Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
People in Gas-Powered Houses....
"[United States Ambassador to Canada David] Wilkins warned Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to back off, because a U.S. review determined [Maher] Arar should remain on the watch list.
'It's a little presumptuous for him [Day] to say who the United States can and cannot allow into our country,' Wilkins told reporters Wednesday."
-from the CBC today
So according to our good ol' boy Willie, it's inappropriate for one country to interfere with the internal policies of another country, even when the interest of its citizens are at stake? Well, it's not usually this easy to catch the Republican'ts out on bald-faced slimeball hypocrisy.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
European Foot-in-Mouth
"In Tuesday's radio interview, Royal said she was not referring to "institutional reforms" but that Quebecers are free to decide on their own future."
- from the CBC
"Questionnée sur l’exclamation «Vive le Québec libre», employée par le général de Gaulle en 1967, elle a répondue que c’était «une belle phrase». Assurant toutefois assuré qu’elle ne le dirait «pas de cette façon là»."
- Ségolène Royal, doing damage control (!) in Liberation after apparently revealing her sympathy for an independent Quebec
My French has admittedly become shockingly rusty, but isn't MSR (as she is apparently termed in the lingo) saying that while she might quibble with the semantics, she would endorse the sentiment of de Gaulle's barnburner? I guess we know which version of the future MSR wishes Quebeckers would decide for...but then, I guess we knew that already...
- from the CBC
"Questionnée sur l’exclamation «Vive le Québec libre», employée par le général de Gaulle en 1967, elle a répondue que c’était «une belle phrase». Assurant toutefois assuré qu’elle ne le dirait «pas de cette façon là»."
- Ségolène Royal, doing damage control (!) in Liberation after apparently revealing her sympathy for an independent Quebec
My French has admittedly become shockingly rusty, but isn't MSR (as she is apparently termed in the lingo) saying that while she might quibble with the semantics, she would endorse the sentiment of de Gaulle's barnburner? I guess we know which version of the future MSR wishes Quebeckers would decide for...but then, I guess we knew that already...
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Female of the Species, Mark II
The ratio of men to women in the Liberal caucus is approximately 5:1. The ratio of men to women in the ranks of Liberal critics is approximately 3:1
I suddenly have a sneaking suspicion that Stephane Dion pulling a trick that, as an academic, he probably learned in infancy...at my alma mater, when there's something (or someone) we'd like to see out of harm's way (our harm, not vice versa), we send it to committee.
I suddenly have a sneaking suspicion that Stephane Dion pulling a trick that, as an academic, he probably learned in infancy...at my alma mater, when there's something (or someone) we'd like to see out of harm's way (our harm, not vice versa), we send it to committee.
The Female of the Species
The ration of men to women in the Liberal caucus is approximately 5:1. The ratio of men to women in Stephan Dion's new caucus committees is approximately 7:1. The ratio of men to women contesting the leadership of the Liberal party in 2006 was 7:1.
I suspect Stephan Dion's decisions surrounding his caucus committees were closely connected to that last statistic. If the Liberals don't field 103 female candidates in the next election, then there'll be reason to worry - for now, everyone sit tight and keep an eye on Marlene Jennings.
I suspect Stephan Dion's decisions surrounding his caucus committees were closely connected to that last statistic. If the Liberals don't field 103 female candidates in the next election, then there'll be reason to worry - for now, everyone sit tight and keep an eye on Marlene Jennings.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Beware of Geeks, Bearing Gifts
"For my part I entertain a high idea of the [their] utility... I consider such vehicles of knowledge more happily calculated than any other to preserve the liberty, stimulate the industry, and ameliorate the morals of a free and enlightened people."
That's George Washington on the newspaper in 1788. It could as well be Paul Wells on the digital media in 2006 (though Paul Wells' prose style is considerably more punchy than old Georgie's, and that's a good thing.)
I only have a small quible with Wells' characteristically intelligent and prescient account of how we're all freer with the Net. And it goes like this:
Are consumers really the beneficiaries of the shift of power and influence to the digital domain? Or, perhaps the more pertinent quesiton might be: are citizens (yes there's a difference, Maxime Bernier) are truly empowered by the Internet Age.
The problem with the Internet, like any other media (or human activity for that matter), is that its adepts still exist in a series of concentric circles, much like Dante's famous Nine Circles of Hell. The Internet does not through its intrinsic formal nature necessarily promote intelligent debate, discussion and engagement any more than a newspaper or a magazine does - it just structures debate (or lack of it) in a different way.
What the Internet does do is present the potential for infinite choice, just as it presents the potential for consumer empowerment. The problem here is that both of these things are, thanks to the power dynamics of the "real world," illusions.
If as Paul Wells writes, "no fact is necessarily obscure" on the Net, then therefore every fact is potentially obscure - insamuch as if anything can be brought to light and the light that shines is finite, something else will remain in darkness.
This is the problem: believing in their unlimited ability to choose, net-izens either ignore the necessity of making choices (be it good, moral, immoral, whatever) in their digital content, or proclaim that all choices are equally good/bad/interesting/disinteresting, which is essentially the same contention. Why? Read on...
The phenomenon of apparently unlimited choice would be insidious enough,but it is symptomatic of a larger danger. Broadband internet costs money, as do modems, routers, monitors, webcams and the rest of the Web's physical paraphenalia. If all the moving and shaking in political circles is on the Web, it simply means a new kind of literacy and illiteracy in society; a new kind of elite exclusion; a human wolf in new pixellated clothing. So without realising, net users are directed and their activities proscribed by the same old actors: the rich (how many cool startups are now owned by Google?) and the powerful (sayonara Alliance Atlantis: hellow Global).
I'm not saying that the forces at work here are at all different from any that have shaped human history. But nor can I call all this citizen or even consumer choice. I call it rule by a class who only needs to type to control, a new paradigm in which all the old evils (greed, power, lust, and shortsightedness) will persist, and even thrive in ways which we as a species are quite unprepared for: a digitarchy. Paul Wells is right about one thing: the biggest danger would be to ignore what is going on.
That's George Washington on the newspaper in 1788. It could as well be Paul Wells on the digital media in 2006 (though Paul Wells' prose style is considerably more punchy than old Georgie's, and that's a good thing.)
I only have a small quible with Wells' characteristically intelligent and prescient account of how we're all freer with the Net. And it goes like this:
Are consumers really the beneficiaries of the shift of power and influence to the digital domain? Or, perhaps the more pertinent quesiton might be: are citizens (yes there's a difference, Maxime Bernier) are truly empowered by the Internet Age.
The problem with the Internet, like any other media (or human activity for that matter), is that its adepts still exist in a series of concentric circles, much like Dante's famous Nine Circles of Hell. The Internet does not through its intrinsic formal nature necessarily promote intelligent debate, discussion and engagement any more than a newspaper or a magazine does - it just structures debate (or lack of it) in a different way.
What the Internet does do is present the potential for infinite choice, just as it presents the potential for consumer empowerment. The problem here is that both of these things are, thanks to the power dynamics of the "real world," illusions.
If as Paul Wells writes, "no fact is necessarily obscure" on the Net, then therefore every fact is potentially obscure - insamuch as if anything can be brought to light and the light that shines is finite, something else will remain in darkness.
This is the problem: believing in their unlimited ability to choose, net-izens either ignore the necessity of making choices (be it good, moral, immoral, whatever) in their digital content, or proclaim that all choices are equally good/bad/interesting/disinteresting, which is essentially the same contention. Why? Read on...
The phenomenon of apparently unlimited choice would be insidious enough,but it is symptomatic of a larger danger. Broadband internet costs money, as do modems, routers, monitors, webcams and the rest of the Web's physical paraphenalia. If all the moving and shaking in political circles is on the Web, it simply means a new kind of literacy and illiteracy in society; a new kind of elite exclusion; a human wolf in new pixellated clothing. So without realising, net users are directed and their activities proscribed by the same old actors: the rich (how many cool startups are now owned by Google?) and the powerful (sayonara Alliance Atlantis: hellow Global).
I'm not saying that the forces at work here are at all different from any that have shaped human history. But nor can I call all this citizen or even consumer choice. I call it rule by a class who only needs to type to control, a new paradigm in which all the old evils (greed, power, lust, and shortsightedness) will persist, and even thrive in ways which we as a species are quite unprepared for: a digitarchy. Paul Wells is right about one thing: the biggest danger would be to ignore what is going on.
How Conservative are you?
From "How Canadian are you? Visible-minority immigrants and their children identify less and less with the country, report says" (Globe and Mail, Jan. 11):
"We need to address the racial divide," Prof. '[Jeffrey] Reitz said. "Otherwise there is a danger of social breakdown. The principle of multiculturalism was equal participation of minorities in mainstream institutions. That is no longer happening."
Oh yeah? Just ask Stephen Harper...
"We need to address the racial divide," Prof. '[Jeffrey] Reitz said. "Otherwise there is a danger of social breakdown. The principle of multiculturalism was equal participation of minorities in mainstream institutions. That is no longer happening."
Oh yeah? Just ask Stephen Harper...
Friday, January 05, 2007
Jack on the Rocks
As several outlets have noted, today's shuffle in the House of Commons now means that the NDP hold the the power in the current Parliament - crunch the numbers yourself here.
I wrote a month or so ago that the NDP needed to take some action to avoid being blended into a pulp by pressure from the Liberal and Green parties. One might be tempted to suggest that the NDP could now use their newfound clout to make themselves look good on the national stage by propping up some of the relatively scummy (as opposed to plain ol' repugnant) pieces of Conservative agenda, and then taking credit very loudly.
Conventional wisdom says that this strategy would be a good idea, for the NDP if not for progressive Canadians (who are watching the country go down the drain). Sometimes conventional wisdom is even right.
Here is the problem though: the NDP's influence with the Conservative party lacks credibility. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - but its existence reeks of such partisan self-interest that, for a party keen to take the moral high ground, such a dissonance between professed values and how they're put into practice might be too much to for its long-suffering supporters to bear.
Simply: if Jack Layton does a deal with the devil, there are gonna be a lot of people who will be very unhappy, and also very unimpressed. Including, to some extent, the national media. The NDP got a lot of positive coverage when it was playing roadie to the Paul Martin Farewell Tour. But Stephen Harper makes Kurt Cobain look like Shirley Temple. And for the NDP, I'm not sure that the adage that "there's no such thing as bad press" is gonna hold water.
I wrote a month or so ago that the NDP needed to take some action to avoid being blended into a pulp by pressure from the Liberal and Green parties. One might be tempted to suggest that the NDP could now use their newfound clout to make themselves look good on the national stage by propping up some of the relatively scummy (as opposed to plain ol' repugnant) pieces of Conservative agenda, and then taking credit very loudly.
Conventional wisdom says that this strategy would be a good idea, for the NDP if not for progressive Canadians (who are watching the country go down the drain). Sometimes conventional wisdom is even right.
Here is the problem though: the NDP's influence with the Conservative party lacks credibility. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - but its existence reeks of such partisan self-interest that, for a party keen to take the moral high ground, such a dissonance between professed values and how they're put into practice might be too much to for its long-suffering supporters to bear.
Simply: if Jack Layton does a deal with the devil, there are gonna be a lot of people who will be very unhappy, and also very unimpressed. Including, to some extent, the national media. The NDP got a lot of positive coverage when it was playing roadie to the Paul Martin Farewell Tour. But Stephen Harper makes Kurt Cobain look like Shirley Temple. And for the NDP, I'm not sure that the adage that "there's no such thing as bad press" is gonna hold water.
No Khan Do
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
