Brigette DePape/Marcelle.
Wow.
Peace and long life.
2 years ago
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Post-election quick thoughts
It's been a few days now, and I've been able to collect some of my thoughts now:
1) The elephant in the room is the fact that the Conservatives have increased their vote share in each of the three consecutive elections since their 2004 debut (29.6% in 2004, 36.3% in 2006, 37.7% in 2008, and 39.6% in 2011). Regardless of finger-pointing and blame being tossed about between NDP and Liberal supporters, Conservative support has been growing steadily (at least the eligible voters who actually take the effort to vote).
2) The NDP has also increased its vote share in every election since at least 2004, with this election being the most spectacular increase (30.6% now, up from 18.2% in 2008). This, in conjunction with increasing Conservative support, seems to be a clear sign that Canadian politics is becoming more polarized, with the overall "average" slowly shifting rightward.
3) First-past-the-post sucks, and strategic voting was the last best way to prevent vote splitting between left-of-Conservative candidates, especially with the advent of social media and online projects dedicated to strategic voting. Obviously, it didn't work.
4) Can the Liberal vote be considered left-of-centre? Previous Liberal governments have taken up progressive causes if they became politically expedient, but in recent years the Liberals have been slightly right-of-centre. How about the Green party, which aside from environmentalism seems more centre-right than centre-left? The positive spin is that 60% of Canadians didn't want a Conservative government. The negative spin is that over 60% of Canadians voted for parties that were right of centre (with the Conservatives being much further to the right than the Liberals or Greens, of course).
Do I realize that I sound negative? Absolutely. My politics fall left-of-centre, and I am thoroughly disappointed in the election result. I realize that there needs to be a re-thinking of strategy and find a more effective way to connect with voters.
At the same time, I suspect the answer to all of the frustration and brain-racking is simple: at the moment more and more Canadians simply don't have same values as myself or other left-of-centre individuals (of which there are clearly many... just not enough). That's alright (people are free to have their own beliefs), but nevertheless, I still wish the election had turned out differently.
Of course, things can and do change, so the work continues.
Peace and long life.
1) The elephant in the room is the fact that the Conservatives have increased their vote share in each of the three consecutive elections since their 2004 debut (29.6% in 2004, 36.3% in 2006, 37.7% in 2008, and 39.6% in 2011). Regardless of finger-pointing and blame being tossed about between NDP and Liberal supporters, Conservative support has been growing steadily (at least the eligible voters who actually take the effort to vote).
2) The NDP has also increased its vote share in every election since at least 2004, with this election being the most spectacular increase (30.6% now, up from 18.2% in 2008). This, in conjunction with increasing Conservative support, seems to be a clear sign that Canadian politics is becoming more polarized, with the overall "average" slowly shifting rightward.
3) First-past-the-post sucks, and strategic voting was the last best way to prevent vote splitting between left-of-Conservative candidates, especially with the advent of social media and online projects dedicated to strategic voting. Obviously, it didn't work.
4) Can the Liberal vote be considered left-of-centre? Previous Liberal governments have taken up progressive causes if they became politically expedient, but in recent years the Liberals have been slightly right-of-centre. How about the Green party, which aside from environmentalism seems more centre-right than centre-left? The positive spin is that 60% of Canadians didn't want a Conservative government. The negative spin is that over 60% of Canadians voted for parties that were right of centre (with the Conservatives being much further to the right than the Liberals or Greens, of course).
Do I realize that I sound negative? Absolutely. My politics fall left-of-centre, and I am thoroughly disappointed in the election result. I realize that there needs to be a re-thinking of strategy and find a more effective way to connect with voters.
At the same time, I suspect the answer to all of the frustration and brain-racking is simple: at the moment more and more Canadians simply don't have same values as myself or other left-of-centre individuals (of which there are clearly many... just not enough). That's alright (people are free to have their own beliefs), but nevertheless, I still wish the election had turned out differently.
Of course, things can and do change, so the work continues.
Peace and long life.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Canadian Election 2011 result: Conservative majority
I'm not entirely sure what to make of the overall result, but I have a few thoughts to jot down:
1) The total vote share of the Conservatives is 40% (giving them about 165 seats), which is up from last election, so this isn't just a matter of vote-splitting weirdness. For whatever reason that I don't really want to speculate about right now, more people voted for the Conservatives than before. Certainly, it's a disappointment to me that the Conservatives didn't lose any seats for their conduct but rather gained enough seats to form a majority government.
2) The NDP came in second, with a vote share of 31%, giving them about 105 seats. I had been hoping that the NDP could have lead a more effective opposition against a minority Conservative government, but it is all for naught. The opposition in a majority government situation is basically useless.
3) A key point to remember is that the NDP fed on other progressive incumbents for most of their seat gains.
Given that the shift in seats was mostly amongst opposition-held ridings (with many falling to the Conservatives), there needs to be a major re-think in political strategy and campaigning amongst all opposition parties (seeing that the Conservative majority government is unlikely to introduce proportional representation measures... just a guess).
I'm too tired to continue tonight... I'll continue later if I manage to think of anything.
Peace and long life.
1) The total vote share of the Conservatives is 40% (giving them about 165 seats), which is up from last election, so this isn't just a matter of vote-splitting weirdness. For whatever reason that I don't really want to speculate about right now, more people voted for the Conservatives than before. Certainly, it's a disappointment to me that the Conservatives didn't lose any seats for their conduct but rather gained enough seats to form a majority government.
2) The NDP came in second, with a vote share of 31%, giving them about 105 seats. I had been hoping that the NDP could have lead a more effective opposition against a minority Conservative government, but it is all for naught. The opposition in a majority government situation is basically useless.
3) A key point to remember is that the NDP fed on other progressive incumbents for most of their seat gains.
Given that the shift in seats was mostly amongst opposition-held ridings (with many falling to the Conservatives), there needs to be a major re-think in political strategy and campaigning amongst all opposition parties (seeing that the Conservative majority government is unlikely to introduce proportional representation measures... just a guess).
I'm too tired to continue tonight... I'll continue later if I manage to think of anything.
Peace and long life.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
T minus 2.5 days, or so...
... the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada.
-Me, in my previous blog post
Well, I'll concede that I was wrong as the NDP continues to gain popular support according to polls. So while my foot is in my mouth, I have a few thoughts to note:
1) As I noted in my previous post, there is still an "indifference of the majority" at work here. Despite everything, it appears that the Conservatives will win the most seats because things continued smoothly over the last several years for a large number of people.
2) The NDP surge, even if the NDP comes in second, could be considered vindication for progressives everywhere in Canada. Progressives weren't just running around screaming that the sky was falling. For all the positive rhetoric by the Conservatives, a large number of Canadians are unhappy with the previous three years of government... to the point of increasing "polarization" (as if the modern NDP is anything other than a slightly-left-of-centre political party).
3) Assuming a second-place finish for the NDP, the likely Conservative minority government should not view a win as a mandate to do as they wish (but I suspect that they will). Many people were displeased with the previous government, and it's not a tyranny of the majority... it's a democracy.
4) With the demise of the federal Progressive Conservatives in the recent past, it was almost unfathomable to think that the federal Liberals (the oldest federally-registered party in Canada) could face the same fate in the near future... yet, it seems almost possible now.
5) Oddly, my toes taste differently from my fingers. Is that normal?
Peace and long life.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Just for the record about coalition governments
In Canada, we live in a representative democracy. It's a bit messed up because of the first-past-the-post system, where seat distribution is not necessarily indicative of actual voting numbers, but that's not the point of today's post. For all its flaws, Canada is a representative democracy. In each constituency, constituents elect a Member of Parliament who is supposed to best represent their interests.
Why is there such fear about coalition governments? Today, Harper used the possibility of a coalition government for scaremongering. In response, Ignatieff vowed to never seek a coalition government to assuage potential (and, frankly, unfounded) fears amongst the electorate. Duceppe pointed out Harper's hypocrisy by waving a copy of a letter Harper wrote about a possible coalition during the waning days of Paul Martin's Liberal minority.
The likely outcome of the following election is the status quo: the Conservatives will likely win just under half of the seats in the House. In order for Parliament to function in this scenario, parties will have to work together regardless of circumstance. If there are some pressing issues that are shared amongst say the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois and potential legislation can be worked out between the three parties on those few issues (e.g. limiting carbon emissions), consideration should be given to a coalition government. If nothing can be worked out between the three parties (again, assuming no one gets a majority), then the Conservatives would form a minority government.
All Members of Parliament are supposed to serve their constituents, regardless of arrangement of Parliament (majority, minority, coalition, whatever). It's not a "power grab" when these groups of MP's can work together as a government. It's a nonsensical argument: the Liberals in a coalition government would be just as dependent on the NDP and Bloc in a coalition government as a potential Conservative minority would be on the other parties. The NDP and Bloc are not going to mindlessly vote in lockstep with either the Liberals/Conservatives in a coalition/minority government scenario if a bill is disagreeable. MP's have to compromise with each other. That's life in a Parliament without a majority.
The likely sticking point (aside from who gets to introduce bills as a government) is the makeup of the executive. The executive branch has become increasingly (and disproportionately) powerful over the decades, and it is undoubtedly a coveted position. As it stands currently, a Prime Minister is not a dictator. Parliament is ultimately supreme (as it should be, as it is the only branch of government that is elected by the populace).
A problem seems to be a misinterpretation of our electoral system that the Conservatives are willing to play on: the Conservatives want to make it a question of who Canadians want as their leader. A much bigger problem is the apparent implicit acceptance of this "question" as being valid by other politicians and electorate in general.
Canadians don't elect leaders. We elect representatives, who answer to us. Canadians are supposed to be their own leaders.
------------------------------------------
As an aside, the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada. It's not really a tyranny of the majority as much as an indifference of the majority right now (see the unchanging support for all political parties as the Conservatives had to deal with one scandal after another). Complacency has replaced any sense of urgency in dealing with still-existing issues (e.g. climate change, gender inequality, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc.) as the government and media keep harping on how good it is in Canada for most of us. As the electorate disconnects with politics, politicians become more disconnected from the electorate.
Ultimately, any wounds on our democracy will be self-inflicted if we don't re-engage with politics.
Peace and long life.
EDIT: To be fair, I should note that Ignatieff did refer to coalition governments as constitutionally legitimate despite his decision to not enter a coalition. Unfortunately, he didn't go into further detail as to why coalitions are legitimate, so right now in the public eye it stands as his word against Harper's...
Why is there such fear about coalition governments? Today, Harper used the possibility of a coalition government for scaremongering. In response, Ignatieff vowed to never seek a coalition government to assuage potential (and, frankly, unfounded) fears amongst the electorate. Duceppe pointed out Harper's hypocrisy by waving a copy of a letter Harper wrote about a possible coalition during the waning days of Paul Martin's Liberal minority.
The likely outcome of the following election is the status quo: the Conservatives will likely win just under half of the seats in the House. In order for Parliament to function in this scenario, parties will have to work together regardless of circumstance. If there are some pressing issues that are shared amongst say the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois and potential legislation can be worked out between the three parties on those few issues (e.g. limiting carbon emissions), consideration should be given to a coalition government. If nothing can be worked out between the three parties (again, assuming no one gets a majority), then the Conservatives would form a minority government.
All Members of Parliament are supposed to serve their constituents, regardless of arrangement of Parliament (majority, minority, coalition, whatever). It's not a "power grab" when these groups of MP's can work together as a government. It's a nonsensical argument: the Liberals in a coalition government would be just as dependent on the NDP and Bloc in a coalition government as a potential Conservative minority would be on the other parties. The NDP and Bloc are not going to mindlessly vote in lockstep with either the Liberals/Conservatives in a coalition/minority government scenario if a bill is disagreeable. MP's have to compromise with each other. That's life in a Parliament without a majority.
The likely sticking point (aside from who gets to introduce bills as a government) is the makeup of the executive. The executive branch has become increasingly (and disproportionately) powerful over the decades, and it is undoubtedly a coveted position. As it stands currently, a Prime Minister is not a dictator. Parliament is ultimately supreme (as it should be, as it is the only branch of government that is elected by the populace).
A problem seems to be a misinterpretation of our electoral system that the Conservatives are willing to play on: the Conservatives want to make it a question of who Canadians want as their leader. A much bigger problem is the apparent implicit acceptance of this "question" as being valid by other politicians and electorate in general.
Canadians don't elect leaders. We elect representatives, who answer to us. Canadians are supposed to be their own leaders.
------------------------------------------
As an aside, the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada. It's not really a tyranny of the majority as much as an indifference of the majority right now (see the unchanging support for all political parties as the Conservatives had to deal with one scandal after another). Complacency has replaced any sense of urgency in dealing with still-existing issues (e.g. climate change, gender inequality, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc.) as the government and media keep harping on how good it is in Canada for most of us. As the electorate disconnects with politics, politicians become more disconnected from the electorate.
Ultimately, any wounds on our democracy will be self-inflicted if we don't re-engage with politics.
Peace and long life.
EDIT: To be fair, I should note that Ignatieff did refer to coalition governments as constitutionally legitimate despite his decision to not enter a coalition. Unfortunately, he didn't go into further detail as to why coalitions are legitimate, so right now in the public eye it stands as his word against Harper's...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The language of politics
When I was much younger, I recall a librarian who mentioned that a careful selection of words can affect thought. The example he used was of referring to his significant other as his "love" rather than just his "wife" helped reinforce the actual feeling.
The rationale behind his explanation is somewhat vague, but the idea that thought is linked to language is not a new one. Words compartmentalize complex concepts and meanings, allowing even more complex ideas and thoughts to be generated from such words. The most well-known example of this concept is presented in George Orwell's classic fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a totalitarian state's language is a greatly-reduced version of English known as "Newspeak". By destroying as many words as possible while allowing society to still function, the totalitarian Oceania had hoped to minimize independent thought and make it impossible to exchange new ideas that could be detrimental to the Party.
Extending the above concept, the use of different sets of words to discuss a particular topic can have an effect on the tone of the discussion. This is the case with politics, where the language used to discuss politics infiltrated by words that carry unsuitable connotations, both purposely and inadvertently.
Overtly violent rhetoric (particularly from the U.S. Tea Party's leadership) is under the microscope after the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and 17 other people (leaving 5 dead) in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the shooter himself is likely non-partisan, he lived in a society inundated with violent imagery and terminology (not limited to just politics, either) and in a place where getting weaponry was easy.
Going beyond the violent rhetoric in the U.S. that (thankfully) has yet to become commonplace in Canada, one can still find plenty of problematic language used in politics. Politicians often launch attacks on each other with no regard for the degradation of political discourse. (Remember the accusation that an opposition MP was "in cahoots with the Taliban"? There is a reason why the opposition is formally known as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition": having differing opinions should not be interpreted as "disloyalty".)
Language used by the media is often problematic. There are "battles" in elections, and ground is "gained", "held", or "lost" as though territory is being fought over. The media chooses these words to make their narratives sound more exciting, and in a technical sense these words do describe what is going on. However, these words are more strongly associated with warfare between belligerents, and the choice of these words may subtly influence viewers/readers into taking more hardened positions. This effect may be stronger in down times such as the current economic recession, since the public tends to become polarized in bad times anyway.
Partisanship, likely a symptom of the innate human desire to be part of a larger group, is certainly exploited by language as well. It becomes similar to loyalty toward a sports team. One day, yourteam party will win the Stanley Cup election! Of course, language used in sports also borrows heavily from warfare ("battles", "gaining ground the zone", etc.), which makes the usage of such terms in politics even more seemingly-innocuous and subtly damaging at the same time.
Even more commonplace language not necessarily handpicked by the media taints political discourse. For example, apparently we elect "leaders", not representatives. People are elected to "power". We are encouraged in ads to make a difference by voting, but why are we not encouraged to talk with or write to our elected representatives? It distorts the spirit of democracy: the people govern themselves by selecting representatives who will do the necessary work of governing on the people's behalf. Voting is just the first step in participation in a democracy, but the implicit (and probably unintended) message underlying political discourse is that "people should vote for their desired ruler for the next few years and that's okay".
It likely even affects the motivations of people who run for office. I would suspect that those who run for office to serve the public would differ from those who run for office for "power".
Beyond just better education and trying to get people more involved in politics, I submit that the health of our democracy could benefit from changing people's attitudes through something as simple (?) as being observant about even seemingly-innocuous language being used in political discourse.
Peace and long life.
The rationale behind his explanation is somewhat vague, but the idea that thought is linked to language is not a new one. Words compartmentalize complex concepts and meanings, allowing even more complex ideas and thoughts to be generated from such words. The most well-known example of this concept is presented in George Orwell's classic fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a totalitarian state's language is a greatly-reduced version of English known as "Newspeak". By destroying as many words as possible while allowing society to still function, the totalitarian Oceania had hoped to minimize independent thought and make it impossible to exchange new ideas that could be detrimental to the Party.
Extending the above concept, the use of different sets of words to discuss a particular topic can have an effect on the tone of the discussion. This is the case with politics, where the language used to discuss politics infiltrated by words that carry unsuitable connotations, both purposely and inadvertently.
Overtly violent rhetoric (particularly from the U.S. Tea Party's leadership) is under the microscope after the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and 17 other people (leaving 5 dead) in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the shooter himself is likely non-partisan, he lived in a society inundated with violent imagery and terminology (not limited to just politics, either) and in a place where getting weaponry was easy.
Going beyond the violent rhetoric in the U.S. that (thankfully) has yet to become commonplace in Canada, one can still find plenty of problematic language used in politics. Politicians often launch attacks on each other with no regard for the degradation of political discourse. (Remember the accusation that an opposition MP was "in cahoots with the Taliban"? There is a reason why the opposition is formally known as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition": having differing opinions should not be interpreted as "disloyalty".)
Language used by the media is often problematic. There are "battles" in elections, and ground is "gained", "held", or "lost" as though territory is being fought over. The media chooses these words to make their narratives sound more exciting, and in a technical sense these words do describe what is going on. However, these words are more strongly associated with warfare between belligerents, and the choice of these words may subtly influence viewers/readers into taking more hardened positions. This effect may be stronger in down times such as the current economic recession, since the public tends to become polarized in bad times anyway.
Partisanship, likely a symptom of the innate human desire to be part of a larger group, is certainly exploited by language as well. It becomes similar to loyalty toward a sports team. One day, your
Even more commonplace language not necessarily handpicked by the media taints political discourse. For example, apparently we elect "leaders", not representatives. People are elected to "power". We are encouraged in ads to make a difference by voting, but why are we not encouraged to talk with or write to our elected representatives? It distorts the spirit of democracy: the people govern themselves by selecting representatives who will do the necessary work of governing on the people's behalf. Voting is just the first step in participation in a democracy, but the implicit (and probably unintended) message underlying political discourse is that "people should vote for their desired ruler for the next few years and that's okay".
It likely even affects the motivations of people who run for office. I would suspect that those who run for office to serve the public would differ from those who run for office for "power".
Beyond just better education and trying to get people more involved in politics, I submit that the health of our democracy could benefit from changing people's attitudes through something as simple (?) as being observant about even seemingly-innocuous language being used in political discourse.
Peace and long life.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Refuse to hate...
... that's what Martin Luther King, Jr. would advocate.
Its corollary would probably be "there is nothing to fear but fear itself."
There is a lot of fuss in the media over the arrests of alleged terrorists in Canada, as explained by Dr. Dawg. Worse, the fuss is generally of the fear-mongering variety.
Plenty of people have malicious and murderous intent, and they're not limited to any easily-identifiable "group". Looking at Statistics Canada (while we still can... but that's another subject), the number of homicides in Canada ranged from a low of 594 (in 2007) to 663 (in 2005). In 2009, there were 610 homicides and 806 attempted murders.
There were also 443284 violent Criminal Code violations in total. As it turns out, a lot of people just happen to be malicious jerks (to put it in the mildest terms).
Terrorism is indeed frightening in its concept. Strangers killing other strangers en masse at random and isolated points in time gives terrorism an air of uncertainty, and people naturally fear the unknown. From a statistical standpoint, though, terrorism just isn't a threat that should be on normal people's minds. Major incidents such as the bombing of Air India Flight 182 or September 11, 2001 tend to be the result of series of unfortunate events (i.e. intelligence and law enforcement simultaneously messing up repeatedly) that just are highly unlikely.
The arrests of three alleged terrorists doesn't change anything. The death toll from terrorism on Canadian soil since 9/11 remains 0. Besides, the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Premature finger-pointing and paranoia only fuels fear and, eventually, hatred. That's not the way to live, and it's not the future that the majority of us want to create.
--------------------------------------------
"The Drumhead" is a fourth-season "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode (original air date of April 29, 1991) that is probably brought up a lot in these overly-paranoid times for its prescience, and it really needs to be brought up again. It was probably written with McCarthyism in mind, which means it's not actually prescient. Its relevance is more likely an indication that our society has not learned from history and is now doomed to repeat it (to paraphrase George Santayana).
In summary, a Klingon spy working for the Romulans sends classified schematics of the Enterprise's warp core to the Romulan intelligence agency (the Tal Shiar). Shortly afterward, an explosion damages the warp core but luckily does not lead to the ship's destruction. After the spy is found not to be the cause of the explosion, an external investigator (a Star Trek cliché - a misguided Admiral) starts to suspect a larger Romulan conspiracy within Starfleet itself and begins interrogating a crew member with Romulan ancestry. It's got to be the Romulan crew member, right? (The answer should be obvious, but of course it's not.)
This episode really needs to be watched to be fully appreciated, in my humble opinion anyway.
Being an episodic series, what they've become is reverted to the norm at the end of the episode. In real life, though, repairing damage done is not easy. It's just best not to go down that path.
Peace and long life.
Its corollary would probably be "there is nothing to fear but fear itself."
There is a lot of fuss in the media over the arrests of alleged terrorists in Canada, as explained by Dr. Dawg. Worse, the fuss is generally of the fear-mongering variety.
Plenty of people have malicious and murderous intent, and they're not limited to any easily-identifiable "group". Looking at Statistics Canada (while we still can... but that's another subject), the number of homicides in Canada ranged from a low of 594 (in 2007) to 663 (in 2005). In 2009, there were 610 homicides and 806 attempted murders.
There were also 443284 violent Criminal Code violations in total. As it turns out, a lot of people just happen to be malicious jerks (to put it in the mildest terms).
Terrorism is indeed frightening in its concept. Strangers killing other strangers en masse at random and isolated points in time gives terrorism an air of uncertainty, and people naturally fear the unknown. From a statistical standpoint, though, terrorism just isn't a threat that should be on normal people's minds. Major incidents such as the bombing of Air India Flight 182 or September 11, 2001 tend to be the result of series of unfortunate events (i.e. intelligence and law enforcement simultaneously messing up repeatedly) that just are highly unlikely.
The arrests of three alleged terrorists doesn't change anything. The death toll from terrorism on Canadian soil since 9/11 remains 0. Besides, the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Premature finger-pointing and paranoia only fuels fear and, eventually, hatred. That's not the way to live, and it's not the future that the majority of us want to create.
--------------------------------------------
"The Drumhead" is a fourth-season "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode (original air date of April 29, 1991) that is probably brought up a lot in these overly-paranoid times for its prescience, and it really needs to be brought up again. It was probably written with McCarthyism in mind, which means it's not actually prescient. Its relevance is more likely an indication that our society has not learned from history and is now doomed to repeat it (to paraphrase George Santayana).
In summary, a Klingon spy working for the Romulans sends classified schematics of the Enterprise's warp core to the Romulan intelligence agency (the Tal Shiar). Shortly afterward, an explosion damages the warp core but luckily does not lead to the ship's destruction. After the spy is found not to be the cause of the explosion, an external investigator (a Star Trek cliché - a misguided Admiral) starts to suspect a larger Romulan conspiracy within Starfleet itself and begins interrogating a crew member with Romulan ancestry. It's got to be the Romulan crew member, right? (The answer should be obvious, but of course it's not.)
This episode really needs to be watched to be fully appreciated, in my humble opinion anyway.
Worf: Sir, the Federation does have enemies! We must seek them out!
Picard: Oh, yes. That's how it starts, but the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mr. Worf. I don't like what we have become!
Being an episodic series, what they've become is reverted to the norm at the end of the episode. In real life, though, repairing damage done is not easy. It's just best not to go down that path.
Peace and long life.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Insanity and absurdity in Toronto
In a lot of ways, a protest is symbolic more than anything else. It is impossible for the general public to gather any specific details from a protest... only the the general issues that concern at least a segment of their fellow citizens. It is also impossible for policy change to be discussed between protesters and those with political power in such a setting.
That being said, the freedom of peaceful assembly is of great importance because it symbolizes the general health of a democracy, like a canary in a coal mine. It is only one of numerous rights and freedoms protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also happens to be one that often provides logistical headaches. How a government handles citizens' rights and freedoms during the most trying of times (from a governmental standpoint) is indicative of how much it respects its own written laws. (As Captain Benjamin Sisko once observed, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise"... a true saint would hold to his or her convictions in difficult times.)
So what has the canary in the coal mine... err, Toronto... told us? The initial signs have caused the canary vomit in revulsion, which then caused it to choke on its own vomit and die. (That was also before the canary had a chance to learn of the 5-metre rule made up by police.)
Right now they are just allegations, but as they say, where there is smoke, there is fire... The idea of detention cages in downtown Toronto should have been of concern before any of this happened (not that there was much time to react to the security plans, though).
Canadians (not just Torontonians) should be incredibly angry and concerned. The next election cannot come soon enough.
------------------------------------------
A couple of other points:
1) In a democracy, government serves the people.
The Canadian government decides to hold the G20 summit in downtown Toronto; however, due to "security risks", over $1 billion is necessary to convert downtown Toronto into a fortress.
So what does the Canadian populace gain from this exercise? Nothing, except for a bigger deficit. The G20's decision making process is inaccessible to the public, nor is it influenced by the public. Holding the summit in Toronto doesn't really show off Toronto as a tourist destination to other national leaders when "Fortress Toronto" is only a husk of its usual busy and colorful self. The only "benefit" is the "prestige" of holding the G20 summit, i.e. nothing tangible.
You know what would have been easier than turning an open city into a fortress? How about holding a summit in a remote location that is easily defended, like somewhere in Canada's majestic mountains. That would be less expensive, the number of protesters and troublemakers would be reduced, there would be fewer bystanders, and there would be less property for vandals to damage.
The converse is true. By actively choosing downtown Toronto, it was more expensive for taxpayers, more accessible for protesters and troublemakers, more bystanders who may be injured if things were go get out of hand, and more property for vandals to damage. I don't exactly sense a desire to serve the people.
2) Police defend citizens and property from criminals.
So what did over $1 billion worth of security provide?
Ignoring theories of police officers pretending to be vandals to discredit protesters, what basically happened was that dozens of masked vandals decided to smash windows and burn unoccupied and isolated police cars, which was not stopped by the police for at least half an hour.
The protection of property wasn't exactly carried out to perfection, to say the least.
After the initial rash of vandalism, later protests were peaceful. Unfortunately, as a result of the vandals, the police were either on edge or embarrassed after their earlier failure, so they cracked down hard... on the peaceful protesters. The treatment of people in the detention cages, as indicated previously, was also extremely poor. (Also getting a badge of shame would be the mainstream media, which could focus only on the vandalism for a long while.)
Numerous reports of violations of citizens' rights and freedoms (and that's not counting the freedom of peaceful assembly) doesn't exactly scream "successful defense of citizens".
In conclusion, the government made a bad decision that they knew would increase the likelihood of confrontation between police and protesters for the sake of political "prestige". (And yes, they knew... hence, the billion dollars of security.) The debacle that resulted should not have surprised anyone.
Peace and long life.
That being said, the freedom of peaceful assembly is of great importance because it symbolizes the general health of a democracy, like a canary in a coal mine. It is only one of numerous rights and freedoms protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also happens to be one that often provides logistical headaches. How a government handles citizens' rights and freedoms during the most trying of times (from a governmental standpoint) is indicative of how much it respects its own written laws. (As Captain Benjamin Sisko once observed, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise"... a true saint would hold to his or her convictions in difficult times.)
So what has the canary in the coal mine... err, Toronto... told us? The initial signs have caused the canary vomit in revulsion, which then caused it to choke on its own vomit and die. (That was also before the canary had a chance to learn of the 5-metre rule made up by police.)
Right now they are just allegations, but as they say, where there is smoke, there is fire... The idea of detention cages in downtown Toronto should have been of concern before any of this happened (not that there was much time to react to the security plans, though).
Canadians (not just Torontonians) should be incredibly angry and concerned. The next election cannot come soon enough.
------------------------------------------
A couple of other points:
1) In a democracy, government serves the people.
The Canadian government decides to hold the G20 summit in downtown Toronto; however, due to "security risks", over $1 billion is necessary to convert downtown Toronto into a fortress.
So what does the Canadian populace gain from this exercise? Nothing, except for a bigger deficit. The G20's decision making process is inaccessible to the public, nor is it influenced by the public. Holding the summit in Toronto doesn't really show off Toronto as a tourist destination to other national leaders when "Fortress Toronto" is only a husk of its usual busy and colorful self. The only "benefit" is the "prestige" of holding the G20 summit, i.e. nothing tangible.
You know what would have been easier than turning an open city into a fortress? How about holding a summit in a remote location that is easily defended, like somewhere in Canada's majestic mountains. That would be less expensive, the number of protesters and troublemakers would be reduced, there would be fewer bystanders, and there would be less property for vandals to damage.
The converse is true. By actively choosing downtown Toronto, it was more expensive for taxpayers, more accessible for protesters and troublemakers, more bystanders who may be injured if things were go get out of hand, and more property for vandals to damage. I don't exactly sense a desire to serve the people.
2) Police defend citizens and property from criminals.
So what did over $1 billion worth of security provide?
Ignoring theories of police officers pretending to be vandals to discredit protesters, what basically happened was that dozens of masked vandals decided to smash windows and burn unoccupied and isolated police cars, which was not stopped by the police for at least half an hour.
The protection of property wasn't exactly carried out to perfection, to say the least.
After the initial rash of vandalism, later protests were peaceful. Unfortunately, as a result of the vandals, the police were either on edge or embarrassed after their earlier failure, so they cracked down hard... on the peaceful protesters. The treatment of people in the detention cages, as indicated previously, was also extremely poor. (Also getting a badge of shame would be the mainstream media, which could focus only on the vandalism for a long while.)
Numerous reports of violations of citizens' rights and freedoms (and that's not counting the freedom of peaceful assembly) doesn't exactly scream "successful defense of citizens".
In conclusion, the government made a bad decision that they knew would increase the likelihood of confrontation between police and protesters for the sake of political "prestige". (And yes, they knew... hence, the billion dollars of security.) The debacle that resulted should not have surprised anyone.
Peace and long life.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Aid "flotilla" boarded
A convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza was boarded by Israeli commandos in international waters. There are conflicting reports about what exactly happened, but in the end, the ships came under Israeli control.
The Israeli government released videos showing resistance from people armed with knives and broken glass bottles (and other random stuff), but seriously, that would be expected from the crew since they thought that they were under attack.
As for the boarding itself, one must wonder about the foreign policy goals that the Israeli government is trying to achieve from this action. Clearly, they were concerned about the ships, the crew, or the cargo approaching their blockade. If they were worried about the cargo, they could have simply said that they would pass on the aid after inspection. It's doubtful that the crew could have been any real threat, even if "terrorists" were on board, especially since Israel would not have lifted the blockade. The ships would not have been any military threat either, with the exception of ramming being an extremely improbable military use of the civilian ships (they would not survive getting close to real warships).
One possibility is that the Israeli government was expecting a confrontation eventually and decided to have it further away from their shores (even if it meant boarding the ships in international waters). The other possibility is that the Israeli government wanted to flaunt its military power and make an "example" of the convoy to discourage future attempts at getting past their blockade.
Regardless of the exact reasoning that led to the boarding, the other issue is the extreme that the Israeli government is willing to go to in the name of national security. The Israeli government has real security concerns, but it has gone too far with regards to the Palestinians. It doesn't yield land for the Palestinians to create their own nation state, but it doesn't consider Palestinians as citizens, nor does it respect Palestinians' human rights as people living "within" Israel's effective borders. Palestinians are trapped in tiny areas, and they are now denied aid from others.
Israel probably has lingering fears from their numerous historical conflicts with its neighbouring states, but it is not an excuse for their actions against the Palestinians. People (in general, and not just referring to Israel and this incident) need to try harder rise above their baser instincts (such as acting on fear and paranoia) and do the "right thing"... after all, isn't that supposed to be one of the redeeming characteristics of humanity?
Peace and long life.
EDIT: Fixed grammar.
The Israeli government released videos showing resistance from people armed with knives and broken glass bottles (and other random stuff), but seriously, that would be expected from the crew since they thought that they were under attack.
As for the boarding itself, one must wonder about the foreign policy goals that the Israeli government is trying to achieve from this action. Clearly, they were concerned about the ships, the crew, or the cargo approaching their blockade. If they were worried about the cargo, they could have simply said that they would pass on the aid after inspection. It's doubtful that the crew could have been any real threat, even if "terrorists" were on board, especially since Israel would not have lifted the blockade. The ships would not have been any military threat either, with the exception of ramming being an extremely improbable military use of the civilian ships (they would not survive getting close to real warships).
One possibility is that the Israeli government was expecting a confrontation eventually and decided to have it further away from their shores (even if it meant boarding the ships in international waters). The other possibility is that the Israeli government wanted to flaunt its military power and make an "example" of the convoy to discourage future attempts at getting past their blockade.
Regardless of the exact reasoning that led to the boarding, the other issue is the extreme that the Israeli government is willing to go to in the name of national security. The Israeli government has real security concerns, but it has gone too far with regards to the Palestinians. It doesn't yield land for the Palestinians to create their own nation state, but it doesn't consider Palestinians as citizens, nor does it respect Palestinians' human rights as people living "within" Israel's effective borders. Palestinians are trapped in tiny areas, and they are now denied aid from others.
Israel probably has lingering fears from their numerous historical conflicts with its neighbouring states, but it is not an excuse for their actions against the Palestinians. People (in general, and not just referring to Israel and this incident) need to try harder rise above their baser instincts (such as acting on fear and paranoia) and do the "right thing"... after all, isn't that supposed to be one of the redeeming characteristics of humanity?
Peace and long life.
EDIT: Fixed grammar.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Destroying is easier than creating
In my last post, I contemplated the difference between simple legislation that requires tolerance and government efforts to promote acceptance.
There are clues that the Conservative government finds certain progressive aspects of Canadian society displeasing to them; however, the Canadian public would not support an obvious attempt to legislate away people's existing rights. So how to circumvent the "obstacle" that is the Canadian electorate?
It's easy, actually. As I've noted before, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Rights groups ultimately want acceptance of diversity, and they exist because not all of society is equitable (or even tolerant in the case of people with different sexual orientations). As such, the Conservatives are simply axing programs and cutting funding to reduce the effectiveness (or even eliminate) of rights groups. Unfortunately, money is necessary for anything to succeed in the long run.
Without effective rights groups, the elements of society that despise diversity will remain (and possibly grow in strength if they get funding). I suspect that the Conservatives hope that these elements would regress Canadian society slowly over time, benefiting their agenda (and themselves, due to more like-minded voters) in the long run.
The sick irony is the ability for the Conservatives to use the fact that Canada is reasonably progressive as a defense. Here is a hypothetical line of questioning and answering:
The most staggering realization for the Canadian public (hopefully) is how much a government can accomplish if it really set its mind to achieving its goals outside the legislative branch. For the most part, not much damage has been done through legislative means (although Harper's multiple prorogation of Parliament and general defiance with regards to Afghan detainee documents have tested the limits of his executive power against the legislative branch). Much more damage has been done with money... how it has been spent, and how it has been denied.
Peace and long life.
There are clues that the Conservative government finds certain progressive aspects of Canadian society displeasing to them; however, the Canadian public would not support an obvious attempt to legislate away people's existing rights. So how to circumvent the "obstacle" that is the Canadian electorate?
It's easy, actually. As I've noted before, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Rights groups ultimately want acceptance of diversity, and they exist because not all of society is equitable (or even tolerant in the case of people with different sexual orientations). As such, the Conservatives are simply axing programs and cutting funding to reduce the effectiveness (or even eliminate) of rights groups. Unfortunately, money is necessary for anything to succeed in the long run.
Without effective rights groups, the elements of society that despise diversity will remain (and possibly grow in strength if they get funding). I suspect that the Conservatives hope that these elements would regress Canadian society slowly over time, benefiting their agenda (and themselves, due to more like-minded voters) in the long run.
The sick irony is the ability for the Conservatives to use the fact that Canada is reasonably progressive as a defense. Here is a hypothetical line of questioning and answering:
Status of Women? Cut the word "equality", and then axed. Why? Because with regards to gender equality, "mission accomplished".
The most staggering realization for the Canadian public (hopefully) is how much a government can accomplish if it really set its mind to achieving its goals outside the legislative branch. For the most part, not much damage has been done through legislative means (although Harper's multiple prorogation of Parliament and general defiance with regards to Afghan detainee documents have tested the limits of his executive power against the legislative branch). Much more damage has been done with money... how it has been spent, and how it has been denied.
Peace and long life.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Acceptance and tolerance: multiculturalism and beyond
In the opinion section of a student newspaper years ago, I once read that there was a difference between acceptance and tolerance. It's true. There is a difference in legislating laws against hate crimes and discrimination, which "impose" tolerance, and an official government policy that promotes diversity a part of the nation's identity.
That official government policy that I refer to is, of course, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was an ingenious nuance that encouraged differences in people's cultural heritages as strengths rather than something to be tolerated. Now, implementing multiculturalism would not have affected people with entrenched viewpoints (for or against cultural diversity), but it would have had an influence on youth growing up. Canada was no longer a country of various groups tolerating each other, but a country of diverse groups that was part of a bigger group. Furthermore, government funding was available for cultural groups to hold events to help preserve Canada's multicultural landscape.
(Of course for all the talk of multiculturalism, Canada hasn't helped its original cultures, the First Nations, enough... but that sordid tale is for another day.)
Now with rose-coloured glasses off, I doubt that everyone happily accepts this diversity (although I suspect that a growing number of people do thanks to the newer and younger generations). Furthermore, there are legitimate challenges in trying to preserve cultural diversity, especially for newer generations of immigrants. The U.S. already is a major cultural exporter, and despite multiculturalism, Canada does have its own "overall culture" as well. Regardless, multiculturalism is a well-intentioned government policy that has borne fruit.
-------------------------------------------
Cultural diversity is not the only kind of diversity in Canada. It can be expanded and encouraged.
For example, despite legislation protecting people of varying sexual orientation, I suspect that a fair number of Canadians tolerate the idea more than accept it (or sometimes, not even bother to tolerate, such in the cases where religion is a "reason"). Ontario's new sex education program that includes a discussion of homosexuality seems to be well-intentioned and a step in the right direction. It certainly won't happen with the Conservatives in power, but there may be a day where the federal government has a program that encourages acceptance of people with different sexual orientation.
It shouldn't end there either. Diversity of people, viewpoints, and ideas is what will keep Canada vibrant.
Peace and long life.
That official government policy that I refer to is, of course, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was an ingenious nuance that encouraged differences in people's cultural heritages as strengths rather than something to be tolerated. Now, implementing multiculturalism would not have affected people with entrenched viewpoints (for or against cultural diversity), but it would have had an influence on youth growing up. Canada was no longer a country of various groups tolerating each other, but a country of diverse groups that was part of a bigger group. Furthermore, government funding was available for cultural groups to hold events to help preserve Canada's multicultural landscape.
(Of course for all the talk of multiculturalism, Canada hasn't helped its original cultures, the First Nations, enough... but that sordid tale is for another day.)
Now with rose-coloured glasses off, I doubt that everyone happily accepts this diversity (although I suspect that a growing number of people do thanks to the newer and younger generations). Furthermore, there are legitimate challenges in trying to preserve cultural diversity, especially for newer generations of immigrants. The U.S. already is a major cultural exporter, and despite multiculturalism, Canada does have its own "overall culture" as well. Regardless, multiculturalism is a well-intentioned government policy that has borne fruit.
-------------------------------------------
Cultural diversity is not the only kind of diversity in Canada. It can be expanded and encouraged.
For example, despite legislation protecting people of varying sexual orientation, I suspect that a fair number of Canadians tolerate the idea more than accept it (or sometimes, not even bother to tolerate, such in the cases where religion is a "reason"). Ontario's new sex education program that includes a discussion of homosexuality seems to be well-intentioned and a step in the right direction. It certainly won't happen with the Conservatives in power, but there may be a day where the federal government has a program that encourages acceptance of people with different sexual orientation.
It shouldn't end there either. Diversity of people, viewpoints, and ideas is what will keep Canada vibrant.
Peace and long life.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Speaker upholds Parliamentary supremacy
Speaker Peter Milliken has ruled that the Conservative government has exceeded its privilege in withholding documents relating to the Afghan detainee transfer issue from Parliament. The government has two weeks to work out a compromise with the opposition to provide documents without compromising national security.
The good news is that this upholds the supremacy of Parliament, whose members are the representatives of the Canadian public.
The larger issue, though, is related to the "national security" statement. Will it give some room for the government to redact freely? With regards to the government's actions following this ruling, I think the correct phrase would be "hope for the best... expect the worst".
-------------------------------------------
On the general issue of "national security", it is used too often to stonewall investigations. I somehow doubt that the opposition would intentionally leak information that would threaten Canadian citizens overseas (including soldiers). To do so (even unintentionally) would leave a permanent black mark on any MP in the eyes of the electorate.
The implicit claim that opposition MPs are incapable of keeping sensitive information confidential unlike government MPs is, frankly, insulting. A person's competence doesn't magically increase because there are a larger number of people with the same political affiliation in Parliament. Done properly, there should be no need at all for any crucial information to be redacted when handed over to the opposition.
Ultimately, the public is interested in the procedure of transferring detainees and whether there are systematic problems. That shouldn't increase the danger to Canadians in Afghanistan. For the resistance/insurgents in Afghanistan, I'm sure that they already view NATO troops as their enemy... I doubt that revealing information about transfers will somehow anger the resistance/insurgents further or change their goal of forcing NATO out of Afghanistan.
Inherently, given that Canada is a democracy, the government is acting on behalf of all of us. Our representatives in Parliament should have a say with regards to foreign affairs and national security issues. That sometimes requires sensitive information to be given out by the government to Parliament when requested. Some people will argue that constitutes a potential weakness in military terms by increasing the number of people "in the know" (and increasing the possibility of a dangerous leak). However, the public should think hard about giving the government more power (potentially weakening our democracy) in order to deal with what should ultimately be a relatively short-term issue.
Peace and long life.
The good news is that this upholds the supremacy of Parliament, whose members are the representatives of the Canadian public.
The larger issue, though, is related to the "national security" statement. Will it give some room for the government to redact freely? With regards to the government's actions following this ruling, I think the correct phrase would be "hope for the best... expect the worst".
-------------------------------------------
On the general issue of "national security", it is used too often to stonewall investigations. I somehow doubt that the opposition would intentionally leak information that would threaten Canadian citizens overseas (including soldiers). To do so (even unintentionally) would leave a permanent black mark on any MP in the eyes of the electorate.
The implicit claim that opposition MPs are incapable of keeping sensitive information confidential unlike government MPs is, frankly, insulting. A person's competence doesn't magically increase because there are a larger number of people with the same political affiliation in Parliament. Done properly, there should be no need at all for any crucial information to be redacted when handed over to the opposition.
Ultimately, the public is interested in the procedure of transferring detainees and whether there are systematic problems. That shouldn't increase the danger to Canadians in Afghanistan. For the resistance/insurgents in Afghanistan, I'm sure that they already view NATO troops as their enemy... I doubt that revealing information about transfers will somehow anger the resistance/insurgents further or change their goal of forcing NATO out of Afghanistan.
Inherently, given that Canada is a democracy, the government is acting on behalf of all of us. Our representatives in Parliament should have a say with regards to foreign affairs and national security issues. That sometimes requires sensitive information to be given out by the government to Parliament when requested. Some people will argue that constitutes a potential weakness in military terms by increasing the number of people "in the know" (and increasing the possibility of a dangerous leak). However, the public should think hard about giving the government more power (potentially weakening our democracy) in order to deal with what should ultimately be a relatively short-term issue.
Peace and long life.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Information and misinformation glut: leading to a glut of problems
Introduction
I've been wondering for about the problems with regards to public perception that science (especially climatology) have been suffering for the last little while. Here are my thoughts.
Information glut
A long time ago, I read about the concept of information glut in Neil Postman's book Technopoly. Basically, people are deluged with so much information that the information ceases to be useful due to: 1) the inability of most people to absorb such large quantities of information, 2) the oversimplification of concepts in order to increase the volume of information delivered, and 3) the less important (even irrelevant) information dug up in order to boost the aforementioned volume of information.
The end result is the retention of less information, as well as less understanding of what actually is retained.
Misinformation glut
The problem with having an information glut is that it becomes easier to add misinformation to the mix. With less understanding of actual information, it is more difficult to separate information from misinformation. For example, realistic-sounding technobabble (as opposed to the more obvious and ridiculous-sounding "Treknobabble") starts to sound like legitimate scientific terms to an untrained person.
Does "giant magnetoresistance" sound like something real? Is it real? (It actually is real, by the way.)
Some misinformation is unintentional or simple misunderstanding. Some misinformation is driven by those with ulterior motives. With regards to evolution, the Discovery Institute comes to mind. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit climate scientists and climate change.
Unintentional misinformation is unavoidable, but the intentional addition of misinformation to the information/misinformation glut is a major problem. A key reason is the fact that we live in democratic societies, where government decisions are influenced by the populace, which would ideally be informed rather than misinformed. (The unfounded claim of WMDs in Iraq is a particularly depressing political example of misinformation leading to horrific consequences.)
Misinformation about information
Science is twofold in its purpose: to gain a deep understanding of how the universe and its constituent components work, and to be able to make accurate predictions about the universe and its constituent components. (I say "constituent components" because, for example, biology is not a direct study of the universe but of something within the universe. Furthermore, it is currently impossible to study outside the known universe, although some scientists are trying to come up with experiments.)
The key strengths of science are its ability to make predictions based upon existing understanding and observation, and its self-correcting nature. Predictions based upon misinformation will not be accurate (barring occasional flukes, I suppose). Misinformation is also not self-correcting, aside from possibly trying to sound "scientific". In fact, deliberate misinformation is often very consistent because one of science's strengths is also yields weakness in fighting misinformation (at least in the eyes of the general public).
With regards to science, the fact that science is self-correcting is seen as a weakness. This is often argued to be "wavering" in position by those who intentionally spread misinformation. For example, with regards to evolution, biologists debating over finer details of evolutionary theory is often argued to be a "controversy" by creationists. (Some creationists go even further by claiming that the only reason why "evolutionists" stand by evolution despite the "controversy" is due to ideology.)
Another (indirect) strength of science can also be turned against science. People (rightfully) credit science for a great number of medical and technological successes, but human knowledge across different fields of science vary. Knowledge in some disciplines may be incomplete for the time being. In this sense, the successes from one field of science can be used against another field of science (as in, "is this field valid, given that another field of science is so much more complete?"). For example, with regards to cosmology, scientist are able to predict the expansion of the universe with dark energy using the "cosmological constant", but there is currently little (if any) understanding of dark energy itself. Some creationists use this incomplete knowledge to attack the credibility of cosmology in general (due to the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory).
Sometimes, imprecision is used to question accuracy, especially with regards to climatology. (Yes, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. A prediction can be accurate and imprecise if there is a large predicted range. A prediction can be accurate and precise if there is a small predicted range. Ideally, both accuracy and precision are desired, but that is not always possible given the lack of data for certain variables.)
With regards to climatology, weather is effectively only noise with regards to climate (and not even significant noise). Weather is difficult to predict partly due to the atmosphere's turbulent nature but mostly due to insufficient computing power (which requires simplified to be used models). The well-known method for reducing noise (from a mathematical standpoint) is to use larger time scales so that the noise "averages out"... which bodes well for climate studies. Despite this, the false argument that the inability to predict weather implies an inability to predict climate is often made (as in, "you can't even predict the weather beyond a few days... how can you predict the climate?"). Here, there is also conflation between meteorology and climatology, as well as oversimplification of a topic.
A final strategy often used to question science is what I call the "eternal whys". Ask "why" (or "how") enough times about anything (not just related to science), and even the most experienced of experts will end up flustered. This strategy also has related forms, e.g. for every two transitional fossils, creationists demand for yet another transitional fossil between the two fossils of interest.
Putting misinformation on equal footing to information
Notice a common theme yet? The first part of any intentional misinformation campaign is to attempt to discredit information by raising as many questions as possible.
The second part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to provide a false alternative to information: the misinformation itself. If crafted properly, it will sound as though there is legitimate debate about the topic at hand. The more complex the topic (such as climate), the easier it becomes to raise questions (legitimate or not) and craft a good-sounding "argument".
Of course, one may ask what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate debate. After all, if one asks a valid question, is it not the start of a valid debate? Well, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, a commonly-accepted theory is often the one that is the best predictor. Unless there is an actual alternative that improves the accuracy and/or precision of the predictions, the commonly-accepted theory will remain. Secondly, a scientist should already be aware of (and working to solve) the drawbacks in any existing theory. As such, raising questions is only raising questions. A real debate requires a real alternative to be offered.
(Additionally, I should note that there is a certain support for the "underdog" mentality that seems to stem from the individualism in our society. "Maverick scientists" are given too much credit due to the appeal of an individual making a difference. In reality, science develops reasonably slowly, and individuals' work are based upon the work of their predecessors. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity due to the more accurate predictions made by Einstein's theory, an actual example of one firmly-entrenched theory being replaced by another. Despite the amazing work accomplished by Einstein, one must ask whether Einstein would have developed his theories of relativity without Hendrik Lorentz's transformations or Riemannian geometry?)
The third part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to establish oneself as a "trusted" source of alternative "information" while discrediting the sources of actual information. While it may seem detrimental to resort to a logical fallacy such as an ad hominem, it actually works because much of our society is dependent upon appeals to authority (another logical fallacy, but due to necessity). For example, I have a degree from an accredited university, and I have been judged by professors who have degrees from other universities. When I apply for a job, I rely on my degree as evidence that I can perform the applicable work. I've basically appealed to the authorities of my university, my professors, and my professors' universities all in one go.
In society, the work of experts are supposed to be trusted. I can talk about four-stroke engines and camshafts, but if you want your car fixed, you should find an actual automotive technician. The same goes for any field of expertise, including science. By chipping away at that trust, the information provided by such experts becomes less certain to the public eye. It's a logical fallacy, but again, in a society where appeal to authority is required to work, attempting to discrediting experts also works. Most commonly, those spreading misinformation accuse scientists as being a group of close-minded ideologues unwilling to give a "fair opportunity" to other ideas.
One must remember that the goal of a number of misinformation campaigners (such as lobbies for the oil industry against effective climate change legislation) is simply to split public sentiment. It is unnecessary for a majority of people to believe in the misinformation. As long as there is a split public sentiment, there will be the corresponding indecisiveness and status quo in government.
Fighting misinformation: where we are at
Going back to the information glut, it is difficult to get across a message quickly and effectively to combat misinformation. News organizations often give equal time to both scientists and misinformation campaigners. Sound bites and short debates are often reduced to scientists confidently saying that the "science is sound", appealing to the authority of science while misinformation campaigners keep raising questions that can be asked quickly but cannot be answered quickly, trying to discredit that authority.
The necessary dirty work comes from raising questions about the credibility of those intentionally spreading misinformation, or else they may only grow in credibility. (That is to say, ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away is not enough.)
Unfortunately, the result of such exchanges only results in people believing who they feel is more credible, which may or may not turn out favourably. Rarely is there time to discuss the actual topic due to the topic being too complex to actually debate in a short time span.
Given the limited time, it has been suggested by some that the mainstream media deny time to the spreaders of misinformation in order to remove the "false balance" created by the apparent necessity for mainstream news to present two opposing viewpoints. The Internet, however, provides another avenue for other arguments and is becoming increasingly relied-upon as a source of information. Denying time on mainstream media for misinformation in the past has only lead to cries of being suppressed from misinformation spreaders, appealing to the public's sense of "fairness".
Another solution may be to sufficiently interest people into performing their own studying on various topics in order to educate themselves. This gives them time to absorb material as well as gain an understanding of the topics of interest. While this is the ideal case, there are also problems with this approach. There could possibly be mistakes made on the way (who has ever understood everything that they have tried to learn?). Furthermore, the Internet is sufficiently vast that it is conceivable that instead of presenting all arguments in detail, it allows those with preconceptions to find like-minded individuals without allowing time for learning about opposing arguments. Again, this goes back to the existence of a misinformation glut in conjunction with the information glut.
-----------------------------------------
The problems are significant, and there are no ideal solutions. Personally, I think that inspiring people to educate themselves, as well as epistemology (theory of knowledge) courses in schools, are the start of the correct path. It is especially important for more people to learn about epistemology, as they will gain an understanding of how knowledge is acquired, the first step to becoming a rational and critical thinker.
Peace and long life (and sorry for going on for this long...).
I've been wondering for about the problems with regards to public perception that science (especially climatology) have been suffering for the last little while. Here are my thoughts.
Information glut
A long time ago, I read about the concept of information glut in Neil Postman's book Technopoly. Basically, people are deluged with so much information that the information ceases to be useful due to: 1) the inability of most people to absorb such large quantities of information, 2) the oversimplification of concepts in order to increase the volume of information delivered, and 3) the less important (even irrelevant) information dug up in order to boost the aforementioned volume of information.
The end result is the retention of less information, as well as less understanding of what actually is retained.
Misinformation glut
The problem with having an information glut is that it becomes easier to add misinformation to the mix. With less understanding of actual information, it is more difficult to separate information from misinformation. For example, realistic-sounding technobabble (as opposed to the more obvious and ridiculous-sounding "Treknobabble") starts to sound like legitimate scientific terms to an untrained person.
Does "giant magnetoresistance" sound like something real? Is it real? (It actually is real, by the way.)
Some misinformation is unintentional or simple misunderstanding. Some misinformation is driven by those with ulterior motives. With regards to evolution, the Discovery Institute comes to mind. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit climate scientists and climate change.
Unintentional misinformation is unavoidable, but the intentional addition of misinformation to the information/misinformation glut is a major problem. A key reason is the fact that we live in democratic societies, where government decisions are influenced by the populace, which would ideally be informed rather than misinformed. (The unfounded claim of WMDs in Iraq is a particularly depressing political example of misinformation leading to horrific consequences.)
Misinformation about information
Science is twofold in its purpose: to gain a deep understanding of how the universe and its constituent components work, and to be able to make accurate predictions about the universe and its constituent components. (I say "constituent components" because, for example, biology is not a direct study of the universe but of something within the universe. Furthermore, it is currently impossible to study outside the known universe, although some scientists are trying to come up with experiments.)
The key strengths of science are its ability to make predictions based upon existing understanding and observation, and its self-correcting nature. Predictions based upon misinformation will not be accurate (barring occasional flukes, I suppose). Misinformation is also not self-correcting, aside from possibly trying to sound "scientific". In fact, deliberate misinformation is often very consistent because one of science's strengths is also yields weakness in fighting misinformation (at least in the eyes of the general public).
With regards to science, the fact that science is self-correcting is seen as a weakness. This is often argued to be "wavering" in position by those who intentionally spread misinformation. For example, with regards to evolution, biologists debating over finer details of evolutionary theory is often argued to be a "controversy" by creationists. (Some creationists go even further by claiming that the only reason why "evolutionists" stand by evolution despite the "controversy" is due to ideology.)
Another (indirect) strength of science can also be turned against science. People (rightfully) credit science for a great number of medical and technological successes, but human knowledge across different fields of science vary. Knowledge in some disciplines may be incomplete for the time being. In this sense, the successes from one field of science can be used against another field of science (as in, "is this field valid, given that another field of science is so much more complete?"). For example, with regards to cosmology, scientist are able to predict the expansion of the universe with dark energy using the "cosmological constant", but there is currently little (if any) understanding of dark energy itself. Some creationists use this incomplete knowledge to attack the credibility of cosmology in general (due to the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory).
Sometimes, imprecision is used to question accuracy, especially with regards to climatology. (Yes, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. A prediction can be accurate and imprecise if there is a large predicted range. A prediction can be accurate and precise if there is a small predicted range. Ideally, both accuracy and precision are desired, but that is not always possible given the lack of data for certain variables.)
With regards to climatology, weather is effectively only noise with regards to climate (and not even significant noise). Weather is difficult to predict partly due to the atmosphere's turbulent nature but mostly due to insufficient computing power (which requires simplified to be used models). The well-known method for reducing noise (from a mathematical standpoint) is to use larger time scales so that the noise "averages out"... which bodes well for climate studies. Despite this, the false argument that the inability to predict weather implies an inability to predict climate is often made (as in, "you can't even predict the weather beyond a few days... how can you predict the climate?"). Here, there is also conflation between meteorology and climatology, as well as oversimplification of a topic.
A final strategy often used to question science is what I call the "eternal whys". Ask "why" (or "how") enough times about anything (not just related to science), and even the most experienced of experts will end up flustered. This strategy also has related forms, e.g. for every two transitional fossils, creationists demand for yet another transitional fossil between the two fossils of interest.
Putting misinformation on equal footing to information
Notice a common theme yet? The first part of any intentional misinformation campaign is to attempt to discredit information by raising as many questions as possible.
The second part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to provide a false alternative to information: the misinformation itself. If crafted properly, it will sound as though there is legitimate debate about the topic at hand. The more complex the topic (such as climate), the easier it becomes to raise questions (legitimate or not) and craft a good-sounding "argument".
Of course, one may ask what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate debate. After all, if one asks a valid question, is it not the start of a valid debate? Well, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, a commonly-accepted theory is often the one that is the best predictor. Unless there is an actual alternative that improves the accuracy and/or precision of the predictions, the commonly-accepted theory will remain. Secondly, a scientist should already be aware of (and working to solve) the drawbacks in any existing theory. As such, raising questions is only raising questions. A real debate requires a real alternative to be offered.
(Additionally, I should note that there is a certain support for the "underdog" mentality that seems to stem from the individualism in our society. "Maverick scientists" are given too much credit due to the appeal of an individual making a difference. In reality, science develops reasonably slowly, and individuals' work are based upon the work of their predecessors. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity due to the more accurate predictions made by Einstein's theory, an actual example of one firmly-entrenched theory being replaced by another. Despite the amazing work accomplished by Einstein, one must ask whether Einstein would have developed his theories of relativity without Hendrik Lorentz's transformations or Riemannian geometry?)
The third part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to establish oneself as a "trusted" source of alternative "information" while discrediting the sources of actual information. While it may seem detrimental to resort to a logical fallacy such as an ad hominem, it actually works because much of our society is dependent upon appeals to authority (another logical fallacy, but due to necessity). For example, I have a degree from an accredited university, and I have been judged by professors who have degrees from other universities. When I apply for a job, I rely on my degree as evidence that I can perform the applicable work. I've basically appealed to the authorities of my university, my professors, and my professors' universities all in one go.
In society, the work of experts are supposed to be trusted. I can talk about four-stroke engines and camshafts, but if you want your car fixed, you should find an actual automotive technician. The same goes for any field of expertise, including science. By chipping away at that trust, the information provided by such experts becomes less certain to the public eye. It's a logical fallacy, but again, in a society where appeal to authority is required to work, attempting to discrediting experts also works. Most commonly, those spreading misinformation accuse scientists as being a group of close-minded ideologues unwilling to give a "fair opportunity" to other ideas.
One must remember that the goal of a number of misinformation campaigners (such as lobbies for the oil industry against effective climate change legislation) is simply to split public sentiment. It is unnecessary for a majority of people to believe in the misinformation. As long as there is a split public sentiment, there will be the corresponding indecisiveness and status quo in government.
Fighting misinformation: where we are at
Going back to the information glut, it is difficult to get across a message quickly and effectively to combat misinformation. News organizations often give equal time to both scientists and misinformation campaigners. Sound bites and short debates are often reduced to scientists confidently saying that the "science is sound", appealing to the authority of science while misinformation campaigners keep raising questions that can be asked quickly but cannot be answered quickly, trying to discredit that authority.
The necessary dirty work comes from raising questions about the credibility of those intentionally spreading misinformation, or else they may only grow in credibility. (That is to say, ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away is not enough.)
Unfortunately, the result of such exchanges only results in people believing who they feel is more credible, which may or may not turn out favourably. Rarely is there time to discuss the actual topic due to the topic being too complex to actually debate in a short time span.
Given the limited time, it has been suggested by some that the mainstream media deny time to the spreaders of misinformation in order to remove the "false balance" created by the apparent necessity for mainstream news to present two opposing viewpoints. The Internet, however, provides another avenue for other arguments and is becoming increasingly relied-upon as a source of information. Denying time on mainstream media for misinformation in the past has only lead to cries of being suppressed from misinformation spreaders, appealing to the public's sense of "fairness".
Another solution may be to sufficiently interest people into performing their own studying on various topics in order to educate themselves. This gives them time to absorb material as well as gain an understanding of the topics of interest. While this is the ideal case, there are also problems with this approach. There could possibly be mistakes made on the way (who has ever understood everything that they have tried to learn?). Furthermore, the Internet is sufficiently vast that it is conceivable that instead of presenting all arguments in detail, it allows those with preconceptions to find like-minded individuals without allowing time for learning about opposing arguments. Again, this goes back to the existence of a misinformation glut in conjunction with the information glut.
-----------------------------------------
The problems are significant, and there are no ideal solutions. Personally, I think that inspiring people to educate themselves, as well as epistemology (theory of knowledge) courses in schools, are the start of the correct path. It is especially important for more people to learn about epistemology, as they will gain an understanding of how knowledge is acquired, the first step to becoming a rational and critical thinker.
Peace and long life (and sorry for going on for this long...).
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Allegations of intentional torture
The end result is the same: Canadian soldiers are ordered to transfer their Afghan detainees over to Afghan officials, with whom the detainees are tortured.
The issue so far has been only about whether the government reacted properly to reports and allegations of torture (and about the specifics of the prisoner transfer agreement). If the investigation finds that the government knew about the torture but did nothing to rectify the situation, one could argue that the government would have just been as guilty as if they were transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose.
Now, there are new allegations that the government actually was transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose. According to the allegations, it was hoped that intelligence would be gathered from the tortured detainees (shades of the so-called "advanced interrogation techniques" employed by the U.S.?).
If these allegations are true, it casts a far worse light on the Conservatives' refusal to hand over the documents on the Afghan detainees to Parliament.
As I stated at the start, the end result is the same for the tortured detainees (which is why both situations would be considered war crimes). Somehow, though, if the intent was actually there, it just feels a lot worse.
We'll see how it goes from here...
Peace and long life.
The issue so far has been only about whether the government reacted properly to reports and allegations of torture (and about the specifics of the prisoner transfer agreement). If the investigation finds that the government knew about the torture but did nothing to rectify the situation, one could argue that the government would have just been as guilty as if they were transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose.
Now, there are new allegations that the government actually was transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose. According to the allegations, it was hoped that intelligence would be gathered from the tortured detainees (shades of the so-called "advanced interrogation techniques" employed by the U.S.?).
If these allegations are true, it casts a far worse light on the Conservatives' refusal to hand over the documents on the Afghan detainees to Parliament.
As I stated at the start, the end result is the same for the tortured detainees (which is why both situations would be considered war crimes). Somehow, though, if the intent was actually there, it just feels a lot worse.
We'll see how it goes from here...
Peace and long life.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Is being unable to connect emotionally with the general public a problem?
In "Star Trek: Generations", Captain Kirk is killed while helping Captain Picard save 400 million lives in the Veridian system, and many Star Trek fans are still upset at how "pathetically" (for lack of a better generalization) Kirk died. The reason appears to be twofold: Kirk died in a somewhat awkward manner (he was crushed by a falling bridge); and viewers never got to see any of the 400 million aliens and supposedly could not build any emotional connection with the aliens...
Rationally speaking, it was a heroic sacrifice on Kirk's part to save 400 million other individuals... but somehow, it did not connect emotionally with viewers. It's true in other films as well, such as in "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", where the destruction of Alderaan is an event in a sequence of events. The tragedy of the loss of an entire world and its people, civilization, places, and life is so beyond the experience of a normal person that Obi Wan Kenobi verbalizes the emotion in the film ("it was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced").
-----------------------------------------
What do movies have to do with real life? In one post, thwap wonders how much of an effect the anti-war movement has had on Canada's deployment in Afghanistan. It raises another interesting issue: how come certain issues rile up the public enough to affect government while other issues seem to get no attention?
Take the large anti-war protests in 2002 and 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. Much of the focus was on the lies about the supposed weapons of mass destruction or the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. People get angry when they are lied to. How much of the public sentiment was actually anti-war (as in against killing and destruction as a foreign policy tool except as a last resort)... as opposed to "anti-Gulf War II"?
Corruption and government misspending can bring down governments, such as Paul Martin's Liberals and the sponsorship scandal in the January 2006 election. People don't like feeling that their money is being wasted.
The current Conservative government has had its fair share of questionable behaviour, but its polling numbers had been fairly high prior to the Afghan detainee issue. It began to dip when the Afghan detainee issue flared up, probably due to the government's secretive behaviour (again, people hate being lied to). Polling numbers for the Conservatives have now really dropped due to Harper's prorogation of Parliament, as people are usually angered by an abuse of power. Again, it's something that many people can emotionally relate to (if they have ever had an overbearing boss or supervisor or parent, for example).
Other issues don't seem to have as much effect. For example, if one polled the public, the majority usually supports fighting climate change, yet when the government was obstructionist at Copenhagen, support for the government did not really drop. The only explanation, given public awareness, is that there is the lack of emotional connection that would give the issue the importance that it deserves. There is nothing in a person's existence that is similar enough for it to trigger an emotional response since change occurs so slowly and subtly. This is seen similarly with other environmental issues.
Now, if an alien armada suddenly entered orbit and began dumping mild toxins into the air and water while trying to melt the ice in Antarctica with the intent of destroying Earth's populous coastal regions with rising ocean levels within a century or so, would the response be different? Chances are that people would be more willing to fight the changes in this case... given the instinctive fight or flight response, with nowhere to run to. (And yes, I'm fully aware that it would be an odd way for an alien armada to attack, at least from a human perspective.)
This lack of emotional connection makes it easy for climate change deniers to fight using conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, people in general hate liars, but they also assume that other people will lie. Deniers make full use of this emotional appeal to people's inherent mistrust and suspicions.
I cannot think of a solution... in fact, this is just a random theory of mine that may have plenty of holes in it, making a solution irrelevant. "Framing" a message might help a little, but ultimately, promoting critical and rational thinking is probably of utmost importance.
Rationally speaking, it was a heroic sacrifice on Kirk's part to save 400 million other individuals... but somehow, it did not connect emotionally with viewers. It's true in other films as well, such as in "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", where the destruction of Alderaan is an event in a sequence of events. The tragedy of the loss of an entire world and its people, civilization, places, and life is so beyond the experience of a normal person that Obi Wan Kenobi verbalizes the emotion in the film ("it was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced").
-----------------------------------------
What do movies have to do with real life? In one post, thwap wonders how much of an effect the anti-war movement has had on Canada's deployment in Afghanistan. It raises another interesting issue: how come certain issues rile up the public enough to affect government while other issues seem to get no attention?
Take the large anti-war protests in 2002 and 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. Much of the focus was on the lies about the supposed weapons of mass destruction or the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. People get angry when they are lied to. How much of the public sentiment was actually anti-war (as in against killing and destruction as a foreign policy tool except as a last resort)... as opposed to "anti-Gulf War II"?
Corruption and government misspending can bring down governments, such as Paul Martin's Liberals and the sponsorship scandal in the January 2006 election. People don't like feeling that their money is being wasted.
The current Conservative government has had its fair share of questionable behaviour, but its polling numbers had been fairly high prior to the Afghan detainee issue. It began to dip when the Afghan detainee issue flared up, probably due to the government's secretive behaviour (again, people hate being lied to). Polling numbers for the Conservatives have now really dropped due to Harper's prorogation of Parliament, as people are usually angered by an abuse of power. Again, it's something that many people can emotionally relate to (if they have ever had an overbearing boss or supervisor or parent, for example).
Other issues don't seem to have as much effect. For example, if one polled the public, the majority usually supports fighting climate change, yet when the government was obstructionist at Copenhagen, support for the government did not really drop. The only explanation, given public awareness, is that there is the lack of emotional connection that would give the issue the importance that it deserves. There is nothing in a person's existence that is similar enough for it to trigger an emotional response since change occurs so slowly and subtly. This is seen similarly with other environmental issues.
Now, if an alien armada suddenly entered orbit and began dumping mild toxins into the air and water while trying to melt the ice in Antarctica with the intent of destroying Earth's populous coastal regions with rising ocean levels within a century or so, would the response be different? Chances are that people would be more willing to fight the changes in this case... given the instinctive fight or flight response, with nowhere to run to. (And yes, I'm fully aware that it would be an odd way for an alien armada to attack, at least from a human perspective.)
This lack of emotional connection makes it easy for climate change deniers to fight using conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, people in general hate liars, but they also assume that other people will lie. Deniers make full use of this emotional appeal to people's inherent mistrust and suspicions.
I cannot think of a solution... in fact, this is just a random theory of mine that may have plenty of holes in it, making a solution irrelevant. "Framing" a message might help a little, but ultimately, promoting critical and rational thinking is probably of utmost importance.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Canada's sub-sphere of influence
Given the growing number of allegations from beyond Canada's borders, one can possibly argue that Canada has a sub-sphere of influence in Latin America within the larger U.S. sphere. Those who are "in the way" have come to regard Canada in the same light as the U.S. with regards to exploitation of resources and disregard for people.
Human rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One can only hope that everyone will remember that people who live outside of Canada's borders are humans with rights as well...
Peace and long life.
Human rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One can only hope that everyone will remember that people who live outside of Canada's borders are humans with rights as well...
Peace and long life.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What's the point of banning political parties again?
An Iraqi court has ruled that candidates running for the Baath party (previously affiliated with Saddam Hussein) should not be banned from running in elections. This has prompted the Iraqi government to denounce the ruling as "illegal and unconstitutional", and there will be an emergency government meeting on Sunday.
This is not uncommon when governments are being propped up by external forces. Another example is Haiti, where Famni Lavalas was denied the right to run in Haiti's next election.
The problem with rationalizations of banning parties is the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the will of the people should prevail. Ideas that are truly on the radical fringe will invariably be ignored (except in times of prolonged crisis when increasing political polarization may occur if things are not seen as getting better... see Germany in the early 1930's). For example, Canada also has a Communist Party, and invariably a small fraction of the population votes for it every election. I think most Canadians aren't worried about the Communists suddenly taking over...
In the event where truly differing political views of different parties cannot be reconciled, and both parties hold similar power, then politicians should have to work together. The worries about violence are mostly unfounded. Giving a political party (even one with a sordid history like Baath under Hussein) a voice in a democratic government gives them an avenue other than violence to exert political pressure. Denying that voice only drives the Baathists more toward the fringe, and more likely to conduct extreme acts.
Let Iraq's populace, and not those already in power, decide how much political influence Baath deserves. Same with Haiti with regards to Famni Lavalas. Real, full democracy: it's the best way.
Peace and long life.
This is not uncommon when governments are being propped up by external forces. Another example is Haiti, where Famni Lavalas was denied the right to run in Haiti's next election.
The problem with rationalizations of banning parties is the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the will of the people should prevail. Ideas that are truly on the radical fringe will invariably be ignored (except in times of prolonged crisis when increasing political polarization may occur if things are not seen as getting better... see Germany in the early 1930's). For example, Canada also has a Communist Party, and invariably a small fraction of the population votes for it every election. I think most Canadians aren't worried about the Communists suddenly taking over...
In the event where truly differing political views of different parties cannot be reconciled, and both parties hold similar power, then politicians should have to work together. The worries about violence are mostly unfounded. Giving a political party (even one with a sordid history like Baath under Hussein) a voice in a democratic government gives them an avenue other than violence to exert political pressure. Denying that voice only drives the Baathists more toward the fringe, and more likely to conduct extreme acts.
Let Iraq's populace, and not those already in power, decide how much political influence Baath deserves. Same with Haiti with regards to Famni Lavalas. Real, full democracy: it's the best way.
Peace and long life.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
U.S. stops evacuating victims from Haiti over medical bills
It appears that some hospitals in Florida were reluctant to take patients from Haiti due to not knowing how the patients' medical bills would be paid. Once the federal government was asked to help pay for the bills by Florida's governor, the evacuations apparently stopped one day later on Wednesday.
This is a case of money being placed before the lives of people (almost as one would expect given the U.S. medical system). It is also an even stranger case of the U.S. being financially generous in some ways while being not helpful in other ways. Mountains of money mean nothing if the money can't be used to obtain goods (like food, which there is a shortage of in Haiti despite donations) or services (like medical care for the victims).
Peace and long life.
EDIT: And now the evacuations will resume.
This is a case of money being placed before the lives of people (almost as one would expect given the U.S. medical system). It is also an even stranger case of the U.S. being financially generous in some ways while being not helpful in other ways. Mountains of money mean nothing if the money can't be used to obtain goods (like food, which there is a shortage of in Haiti despite donations) or services (like medical care for the victims).
Peace and long life.
EDIT: And now the evacuations will resume.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Supreme Court and Senate: quick points
1) The Supreme Court ruled that Omar Khadr's rights were violated but that it wouldn't order the government to repatriate Khadr (yet), stating that it is up to the government to decide the best course of action. The Supreme Court cited the government's constitutional authority over foreign affairs as well as its own lack of knowledge of foreign relations specifics (such as whether the government had negotiated with the U.S., etc.).
The Supreme Court, though, did warn that it would make sure that the court could order the government to ensure that it was doing everything to rectify the abuse of Khadr's rights.
2) Harper has appointed five new Senators, as expected after he prorogued Parliament at the end of 2009. While the Conservatives do not hold an outright majority in the Senate, it does hold the largest number of seats there.
It's too bad that Harper has apparently given up on the idea of an elected Senate, as it was probably the only point of the Conservative platform that I liked.
Peace and long life.
The Supreme Court, though, did warn that it would make sure that the court could order the government to ensure that it was doing everything to rectify the abuse of Khadr's rights.
2) Harper has appointed five new Senators, as expected after he prorogued Parliament at the end of 2009. While the Conservatives do not hold an outright majority in the Senate, it does hold the largest number of seats there.
It's too bad that Harper has apparently given up on the idea of an elected Senate, as it was probably the only point of the Conservative platform that I liked.
Peace and long life.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Estimate for the attendance of the anti-prorogation rallies
A very impressive number of people attended the anti-prorogation rallies across Canada yesterday. While media sources say "thousands" attended such rallies, the cross-country number is about an order of magnitude higher... given that the rallies in just Toronto and Ottawa push the number to over 10000 (CTV Toronto reports "over 7000" in Toronto, while media sources vary from 3000 to 4000 for the Ottawa rallies).
An estimate (primarily using twitter) places the attendance to be about 27090 people from 40 communities across the country (and this still excludes some communities, as No Prorogue! lists 66 communities with rallies).
While exact numbers will surely be a point of contention between those who are opposed to prorogation and those who support Harper's action, one cannot deny that this issue has angered enough Canadians to enable such considerable protests to spring up.
Some people will also note the discrepancy between the size of the Facebook group (over 200000 members of the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament group) and the size of the protests, but it takes real commitment for tens of thousands of people to show up at the protests (often in cold winter conditions for hours).
Peace and long life.
EDIT: The original link to the 27090 number is now broken, so here is another link.
An estimate (primarily using twitter) places the attendance to be about 27090 people from 40 communities across the country (and this still excludes some communities, as No Prorogue! lists 66 communities with rallies).
While exact numbers will surely be a point of contention between those who are opposed to prorogation and those who support Harper's action, one cannot deny that this issue has angered enough Canadians to enable such considerable protests to spring up.
Some people will also note the discrepancy between the size of the Facebook group (over 200000 members of the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament group) and the size of the protests, but it takes real commitment for tens of thousands of people to show up at the protests (often in cold winter conditions for hours).
Peace and long life.
EDIT: The original link to the 27090 number is now broken, so here is another link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
