Without comment...
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Uh, This Isn't Going To Be Good For Anyone
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/10/cidas-haiti-earthquake-relief-fund-millions-raised-nothing-spent/
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Steve Paikin Is A Hero
I wonder what would happen if the Parliamentary press corps tried this when one or more politicians who were *ahem* messing them about.
A nice job from Steve Paikin and an equally crappy one from Glen Murray and Pam Taylor.
A Fundamental Difference, Perhaps
Days like today I often find myself thinking wistfully about our public life in Canada. "Days like today" often referring to days after a particularly interesting event in the US. And so it is today.
Yesterday President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I'm conscious of the fact that we don't have many moments like this Canada, but I'll point you to Paul Wells' thoughts on this over here as they are, you know, better. With no disrespect intended to the 200,000 members of anti-prorogation group on Facebook and several tens of thousands who were out on a cold January day (a Saturday) to protest the same (and a similar number who were out for anti-coalition rallies just over a year ago), I would say that Canadians rarely respond to their politics with the same fervor that our American counsins do. None of these are more than superficial differences between our peoples in my mind, however. Then I came across this comment in a discussion of the State of the Union speech in the Politico Arena by an attorney, Eric Jaffe, who I believe to be a Republican:
"Which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of the speech for me – the notion that we have a “deficit of trust” in government...My objection is that it champions the erroneous and extremely dangerous notion that we SHOULD trust our government. America does not have a deficit of trust, it has a surfeit.The whole point of our constitutional democracy is that a national government – and the various regimes that occasionally control it – is dangerous...Americans should be suspicious of, cynical about, and lack blind faith in government precisely because politicians of all parties are likely to aggrandize their own power and attempt to create a majority faction that is a danger to liberty regardless which party is in control."
This paragraph graphically demonstrates what I think is one fundamental difference between our two countries - I don't think that many (I won't say there are none) Canadians feel this way about government. Even among Canadian conservatives, of whom I admit to only knowing a few personally, this particular streak of libertarianism doesn't run strong. Some Canadians may not like government, but most conservatives I've ever heard talk of smaller government talk about a dislike for wasteful, overreaching government full of "national projects" and little adherence to the constitution, not fear. Over at the Western Standard, where they certainly try to uphold some sense of conservative libertarian values, a recent blog post laments the absence of these in the current Conservative government. The post, "To Whom Does This Parliament Belong?" makes a case for a libertarian perspective on Canada's politics, but goes nowhere near the notion that a citizen should not trust his or her government or that it's dangerous. It says only that said government should be limited and answer to the people who put it in place.
I don't know how widely held Eric Jaffe's views are by others in the US, nor do I think that Canadians of any stripe are all particularly excited or impressed by their governments, but the difference in attitude seems vast and important to me. The chasm between fear of your government and seeking to put proper limits on its power allows for a higher level of state intervention. While Canadian "conservatives" often blame "liberals" for the size of the state in Canada it would be interesting to know how much of it is permitted by the different attitude that they take toward government than American conservatives do.
Yesterday President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I'm conscious of the fact that we don't have many moments like this Canada, but I'll point you to Paul Wells' thoughts on this over here as they are, you know, better. With no disrespect intended to the 200,000 members of anti-prorogation group on Facebook and several tens of thousands who were out on a cold January day (a Saturday) to protest the same (and a similar number who were out for anti-coalition rallies just over a year ago), I would say that Canadians rarely respond to their politics with the same fervor that our American counsins do. None of these are more than superficial differences between our peoples in my mind, however. Then I came across this comment in a discussion of the State of the Union speech in the Politico Arena by an attorney, Eric Jaffe, who I believe to be a Republican:
"Which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of the speech for me – the notion that we have a “deficit of trust” in government...My objection is that it champions the erroneous and extremely dangerous notion that we SHOULD trust our government. America does not have a deficit of trust, it has a surfeit.The whole point of our constitutional democracy is that a national government – and the various regimes that occasionally control it – is dangerous...Americans should be suspicious of, cynical about, and lack blind faith in government precisely because politicians of all parties are likely to aggrandize their own power and attempt to create a majority faction that is a danger to liberty regardless which party is in control."
This paragraph graphically demonstrates what I think is one fundamental difference between our two countries - I don't think that many (I won't say there are none) Canadians feel this way about government. Even among Canadian conservatives, of whom I admit to only knowing a few personally, this particular streak of libertarianism doesn't run strong. Some Canadians may not like government, but most conservatives I've ever heard talk of smaller government talk about a dislike for wasteful, overreaching government full of "national projects" and little adherence to the constitution, not fear. Over at the Western Standard, where they certainly try to uphold some sense of conservative libertarian values, a recent blog post laments the absence of these in the current Conservative government. The post, "To Whom Does This Parliament Belong?" makes a case for a libertarian perspective on Canada's politics, but goes nowhere near the notion that a citizen should not trust his or her government or that it's dangerous. It says only that said government should be limited and answer to the people who put it in place.
I don't know how widely held Eric Jaffe's views are by others in the US, nor do I think that Canadians of any stripe are all particularly excited or impressed by their governments, but the difference in attitude seems vast and important to me. The chasm between fear of your government and seeking to put proper limits on its power allows for a higher level of state intervention. While Canadian "conservatives" often blame "liberals" for the size of the state in Canada it would be interesting to know how much of it is permitted by the different attitude that they take toward government than American conservatives do.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Despondent Political Observers Of The World Unite!
It is rare that I find myself in agreement with Andrew Coyne about politics in Canada, although I do (sadly for me, I guess) find him to be one of our better political writers. Maybe the best. And I do not know Andrew Coyne personally, although we have met a few times and I now have a quite hilarious story that goes along with one of those encounters. Yet, occassionally, I seriously worry for the man because he seems to get rather depressed when he thinks too much about the way in which the Conservatives' are governing our country.
The latest examples are here, here and here. I hope someone in the Rogers/Macleans world is checking in on Mr. Coyne regularly because his usual cynicism seems to be venturing near the deep waters of depression.
I will say this, however, from my own limited experience that I too am shocked and a little depressed by the way this government manages its business. It's not so much the cynicism of their behaviour, as Coyne seems to worry most about, but rather the incompetance, depravity and vidictiveness that seems to characterize their outlook on the world and response to events. They seem to continue to behave as though they never won an election and power might slip away at any second (depending on whether they are reading polls on Monday or Wednesday one can imagine how this aspect at least would be prone to a certain type of manic reaction). This seems to lead to a constant state of message control, domination and bullying of those people and agencies that are within their grasp. This is true whether it's the PBO, Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, assinine comments from Ministers caught on tape, the information commissioner or any number of things. Perhaps it's just that they had very little collective experience governing prior to winning and so they feel the need to squeeze every second from the experience, but they handle themselves almost without a modicum of grace. Worse still perhaps, they seem quite alright with such an existence. It seems to me that they cannot see the carrot for the stick.
How could they possibly see a tree, let alone the forrest?
The latest examples are here, here and here. I hope someone in the Rogers/Macleans world is checking in on Mr. Coyne regularly because his usual cynicism seems to be venturing near the deep waters of depression.
I will say this, however, from my own limited experience that I too am shocked and a little depressed by the way this government manages its business. It's not so much the cynicism of their behaviour, as Coyne seems to worry most about, but rather the incompetance, depravity and vidictiveness that seems to characterize their outlook on the world and response to events. They seem to continue to behave as though they never won an election and power might slip away at any second (depending on whether they are reading polls on Monday or Wednesday one can imagine how this aspect at least would be prone to a certain type of manic reaction). This seems to lead to a constant state of message control, domination and bullying of those people and agencies that are within their grasp. This is true whether it's the PBO, Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, assinine comments from Ministers caught on tape, the information commissioner or any number of things. Perhaps it's just that they had very little collective experience governing prior to winning and so they feel the need to squeeze every second from the experience, but they handle themselves almost without a modicum of grace. Worse still perhaps, they seem quite alright with such an existence. It seems to me that they cannot see the carrot for the stick.
How could they possibly see a tree, let alone the forrest?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Message From Europe
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/05/04/equitable-access-to-pse-in-europe/
I believe, on the heels of Obama's ambitious goals for higher education, that this constitutes a pretty serious challenge to be heeded globally. In essence, the members of the European Higher Education Area have said, "who's got next?" in terms of committing to deeper more meaningful access to higher education for all citizens and the idea that the student population in higher education institutions should be more diverse and reflective of the societies outside their walls.
Let me also just take a second to address a debate that is sure to ensue, because it does every time "Europe" manages to do something constructive on higher ed, this is no way some sort of indictment of our federation. Yes, Europe has (seemingly) successfully integrated many states with often competing, sometimes converging interests to act (or propose to act) on higher education issues. The primary feature of their efforts, however, is the recognition that action requires compromise and cooperation. It also allows individual states the freedom to act independently in their own jurisdiction, both in terms of pace of reform and the form those changes will take. None of this is precluded in our constitution. Let's repeat, the constitution is not an impediment to action on higher education reform in Canada.
If I could write a single speech for the Prime Minister today (and have him believe in what it said) it would contain the following sentences:
"That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete [post-secondary education] and meet a new goal: by 2020, [Canada] willonce again have the highest proportion of [post-secondary education] graduates in the world. The federal government will lead the way on this goal, but we will accomplish it in partnership with all provincial and territorial governments who we know understand the importance of expanding and profoundly deepening access and success for young Canadians."
Now let's go do this thing.
(H/T to Dale Kirby at Macleans)
I believe, on the heels of Obama's ambitious goals for higher education, that this constitutes a pretty serious challenge to be heeded globally. In essence, the members of the European Higher Education Area have said, "who's got next?" in terms of committing to deeper more meaningful access to higher education for all citizens and the idea that the student population in higher education institutions should be more diverse and reflective of the societies outside their walls.
Let me also just take a second to address a debate that is sure to ensue, because it does every time "Europe" manages to do something constructive on higher ed, this is no way some sort of indictment of our federation. Yes, Europe has (seemingly) successfully integrated many states with often competing, sometimes converging interests to act (or propose to act) on higher education issues. The primary feature of their efforts, however, is the recognition that action requires compromise and cooperation. It also allows individual states the freedom to act independently in their own jurisdiction, both in terms of pace of reform and the form those changes will take. None of this is precluded in our constitution. Let's repeat, the constitution is not an impediment to action on higher education reform in Canada.
If I could write a single speech for the Prime Minister today (and have him believe in what it said) it would contain the following sentences:
"That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete [post-secondary education] and meet a new goal: by 2020, [Canada] will
Now let's go do this thing.
(H/T to Dale Kirby at Macleans)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Really?!
Kory Teneycke, the Prime Minister's communications director, says this
about politics in Canada:
"I think if you're going to step into the ring, you've got to be able to take the punch...This is the House of Commons. This is Politics."
about politics in Canada:
"I think if you're going to step into the ring, you've got to be able to take the punch...This is the House of Commons. This is Politics."
It sounds more like Thunderdome.
And these are currently the ones in GOVERNMENT. It's going to be a dark few years yet, my friends.
Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I Ask Myself All The Time
Every time I read things like this I ask the same question that Krugman is asking of his own country today.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Economics = Education?
As I suggested several days ago now, I have wanted to return to various recent stories about higher education that have appeared in Canad and elsewhere recently and now I'm finally in a position to do so.
As some of you may have heard, times are tough. The economy is in the tank these days and (forgive me Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty) no one seems to know what to make of it. Into this muddle, however, recently waded the Educational Policy Institute with a report (.pdf) that attempts to look out beyond the recession we see in front of our faces to speculate what the impacts might be on higher education in Canada. Not surprisingly, authors Dunn and Usher aren't bathed in a warm glow of light when they peer into their crystal ball.
The gist of the report comes down to this (in my opinion): universities (in particular) and colleges are being squeezed by tanking revenues (e.g., endowments) and increasing expenses (salary and pension obligations), enrolments will continue to rise and it is forseeable that governments will squeeze the sector further when their balance sheets recover a bit and start looking to get rid of their deficits by cutting operating grants and student aid. According to Dunn/Usher there are a few ways to make everything a little easier over the next half decade. Among the ideas they put forward are:
Here's the thing - really, nothing that EPI wrote in this report is really all that controversial in the sober light of morning. Many of these things happened after the last recession (funding cuts, tuition hikes, stripping student aid of anything that didn't require repayment, etc.) and if the intent was to encourage everyone to keep an eye on the ball this time around then it was worthy of the doing. To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time figuring why EPI bothered to write this report at all, other than to annoy particular groups of people whose reactions were entirely predictable? In so far as Dunn/Usher really felt the need to write the report, however, it just stinks to me of a concerted effort to piss off the CFS and CAUT and send the Macleans On Campus blog comment boards into a frenzy. Mission accomplished.
However, the historical comparisons are the real problem and the real danger with this report because it does fall squarely into the realm of idle speculation based precisely on what happened "last time" and smart people aren't so sure this is like last time. Niall Ferguson, a smart person, recently said, "You're going to end up assuming that this recession is going to end up like other recessions, and other recessions didn't last that long, so this one won't last so long. But of course...[t]his is something really quite different in character from anything we've ever experienced in the postwar era." This is what I'm getting at. Dunn/Usher assume, first, that they can know how this economic situation will end up, which is an assumption fraught with perile. Then they assume they can know a series of governmental, institutional and social reactions that are inherently unknowable. Then they issue a series of recommendations. And, all of it is based on what happened during and following the last major economic downturn 10-15 years ago. This just isn't that useful, which makes the extreme reactions all the more ridiculous.
On another note, I'd say that when the Minister responsible for the area your report addresses is running fast in the opposite direction from it, it's just not good for business. It's not good for anybody.
As some of you may have heard, times are tough. The economy is in the tank these days and (forgive me Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty) no one seems to know what to make of it. Into this muddle, however, recently waded the Educational Policy Institute with a report (.pdf) that attempts to look out beyond the recession we see in front of our faces to speculate what the impacts might be on higher education in Canada. Not surprisingly, authors Dunn and Usher aren't bathed in a warm glow of light when they peer into their crystal ball.
The gist of the report comes down to this (in my opinion): universities (in particular) and colleges are being squeezed by tanking revenues (e.g., endowments) and increasing expenses (salary and pension obligations), enrolments will continue to rise and it is forseeable that governments will squeeze the sector further when their balance sheets recover a bit and start looking to get rid of their deficits by cutting operating grants and student aid. According to Dunn/Usher there are a few ways to make everything a little easier over the next half decade. Among the ideas they put forward are:
- Help institutions restructure faculty salaries and pensions through pay outs to older staff.
- Don't constrain the ability of institutions to meet shifting demand with antequated enrolment formulas.
- Allow tuition increases of as much as 25%.
- Protect student aid programs that matter (targetted and need-based grants) and ditch the ones that don't (tax credits).
- "Fund brains, not buildings" - In other words, pay to make sure that our highest quality faculty and researchers remain in Canada.
- Use good measurements to understand the system and leave aside other things.
Here's the thing - really, nothing that EPI wrote in this report is really all that controversial in the sober light of morning. Many of these things happened after the last recession (funding cuts, tuition hikes, stripping student aid of anything that didn't require repayment, etc.) and if the intent was to encourage everyone to keep an eye on the ball this time around then it was worthy of the doing. To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time figuring why EPI bothered to write this report at all, other than to annoy particular groups of people whose reactions were entirely predictable? In so far as Dunn/Usher really felt the need to write the report, however, it just stinks to me of a concerted effort to piss off the CFS and CAUT and send the Macleans On Campus blog comment boards into a frenzy. Mission accomplished.
However, the historical comparisons are the real problem and the real danger with this report because it does fall squarely into the realm of idle speculation based precisely on what happened "last time" and smart people aren't so sure this is like last time. Niall Ferguson, a smart person, recently said, "You're going to end up assuming that this recession is going to end up like other recessions, and other recessions didn't last that long, so this one won't last so long. But of course...[t]his is something really quite different in character from anything we've ever experienced in the postwar era." This is what I'm getting at. Dunn/Usher assume, first, that they can know how this economic situation will end up, which is an assumption fraught with perile. Then they assume they can know a series of governmental, institutional and social reactions that are inherently unknowable. Then they issue a series of recommendations. And, all of it is based on what happened during and following the last major economic downturn 10-15 years ago. This just isn't that useful, which makes the extreme reactions all the more ridiculous.
On another note, I'd say that when the Minister responsible for the area your report addresses is running fast in the opposite direction from it, it's just not good for business. It's not good for anybody.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Big Week for Education
So there are two education related things that are bouncing around in my head that I do need to write about, but haven't found time for yet.
1) The education sections of President Obama's speech on Tuesday.
2) The report released by EPI Canada this week.
I will have to come back to each, but suffice it to say I have opinions. Opinions, dammit!
1) The education sections of President Obama's speech on Tuesday.
2) The report released by EPI Canada this week.
I will have to come back to each, but suffice it to say I have opinions. Opinions, dammit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)