godsag *

#nopipe Protest in Pictou and the Either Or Proposition

2018-07-08T07:03:00.002-07:00

Dear Reader,

There are always neo-liberal and capitalists interests that will try to force their agenda on the working people and their communities.

No matter the cost in environment, health, social interests of a people, community, province, country.

In Pictou County on July 6, 2018, hundreds of people joined in solidarity with local residents who oppose the planned new treatment facility plan at Northern Pulp. This is a paper mill that has inflicted untold damage to the waters in the area, subjected the citizens to perpetual air pollution as well, and has the privilege of a comprehensive indemnity agreement given by the provincial government in 1995. A conservative government if I recall correctly. It is an agreement that is at odds with the legal instruments put in place to protect people and environment in the province. How it stands, I don't know. However, there is always social contract, and you cannot indemnify that.

With the slogan "No Pipe", what the protesters are really saying is that they don't want any more false dilemma arguments from the mill, the province, the neo-liberals, or the capitalists. What the protesters are saying is in today's era of technology and scientific capacity - there are no false dilemmas - we can have clean water, a working - pollution free plant, and jobs for the community. And here is where the social contract kicks in - if you want to run a plant, and make money, and have an indemnity agreement, it will still cost you to do that in Nova Scotia. The mill will absolutely have to invest in clean technology if it wants to survive.

What matters to the whole province - even in Metro Halifax is good jobs, ethical work that is not based on a 100 year old philosophy that dictates to citizens the rule of law for corporate enterprise. Those days are done. People are awake, and passionate about moving Nova Scotia out of the dark and dangerous era of ignorant decision making. We can ship ethical arse wipe out to the world and not collapse from the decision.

Believably, we saw people from PEI and other provinces come to support the citizens of Pitctou and of Nova Scotia and support their call for ethical work that does not make the workers and waters sick. And to reject the Either Or argument proposed by the mill and accepted by the province.

There was leadership in abundance at the protest. There was representation from the Green Party, who formally requested the provincial environmental assessment be revisited. Maybe with a view to more science and less indemnity. There was also representation from many non-profit organizations, political organizations, Native communities, grass roots organizations, businesses that understand ethical choices. And there were ordinary citizens that came out of conscience. It was truly amazing.

Some say Premier MacLauchlan taunted the Nova Scotial government - that pesky free speech thing.

These groups showed dedication to the social contract, which is the only recourse in light of the disgusting and comprehensive indemnity agreement. They attended and flew the many true colours of their social and science dedication - and demand a different outcome for the people and environment.

Because the varied groups that attended value science, they listened, and considered a PEI report stating the protests are having a negative impact on the Strait and may have a negative impact on business in the area and that the pipe will net impact the waters. And, after some consideration, they rejected that idea. Because science and empirical evidence.

Which is great - because this is how science and ethics operates.

It is possible to have a clean operation and to make money - the notion that you cannot have both has to be challenged. Every time.

Some protesters were confused about it.

The McNeil Government has been unusually silent about the protests and arguments against the indemnity agreement and the proposed pipe into the Strait and the ensuing protests. Almost as if it doesn't concern them - though it truly does. It is delightful to hear the capitalists whinge about the protests, with a surprise and hurt that no indemnity agreement could ever have anticipated. The Liberals are in trouble and are shuffling cabinet, and the Conservatives are trying to make hay out of this but the tide has turned and they will have to paddle might hard to just keep their heads up above the murky, polluted mess they defend.

We need leadership that isn't afraid to stand up to other Premiers, to Ottawa and to special interest groups with their radical, unscientific and wholly capitalist agendas.

Trust the citizens of Nova Scotia who act in solidarity for our communities. Who value clean environment. Who reject sudo-science and truthiness. Who understand that social contract is the overarching principal that protects people and demands a voice at the neo-liberal table. They will fight for you. In the streets, in the hallowed halls of government, in the garden of your soul.

Fight for your communities.

Fight for your future.

Join the fight against special interests today. Educate yourselves about the forest industry from Yarmouth to Pictou County to Cape Breton. Follow the money and see where it leads. Check the subsidies to these industries. Check if they are negotiating more disgusting indemnity agreements. Check if they are breaking environmental laws. Shine a big, bright, light into the dark corners. And bring it home!!

Check to be sure you are on the voters list and that your information is up to date. Do it now, and be sure to vote for science and social contract in all upcoming elections in this province.

We can't let special interests turn out the lights in Nova Scotia. We need that light to shine!

in response to John Lhor, MLS, Nova Scotia - July 2018

I have added links for the Indemnity Agreement and the MOU with the Province if you have the stomach for it. Here is the profile on the NS government website the the lawyer that crafted this piece of work .

What is neo-liberal?

2018-06-05T06:29:00.000-07:00

Sydney Port Project - Mary Campbell's Annoying Questions

2016-06-14T02:12:00.001-07:00

I feel that Mary Campbell's writing style does not detract from the information she has been sharing. It may not be a style that Mr. Menke appreciates, but that is certainly ok. I think that reporting information, asking questions and challenging project planning is a good thing and falls squarely in the realm of reporting. Adding pressure to the prose is even more important where public funds are in play.

Mr. Menke implies that Mary Campbell's writing about the Port Project would deter commentary from fellow Cape Bretoners who may feel inclined to support the project, and here I have to call bullshit. Either Mr. Menke is not from Cape Breton or he is out of touch with his audience because Cape Bretoners do not scare easy or back down when aroused either in support or against an issue.

There are actually many questions and concerns about going ahead with the Port Project and there appears to be some questionable behaviour around land exchanges, land purchases, consulting choices, project contractors, conflicts of interest and the very project itself. Critique and questioning of these matters is not personal, however, individuals and government hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and presentation of half truths as a result is very personal. It comes close to treating the citizens as children. Taxpaying citizens as children. This is not a new story or circumstance, but there is better awareness and willingness to address these issues in today's climate. I would also say people are well and surely tired of this kind of business model.

I must take exception at this point on retaining a company's services that has been banned by the World Bank for fraud. The fine distinction that it was only the road and bridge section that was banned, or that bribery is just the way things get done in some places does not give me confidence in the company or for the project planners who are so eager to look past this disturbing fact. Surely there is a partner out there amongst all the world class companies without this blemish on their record? And if not. Why not? These things are important, in house and out. To gloss over this problem is actually quite alarming.

I would question here if the citizens reject the project would it go away? Or, as Mary's ire seems to suggest, will it go ahead anyway? As Mr. Menke makes clear, he does not like Mary's style but to say that would be enough to justify witholding of information and evidence goes too far.

Learning about ports while working on a high profile port project is a concern and that is not personal it is just business and it seems there is a lot of that going around. The fact is, most of the members of the Port Development team are in fact amatures. I know from Mary's investigations that there are some unsavory aspects with some of the stakeholders in terms of professional standing. To dismiss concerns about this, or downplay the significance is, again, alarming. There is also a lack of transparency, which Mr Menke has rightfully conceded.

When asking about the millions spent on consulting fees to acquire partnerships for the Port Development - a costly failed attempt, or so it seems. I beg the question as to whether it was simply not seen as a viable investment in a broad and general sense rather than poor consulting. Have all the findings and reports of those consulting efforts been made public?

I would be very interested to know more about what the world-renowned companies are interested in. Is it a contract or investment? And right here I am going to say it is a no risk contract as opposed to a bona fide investment. I am going to say generous tax breaks and incentives have been pffered and need to be made public so we can do the math. The difference between a partnership and a contractor has important distinctions that often gets muddled in the public's version of the project description.

I also understand the Port Project will be highly automated, and so for the public investment, how many jobs? Will it be a union workplace? Where are the benefits to the community when adjustments are made for concessions and incentives?

Halifax , Montreal, New York, all these ports are experiencing contractions and yet Cape Breton is the exception? Why?

There are a lot of questions and concerns and as far as I know, Mary is the only one asking the hard questions. All questions of style aside, let's keep to the substance of the matter.

Who is to blame now that we have internet?

2015-12-18T17:32:00.000-08:00

It has been a long time since I have written a blog post. I have to admit I got carried away on Facebook, and, well, took all the push and post they have to offer. Yes I did.

I did curate my feed, and tried to keep it interesting, and factual. And I was critical of what I thought was wrong and was good to find links in support of my disagreements, and solutions, ideas, desires, and fears. But I have to admit, I kind of stopped thinking. Just a little bit.

I found I was not happy with Facebook at various points, sharing personal information, tracking software, and then came real-name policies and censoring of images and I got slammed right in the middle of a post so to speak. I had a page suspended because of the real-name policy and shortly after had a picture I posted removed because it was deemed offensive. Suddenly I was somehow unsavoury, honestly, that is how I felt. Talk about offensive.

This is not a Facebook bashing post, it is goes somewhere - but in a minute. I removed my account from Facebook, and then asked them to remove my page 'forthwith' - because people are posting and commenting and I have no way to respond, which is nightmarish and utterly unbelievable. I have become a what?, threat? a sneak? a problem? - so at this posting I am not sure of the answers. What I do know is that Facebook has crossed the line in terms of power and control and in my opinion as intrepeter of free speech and privacy laws. And we shall see how it all ends. Maybe I will be long dead and mouldering but I hope not.

This leads me back to myself, and thinking about what went wrong on Facebook and to look again at bigger pictures.

I love internet for it's ability to connect people, near and far, and that in doing so, we all become learners, sometimes willingly and sometimes kicking and screaming. The biggest trend that I notice is the search for blame. Who to blame for hunger and lack of housing, for the bombing (sanctioned and otherwise), for racism and for the money woes. Who is to blame?

I do believe that our Social Contract has been broken with our current governance, here in Canada, and also pretty much wherever I look in this world. This is not to say that I feel bleak and hopeless, not at all. I believe that Internet has, and is, providing the first bird's eye view of who we are as a species. It is showing us who we are, in all our glory, with all our warts. What a thing to take in, it is uncomfortable and there are not very many shadows in which to hide or take cover. Good.

I think we are at the beginning of learning to behave as a united and unified force, and that we are beginning to learn how to take control of the reigns for ourselves, leaving behind the old notion of the Patriarch in the Plutocracy and so forth. I believe this because I see that as things are crumbling around the world in the financial sectors, people, the people, are responding with love and great humanity and doing so without borders. It is lovely and it is the way forward.

Every now and then I catch a little sense of the future, where people are free to take responsibility for our collective well being. Where we stop acting like little children and work together like we all matter. Everywhere and Everything is our business. There is no blame. There is only us.

Internet is young and has not yet evolved, but many changes are coming that will ensure we are able to go forward in the internet to grow our insights, hush the doubts within ourselves, and to open our hearts to truth, forgiveness, and honesty. I think the world of money as we know it is already dead and the power it now wields over us is fading daily. There is a panic to control and lock down the internet, to suspend the big view, to shape the news just a little more. Old ways of control. But, I think it is too late.

As much darkness as there is on this planet, it only exists because there is no light to shine there just yet, but it is coming. The darkness is hard to maintain, and requires a big machinery to shut out the light. Internet does the opposite. It is light everywhere. So let's forgo shame, and comparisons, and institutional moralizing and get on with the evolution.

And think about this, Internet is just a baby. We are going great places!

Want to Save the Planet - Get Going on Vegan!!

2014-11-08T09:45:00.004-08:00

Time for Canada to Grow Up

2014-10-22T10:02:00.000-07:00

The 2006 Federal Elections were won by the Conservatives by breaking election spending limits, the 2011 Federal Elections were fraudulent - and yet, Harper and the Conservative Party remain. There is universal concern as to the direction he is taking this country, and yet, he remains. We are a nation of toddlers, but it is time to grow up.

I cannot separate Harper from the Conservative Party, it is a tactical error. They both have to go, forever and for good - annihilation at the polls. Anyone who votes for this kind of machination, or can rationalize the behaviour and devolution of the constitution and Parliament are significantly flawed, in reason and in fact.

Canada had built a well respected role as International Peacekeeper, a role that I have admired and supported my whole life. It is not a role that many like, as they would prefer a bigger investment in militarization. And, I can see, at times, why this could be warranted. It is, however, not the right course for Canada or for the World. The need for diplomacy, and peacemaking around the globe is acute. That Harper and the Conservatives have squandered our investments in peacemaking is atrocious.

Harper and the Conservative Party have prorogued Parliament twice, to avoid answering questions rightfully put on the Afghan detainees and later to avoid a non-confidence vote. This is the highest display of contempt for Parliamentary governance you could ever expect to find - I suspect that most people have not understood the significance and meaning of these two events. They set the tone and direction for the whole of the Harper/Conservative reign. We are toddlers.

This is important because Harper and the Conservatives are, through their disrespect for parliamentary process, actually opening the door, in Canada, to entertain the idea of other forms of governance. Forms other than Parliamentary Democracy. Which gives wonderful legitimacy to groups and think-tanks looking for grounds for this conversation in Canada. I am not afraid of this conversation, but remember, Harper and the Conservatives got it started, through corruption and debasement of democratic protocols.

There are long lists of things people hold against Harper and the Conservatives, I don't have to list them here - just do a Google search for a succinct list of concerns and grievances. The point is that we absolutely have to stand up - not at Mammie's knee, but on our own two feet. Tolerating election fraud, Parliamentary abuse, and patronizing, evangelical dialogue rather than diplomatic relations in the world is for babies, toddler nations.

I feel that the language from Harper and the Conservative Party has been hostile, provocative, undiplomatic and not representative of the nation. We will continue to reap what is being sowen by these people for as long as we let them continue unchecked. We will see our standing slide on the international front, we will see our finances continue to slide domestically with some of the worst poverty seen in over one hundred years, we will see our social safety nets dismembered in favour of privatization - we will see shootings on Parliament Hill, attacks on soldiers on domestic soil, none of this good for a toddler nation.

Time to grow up.

On the Future of Cape Breton - A Free Advice From 2014

2014-04-15T08:56:00.002-07:00

Dear Cape Breton;

I saw a brief tweet from a Conservative politician last week, asking if Cape Breton is open for business or not. I mean wide open. And I did cringe, because I have come to distrust the Conservative notion of economy.

In my experience, it favours business and not community, it favours progress at the expense of belonging. It opens the door to the the likes of the Koch Brothers, to dump another slag pile in the community or to develop recreational centres that the locals cannot afford to attend.

I no longer live there, I still love it. And I have another idea that might be a little more interesting than privatizing everything and turning the place into a rich bitch's playground/dumping ground.

I envision Cape Breton as an Independent Information Haven for Data Warehousing. Keep the TPP and SOPA, corporations and all the regulators out. Make privacy and open internet the motto and operational guides. You will have success beyond your imagination.

Why Cape Breton? Because it is the only place in the whole country that has the legislative framework to set this up and make it work. Dust it off and get going.

Oh, and get rid of the vested interest before you and your family no longer own your piece of heaven and are left to visit an online file of good times past. On a server, in some other country.

Call me if you need a hand,

Love,

Katie

Cross Post - Politics and Change

2013-03-18T08:06:00.003-07:00

This is a cross post from http://fairviewkatie.blogspot.ca/2013/03/politics-and-passion.html

I am writing this post as a follow up to my decision to withdraw from the nomination contest in Fairview-Clayton Park. The decision came upon review of the eligible voter list for the nomination vote, scheduled for March 26, 2013.

The eligible voter list I received showed no discernible support for my campaign effort, and indicated an almost exclusive list of supporters for my opponent in the campaign. I am not great at math, but that one was easy. I was disappointed, but not sad. I had chosen, quite some time back, to go with a digital campaign, try for a broad outreach and to invite people to sign up online. The invitation was also there to call to arrange a sign up in person.

To my great delight, I received over 9,000 hits on my website (www.fairviewclaytonpark.ca) and was very encouraged by this activity. So, let me say right now, I thank everyone for their interest and for taking time to visit. I consider this a great success.

On the other hand, the traffic did not translate into a viable sign up list for me to continue the race. I have requested some information from the Nova Scotia Liberal Party Headquarters regarding online sign-ups over the past two years, the time I have been actively seeking the nomination. I would like to figure out how to create a better result, should I want to do something similar in the future.

The nomination process is the starting point for people to feel engaged in the political process. I feel that it is not well understood or a particularly inviting part of the electoral process, and I felt that by going online I would be able to reach out very broadly into the community to generate interest and participation. I believe it is about more than just signing up friends and family and that being a nominee is about being more than a shill for the machine.

I think there is a great need for change in Nova Scotia, on many levels, and that it requires people who are interested in introducing new ideas on how to proceed. This is not necessarily a popular idea for people who are invested in the status quo, but it is an interesting idea for people who are living in the dead end of work and opportunity. So, the need for change is not static, it is imperative.

There are a number of places to start with change, and one of them is in how we generate and use public funds. Another is how we position ourselves socially and fiscally as technology becomes even more prevalent in the area of work and fun. And what I champion the most, is the opportunity we have with Internet.

I will talk about these three ideas briefly, and hopefully it will start conversations that will lead to a shift in thinking.

I will begin with Internet. This is a subject that ranges from the idea that an open internet provides a platform for a true, global, democracy, the worry of Big Brother, to the prospect of Internet Wars the possibility of a new society based on freedom and equal access - to education, information, government, work/business, art, love. There is a lot to consider, and sometimes it feels good to think about just pulling the plug and living in the Disconnect. Anything you choose is correct, but will require your participation to frame expectations in the coming years because there are issues to resolve in terms of how we will live and enjoy life, for us, and for the generations to come. And this is why I believe we need to begin to talk about and position ourselves as a society in the face of change.

Internet has given us alternate ways to learn, love, communicate, make money. It has changed the base of understanding and social exchange in very fundamental ways: we can now get a degree online, or complete elementary schooling online, or research ideas of interest or concern: we can meet people online and find love, we can do business online in creative and innovative ways, families can keep in touch online with video communications, banking is evolving away from a central control, transparency in government and big business is being teased out through access to information. It continues, but the point is that while the changes are wonderful, it begs for an update in terms of understanding the Social Contract, that is, how we will agree to live, confirm safety nets and be governed in this new era of openness and freedom.

Traditional understanding and agreements on power structures and governance are under stress, and this is nothing new in the context of history, the Gutenberg Press is a great analogy for this scenario. Until the advent of the printing press, books and information were scarce, the ability to read was not widely required or suggested. It was a small group of people who had these skills, and iformation was carefully funneled down to the masses, who were unable to refute or debate these exchanges for lack of information or education. That is, until the printing press made information widely available, and reading and education became a social tool for change and progress. I see the internet as the vehicle for change, where once it was the Gutenberg Press.

Nothing tells a story of change and progress like the advances in technology, particularly the past twenty years. As a key component to Internet success, we have devices that are efficient and continue to evolve. We have amazing evolution in robot design and ability, 3-D printing that is astounding on an almost weekly basis in the introduction of new production possibilities, revolutionary medical advances that improve treatment options, and in some cases begin to side-step the need for human consultation, nanotechnology is changing communication, energy, product design and human longevity in astounding ways.

What does all this technology mean, how do we begin to understand the changes and the requirements to meet those changes? I think one of the big changes will be the impact on available jobs at all skill levels, and this is one of the things that will drive the most change socially and economically.

I believe we will need to address the meaning and value of work in a technologically advanced society. If we do not have the numbers of available jobs to support our current understanding of success socially and economically, how do we address this problem without disenfranchising people.

I believe the answer is in holistic social reform. A plan to guarantee everyone access to a home, food, water, work, art, education and spiritual growth - in the context of a greatly altered work definition and economic framework.

And this brings me to the subject of Public Funds and the business model in the social framework. We currently, here in Canada, enjoy a mix of public/private enterprise. There are many who would say that we have a problem with publicly funding health and social enterprises, and that may be so. But I caution that now is the time, more than ever, that we must protect and improve these services, and advance them greatly to meet the coming social changes.

As traditional work opportunities diminish, and the demand for opportunity increases in relative pace, we will need to re-define our notions of success. Do you imagine that as the workplace gets crowded, we will return to the old model of the nuclear family, with Father at work, working, and Mother at home doing her household chores? Do you see children at home for forty years until there is finally an opening at an office somewhere? Do you imagine we educate people only to work in low wage, dead end jobs? Do you think there is no other alternative to have and have not?

Cutting and tightening programs like Employment Insurance demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the circumstances we are now living. There are lots of opportunities to develop new economies - in different streams than we currently operate, like outer space development, like individual and tailored education plans, like 3D printing of almost everything. But we have a transition, and we have a change to manage in terms of sharing the wealth.

It is my opinion that much of what we think of as 'economy' today, is nothing more than repackaging old business and presenting it as new, and that public funds are being diverted away from important projects to fund this nonsense. How many times must we divert public funds into failed business models at the expense of our social security? We have a case here now where the argument is made that public jobs should go to private contracting to save money. But truly, pay and benefits will decrease, a good portion of the money formerly available in the local marketplace will now go to foreign shareholders, and there will be less to go around - in the form of spending, taxes and happiness. Nothing new was created, but public funds were diverted in the interest of some uninformed bottom line.

Without a new arrangement, there will be no social progress or success for the general population. There is great lament about taxation, at any level, but I do not see any solution offered at any quarter other than revolution or domination. There is no end of the upward spiral of costs when there is no give in terms of expected return, the great privilege of being in business. What is the reasonable solution?

This is what we have to achieve. The reasonable solution. And we have the tools and ability to do it. I am the same good person, whether I have a 'job' or not - we have a good society, technology, and the empathy to build a better world, where hunger and housing are not basic fears and not having a job is cause for shame.

Let's find those voices, and start to build and position to be in the right place as circumstances and demands change.

Join me on Reddit on March 20 at 7pm for an 'Ask Me Anything (AMA) event.

Social Contract for the Internet

2013-01-16T11:24:00.002-08:00

Social Contract for Internet

originally posted on July 6, 2012 but for some reason is not working, so re-posted here

Translate

ACTA and SOPA are vehicles that have sought to address business concerns by implementation of a set of regulations that, if approved, would result in the control of what is now an open and democratic dimension of our consciousness. It is the first time in the history of the world that people everywhere have had the ability to interact freely regardless of nation, income, colour or creed.

This is a big idea and it is a wonderful evolution. That it changes the dynamic for business models is without question. It begs for a discussion on the re-visioning of the social contract, and not for an implementation of restrictive regulations based on outdated business and/or social premise. And it is for society to frame the new relationship, not through secretive and self serving quasi legal frameworks.

As a society, I believe we are presently at a place where we should be talking about the future in terms of what this open internet has brought us, how it is changing our relationships with each other, with long established business models, with our representatives in government, in opposition, in the resistance movements we see daily in the news and online. We need new social policy, business philosophies, economic foundations and educational programs to go forward.

I do not believe we will maintain the current relationships socially or economically, and so I say let's get started on the discussion on where we want to go, or be. Trying to maintain an outdated and crabbed protocol in a new and dynamic environment goes against all expectations for evolution. Trying to police and regulate change is quite frankly, the road to hell.

I believe that the internet is not a commodity, and should not be regulated, metered, stratified, criminalized. Out of the spectacle of absolute freedom, we have found wonderful opportunity to grow. This is not to say there are not problems, for that would be to deny the nature of man. The point is not however, to use the problems to abuse the rights of internet citizens. It is to find new and appropriate mechanisms to deal with serious issues, some of which are obvious and some that are not.

Currently the TPP has embedded terms for internet regulations within its agreements. This is yet another attempt to circumvent the interests of the internet community. By placing these controls within the framework of a trade agreement is particularly egregious for me, as I reject the commercialization and resulting commodification of the internet.

That there is a consistent effort to deliver internet regulations out of secret and unilateral processes tells me that there are vested interests at work, that there is a supreme lack of will to participate in negotiation of a new social contract, and that it is time to insist that our municipal, provincial and federal politicians get in touch with the people in their districts to begin the discussions with an open and forward thinking prospectus.

I believe we, as a society, need to address the social and economic issues that will come out of the expansion and evolution of the internet rather than trying to constrict and manage it within an old and weathered and not so pretty portfolio we have used to date.

To Do

Discussion on the consent to be governed. Are the expectations different in and out of the internet?
Define policy, include rights and responsibilities. Are the expectations different in and out of the internet?
Vision new business models that reflect internet policy - for example, I believe you can make money in the internet, but the internet itself is not a commodity. I believe it should be available to all, as a right. Are the expectations different in and out of the internet?
Privacy: Is this expectation realistic? What are the parameters for personal, government, corporate privacy. Are the expectations different in and out of the internet?
Discussion and visioning on future models of opportunities: Education, Government, Economy, Working Life, and the impact on us socially, globally, as a society. Are the expectations different in and out of the internet?
Technology: The discussion needs to take place without the constraint of our current technological ability to deliver communications via the internet. New capacity is around the corner that will offer unfettered communications that defy our understanding of comunications we have with the current internet infrastructure. So the discussion is truly one of social agreement free of the boundary of regulation as proposed in vehicles such as ACTA, SOPA or TPP.
Start now.

An example of why we need to have this discussion: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/06/pol-access-to-information-30th-anniversary.html

Aaron Swartz

2013-01-12T21:24:00.000-08:00

Truth will out.

And my truth is that I am a big fan of the internet. For freedom of speech, for access to information, as a community in my home town and around the globe. I believe the internet is a bond and a story writ large and small for all to enjoy, prosper, and grow. I believe Internet will re-write the Social Contract. But, here is another truth. In this same internet that I so love and champion, I have been so very careful, for fear of reprisal, for fear of misunderstanding, for fear of illogical consequences and for fear of the safety of my humanity in all of it's pithy wonder and joy. I self censor in ways that I am sorry to admit.

It it because of the internet trolls? No. Is it the fear of embarrassment? Yes, but also no. I am human, mistakes and ungainly moments will arise. I will learn and grow. But more than that, it is my understanding that challenging the Social Contract online has consequences in my off line world.

I have been a supporter of Open Internet, I abhor the concerted attacks on organizations, individuals, on access to information, freedom of communication, freedom of speech, advancement of new business and social models. And, as such, I have witnessed the relentless campaigns to destroy these voices that are large and small in my pantheon of progress. I am witness to the destruction of these vehicles, these people; the slow and deliberate attacks in the form of financial ruin, social isolation, political persecution and destruction of the ego. Yes, ego. The worst destruction of all.

On learning of the death of Aaron Swartz, it became plain to me that all the ideals I hold dear for the internet, it's place in our future progress and evolution, are evolving because people are out there making change. It is not an amorphous entity, it is people, a person, a group of people, a commitment from them to us, to each other. And they are as vulnerable as you and I when they decide to stand their ground and invite us to stand with them. In my enthusiasm for change I have tended to overlook this fact in favour of a mystical online force for progress working outside of human constraint or need.

I have spent the day in fits of sadness for a person I had never met, but was, on review, in contact with daily through his various works and support of the very things I admire and hold dear for the internet as part of our evolution. This realization is astounding and it is an anchor for me because I finally accept my responsibility to understand that protection and nurturing the Internet, is a very human thing to do, and not as abstract as I had somehow let myself believe it to be. Internet is the digital expression of humanity.

We are the Internet. It is flesh and bone, dream and desire, progress and hallelujah And I believe that what I treasure in this physical life, I will treasure online, and fight for. One of the great beauties of the Internet is that it removes physical boundaries, and that leads for further liberations in idea and potential and I say this for big and seemingly small eurekas. This is the key, it is the individual, the personal advances along with the large, global advances that are now possible in ways like never before. And they go together to make big change.

And are worth their bets in bitcoin.

The bullying must stop. A new Social Contract needs evolution.

Godspeed Aaron Swartz.

Technology, Unemployment. Social Change

2013-01-08T10:17:00.000-08:00

Technology, Unemployment. Social Change

Translate

Technology

As the human race continues to advance technological change, we will continue to find ourselves challenged to maintain our current value systems and ways of doing things. This is evident in every direction we look, food, work, love, and money.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. It means change - and it requires some foresight on our part.

The effect of these technological advances challenge our ideas and demand effort on behalf of society to prepare and to lay the groundwork for a happy, content and fulfilled society, wherever you may find yourself on this lonely planet.

We have the strange situation whereby we have difficulty sourcing our food sustainably, while technology is delivering alternative methods for food. As an example I will look quickly at the fishing industry. Stocks have been seriously over-fished, and continue to be challenged. We have alternatives with closed pen fishing, and soon, genetically engineered fish fillets produced right in your kitchen. What could be better? The only problem is transition.

Yes, there are challenges in achieving safety and environmental standards for this type of food. But, the future will not see traditional fishing as the means of sustenance or provisioning for a growing population. But what does this mean? What are the ramifications of this kind of development?

Well, it means we have to re-assess our understanding of supply and demand, the value of our ecology versus traditional food supply, the effect on work and income structures, the determination to envision our world successfully with these changes in place.

This type of change applies to all business sectors - where traditional methods will be replaced by technological advancements. The energy sector, food, health, everywhere. Less labour needed to meet our needs.

Unemployment

There are headlines every day, all over the world, talking about unemployment rates, and concerns for our youth and next generation successes. These concerns are all framed in the context of maintaining the current values framework. This is troubling because as things go, there will not be the same number of jobs available, much of the traditional work options will disappear with the progress of technology. This has been happening for hundreds of years.

The questions become, "What is employment", "What is the purpose of employment" and "What is the value of being employed".

Employment

For the purpose of this discussion, let's use the Wikepedia definition of employment: 1. The condition of having paid work 2. A person's trade or profession.

This definition fits the generally accepted framework for most people's understanding of Employment today and it is the basis for our system of exchange for goods, services and personal satisfaction. If you work you will have access to housing, food, entertainment to varying degrees, depending on your income.

This framework for employment is a Social Contract, which means that we all tacitly agree to work within the framework and generally agree with the idea and the rates of exchange that have been established. Along the way, it became a bit of a game to look down on people who didn't work, and some do it with more gusto than others, but it cannot be denied that to not be working is seen socially as a kind of flaw.

So, as a society, we do not have to work, but we agree to work because we enjoy the benefits of working in tangible ways. So what happens as technology continues to erode traditional career and income opportunities, traditional work options wreck havoc on the environment and our current youth are faced with the fact that the Social Contract we have enjoyed to now, will not work for them in the future?

Purpose of Employment

Traditionally, the purpose of employment had been to acquire money with which to buy housing, food, health, education and entertainment - each according to means. It was the evolution of the barter system and it has worked spectacularly for the most part.

What will become of this model as employment opportunities start to disappear with every advance in technology - we will have what we need, with very little work required, but where does that leave us?

Value of Being Employed

The value of being employed today is complex: it is the basis of our economy and government, it is currently the basis of our education programs, it is the lifeblood of our banking systems, and it is the basis on which we acquire our basic needs. And yet, jobs and employment opportunities are declining. This should not be unexpected , but alas, we have not done our job in preparing for this change, and now we must figure it out.

Social Change

The only option is to change the contract. And we are seeing many signs that there is a demand for change. There is the Occupy movement, Les Casseroles, and Idle No More as good examples of this demand.

One of the key things that will need development is the work for wages agreements that are currently in place globally. It has passed through my mind that much of the backward slide on Women's Rights and Equality issues, is directly related to the ever declining pool of available jobs. I believe some would see a return to the old days where women were relegated to the background and not a competing force in the workplace. This is not appropriate, and it is a sad option and you will lose if you choose it.

Another option is to go forward without change and establish two types of Social Contract - one for those that 'have' and one for those that 'have-not'. This would work if the two streams were parallel - never touching, never affecting one another, but that is not reality. Not a one of us has ever experienced solitary life in our own exclusive work induced slip-stream.

The challenge of this and following generations is to work to change the terms of the Social Contract. We have the ability to house and care for everyone on the planet, but that will not satisfy human nature. It is only the base from which to start. The big change is to develop social change on how to live in a work reduced society. How to find respect and contentment for a busy mind in that scenario is the challenge.

I believe we will need to change our value systems significantly, which bears on the Social Contract regarding work. The notion that we have to work our whole lives to be prosperous and successful will become more and more difficult to fulfill and to sustain, and yet, we are the same good people.

I think it will become ever more important to educate our students in philosophy, arts, technology, and spiritual ways than in the quest merely for thin dollars that no longer fit the needs of people.

The time to begin the change is now, and the people who will improve and live in that future are at your knee today. Let's get going.

2012-12-16T12:42:00.000-08:00

Petition: To every government in the world

Support Open Internet and the Social Change it brings.

The Internet has already changed the way we live : communication,
education, love, health, finance, business, social exchange, governance,
lawmaking and access to information. It has already happened, and
now the Social Contract must be updated as well. We want even and
open access for all, we want to enjoy the benefits of the Internet, for
our universal growth and well being.

Sign this petition to speak as one voice globally, to show the desire for
Open Internet and Social Change, rather than as one voice, one country,
at a time.

We want you to stop the prosecution and persecution of those who
work to make change for these rights.

http://godsag.blogspot.ca/2013/01/social-contract-for-internet.html
http://godsag.blogspot.ca/2013/01/technology-unemployment-social-change.html

Translation: select language you would like to use.

SIGN THE PETITION

Traffic on the Halifax North Common. Beauty!

2012-11-18T07:00:00.001-08:00

OccupyNS Videos

2011-11-17T08:30:00.001-08:00

This is an awesome music video by the Canadian Beaver Band about the Occupy NS eviction 11/11/11

This is a video DÉMOCRATIE // OCCUPONS / OCCUPY MONTREAL for NOVA SCOTIA

HRM Council Supported Occupy NS Eviction

2011-11-16T06:56:00.001-08:00

The timing of the eviction of the OccupyNS protesters is not the issue, the fact that HRM Council supported the eviction is the issue. This was done in camera, and it indicates the true feelings of the members of Council who felt safe voting this action wile out of the public eye. Mayor Peter Kelly could not have enabled this action without the support of Council.

That it was done on Remembrance Day only emphasizes how out of touch the Council is, and emphasizes the callous and shallow approach of this Council. It is no surprise that once public opinion against this action became apparent that the mea cuplas started to appear. Some apologizing for the timing of the event, not for the eviction itself, others for playing a part in the event at all. Silence from the rest.

I went down to Victoria Square when the word went out that the evictions were happening, not a Councillor in sight. This was very telling to me. Where there was goodwill and a spirit of cooperation before, I now witnessed a scene of polarization, dismay, and betrayal. It was one of the most disheartening things I have ever witnessed here in Halifax.

There are many who applaud the evictions, and they rightly site some valid concerns, such as health and safety, and yes, the look of things. The discomfort elicited in these things beg for a considered examination of the problems these protests represent: lack of affordable housing, barriers to income, corporate manipulation of government, loss of voice for whole sectors of society. It matters what happens in Halifax, it matters in the global picture for the Occupy movement.

The members, and interested citizens for the Occupy movement are your sons and daughters, your sisters and brothers, your mothers and fathers. It is about the next generation, it is not about today. Politicians, corporate heads, police officers and so forth, have children participating, students are engaged, all kinds of interests and concerns are represented. For our council to turn it's back on this event is not, in my opinion, redeemable. The issues are clear and the choices were made and there are many consequences that will follow.

The Occupy movement is not the sole purview of any government, party, union or business. It represents people, and it represents a cooperative approach to resolving social concerns, and it requires working with government, political parties, unions and business to change the status quo. If any one interest dominates the movement, the voice of People is lost.

I submit to you that the police operate to uphold the law and at the direction of government. To focus solely on the police action is to not focus on the governmental directives and this is a tactical error in our social debates. To not hold our elected representatives to account is a grave error and a disservice to the Occupy movement.

I'm Cutting Short My Holiday Too. A Poem Or A Song If You Feel Merry.

2011-09-24T09:35:00.000-07:00

I'm Cutting Short My Holiday Too
(a poem, or a song if you feel merry)

Oh, Peter McKay
Was a-hunting one day,
Out along Newfoundland way,
When he thought early to leave
And cut short his va-cay!

On government phone,
Through contacts he did comb
For the poor DND gnome,
That over the waves would weave,
And deliver him home.

So, he sent the dis-patch.
His ire none wished to catch.
So they picked him up, natch.
And who knew if there was peave?
Oh, demo down the hatch

He thought no big deal,
Not some kind of a steal.
Would the Hill have a bad feel?
No, his chest, it did not heave.
Ah, he knew his appeal!

Who put out the word?
Matters not, we all heard.
And his loins now he did gird.
No way out for hunter reeve,
Damn on that big steel bird!

He stood to deny
Malfeasance in the sky.
That protest should get no bye.
As the Hill begins to seeth,
He hugs still his tad lie!

Where will it all end?
Well, how can we pretend
To know how far truth will bend?
We will watch the story weave,
You, and me, who penned.

Copyright Katie Campbell 2011
If you wish to record this to music, please post a copy/link here or contact me to discuss.

Umairh's Six Lessons

2011-08-08T05:49:00.000-07:00

FOIPOP Request - 2 - HRM Halifax Commons Legal Guidelines

2011-05-19T09:07:00.000-07:00

Link to FOIPOP Request - HRM Halifax Common Legal Guidelines

Emailed for status update on 22JUN11. Waiting for a reply.

Response from HRM re: FIOPOP Request

2011-05-04T18:46:00.000-07:00

Link to HRM FOIPOP Response on Legal Requirements for Care of Common Lands

This is disappointing, I shall have to reapply with a more carefully constructed request.

Strategic Vote!

2011-04-22T09:15:00.000-07:00

It is time to think seriously about a strategic vote in this election. We have watched how things transpired south of the border, and wondered at times what people were thinking whilst shuddering at the thought of that happening here! History proves the great game of divide and conquer is effective and we as Canadians need to step out of our comfort zones and vote for the good of the nation - united and decisive for Canada!

Is it legal to build a facility on the Common?

2011-03-29T04:11:00.000-07:00

It appears that the Halifax Common was designated a Historic Site under Section 425 of the City Charter (Ordinance 10). If this is the context for developing the Halifax Common Plan, then it is important to understand the duty and care components that inform the management principals for these lands.

I believe it is premature to move this forward, and I believe that the recommendation to make the Skating Oval a permanent fixture on the Common needs further study and a more level, and formal public consultation before any steps are taken in this direction.

We need to examine Ordinance 10, Section 425 of the City Charter to determine the next steps, which would constitute proper due diligence in a project of this scope. The costs, tax implications, historical implications and future ramifications are large, and if it is not in fact, legal, then it is a whole other scenario.

As stated in an earlier blog. I have made a FOIPOP request to get the legal documents governing these lands and will post them as I recieve them.

More later.

Skating Oval - Privacy Request and Google Earth Images - March 2011

2011-03-26T12:02:00.000-07:00

As there seems to be a strong forward momentum from within HRM City Council to proceed with efforts to make the Skating Oval a permanent infrastructure on the North Common, I have decided to examine, as an interested Citizen in HRM, the legal status and requirements regarding care and management of the Common Lands in HRM.

You can attend City Hall on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 10 a.m. - public is welcome but cannot participate. However, if you feel some passion, you can print out this poster and bring it with you to hold up and shake vigorously when you get excited or vexed.

Please find my Access to Information Request to Office of the Mayor - HRM - requesting documentation on the legal status regarding the management and care of the Common Lands in HRM. I will post the results of this request for reference when I receive it.

I also present to you a Satellite Image (from Google Earth) of the Skating Oval on the Halifax North Common - March 2011. As you will note, the land use for this infrastructure is significant, with the probability that a permanent structure would require yet more land to meet building code standards. A close up of the Skating Oval follows.

This is the up-side of the Federal Elections 2011 - a little humour to change the mood

2011-03-20T17:23:00.000-07:00

Canadians looking back on a different time.

Wikileaks - A Matter of Control

2011-02-15T17:37:00.000-08:00

The Wikileaks War - A Matter of Control

It should come as no surprise that we, collectively, have found ourselves embroiled in a Wikileaks War. This is a case that will decide many things for the future of internet freedom, and it is important for everyone to do a little research, and form an opinion on this case.

The universal declaration of Human Rights ensures the freedom, among other things, to share information freely, through any medium, and without boundary. And, in this internet age, this case is the true litmus test of the future of the internet as a free and open democracy.

If we consider equality and freedom to be the very basic elements of democracy, then it would seem very apparent that the internet is the biggest, free ranging democracy the world has ever produced. It has opened doors for people all over the world to exchange ideas, to learn, and to be productive in new ways. It has changed, and is changing still, the landscape of traditional power dynamics, in the economy and in politics, in religion, and in art.

This is the time for people all over the world to participate in the formation of laws that would define the freedom and rights that are companion to internet acess and to define rights to access as the key component to ‘The New Economy’. It is also a time to define limits in the internet. Persecution is not the right response, it is an old school reaction, and is not appropriate in this era of change and evolution.

Most governments have acknowledged the power of the internet, as a positive force, and, as a negative with regard to ability to control the message, direction, and activity of information exchange. This is also true of business interests, and it makes this a very important time for the entrenchment and preservation of information and digital rights. It is a difficult time for business and governments trying to operate within the ‘Old Economy’ of information exchange.

The issue with Wikileaks is one of control. It is a flashpoint that could potentially be used to justify constricting freedom in the networks, based on very subjective interests. There are loud voices out there that call for exactly that, and other equally loud voices that call for the opposite. What is actually needed are voices that will call for the development of an International Internet Bill of Rights, that will entrench and define the rights of internet access and usage. This bill should clarify where the internet rights begin, and end - does it start at the connection, extend into the network? Does it transcend earthly boundaries? Is there a codified law that is operational in the network? Does enterprise or government have exceptional rights over individual rights in the network? Do users? Clearly, the controls have not been identified, and this is a problem.

A review of the international Anti Counterfiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) demonstrates an attempt at identifying some control on the internet, however, it has a particularly narrow and self serving agenda and the scope of power is dismaying to say the least. It is also troubling that there is no oversight for this programme, so that it operates without easy access or accountability. Here in Canada, it is quietly going forward for ‘domestic process’ as of December 3, 2010. Now, try to find a copy of the ACTA Treaty online. Which of course leads me back to Wikileaks, and how the right to know is, actually, a right.

We are all familiar with the usual practice of all levels of business and particularly government of keeping information secret, the classification of documents, in camera sessions, and it is my opinion that this has been one of the greatest contributors to the lack of public participation in election process throughout the world. It is the reason the internet has been so successful.

We are also familiar with the recent breakdown of the press and reporting in the old traditional framework, the uptake of online news sources that lead to the evolution of online information networks free of interference or gerrymandering of information. Much of it was a rejection of the shaped message. Things have changed.

I hope that people will be able to look at the whole Wikileaks event as a wake up call for action in getting a sound, fair, legal framework enacted that places the right to know as the prime directive, that defines access rights, and personal protections for users. And to not let it be dictated from the narrow perspective of a small group of interests.

We could start with a better look at the ACTA treaty before it becomes the global standard for legal case files on internet freedoms. We also could make ourselves heard with regard to the Wikileaks events by demanding unbiased reporting on the impact of the leaks, who undertook to implement the distributed denial of service attacks, the legality of doing such a thing, what about the current personal attacks on Mr. Assange, and what if any consequence the Wikileak postings should have in the context of people’s right to know.

I will end with a quote from Mr. Yeats from his poem Easter 1916 , that summarizes my feelings about the Wikileaks events; "All changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born."

Internet: Truth, Access, Society

2011-02-09T08:50:00.000-08:00

Information and Ideas are the genesis of change. But these two things in isolation are not enough to promote change, it requires dissemination to a wide audience. This provides opportunity for people to discuss and think about things, and to accept, or reject ideas based on access to even further information. It is the process for shaping and molding of society.

The greatest example of how this change has happened in the past, is demonstrated through the events that followed the invention of the Gutenberg Press. This advance had the effect of gradually changing society and it's long established power structures, through the education and empowerment of what we now call the middle class in Europe. It was a local event to begin with, but eventually traveled the globe. Today we take for granted our ability to access information, have become somewhat astute at investigating information for truthfulness, and have established time honoured codes of behaviour for our newspapers, authors, and so forth. Information has become a commodity at all levels of government, a most valued asset, but the model for sharing has recently been severely challenged, as in the Gutenberg model of progress.

The internet is the next great advance in literacy, and, not unexpectedly, it is changing the world dramatically. This new found literacy is not strictly about the reading and sharing information. While it has critical elements of that function, it is also creating a new kind of literacy, one that speaks clearly and truly to the desires of all humanity to move forward to the next evolution of society. It is a higher level of understanding and desire, that rejects many elements of the current structure and expectation of society, economy, action, and is asking for the next evolution in behaviours.

Most people will attest to the feeling that the Internet is changing things, some feel it is for the worst, and others thrill at the glory of it, but nobody can yet define where it will lead. The expectation is ripe and robust, and whether we are participants on the Internet, or second hand consumers, we can all feel the change in the air. The elements have not come together yet to give a clear picture of what this means, but there are some areas that are catalyst for movement .

As Gutenberg shaped society, so will the Internet. And as we all know, change can be difficult, and it requires learning and new ways of doing things. The greatest catalyst for change with the internet is the ability to connect ideas, information and feelings with great speed and transparency, and it is the ability to encapsualize feelings, in the context of knowledge, with speed and over large terrain, that is the great revolution here.

This transition will be, is already, difficult for many, particularly those who try to work outside this new social framework. It means that corporations and businesses will have to work in an environment that considers the feelings of its informed and demanding consumers, educational institutions will have to reconfigure the established offerings to include this new approach to learning and doing. We, in our everyday lives, no longer think in a provincial mindset. The Connection is persistent and the metrics to measure success have changed.

What are some of the examples of change that we are seeing right now? There are several that are prominent and interesting. There is the whole discussion on ownership of the Internet for one, the large and profound case of Wikileaks, the debate on regulating the Internet, and these are only the few high profile issues that I speak of. We also have new models for education, dating, family connections, careers, medical treatment, humanitarian relief, governance and so forth. The most interesting are the new definitions and channels for independence of thought, action and community within a global framework.

There are many who believe that the Internet is the first true global democracy. And there are many who say just the opposite. I happen to believe that it is the beginning of a global democracy, but one that is better than what we now know. I think of it as Globesse (Global+largess), and I think it will define itself over the next ten years or so with resolution and agreement on Internet rights and global access, and I think we shall see a strengthening of Truth and Accuracy as the new metric for social exchange.

In the meantime, I believe it is very important for people to engage and to contribute to the settlement on an understanding of rights of ownership of the Internet, access rights to the Internet, and the place of transparency in the Internet. It is a challenge to define our personal and social responsibilities in this context, but it is a great challenge at the right time.