Cardus Senior Fellow Jonathan Wellum yesterday provided his insights on our economic challenges on Business News Network....
http://watch.bnn.ca/trading-day/january-2010/trading-day-january-27-2010/#clip260231
Thursday, 28 January, 2010
Monday, 25 January, 2010
On the Road Again....
I am in the midst of a very busy travel schedule, with projects, board meetings, 29to42 promotion, and a host of challenges which cannot all be discussed publicly. Bottom line is that blogging will be sporadic over the next two weeks, with a more regular routine hopefully commencing at that time.
Saturday, 23 January, 2010
The Week in Review....
Some quick comments on interesting developments during the past week.
Senator Brown from Massachusetts - There is plenty of coverage on what the surprise victory of Scott Brown as the Massachusetts Senator to replace the late Ted Kennedy means. The shine has clearly gone off of the Obama image and the challenge of living up to overhyped expectations are coming home to roost. Having been in various campaigns, I know the temptation of going all out to promise what you can but in the long run, it is always better politics to undersell and over-deliver than vice-versa. In the long run, more lasting change will be accomplished and I think this will hold even more true in the decade to come (with the cynicism and lowered expectations of politicians in general) than it even has in the past.
I do note with interest that Senator Brown is a member of a Christian Reformed congregation.
Protesting Progatation - So today is the day for prorogation protests and it would seem that the various local protests attracted hundreds and the Parliament Hill protest about three thousand. While the Conservatives have clearly lost some public shine due to this manourvre, there are two explanations at play that need to be taken into account. First, prorogation while not that big of a deal on its own, plays into the opposition brand of Harper as a dictator and one-man show. This would appear to be the new opposition branding (replacing the secret agenda brand which was the opposition theme in the previous three elections) and it makes sense for the opposition to stretch it for all its worth. Secondly, the sustaining of this campaign for a month indicates an opposition that has managed to figure out how to make some mileage out of an issue. It also indicates the appetite of the media to turn on the government. (Not that they were ever on the government's side, especially after the PMO did not play to the Press Gallery's rules after the election in 2006, but at least during hte 2006 campaign, the Conservatives did benefit from the media's turning on the Liberals during the sponsorship scandal and 2006 campaign.)
At the end of the day, the prorogation controversy of early 2010 will be long forgotten by the time of the next election as a significant issue. However, it may have helped condition the environment for a different approach of negative branding of the Prime Minister to take root.
Four Years In - There are various columns opining on the virtues and vices of the government on this, the fourth anniversary of their election. Much of it is predicable and expected. I thought however, this take by Darrel Bricker cited in David Akin's column to be insightful:
Senator Brown from Massachusetts - There is plenty of coverage on what the surprise victory of Scott Brown as the Massachusetts Senator to replace the late Ted Kennedy means. The shine has clearly gone off of the Obama image and the challenge of living up to overhyped expectations are coming home to roost. Having been in various campaigns, I know the temptation of going all out to promise what you can but in the long run, it is always better politics to undersell and over-deliver than vice-versa. In the long run, more lasting change will be accomplished and I think this will hold even more true in the decade to come (with the cynicism and lowered expectations of politicians in general) than it even has in the past.
I do note with interest that Senator Brown is a member of a Christian Reformed congregation.
Protesting Progatation - So today is the day for prorogation protests and it would seem that the various local protests attracted hundreds and the Parliament Hill protest about three thousand. While the Conservatives have clearly lost some public shine due to this manourvre, there are two explanations at play that need to be taken into account. First, prorogation while not that big of a deal on its own, plays into the opposition brand of Harper as a dictator and one-man show. This would appear to be the new opposition branding (replacing the secret agenda brand which was the opposition theme in the previous three elections) and it makes sense for the opposition to stretch it for all its worth. Secondly, the sustaining of this campaign for a month indicates an opposition that has managed to figure out how to make some mileage out of an issue. It also indicates the appetite of the media to turn on the government. (Not that they were ever on the government's side, especially after the PMO did not play to the Press Gallery's rules after the election in 2006, but at least during hte 2006 campaign, the Conservatives did benefit from the media's turning on the Liberals during the sponsorship scandal and 2006 campaign.)
At the end of the day, the prorogation controversy of early 2010 will be long forgotten by the time of the next election as a significant issue. However, it may have helped condition the environment for a different approach of negative branding of the Prime Minister to take root.
Four Years In - There are various columns opining on the virtues and vices of the government on this, the fourth anniversary of their election. Much of it is predicable and expected. I thought however, this take by Darrel Bricker cited in David Akin's column to be insightful:
"I think the biggest change since the election of Stephen Harper is that the power base of politics in this country has moved more rural and more west," Darrell Bricker, CEO and president of Ipsos Reid, said. "That's a substantial and significant change from the Liberal days when the power base of the country, for federal politics, was basically Ontario."
Issues or values important to westerners, Bricker said, have become a core part of the national agenda, "in a way they just simply weren't, especially under Jean Chrétien."
In the meantime, the Liberals have, perhaps finally, realized that Harper's tenure is not a Liberal interregnum and they are taking what they hope are some serious, credible steps at becoming Harper's alternative.
"We talk too easily within this party about being the natural party of government," Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said in Ottawa on Wednesday. "If I can achieve one thing as a leader of this party, it's to get that out of our vocabulary."
Tuesday, 19 January, 2010
Shuffling Cabinets
In the midst of a week of travel and meetings, which makes keeping up on the news, much less reflecting and blogging on it, is a challenge.
Cabinet Shuffles: Last Wednesday was Alberta's turn, yesterday Ontario's and today the federal government's. I agree with those who suggest that Alberta's was designed to send a message to its base that the Conservatives would take a turn to the right and there is no need to flee the party for the Wildrose Alliance. Whether or not the base will heed that message is very much a "wait and see" proposition. It depends as much on the ability of the Wildrose to prove themselves more than an opporutnistic opposition and in fact a credible alternative.
I don't follow Ontario politics quite as closely so interpreting Premier McGuinty's rationale is a bit more challenging. By removing three veterans and promoting four new members to cabinet, there is a sense that the purpose was to put a fresh face on the government and try to reposition it. When viewed against these changes, Prime Minister Harper's change today seems very low key and modest. By making no changes to the major portfolios and making a relatively minor shuffle of ten ministers, the message seems to be one of "staying the course" with the message that diligent service is rewarded.
Cabinet Shuffles: Last Wednesday was Alberta's turn, yesterday Ontario's and today the federal government's. I agree with those who suggest that Alberta's was designed to send a message to its base that the Conservatives would take a turn to the right and there is no need to flee the party for the Wildrose Alliance. Whether or not the base will heed that message is very much a "wait and see" proposition. It depends as much on the ability of the Wildrose to prove themselves more than an opporutnistic opposition and in fact a credible alternative.
I don't follow Ontario politics quite as closely so interpreting Premier McGuinty's rationale is a bit more challenging. By removing three veterans and promoting four new members to cabinet, there is a sense that the purpose was to put a fresh face on the government and try to reposition it. When viewed against these changes, Prime Minister Harper's change today seems very low key and modest. By making no changes to the major portfolios and making a relatively minor shuffle of ten ministers, the message seems to be one of "staying the course" with the message that diligent service is rewarded.
Monday, 18 January, 2010
Canadian Council of Christian Charities Endorses 29to42
Via CanadaNewswire today,
Upcoming Federal Budget to increase Charitable Tax Credit from 29% to 42%
ELMIRA, ON, Jan. 18 /CNW/ - The Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) endorses the proposal to raise the charitable tax credit from 29% to 42% as the one proposal most likely to increase charitable giving in Canada.
Not only will the higher tax credit encourage those who have never given before to give now, it also benefits current donors who have proven to be Canada's most charitable givers by allowing them to give even more to charity.
Research shows that religiously active people give more and volunteer more than any other group in Canada. People who attend a place of worship weekly give more than four times more to charity than the average Canadian. Not only do they fund faith-based charities, but they also provide 42% of all donations made to non-religious charities.
CCCC believes that the increased charitable tax credit, combined with the reinforcement for generous giving that religiously-active people regularly receive, will result in significant increased funding for the charitable sector as a whole.
CCCC calls on Prime Minister Steven Harper and Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty to commit to this act of social justice in the upcoming budget.
The CCCC is the largest association of charities in Canada, with over 3,000 member charities who collectively receive 22% of all donations made in Canada.
Upcoming Federal Budget to increase Charitable Tax Credit from 29% to 42%
ELMIRA, ON, Jan. 18 /CNW/ - The Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) endorses the proposal to raise the charitable tax credit from 29% to 42% as the one proposal most likely to increase charitable giving in Canada.
Not only will the higher tax credit encourage those who have never given before to give now, it also benefits current donors who have proven to be Canada's most charitable givers by allowing them to give even more to charity.
Research shows that religiously active people give more and volunteer more than any other group in Canada. People who attend a place of worship weekly give more than four times more to charity than the average Canadian. Not only do they fund faith-based charities, but they also provide 42% of all donations made to non-religious charities.
CCCC believes that the increased charitable tax credit, combined with the reinforcement for generous giving that religiously-active people regularly receive, will result in significant increased funding for the charitable sector as a whole.
CCCC calls on Prime Minister Steven Harper and Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty to commit to this act of social justice in the upcoming budget.
The CCCC is the largest association of charities in Canada, with over 3,000 member charities who collectively receive 22% of all donations made in Canada.
Saturday, 16 January, 2010
Putting News In Perspective
Yesterday's Comment included an article by Joe Carter on putting the daily news into perspective. He includes a quote from John Sommerville:
Carter's conclusion is striking:
I agree with the points made and they are a necessary antidote to the prevailing usage of media. But I probably see a bit more importance and value than Carter seems to on making it our business to stay on top of what is happening, even if much of the information we glean has no long-term value.
The Scriptures give us the framework but not the specific details of the divine plan. The Biblical story of Joseph is instructive here. There was no way of knowing the significance of various events as they happened. Yet, with hindsight and knowing the whole story, we know that many events that would have been at best local and minor news played a significant part in the overall providential plan. The fact that every hair on my head is numbered by God speaks to the fact that the seemingly trivial things of life have importance too.
That doesn't mean we are able to connect the dots and always make the connections between the events of time and the plans of eternity. In fact, as was made painfully obvious this week by Pat Robertson who spoke as if he could, we make fools of ourselves and the gospel when we attempt to speak with certainty in intrepreting the events of our time with God's reasons for judgement or grace.
When it comes to intrepreting how current events fit into the longer term plan, the advice Jesus gave in response to the catastrophes of his day remains current.) Like the men of Issachar in I Chronicles 12, we ought to know and understand our own times in order that we might know what to do.
Staying aware of the ordinary things that make the news (or as with this week's devastation in Haiti, the not-so-ordinary things) is I think an obligation that all of us have. Getting beyond the punditry of the press and seeking to place these matters in a context of biblical wisdom is also an essential responsibility. Most will not argue with either of these propositions. However, when we make the linkage between the two, we need to do so with humility and care.
The product of the news business is change, not wisdom. Wisdom has to do with seeing things in their largest context, whereas news is structured in a way that destroys the larger context. You have to do certain things to information if you want to sell it on a daily basis. You have to make each day's report seem important. And you do that by reducing the importance of its context.
Carter's conclusion is striking:
As a Christian, I'm expected to take an eternal perspective, viewing events not only in their historical context but also in their eschatological context. But I can't do that if my attention is focused on the churning detritus of the twenty-four hour news cycle, since events that are truly important are rarely those captured on the front page of a daily paper.
As Malcolm Muggeridge admitted, "I've often thought that if I'd been a journalist in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord's ministry, I should have spent my time looking into what was happening in Herod's court. I'd be wanting to sign Salome for her exclusive memoirs, and finding out what Pilate was up to, and—I would have missed completely the most important event there ever was."
Indeed, imagine if CNN were reporting on events in first century Palestine: ". . . three revolutionaries were crucified on Golgatha today. Included among the executions was a man called Jesus, who some Jews considered to be the messiah. Those hopes were dashed, however, around three P.M. when Roman soldiers declared Jesus dead. And now, this . . ."
I agree with the points made and they are a necessary antidote to the prevailing usage of media. But I probably see a bit more importance and value than Carter seems to on making it our business to stay on top of what is happening, even if much of the information we glean has no long-term value.
The Scriptures give us the framework but not the specific details of the divine plan. The Biblical story of Joseph is instructive here. There was no way of knowing the significance of various events as they happened. Yet, with hindsight and knowing the whole story, we know that many events that would have been at best local and minor news played a significant part in the overall providential plan. The fact that every hair on my head is numbered by God speaks to the fact that the seemingly trivial things of life have importance too.
That doesn't mean we are able to connect the dots and always make the connections between the events of time and the plans of eternity. In fact, as was made painfully obvious this week by Pat Robertson who spoke as if he could, we make fools of ourselves and the gospel when we attempt to speak with certainty in intrepreting the events of our time with God's reasons for judgement or grace.
When it comes to intrepreting how current events fit into the longer term plan, the advice Jesus gave in response to the catastrophes of his day remains current.) Like the men of Issachar in I Chronicles 12, we ought to know and understand our own times in order that we might know what to do.
Staying aware of the ordinary things that make the news (or as with this week's devastation in Haiti, the not-so-ordinary things) is I think an obligation that all of us have. Getting beyond the punditry of the press and seeking to place these matters in a context of biblical wisdom is also an essential responsibility. Most will not argue with either of these propositions. However, when we make the linkage between the two, we need to do so with humility and care.
Friday, 15 January, 2010
Reputation and Character
Andrew Coyne makes several good points in his Macleans piece on the Liberal's current round of negative advertising.
He suggests that many ads (including the current round is his implicit suggestion) fail because like the boy who cried wolf, repeated over the top allegations after a while cause the public to tune out. The net result is a profession on autopilot that is increasingly making itself irrelevant.
What no one seems to want to consider is this: maybe people in politics don’t know anything, either. Maybe they keep churning out the same stale ads, with the same hackneyed scripts—“Stephen Harper. What’s his real agenda?”—not because they work, but because they can’t think of anything else.
He concludes about the importance of reputation.
Reading it reminded me of a quote I have heard (a quick google search attributes it H. Jackson Brown Jr.) that reputation is what you do when others are looking while character is what you do when no one is looking. Mr. Coyne laments that our politics is so debased that even reputation is being abandoned in the pursuit of brand and wedge issues. I wonder if we ought to go one step further. Is this abandonment of reputation related to a diminishing of our collective character?
He suggests that many ads (including the current round is his implicit suggestion) fail because like the boy who cried wolf, repeated over the top allegations after a while cause the public to tune out. The net result is a profession on autopilot that is increasingly making itself irrelevant.
What no one seems to want to consider is this: maybe people in politics don’t know anything, either. Maybe they keep churning out the same stale ads, with the same hackneyed scripts—“Stephen Harper. What’s his real agenda?”—not because they work, but because they can’t think of anything else.
Is it possible that an entire profession could get it wrong? Happens all the time. One of the “revelations” to come out of the financial crisis is how many people on Wall Street were operating on autopilot. They made their millions doing the same thing, in the same way, until they discovered that what they were doing was crazy. The same is true of doctors: studies show incidence patterns for many procedures, such as C-sections, bear no relationship to therapeutic value or need. It’s all just habit, custom and fad.
He concludes about the importance of reputation.
Suppose Air Canada ran ads that said: here’s how many of our planes were late yesterday. And here’s what we’re doing to improve on that performance. Would that hurt their credibility, or help it? And if political parties did the same?
Reading it reminded me of a quote I have heard (a quick google search attributes it H. Jackson Brown Jr.) that reputation is what you do when others are looking while character is what you do when no one is looking. Mr. Coyne laments that our politics is so debased that even reputation is being abandoned in the pursuit of brand and wedge issues. I wonder if we ought to go one step further. Is this abandonment of reputation related to a diminishing of our collective character?
Thursday, 14 January, 2010
Demographics another Reason to Support 29to42
Yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page issued a report indicating that the federal government has a structural deficit that will grow to almost $19 billion in 2013-14. A major reason for this is our demogrphic challenge: more people will be retiring (draw Old Age Security and CPP payments) than joining the workforce (thus earning incomes and paying income tax).
Be prepared to hear a lot more about this, not just as it relates to the federal government's budget but almost every area of life. For example, in the recent study of Generosity in Canada published by Cardus a few months ago, we looked at the implications for giving, volunteering, and belonging and concluded that the civic core of Canadians who do their disproportionate share in support of charities is shrinking by 1-2% per year, with demographics playing a significant role in this. We are doing further research regarding the implication of this for the supply and demand of charitable services in the decade to come. Obviously measuring this precisely is a challenging task but the basic narrative is clear - supply is going down while demand is going up.
Demographics are just another reason why it makes sense for the federal government to structurally address the issue of capacity in the charitable sector. Cardus' proposal to increase the charitable tax credit from 29 to 42% for charitable donations would provide the tools for charities to work to broaden their constituencies of support. If you haven't yet, sign the 29to42 manifesto and pass the word on to your friends asking them to do the same.
Be prepared to hear a lot more about this, not just as it relates to the federal government's budget but almost every area of life. For example, in the recent study of Generosity in Canada published by Cardus a few months ago, we looked at the implications for giving, volunteering, and belonging and concluded that the civic core of Canadians who do their disproportionate share in support of charities is shrinking by 1-2% per year, with demographics playing a significant role in this. We are doing further research regarding the implication of this for the supply and demand of charitable services in the decade to come. Obviously measuring this precisely is a challenging task but the basic narrative is clear - supply is going down while demand is going up.
Demographics are just another reason why it makes sense for the federal government to structurally address the issue of capacity in the charitable sector. Cardus' proposal to increase the charitable tax credit from 29 to 42% for charitable donations would provide the tools for charities to work to broaden their constituencies of support. If you haven't yet, sign the 29to42 manifesto and pass the word on to your friends asking them to do the same.
Wednesday, 13 January, 2010
Ready for the Olympics?
I suspect most who follow political news only out of a sense of citizenly duty, rather than out of genuine interest or occupational necessity, are wishing all of the prorogation talk would soon be prorogued. While the news is filled with interesting fodder for those interested in the political "inside baseball" game to discuss among themselves what the fall-out will be, (Tom Flanagan critiques Harper; Tory MP unsure who Tom Flanagan is; Liberal MP misspeaks himself regarding troops and war crimes; Ignatieff's student tour lacking buzz; Charest critiques Harper while on the same stage at joint announcement; pundits of all sorts muse about accountability and the future of democratic institutions), I can appreciate how this at best produces a stifled yawn for those who aren't into political nuts and bolts.
There is good news for you. Soon you will be able to overdose on Olympic coverage which will make it seem like there is nothing else going on in the world. Evidence of this was the lead story on Monday's National regarding the thaw in temperature and Monday's rain in Vancouver. Serious-faced journalists provided insight on how the weather thirty-two days in advance of an event will impact the competition. (For those of you who missed this important news cast and are now worried about what today's Vancouver temperatures mean for the success of the Olympics, the answer not surprisingly, is "it's really too early to tell.")
And CBC is not even an official Olympic broadcaster. Yes, it will soon be a five ring media circus and if the coverage is as empty as Monday's broadcast, we may soon find ourselves wondering if is possible for Olympic coverage to be prorogued.
There is good news for you. Soon you will be able to overdose on Olympic coverage which will make it seem like there is nothing else going on in the world. Evidence of this was the lead story on Monday's National regarding the thaw in temperature and Monday's rain in Vancouver. Serious-faced journalists provided insight on how the weather thirty-two days in advance of an event will impact the competition. (For those of you who missed this important news cast and are now worried about what today's Vancouver temperatures mean for the success of the Olympics, the answer not surprisingly, is "it's really too early to tell.")
And CBC is not even an official Olympic broadcaster. Yes, it will soon be a five ring media circus and if the coverage is as empty as Monday's broadcast, we may soon find ourselves wondering if is possible for Olympic coverage to be prorogued.
Tuesday, 12 January, 2010
In Today's National Post....
I opine about Canada's culture of giving. Read the article. Better yet, head over to 29to42.ca,sign the manifesto, and forward the invitation to all of your email and facebook friends to do the same.
Monday, 11 January, 2010
Sizzling in the Thames
Pastor Overduin's series of sermons consecutively preaching through the book of Philippians continued yesterday afternoon with a sermon on Philippians 2:12-18. Under the theme "Detailing Genuine Christian Obedience," the preacher highlighted seven characteristics of obedience that emerge from the text.
1. Christian obedience is a constant obedience (vs 12).
2. Christian obedience is a diligent obedience (vs. 12-13).
3. Christian obedience is a thankful obedience (vs. 14).
4. Christian obedience is a shining-light obedience (vs. 15).
5. Christian obedience is a gospel-promoting obedience (vs. 16).
6. Christian obedience is an encouraging-to-others obedience (vs. 16-18).
7. Christian obedience is a joyful obedience (vs. 16-18).
The sermon concluded with a convicting anecdote regarding a shy candidate appearing before a Board of Elders examining him regarding his call to the ministry. He apologized for his shy disposition and meekly suggested that he was not the sort of man "that would set the Thames on fire." The Chair of the meeting replied: "We are not interested in whether you would set the Thames on fire. What we want to know is that if we took you by the scruff of the neck and dropped you into the Thames, would it sizzle?"
A challenging message for all who claim to be followers of Christ. Is our walk of Christian obedience one that sizzles in the Thames of times?
1. Christian obedience is a constant obedience (vs 12).
2. Christian obedience is a diligent obedience (vs. 12-13).
3. Christian obedience is a thankful obedience (vs. 14).
4. Christian obedience is a shining-light obedience (vs. 15).
5. Christian obedience is a gospel-promoting obedience (vs. 16).
6. Christian obedience is an encouraging-to-others obedience (vs. 16-18).
7. Christian obedience is a joyful obedience (vs. 16-18).
The sermon concluded with a convicting anecdote regarding a shy candidate appearing before a Board of Elders examining him regarding his call to the ministry. He apologized for his shy disposition and meekly suggested that he was not the sort of man "that would set the Thames on fire." The Chair of the meeting replied: "We are not interested in whether you would set the Thames on fire. What we want to know is that if we took you by the scruff of the neck and dropped you into the Thames, would it sizzle?"
A challenging message for all who claim to be followers of Christ. Is our walk of Christian obedience one that sizzles in the Thames of times?
Saturday, 9 January, 2010
Good line from down under....
in John Ibbitson's interesting column this morning on the comparative irrelevancy of Canada's Parliament:
While Ibbitson's column is being promoted by some of those most upset about prorogation, it seems to me that the lesson of his article is Canada's Parliament is comparably dysfunctional whether it meets on January 25th or March 3rd. The only logic I can follow from this hue and cry is that the current instance of proroguing Parliament is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and actually is spurring a grassroots movement towards restoring the vitality of our democratic institutions. Wish it were so, but I remain a skeptic.
“It looks undemocratic that caucus should choose the leader,” acknowledges Campbell Sharman, who teaches politics at both the University of British Columbia and the University of Western Australia. “But if the idea is to produce responsive parliamentary government, then you've got to give the MPs something to do.”
While Ibbitson's column is being promoted by some of those most upset about prorogation, it seems to me that the lesson of his article is Canada's Parliament is comparably dysfunctional whether it meets on January 25th or March 3rd. The only logic I can follow from this hue and cry is that the current instance of proroguing Parliament is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and actually is spurring a grassroots movement towards restoring the vitality of our democratic institutions. Wish it were so, but I remain a skeptic.
Changing the 'What", Not the 'How' of Politics
The media frenzy prompted by prorogation continues today. Seventy-five philosophy,law and political science professors write a public letter complaining of the Prime Minister's "anti-democratic" actions; Rex Murphy points out the timetable of Parliament has a long history of being played with for tactical advantage by both parties; and various columnists wade in on the nuts and bolts of the specific issues which intertwine with this story.
Stepping back from the immediate impact of this story, I think what it confirms is that Harper and the Conservatives have given up on trying to change the "How" of politics and are now more simply focused on the "what." In the wake of the sponsorship scandal, they came to power on a platform that included accountability, transparency, and even Senate reform. Coming onto their fourth anniversary (although arguably, they came to this conclusion prior to the 2008 election but haven't articulated it publicly), it would seem that most noble aspirations regarding cleaning up the sausage-making process of government and political process have dwindled. Instead, the focus seems to be on governing effectively, changing the culture of government by the appointment process to boards, agencies and commissions,and enjoying the opportunity that a weak and divided opposition provide to implement the agenda.
If it takes unpleasant tactics, hardball gamesmanship, negative advertising, careful messaging and information control to accomplish these ends, so be it. The benefits of incremental change on the "what" of public policy has been deemed worthy of trumping the idealism of changing the "how" we are governed. It is probably impolitic to admit this, hence there will continue to be lip service to accountability, transparency, and reforming our institutions, but I suspect that serious attempts at such change have been prorogued, at least for the foreseeable future.
Stepping back from the immediate impact of this story, I think what it confirms is that Harper and the Conservatives have given up on trying to change the "How" of politics and are now more simply focused on the "what." In the wake of the sponsorship scandal, they came to power on a platform that included accountability, transparency, and even Senate reform. Coming onto their fourth anniversary (although arguably, they came to this conclusion prior to the 2008 election but haven't articulated it publicly), it would seem that most noble aspirations regarding cleaning up the sausage-making process of government and political process have dwindled. Instead, the focus seems to be on governing effectively, changing the culture of government by the appointment process to boards, agencies and commissions,and enjoying the opportunity that a weak and divided opposition provide to implement the agenda.
If it takes unpleasant tactics, hardball gamesmanship, negative advertising, careful messaging and information control to accomplish these ends, so be it. The benefits of incremental change on the "what" of public policy has been deemed worthy of trumping the idealism of changing the "how" we are governed. It is probably impolitic to admit this, hence there will continue to be lip service to accountability, transparency, and reforming our institutions, but I suspect that serious attempts at such change have been prorogued, at least for the foreseeable future.
Friday, 8 January, 2010
Pondering Population Trends
My colleague helpfully pointed out to me Jack Goldstone's essay in the current issue of Foreign Policy which highlights four megatrends, the response to which will significantly define how life is experienced in the decades to come.
A worthwhile read.
But twenty-first-century international security will depend less on how many people inhabit the world than on how the global population is composed and distributed: where populations are declining and where they are growing, which countries are relatively older and which are more youthful, and how demographics will influence population movements across regions.
A worthwhile read.
Thursday, 7 January, 2010
Tidbits and Random Thoughts...
Airport Security - As a frequent flier, I am all in favour of measures that will help make flying safer and am quite willing to go through the occasional pat-down, answer random questions, and go through the a revealing scanner, if in fact those measures will achieve the desired ends. I am no security expert but this Toronto Star story makes sense to me. We will need to rely more on human intelligence and judgement and less on machines if we are going to secure the skies. I am quite amazed at how much stuff that technically is not supposed to come on-board a plane actually does, and that is just from my own carry-on luggage. I try to fly with just carry-on most times and frequently have mistakenly left nail-clippers, bottles of liquids, and a corkscrew in my suitcase, only to have it make it through at least half the time. I can also predict with some accuracy which airports I can get away on this and which I can't. I fear that more than new rules and new machines, ensuring we have the capacity to consistently enforce the rules would be a more useful investment.
Foreign Service or NGOs - On the After Hours blog, my colleague Rob Joustra makes an interesting point regarding the decline of the foreign service as a desirable institution for idealistic international politics students to work for, having been replaced by NGOs. A year ago in this space, I mused about the changing nature of institutions as a significant item to be paying attention to. It clearly remains an issue in 2010, and one about which I think we all should be more concerned than we typically are.
Economists Typecast - This Wall Street Journal article spurred by a convention of economists in Atlanta provided several one-liners that caused me a chuckle.
Reading the article made me muse on how many similarities there are between first generation Dutch immigrants and economists. (Not that Dutch immigrants would sell their children nor gamble, and they are far more generous towards charities than this profile of economists seem to be, but the story describes an ethos which does seem familiar.)
Economist on Proroguing - I suppose the fact that the internationally respected Economist magazine devotes the better part of a page to critiquing Mr. Harper for proroguing Parliament does cause a "Grassroots fury skeptic" like myself to pause, but I still think this is a tempest in a teapot. Turns out a few more and different people than I anticipated are partaking of that particular brew but my gut still tells me that six months from now, our attention will have turned to other matters and most voters will once again have to look up what prorogation means.
Foreign Service or NGOs - On the After Hours blog, my colleague Rob Joustra makes an interesting point regarding the decline of the foreign service as a desirable institution for idealistic international politics students to work for, having been replaced by NGOs. A year ago in this space, I mused about the changing nature of institutions as a significant item to be paying attention to. It clearly remains an issue in 2010, and one about which I think we all should be more concerned than we typically are.
Economists Typecast - This Wall Street Journal article spurred by a convention of economists in Atlanta provided several one-liners that caused me a chuckle.
Economist Robert Gordon, of Northwestern University, says he drives out of his way to go to a grocery store where prices are cheaper than at the nearby Whole Foods, even though it takes him an extra half hour to save no more than $5....."You might be an economist if you refuse to sell your children because they might be worth more later."....One year, Yale University economist Robert Shiller, who'd never gambled in his life, found himself at a casino there. He says that was because Wharton economist Jeremy Siegel realized that by using coupons offered to conventioneers, they could take opposing bets at the craps table with a 35 out of 36 chance of winning $12.50 each. Over two nights, Mr. Shiller netted $87.50. He hasn't gambled since.
Reading the article made me muse on how many similarities there are between first generation Dutch immigrants and economists. (Not that Dutch immigrants would sell their children nor gamble, and they are far more generous towards charities than this profile of economists seem to be, but the story describes an ethos which does seem familiar.)
Economist on Proroguing - I suppose the fact that the internationally respected Economist magazine devotes the better part of a page to critiquing Mr. Harper for proroguing Parliament does cause a "Grassroots fury skeptic" like myself to pause, but I still think this is a tempest in a teapot. Turns out a few more and different people than I anticipated are partaking of that particular brew but my gut still tells me that six months from now, our attention will have turned to other matters and most voters will once again have to look up what prorogation means.
Wednesday, 6 January, 2010
Am I missing something?
Back on December 15th, when rumours of prorogation began to be published, I opined on why it made sense to me and I expected the government to follow suit. Today, for the second day in a row, almost the entire line-up of op-eds from across the country, conveniently organized on NationalNewswatch for a quick scan and overview, are focused on this issue. Now admittedly some of the commentary today is a response to some of the over-the-top coverage yesterday (e.g. Toronto Star Headline - "Grassroots fury shutters Parliament" ). Still,this extensive coverage suggests that either all of these media types who are overdosing on this issue or I am grossly misreading public opinion on this issue.
Let's start with the basics. What is Parliament for? Without turning this into a history or political science essay, it goes back to the Magna Carta and the notion that responsible government involves the consent of the governed. Parliament is the place where the government (which is very distinct from Parliament - the government acts in the name of the crown and in our system, the leader of the party that has the most seats in Parliament is invited to form the government)is held accountable. All of its actions -- and particularly its power to collect money from citizens through taxation -- can only take place with the consent of Parliament. That is why when the government loses the confidence of Parliament, we have an election. In this case, the government has announced that instead of coming back to the old agenda on January 25th, it will come back to a new agenda on March 3rd. Given that no one is calling for an election right now and that the Afghan detainee issue is one that is several years old (so a month's slowdown in holding the government to further account for how they have dealt with the matter hardly seems that big of a deal), the case against prorogation seems tenuous.
So much for Civics 101. Critics of the present prorogation rightly point out that it is another in a series of events over recent decades which have lessened the influence and import of Parliament. They seem to think that the Afghan detainee issue is one that is being totally mismanaged by the government and that the government is hiding rather than being accountable on this one. Let's assume for a moment they are right. (For the record, based on what we know to date, it seems more a case of mismanagement than scandal-- still it's the opposition's job to bring this to the public's attention.) But as Jonathan Malloy points out in a Citizen op-ed, this example is hardly the worst example of recent government's avoiding Parliament. Paul Martin's ignored a non-confidence motion on a technicality in May 2004,bought himself a bit of time during which he managed to recruit Belinda Stronach to save his government. Last year, Harper avoided a non-confidence motion on his proposal to cut political funding to parties, bought himself a month, and then came back without that proposal on the table to survive for another year. In 2003, Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament to delay the tabling of the sponsorship scanadal report, an issue that ultimately played a significant factor in the Liberals demise and ended up in people going to jail. All of these are by any objective measure exponentially more scandalous than Stephen Harper's present move which delays his facing Parliament by about 40 days.
So why the outrage this time? I suspect that apart from opposition parties, interest groups, and media types who have an interest in pretending there is a mass outcry, it simply isn't happening. There is no grassroots fury burning up any phone lines that I am connected on. The Liberals are trying to take advantage of this issue to show themselves harder-working and more responsible (for which no one should blame them - day to day politics is about building brand -- but as other reports show, that can be a tricky exercise) while Fair Vote Canada is using the occasion to call for more fundamental electoral reform. All quite predictable and ordinary stuff that non-political junkies take a pass on and ordinarily ignore. As best I can tell, they are doing so today, in spite of the perception created by media that a populist uprising is about to be unleashed. I suspect in a few months, this will be more comparable to a tempest in a teapot than the Canadian version of a Boston Tea Party.
Let's start with the basics. What is Parliament for? Without turning this into a history or political science essay, it goes back to the Magna Carta and the notion that responsible government involves the consent of the governed. Parliament is the place where the government (which is very distinct from Parliament - the government acts in the name of the crown and in our system, the leader of the party that has the most seats in Parliament is invited to form the government)is held accountable. All of its actions -- and particularly its power to collect money from citizens through taxation -- can only take place with the consent of Parliament. That is why when the government loses the confidence of Parliament, we have an election. In this case, the government has announced that instead of coming back to the old agenda on January 25th, it will come back to a new agenda on March 3rd. Given that no one is calling for an election right now and that the Afghan detainee issue is one that is several years old (so a month's slowdown in holding the government to further account for how they have dealt with the matter hardly seems that big of a deal), the case against prorogation seems tenuous.
So much for Civics 101. Critics of the present prorogation rightly point out that it is another in a series of events over recent decades which have lessened the influence and import of Parliament. They seem to think that the Afghan detainee issue is one that is being totally mismanaged by the government and that the government is hiding rather than being accountable on this one. Let's assume for a moment they are right. (For the record, based on what we know to date, it seems more a case of mismanagement than scandal-- still it's the opposition's job to bring this to the public's attention.) But as Jonathan Malloy points out in a Citizen op-ed, this example is hardly the worst example of recent government's avoiding Parliament. Paul Martin's ignored a non-confidence motion on a technicality in May 2004,bought himself a bit of time during which he managed to recruit Belinda Stronach to save his government. Last year, Harper avoided a non-confidence motion on his proposal to cut political funding to parties, bought himself a month, and then came back without that proposal on the table to survive for another year. In 2003, Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament to delay the tabling of the sponsorship scanadal report, an issue that ultimately played a significant factor in the Liberals demise and ended up in people going to jail. All of these are by any objective measure exponentially more scandalous than Stephen Harper's present move which delays his facing Parliament by about 40 days.
So why the outrage this time? I suspect that apart from opposition parties, interest groups, and media types who have an interest in pretending there is a mass outcry, it simply isn't happening. There is no grassroots fury burning up any phone lines that I am connected on. The Liberals are trying to take advantage of this issue to show themselves harder-working and more responsible (for which no one should blame them - day to day politics is about building brand -- but as other reports show, that can be a tricky exercise) while Fair Vote Canada is using the occasion to call for more fundamental electoral reform. All quite predictable and ordinary stuff that non-political junkies take a pass on and ordinarily ignore. As best I can tell, they are doing so today, in spite of the perception created by media that a populist uprising is about to be unleashed. I suspect in a few months, this will be more comparable to a tempest in a teapot than the Canadian version of a Boston Tea Party.
Tuesday, 5 January, 2010
What Tiger's Scandal says about our Culture
Last week's Comment article on Tiger Woods has been picked up by christianity.ca. In it, John Seel provides several insights on what the Woods' scandal tells us about our culture.
Lesson One: We have lost the courage of common sense.
Lesson Two: We teach young girls the script and they then wait for the part.
Lesson Three: Masculinity has not been defined relationally and there is a price to pay for the failure.
Lesson Four: We plead privacy when we most need transparency.
If you missed it, you can read the whole article here.
Lesson One: We have lost the courage of common sense.
Lesson Two: We teach young girls the script and they then wait for the part.
Lesson Three: Masculinity has not been defined relationally and there is a price to pay for the failure.
Lesson Four: We plead privacy when we most need transparency.
Play the fame game, play the sexual manipulation game, play it with a false masculinity, assume anonymity—add water and stir—and the results will be the same. Idols cannot be removed. They must be replaced.
The desire for fame that lies behind the celebrity culture is a substitute for significance and belonging in a world without God. When lives seem to lack any over-arching meaning, they seek for it through the fleeting attention paid to them by others. When it's Tiger, "just do it" seems very compelling.
But in the end, it's not about Tiger, but you and me and the culture we have created.
If you missed it, you can read the whole article here.
You need a Grammar to Commuicate....
I will be the first to confess that grammar was never my favorite subject. In fact, I I never really learned English grammar until I took Latin in Grade 10. However, we will leave that pedagogical tangent as a diversion to pick up on another day.
What prompts this entry are two books I enjoyed over my recent vacation. Christian Smith and Patricia Snell wrote a fascinating (and frankly, disconcerting and alarming) book on the spirituality of today's 18-23 year olds entitled Souls in Transition: The Religions and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. I also read A. J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest of Living as Biblically as Possible.
Jacobs is a secular Jew who reads the Bible and attempts to live according to its' instruction as literally as possible for an entire year. His book is effectively an annotated journal of his experience. While parts of the book will seem blasphemous to some, I did find it insightful and helpful in understanding how someone without any religious background (Jacobs admits that he was a virtual biblical illiterate before commencing on this project) might understand the teachings of the scripture, reading them on face value for the first time. While I profoundly disagree with much of what Jacobs has written, I realized as I read him how many assumptions (rightful and biblical assumptions, but assumptions none-the-less) assisted me in making sense of the Scriptures which I have grown up with from my youth. Sunday school and catechism classes were more important in shaping my understanding of the scriptures than I ever realized.
Christian Smith and Patricia Snell in their book highlight how evangelical young people are practical illiterates in terms of their biblical knowledge. "Articulacy fosters reality. A major challenge for religious educators of youth, therefore, seems to be fostering articulation: helping teens practice talking about their faith, providing practice using vocabularies, grammar, stories, and key messages of faith. Especialy to the extent that the language of faith in American culture is beoming a foreign language, edcucators, like real foreign language teachers, have that much more to work at helping their sutdents learn to pracice speaking that other language of faith."
Without a common grammar,we right words use can but confusing so much ends up giving up that we end up because. The confusion of the previous sentence is illustrative of what happens when we end up as practical biblical illiterates -- we do not have the grammar to effectively communicate, either within the community of faith nor in the broader community. Reading both of these books over the past few weeks -- one by reminding me of how challenging it is for an unbeliever to really understand the message of the gospel, even if he is intelligent but is approaching the scriptures simply as another piece of literature, and another by recounting the ignorance of those who have been raised in a Christian tradition but are, for practical purposes, biblical illiterates -- speaks to the importance of developing a biblical grammar in order both to understand for ourselves and to communicate to others, the essence of the biblical message.
What prompts this entry are two books I enjoyed over my recent vacation. Christian Smith and Patricia Snell wrote a fascinating (and frankly, disconcerting and alarming) book on the spirituality of today's 18-23 year olds entitled Souls in Transition: The Religions and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. I also read A. J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest of Living as Biblically as Possible.
Jacobs is a secular Jew who reads the Bible and attempts to live according to its' instruction as literally as possible for an entire year. His book is effectively an annotated journal of his experience. While parts of the book will seem blasphemous to some, I did find it insightful and helpful in understanding how someone without any religious background (Jacobs admits that he was a virtual biblical illiterate before commencing on this project) might understand the teachings of the scripture, reading them on face value for the first time. While I profoundly disagree with much of what Jacobs has written, I realized as I read him how many assumptions (rightful and biblical assumptions, but assumptions none-the-less) assisted me in making sense of the Scriptures which I have grown up with from my youth. Sunday school and catechism classes were more important in shaping my understanding of the scriptures than I ever realized.
Christian Smith and Patricia Snell in their book highlight how evangelical young people are practical illiterates in terms of their biblical knowledge. "Articulacy fosters reality. A major challenge for religious educators of youth, therefore, seems to be fostering articulation: helping teens practice talking about their faith, providing practice using vocabularies, grammar, stories, and key messages of faith. Especialy to the extent that the language of faith in American culture is beoming a foreign language, edcucators, like real foreign language teachers, have that much more to work at helping their sutdents learn to pracice speaking that other language of faith."
Without a common grammar,we right words use can but confusing so much ends up giving up that we end up because. The confusion of the previous sentence is illustrative of what happens when we end up as practical biblical illiterates -- we do not have the grammar to effectively communicate, either within the community of faith nor in the broader community. Reading both of these books over the past few weeks -- one by reminding me of how challenging it is for an unbeliever to really understand the message of the gospel, even if he is intelligent but is approaching the scriptures simply as another piece of literature, and another by recounting the ignorance of those who have been raised in a Christian tradition but are, for practical purposes, biblical illiterates -- speaks to the importance of developing a biblical grammar in order both to understand for ourselves and to communicate to others, the essence of the biblical message.
Monday, 4 January, 2010
Interesting Way to Start....
Making news this morning are two Calgary area MLAs who have decided to leave the PC caucus and Premier Stelmach's Progressive Conservative government to sit as part of the caucus of the WildRose Alliance. (For those not familiar with the Wildrose Alliance and its recent rise to prominence in Alberta politics, my October 5th column in the Globe and Mail provides a bit of background.
While polls that put the Wildrose Alliance in a position to form government may make news, there are still significant challenges facing the party. I will be watching three in particular.
1. Defining an alternative. It is easy to criticize, utilize every misstep of the government for partisan advantage, and earn the support of those disenchanted with the government. That earns poll standings but not solid enough support to translate into votes on election day. While the timing is hardly urgent now, defining clear policy alternatives that don't simply play to the crowd will be an important part of the WRA development, not simply because the party needs credible policy, but to brand the party as an alternative and not simply an opposition.
2. Building Government-ready credibility. The most significant determinant of how the WRA will fare in the next election are the candidates that they will field. While Danielle Smith has a lot of appeal as a leader, she is going to need to be able to show a credible and electable team going into the next election. My sense is that this is her biggest challenge, both positively and negatively. A weak team is going to make momentum-stopping mistakes and reinforce the upstart amateur image. A strong team is going to be decisive for many voters as to whether they are prepared to take a risk on a new party forming government.
3. Building a coalition. The political center is different in Alberta than in other parts of the country, but there are still several camps whose objectives and ideals are not always compatible. Ideological libertarians, Alberta firsters, Chamber of Commerce type fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, populists -- there are many camps and finding a way to develop a coherent program that builds a winning coalition from these various groups, giving enough to keep each loyal while not becoming beholden (or perceived to be beholden) to one at the expense of the others, are delicate challenges.
While Ms. Smith and her team have her work cut out for her, the benefit of incumbency and the future of the WRA rest as much in the hands of Mr. Stelmach and the Conservatives (and the patience they may not show with their leader - this is the party that kicked out Ralph Klein when he was still Premier) as what the WRA does.
If nothing else, it will make for very interesting Alberta politics over the next 18 months.
While polls that put the Wildrose Alliance in a position to form government may make news, there are still significant challenges facing the party. I will be watching three in particular.
1. Defining an alternative. It is easy to criticize, utilize every misstep of the government for partisan advantage, and earn the support of those disenchanted with the government. That earns poll standings but not solid enough support to translate into votes on election day. While the timing is hardly urgent now, defining clear policy alternatives that don't simply play to the crowd will be an important part of the WRA development, not simply because the party needs credible policy, but to brand the party as an alternative and not simply an opposition.
2. Building Government-ready credibility. The most significant determinant of how the WRA will fare in the next election are the candidates that they will field. While Danielle Smith has a lot of appeal as a leader, she is going to need to be able to show a credible and electable team going into the next election. My sense is that this is her biggest challenge, both positively and negatively. A weak team is going to make momentum-stopping mistakes and reinforce the upstart amateur image. A strong team is going to be decisive for many voters as to whether they are prepared to take a risk on a new party forming government.
3. Building a coalition. The political center is different in Alberta than in other parts of the country, but there are still several camps whose objectives and ideals are not always compatible. Ideological libertarians, Alberta firsters, Chamber of Commerce type fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, populists -- there are many camps and finding a way to develop a coherent program that builds a winning coalition from these various groups, giving enough to keep each loyal while not becoming beholden (or perceived to be beholden) to one at the expense of the others, are delicate challenges.
While Ms. Smith and her team have her work cut out for her, the benefit of incumbency and the future of the WRA rest as much in the hands of Mr. Stelmach and the Conservatives (and the patience they may not show with their leader - this is the party that kicked out Ralph Klein when he was still Premier) as what the WRA does.
If nothing else, it will make for very interesting Alberta politics over the next 18 months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
