By Promod Puri
The best thing which can happen to the Liberal Party in the October election would be the rise of Maxime Bernier People’s Party.
According to the latest poll, the People’s Party has three percent support across Canada. And if the party gathers momentum, the kicked-out leader from the Conservative Party would significantly help the Liberals by vote-splitting among the diehard Conservatives.
That would be a strategical development on which the Liberals will keep a tab in its game plan for the upcoming federal election.
In the meantime, the latest numbers as gathered by the Research Co., suggest the Liberal Party has 34 percent support among the decided voters, while the Conservative Party has 31 percent.
Keeping in mind there is always an error of 2 to 3 percent, it is a neck to neck fight if the election were held tomorrow.
About the score of the other parties, 17 percent would vote for the Jagmeet Singh led New Democratic Party. The Green Party has 10 percent support, and the Bloc Quebecois sits at 3 percent.
Since the numbers keep on changing till the final day of the election, for both the leading parties, the Liberal and the Conservative, it would be an indecisive scenario.
Being barely ahead of the Conservative, it is imperative on the leadership of Centre-left Liberal Party to seek electoral alliances with the two Left parties, the NDP and the Green.
If that happens, the Conservatives, under its right-leaning leadership of Andrew Sheer, will remain in the Opposition at least till the next big one. And the Bernier’s ultra-right party could be annihilated.
And that is what progressive Canadians would like to see that this country does not become a shadow image of the USA under Trump’s presidency.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can take the alliance route, which would be historical in the politics of Canada, as his approval rating is ahead of Sheer with 41 percent and 36 percent respectively, according to the Research Co.
(Promod Puri is a journalist, writer, and author of “Hinduism beyond rituals, customs, and traditions).
“A new kind of capitalism seems to be emerging, one in which companies value communities, the environment, and workers just as much as profits,” according to Prof. Elizabeth Schmidt of the University of Massachusetts writing in The Conversation.
Till now, it has been “shareholder capitalism,” where the only reason to run an enterprise to seek profits. However, in the last decade or so there has been tremendous ‘rebellion’ by consumers, Left-inclined workers, and environmentally-conscious investors to change the profit focus behavior in the corporate world.
The social and environmental commitments seem to be the emerging culture in the conduct of businesses as that seem to be the new routes to ultimate success and profitability.
Laurence Fink, founder, and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, says: “To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society,” reports Prof. Schmidt.
In the abundant rally of summer fruits, watermelon is the heavyweight champion. The green globe occupies its own majestic space in separate and more significant bins apart from the rest of the babies in comparison. Its real value lies in the sweet and ninety percent watery pulp. It is the delight of summer and pride of picnics. Being high in nutrients, doctors recommend watermelon as it lowers BP. In fact, the king of fruits is soaked in nutrients. It is loaded with lycopene, the antioxidant, which is said to control cancer and diabetes, according to WebMD. The selection of watermelon, which has red and sweet pulp, has always been a big question mark. Does knocking on its thick outer surface and feeling the hollow sound from inside help. Maybe!
It’s not just hydrogen bombs pushing us closer to oblivion, it’s climate change and the threat of ecological collapse. Researchers now estimate the likelihood of human extinction by 2100 at 9.5%.
2050: Estimated year civilization could collapse due to climate change, according to an Australian think tank.
What To Do:
For humans to fully address climate change will demand a World War-scale effort to remake energy, agriculture, infrastructure, and transportation systems.
-Quartz on climate Eschatology.
Global climate change is endangering small island countries, many of them developing nations, potentially harming their ability to function as independent states.
As international environmental co-operation stalls, we must ask what consequences climate change will have on the statehood of vulnerable countries. This is especially important because sovereignty is the most important principle in international relations. Any threat to a nation’s sovereignty could have unprecedented repercussions for global governance.
A state is defined under international law by the Montevideo Convention with four specific criteria: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Today, these conditions could be threatened by the international community’s inability to commit to strong environmental action.
Indeed, the Republic of Kiribati declared in 2015 that the effects of climate change are threatening its very existence as a nation. Along with the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Tokelau and Tuvalu, Kiribati is especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change because it is composed entirely of low-lying atolls.
As the country pleads for international and proactive action regarding global warming, the effects of rising seas, dying corals and intensified natural hazards are putting a strain on its capacity to function.
On small islands, movements will soon require communities and individuals to move across borders. These factors could threaten a fundamental criteria of statehood as defined by the Montevideo Convention: a permanent population.
The previous president of Kiribati, Anote Tong, once said “our islands, our homes, may no longer be habitable — or even exist — within this century.” That indicates the second criteria for statehood, a territory, is being threatened. As climate change is not being efficiently tackled and countries begin to feel the effects of eroded shorelines, scholars have begun to ponder solutions.
In the end, this mechanism isn’t likely to be an efficient response since climate change complicates power dynamics among nations.
In the event of the disappearance of a country, it is unclear whether it would retain its sovereignty in the eyes of the international community. The United Nations hints that it’s improbable that a state would simply cease to exist due to what it calls the “presumption of continuity.” This ambiguity surrounding the maintenance of statehood of vulnerable nations should shake the international community out of its immobility on these questions.
Unfortunately, the international principle of sovereignty is a double-edged sword. It gives historic emitters the absolute freedom to respond to climate change through non-binding agreements, and procrastinate the adoption of effective treaties. But the issue of rising sea levels and the threat posed to the statehood of Pacific states should raise concern among the defenders of sovereignty.
Trump said “responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty” while bragging about his country’s massive exports of oil, gas and what he called “clean” coal. And as he continued to extol the virtues of fossil fuels and the protection of U.S. sovereignty against global governance, Trump effectively pushed environmental issues further out of the international spotlight.
Defending American freedom from international obligations has been high on the Trump agenda, and so in the context of accelerating environmental crises and growing isolationism, it seems highly unlikely that he would defend the sinking sovereignty of Pacific nations.
However, let’s not solely blame the U.S. for failing to protect an immutable principle of international relations.
An uncertain future
The international political community has been producing, year after year, non-binding and uninspired environmental accords that do little to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The “polluter pay” principle proposes that bearing the costs of pollution should be proportionate to the degree of responsibility in producing it.
The plight of the sinking islands worsens as the international community fails to effectively tackle climate change. Without concrete action, cross-border climate migrations will accelerate as resources shrink and territories become eroded by rising sea levels, pushing people out of their homes and jeopardizing the statehood of entire Pacific countries.
They are among the smallest emitters of greenhouse gases, and yet are disproportionately suffering the consequences of climate change. The situation exposes the lack of solidarity and climate justice in the global community.
Unfortunately, lacklustre action on climate change along with U.S. reluctance to engage in environmental discussions could result in an unprecedented question in international law soon going mainstream: What exactly do we do if a country drowns?
Marxism, Communism, Capitalism, theism, atheism, religious doctrines, and most other disciplines when offered as a prescription, formulated or no-questions-asked models to establish religious, social, and political systems, then these very ideologies lose their basic messages.
Mindset fanatic attitude or behavior is installed. And that results in creating roadblocks or deadends to free thinking.
(This article is an approach to get into the praxis of simple living and to realize its efficacy. The article does not make a list of things as what to do or what not to do, rather it is left to the reader to work out his or her own simple living lifestyle and make changes as one goes along this path. The basis of this presentation is to seek some disciplined enjoyment of life towards self as well as towards the environment around.)
The nature of simple living if willingly explored, accepted and experienced is both rewarding and blissful. The discipline helps in creating an ethical and guilt-free living.
While rejecting some or most of society’s false and pretentious customs or norms, the adaptation to simple living is plain and instinctively natural.
In simple living, the only expression which matters most is the word ‘simple’. It is a descriptive adjective attached to the word living. It describes, defines and gives character to the word living.
The word ‘simple’ has several definitions.
· Simple means easy to understand or deal with;
· Simple means not elaborate just plain, unmixed;
· Simple means not decorate, luxurious, grand or sophisticated;
· Simple means modest;
· Simple means free of deceit;
· Simple means lucid, natural, neat, unadulterated and
. And simple means sincere.
These attributions are the embodiments of simple living offering a complete and genuine package of peace and comfort.
Spirituality, health, environmental concerns, and economics are mainly the four reasons people seek a simple living for quality and good value in their lives.
Whatever the reason or reasons one picks initially to lodge into the simple living habitat all the above four motivations merge into a wholesome experience of tranquility and contentment.
The fundamental nature of simple living is a disciplined enjoyment of life while caring for fellow beings and the environment. Engaging in simple and ordinary pleasures of life are the dynamics to experience the joys of simple living.
However, simple living demands more than simple pleasures. It is the change of attitude along with a change of lifestyle in harmony with consciousness. Simple living demands a reversal of life which is otherwise outwardly rich and inwardly poor.
Indeed, the most popular form of simple living is to comfortably and voluntarily adjust life to basic minimum needs which curbs wastage and the ego of having plenty.
Very true “wealth consists of not having great possessions, but in having few wants”. As well as the “shortcut to riches is to subtract from one’s desires”.
Getting away from the consumerist mentality and reducing needs for purchased goods are the entry points for simple living. How far an individual can go to survive with bare minimum needs is a matter of practicality. In our social and cultural environment of materialism, it is indeed an anomalous challenge. Moreover, extreme frugal living is damaging to the economy, though good for the environment.
Simple living can be argued as an alternative lifestyle for the upper and middle classes. The poor in society all crave for some catching up in our materialistic world. Enough economic activity has to be maintained to bring along these unfortunate people to the minimum standards of living before getting on to the ride of simple living.
Living with minimum basic materialistic needs is the hallmark of simple living, but its strength lies in the purity of consciousness where one can explore and practice one’s own ever-evolving guidelines of simple living and enjoying every moment of it.