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.

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!

from hell to television

according to some ideologies, transgressors of social/moral customs (usually called "sinners") go to a place called "hell" though sometimes only after spending some time in a decision-making process ("purgatory") until a time when history (or some conventionally-accepted authority) has decided they are "good" or "bad" (called "judment day").

IMO, hell is therefore only a dark place in people`s minds where they associate memories of dead people with negative emotions (jealousy, anger, hate, contempt, resentment, etc). sometimes people dwell or even thrive on those negative emotions, and anybody who merely harbour them passively are vulnerable to being hijacked by others (kinda like a computer infected with a virus predisposing it to hacker control). if you forgive them, you let go of those negative emotions, you can focus on things that are more likely to contribute to your good health, and you ensure you cannot be taken advantage of through your emotions.

easier said than done, I know.
deep stuff; I should be charging for this. or at least write a book or run my own cable tv channel.

demographics - not fully digested yet

I haven't figured out what makes people want to have kids/not have kids. Might not make sense. Likely oversimplified. Probably not politically acceptable. Certainly not complete.

I think it has something to do with a combination oflifestyle:
--For you "haves" who have none or few kids: is it because it is inconvenient when both work and you want to give each other (and your one/few kid(s) if you have any) the best because that's what you've had/known and you want them to be able to experience it too one day?
--For you "have nots" (who seem to have more kids than the "haves" think they can afford to care for but you seem to manage anyway): Is it because hardship is all you've ever known and you see nothing wrong with raising your kids that way too?

and Social pressure and optimism/faith:
--I suspect majority of peoplesocial groups with no or few kids are ok with that because it makes it easier to control the variables in their favor of their legacy/lineage; they have bought into the "establishment"; they are (over)confident everything is fine and don't see any cause for it to change now (or ever);
--I suspect majority of peoplesocial groups with many kids are doing so partly in the hope of future generations outnumbering and taking down the dwindling but ever-ascending "elites".

Either way, I suspect our "western" ways are leading us to reproductive insufficiency. Comment/email me if you have any thoughts to share.

peeve

I'm really getting annoyed at shows and journalists that interview people on the street or callers and report what they say on some event as the "news." I want the details of the controversial event itself, with commentary from reasonably credible and informed "experts" providing pertinent context and justification.

580 CFRA ("the heartbeat of the city") (puke) is a local radio station that makes me ill. At least I'm not alone in thinking that's where the crazies gaggle. And don't anybody get me started on that idiot "News, Understood" slogan/attitude from Global.

This whole right-wing anti-elitism trend (the FOX network, Harper's Conservatives, the Sara Palin phenomenon, et al.) is making me lose respect for many segments of society that I previously considered equal, which annoys me because it effectively labels me as "elite" - I'm certainly not going to choose sides with self-appointed "real" people who want to hear the same bigoted spitup again and again and can't see that they've fallen for propaganda from power-hungry ideologists who can only truly attain absolute power if people feel good being stupid.

thoughts for 2009

Whereas:
-Support for socialism died (in most parts of the world) due to corruption and ineffectiveness, leading to non-responsive to the needs of the people; and

-Nationalism is going the same way, mired in stakeholder consultation/communication planning loops and poisoned with petty partisanship; and

-Capitalism is imploding because of the rotten core and the absence of regulatory assurance; and

-Consumerism, the punch-drunk high of unbridled environmental exploitation and nouveau-riche giddiness, is environmentally unsustainable and economically doomed;

I ask you,
What -ism do you think will drive the next generation??
(this is a serious question - the first to answer "geo pr-ism" wins a kick in the ass)

I wish you a balanced 2009.
Happy Festivus!

what's the frequency kenneth?

my mental song dial is stuck between stations right now; i can tell there are a couple of songs competing in the background noise but its too vague and broken to be discernable. kinda neat.

petition

http://causes.ca/signatures/petition?cause_id=2

letter to GG

Excellency,
I have been shocked again and again at the belligerence, divisiveness, and contempt for Canadians that Mr. Harper has shown, all the while marketing himself as an "ordinary" Canadian and "protector" of democracy. I hoped the recent election would bring about a more humble, cooperative nature, and initially that is what he portrayed. Unfortunately, that was probably only a ploy to buy time and public opinion while preparing a budget update that clearly goes against core values of this country: respect, fairness, equal opportunity for personal growth, and entraide. His party's actions time and again indicate to me that they wish to diminish all Canadians to "ordinary" status, such that they can be easily manipulated (need to look no further than the conflicting attacks in English and French) and poorly paid, with limited ability to defend let alone promote themselves (example: the contempt for galas). I do not believe that the Conservative Party of Canada is taking this country down a good path.

Given the Parliament we have elected, I believe the Liberal-NDP Coalition is the most effective means of achieving a government that is fair and representative of the values Canada enjoys at home and has promoted abroad. I cannot say whether proroguing the current session will be beneficial or not (likely best merely to cool tempers and let coole heads prevail), but I do humbly request that you grant the Liberal-NDP Coalition the opportunity to form a government, with all the authority of your position and a reassuring speech that we must remember what we stand for together, not only with our traditions, but with our vision.

Sincerely,

sigh

after writing and erasing three rambling rants on the proposed coalition, how harper's reacting to it, and how disappointed I am that so many Canadians seem to be lapping up the obviously manipulative lies without questioning harper's raw contempt for quebec, i've decided i have too many thoughts to write interesting words.
i'm going to bed.

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.

the senate

"By virtue of our appointment, we are able to focus on long-range issues that may not receive the same attention by politicians running for re-election. In this way, we provide a balance to Parliament that ensures that legislation and important concerns facing Canadians get the attention they deserve."
http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca/In-The-Senate/Our-Role

cattle as recyclers

Printed on a trading card from The Ontario Cattlemen's Association:

Cattle are recyclers. As plants grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. When cattle eat the grass, they burn the gasses back into the air. Some of this gas is carbon dioxide that is then recycled by the plants.

Uhm, wtf?
Mr. OED, please invent something that allows us to distinction between recycling that is good for the planet, from that which is bad for the planet. Because clearly, this company is greenwashing on semantics.

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?

fast food - tasty, but...

some things you`d rather not know, but you're glad you do.

Another illustration of science (chemistry and research) raising
concerns of the 'fast food' industry i.e. tracing the source of this
industry's food supply and what is really in your combo/trio selections
from McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King ...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081114/forbes_fast
_food_081115/20081115/