Admittedly, I'm not providing much new material, but "c'est la vie," as they say, at the moment.
On the other hand, with far smarter people than me populating the blogosphere with smartness, why should I worry? The latest thing I like...
"In other words, the dichotomy I am interested in is less who is to blame for where we are but rather, when faced with intelligent versus mindless policies in Canada, why we continue to pick the path less thoughtful."
- R. Silver
Globe and Mail
December 15, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Did Liberals make the right choice?
On Bob Rae...
"He sort of practices media metarelations - he doesn't just dodge trap questions, he points them out, and disarms them."
- Kady O'Malley, Macleans
On Michael Ignatieff...
"He has the capacity to be seen to rise about the fray..."
- Adam Radwanski, The Globe and Mail
"He sort of practices media metarelations - he doesn't just dodge trap questions, he points them out, and disarms them."
- Kady O'Malley, Macleans
On Michael Ignatieff...
"He has the capacity to be seen to rise about the fray..."
- Adam Radwanski, The Globe and Mail
Monday, December 8, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
It's Over...For Now
Crisis over. This is when Bartlett would say, "what's next?"
With the GG allowing Prime Minister Harper prorogue the House we're all safe from political disaster until late January. Now economic disaster is a different story.
So what are we to make of all of this?
Well, I think a few things should be clear. Among them:
My boss and I concluded our conversation by developing the following thesis:
He can't help himself.
With the GG allowing Prime Minister Harper prorogue the House we're all safe from political disaster until late January. Now economic disaster is a different story.
So what are we to make of all of this?
Well, I think a few things should be clear. Among them:
- Poor Stephane Dion, if he ever was, is not up to this job. Yesterday's disaster with the video seals that deal.
- The Liberals need to sort themselves very quickly. They did not come out of this looking good and I think that Coyne is right, they will bail on this and fast.
- Which presents a pretty serious problem for the NDP, who I'm sure are ready to fight for The Coalition. It would be great for Jack Layton to sit in a Minister's office for a few months and they must be furiously pushing Dion to hold his nerve.
- Gilles Duceppe manages to yet again seem like the most sensible federal leader, you know, aside from the separatism thing.
My boss and I concluded our conversation by developing the following thesis:
- everyone has flaws
- politics dramatically enhances those flaws by providing power and opportunity
- the success of a politician is measured by his or her level of self-discipline, and his or her ability to master their flaws (Politicians and the flaws that undid them: Martin=indecisiveness, Chretien=assholism, Mulroney=scruples, Trudeau=arrogance, Clark=naivete, Me=not born before Clark)
- every politician is ultimately undone by their flaws
He can't help himself.
Door Watch 2008
Yesterday it was the door to her plane. Today the door to her house. The GG's doorways are going to be famous after this week.
In other news...
"This did not go as planned."
In other news...
"This did not go as planned."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Dion's Message
(Stephane Dion is late to his own friggin national taped message party. Why is this not surprising?)
...
...
Really? Really.
...
...
Another four or five minutes. Really? Really.
...
...
Still no Dion. I wish I was kidding. I'm not getting much beer into me. Liberals across Canada must be nodding along, "thinking, this is not surprising."
...
...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
(CBC misses the start...nice!)
- Two huge Canadian flags behind him. Subtle.
- I think they filmed this thing on hi-8.
- Focusing on partnership in order to fix something.
- Uh oh...getting into a lecture on coalitions.
- Tying it into the Canadian values of consensus, cooperation and other good C words that we should trademark around the world.
- Good tie. Not a great speech.
- Nothing about mean-spritedness or dysfunction thereby subverting my drinking game.
- "Rivals are working together all over the world. Why not in Canada?" Why not, indeed.
- "Let's get to work on the people's business."
- Maturity, nice.
- *Sigh* He still can't speak English well enough and he can't get over the mistakes when he makes them.
- Sounds like The Coalition is investing in everything (not education though I might add).
- "Live in dignity and developnew skills"...ummm, isn't this a bit like "ordinary families?"
- Who feels ownership over Parliament? Your Parliament. Raise your hands!
- And it's over...abruptly. This was not an Oscar winner, but these things aren't judged on production values.
...
...
Really? Really.
...
...
Another four or five minutes. Really? Really.
...
...
Still no Dion. I wish I was kidding. I'm not getting much beer into me. Liberals across Canada must be nodding along, "thinking, this is not surprising."
...
...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
(CBC misses the start...nice!)
- Two huge Canadian flags behind him. Subtle.
- I think they filmed this thing on hi-8.
- Focusing on partnership in order to fix something.
- Uh oh...getting into a lecture on coalitions.
- Tying it into the Canadian values of consensus, cooperation and other good C words that we should trademark around the world.
- Good tie. Not a great speech.
- Nothing about mean-spritedness or dysfunction thereby subverting my drinking game.
- "Rivals are working together all over the world. Why not in Canada?" Why not, indeed.
- "Let's get to work on the people's business."
- Maturity, nice.
- *Sigh* He still can't speak English well enough and he can't get over the mistakes when he makes them.
- Sounds like The Coalition is investing in everything (not education though I might add).
- "Live in dignity and developnew skills"...ummm, isn't this a bit like "ordinary families?"
- Who feels ownership over Parliament? Your Parliament. Raise your hands!
- And it's over...abruptly. This was not an Oscar winner, but these things aren't judged on production values.
Harper's Message
- What did I do?
- Did no one vote for the opposition parties?
- Separatists aren't good, I will grant that, but ummm, he really makes it sound like they carry the plague.
- On what level does this threaten democracy? Honestly. It seems to me that this is actually an integral part of our democratic system, which may suck, but it's not like this is really all that new.
- Pointing out that he has withdrawn certain proposals and that this is all taking place before a budget has been presented was prudent.
- Keith Boag is pointing out that Harper and the Conservatives don't say "separatist" in Quebec, they say "sovereignist." I think that this is becoming a problem. Francophone reporters are asking questions about this. Also, apparently Dmitri Soudas, not the PM or Lawrence Cannon or any other MP, has been the voice of the government in QC for the past week.
- Where did Harper get that voice? It was weirdly alluring. I think that he might be Kathleen Turner. (Don Newman just called it his "blue sweater" voice.)
- Did he film this thing in a log cabin or is that what his office is really like?
- This "we're going to use all legal means necessary," line is a bit ominous. Remember, Harper is the only federal political leader to ever sue an opponent. Weirdness.
- CBC says, "boring." Let's check CTV...woman with bad hair says that Harper is screwing himself with Quebeckers.
- Very little drinking from my drinking game...mostly just for "separatist."
More whenever the hell Dion gets his shit together and hands the networks his tapes.
- Did no one vote for the opposition parties?
- Separatists aren't good, I will grant that, but ummm, he really makes it sound like they carry the plague.
- On what level does this threaten democracy? Honestly. It seems to me that this is actually an integral part of our democratic system, which may suck, but it's not like this is really all that new.
- Pointing out that he has withdrawn certain proposals and that this is all taking place before a budget has been presented was prudent.
- Keith Boag is pointing out that Harper and the Conservatives don't say "separatist" in Quebec, they say "sovereignist." I think that this is becoming a problem. Francophone reporters are asking questions about this. Also, apparently Dmitri Soudas, not the PM or Lawrence Cannon or any other MP, has been the voice of the government in QC for the past week.
- Where did Harper get that voice? It was weirdly alluring. I think that he might be Kathleen Turner. (Don Newman just called it his "blue sweater" voice.)
- Did he film this thing in a log cabin or is that what his office is really like?
- This "we're going to use all legal means necessary," line is a bit ominous. Remember, Harper is the only federal political leader to ever sue an opponent. Weirdness.
- CBC says, "boring." Let's check CTV...woman with bad hair says that Harper is screwing himself with Quebeckers.
- Very little drinking from my drinking game...mostly just for "separatist."
More whenever the hell Dion gets his shit together and hands the networks his tapes.
The Great Thing About Political Crises
- Don Newman showing footage of the Governor General's plane landing and the staircar moving over to pick her up
- Don Newman saying, "Proroguing Parliament is the privilege of the Governor General." Surely he could have added another few P's in there.
- Andrew Coyne accusing the New Lib on the Bloc coalition of prematurely "measuring the drapes" based on a report to which he himself attaches a "Hoax alert!" Uhhh, really? Really.
- Mike Duffy padding his Senate resume by saying the word "coalition" as though it was a contagious disease.
- Me, breaking out in hives at the mention of "Senator Elizabeth May, Environment Minister."
- Duffy providing footage of the Governor General's plane. (Really? Really.)
- Don Newman saying, "Proroguing Parliament is the privilege of the Governor General." Surely he could have added another few P's in there.
- Andrew Coyne accusing the New Lib on the Bloc coalition of prematurely "measuring the drapes" based on a report to which he himself attaches a "Hoax alert!" Uhhh, really? Really.
- Mike Duffy padding his Senate resume by saying the word "coalition" as though it was a contagious disease.
- Me, breaking out in hives at the mention of "Senator Elizabeth May, Environment Minister."
- Duffy providing footage of the Governor General's plane. (Really? Really.)
Questions?
I don't know how I missed it before, but I have become a big fan of Andrew Steele's blog over at the Globe in the last 24 hours. His post yesterday about Harper's options is clear and well thought out.
Today, he reports on some curious Question Period responses provided by the government yesterday:
"Today's Question Period saw a reversion to the age old Canadian political tactic of saying one thing in English and another in French.
In English, the Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attacked the Liberals as part of “the separatist coalition” who will betray Canada.
In French, the Conservative Quebec Lieutenant Christian Paradis attacked the Bloc Quebecois for giving a blank cheque to the Liberals and “betraying independence.”
How can a separatist coalition betray independence?"
Indeed, good question. Another good question might be how long the Conservatives believe they can continue to treat Canadians like idiots and get away with it?
The answer, at present, appears to be: longer.
Today, he reports on some curious Question Period responses provided by the government yesterday:
"Today's Question Period saw a reversion to the age old Canadian political tactic of saying one thing in English and another in French.
In English, the Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attacked the Liberals as part of “the separatist coalition” who will betray Canada.
In French, the Conservative Quebec Lieutenant Christian Paradis attacked the Bloc Quebecois for giving a blank cheque to the Liberals and “betraying independence.”
How can a separatist coalition betray independence?"
Indeed, good question. Another good question might be how long the Conservatives believe they can continue to treat Canadians like idiots and get away with it?
The answer, at present, appears to be: longer.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Coalition Like It's Going Out Of Style
I don't know how I've resisted the urge to write about all of the machinations in Ottawa, but let me just say that it likely has something to do with two business trips to Winnipeg in November. Ah, Winnipeg in November...my friends, this is the life.
So being late to the game I won't pretend I have much to add that hasn't been said by much smarter people than I.
Peter, not surprisingly, is smart over here.
Paris is "wowzers" over here (and other places).
Coyne is losing his mind over here...and here...and here...and, well, you get the point.
Wells loses his mind here and here and here...well, you get the point.
Also, I've enjoyed reading Radwanski in the Globe and comrade O'Malley in Maclean's.
So, now for my two cents (thought you could escape, eh? Not so much.).
Besides being downright fun and maybe leading to Canada's first coalition since we let honest to god Commies sit in Parliament this is a fascinating example of hubris. Harper is eating his lunch after he tried to stuff it down the throats of Mssrs. Dion, Layton and Duceppe. Not being a constitutional scholar this all seems like fair play, as crazy as it may seem to the outside world. Ezra Levant was on TV yesterday ranting and raving about how the stock market was reacting so negatively to word of the coalition, but of course if politicians could in fact control the stock market, Harper wouldn't be in this mess now would he.
I've been asking my smartest friends and colleagues a question that is stuck in my head and everyone seems to agree that this is all political miscalculation by the CPC. No one thinks that any of this is orchestrated and I admit that it's a bit much to think it might be. What bothers me though is that my brain can run along the following lines: Despite what we (the royal we) may all like to comfort ourselves thinking politicians aren't stupid. No not stupid person introduces a poison pill without thinking that there will be some sort of consequence, possibly severe. People don't like being poisoned. So, what did the Prime Minister think would be the consequences of the Economic Update? Are there reasons that Harper might have provoked this incident? I can think of two. Not good reasons, but here they are:
So being late to the game I won't pretend I have much to add that hasn't been said by much smarter people than I.
Peter, not surprisingly, is smart over here.
Paris is "wowzers" over here (and other places).
Coyne is losing his mind over here...and here...and here...and, well, you get the point.
Wells loses his mind here and here and here...well, you get the point.
Also, I've enjoyed reading Radwanski in the Globe and comrade O'Malley in Maclean's.
So, now for my two cents (thought you could escape, eh? Not so much.).
Besides being downright fun and maybe leading to Canada's first coalition since we let honest to god Commies sit in Parliament this is a fascinating example of hubris. Harper is eating his lunch after he tried to stuff it down the throats of Mssrs. Dion, Layton and Duceppe. Not being a constitutional scholar this all seems like fair play, as crazy as it may seem to the outside world. Ezra Levant was on TV yesterday ranting and raving about how the stock market was reacting so negatively to word of the coalition, but of course if politicians could in fact control the stock market, Harper wouldn't be in this mess now would he.
I've been asking my smartest friends and colleagues a question that is stuck in my head and everyone seems to agree that this is all political miscalculation by the CPC. No one thinks that any of this is orchestrated and I admit that it's a bit much to think it might be. What bothers me though is that my brain can run along the following lines: Despite what we (the royal we) may all like to comfort ourselves thinking politicians aren't stupid. No not stupid person introduces a poison pill without thinking that there will be some sort of consequence, possibly severe. People don't like being poisoned. So, what did the Prime Minister think would be the consequences of the Economic Update? Are there reasons that Harper might have provoked this incident? I can think of two. Not good reasons, but here they are:
- None of the other parties can afford an election, therefore if he can walk enough of the badness back and make the case that a stimulus package must await the Americans first move, he could position himself to take more seats in a hasty election. Dion can't exactly run a credible campaign and the NDP simply won't win enough seats to be a real threat, although they might finish off the Libs while their shit hits the fan.
- He actually wants to be desposed for a while in order to hang the opposition with the recession he was about to get hung with. Bob Rae of all people will be sensitive to the fact that economic forces are much bigger than the politicians who promise a way to the light at the end of the tunnel. I wonder if any of the three coalition party leaders have considered whether they actually want to be the government right now?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Not a leader. Not yet a party.
For a party with no seats in Parliament, we sure do hear a lot about the Greens.
The latest story is that a "secret" post-mortem memo written by party leader Elizabeth May has leaked and contains some pretty nasty and damning stuff. (Before I even get to the content, this party has nearly as many leaks as the erstwhile McCain campaign, which is, again, astounding considering that they won 6% of the national vote. I had not seen this story from mid-September until I googled "Green Party memo" today.)
In the memo, May says the party was "cearly unprepared" for the federal election campaign and that it felt like she was "flying by the seat of her pants" a lot of the time. She also claims (shockingly) that there was no campaign strategy document beforehand and that there were no campaign strategy calls during the campaign. However, she does manage to credit what success the party had to herself, writing: "We dominated the first week in the protest over my exclusion from the debates. The second wave was our national leaders ‘whistle-stop' (train) tour." Maybe most galling in its naked self-congratulation, she writes, "My personal popularity with the Canadian electorate is something, speaking as objectively as possible, that the Green party needs."
I'd say, speaking as objectively as possible, that this memo proves, if nothing else, that Elizabeth May is a windbag and certainly not fit to be the leader of a national party (or a local neighbourhood group). If there was no campaign strategy, whose responsibility should it be to make sure one is created (even belatedly), if not the leader's? If she couldn't win a seat in Central Nova (at one point in the memo she laments, "Can we have any kind of decision that the leader winning in her seat is a top priority?"), whose responsibility is it to make sure that she's in a winnable riding, if not the leader's? Leadership can be many things, and certainly no party leader in modern politics can do everything themselves and be successful, but leadership is certainly about fostering an environment for success. And leadership is certainly not throwing the team under the bus when things have gone awry with no sense of responsbility. What an astounding lack of humilty, thoughtfulness and grace.
I was once told by someone who worked with May at Sierra that she was pretty awful to work for at times - full of ego and not prepared to take responsibility for failure, only success. Looks like she hasn't learned much from her foray into politics just yet.
The latest story is that a "secret" post-mortem memo written by party leader Elizabeth May has leaked and contains some pretty nasty and damning stuff. (Before I even get to the content, this party has nearly as many leaks as the erstwhile McCain campaign, which is, again, astounding considering that they won 6% of the national vote. I had not seen this story from mid-September until I googled "Green Party memo" today.)
In the memo, May says the party was "cearly unprepared" for the federal election campaign and that it felt like she was "flying by the seat of her pants" a lot of the time. She also claims (shockingly) that there was no campaign strategy document beforehand and that there were no campaign strategy calls during the campaign. However, she does manage to credit what success the party had to herself, writing: "We dominated the first week in the protest over my exclusion from the debates. The second wave was our national leaders ‘whistle-stop' (train) tour." Maybe most galling in its naked self-congratulation, she writes, "My personal popularity with the Canadian electorate is something, speaking as objectively as possible, that the Green party needs."
I'd say, speaking as objectively as possible, that this memo proves, if nothing else, that Elizabeth May is a windbag and certainly not fit to be the leader of a national party (or a local neighbourhood group). If there was no campaign strategy, whose responsibility should it be to make sure one is created (even belatedly), if not the leader's? If she couldn't win a seat in Central Nova (at one point in the memo she laments, "Can we have any kind of decision that the leader winning in her seat is a top priority?"), whose responsibility is it to make sure that she's in a winnable riding, if not the leader's? Leadership can be many things, and certainly no party leader in modern politics can do everything themselves and be successful, but leadership is certainly about fostering an environment for success. And leadership is certainly not throwing the team under the bus when things have gone awry with no sense of responsbility. What an astounding lack of humilty, thoughtfulness and grace.
I was once told by someone who worked with May at Sierra that she was pretty awful to work for at times - full of ego and not prepared to take responsibility for failure, only success. Looks like she hasn't learned much from her foray into politics just yet.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Body of a Canadian
Death has the ability to de-centre us. It knocks us off our normal equilibrium and undermines our stable foundations. It can do so in its magnitude, when thousands die or are killed for no reason we can fathom. More often, it does so when one light blinks out of our lives very nearby, leaving us with more darkness than before, unanswerable questions and a keen sense of what’s left behind.
I had the honour of duty to help a group of mourning family and friends say goodbye to someone this past weekend. I can’t shake the feeling that has plagued me for two weeks now that my core is misaligned. This is one of those occasions where the single life lost so close to you dwarfs the conceptual notion of thousands of deaths somewhere far away. After jealously guarding my composure throughout the service, often by not listening to the moving words of others, I let that off-kilter middle of mine wash over me and briefly felt the loss as intensely as anything I ever feel.
39. Dedicated father of one and a second expected within the month. Kind, gentle, patient, athletic, funny, and blessed with a smile that seemed to contain a nice thought just for you; my friend Wain is gone too soon.
He, I was reminded, was a fan of the show The Wire; a show I have come to love in a very childish way, which is the only way to love a very good TV show – jealously, like chocolate ice cream, in inexplicably large doses and somewhat clandestinely. In being reminded that he was also a fan, I realized how long it had been since I’d seen my friend because we had never fully discussed my own love of The Wire, which only came to bloom over the summer. Recently, we had missed many of our usual occasions to visit when we might have huddled off in the corner to gossip about McNulty, Bunk, Omar, the Barksdales, the Stanfield crew and the city of Baltimore. I would have told him how absolutely giddy I was to see settings from The Wire when I visited the city for a conference in June. I know he would have had insight into the show that I had never considered, especially about the soundtrack of the show. I’m sorry to have missed that conversation among the many unknown conversations I will now miss.
On The Wire, when one of the good guys passes, his colleagues get together to send him off with a proper police wake and The Song. Wain deserves The Song. Not many exemplify what a good guy is as well as he did. He is remembered. He is missed.
The Body of an American
The Cadillacs stood by the house
And the Yanks they were within.
The tinker boys, they hissed advice,
“Hot wire with a pin.”
And we turned and shook, as we had a look,
In the room where the dead man lay.
So Big Jim Dwyer made his last trip
To the shores where his fathers lay.
But fifteen minutes later we had our first taste of whiskey,
His uncle’s giving lectures on ancient Irish history.
The men all started telling jokes,
And the women they got frisky.
By five o’clock in the evening
Every bastard there was piskey.
Fare thee well gone away
There’s nothing left to say.
Farewell to New York City boys,
To Boston and PA.
He took them out with a well-aimed clout,
And they often heard him say,
I’m a free born man of the USA.
He fought the champ in Pittsburgh
And he slashed him to the ground.
He took on Tiny Tartinella
And it only went one round.
He never had no time for Reds,
For drink, or dice, or whores.
But he never threw a fight,
Less the fight was right,
So they sent him to the war.
Fare thee well gone away
There’s nothing left to say.
With a staunchy joe and an erin go
My love’s in amerikay.
They’re calling out the rosary,
Spanish wine from far away.
I’m a free born man of the USA.
This morning on the harbour
When I said goodbye to you,
I remember how I swore that
I’d come back to you one day.
And as the sunset came to meet
The evening on the hill,
I told you I’d always love you, I always did,
I always will.
Fare thee well gone away
There’s nothing left to say.
But to say adieu to your eyes as blue
As the water in the bay.
To Big Jim Dwyer, the man o’war,
Who was often heard to say,
I’m a free born man of the USA.
I’m a free born man of the USA.
I’m a free born man of the USA.
I had the honour of duty to help a group of mourning family and friends say goodbye to someone this past weekend. I can’t shake the feeling that has plagued me for two weeks now that my core is misaligned. This is one of those occasions where the single life lost so close to you dwarfs the conceptual notion of thousands of deaths somewhere far away. After jealously guarding my composure throughout the service, often by not listening to the moving words of others, I let that off-kilter middle of mine wash over me and briefly felt the loss as intensely as anything I ever feel.
39. Dedicated father of one and a second expected within the month. Kind, gentle, patient, athletic, funny, and blessed with a smile that seemed to contain a nice thought just for you; my friend Wain is gone too soon.
He, I was reminded, was a fan of the show The Wire; a show I have come to love in a very childish way, which is the only way to love a very good TV show – jealously, like chocolate ice cream, in inexplicably large doses and somewhat clandestinely. In being reminded that he was also a fan, I realized how long it had been since I’d seen my friend because we had never fully discussed my own love of The Wire, which only came to bloom over the summer. Recently, we had missed many of our usual occasions to visit when we might have huddled off in the corner to gossip about McNulty, Bunk, Omar, the Barksdales, the Stanfield crew and the city of Baltimore. I would have told him how absolutely giddy I was to see settings from The Wire when I visited the city for a conference in June. I know he would have had insight into the show that I had never considered, especially about the soundtrack of the show. I’m sorry to have missed that conversation among the many unknown conversations I will now miss.
On The Wire, when one of the good guys passes, his colleagues get together to send him off with a proper police wake and The Song. Wain deserves The Song. Not many exemplify what a good guy is as well as he did. He is remembered. He is missed.
The Body of an American
The Cadillacs stood by the house
And the Yanks they were within.
The tinker boys, they hissed advice,
“Hot wire with a pin.”
And we turned and shook, as we had a look,
In the room where the dead man lay.
So Big Jim Dwyer made his last trip
To the shores where his fathers lay.
But fifteen minutes later we had our first taste of whiskey,
His uncle’s giving lectures on ancient Irish history.
The men all started telling jokes,
And the women they got frisky.
By five o’clock in the evening
Every bastard there was piskey.
Fare thee well gone away
There’s nothing left to say.
Farewell to New York City boys,
To Boston and PA.
He took them out with a well-aimed clout,
And they often heard him say,
I’m a free born man of the USA.
He fought the champ in Pittsburgh
And he slashed him to the ground.
He took on Tiny Tartinella
And it only went one round.
He never had no time for Reds,
For drink, or dice, or whores.
But he never threw a fight,
Less the fight was right,
So they sent him to the war.
Fare thee well gone away
There’s nothing left to say.
With a staunchy joe and an erin go
My love’s in amerikay.
They’re calling out the rosary,
Spanish wine from far away.
I’m a free born man of the USA.
This morning on the harbour
When I said goodbye to you,
I remember how I swore that
I’d come back to you one day.
And as the sunset came to meet
The evening on the hill,
I told you I’d always love you, I always did,
I always will.
Fare thee well gone away
There’s nothing left to say.
But to say adieu to your eyes as blue
As the water in the bay.
To Big Jim Dwyer, the man o’war,
Who was often heard to say,
I’m a free born man of the USA.
I’m a free born man of the USA.
I’m a free born man of the USA.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Capital Gs
Gambits
It seems clear that everyone agrees the Green Shift was not a good foundation on which to build a campaign. In life, you don't often win when your playbook consists of one play. (Although, ask the Miami Dolphins about having one *really* effective play and they might say otherwise.) The National Post in the linked editorial above say that the Green Shift was "the boldest policy gamble attempted by any major party since Canada-U. S. free trade." As we learned with Mulroney in the 80s, you win big with such a gamble or you lose big.
However, I fail to comprehend why smart pundits and commentators are not hammering Elizabeth May for her equally big and failed gambit. Running against Peter McKay was unconscionably dumb for the leader of a fledgeling party with some momentum. The Greens took 0.8% of the vote in the 2000 federal election (yes, less than 1%, that's not a typo). The preliminary results suggest that they took approximately 6.8% of the vote this time out. They have increased their vote total more than nine fold since 2000 - and they have yet to elect an MP. It's shocking. Maybe more galling since her inclusion in the debates was foreseeable. Maybe more so since she was taken seriously as a national leader despite agreeing not to run a candidate against one of the other federal leaders and going out of her way to praise him.
So, what would have been better for the Green Party, as a political party, for its leader who finished a strong second in a by-election in London-North Centre to run there again in the general election (where the candidate she lost to was defeated last night, btw), or maybe to run in a BC riding where the Greens have taken as much as 30% in a provincial election, or to sit the gallery of Parliament taking notes and promoting a new book? May should be turfed as fast as Dion will be, but alas I suspect that her popular persona will keep her around, thus ensuring we have yet another left-leaning political party with no hope of winning or successsful strategizing.
Green
That Post article makes the fantastically dubious claim that, "this vote will be remembered as a referendum on the Liberals' Green Shift...Canadians' passion for environmental causes has now been subject to a direct test...[i]t turns out that jobs and savings accounts still come first with the public."
First of all, what-the-fuck-ever on this referendum thing. Second, here is what the Post, the Globe and everyone is missing and which I only gripped moments ago - this election actually was a little bit about the environment, but not in some overarching, metaphorical, Oscar-winning, passionate-cause-ish kind of way. I've been arguing for more than a year now around the office (and to anyone else I can pin down to listen to me) that the party that best explains how solutions to environmental issues are to be accommodated in *the economy* wins. The fact is that in this election every party attempted to do so and the Conservatives convinced Canadians that they are the ones with the best plan at the moment. Enironmental activists may not agree and may not like it, but the Conservatives do have an environmental plan. It is timid, weak and unlikely to make any difference at all, but it is also a plan that you can use to convince Canadians that these things can be blended. The fact that the economy seemed to be under threat only worked to convince more people that thy should leave the Conservatives and their approach at the tiller. The other parties had their chances: the Green Shift is actually the best plan, but was explained as poorly as possible, Layton gave a speech in Novermber 2007 about "Green Collar Jobs," which had potential and this is what the Green Party is all about, but (I'm as shocked as you are) the Conservatives were the ones to get the tone right on this one. But, I believe this is the first step down this road, not the last, and everyone should be getting ready for round two.
Great expectations
I was at the convention that elected Jack Layton leader of the NDP. I voted for the man. I have not stopped feeling conflicted about him since.
The NDP's 2008 campaign was probably the best one in my memory (I don't remember much about the 1988 election except lecturing my vice-principal in the school yard one day about voting Tory, while leading a pro-NDP rally of school children who wouldn't be able to vote for almost a decade) and yet the expectations were even higher. Talk of besting the 1988 seat total was real and didn't seem totally far fetched. Despite taking the party higher than they have been since that time, despite important and impressive wins in Newfoundland, Quebec and Alberta, Jack looked disappointed while addressing the party faithful during his concession speech last night. Even the points in the speech when he tried to sound the defiant "conscience of Parliament" note were flat (to my ear anyway).
And, I think that this is the problem: Layton doesn't want to be the conscience of Parliament. Layton wants to win, but he can't. The NDP still can't build a big enough coalition. The NDP still can't get far enough away from its roots in socialism and the labour movement (in perception) to gain the trust of an inherently middle-of-the-road populace. It is, in fact, the same problem Stephen Harper has struggled with for more than a half decade: how to remain true to an ideology while persuading people who don't share to trust him.
Here are three areas I would suggest Layton address if we had 10 minutes to talk:
1) Policy - Not every platform can or should propose massive new programs run by a federal department that work almost exclusively in areas where the federal government cannot legislate. You acknowledged this tacitly in 2008 by proposing to expand the Conservative-initiated child benefit program. If you want to be about middle-class Canadians (or how about low-income Canadians) then offer them stuff without digging a hole that undermines important national programs. Stop pandering to interest groups and start thinking about what interests citizens. Offer a platform on which someone could govern and say "aww, fuck it" if someone else steals it in order to do so. Oh, and don't ever again let going after the Liberals or anyone else cause you to rule out a particular policy the way you did with a carbon tax. You should be for a carbon tax, especially one that would bring a commensurate reduction in income tax burdens for low and middle-income Canadians. That pisses some people off (see below).
2) Presentation - There is something about the way that you and the party use language that still resonates badly. The "kitchen table" stuff was used so much it was mocked and the syntax or grammar of it always made me think you were saying you could communion with tables. Referring incessantly to "ordinary Canadians" makes one wonder, am I part of that group or am I somehow exceptional, and which one is it better to be? (BTW- I really don't believe that people think of themselves as being "ordinary.") You still need to do something different in the debates. The zinger about the platform in the sweater was fine, but even seated at a table like a grown up you sometimes came across more like the high school debate team bully. For all his mistakes, Dion won his highest marks for his debate performances, which were described afterward using words like "measured" and "Prime Ministerial." Take note. Prepare your attacks and your defenses and deliver them like it's a "fait accomplis" that Canadians will get it and agree. Not arrogant, but smarter than the average bear. Spend the next two years building a narrative that can change, evolve and that plays to the aspirations of Canadians. Read, then watch video, of every speech Barack Obama has given since late 2007. You cannot be him, but he can learn a little something. Change can be a concept around which to build.
3) People - It is telling that your 2006 candidate in Toronto-St. Paul, Paul Sommerville, not only didn't run for you again in 2008, but he worked for the Liberal who beat him! I liked Paul Sommerville, both his substance and what he represented. The man was a banker for crying out loud! You need more people like him in your tent, not fewer. You need more people like me in your tent, not fewer. A lot of us feel like we've been chased away from the party with sticks and torches for not being ideologically pure enough. Many of us know policy well and we know when yours stinks. It's worth noting that while the federal party has yet to form government, NDP governments have been the norm in places like BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia could elect an NDP government soon and Ontario did once upon a time. Those governments have learned about making choices and not trying to do everything at the same time. Yet, it feels like you haven't learned much from them. Sometimes when the base is upset about someone you bring in, that's a good thing.
This was likely the easiest it will get for the NDP for quite sometime. The Conservatives are the dominant party of the day. The Liberals will re-group, possibly with a leader who knows something about building the party and being a politician, and they don't tend to lose seats without coming to re-claim them. The Greens may continue to surge. The Bloc is, for now, alive and well in Quebec (good idea attacking their credentials as "un parti progressiste" though). No wonder Jack looked a little down last night.
To close off this marathon and random post...
"Capital G was down to his boxers."
- George Bluth explains to his son Michael that he couldn't meet him during a prison visit because he was in the middle of an intense game of strip poker.
It seems clear that everyone agrees the Green Shift was not a good foundation on which to build a campaign. In life, you don't often win when your playbook consists of one play. (Although, ask the Miami Dolphins about having one *really* effective play and they might say otherwise.) The National Post in the linked editorial above say that the Green Shift was "the boldest policy gamble attempted by any major party since Canada-U. S. free trade." As we learned with Mulroney in the 80s, you win big with such a gamble or you lose big.
However, I fail to comprehend why smart pundits and commentators are not hammering Elizabeth May for her equally big and failed gambit. Running against Peter McKay was unconscionably dumb for the leader of a fledgeling party with some momentum. The Greens took 0.8% of the vote in the 2000 federal election (yes, less than 1%, that's not a typo). The preliminary results suggest that they took approximately 6.8% of the vote this time out. They have increased their vote total more than nine fold since 2000 - and they have yet to elect an MP. It's shocking. Maybe more galling since her inclusion in the debates was foreseeable. Maybe more so since she was taken seriously as a national leader despite agreeing not to run a candidate against one of the other federal leaders and going out of her way to praise him.
So, what would have been better for the Green Party, as a political party, for its leader who finished a strong second in a by-election in London-North Centre to run there again in the general election (where the candidate she lost to was defeated last night, btw), or maybe to run in a BC riding where the Greens have taken as much as 30% in a provincial election, or to sit the gallery of Parliament taking notes and promoting a new book? May should be turfed as fast as Dion will be, but alas I suspect that her popular persona will keep her around, thus ensuring we have yet another left-leaning political party with no hope of winning or successsful strategizing.
Green
That Post article makes the fantastically dubious claim that, "this vote will be remembered as a referendum on the Liberals' Green Shift...Canadians' passion for environmental causes has now been subject to a direct test...[i]t turns out that jobs and savings accounts still come first with the public."
First of all, what-the-fuck-ever on this referendum thing. Second, here is what the Post, the Globe and everyone is missing and which I only gripped moments ago - this election actually was a little bit about the environment, but not in some overarching, metaphorical, Oscar-winning, passionate-cause-ish kind of way. I've been arguing for more than a year now around the office (and to anyone else I can pin down to listen to me) that the party that best explains how solutions to environmental issues are to be accommodated in *the economy* wins. The fact is that in this election every party attempted to do so and the Conservatives convinced Canadians that they are the ones with the best plan at the moment. Enironmental activists may not agree and may not like it, but the Conservatives do have an environmental plan. It is timid, weak and unlikely to make any difference at all, but it is also a plan that you can use to convince Canadians that these things can be blended. The fact that the economy seemed to be under threat only worked to convince more people that thy should leave the Conservatives and their approach at the tiller. The other parties had their chances: the Green Shift is actually the best plan, but was explained as poorly as possible, Layton gave a speech in Novermber 2007 about "Green Collar Jobs," which had potential and this is what the Green Party is all about, but (I'm as shocked as you are) the Conservatives were the ones to get the tone right on this one. But, I believe this is the first step down this road, not the last, and everyone should be getting ready for round two.
Great expectations
I was at the convention that elected Jack Layton leader of the NDP. I voted for the man. I have not stopped feeling conflicted about him since.
The NDP's 2008 campaign was probably the best one in my memory (I don't remember much about the 1988 election except lecturing my vice-principal in the school yard one day about voting Tory, while leading a pro-NDP rally of school children who wouldn't be able to vote for almost a decade) and yet the expectations were even higher. Talk of besting the 1988 seat total was real and didn't seem totally far fetched. Despite taking the party higher than they have been since that time, despite important and impressive wins in Newfoundland, Quebec and Alberta, Jack looked disappointed while addressing the party faithful during his concession speech last night. Even the points in the speech when he tried to sound the defiant "conscience of Parliament" note were flat (to my ear anyway).
And, I think that this is the problem: Layton doesn't want to be the conscience of Parliament. Layton wants to win, but he can't. The NDP still can't build a big enough coalition. The NDP still can't get far enough away from its roots in socialism and the labour movement (in perception) to gain the trust of an inherently middle-of-the-road populace. It is, in fact, the same problem Stephen Harper has struggled with for more than a half decade: how to remain true to an ideology while persuading people who don't share to trust him.
Here are three areas I would suggest Layton address if we had 10 minutes to talk:
1) Policy - Not every platform can or should propose massive new programs run by a federal department that work almost exclusively in areas where the federal government cannot legislate. You acknowledged this tacitly in 2008 by proposing to expand the Conservative-initiated child benefit program. If you want to be about middle-class Canadians (or how about low-income Canadians) then offer them stuff without digging a hole that undermines important national programs. Stop pandering to interest groups and start thinking about what interests citizens. Offer a platform on which someone could govern and say "aww, fuck it" if someone else steals it in order to do so. Oh, and don't ever again let going after the Liberals or anyone else cause you to rule out a particular policy the way you did with a carbon tax. You should be for a carbon tax, especially one that would bring a commensurate reduction in income tax burdens for low and middle-income Canadians. That pisses some people off (see below).
2) Presentation - There is something about the way that you and the party use language that still resonates badly. The "kitchen table" stuff was used so much it was mocked and the syntax or grammar of it always made me think you were saying you could communion with tables. Referring incessantly to "ordinary Canadians" makes one wonder, am I part of that group or am I somehow exceptional, and which one is it better to be? (BTW- I really don't believe that people think of themselves as being "ordinary.") You still need to do something different in the debates. The zinger about the platform in the sweater was fine, but even seated at a table like a grown up you sometimes came across more like the high school debate team bully. For all his mistakes, Dion won his highest marks for his debate performances, which were described afterward using words like "measured" and "Prime Ministerial." Take note. Prepare your attacks and your defenses and deliver them like it's a "fait accomplis" that Canadians will get it and agree. Not arrogant, but smarter than the average bear. Spend the next two years building a narrative that can change, evolve and that plays to the aspirations of Canadians. Read, then watch video, of every speech Barack Obama has given since late 2007. You cannot be him, but he can learn a little something. Change can be a concept around which to build.
3) People - It is telling that your 2006 candidate in Toronto-St. Paul, Paul Sommerville, not only didn't run for you again in 2008, but he worked for the Liberal who beat him! I liked Paul Sommerville, both his substance and what he represented. The man was a banker for crying out loud! You need more people like him in your tent, not fewer. You need more people like me in your tent, not fewer. A lot of us feel like we've been chased away from the party with sticks and torches for not being ideologically pure enough. Many of us know policy well and we know when yours stinks. It's worth noting that while the federal party has yet to form government, NDP governments have been the norm in places like BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia could elect an NDP government soon and Ontario did once upon a time. Those governments have learned about making choices and not trying to do everything at the same time. Yet, it feels like you haven't learned much from them. Sometimes when the base is upset about someone you bring in, that's a good thing.
This was likely the easiest it will get for the NDP for quite sometime. The Conservatives are the dominant party of the day. The Liberals will re-group, possibly with a leader who knows something about building the party and being a politician, and they don't tend to lose seats without coming to re-claim them. The Greens may continue to surge. The Bloc is, for now, alive and well in Quebec (good idea attacking their credentials as "un parti progressiste" though). No wonder Jack looked a little down last night.
To close off this marathon and random post...
"Capital G was down to his boxers."
- George Bluth explains to his son Michael that he couldn't meet him during a prison visit because he was in the middle of an intense game of strip poker.
The People
Wisdom from Adam Radwanski:
"[I]t may be time for all of us to be a little less breathless in our response to every last twist and turn, and try a little more often to put ourselves in the shoes of people who don't live and breathe politics."
It's a bit like when one guy won't stop talking about earmarks while the other guy is talking TO the middle-class.
"[I]t may be time for all of us to be a little less breathless in our response to every last twist and turn, and try a little more often to put ourselves in the shoes of people who don't live and breathe politics."
It's a bit like when one guy won't stop talking about earmarks while the other guy is talking TO the middle-class.
It's Over! It Begins!
Well the federal election has ended with somewhat predictable results, a Conservative minority government will remain in power in Ottawa. There were some notable results in individual ridings. The Conservatives cleaned up in BC, the NDP won seats in Quebec and Alberta (!), the Bloc Qubecois is not dead, the Green Party is still not a real party (perhaps they should be dubbed the Pinocchio party) and the Liberals are looking weaker and weaker.
Of course, Stephane Dion will take the heat in the coming days, and well he should accept a lot of responsibility. Yet, I can't help but think that while there were evidently things he might have done differently, the Liberals really have bigger problems right now. They are not only reduced in seats, but it appears from here that they are, at best, the third best Canadian political party at doing the work of getting MPs elected. They obviously trail the Conservatives and (for all the doom and gloom) they are not as good as the Bloc (yes, I get that they have immense structural advantages by not running a national campaign). It's not clear at this point that they are really all that much better than the NDP.
Anyway, barring something truly strange the Liberals have this to look forward to in the next year. Good luck with all of that.
Here's my take; if Stephane Dion is, in fact, truly a leader - I don't meant of the Liberals, although that too, but of people - he will immediately convene some sort of committee or advisory group of smart people (both inside and outside the party) to figure out what's wrong and how to fix it. This is the third election in a row in which they have lost seats and votes. This is much bigger than M. Dion, or even Mr. Martin or M. Chretien. Until the Liberals do this, until they stop thinking of themselves as being at the centre of Canadian political life, they should expect many more nights like last night.
Of course, Stephane Dion will take the heat in the coming days, and well he should accept a lot of responsibility. Yet, I can't help but think that while there were evidently things he might have done differently, the Liberals really have bigger problems right now. They are not only reduced in seats, but it appears from here that they are, at best, the third best Canadian political party at doing the work of getting MPs elected. They obviously trail the Conservatives and (for all the doom and gloom) they are not as good as the Bloc (yes, I get that they have immense structural advantages by not running a national campaign). It's not clear at this point that they are really all that much better than the NDP.
Anyway, barring something truly strange the Liberals have this to look forward to in the next year. Good luck with all of that.
Here's my take; if Stephane Dion is, in fact, truly a leader - I don't meant of the Liberals, although that too, but of people - he will immediately convene some sort of committee or advisory group of smart people (both inside and outside the party) to figure out what's wrong and how to fix it. This is the third election in a row in which they have lost seats and votes. This is much bigger than M. Dion, or even Mr. Martin or M. Chretien. Until the Liberals do this, until they stop thinking of themselves as being at the centre of Canadian political life, they should expect many more nights like last night.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Me, The Voter
I voted in yesterday's federal election. Yes, this qualifies as news today. Here are a few stats about me as a voter (I put them out there because they kind of surprised me):
Percentage of federal elections in which I have voted since reaching age of majority: 40% (2 of 5, I think. I can't remember if I voted in 2004.)
Percentage of times I have voted for the winner in an election: 50% (1 of 2)
Percentage of times I have voted NDP: 0%(!) (This is remarkable to me and I feel is a reflection of the candidates I have had to choose from.)
Percentage of times I have voted for a candidate who got absolutely waxed by the winner: 50% (Laurier-Sainte Marie is solidly behind M. Duceppe to the tune of 54%.)
Percentage of times I have been disappointed by the results of the election, various reasons: 100%
Percentage of federal elections in which I have voted since reaching age of majority: 40% (2 of 5, I think. I can't remember if I voted in 2004.)
Percentage of times I have voted for the winner in an election: 50% (1 of 2)
Percentage of times I have voted NDP: 0%(!) (This is remarkable to me and I feel is a reflection of the candidates I have had to choose from.)
Percentage of times I have voted for a candidate who got absolutely waxed by the winner: 50% (Laurier-Sainte Marie is solidly behind M. Duceppe to the tune of 54%.)
Percentage of times I have been disappointed by the results of the election, various reasons: 100%
Monday, October 6, 2008
Access to Post-secondary Education
Access to post-secondary education (PSE) is a subject near and dear to my heart. This issue is what I work at professionally (to the extent that I'm professional about it). When I was a student government hack in university it was the core issue that I tried to work on. I think that it is a crucial and totally slept-on issue in Canadian society and our politics. I think that when we do look at it, we often do it through the wrong lens, missing the very people who matter in the access conversation - those who do not currently make it to PSE, for whatever reason.
Vincent Tinto, from Syracuse University, does a very nice job of presenting another part of the access story in this article for the Carnegie Foundation: persistence and completion. Tinto is well recognized as a leader in the field of PSE research.
So, to be clear, access can (and should) mean the following: getting students in the front door (amdissions) and out the back door (degree, diploma, certificate in hand).
(H/T to Dale Kirby)
Vincent Tinto, from Syracuse University, does a very nice job of presenting another part of the access story in this article for the Carnegie Foundation: persistence and completion. Tinto is well recognized as a leader in the field of PSE research.
So, to be clear, access can (and should) mean the following: getting students in the front door (amdissions) and out the back door (degree, diploma, certificate in hand).
(H/T to Dale Kirby)
Green Shift?
Campaign signs for the Green Party candidate in my riding (Laurier-Ville Marie) went up over the weekend. This is totally insignificant electorally, since the sitting MP is Gilles Duceppe, who won last time by approximately 2b votes and who, as far as I know, hasn't set foot in the riding since the writ drop. What is interesting about the local Green candidate's appearance little more than a week before the election is the slogan on his signs. M. Dylan Perceval-Maxwell is running with the catchy slogan, "La souveraineté personnelle" - personal sovereignty or independence. This is remarkable, not just because the regular old signs of the Green Party have a difference slogan ("La politique différemment"), but because I'm astounded that it's the Green's who have chosen to inject a little sovereignty spice into this election campaign. Even the Bloc has been relatively quiet about the subject (not counting the discontented former members, anyway).
It's highly probable that this will go totally unnoticed since no one will challenge M. Duceppe, let alone the Green candidate, in this particular riding. It is worth taking note of, however, if, as everyone else seems to think, the Greens will move from simply en vogue to a real fifth column in Canadian federal politics. Unlike the other parties, they have not yet had to define their position on the unity of the federation in the public spotlight, but should they continue to rise they will have to, and it will be interesting to see the degree to which the Quebec Greens hold fast to notions of sovereignty - personal or otherwise.
Update...
So, no photos yet, but since I was feeling a bit frisky about all this I emailed the Perceval-Maxwell campaign to ask about the slogan. Below are the questions and reponses (all non-capitalized letters came from them). I leave it to you to judge them yourself:
What does this slogan mean to you?
it means personal freedom
Why have you adopted a different slogan from the other slogan used onGreen Party signs, "La politique differement?"
it is complementary to theother slogan as we believe in giving the power to you the people rather than keeping it for ourselves
What is the Green Party position on Quebec independence?
we believe incoming together rather than breaking apart, but also we believe in decentralization of power not just from Ottawa to Quebec city but to the people
What is your position on Quebec independence?
I am not supporter of Quebec separating from Canada
It's highly probable that this will go totally unnoticed since no one will challenge M. Duceppe, let alone the Green candidate, in this particular riding. It is worth taking note of, however, if, as everyone else seems to think, the Greens will move from simply en vogue to a real fifth column in Canadian federal politics. Unlike the other parties, they have not yet had to define their position on the unity of the federation in the public spotlight, but should they continue to rise they will have to, and it will be interesting to see the degree to which the Quebec Greens hold fast to notions of sovereignty - personal or otherwise.
Update...
So, no photos yet, but since I was feeling a bit frisky about all this I emailed the Perceval-Maxwell campaign to ask about the slogan. Below are the questions and reponses (all non-capitalized letters came from them). I leave it to you to judge them yourself:
What does this slogan mean to you?
it means personal freedom
Why have you adopted a different slogan from the other slogan used onGreen Party signs, "La politique differement?"
it is complementary to theother slogan as we believe in giving the power to you the people rather than keeping it for ourselves
What is the Green Party position on Quebec independence?
we believe incoming together rather than breaking apart, but also we believe in decentralization of power not just from Ottawa to Quebec city but to the people
What is your position on Quebec independence?
I am not supporter of Quebec separating from Canada
Sarah Pallin is the best thing...
...to happen to SNL since Gerald Ford tripped.
That sketch is 11 minutes long!
It has Queen Latifah doing a cameo!
It keeps Tina Fey in the running for more Emmys!
That sketch is 11 minutes long!
It has Queen Latifah doing a cameo!
It keeps Tina Fey in the running for more Emmys!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
How do universities get away with it?
In the wake of the failed financial industry bailout in the US I am once again thinking about our universities. To be sure, the failed congressional vote was politics. So was the proposal from the White House and the outrage with which it was received. But, given that we were looking at a $700B transfer from the federal government to the banking and financial industries, wasn't it nice and refreshing that politicians were insisting that the money NOT go to pay executive compensation to the CEOs who screwed up in the first place? And that provisions be made for those citizens who had, say, lost a home?
It makes me wonder about our universities because it continues to astound me that governments in Canada provide upteen billion dollars ($20B in 2008) in subsidies to these institutions every year without a single meaningful measure of accountability for the money.
I don't believe that it's wasted money and I am totally down with the mission of universities (whatever one interprets that to be), but it is flatly outrageous that politicians are consistently outflanked by academics on this issue and that they appear more ready to impose accountability and regulation on banks than universities. It's doubly outrageous that the attitude of university leaders (anytime accountability is raised) seems to be that their institutions are above such petty matters - i.e., give us the cash and leave us alone.
How do they get away with that?
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Madmen
We have a crisis in this country. You wouldn't believe it, but there are mad, crazy insidious people out there encouraging young men and women to...go to university. In fact, according to a spate of recent articles (here *US article*, here, here *subscription required*, and here), our children are being convinced there is no other option, but university, to the great detriment of society and their self-esteem.
The CSM article is based around the premise that a Bachelor's degree ain't what it used to be, which is fine in so far as one looks only at the gaps in income between bachelor and college graduates in the early years of earning. Wente's notion is that there are some people who simply don't belong in university, or as she says (in a style that only she can muster), "Educational romanticism has led us to believe that every student can become at least average, and that the right teaching strategies can close the achievement gap." Wente is onto something here - our children are being taught, by someone so evil that one can only call him or her Hitler, to believe that they should shoot for a university education. Hells bells! This requires some serious investigation and I've come up with a list of suspects:
1) High school teachers and guidance counsellors
These liberal, university educated pussies have been trying to get our kids to do better for years and have access to our young people more than anyone, including their parents who are so goddamn tired of them by the time their teenagers they'd rather not have to talk to them at all. Naturally, they're pimping their own personal path as that to the promised land. Here's a question though: what self-respecting teenager does what a teacher or guidance counsellor tells them to do?
2) Parents
Bastards! These bastards won't stop putting pressure on young Billy and Suzy to do better in school and go onto a successful life of health, happiness and comfort. Bastards, again, I say! Sure bastards with a university education are role models to their kids and, if you've got some bling to go with it, probably make the university path look attractive. They may also put pressure on their kids to do well in school and live up to the family name. My bastards both have advanced degrees and look how I turned out! However, this only explains part of the phenomenon because it's still only about 50-60% of adult Canadians who ever went to a post-secondary program let alone received a univeristy degree. So how does that explain all the stupid kids that Wente is worried about who didn't have the role model, nor the skills to make it to and in university? Plus, "what self-respecting teenager does what" their bastards "tell them to do?" (Also, see my point above about how bastards don't like their kids.)
3) Universities
For all of the griping that university types do about the lousy students they have to teach these days they are marketing their schools to kids like never before. This kind of thing has a name - bait and switch. We're on to you assholes.
4) Friends and peers
We should definitely stop kids from having friends and speaking to their peers. These little jerks get other kids to do drugs, have sex, and very likely go to university, because as we all know if Timmy jumped off a bridge, Johnny sure as hell will to. This phenomenon only applies more strongly to going to school. You should see the lines of kids lined up to jump off the bridge over the swan pond at Mount Allison University.
I'm sure there are others, such as John McCain, BlackBerrys, Iguanas, Jesus and Kevin Bacon who bear responsibility, but this post is getting a little absurd, as opposed to the articles that inspired it.
Never mind for a second that there are probably half a million people enrolled in community colleges in Canada who obviously never ran into the crazies pushing unviersity like so much crack. Wente and others just miss the point. There is lots of reason to think that people can be taught to learn better and be better students and there are successful programs that do just that. Is it a substitute for proper guidance and counselling to ensure people go where they will be most passionate about their education and future careers? No. They go hand in hand, which is in fact the point. We want all of our young people to have every chance in life to be happy, healthy, productive, employed and well paid and to the extent that meeting those ambitions require post-secondary education we want our young people inspired to take the right form and level of education suited to them. It might be university, but it could also be college or skilled trades. Support your kids to do what they feel passionate about and I'd wager they'll be better people...and still get paid.
However, when prominent university leaders say stuff like this and this, perhaps we need a bigger conversation about what society expects from our institutions.
(PS- We pay for half of your shit with our taxes, assholes. The whole realm of accountability and universities line in is worth another post.)
The CSM article is based around the premise that a Bachelor's degree ain't what it used to be, which is fine in so far as one looks only at the gaps in income between bachelor and college graduates in the early years of earning. Wente's notion is that there are some people who simply don't belong in university, or as she says (in a style that only she can muster), "Educational romanticism has led us to believe that every student can become at least average, and that the right teaching strategies can close the achievement gap." Wente is onto something here - our children are being taught, by someone so evil that one can only call him or her Hitler, to believe that they should shoot for a university education. Hells bells! This requires some serious investigation and I've come up with a list of suspects:
1) High school teachers and guidance counsellors
These liberal, university educated pussies have been trying to get our kids to do better for years and have access to our young people more than anyone, including their parents who are so goddamn tired of them by the time their teenagers they'd rather not have to talk to them at all. Naturally, they're pimping their own personal path as that to the promised land. Here's a question though: what self-respecting teenager does what a teacher or guidance counsellor tells them to do?
2) Parents
Bastards! These bastards won't stop putting pressure on young Billy and Suzy to do better in school and go onto a successful life of health, happiness and comfort. Bastards, again, I say! Sure bastards with a university education are role models to their kids and, if you've got some bling to go with it, probably make the university path look attractive. They may also put pressure on their kids to do well in school and live up to the family name. My bastards both have advanced degrees and look how I turned out! However, this only explains part of the phenomenon because it's still only about 50-60% of adult Canadians who ever went to a post-secondary program let alone received a univeristy degree. So how does that explain all the stupid kids that Wente is worried about who didn't have the role model, nor the skills to make it to and in university? Plus, "what self-respecting teenager does what" their bastards "tell them to do?" (Also, see my point above about how bastards don't like their kids.)
3) Universities
For all of the griping that university types do about the lousy students they have to teach these days they are marketing their schools to kids like never before. This kind of thing has a name - bait and switch. We're on to you assholes.
4) Friends and peers
We should definitely stop kids from having friends and speaking to their peers. These little jerks get other kids to do drugs, have sex, and very likely go to university, because as we all know if Timmy jumped off a bridge, Johnny sure as hell will to. This phenomenon only applies more strongly to going to school. You should see the lines of kids lined up to jump off the bridge over the swan pond at Mount Allison University.
I'm sure there are others, such as John McCain, BlackBerrys, Iguanas, Jesus and Kevin Bacon who bear responsibility, but this post is getting a little absurd, as opposed to the articles that inspired it.
Never mind for a second that there are probably half a million people enrolled in community colleges in Canada who obviously never ran into the crazies pushing unviersity like so much crack. Wente and others just miss the point. There is lots of reason to think that people can be taught to learn better and be better students and there are successful programs that do just that. Is it a substitute for proper guidance and counselling to ensure people go where they will be most passionate about their education and future careers? No. They go hand in hand, which is in fact the point. We want all of our young people to have every chance in life to be happy, healthy, productive, employed and well paid and to the extent that meeting those ambitions require post-secondary education we want our young people inspired to take the right form and level of education suited to them. It might be university, but it could also be college or skilled trades. Support your kids to do what they feel passionate about and I'd wager they'll be better people...and still get paid.
However, when prominent university leaders say stuff like this and this, perhaps we need a bigger conversation about what society expects from our institutions.
(PS- We pay for half of your shit with our taxes, assholes. The whole realm of accountability and universities line in is worth another post.)
Why is it okay to lie to Parliament?
As far as inaugural posts go this will seem a bit weird perhaps, but you're basically catching mid-stream of thought, which is pretty close to what this blog will be about. So, in reality, you're getting the point.
I'm following the elections in Canada and the US pretty closely so I caught some blog posts from south of the border about Joe Biden's new stump speech. It goes pretty hard after McCain trying to draw his 2008 persona (snivelling distorter of truths) away from the 2000 version (Maverick) everyone seems to still be enthralled by. It also contains this line, which caught my attention:
"He stands with the oil company CEOs who swore to me, under penalty of perjury, that they didn't need tax breaks to explore for oil."
Now, I assume that Biden has never sued and oil company exec (I assume without proper fact check), so I also assume that he's talking about testimony given to a congressional committee. From experience, I know that when witnesses testify before a House of Commons committee that they can (and often do) say just about anything they want, and unless one of the committee members knows different (chances = slim to fat chance), they can get away with lying out their ass. I realize (thank you C-SPAN) that congressional committees administer an oath of honesty, which Parliamentary committees don't, but I guess the question I don't know the answer to, is:
Why does Parliament consider it okay to lie to its committees?
I'm following the elections in Canada and the US pretty closely so I caught some blog posts from south of the border about Joe Biden's new stump speech. It goes pretty hard after McCain trying to draw his 2008 persona (snivelling distorter of truths) away from the 2000 version (Maverick) everyone seems to still be enthralled by. It also contains this line, which caught my attention:
"He stands with the oil company CEOs who swore to me, under penalty of perjury, that they didn't need tax breaks to explore for oil."
Now, I assume that Biden has never sued and oil company exec (I assume without proper fact check), so I also assume that he's talking about testimony given to a congressional committee. From experience, I know that when witnesses testify before a House of Commons committee that they can (and often do) say just about anything they want, and unless one of the committee members knows different (chances = slim to fat chance), they can get away with lying out their ass. I realize (thank you C-SPAN) that congressional committees administer an oath of honesty, which Parliamentary committees don't, but I guess the question I don't know the answer to, is:
Why does Parliament consider it okay to lie to its committees?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)