On honour and democracy

Where is the honour in cheating democracy to prove the system is broken?   Beating one's spouse to prove one's superior strength simply isn't acceptable; where is the moral difference?

Also

The Nigel/Novak affair proves that elections aren't just about choosing a prime minister- but all the people around him/her that influence his/her discourse.

Time is relative

In admiration (and some jealousy) of long-term state planning:
"In 500 years you will see [that] history is on our side."
– December 10, 2010
– Tan Changliu (Chinese communist official)

I hope this is not a trend

I'm noticing in a draft bill proposing changes to legislation that instances of "the minister is satisfied that [X]" are slowly being replaced with "that, in the minister's opinion, is [X]" .
While the former creates an expectation that the minister has reviewed evidence impartially prepared by the department (which one can assume is largely science-based), the latter does not. So I wonder, what exactly will form the basis of the minister's "opinion" : Personal interests? Religious beliefs? Party lines? And how will the Opposition hold them to account? Where did this change come from: drafting team's own initiative, or party influence? And most importantly, how can any of this be the public interest?

posted from Bloggeroid

Change - or not (yet)

When I left the office, the earliest batches of project phase 1 were starting to be finalized, the final batches of phase 1 of the project were being launched, and phase 2 of the project was being planned.

When I left the office, our program funding was in its sunset year and a proposal had been submitted for another few years.

When I left the office, our enabling authority (the legislation that allows/mandates us to do what we do) was several years past its "mandatory" review date (rumour had it that the minority government at the time feared the legislative review process would become a can of worms).

When I left the office, we had a minority Conservative government.

...

Here I am now, nine months later, about to go back to work.

I'm not sure how reassuring it is, if at all, to have learned last week (at lunch with some of my office mates) that nothing, not a single thing, has changed. Except that we have a majority Conservative government and somehow we still had an operating budget.

Not sure though how long that funding (or our legislated requirement to do our work) will last, if this is any indication of the secretive governing mindset here...

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can't believe their childishness

I don't know how many rants I've emailed myself with the intention to post, but I just came across this and can't get over it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/01/stalled_investigation.html

this is the type of protective action I would find amusing in a 5 or 6 year old who knows he's doing something wrong; from a party charged with leading the country, that's a whole other story.

and do they expect to lead a minority government "in good faith" ??

and the budget's gonna be a good one, "trust us" ???

it's almost as principally offensive as their communications campaign aimed squarely at the gut.

this nails it right on the head

I've felt something has been profoundly wrong with the Conservative Party's communications strategy for a few years. Now I know exactly what it is. Read the 2nd review (the one by Stephen Haines):

http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0771032994/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&2115RM6D8KAPZVI6GHelpfulReviews1.s=SUCCESS&2115RM6D8KAPZVI6GHelpfulReviews1.v=1&voteError=0

in those words, what makes me react so is that the communications campaign is so deliberately aimed at "the gut" to silence "the head," that we (the public) become very susceptible to being manipulated and gladly give them "absolute power" / corruption a la evil Empire. Not that I expect them to be that way, but I can't help but wonder why they choose a strategy that sets that up so beautifully?

righteousness vs self-righteousness

context: ottawa bus drivers are on strike (this is now week 6), severely inconveniencing ottawa residents. negotiations broke off several times; the city refused to comply with a mediator, the union refused to put the city's final offer to its members, etc. meanwhile, both sides held wildly different public relations programs: the mayor has been on the news daily nd city council is taking full page ads in the local papers, while the union is refusing to speak to media outlets that don't paint them in a neutral (if not positive) manner (side note: that ugly tactic worked with the Harper Conservatives, but the union doesn't quite have the same clout). anyway, the results of a public opinion poll were released last week, indicating something like 90% of residents agree with the city's approach to stand firm and not give in to the scheduling demands of the union. the city (especially right-wing nutsoid radio stations) now claim that gives them a clear mandate to maintain its position.

point: Besides the fact that both sides aren't negotiating in good faith and are holding the residents hostage in this debacle, it really bothers me that they are using public opinion as a weapon, and claiming "the right thing to do" on public opinion after a deliberate media campaign.

I'd like to remind them that an effective communications strategy does NOT in itself give them the moral high ground!

who's being undemocratic?

Nelson Wiseman, political science professor at the University of Toronto, […] dismissed Harper's attacks on the coalition, who reportedly called it an "undemocratic seizure of power."

"The Conservatives are arguing it's undemocratic, but actually elections don't elect governments," said Wiseman. "They elect Parliaments. Parliaments make a government. Parliaments can break a government."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/gg-return.html

deconstructing Conservative party lies

Broadbent (past leader of NDP) speaks out:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/coalition-broadbent.html

And former GG speaks up:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/12/03/parl-schreyer.html

This type of scenario (arguing over who/what we vote for/give a mandate to (i.e., party or MP)) will never be put to rest until we elect a President (or GG), independently of parliamentarians we send to the Commons. This is the real democratic reform this country needs (Senate reform is purely a red herring that simultaneously provides a convenient excuse to abolish it in the quest for absolute rule).

this is NOT a "coup d'état"

from Google:

(Fr. "strike at the state") the sudden overthrow of a government by a small group.
www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/tignorterms.php

A sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people, in a more or less violent fashion.
arabbox.free.fr/islamaphonia1/Muziq.htm
"without the consent of the people" - that must be why Conservatives are desperately trying to rally Canadians...

a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
nothing illegal or forceful about this

A coup d’état (also coup) is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup d'état
nothing illegal about this

The sudden overthrow of a government, differing from a revolution by being carried out by a small group of people who replace only the leading figures
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coup d'état
for the record, wiktionary's big sister wikipedia defines it a lot better:
A coup d’état, often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.
there is nothing unconstitutional about this proposal, unless they go so far as to disregard an unfavorable decision by the Governor General...

So please, if you're ignorant, please feel free to continue calling this a coup d'etat.

Information - bad for public opinion!

...You'd think that's the marketing mantra for the conservatives these days.

They've created a website, rally 4 canada (i'm not going to honour them with a link or even correct spelling), with a lot of misinformation. allow me to deconstruct some of their lies:

Layton negotiating with Duceppe "for quite some time to form a plan to seize power" - that's what opposition parties do during a minority government. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Conservatives were doing the same when Martin was PM...

"and to overthrow the government" - that's part of how the first past the post system is supposed to work.

"overturn the results of the last election" - overturn the results, you mean introduce non-elected members to parliament? clearly Harper is trying to implant the (FALSE) notion that Canada elected Him personally. (that's NOT how our system works, folks!)

"without seeking consent from we the Canadian voters" - the electorate does NOT choose who the government will be - they, we merely choose who we send from our riding to REPRESENT us. Forming the government is the responsibility of the party representing the most ridings, and consent is only required from the Governor General (symbolic, I know).

"from we the Canadian voters" - WE ??? disappointingly reminiscent of the divisive neo-conservative (somebody will surely correct me) friend or foe strategy.

"the Bloc Quebecois is dictating the terms of the next government" - meanwhile, in French, they mock the Bloc for "selling out to a federalist party."

"this unelected government" - again, their members were elected exactly the same way the cons. were; besides, in a minority government, MORE people voted AGAINST the party in power than in favor...

"the government of Canada would be at the mercy of the people committed to destroying our confederation." - how is that different from before? The Bloc has (when convenient to Quebec) supported the previous cons. minority government on surely several occasions. Doesn't that also put Harper's government at the mercy of the same good people?

"people committed to destroying our confederation" - there's an interesting hint of Trudeau in that! fact of the matter is, separatists just don't believe that the current direction Canada is heading in corresponds to the promises made during Confederation; they are bitter over the ol' "bait and switch" that was pulled on them time and again, and they are simply there to ensure an eventual transition is orderly and respectful when (if) ever they choose to go their own way. That's a little different from say, Iran committed to destroying Israel, for example, wouldn't you agree? Additionally, they have a better chance of creating a ideologically compatible federal atmosphere with Dion and Layton than under Harper.

"democracy-loving Canadians... gather to support democracy" - uhm, didn't we do that at the polls six weeks ago? what's undemocratic about parties coming together to represent a majority of ridings trying to form a government? didn't the old PC and Reform parties do exactly that a few years ago?

"support democracy, not political games" - ha, that's funny coming from them.

"in this time of crisis" - what crisis? I thought our "fundamentals were strong," this was only a "technical recession," and "a good time to invest" ?

Funny too, how I can't find the rally 4 canada website in French... might actually allow people to compare their claims! No wonder they are against "expensive" bilingualism - it just makes it harder for them to divide and conquer.

Throne Speech: Environment Critique

The following excerpt from the Speech from the Throne, 19 November 2008 sounds really good; it is uplifting and, I am surprised to say, almost inspirational. Here it is, with my observations:

Our Government understands that Canada’s economic prosperity cannot be sustained without a healthy environment, just as environmental progress cannot be achieved without a healthy economy. Our Government will continue its realistic, responsible approach to addressing the challenge of climate change.

responsible and realistic? the alliteration makes it sound nice, and it is surely meant to be reassuring, but it's also a cheap partisan shot.

Our Government has committed to reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

I'm glad to see he's using all GHGs, not just carbon, but what year is he using as a baseline?

We will meet this goal while also ensuring that Canada’s actions going forward remain comparable to what our partners in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries undertake.

While this may be good for the (currently deeply flawed) economy, it is not good enough to protect unique Canadian environmental needs.

We will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period.

Another partisan shot (implying other approaches would be ineffective), and buys him lots of time - a clear warning too that any delays will be the fault of the partners' and/or provinces. Does that qualify as bullying?

To meet the challenge posed by climate change, we will also need to make greater use of technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases.

No shit, sherlock, but what about the continued rape of the tarsands?

Our Government will set an objective that 90 percent of Canada’s electricity needs be provided by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power by 2020. In support of this ambitious national goal, our Government will continue to provide support for biofuels, wind and other energy alternatives.

"continue?" how about increasing them?

To ensure protection of our vital resources, our Government will bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins.

Outstanding! But what is "bulk water" - does bottling count? And for the Great Lakes, on which our southern neighbors have a legitimate 50% claim, what action will he take to prevent them from piping that water down to Arizona?

Our Government will work with all parties in Parliament to introduce sensible policies that can help consumers and improve our environmental well-being, such as increasing incentives for energy-saving home retrofits.

Glad to see he's reaffirmed the stupidity of scrapping the previous gov'ts program.

Bottom line: are these words meant merely to impress?

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.

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