why so tough on crime?

after many years of positive reinforcement, it could be that Canadians need (the government) to flex some negative reinforcement muscles.

but I can't help but wonder, since "it takes one to know one", what does that say about parties with a heavy law and order agenda?

democracy and transparency

are these issues really important to Canadians?

recent byelections saw a candidate elected by a narrow margin, despite missing out on several opportunities for interviews or debates. 

Interesting excerpts from post-election interview at http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/30/qa-julian-fantino/

I will respect whatever duties and responsibilities the Prime Minister assigns to me. That’s more important than any wishful thinking at this point in time.

I’m going to leave it to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows who I am. He knows about my long and distinguished public service. He knows what my strengths and weaknesses might be and he knows where I can best be utilized to provide support as a team player in the Harper government.

I’m just so glad and honoured to be a member of a Harper government.

What's so interesting about this is that while the political right often criticizes the "nanny" state concept where everyone is decently looked after so they can pursue their aspirations, it seems to be very keen on restoring a "daddy" state - one where father knows best, I know cuz he told me so, and you better watch out cuz we got a law and order agenda.

And they still won the seat.

western ideological sustainability

difficulties in Afghanistan etc where we (the western world) are trying to implement "democracy" is exposing some of its dirty secrets... Given:

1. Came across an article that concluded that the human brain was not wired for reading. The brain is naturally wired for moving, speaking, relating, and strategizing, but we have to re-wire our brains to communicate through writing.

2. Structured civilization (high degree of civility) is, Darwinianally speaking, the pinnacle of evolution that depends on education and hard work (and resources to exploit).

3. Higher education is to society what fertilizer is to grass: to keep it strong, you have to keep investing in it to prevent the weeds from sprawling.

4. American (and likely Canadian too) politics are won largely by convincing the biggest number of rich people that you can win over the biggest number of "ordinary" people. (interpretation of political fundraising and advertising campaigns)

1+2+3+4 = Human beings are social animals. Democracy is not our natural state, and requires great investment to maintain it. As the western world starts running out of environmental resources and poor (but still naive) people to exploit, where will investments to sustain our way of living come from? More importantly, will we have the resources (and knowledge) to protect against the weeds growing from within?

Economic "growth" is no way to rate the health of a city

just sent this to the local paper and ward councilor in response to this article http://www.yourkanata.com/StittsvilleNews/article/10022

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 22:46
Subject: Economic "growth" is no way to rate the health of a city


Re: What cost development? Feb 4 2008

I believe that pushing the urban boundary for new developments is extremely shortsighted, and plain wrong on all other levels.
We have lived in a time when growth was considered good - as long as there were more people coming, more consumers in the market, more agricultural land to deplete, more forests to clear-cut, more oil to burn, more credit to stretch - things were supposed to be good. However, "measuring economic growth – as the current crisis proves – is no way to rate the health of the planet" (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/02/climatechange-economicgrowth for details).

What exactly does building more homes achieve? Canadians have already outpaced our American neighbors in terms of spending on credit (a very bad habit of overconfidence fueled by recent political statements like "ours is the most robust banking system in the world" and "we are sheltered from this storm"). Is this really the time to encourage people to buy new homes and stretch their mortgages even more? Is it really beneficial for the city to increase the new areas it has to service while the infrastructure in older neighborhoods is on the verge of collapse? From what I've heard the construction trades in Ottawa were already over-stretched, with houses taking 16 months to build rather than the normal 9. It sure is fun and exciting for people to obsess over new homes, but what does that do for us in the long term? For example, what are we going to do in fifteen years, when the existing neighborhoods currently bedlocked by the babyboomer bulge are finally available, but all the new families have moved ever further out?

I profoundly disagree with the comment that "growth" - at least in the sense of construction - is "good" for us, even if it generates "profit" for the lucky few, who then spend much of it offshore for electronic gadgets that our own labour force is too expensive to manufacture here, because too many people are tied to construction... Just moving money around simply does not create wealth. You can't export homes. You can't really export residential construction expertise to other parts of the world. All you can do is increase demand for natural resources best left untapped and artificially boost wage expectations due to false labour shortages (because people are working on the wrong things). How is that supposed to be good for us in the long run?

Let's focus on ruban renewal instead - better services, better quality of life. The charm of old cities like Montreal and Boston arose directly from the intensities of their populations. Rather than obsessing over manicuring their 5,000 square feet of grass and driveway with pesticides and oil products, and filling their homes with ephemeral gadgets, residents should be able to gather in cafes, markets, theaters, pubs and parks, and focus on the finer qualities of life.

It's easy, and politically convenient to focus attention on shiny new things, especially when the old things aren't turning out as well as we had hoped. It's simple and simple sells. But praising expansion is also cheap politics, and poor public policy.

Never taken such a public stance before; we'll see where this goes. I wonder if it'll even be published. At least my local councilor is already a strong proponent for intensification.

short-term politics fail to address underlying issues

'Western' democracies usually allow a few years of actual governance between pre-election orgies. That kind of directional stability is usually pretty good provided it doesn't drift too far off-ideological center. However, when it comes to generational trends, 4-year terms doesn't even come close to even giving them the time to grapple, let alone understand or even communicate, the magnitude and complexity of the problem.

But here's a key primer from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152765213
:

PLAINLY, A key to reducing violence is to reduce birthrates. According to Heinsohn, this could be achieved through widespread knowledge of birth control measures and the will to use them. Such an option, however, is unlikely because of religious opposition among traditional Muslims.

Since they can't tackle religion, they can, and do (especially in the current budget) focus on jobs. Giving people opportunities to work forces them to think (hopefully at least a little) more carefully about their own future. A little employment uncertainty (take too much time off and you might be fired) probably "helps" in that regard.

But this is still terribly short-sighted. Jobs in the service industry (Home Depot, Tim Hortons etc) may keep people busy, but they aren't as rewarding as, say, having a loving family. And the construction industry is only going to last as long as the city centres and old suburbs are bedlocked with aging baby-boomers who don't want to turn their 4-bedroom homes over to new families.

Expect the perfect storm in 10 years or so: the boomers will be buried, after straining our healthcare system to the breaking point, there will be a ton of real-estate available (housing market collapse), service industry will follow (no boomers sipping coffee all day every day at Tims anymore), and the public service will be left with a massive gap of experience, and industry as a whole will be staffed with people who were raised in perpetual economic growth and will resent no longer having what they've come to believe as entitlements rather than a reward for a strong work ethic. Economy as a whole will implode, people will stay at home with nothing to do but have kids, and you're set for another generation of extreme violence.

This is why I think the current budget, or even 4-yr politicking, doesn't even come close to trying to balance the underlying pressures that contribute to social stability or collapse. It's purely reactionary and terribly short-sighted.

I'm still hoping for a politician with a vision for the future, that can carve a proper role in the world to give Canadians from shore to shore to shore a sense of pride, common long-term purpose, and opportunity to share peace and prosperity. Perhaps that should be added to the Constitution, so the Senate can fulfill that as part of their mandate to defend, protect and promote it.

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)?

angry mice

I tried signing up for a trade show on national security scheduled for the near future, but when I called them with problems with the online registration process, they told me the event was canceled due to security concerns.

ironic (and scary) what happens when you try to build a better mousetrap these days...