one, for the money; two, for the show

From http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=dcdefae2-c7aa-4655-abbf-61446f34c608:

Jim Flaherty, as expected, keeps the key portfolio of finance. Senior government officials say it is vital to show some stability in that role during the current economic crisis.

Silly me, I would have thought competence would have been the first consideration.

Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is "the only network with more letters in its name than viewers."

On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.

Note that this isn't meant to discourage anybody who reads this...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49R0GK20081028

power

an effective illusion - if somebody seems to have power, we naturally tend to respect (not necessarily honour) it.
is it our survival instinct, out of greed (share of likely spoils), or just mental laziness (accepting what others seem to have already decided)? something else? likely a combination of several.


background: knighthood (the facebook game) made me reflect on this. since i no longer play, i thought i'd offer the stores of various weapons and gold my minions have produced on autopilot to the player that i thought was the most worthy. he came back with appreciation and a promise to distribute them to lower-ranked players to help them along.

i recognized his power by (a) his power score but mostly (b) the number of people actively playing with him (he is the founder of a successful league or alliance or something). he was acting as an escrow or something in a trade i was conducting, and that's when he earned my trust (what little was needed for me to want to offer him my redundant riches).

this isn't democracy - this is benevolent monarchy, but in a fantasy world that you can take your chances in and not lose anything if things go wrong. yet the social interaction, honour and recognition between players is something that the current political "democratic" system fails to offer - or at least seems to fail to offer and by extension isn't in a position to offer it. and so our governments are relegated to the back burner of social conscience, to a role of dealing with the things that have to be done but without significant meaning to the average person, and subject to control by parties that seek opportunities for financial gain (if not for them, then for the people that supported them). a competition of kingdoms, so to speak, where the winner is decided not on the battlefield but in elections. the fact that elections are now scheduled regularly just makes them more mechanistic and dull. one ray of hope survives, that the canadian people have insisted once more to maintain their involvement and hold on to the strings of power by denying yet again a majority government.

poisoning principles

how can you have a proper democracy (with informed, caring and idealistic voters) when one party campaigns (regardless of whether an election has been called, I might add) with an obvious bloodthirst for power?
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/10/23/pollsters-conservatives-attack-ads-hurt-voter-turnout-and-democracy.aspx

x or... ?

Had a very interesting discussion today with a new colleague.
Range of topic was very broad, but definitely political-philosophical in nature.

For example, binary "Friend or foe" is an ancient school of thought obviously still used in modern politics. As to whether W used it intentionally (ie what he truly believed) or manipulatively (purely to mobilize the masses for political support) is questionable, also leading to the other age-old debate over whether the ends justifies the means. We also briefly discussed the variants of that philosophy (a german (Kant?) once believing that it is more accurately an incantation of "I or not-I") or something like that, which led me to ask "what about friend or "not-friend"? He recognized the importance of that distinction, and stroked my ego by taking the time to think about it, then surmised that is an interesting shade of gray that is too complicated for most people to ponder and therefore usually ignored.

Another discussion about what makes a good leader - his intrinsic values and actions (righteousness), or his effectiveness (heavily dependent on external factors)? That question arose when we disagreed over who would be a "better" leader for this country (at this time).

I learned a few other things, and was rightfully corrected on one in particular:
I offhandedly remarked that PM Harper was a brilliant but Machiavellian strategist; when in actuality he's (and his group) are more students of the "Straussian" political school, and that it is very elitist. one message for the elite, a different message for the masses (sidenote: i wonder if that ever influenced Depeche Mode's choice of album title?) Anyway, it would seem once you've proved yourself worthy and smart enough to read between the lines you get the secret decoder ring - meanwhile, all sorts of things happen with contempt for the ignorant supporting public).

I just now looked up Straussianism on Wikipedia - all about "deadly lies" and "noble truths" (myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society). Takes us right back to the question of ends justifying means.
Interesting. Very interesting...

uh-oh, time for more tax cuts

cuz obviously the "trickle-down effect" isn't going far enough yet...
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpTxH6LhUx_paxYTA1q9R7ipHcrQ

well said

A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray, twice a day, every day, for a long, long time.

So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site.

She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.

'Pardon me, sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from CNN. What's your name?

'Morris Fishbien,' he replied.

'Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?'

'For about 60 years.'

'60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?'

'I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims.'

'I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop.'

'I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man.'

'How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?'


'Like I'm talking to a fuckin' wall.'

there's a sucker born every minute...

no this is not about the recent Canadian election (though it might as well be).

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bottledwater

time for debate, not more bait

Open Letter to leaders of Canada’s federal political parties

The signatories agree on these 10 principles:
1. Canada needs to act on climate change now.
2. Any substantive action will involve economic costs.
3. These economic impacts cannot be an excuse for inaction.
4. Pricing carbon is the best approach from an economic perspective.
1. Pricing allows each business and family to choose the response that is best and most efficient for them.
2. Pricing induces innovation.
3. Carbon is almost certainly under-priced right now.
5. Regulation is the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.
6. A carbon tax has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.
7. A cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.
8. Although carbon taxes have the most obvious effects on consumers, all carbon reduction policies increase the prices individuals face.
9. Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this.
10. A pricing mechanism can allow other taxes to be reduced and provide an opportunity to improve the tax system.

contempt of democracy

old file, still highly pertinent.

beyond irony

Extract from liberal party email received today (emphasis added):

"After intense pressure from media and political opponents, it appears that Mr. Harper will release a platform tomorrow – a week before the vote and one day after advance polls close.

Many Canadians, including university students, military personnel serving overseas and those whose religious observances include the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, will have already voted – without ever reading a word of the Conservative platform. Is this how Stephen Harper holds himself accountable?"

Incredibly à propos and not without irony, gmail's quote of the day is from Bono: "The less you know, the more you believe."

political vigilanteism

It would seem there is a violent segment of the population that feels threatened by Liberal platform/policies and, more importantly, doesn't believe in free speech. What does this say about the other parties platforms (and their followers)?

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

awesome:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/3/43222/8057/718/618653

from tribalism to religionism to nationalism to... ?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2f608f0e-0cd2-451c-bf24-1c40aae3b7b1

First a simplified context. Our survival once depended on living in tribes led by a strong leader. Gradually the groups became larger as the smarter (or desperate or beaten) leaders aligned themselves with stronger leaders. Low-level conflict was inevitable. Eventually groups aligned themselves along religious lines, leading to larger more brutal conflicts culminating in WWII. We still can't all agree on which god/being(s) is/are supreme - but at least for the last 60 years or so that argument has been more or less irrelevant and the world's borders have been relatively stable (thanks in part to the UN's slowness (aside: I wonder if it wasn't designed that way to allow emotions to simmer)). This assurance of stability permitted investment in infrastructure and private enterprise, improving our standard of living significantly. We may not have the same religion, but there is consensus and respect of each other's national borders, which is why I still believe the state - you and I and everybody else - must maintain a meaningful presence in society, actively investing in the threads stitching our social fabric together.

What comes next though? Advances in transportation facilitated massive migration around the world, where people gathered naturally (sometimes more, sometimes less) in specific areas of every city. Nationalism, democracy, hard work and a common conviction in human rights eventually broke down the barriers separating them and respectful integration began. More recently, however, human rights excesses, cultural districts reaching critical mass and more particularly advances in communication almost eliminate entirely the need (and sometimes the will) to integrate themselves with their host nations and national borders lose their relevance.

if not a centralized government system, who will we (people in general) sign a social contract with next, to decide what is best for us, ensure social justice, defence of our interests and ways of life? Since "we" are increasingly divided along cultural and religious lines, is there still hope to reconcile and (re)integrate the more extremist groups, and if so, what who gets to decide what means are justifiable? Or are we past the tipping point?

I believe people come to this country because of perceived ideals and opportunites for a better way of life. If they are disillusioned upon arrival, is that is not our fault? and is it not the natural tendency for them to gravitate toward areas where their old culture has already been reestablished, which may be less than ideal, but at least is familiar to them? (Mis-)application of current policies only accelerate this phenomenon and our disrespect for them anyway further compounds the problems. So, shouldn't we start looking at approaches to realize an environment where ideals and opportunities for self-actualization and interdependency really exist? Such a Canada was once valued as important and achievable and that perception still exists abroad. I personally still believe in it, but if we collectively "know better" now that that ideal is wrong or that it is just not achievable, do we not have a responsibility to ourselves and the rest of the world to admit it, agree on something better, and move on?