I’ve written before about Canada Post. Well, silly me, I trusted them again.

I’ve been stymied on a video project for a while and one of my friends agreed to help me finish it. I needed to send him 100 gigs of footage, so I cleared off one of my terabyte drives and packed it up. My studio is equidistant from a UPS store and a Canada Post outlet. I picked the wrong one.

I paid for insurance. I paid for guaranteed delivery. I was promised it would arrive last Thursday — and I double-checked this because I’m under time pressure. Today, Tuesday, it arrived… AT MY HOUSE IN TORONTO. They gave themselves a five day extension and then did it wrong anyway: CLUSTERFAIL.

This is a truly monstrous waste of taxpayer dollars. I would probably be even more upset if I paid taxes.

Naomi Klein claimed, in The Shock Doctrine, that the Right’s modus operandi is to wait for disasters and then use them as causi belli (forgive my probably-wrong Latin pluralization) to execute their agenda. Well, here’s a freebie: our economy is SHRINKING — there aren’t enough resources to go around — let’s stop delivering post in, say, the GTA. Just for a week.

I predict that people won’t notice, let alone care. If they do, either, just restart it.

But imagine: a whole week of not killing trees for paper-based spam, not having our identities and belongings stolen, and having packages delivered TO THEIR RECIPIENTS (I can’t stress this point enough — it’s really the whole key to “delivery”, as a concept, and I’m willing to pay extra for it)… Oh, what a magical land of joy our fair city might become.

And once that experiment is successful we could roll it out to the whole nation:

Seriously, though: I would rather Harper just keep the entire postal budget for himself. The money would do me just as much good, but he’d retire from politics. Maybe he could split it with Ford.

[UPDATE: THEY BILLED US EXTRA TO TAKE DELIVERY AT THE WRONG LOCATION.]

When governments attempt to increase their engagement with stakeholders (including civic engagement with citizens), they’re usually talking about something like the :

Engagement without deliberation is less informed, because government is relied on to fully educate the participants, and can at most ask participants to choose between pre-defined trade-offs rather than collaborative in problem solving. What governments are mostly doing now is faking engagement in order to better inform voters and make them feel good.

I believe that carbon emissions should be reduced just enough to stop environmental disaster. Most people are not explicit about this, but I think it’s a view almost everyone shares if they think about it: the climate can absorb some carbon without disruption, so there’s no problem in that amount of emissions. Besides, eliminating all emissions would require the end of civilization if not the end of mammals.

I would go further and say that some climate change is probably acceptable. The problem right now is that since carbon emissions are an externality, there’s no decision process over how much is acceptable. If carbon were properly priced, the market could weigh the trade-off between carbon-emitting activities and climate change. Will economic growth now be enough to make up for environmental consequences later?

This long, self-reflective essay gives a good counter-argument:

[Sustainability] means sustaining human civilization at the comfort level that the world’s rich people—us—feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” that is needed to do so…The success of environmentalism has been total—at the price of its soul…This is business-as-usual: the expansive, colonizing, progressive human narrative, shorn only of the carbon.

The environmental movement used to be about protecting the environment for the environment’s sake, but then it became co-opted by capitalism into this utilitarian economic thinking that I presented above: the environment is a big truck you can dump a certain amount of shit in before the tubes get clogged.

In Canada this is expressed by the tension between the Green Party, which sometimes acknowledges the trade-off between social justice and environmental justice (but mostly just promises all the justice!), and the NDP, which is a social justice party that added some sustainability policies. And the BC Liberals introduced a carbon tax because sustainability is just good business.

It doesn’t really matter because ecocentrism failed and now even sustainability is failing because the majority have decided (if subconsciously) that economic growth now is worth any amount of environmental pain later.

Why are the authorities dismantling the Occupy camps? It seems, like the principal’s reaction to the girl who tweeted about the governor, to be an exercise of power for power’s sake. Opposition necessitates opposition.

I’m asking because I don’t get this one. Evidently the Occupy camps are tweaking those in power, but: why? Why don’t they just ignore them? It seems like the various authorities are itching for a chance move their soldier-toys around the maps they’ve laid out in their makeshift war-rooms; each mayor pretending to be a miniature Napoleon: “Fuck city planning consultations! Let’s widen all the streets to make the Parisian mobs easier to shoot!”

But I feel like I’m expecting too much. Obama defused hope and idiot mayor Bob Ford is claiming budgetary victory with cuts to public transit and libraries. I am assuming that intelligent (or maybe just socialist) policy is a dominant strategy in the face of zero evidence.

Winning policy is a rote response: a boot stomping on a human face — forever.

Kyla sent me a blog post that does a wonderful job of criticizing Buy Nothing Day. Like many second-wave liberal beliefs, Buy Nothing Day confuses anti-oppression rhetoric with cool aesthetics:

You disapprove of Black Friday because you believe your consumption preferences are superior to the preferences of those people. You believe that materialism is inauthentic and morally inferior. You believe that the pleasure from consumption is the wrong sort of pleasure to have.

Society is structured such that it is impossible not to compare your standard of living with those of other people (real or fictional). You can’t just get a better house on sale, so people try to make their lives more enjoyable with tangible consumer goods. Deals on goods can make a big difference for lower-income people, so don’t trivialize their interest.

Rather than saying “I did my part by not buying stuff on sale (even though I can afford to buy gifts at regular price)”, work toward restructuring society so that people are not pressured into measuring their standard of living. Give them the carrot of free paths to happiness rather than the stick of consumer gilt. At the very least, go after the advertisers who encourage desire in the first place and the retailers who create false scarcity rather than the people who are human enough to be affected by these tactics.

OpenMedia sent me a success email recently:

Yesterday, finally, the CRTC pulled back from its mandatory metered billing decision. This decision won’t stop all big telecom metering, but it could provide a much needed unlimited, independent option for many Canadians. It is truly rare for people to outmaneuver Big Telecom lobbyists, but together, we did it. Thank you for playing a crucial part in safeguarding the affordable Internet.

Emphasis theirs.

The next step, like with the banks, is to switch to an independent provider. OpenMedia links to a big list of Ontario ISPs, but specifically suggests switching to one of these:

Acanac: http://www.acanac.ca/
Distributel: http://www.distributel.ca/
Eagle: http://www.eagle.ca
Start Communications: http://start.ca/
Teksavvy: http://teksavvy.com/
Telnet: http://www.telnetcommunications.com/

The list of indies in BC is sadder:

Distributel (Vancouver, Victoria): http://www.distributel.ca/
Teksavvy (Vancouver): http://teksavvy.com/

I’ve never heard of Distributel. Weird.

Anyway, thoughts? I’ve heard good and bad about Teksavvy.

Dean Murdock is running for reelection as a Saanich Councillor. He has proposed that Saanich require all new developments to sell or rent 10% of their units below the market value. This will have two side-effects:

• More development will happen in other municipalities, which don’t have affordable or sustainable transportation options.
• The price of new units in Saanich will rise.

Some of the rise in prices will come out of developer profits, but some of the increase will also be passed on to purchasers. Since new developments tend to be condos, townhouses and infill housing, they are mostly purchased by members of the middle-middle class. This is taking from the middle to give to the poor while the rich stay rich.

A better solution is to subsidize the creation of affordable housing units in both new and renovated development (like adding a non-market basement suite) using property tax refunds. The City of Victoria has been quite successful using property tax refunds to encourage restoration of heritage buildings.

The refunds should be paid for by raising the property tax rate for the municipality as a whole. Property tax is just about the only major policy level that local governments have, but it’s a good one because it’s progressive: mansions pay more than condos. The current owners’ houses have increased in value because of the scarcity of housing, so it’s time that they pay back the benefits of old policies.

Of course Murdoch can’t propose raising property tax to help the poor, because land owners are the only people who bother to vote in municipal elections. I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote for Murdoch, because this is better than Saanich’s current policy, fuck the poor. But is it not just to ask the middle to suffer for the good of the poor while taking nothing from the rich.

The movement, presumably through the General Assembly, is spending some of its war chest on television time. This is a legitimizing coup. The medium is the message, and the message is now television — more American than Mom and apple pie:

This is interesting to me because of the notion that capitalism colonizes the counterculture — or more aggressively that there is no difference between the two — and I wonder if this is a ray of hope, if whatever tension lead to the (false?) dichotomy of capitalism versus counterculture can work both ways: can the counterculture reverse-colonize capitalism?

The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house, but he paid a lot for his entertainment center.

Here are the three credit unions I’m evaluating. One of them is going to get my business as soon as feasible:

1. Meridian, which recently voted to merge with Desjardins. Pros: big. Cons: big.
2. Alterna, which has an obvious name and a rinky-dink website. Pros: small. Cons: small.
3. Creative Arts, which is a credit union for creative professionals. Pros: awesome! Cons: I don’t yet qualify as it’s closed-bonded to creative union members.

Anyone know of others? I am probably going to join Meridian until Creative Arts lets me in.