 hours.

Our political system is the equivalent of an IBM 610. It's old as shit and needs to be massively upgraded.

Kennedy Stewart's e-petition bill may not be the complete overhaul we sorely need but then again no single bill can be. The process of modernizing out political system will have to be done one step at a time, and this bill is a worthy first step.

My man-crush on Stewart only got stronger after I heard about Bill C-558, Stewart's new project. Also from Stewart's page:

After years of muzzling, mismanagement, and misuse of science by the Conservative government, this new office will promote real transparency and ensure decisions made in Ottawa are based on the best available scientific evidence.

And me, again: "Transparency is the best weapon against corruption; eliminate all the hiding places and politicians will have no choice but to behave."

The part about making decisions based on the best available scientific evidence also pleases me a great deal. The government is supposed to represent and work for all Canadians equally regardless of personal belief, ethnicity, genre, culture, etc. How can it hope to do this if it makes decisions based on subjective beliefs held by some people and not others?

It's not to say that subjective opinion and belief shouldn't play a part in political discourse, only that they should be layered atop a foundation of objective facts. Ideally, here is how the decision-making process should take place (props to /u/ddkv on Reddit for breaking it down):

1. A policy is challenged or in need of modernization.
2. A group of experts is consulted on the options moving forward and their recommendation
3. The government acknowledges the expert opinion (the technocrat solution) and includes their broader view of social, political and legal concerns in making the decision
4. The decision is made, and if it runs counter to expert opinion, the over-riding reasons are clearly stated, and the experts are invited to give advice moving forward based on the decision made.
5. With any new advice from the experts based on the new direction, the policy is written.

Once again, Stewart's new bill doesn't eliminate belief-based decision-making but it's certainly another step in the right direction.

I'm glad that there's at least one person in parliament who appears to share my concern with the way our system is misfiring and breaking down at every turn. I don't expect anyone, least of all a rookie MP from Burnaby, to swoop in and fix all our problems; I'm just looking for baby steps in the right direction, and so far Stewart is the only guy laying those steps out.

Keep up the good work Kennedy, and congrats on the win.

We are not Immune

For the last decade or so, Canada has watched its closest neighbor, a once-powerful nation founded on principles of secularism, equality, and liberty, self-destruct.

The American people are now ruled by an oligarchy disguised as democracy. This oligarchy is composed of corrupt politicians and the leaders of a few industries--industries that depend on human suffering or the slow destruction of our planet for prosperity. Oil, the prison-industrial complex, pharmaceuticals, law enforcement, tobacco, alcohol, big food, and the military-industrial complex dominate the U.S. government. Their lobbyists steer social policy in directions that benefit their specific interests, even when such policies are to the detriment of the people. Meanwhile the government cuts funding to education and social welfare, tries to sneak internet censorship and copyright infringement laws into the books, and sets up mass-surveillance programs to keep tabs on its disillusioned people.

Violating the privacy of an entire population might be forgivable if such violations resulted in a Utopian society. This has not proven to be the case. While the NSA collects meta-data and eavesdrops on foreign leaders, unemployment is rampant. The American economy is failing. The country is in massive debt.

Democracy is supposed to be a tool for the people; instead, it's been hijacked by a small, short-sighted elite whose sole aim is to enrich itself at any cost.  

We Canadians have been watching the plight of the American people with an attitude of detachment and exceptionalism. Often when I'm ranting about the sorry state of democracy in our country I'm told "It could be a lot worse; look at the U.S.!" This sentiment--that no matter how bad things get for us they will never be as bad as they are in America--has always disturbed me. Just because things are worse elsewhere does not mean we should settle for the sorry state of affairs at home.

Too long have we believed our government immune to the madness which grips its US counterpart. Recent revelations show that Harper and his Conservative government  are using the U.S. as a blueprint. They're getting cozy with the NSA and helping them spy on foreign dignitaries at the expense of Canada's international reputation; trying to sneak in legislation to control the internet through an unrelated bill; attacking unions; muzzling scientists; and pushing for a pipeline that a lot of people do not want. Oh, and they "lost" $3.1 billion dollars.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself

 The media has done a decent job of following these developments. My only complaint is that they  offer no practical solution to these problems. All too often I finish an article enraged, wondering
 "What can I do to help fix this gross injustice?"

Questions like this are too big for my simple mind. They give me panic attacks. The loopholes and flaws that plague our government are linked; they form a network of interdependent problems, and trying to tackle each one individually is futile. In order to resolve these key issues, we need to look at the big picture. We need a group of intelligent people to lead a concerted effort.

I think we may have found them.

A group of over 500 authors from 80 different countries have petitioned the UN, requesting that it pen an international charter to protect the rights of people in the internet age. I admire their bravery. Signing this petition probably put them all on 24 hour surveillance. The NSA is spying on a bunch of people for no reason at all; what do you think they will do when a group of influential people put them on blast?

I urge anyone reading this to sign the petition. You don't even have to leave your house. Click on the link, mash a few buttons, and you're done. These authors have sacrificed their privacy to try and protect ours; the least we can do is sign the damn petition.

Yes, I know this is just a petition. Yes, I know the UN has no real power over the US and British governments. No, I don't think this is the solution. I believe this petition is momentum and potential. By voicing our support we become activists no matter how small our activism. The first steps are the most difficult. Start with something easy and build from there.

Mass-surveillance and internet regulation may very well be the defining issues of the modern age. The powers that be have just begun to grasp the value of the internet as a tool and the damage it could inflict upon their precarious power-structure if left unchecked. The internet is a global network of people. It links like-minded individuals from across the world and facilitates the propagation of ideas. It dissolves the outdated notions of nationalism and individuality and grants unprecedented access to information. It also makes politicians obsolete. Why send some career-politician to represent you in Ottawa or Washington when you could, in theory, view, debate, and vote on bills electronically?

It's no wonder they are trying so hard to regulate and police the internet.

The good news is that they haven't succeeded yet.

In my dreams, this petition gains the support of various free-thinkers, celebrities, tech-company CEO's, enlightened politicians, and rational capitalists; together they create a universal constitution, something that lays out the rights and liberties of all people and outlines a new system of government free of loopholes and glitches; once completed, they go back to their respective nations and promote the adoption of this new constitution until it becomes a reality. 

You may say I'm a dreamer. I hope I'm not the only one.

The elites are counting on us to get confused and say "fuck it." This is how they've steered us--Canadians and Americans both--into the deep end of the pool where we've been floundering ever since. They try to make it as difficult as possible for us to get involved. They've severed the connection between the people and politics. If votes are democratic currency then ours has been devalued beyond recognition. In our current system, your vote is worthless.

Luckily for us  political activism has never been easier. Thousands of like-minded individuals are only a few keystrokes away, as is the wealth of human knowledge. We can reach our elected representatives almost instantly and educate ourselves on key issues without the help of third-parties.

For the first time in history we have the means to govern ourselves in true democratic fashion. The current powers will cling to their authority; they will conspire against us, throw obstacles in our path, even employ nefarious means to silence our mounting complaints. There are significant challenges ahead but I firmly believe the solution is out there, broken up in bits and pieces and scattered across the span of human history and thought. Each one of us is part of the solution.

We need only assemble the pieces.

A Modern Political Party

If we agree that our political system is broken--that it is ancient and plagued with loopholes and redundancies, that it serves a small group of individuals who are not accountable for their actions and decisions--and want change, how should we proceed? If we listen to Russell Brand, we will abstain from voting and... then what? Sit around waiting for a revolution? This is the same passive approach that perpetuates our current paradigm. Unless we want to repeat the past, we have only one option: get involved. In a representative democracy, that means voting.

The question then becomes: who should we vote for? What political party is attempting to reduce corruption, increase voter turnout, and modernize our government? The answer, sadly, is none.

There are glimmers of hope here and there. MP Kennedy Stewart's motion 428 is certainly a step in the right direction. Likewise, Justin Trudeau's call for more transparency inspires hope. Transparency is the best weapon against corruption; eliminate all the hiding places and politicians will have no choice but to behave. Trudeau and his Liberal party may only be revealing their expenses to the public but it's a step in the right direction.

Aside from these two examples, political parties are pretty busy slinging mud at each other, presiding over witch trials, trying to disband the senate, building oil pipelines or fracking (to the detriment of our environment), cutting funds to education and the arts, and negotiating Internet censorship behind closed doors. Canadians, having elected their so-called representatives, sit idly by and watch these episodes unfold. Is it any wonder people don't believe in democracy anymore?

I started by telling you to vote, then proceeded to tell you that the political party of our choice doesn't exist. What gives?

One potential solution is to start a new political party dedicated to the neglected issues listed above. Our mandate would be to eliminate corruption, modernize our system, educate the masses on key issues, increase participation, and actually represent the people. Below you will find a general outline of how such a party might operate. It's only a  skeleton, meaning it needs to be fleshed out by people who are smarter than I. You'll note that my outline says nothing about social policy: that's because such talk should be driven by voters, not politicians.

The Power of Crowd-funding

We've only just begun to realize the full potential of crowd-funding. Websites like Kickstarter have helped raise funds for video-games, TV shows, movies, and more. Now it's time to apply this idea outside of entertainment. Dan Carlin recently alluded to crowd-funding as a tool for political and social change and I couldn't agree more. The creation and implementation of a sociopolitical crowd-funding website ought to be one of our first steps as it would allow our supporters to donate their time, knowledge, expertise, and most importantly, their votes. Love our cause but can't afford to donate money? No problem. Come donate your time! Help out at your local office, canvas your neighborhood, or spread the word on message boards and social media. You don't even have to leave your home to contribute!

Political Facebook

Social media is everywhere. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. But where's the sociopolitical media at? The development of a political Facebook would help with a variety of our goals. Log on and read about what each political party is working on, which motions they are supporting, where they get their donations from, and how they are spending their funds. This site could serve as the foundation for online voting as well. Imagine you are provided with a secure PIN, allowing you to vote at every level of government--from municipal to federal--with the click of your mouse. Online voting may not be technologically viable today but it should be implemented as soon as the experts deem it safe and secure. Modernizing democracy means making it widely accessible, simple, and transparent. A secure sociopolitical Facebook would give the public easy access to the parties, their members, agendas, and past stance on key issues. It would also provide a centralized forum for political discourse. Add to this the ability to vote and you have what I call a Game Changer.

Repackaging Politics

The above suggestions--crowd-funding and sociopolitical media--encourage and facilitate participation but they do not make politics interesting. In order to do that, we should take a page from reality TV. Now before you get incensed and close your browser, take a deep breath. What you just had is called a knee-jerk reaction and it's typical when faced with new and unorthodox ideas.

I don't mean that we should have weekly eliminations, elaborate contests, or night-vision cameras spying on secret lovers on Parliament Hill. I'm only suggesting that we package political discourse in a way that is, once again, accessible to the masses. Envision a weekly TV show complete with its own hosts (smart, funny, and representative of the full spectrum of political views in our nation) and guests (experts, celebrities, and of course politicians). This show would serve a variety of purposes, from educating the masses on political issues to exposing people to the views of others. It could also serve as a platform for weekly televised debate, something which should be at the core of our political system.

If you think that this approach would cheapen politics and make a spectacle of democracy, I invite you to read the news. Politicians and their unscrupulous behaviour have already cheapened politics. They've drawn the attention away from the management of our country and drawn it instead to their own corrupt, dishonest, and hilariously ineffectual ways.

Televising their shenanigans couldn't possibly worsen the situation. And at least we'd get some good ratings!

Russell Brand, Revolution, and Some Real Talk

It was an evening like any other. My wife and I had just finished putting our kids to sleep and we were settling down to watch some TV. I was scrolling through my Facebook feed when I stumbled upon this gem.

Anyone who has read my previous post on upgrading our government will probably know where I stand on the matter. I completely agree with Brand's laundry list of evils. Democracy has indeed been hijacked by big industry and politicians, whether willingly or not, have become their tools. The electoral process is farcical. Meanwhile the people have become disillusioned. About 50% of the population abstains from voting altogether. The rest continue to participate despite knowing that their votes mean nothing. They vote for the politician who makes the most appealing promises and when that politician steps into office and breaks those promises, they hardly blink.

When corruption and scandal become the norm, we know we have a problem on our hands.

Like Brand, I have never voted. Like Brand, my abstinence came from disillusionment, not ignorance. I've defended my stance of political abstinence many times before and sadly, the discourse always ends with the same, tired argument: "If you don't vote, you can't complain." My interpretation of this final argument is this: people only vote so they have the right to complain and gripe.

What a democracy!

At one point during the interview, Brand implored people to abstain from voting as a matter of principle. I once supported this type of political boycott  but as it turns out, I was terribly wrong.

Brand wants a revolution. Historically, this happens when people rise up and overthrow the ruling class. This type of uprising is violent and turbulent; more often than not, it cripples a functional nation. Is this the kind of revolution we want? Or is this the revolution of a crude, unrefined people? A desperate people without alternatives?

Aside from the potential for violence and anarchy, this type of revolution poses some serious logistical problems. Suppose we marched down to the parliament and demanded the resignation of our local politicians. In all likelihood, we would be choking on tear-gas within moments of our arrival, but say our politicians are surprisingly cooperative. Say they abandon their posts willingly, handing complete power over to us.

What now? I certainly don't know how to run a municipality let alone a nation. I wouldn't even know where to start. Should we hold an election to fill the vacant positions left behind? If so, won't we face the same issues of corruption as before? It's the system that corrupts politicians, not the other way around. I might promise widespread democratic reforms if elected, but once I get in power there is no guarantee I'll follow through.

The irrational mind--the one that takes over when we're overcome by powerful emotions, emotions like outrage over endless political scandals--seeks the most direct resolution. Unfortunately, the most direct resolution is rarely the correct one. More often than not, these "quick fixes" lack forethought or in-depth analysis. Brand's revolution, no matter the shape it holds in his wishful thoughts, is such a resolution. "Don't like the politicians? Let's overthrow them! Don't like the system? Abstain from taking part in it!" Do these sound like rational solutions?

As I said, I agree with Brand's assessment of the situation. His solution, on the other hand, is vague, short-sighted, and dangerous.

If we truly want change while avoiding violence and unrest, our revolution must be a peaceful one. But wait: is such a thing possible? Isn't "peaceful revolution" an oxymoron? In the past, physical violence was the primary resource of the revolutionary, but no longer.

Big industry was able to find loopholes within our political system and use those loopholes to hijack our democracy. They did not march into parliament with loaded guns and demand power: they used their resources--money, connections--to exploit flaws in our outdated system. There was no bloodshed, no violence. It was a gradual conquest which is only now becoming apparent to the masses. 

Big industry has its resources, and we have ours. The occupy movement gave us a name and it is apt. We are the 99% and ours is the vast majority within a democracy. No matter that this democracy is corrupt and dysfunctional; so long as we work together, the 1% cannot stop us.

We don't need a bloody revolution; we need a crowd-funded one.

And that means working within the confines of the system, not outside of it. Rather than abstain from voting, what we need is a coherent, united movement with a transparent agenda and as much support from the 99% as possible. This means working with people of divergent ideological stances--uniting liberals and conservatives, atheists and theists, and so on--to topple those at the top of our political apparatus. If money is the resource of the 1% then voting is the resource of the 99%. With enough votes, we can literally reshape our government, restructure our democracy, and finally give voice to those who have felt voiceless for far too long.

(PS. On Friday I'll delve into what such a movement might resemble, how modern inventions/innovations like Facebook, Kickstarter, and reality television can help us design a more functional democracy, and whatever else I can cram into 1,000 words. Oh yeah and here's the Russell Brand interview, in case you missed it. /rant over)

Democracy 2.0

If you own a computer, gaming console, smartphone, or tablet, it's likely you've had to update your operating system in the recent past. It's inescapable. Information-technology is evolving at a breakneck pace and if we want to keep our gadgets performing optimally, we must constantly install new fixes.

For the most part these updates consist of minor tweaks. Someone well-versed in the original Windows operating system would probably have little difficulty navigating Windows 7. That’s because despite all its incarnations, Windows has employed the same basic framework since day one.

Similarly, the latest iOS offers a variety of new features that greatly improve functionality, but are any of them really necessary? Will my iPhone become obsolete without this update? Will I have to relearn how to use my phone after the update?

And it looks super sexy.

Of course not. We update and upgrade our gadgets because they have become an essential part of our lives. We depend on them for communication, banking, news, shopping, entertainment, etc. And since they have become so important we want to get the most functionality out of them. We want them to be intuitive and easy-to-use.

It is strange to me that we continually upgrade our smartphones without question but have yet to seriously consider upgrading the other systems that govern our lives.

Why haven't we upgraded democracy? Why haven't we fixed the glitches that plague our political system?

See what y'all did? Thomas Jefferson be spinnin' in his grave.

The American Constitution--the supreme law of the United States--was finalized in 1787. Consider the following quote: "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." Is this a radical idea or was the Constitution originally intended to be a rigid, unchanging document? The man quoted above surely had some insight on the matter. He was none other than Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, and he never intended for the Constitution to outlive him and his colleagues.

In the year 2013, the American Constitution remains largely unchanged.

But that's the United States, not us! Surely we Canadians are not so rooted in the old world?

Actually we're worse. The Canadian counterpart of the American Constitution “is one of the oldest working constitutions in the world, with a basis in the Magna Carta” which was penned in 1215. From my best friend, Wikipedia:

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in subsection 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as consisting of the Canada Act 1982, all acts and orders referred to in the schedule, and any amendments to these documents. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the list is not exhaustive and includes a number of pre-confederation acts and unwritten components as well.

Don't get too excited: the Constitution Act of 1982 wasn’t a revision but rather a gathering of previously existing acts under one roof. And even if we had done a thorough review of our constitution in 1982 we would still be 30 years removed from said review. Are we to believe that our political system is perfect as is? That since 1982 we have learned nothing and developed no technology that could perhaps make our political system more effective?

Newspapers are crowded with articles about the latest political scandal. Rampant corruption, politicians breaking campaign promises, and governments enacting oppressive laws behind the backs of its people have become commonplace. Didn't we elect these people? Aren't they supposed to look out for us?

It's no wonder voter turnout is at an all-time low. Our version of democracy gives people the illusion of control, nothing else.

Once candidates are elected, they are liberated from promises made on the campaign trail and free to enforce the status quo of their respective parties. Political discourse is dictated primarily by lobbyists who represent the incredibly wealthy minority, the heads of industry who have only one item on their to-do list: extract more money from the walking wallets.

That's us, by the way.

Believe it or not, I don't blame our politicians for their dishonesty. The issue at hand is both larger and more complex than crooked politicians and the tycoons who pad their pockets. Our representatives operate within a system that facilitates corruption and nefarious deals. If anything, it is the system which has corrupted the politician, not the other way around. We can't really blame our fossilized political system either. A lot has changed in the past 30 years, let alone 800.

What worked back then clearly doesn't work now.

The view that nothing can be done, that it is impossible to repair the malfunctioning parts of our political system, is extremely short-sighted. "We've had monarchies and feudalism and republics and empires and dictatorships and communist-states and none of those worked!" some people argue. 

Modern democracies are not the end-all be-all; they're simply the best we've come up with until now. The same can be said of each political system listed above. At the time, each one was the best we had. Eventually we came up with something better.

What I am proposing to you is that we come up with something better and start treating our political system with the same importance we treat our smartphones. I propose that we wrest control of our nation away from the crooked politicians before it is too late and that we drag this democracy of ours into the 21st century. 

By "we" I don't mean Liberals or Conservatives or NDP'ers. I don't mean Catholics or Protestants or atheists. I mean we Canadians and, if we can get our shit together soon enough, maybe even our neighbors to the south, who have it much rougher than we do.

If we work together I know we can do better. I know that we can establish a system that is fair and balanced and without opportunity for corruption. We have the tools, the resources, the understanding.

Let's upgrade this thing. Let's get Democracy 2.0.

It may take a while to download and install but it'll be worth it.

(PS. I hate when journalists decry some great evil without offering solutions. They come in, stir the pot, get us all riled up, then walk away. Great help that is! In order to break this tradition, I'll be tackling the various flaws in our government as I see them and offering potential solutions. Our world is incredibly complex and changing at an alarming pace. Simple solutions just do not cut it anymore. The problems that plague our modern world are the branches of evil. There is no use in pruning them. What we must do is uproot the whole damn tree. /rant over)