2011-02-27
"Canada's" Action Plan
nice that the Cons are promoting the benefits of "their" economic action plan with a feel-good campaign, and not taking all the credit for it directly (especially how prone they seem to be to go on the offensive, literally). Not that they could take credit for it though, really, cuz I suspect the opposition would (quite legitimately I am sure) claim it would have been nothing were it not for them holding the balance of power.
2011-02-17
realization
Probably deafeningly evident to those who know me, but I just moved a Johari muntin over a bit to my advantage tonight.
I am a (slightly obsessive) tweaker. I am driven to know how things work, be it in politics, regulation-making, sewing machines, computers, lighting levels in a room, musical instruments, circulatory system in the eye, etc., just to the point I can do it "right", understand or use it well enough to teach someone else, and/or fix it, to make it that much easier for everyone/me to use and logical for everyone else to figure out.
Which is probably why I get too involved in some things. By "too involved" I really mean to the annoyance of those who've made a career out of it for asking too many questions (even more when their explanations smell like BS - no offense, Dr. R); to the jealous displeasure of those who've made it their life's mission to understand/do something I pick up even better in just a few hours/weeks (sorry Bree); and to the expense of those who have to redo stuff until it meets what I believe is (should be) the appropriate standard of workmanship (reno contractors, you know who you are).
But when the conquest is over, I tend to seek out other problems to fix/things that need tweaking.
So, how can I best turn this drive for learning and improving into a career: Detective? Teacher? Researcher? Troubleshooter? Judge? Supreme benevolent dictator?
I am a (slightly obsessive) tweaker. I am driven to know how things work, be it in politics, regulation-making, sewing machines, computers, lighting levels in a room, musical instruments, circulatory system in the eye, etc., just to the point I can do it "right", understand or use it well enough to teach someone else, and/or fix it, to make it that much easier for everyone/me to use and logical for everyone else to figure out.
Which is probably why I get too involved in some things. By "too involved" I really mean to the annoyance of those who've made a career out of it for asking too many questions (even more when their explanations smell like BS - no offense, Dr. R); to the jealous displeasure of those who've made it their life's mission to understand/do something I pick up even better in just a few hours/weeks (sorry Bree); and to the expense of those who have to redo stuff until it meets what I believe is (should be) the appropriate standard of workmanship (reno contractors, you know who you are).
But when the conquest is over, I tend to seek out other problems to fix/things that need tweaking.
So, how can I best turn this drive for learning and improving into a career: Detective? Teacher? Researcher? Troubleshooter? Judge? Supreme benevolent dictator?
2011-02-15
public policy making approaches and desirability
realized I was judging unfairly a local politician who is acting very reclusively, shutting out community associations from discussions that affect their residents, and is already acting as if campaigning for next election (which are "only" about 3.8 years away), and felt rather disgusted with this behaviour. Then I thought of another local politician who has exactly similar style, yet I admire this person for their determination and ability to make (and push) "right" decisions. Why the difference I wondered.
I then considered the opposing approaches to making public policy, quite obvious when observing federal politics.
1. decentralized power: consult extensively and enact according to the whim of the people, engaging the public but at the risk of inconsistencies in the mishmash of policies of various eras;
2. centralized power: enact strategically and coherently across all areas, which can be quicker and cheaper and potentially more effective in the long run, but at the risk of polarizing along ideological lines and public discourse and thereby eroding democratic ability.
Which approach is generally more desirable? Desirability could depend on "success". Success depends on traction, which depends on how aggressively the party with approach #2 promotes its position (yes, =propaganda) and attempts to destroy the credibility of legitimate opponents; approach #1 depends on how relevant the measure really is over time, which in turn depends on how educated those involved in the consultations were.
But to me, it's really a question of principle and whether I feel my needs have been met and ideas respected. Which is why I still do not trust the local politician whose behaviour prompted me to have this reflection.
I then considered the opposing approaches to making public policy, quite obvious when observing federal politics.
1. decentralized power: consult extensively and enact according to the whim of the people, engaging the public but at the risk of inconsistencies in the mishmash of policies of various eras;
2. centralized power: enact strategically and coherently across all areas, which can be quicker and cheaper and potentially more effective in the long run, but at the risk of polarizing along ideological lines and public discourse and thereby eroding democratic ability.
Which approach is generally more desirable? Desirability could depend on "success". Success depends on traction, which depends on how aggressively the party with approach #2 promotes its position (yes, =propaganda) and attempts to destroy the credibility of legitimate opponents; approach #1 depends on how relevant the measure really is over time, which in turn depends on how educated those involved in the consultations were.
But to me, it's really a question of principle and whether I feel my needs have been met and ideas respected. Which is why I still do not trust the local politician whose behaviour prompted me to have this reflection.
2011-02-08
Survival vs Continuity - in the name of the greater good?
National post, February 7 2011, p.20:
b) best way to destroy a country is to castrate its ability to generate new political leadership. In fact, its a best practice for despots.
c) even North Korea has a succession plan.
Which leaves me wondering, if he is building something so complex and dependent on him personally, with a centralization of power never seen before in Canadian politics, how long can he sustain it without sacrificing his health or resorting to physical oppression of the people? And who will be left to clean up the mess after he leaves?
"In office, [Harper] has never let a minister rise high enough to form an independent power base. The Harper operation is built for survival, armored against threat from the inside and out, designed to protect the one component its leader believes is indispensable: himself."a) how is that democratic?
b) best way to destroy a country is to castrate its ability to generate new political leadership. In fact, its a best practice for despots.
c) even North Korea has a succession plan.
Which leaves me wondering, if he is building something so complex and dependent on him personally, with a centralization of power never seen before in Canadian politics, how long can he sustain it without sacrificing his health or resorting to physical oppression of the people? And who will be left to clean up the mess after he leaves?
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-02-04
loud commercials = PITA
CRTC hears complaints about loud TV ads
see http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=135403 (full text of CNews article copied below).
What could possibly be the rationale behind this? It can't be the advertisers, who surely don't want their viewers turning off the sound or fast-forwarding through commercials and associating such offense with their products. The networks maybe? or the stations themselves? Probably not, since they make a living delivering hopefully attentive viewers to their advertisers. It can only be the cable companies, who no doubt make a fair share of profit from PVR rentals.
Consequently, and since that is the currently prescribed practice by the CRTC, I just called Rogers Cable at 1-888-764-3771 to register a complaint about the offensively louder volume of commercial breaks during a specific show. At first the agent was all sugar and spice, polite and all. When I started talking about USA considering legislation and the CRTC conducting hearings about this PITA practice, and I asked if I should continue calling everytime I noticed it, the veneer came off and she said "no, that's ok, I am forwarding this right away to the escalation department and you will get a call back when resolved, within 24-48 hours." Evidently I'm not the first educated caller she's dealt with. Meanwhile, I'm putting their number on my speed dial. >:)
I'm also looking forward to how the CRTC hearings are going to play out with industry and then with the government. I get the impression that the commission is slowly imploding, and I got to admit I kinda enjoy watching history being made.
see http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=135403 (full text of CNews article copied below).
What could possibly be the rationale behind this? It can't be the advertisers, who surely don't want their viewers turning off the sound or fast-forwarding through commercials and associating such offense with their products. The networks maybe? or the stations themselves? Probably not, since they make a living delivering hopefully attentive viewers to their advertisers. It can only be the cable companies, who no doubt make a fair share of profit from PVR rentals.
Consequently, and since that is the currently prescribed practice by the CRTC, I just called Rogers Cable at 1-888-764-3771 to register a complaint about the offensively louder volume of commercial breaks during a specific show. At first the agent was all sugar and spice, polite and all. When I started talking about USA considering legislation and the CRTC conducting hearings about this PITA practice, and I asked if I should continue calling everytime I noticed it, the veneer came off and she said "no, that's ok, I am forwarding this right away to the escalation department and you will get a call back when resolved, within 24-48 hours." Evidently I'm not the first educated caller she's dealt with. Meanwhile, I'm putting their number on my speed dial. >:)
I'm also looking forward to how the CRTC hearings are going to play out with industry and then with the government. I get the impression that the commission is slowly imploding, and I got to admit I kinda enjoy watching history being made.
TV regulator hears complaints about loud ads
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
OTTAWA — The federal television regulator is looking at ways it can stop Canadians from going deaf by listening to loud ads during their favourite TV programs.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has received hundreds of complaints from the public who are outraged they need to reach for the remote control each time television advertisements appear in order to reduce their seemingly louder volume.
“It is an issue that we are cognizant of and not indifferent to,” a CRTC official told QMI Agency.
An announcement isn’t ready yet but “stay tuned,” the official added.
The Consumers’ Association of Canada’s Bruce Cran called it a “chronic complaint” his group receives.
“The usual thing we get is that (the TV ad) is a lot louder than the show. Whether that’s true or not, the perception certainly is that it is louder,” he said. “It is something that obviously bothers a lot of people.”
U.S President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM) which instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the CRTC’s American counterpart, to ensure commercials are only as loud as the program during which they air.
The CRTC currently recommends Canadians tell their TV service provider when they notice louder television ads by noting the date, time, channel and program or commercial they are watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)