Defining What is True

Yesterday morning, I was all set to do a blog. For the past few days a minor irritant had been bubbling in the back part of my brain and it was time to get it out.

I had seen two pieces of information on Facebook that begged for a comment. One of the "news items" was a bit on the BC government's decision to allow antibiotics to be used on farm salmon, the second was the BC government's decision to allow a mine to have its tailings run off directly into a lake. In the both situations the decisions appeared to have been made in direct opposition to environmentalists, scientists and to the First Nations communities in the area. My point was going to be that if the BC government is going to invoke the environment, science and the concerns of First Nations in their dispute over the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, that they must remain consistent and stop approving things elsewhere in the province that are contrary to what the environmentalists, scientists and First Nations are saying. To cherry pick some items and not others makes the government look, at best, two faced and insincere - at worst they look like political opportunist.

As always before I quote a source, I did a quick check to insure that the information was accurate, I wanted to be able to cite a source that was legitimate. Unfortunately neither story could be confirmed. That is not to say that the stories were inaccurate, perhaps the BC government did approve both the pouring of antibiotics into the ocean and a mine's tailings into a lake - but there is no proof  that they did. While there were a number of stories available on the internet around the antibiotics, they all used the same picture and none of them said where the original information came from. There was even less information about the mine. While it could be possible (as is frequently alleged) that these stories were buried by the mainstream press because they did not want to anger the corporate elite etc., the original writers of these stories had to have gotten their information from somewhere other than their imagination. No one said where the information came from or if they did, I could not find it.  I didn't publish the blog.

It is right and proper that we are all concerned about where Facebook gets its information and how it uses the data it collects. We  are right in feeling some unease when we learn that Facebook is being used to propagate false information; to feed us information so that we can be manipulated. But these two stories were re-posted by people I know, people who are intelligent thinkers, people who at least on some occasions debate facts and look for solutions. If we can't trust our friends to look at what stories they are re-posting, if we cannot even be sure that the people we know are trustworthy, then we are all in serious trouble.

I understand that in the world where it feels as if we are being overwhelmed on all sides by the destruction of our planet, where countless thousands of people die each day because of useless wars and famine, where politicians consistently break their promises - that the temptation to hang onto any fact, no matter how unsupported, that suggests that we are not alone, that other people are equally concerned and prepared to do something about it is almost too much to resist. I understand that in a world where so much of the news is shaped by the victors, by those who are in control, that we grasp at any fact that supports our beliefs. But we must resist that temptation, we cannot afford to blindly accept information just because it fits our world view.

 

The original blog was going to be about "if you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk". That is - if you are going to say that others need to act in a certain way - then you have to act the same way. And perhaps in some convoluted way, this blog is about that. If we demand honesty and transparency from those in power, if we argue that those people need to present and consider all of the facts, if we say that they should never hide behind their closed doors, then we must do the same.  

 

Neither I or any of my friends have a lot of control over big business and how they use social media, we can't control what some political entity pays to have posted on the internet, we can only control what we post. If we cannot guarantee the integrity of our information, then no one will be able to trust anyone. We will be reduced to only looking at pictures of cute animals.

Disappointment

I am disappointed. And that is a profound understatement.

In spite of my sometimes cynical, perhaps even pessimistic view of politics and the people who inhabit that sphere, somewhere within my very core I needed to believe that when the political leaders of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia met on Sunday that they would find a way to at least partially resolve their respective differences.  They didn't. All they appear to have done was to further entrench their positions as to whether or not the pipe line expansion would proceed. The three individuals went into the meeting with a clear agenda and they walked out with nothing changed. No compromise, no promise to continue to work together, no possible vision of a world where everyone would at least partially benefit - a world where harm would be limited. There are no indications that they even listened to each other. There were some clarifications of positions and on the part of the federal government there were clear indications of how far they were prepared to go - all of which, unfortunately were predictable.

I am most disappointed in the federal government as they, in their role of the senior government, had the greatest responsibility to demonstrate leadership. By drawing a very clear line in the sand, they have left no room for negotiation. This clear line is in part defined by how much money and political capital they are prepared to spend to ensure that the pipeline gets expanded.

In a country where there is (apparently) not enough money to ensure that all communities have access to safe drinking water or decent housing, where there are insufficient funds to provide universal day care, access to affordable proscribed medication, and a social safety net that actually works - the federal government has decided that we should give millions and millions (if not billions) of dollars to support the infrastructure of an international for-profit company (check out how much the value of their shares has increased since Sunday) ; the government has decided that in spite of a significant national debt and rising interest rates, that it will borrow even more money so that Kinder Morgan will be reassured that the pipeline will go through.

I, I confess, am somewhat conflicted over the issue of the pipeline expansion. I think that, depending on what you read, it is easy to become convinced that one's point of view is the only correct point of view. I think it is far too easy for us to only ever see one side of the story and to draw our own lines in the sand. I deeply wish that we could all have an open and non-antagonistic debate over the pros and cons, if we could look at all Canadians and determine what is best for all of us as a collective. However, I am not at all conflicted as to whether or not my taxes should be used to provide some sort of reassurances to a for-profit company - a company that if the pipeline does get expanded - will stand to make extraordinary profits. We have processes in Canada - there are traditions, regulations and laws. Kinder Morgan, while it may be frustrating to their investors, need to live within those traditions, regulations and laws. And that includes taking things to the Supreme Court to determine jurisdictional matters. For the Federal government to wave its big financial stick assuming that they can bully other parts of Canada into ignoring their rights to due process is wrong.

Anyone who has studied politics, history and economics understands that it has long been the responsibility of governments to support the capitalist; that it has always been the role of the ruling elite to ensure that those who control the "means of production" continue to do so. It has always been that way. But that does not mean that it always needs to be that way in the future. It is time for Canada to, at the very least, stop supporting companies who want to use our natural resources to make obscene levels of profits and at the same time want protection from some of the risks.

The debate over the use of carbon based fuels, who uses them and how they get to the consumer is a valid, perhaps critical debate. There can be no debate over whether or not we subsidize companies to do so.