This week's heated debate on the Terrorism Act reminded me of a pertinent, if affected, post on the subject of terrorism from nine months or so ago, and especially the fine article by Slate's William Saletan that it links to.
Saletan's point (and mine) is this: that it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack, just as it is impossible to stop every child being hit by a car, or every married man looking at another man. The likelyhood of each can be lessened (in the case of terrorism, hopefully to a very low threshold; in the case of the other man, realistically to a slightly higher one ), but eventually the law of diminishing returns makes further expense of blood and treasure (on the man or the mission) useless, at best.
Given this reality - that after a certain point more and more resources must be consumed, and more and more liberties curtailed, to chase a "safety" that is impossible - our society has to consider not only how to absorb, deter or neutralise evil, but how to foster good, in our own and in our culture's communal lives. Bolstering society's positives will in fact advance the former.
"In a liquid world," Saletan writes, "you can't seal off evil." And it's not a bad Lenten thought to remember that there's a little evil incorporated into all of us. The point of every enduring system of human belief, is to overcome that evil not by ignoring it, dwelling on it or violently suppresing it. The point of overcoming evil is to accept its existence, be aware of its effects, and work tireless to shun it, marginalize it, diminish it, and deal with it without fanfare if it grows too prominent.
We will never be rid of evil, in the body personal or the body politic. But we'll never be bereft of good either, and that's what we have to nurture, support, encourage, celebrate and exhalt.
I believe, and always have, that our criminal justice system and its thousand years of juridical evolution has determined quite a fine balance between our liberties as people and the duties of our state. Measures such as "preventative" arrests, the holding of people indefinitely without trial, or the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus don't just upset that balance - they deny its relevance and even its existence. They threaten to undermine our entire civil process because they hamstring one of our most successful, and flexible tools of the greater good - a rule of law that has at is centre two vital tenets, the presumption of legal innocence, and an individual's trial and examination by a body of their peers.
Saletan ends his article with a quote from Charles Darwin: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." Everyone knows there's truth in this. But we as a species are unique for one reason only: we have some small ability to respond to change with new changes of our own, to create change proactively. This means we, as people and as a people, must become better at bending, not breaking; and turning and turning, until we come round right.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Harry Potter and the Role in the Hay
It's nice (very nice) to see Daniel Radcliffe playing against type.
Monday, February 26, 2007
She ain't the queen of denial...
If it quacks like a duck
Another tedious canard of the current Canadian political clime: the notion that the Liberal party (or any party, for that matter) deserves to be out of power simply because they've governed for a long time, and that the Conservative pary (or any party, for that matter) should continue in office because they've only been in power a short time and deserve further opportunity to show what they can do. By this logic, the New Democratic Party is the most deserving of forming the next government, and one should only oppose a government's policies after they've become so entrenched as to be unrepealable.
Come off it, people. Vote against a government because you don't like their policies, and say so. If you feel the need to disguise your true motivation with an anodyne excuse downplaying the seriousness of your decision, you might perhaps want to examine just why you're so uncomfortable speaking your true mind, and just what you feel so guilty about.
Come off it, people. Vote against a government because you don't like their policies, and say so. If you feel the need to disguise your true motivation with an anodyne excuse downplaying the seriousness of your decision, you might perhaps want to examine just why you're so uncomfortable speaking your true mind, and just what you feel so guilty about.
Hold the Steamed Grits
Super-bored this morning at the Palais de Bureaucracie, so you're getting a lot of my political musings.
A blog well worth reading is Cherniak on Politics, written by former Trinitron and budding political maestro Jason Cherniak. Jason is well-connected within the Canadian political blogosphere (by some accounts, he helped create the Canadian political blogosphere) so his posts tend to generate quite a bit of (sometimes remarkably vitriolic) debate and discussion from various points on the political spectrum.
I intensely dislike the kind of personal baiting that some of Jason's more conservative readers seem to feel is appropriate to deploy when debating public policy (though I suppose they have only their fearless leader as a role model), and it's to Jason's credit that he is invariably polite, if impassioned, in his responses. And it's not like I've never descended to name-calling either.
A blog well worth reading is Cherniak on Politics, written by former Trinitron and budding political maestro Jason Cherniak. Jason is well-connected within the Canadian political blogosphere (by some accounts, he helped create the Canadian political blogosphere) so his posts tend to generate quite a bit of (sometimes remarkably vitriolic) debate and discussion from various points on the political spectrum.
I intensely dislike the kind of personal baiting that some of Jason's more conservative readers seem to feel is appropriate to deploy when debating public policy (though I suppose they have only their fearless leader as a role model), and it's to Jason's credit that he is invariably polite, if impassioned, in his responses. And it's not like I've never descended to name-calling either.
Scream of Wheat
I wonder if the fracas over the Canadian Wheat Board might swing away a little Conservative support in the West? Just askin....
You call this progress?
Chantal Hebert obliquely suggests uniting the Canadian left into some weird, ungainly, many-headed behemoth (can you really see John McKay and Libby Davies chumming it up in caucus meetings?)
The suggestion is a bit of a walk-0ff in Hebert's column, but it's a canard that does get occasional press from some quarters, which is too bad: it would be quite challenging, and unpleasant, to merge two quite different parties (the centrish Liberals and the leftish NDP), to say nothing of throwing the Greens into the mix; and I'll reiterare my usual gripe that under some sort of proportional electoral system all this would be a moot point.
But apart from these qualms, Hebert's exempla need to be tackled in a little bit of detail. Hebert identifies two apparent problems for the left - progressive New Democrats and Liberals battling each other in urban ridings, and progressive Liberals and BQists battling each other in Quebec ridings.
The latter problem, of course, isn't really much of one, inasmuch as it's really part of the larger problem that is the BQ, a question (along with the murky world of Quebec politics) that I feel underqualified to comment on extensively. Let's just say that if it were in Quebec's interest to massively cut taxes and ban gay marriage, the BQ would likely support such things - that is to say, the fact that the BQ is a socially progressive party is thanks to the fact that Quebec is a socially progressive province but that it is Quebec, and not social progress, that comes first. As such, the BQ is a wild card, and I have no problem with Liberals taking out BQ candidates - I've often said that if Quebec ever achieves indepedence I'll be the first one to move there, but until that day comes I'm as staunch a federalist as they come.
The former problem, while more vexing, is not always a "problem" per say either. While I would prefer to see the maximum possible number of New Democratic MPs elected, for the purposes of the next election what I really want is the maximum possible number of Conservative MPs defeated. My first concern isn't therefore over ridings like Trinity-Spadina or Toronto-Centre - I'm more worried by places like BC's Fleetwood - Port Kells, where the combined NDP-Liberal vote outpolled the Conservative vote by almost 20%.
Of course, as I've already noted, the NDP and Liberals are different parties, with different principles, thus, my hatred of strategic voting - it's a particularly unfair game to force the electorate to play (die, FPTP!) That said, allliances between the NDP and Liberals have been one of the more common features of Canadian electoral politics.
Y'all want my advice? Libs and NDPers, sit down and figure out who got more votes in some key ridings last election (think BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southern Ontario) - then concentrate your respective resources in the places you came closest to beating the Conservatives. If you're really committed to a progressive Canada, you know there's one goal that's more important that gaining partisan advantage: stopping Stephen Harper.
The suggestion is a bit of a walk-0ff in Hebert's column, but it's a canard that does get occasional press from some quarters, which is too bad: it would be quite challenging, and unpleasant, to merge two quite different parties (the centrish Liberals and the leftish NDP), to say nothing of throwing the Greens into the mix; and I'll reiterare my usual gripe that under some sort of proportional electoral system all this would be a moot point.
But apart from these qualms, Hebert's exempla need to be tackled in a little bit of detail. Hebert identifies two apparent problems for the left - progressive New Democrats and Liberals battling each other in urban ridings, and progressive Liberals and BQists battling each other in Quebec ridings.
The latter problem, of course, isn't really much of one, inasmuch as it's really part of the larger problem that is the BQ, a question (along with the murky world of Quebec politics) that I feel underqualified to comment on extensively. Let's just say that if it were in Quebec's interest to massively cut taxes and ban gay marriage, the BQ would likely support such things - that is to say, the fact that the BQ is a socially progressive party is thanks to the fact that Quebec is a socially progressive province but that it is Quebec, and not social progress, that comes first. As such, the BQ is a wild card, and I have no problem with Liberals taking out BQ candidates - I've often said that if Quebec ever achieves indepedence I'll be the first one to move there, but until that day comes I'm as staunch a federalist as they come.
The former problem, while more vexing, is not always a "problem" per say either. While I would prefer to see the maximum possible number of New Democratic MPs elected, for the purposes of the next election what I really want is the maximum possible number of Conservative MPs defeated. My first concern isn't therefore over ridings like Trinity-Spadina or Toronto-Centre - I'm more worried by places like BC's Fleetwood - Port Kells, where the combined NDP-Liberal vote outpolled the Conservative vote by almost 20%.
Of course, as I've already noted, the NDP and Liberals are different parties, with different principles, thus, my hatred of strategic voting - it's a particularly unfair game to force the electorate to play (die, FPTP!) That said, allliances between the NDP and Liberals have been one of the more common features of Canadian electoral politics.
Y'all want my advice? Libs and NDPers, sit down and figure out who got more votes in some key ridings last election (think BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southern Ontario) - then concentrate your respective resources in the places you came closest to beating the Conservatives. If you're really committed to a progressive Canada, you know there's one goal that's more important that gaining partisan advantage: stopping Stephen Harper.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
It ain't easy being Green?
Lawrence Martin remains one of the few Canadian national current affairs columnists keeping a cool head while others all around are losing theirs, and I say this not just because he agrees ($) with everything I wrote on Tuesday.
On the Green Party: whether it can succesfully maintain its high level of public support through an election campaign and into seats is an open question.
-Points in favour: a) Elizabeth May is a credible and apparently likeable type who made quite a splash in her London by-election try, and b) both andecdotal and polling evidence suggests a large segment of the Canadian population (my mother included) are taking to a sort of hands-on, lifestyle-oriented environmental custodianship in their daily lives, and would like governments to follow suit.
-Points against: a) as Martin notes, the Green Party's support is distributed in a way meaning our decrepit FPTP electoral system will ensure votes aren't necessarily translated into seats, and b) without increased media exposure (read: the frikkin' televised leaders' debates) many Canadians won't be inclined to get knowledgeable and comfortable with the Green platform and will revert to their previous party of choice in the polling booth.
It's interesting to note that according to even the Strategic Council the Liberals have lost the least support to the Greens relative to their numbers from the last election - 1% or so, compared to 2% from the Conservatives and 3% from the NDP. All these numbers are admittedly rounded and imprecise. But even if the mainstream parties gain back 4% of the Green vote, the Greens would still poll at 8%, and have oodles of federal money to play with for the subsequent (it's not going to end, folks) national vote.
Moreover, 66% of Canadians would vote for a party that supports the Kyoto Protocol and all that it represents.
All this being said, the Libs still need win over around half a million folks who voted Conservative last election. It's gonna take some English lessons for Stephan, and a coherent, authentic policy platform supported by what I think should be a very positive (and as a bonus, funny) ad campaign. Get on it, people!
Meanwhile, our "decisive," "visionary" Prime Minister is using shock-and-awe tactics to smear backbench Liberal MPPs on the floor of the House. No wonder Jack Layton scores higher on charisma...
On the Green Party: whether it can succesfully maintain its high level of public support through an election campaign and into seats is an open question.
-Points in favour: a) Elizabeth May is a credible and apparently likeable type who made quite a splash in her London by-election try, and b) both andecdotal and polling evidence suggests a large segment of the Canadian population (my mother included) are taking to a sort of hands-on, lifestyle-oriented environmental custodianship in their daily lives, and would like governments to follow suit.
-Points against: a) as Martin notes, the Green Party's support is distributed in a way meaning our decrepit FPTP electoral system will ensure votes aren't necessarily translated into seats, and b) without increased media exposure (read: the frikkin' televised leaders' debates) many Canadians won't be inclined to get knowledgeable and comfortable with the Green platform and will revert to their previous party of choice in the polling booth.
It's interesting to note that according to even the Strategic Council the Liberals have lost the least support to the Greens relative to their numbers from the last election - 1% or so, compared to 2% from the Conservatives and 3% from the NDP. All these numbers are admittedly rounded and imprecise. But even if the mainstream parties gain back 4% of the Green vote, the Greens would still poll at 8%, and have oodles of federal money to play with for the subsequent (it's not going to end, folks) national vote.
Moreover, 66% of Canadians would vote for a party that supports the Kyoto Protocol and all that it represents.
All this being said, the Libs still need win over around half a million folks who voted Conservative last election. It's gonna take some English lessons for Stephan, and a coherent, authentic policy platform supported by what I think should be a very positive (and as a bonus, funny) ad campaign. Get on it, people!
Meanwhile, our "decisive," "visionary" Prime Minister is using shock-and-awe tactics to smear backbench Liberal MPPs on the floor of the House. No wonder Jack Layton scores higher on charisma...
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Putsch comes to shove?
The Globe and Mail editorial board decides to give a shove ($) to the anti-Dion bandwagon, damning with faint praise as only the G&M can....
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Fine Print
If you're described as "decisive" and having "clear vision" in every press article ever written about you, you wouldn't surprised if people started labelling you as such.
If you're Stephen Harper and you're hoping that decisiveness divorced from any actual constructive action will win you an election, you would be thrilled to bits.
But if you're the Canadian media and, to quote John Ibbitson, have the "collective IQ of wildebeest," you wouldn't possibly try for just a little depth in your analysis, now would you?
Perhaps you might note that Canadians are reportedly split 28% Liberal/27% Tory and 24% "I don't know" on the question of "Which party do Canadians identify with most"? Or highlight that a whopping 33% of respondents don't know who would best deal with managing the environment? Or delve into how the Green Party now has an astonishing 12% of popular support nationally? Or recall that Stephan Dion has been Opposition leader for all of 2 1/2 months?
As usual, I agree with Paul. The Liberals desperately need to step up their game. But it would nice if the Canadian media establishment weren't quite so eager to delude themselves and the public with the Conservatives' twisted fairy tale.
If you're Stephen Harper and you're hoping that decisiveness divorced from any actual constructive action will win you an election, you would be thrilled to bits.
But if you're the Canadian media and, to quote John Ibbitson, have the "collective IQ of wildebeest," you wouldn't possibly try for just a little depth in your analysis, now would you?
Perhaps you might note that Canadians are reportedly split 28% Liberal/27% Tory and 24% "I don't know" on the question of "Which party do Canadians identify with most"? Or highlight that a whopping 33% of respondents don't know who would best deal with managing the environment? Or delve into how the Green Party now has an astonishing 12% of popular support nationally? Or recall that Stephan Dion has been Opposition leader for all of 2 1/2 months?
As usual, I agree with Paul. The Liberals desperately need to step up their game. But it would nice if the Canadian media establishment weren't quite so eager to delude themselves and the public with the Conservatives' twisted fairy tale.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Alternatives
Pursuant to my post below: in the interests of fair and balanced reporting, wouldn't it seem reasonable to have someone from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives quoted occasionally in response to various governmental chicanes? Sadly, I suspect CCPA doesn't have quite the budget of the Fraser Institute. Aren't there any rich Canadian George Soros-esque types willing to help bankroll progress?
Forest? What forest?
Thought (formulated, perhaps appropriately, while on the toilet):
Remember, back in the bad ol' days of federal Liberal excess, how the government couldn't spend a dime without hysterical flunkies from the National Citizens' Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation beating their breasts abou the coming fiscal (and often moral) apocalypse?
The current regime is spending like a drunken sailor - but where's the chorus of alarm? Not too much criticism from those guardians of fiscal probity now, is there. Almost makes you think there's some kind of connection between the National Citizens' Coalition and the current government, or something....
Maybe a spunky progressive reporter might want to give this idea a whirl? Anybody? Or is it just so obvious that no one's seen it yet?
Remember, back in the bad ol' days of federal Liberal excess, how the government couldn't spend a dime without hysterical flunkies from the National Citizens' Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation beating their breasts abou the coming fiscal (and often moral) apocalypse?
The current regime is spending like a drunken sailor - but where's the chorus of alarm? Not too much criticism from those guardians of fiscal probity now, is there. Almost makes you think there's some kind of connection between the National Citizens' Coalition and the current government, or something....
Maybe a spunky progressive reporter might want to give this idea a whirl? Anybody? Or is it just so obvious that no one's seen it yet?
Denial: it ai'nt just a dried-up river (of my tears!)
I just wrote a really awesome post on climate change, and then pushed the wrong button. Bummer
The gist: Canada's media is often parochial, blikered and swayed by the Conservative environmental agenda. Canada, as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, can't simply ignore it: it has to either withdraw, or comply. Our country risks becoming both an international pariah and a rapidly-meling mess. Read James Travers.
See, that's way more succinct than my first attempt.
The gist: Canada's media is often parochial, blikered and swayed by the Conservative environmental agenda. Canada, as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, can't simply ignore it: it has to either withdraw, or comply. Our country risks becoming both an international pariah and a rapidly-meling mess. Read James Travers.
See, that's way more succinct than my first attempt.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Heavy duty
A leader who abandons his troops when facing certain defeat isn't much of a leader in my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
