Saturday, December 26, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Good News - an opportunity for opposition, or government
I was visiting with friends who like to know what's what in the world and keep up with current events, even commenting about these things in writing. In other words, they take current events, especially public life, seriously.
Somewhat surprisingly, they told me they had made a clear and deliberate decision to avoid the daily newspaper, especially first thing in the morning, when, wouldnt' you know it, morning daily newspapers come out.
Why? The news was just too darn depressing and no way to start one's day.
Further research reveals that many regular daily news subscribers get the paper every day of the week but Monday!
What's with that? Is it that people have enough trouble starting their work week without starting it on a downer? Why read the paper on the other six days? Maybe Monday's work puts people in the right mood to read the paper?
Okay, that's kind of a depressing thought, mashing up trees and coating them with ink to create a depressing experience.
That leads me to think of newsletters from opposition parties.
Ever notice how these tend to be rantings, railings and angry protests about something silly, stupid or worse the government is, or other parties are, doing? Often these events or facts are reported in the mass news media with the same or similar tone.
Did you notice that only 40% of Albertans voted in the last general election?
Does that mean the political process is too depressing for the other 60% to even bother with? Maybe that's not real apathy, but people responding to a strategy of deliberately driving people away from the political process?
I wonder what the reaction of the people would be to a "Good News" message from political parties, especially opposition parties. What would that look like? I suggest it might be formulated leading with an "Opportunity to Meet a Challenge", followed by some statistical analysis indicating how much of the population or what part of a particular population could be affected by realizing the opportunity, supported by people's personal stories as explanatory anecdotes, then reiterating the Challenge and finally reiterating the Opportunity and explaining how it might meet the Challenge.
Then we have, "The situation is ... ." as opposed to, "Look at what those rotten scoundrels have done now. That's sixteen rotten deeds just today! And it's only noon in Ottawa!". The situational analysis is then followed by "So we see the challenge in the situation to be ... .", and so on.
Have you ever noticed how many people are attracted to an angry "madman" ranting and raving, quite probably about something significant to only him, as he walks down the street?
Maybe opposition parties could learn something from that experience. Are their rantings and ravings perceived as simply hostility that is only about them?
Mike
Somewhat surprisingly, they told me they had made a clear and deliberate decision to avoid the daily newspaper, especially first thing in the morning, when, wouldnt' you know it, morning daily newspapers come out.
Why? The news was just too darn depressing and no way to start one's day.
Further research reveals that many regular daily news subscribers get the paper every day of the week but Monday!
What's with that? Is it that people have enough trouble starting their work week without starting it on a downer? Why read the paper on the other six days? Maybe Monday's work puts people in the right mood to read the paper?
Okay, that's kind of a depressing thought, mashing up trees and coating them with ink to create a depressing experience.
That leads me to think of newsletters from opposition parties.
Ever notice how these tend to be rantings, railings and angry protests about something silly, stupid or worse the government is, or other parties are, doing? Often these events or facts are reported in the mass news media with the same or similar tone.
Did you notice that only 40% of Albertans voted in the last general election?
Does that mean the political process is too depressing for the other 60% to even bother with? Maybe that's not real apathy, but people responding to a strategy of deliberately driving people away from the political process?
I wonder what the reaction of the people would be to a "Good News" message from political parties, especially opposition parties. What would that look like? I suggest it might be formulated leading with an "Opportunity to Meet a Challenge", followed by some statistical analysis indicating how much of the population or what part of a particular population could be affected by realizing the opportunity, supported by people's personal stories as explanatory anecdotes, then reiterating the Challenge and finally reiterating the Opportunity and explaining how it might meet the Challenge.
Then we have, "The situation is ... ." as opposed to, "Look at what those rotten scoundrels have done now. That's sixteen rotten deeds just today! And it's only noon in Ottawa!". The situational analysis is then followed by "So we see the challenge in the situation to be ... .", and so on.
Have you ever noticed how many people are attracted to an angry "madman" ranting and raving, quite probably about something significant to only him, as he walks down the street?
Maybe opposition parties could learn something from that experience. Are their rantings and ravings perceived as simply hostility that is only about them?
Mike
Why Blog? Warning! a personal perspective
I recently enjoyed the company of long time friends and political activists at Marlene Lamontagne's nomination as the Liberal Party of Canada candidate in Calgary Southwest.
A very wise fellow at that event suggested that I blog too much. I think this was not a criticism of the blog or the content, but a questioning of the use of one's life in such an endeavour, especially when there are other things to be done.
He got me thinking, "Why do I, speaking for no one else, do this?"
It sounds trite to say, "Because I have to write." Actually, that's true though.
Writing serves another important purpose. I create personal/business development plans. The latest one has what I think to be novel features making it especially promising for all who might participate. This creative process requires focus that is also open to new information and interpretations of that information.
I find this process is hard work.
So writing the blog clears issues that it seems must get out in writing. These are then no longer distractions.
It also flexes the creative muscles to enable abstraction of the processes required for delivery of these developments without allowing them to become irrelevant to the working environments they are meant to operate in.
Lastly, writing these opinion pieces helps people who read it to understand who Mike is and provides context for any and all presentations of creative thought, while, perhaps strangely, also building a "box" or working environment for me that helps to keep distractions at bay.
So there you have my answer to: "Why blog?". I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else. I hope it does.
Now, back to work.
Mike
A very wise fellow at that event suggested that I blog too much. I think this was not a criticism of the blog or the content, but a questioning of the use of one's life in such an endeavour, especially when there are other things to be done.
He got me thinking, "Why do I, speaking for no one else, do this?"
It sounds trite to say, "Because I have to write." Actually, that's true though.
Writing serves another important purpose. I create personal/business development plans. The latest one has what I think to be novel features making it especially promising for all who might participate. This creative process requires focus that is also open to new information and interpretations of that information.
I find this process is hard work.
So writing the blog clears issues that it seems must get out in writing. These are then no longer distractions.
It also flexes the creative muscles to enable abstraction of the processes required for delivery of these developments without allowing them to become irrelevant to the working environments they are meant to operate in.
Lastly, writing these opinion pieces helps people who read it to understand who Mike is and provides context for any and all presentations of creative thought, while, perhaps strangely, also building a "box" or working environment for me that helps to keep distractions at bay.
So there you have my answer to: "Why blog?". I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else. I hope it does.
Now, back to work.
Mike
Monday, November 30, 2009
Youth Senate to Guard and Protect Political Narrative
Youth Senate to Review Policy Proposals
I propose a Youth Senate as the body providing sober second thought for each party participating in liberal democratic parliamentary democracy.
Participation has an age limit of 25 years. On the Youth Senator's 26th birthday, that Senator is no longer eligible to be a Youth Senator and must retire.
The Youth Senate is not to be a policy gatekeeper. It cannot veto or directly amend any policy proposal. It can only advise, persuade and influence. Party policies must continue to be passed by party membership as is the duty and responsibility of the membership.
The Senate will likely be at least as broad as the jurisdiction of the party it is part of, provincial or federal. ( I suggest it could be equally relevant in municipal government.) I suggest it should be organized constituency by constituency to ensure maximum equity of access to the role at the grassroots level, surely the minimum requirement for liberal democracies. This will be the obvious choice for independent candidates. Thus each constituency and municipal government could have its own Youth Senate.
The Narrative
The party's (or municipality's - used interchangeably as suits the situation) Narrative must be the starting point. That means work must be done to prepare and present that Narrative. The Narrative will probably contain the philosophy the party is premised upon - its reason to be. It will include a vision of what it means to live in that liberal democratic society as envisioned by the party's philosophy to be realized in policies and programs.
Guardian and Protector
The Youth Senate will review every policy put forward to challenge that policy's adherence to and compliance with the Narrative. Does this policy support and enhance the Narrative? Will daily living with this policy fit with the vision of living with the Narrative as the Narrative describes it? Does the Narrative, a living document subject to change to accommodate new knowledge and insight, need to be amended to maintain relevance to the current and foreseeable state of society?
Advantage of Having Youth Senate
Youth will be directly engaged and empowered to make a difference in their world today.
Youth will become educated to the needs and aspirations of other people and demographic groups in society and learn how to include them in society's governance as their vision is broadened and understanding is deepened.
Youth will develop leadership capacity with communications skills and empathy.
Youth will be empowered to take ownership of the society of which they are a part.
As a permanent infrastructural body supporting society's development, policy development will be encouraged on an on-going basis, rather than the stop-and-go action characteristic of party policy conventions which may or may not be held once every two years, but every two years at best.
All society can become engaged in participatory democracy, either through independents or parties, as participants choose. Each member of society can make an informed choice as to which channel to use to turn that policy into action.
Already Existing
We already have the Canadian Youth Assembly that reviews and argues policy changes at the federal level, even with local impact. It serves a similar (or perhaps the exact same) purpose as the proposed Youth Senate, but I don't think it has been formally incorporated into policy development infrastructure.
Each party has a Youth wing. Often that means a ready, willing, eager and capable source of volunteers for activities, a human resource for political grunt work. The Youth Senate helps to move beyond what is most often simply physical activity.
Policy Development
Policies will continue to be developed as people see fit and as is already done within party structures. Any member of society has the ability to develop policy and defend it to other members of society. Parties have specific governance for this function. I'm recommending parties include their own Youth Senate as part of the development process.
Adoption of this proposal may mean eventual change in the way policies are presented to party membership and formally adopted. The Youth Senate helps to make that development process much more transparent and accountable.
The transparency afforded by the Youth Senate may bring non-aligned citizens to choose the channel through which they will participate in society's development, perhaps even dyed-in-the-wool non-voters!
Conclusion
I believe the adoption of Youth Senates by parties across Canada will help develop political engagement among youth and across all demographic groups. I believe it can be a powerful catalyst to truly participatory democracy wherein citizens can experience what it means to live every day as a democratic citizen.
Mike
I propose a Youth Senate as the body providing sober second thought for each party participating in liberal democratic parliamentary democracy.
Participation has an age limit of 25 years. On the Youth Senator's 26th birthday, that Senator is no longer eligible to be a Youth Senator and must retire.
The Youth Senate is not to be a policy gatekeeper. It cannot veto or directly amend any policy proposal. It can only advise, persuade and influence. Party policies must continue to be passed by party membership as is the duty and responsibility of the membership.
The Senate will likely be at least as broad as the jurisdiction of the party it is part of, provincial or federal. ( I suggest it could be equally relevant in municipal government.) I suggest it should be organized constituency by constituency to ensure maximum equity of access to the role at the grassroots level, surely the minimum requirement for liberal democracies. This will be the obvious choice for independent candidates. Thus each constituency and municipal government could have its own Youth Senate.
The Narrative
The party's (or municipality's - used interchangeably as suits the situation) Narrative must be the starting point. That means work must be done to prepare and present that Narrative. The Narrative will probably contain the philosophy the party is premised upon - its reason to be. It will include a vision of what it means to live in that liberal democratic society as envisioned by the party's philosophy to be realized in policies and programs.
Guardian and Protector
The Youth Senate will review every policy put forward to challenge that policy's adherence to and compliance with the Narrative. Does this policy support and enhance the Narrative? Will daily living with this policy fit with the vision of living with the Narrative as the Narrative describes it? Does the Narrative, a living document subject to change to accommodate new knowledge and insight, need to be amended to maintain relevance to the current and foreseeable state of society?
Advantage of Having Youth Senate
Youth will be directly engaged and empowered to make a difference in their world today.
Youth will become educated to the needs and aspirations of other people and demographic groups in society and learn how to include them in society's governance as their vision is broadened and understanding is deepened.
Youth will develop leadership capacity with communications skills and empathy.
Youth will be empowered to take ownership of the society of which they are a part.
As a permanent infrastructural body supporting society's development, policy development will be encouraged on an on-going basis, rather than the stop-and-go action characteristic of party policy conventions which may or may not be held once every two years, but every two years at best.
All society can become engaged in participatory democracy, either through independents or parties, as participants choose. Each member of society can make an informed choice as to which channel to use to turn that policy into action.
Already Existing
We already have the Canadian Youth Assembly that reviews and argues policy changes at the federal level, even with local impact. It serves a similar (or perhaps the exact same) purpose as the proposed Youth Senate, but I don't think it has been formally incorporated into policy development infrastructure.
Each party has a Youth wing. Often that means a ready, willing, eager and capable source of volunteers for activities, a human resource for political grunt work. The Youth Senate helps to move beyond what is most often simply physical activity.
Policy Development
Policies will continue to be developed as people see fit and as is already done within party structures. Any member of society has the ability to develop policy and defend it to other members of society. Parties have specific governance for this function. I'm recommending parties include their own Youth Senate as part of the development process.
Adoption of this proposal may mean eventual change in the way policies are presented to party membership and formally adopted. The Youth Senate helps to make that development process much more transparent and accountable.
The transparency afforded by the Youth Senate may bring non-aligned citizens to choose the channel through which they will participate in society's development, perhaps even dyed-in-the-wool non-voters!
Conclusion
I believe the adoption of Youth Senates by parties across Canada will help develop political engagement among youth and across all demographic groups. I believe it can be a powerful catalyst to truly participatory democracy wherein citizens can experience what it means to live every day as a democratic citizen.
Mike
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Error Alert on Government -in-Waiting - Transparent Governance
I believe I misunderstood and therefore misrepresented the ERCB regulatory process as related to gas leases.
I now understand that all gas leases, in fact all gas and oil leases, are executed with the provision that the ERCB may make a ruling at some date in the future that could negatively affect the value of the lease.
I'm sure that isn't the wording, but you get the idea.
That means even the ERCB can't know for certain what situations may arise that will affect any given lease and the ERCB can act on the side of safety by shutting in the reserve before any or any more negative consequences of operating that lease can occur.
It's then in the best interests of the prospective lessee to examine the situation as carefully as possible to attempt to foresee any such negative situation arising.
I suspect the gas leases in question were let after the bitumen leases and then it would be reasonable to react to the bitumen lessees' concerns in precedence over the later gas lessees' concern.
Too bad my argument still makes assumptions, but they seem like reasonable assumptions.
I don't think my error about the regulatory process undoes my argument for transparency in accountability to Albertans, even though it distracts from the point of the argument.
Mike
I now understand that all gas leases, in fact all gas and oil leases, are executed with the provision that the ERCB may make a ruling at some date in the future that could negatively affect the value of the lease.
I'm sure that isn't the wording, but you get the idea.
That means even the ERCB can't know for certain what situations may arise that will affect any given lease and the ERCB can act on the side of safety by shutting in the reserve before any or any more negative consequences of operating that lease can occur.
It's then in the best interests of the prospective lessee to examine the situation as carefully as possible to attempt to foresee any such negative situation arising.
I suspect the gas leases in question were let after the bitumen leases and then it would be reasonable to react to the bitumen lessees' concerns in precedence over the later gas lessees' concern.
Too bad my argument still makes assumptions, but they seem like reasonable assumptions.
I don't think my error about the regulatory process undoes my argument for transparency in accountability to Albertans, even though it distracts from the point of the argument.
Mike
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Government-In-Waiting - Transparent Governance
Notwithstanding objections that we do live in a democracy, regulatory affairs can tend to assume people to be guilty, having to prove their innocence.
The ERCB (Energy Resources Conservation Board), the petroleum production regulator acting on behalf of Albertans, has again announced a shut-in of natural gas production of gas reserves found over bitumen reserves in the Alberta oil sands.
The first time this was done, it shut in a major part of the production of one of Alberta's pre-eminent producers. That shut-in threatened and produced serious hardship for that company and others. While most of the gas was eventually freed for production, the producer had to throw massive resources to the effort to produce evidence that its production did not threaten access to the bitumen beneath the gas.
It had to make its case on a well-by-well basis.
It's therefore pretty clear that the bitumen lessee had to show no substantive evidence to bring about a shut-in order. It's also clear that the potential for bitumen royalty was considered greater than that of gas royalty. In this exercise of democracy, money did the talking.
This was a patently unfair process to the investors and employees of that company as it had purchased its lease rights as access to that gas in good faith.
When the ERCB shut that gas in, the regulations that it exercised enabled it to do so without having the Alberta government repaying any portion of the purchase price for those gas leases, much less the capital cost of the production improvements the company had added since then.
Now, some six years later, the Calgary Herald reported on October 16, 2009 in "ERCB orders gas wells shut in" that the ERCB has used basically the same process again. The oil sands lessees presented geo-physical theory that removal of the gas could plausibly make recovery of the bitumen more difficult.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/ERCB+orders+wells+shut/2109625/story.html
Again, the gas producers are expected to prove, on a well-by-well basis, that the removal of gas will not negatively affect bitumen recovery.
So apparently conclusive evidence supporting the claim one way or the other is available as has been proven in the previous round.
It seems to me that Albertans should be demanding a more open and fair process. I'm sure such a process is available.
As I understand the situation, the gas producers bought their gas leases at auction directly from the Crown or from another producer who had bought the leases from the Crown at auction.
The bitumen producers bought their leases, also at auction from the Crown or from others who bought the leases at auction from the Crown.
Were either set of producers alerted to the fact that the ERCB may shut down operations or allow operations that could threaten their ability to operate or at least operate relatively profitability?
Maybe that happened, at least it could be expected after the 2003 round of like-minded shut-ins.
The point is, there is a vested interest on behalf of the gas producers, the bitumen producers, and Albertans expecting royalty income from both sets of leases, in seeing the development process go ahead in a rational manner. Of course I am leaving out the contractors and employees who build, service and operate production facilities for both types of producers and the customers dependent on that production.
It seems to me the government has a responsibility to ensure the smooth working of the development process.
The rules, in geo-physical terms, need to be spelled out so that gas producers know which gas-over-bitumen leases might not be viable. This should be relatively straightforward as conclusive evidence of such is available as proven in 2003 and 2004.
Where an argument arises between bitumen and gas producers in any case, why can't the process be held in open hearing where the three parties can have their arguments on the table prior to any party making a capital investment in leasehold development.
Shareholders of the respective companies can marvel at their executives in action as they protect shareholder interests. Albertans can see the evidence supporting the royalty income for each type of lease taking precedence where precedence need be taken.
Production shut-ins, impairing royalty and corporate incomes, are minimized.
The scientific evidence can speak for itself.
The impact on royalties, jobs, environment, communities and so on can be described and where those visions compete, Albertans can see and understand the evidence entering into the decision-making process and supporting the final decision.
I think most of the cynical side of the politics of the situation can be removed with such a process.
Where the government does not show a willingness to undertake such a process, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as Government-In-Waiting, can invite the parties to participate in such a process intended to influence the decision while demonstrating the effectiveness of participatory democracy.
Albertans will realize that their interests are being considered, including Albertans as passive collectors of royalties and Albertans as active generators of royalties.
As much as possible then, even in the cases of leases granting access to resource reserves, there can be a meeting of the minds of Albertans and potentially competing producers.
The dispute mechanism can be open and transparent with accountability for judgments used in decision-making.
Most importantly, all Albertans' interests and thereby Albertans themselves are respected and encouraged to be respectful of each other because the regulatory process will assume good faith on the part of all parties and enable them to operate without penalty based on allegation alone.
The Government-In-Waiting can demonstrate what it means to live democratically where one is not assumed to be guilty, having to prove her or his innocence of allegations based on insubstantive evidence.
The ERCB (Energy Resources Conservation Board), the petroleum production regulator acting on behalf of Albertans, has again announced a shut-in of natural gas production of gas reserves found over bitumen reserves in the Alberta oil sands.
The first time this was done, it shut in a major part of the production of one of Alberta's pre-eminent producers. That shut-in threatened and produced serious hardship for that company and others. While most of the gas was eventually freed for production, the producer had to throw massive resources to the effort to produce evidence that its production did not threaten access to the bitumen beneath the gas.
It had to make its case on a well-by-well basis.
It's therefore pretty clear that the bitumen lessee had to show no substantive evidence to bring about a shut-in order. It's also clear that the potential for bitumen royalty was considered greater than that of gas royalty. In this exercise of democracy, money did the talking.
This was a patently unfair process to the investors and employees of that company as it had purchased its lease rights as access to that gas in good faith.
When the ERCB shut that gas in, the regulations that it exercised enabled it to do so without having the Alberta government repaying any portion of the purchase price for those gas leases, much less the capital cost of the production improvements the company had added since then.
Now, some six years later, the Calgary Herald reported on October 16, 2009 in "ERCB orders gas wells shut in" that the ERCB has used basically the same process again. The oil sands lessees presented geo-physical theory that removal of the gas could plausibly make recovery of the bitumen more difficult.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/ERCB+orders+wells+shut/2109625/story.html
Again, the gas producers are expected to prove, on a well-by-well basis, that the removal of gas will not negatively affect bitumen recovery.
So apparently conclusive evidence supporting the claim one way or the other is available as has been proven in the previous round.
It seems to me that Albertans should be demanding a more open and fair process. I'm sure such a process is available.
As I understand the situation, the gas producers bought their gas leases at auction directly from the Crown or from another producer who had bought the leases from the Crown at auction.
The bitumen producers bought their leases, also at auction from the Crown or from others who bought the leases at auction from the Crown.
Were either set of producers alerted to the fact that the ERCB may shut down operations or allow operations that could threaten their ability to operate or at least operate relatively profitability?
Maybe that happened, at least it could be expected after the 2003 round of like-minded shut-ins.
The point is, there is a vested interest on behalf of the gas producers, the bitumen producers, and Albertans expecting royalty income from both sets of leases, in seeing the development process go ahead in a rational manner. Of course I am leaving out the contractors and employees who build, service and operate production facilities for both types of producers and the customers dependent on that production.
It seems to me the government has a responsibility to ensure the smooth working of the development process.
The rules, in geo-physical terms, need to be spelled out so that gas producers know which gas-over-bitumen leases might not be viable. This should be relatively straightforward as conclusive evidence of such is available as proven in 2003 and 2004.
Where an argument arises between bitumen and gas producers in any case, why can't the process be held in open hearing where the three parties can have their arguments on the table prior to any party making a capital investment in leasehold development.
Shareholders of the respective companies can marvel at their executives in action as they protect shareholder interests. Albertans can see the evidence supporting the royalty income for each type of lease taking precedence where precedence need be taken.
Production shut-ins, impairing royalty and corporate incomes, are minimized.
The scientific evidence can speak for itself.
The impact on royalties, jobs, environment, communities and so on can be described and where those visions compete, Albertans can see and understand the evidence entering into the decision-making process and supporting the final decision.
I think most of the cynical side of the politics of the situation can be removed with such a process.
Where the government does not show a willingness to undertake such a process, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as Government-In-Waiting, can invite the parties to participate in such a process intended to influence the decision while demonstrating the effectiveness of participatory democracy.
Albertans will realize that their interests are being considered, including Albertans as passive collectors of royalties and Albertans as active generators of royalties.
As much as possible then, even in the cases of leases granting access to resource reserves, there can be a meeting of the minds of Albertans and potentially competing producers.
The dispute mechanism can be open and transparent with accountability for judgments used in decision-making.
Most importantly, all Albertans' interests and thereby Albertans themselves are respected and encouraged to be respectful of each other because the regulatory process will assume good faith on the part of all parties and enable them to operate without penalty based on allegation alone.
The Government-In-Waiting can demonstrate what it means to live democratically where one is not assumed to be guilty, having to prove her or his innocence of allegations based on insubstantive evidence.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Vinegar to treat angst induced gut ache!
Have you noticed people living out their lives with an edge of anger, frustration, helplessness, hopelessness, anxiety, tension? It seems a lot of society lives with a permanent angry gut ache.
Is all this angst authentically based in how life is unfolding? E. J. Dionne argues that it is.
E. J. Dionne wrote of the authenticity of rage in the October 12, 2009 edition of the Washington Post in his piece "Responding to Authentic Rage".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101556_pf.html
He describes how populations within society become hopelessly disaffected as the society of which they should be a part evolves and seemingly or really leaves them out.
I think there are likely few things worse than knowing your situation is bad and thinking you have learned it is impossible to improve the situation. Along with that is a sense of hopeless frustration and helplessness. Can you imagine living every day with that going on?
As a society we seem to ask people to accept their situation as conventional wisdom would suggest, "That's just how life is."
I like to use the statement, "What is, is." What I mean by that is don't pretend what is is something else. For example, don't ascribe motives to the cosmos that cause "What is" to come about and affect you as it does.
I had the joy of meeting with an aunt on her ninety-seventh birthday. It occurred to me that she has always been someone at peace. She seems to me to truly know how to accept what is. That's far from saying she resigns herself to her "fate". She knows where she's at and works to bring herself to a different state. Pretty amazing ability seemingly constantly reinforced by living.
Yet I meet people whose advice for people in unhappy circumstances is to accept their situation and get used to it. The people saying this, may not appear to be in the same sorry state as the people they are advising, but these "helpful" advisers' state is also one of hopelessness. I expect they live their own lives with that same cynical, fatalistic view.
I wonder how people who are apparently not in a downtrodden state; no major family illnesses, no deaths, gainfully employed in a chosen career - in other words - not living through fire, flood, tornado or earthquake, develop that same cynical sense of hopelessness and helplessness?
I wonder if some of these people, notably economists, philosophers, political leaders, theologians and other society leaders and shapers have set out to achieve a goal and have achieved it. For instance, they might have aspired to a Nobel in Economics, PhD in Philosophy, prime minister, published cleric, gold medal Olympian and now they're thinking, "Now what? Where do I go from here? There is no where to go from here because I'm at the end."
Ouch!
Are they now living without hope because there is nothing more for them to hope for that they can have any influence on? They have become passive "participants" in life. Any sports fan knows it's a fool's quest to allow your team's ability to win to determine the peace you experience in your life. Isn't it the same thing to wait for the economy, your employer, or the weather to bring you peace and happiness?
People have to learn that peace comes from within and we are empowered to bring it to our own lives.
"... have to learn ..." means an educational process is at stake. Our society as a political body evolving to democracy tends to see the world through a feudal or tribal perspective with leader as strong man. We tend to not think of ourselves as masters of our own destiny, perhaps partly because of that tribal view and partly because we almost always need others to help us realize our own destiny. In doing so, we have to collaborate with others to help them achieve their own destiny.
This can be hard work, especially if we don't believe it can work. That hard work is the threshold we must cross to achievement.
So what do we do?
I think we can take a practical approach. Let's find specific needs people have to meet. Pick one that seems a priority need. Lead by example by inviting people affected by meeting that need; people in demand, people providing to meet that demand and people supporting the activities of the other two. Political activists are well advised to look to the example of volunteer agencies, especially those built to serve people living with disease to begin to understand how that process works.
Let's use a transparent process where each party puts its own needs and abilities on the table. Let's work out how each party's needs can be met, then work out how that can be done collaboratively so as to not disable any one party from achieving what it needs to achieve.
Is this possible? I know it is. Is it easy? I know it is not. Is it worth doing? Consider the alternative. Live without peace and in misery, wondering what your neighbour is doing to keep your life from turning out how you need it to be. Live with hopelessness as no one has taken the time and effort to show that the situation is never hopeless.
My brother used to say, "You're not lost til you're out of gas."
The great thing is that we never need be out of gas. We never need to feel hopeless and helpless. We never need to feel angry at our fate. We never need to express ourselves through road rage. We never need to protest without having hope of amending the situation we are protesting against. We never have to abstain from voting because the situation is just so hopeless as "they are all the same". When we join the battle, "they" is us and we have no reason to feel defeated.
Importantly, we never have to accept the vinegar of negativity some political leaders, social commentators, and news and entertainment media offer as a treatment for a person's angry gut ache.
Is all this angst authentically based in how life is unfolding? E. J. Dionne argues that it is.
E. J. Dionne wrote of the authenticity of rage in the October 12, 2009 edition of the Washington Post in his piece "Responding to Authentic Rage".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101556_pf.html
He describes how populations within society become hopelessly disaffected as the society of which they should be a part evolves and seemingly or really leaves them out.
I think there are likely few things worse than knowing your situation is bad and thinking you have learned it is impossible to improve the situation. Along with that is a sense of hopeless frustration and helplessness. Can you imagine living every day with that going on?
As a society we seem to ask people to accept their situation as conventional wisdom would suggest, "That's just how life is."
I like to use the statement, "What is, is." What I mean by that is don't pretend what is is something else. For example, don't ascribe motives to the cosmos that cause "What is" to come about and affect you as it does.
I had the joy of meeting with an aunt on her ninety-seventh birthday. It occurred to me that she has always been someone at peace. She seems to me to truly know how to accept what is. That's far from saying she resigns herself to her "fate". She knows where she's at and works to bring herself to a different state. Pretty amazing ability seemingly constantly reinforced by living.
Yet I meet people whose advice for people in unhappy circumstances is to accept their situation and get used to it. The people saying this, may not appear to be in the same sorry state as the people they are advising, but these "helpful" advisers' state is also one of hopelessness. I expect they live their own lives with that same cynical, fatalistic view.
I wonder how people who are apparently not in a downtrodden state; no major family illnesses, no deaths, gainfully employed in a chosen career - in other words - not living through fire, flood, tornado or earthquake, develop that same cynical sense of hopelessness and helplessness?
I wonder if some of these people, notably economists, philosophers, political leaders, theologians and other society leaders and shapers have set out to achieve a goal and have achieved it. For instance, they might have aspired to a Nobel in Economics, PhD in Philosophy, prime minister, published cleric, gold medal Olympian and now they're thinking, "Now what? Where do I go from here? There is no where to go from here because I'm at the end."
Ouch!
Are they now living without hope because there is nothing more for them to hope for that they can have any influence on? They have become passive "participants" in life. Any sports fan knows it's a fool's quest to allow your team's ability to win to determine the peace you experience in your life. Isn't it the same thing to wait for the economy, your employer, or the weather to bring you peace and happiness?
People have to learn that peace comes from within and we are empowered to bring it to our own lives.
"... have to learn ..." means an educational process is at stake. Our society as a political body evolving to democracy tends to see the world through a feudal or tribal perspective with leader as strong man. We tend to not think of ourselves as masters of our own destiny, perhaps partly because of that tribal view and partly because we almost always need others to help us realize our own destiny. In doing so, we have to collaborate with others to help them achieve their own destiny.
This can be hard work, especially if we don't believe it can work. That hard work is the threshold we must cross to achievement.
So what do we do?
I think we can take a practical approach. Let's find specific needs people have to meet. Pick one that seems a priority need. Lead by example by inviting people affected by meeting that need; people in demand, people providing to meet that demand and people supporting the activities of the other two. Political activists are well advised to look to the example of volunteer agencies, especially those built to serve people living with disease to begin to understand how that process works.
Let's use a transparent process where each party puts its own needs and abilities on the table. Let's work out how each party's needs can be met, then work out how that can be done collaboratively so as to not disable any one party from achieving what it needs to achieve.
Is this possible? I know it is. Is it easy? I know it is not. Is it worth doing? Consider the alternative. Live without peace and in misery, wondering what your neighbour is doing to keep your life from turning out how you need it to be. Live with hopelessness as no one has taken the time and effort to show that the situation is never hopeless.
My brother used to say, "You're not lost til you're out of gas."
The great thing is that we never need be out of gas. We never need to feel hopeless and helpless. We never need to feel angry at our fate. We never need to express ourselves through road rage. We never need to protest without having hope of amending the situation we are protesting against. We never have to abstain from voting because the situation is just so hopeless as "they are all the same". When we join the battle, "they" is us and we have no reason to feel defeated.
Importantly, we never have to accept the vinegar of negativity some political leaders, social commentators, and news and entertainment media offer as a treatment for a person's angry gut ache.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Government in Waiting - Opposition has to act like it!
I watch opposition parties and marvel at their version of government-in-waiting.
It is truly revealing to be on such a party's email list. A lot of very well written and well researched stuff comes out opposing the governing party of the day in whatever jurisdiction.
The method of opposing is where my marvelling starts.
Opposition parties level a constant barrage of accusations of incompetence, ignorance, negligence, wrong-headedness, sneakiness and sometimes just plain old evil at the governing party.
I suspect that I am not the only person for whom a steady diet of righteous indignation finally has an effect opposite of what the senders intended. I finally think to myself, "Quit whining and do something about the situation already!"
Even if every little detail of government decision-making and activity or lack of it deserves condemnation, I still can't help but think, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it. These guys are clowns. How did they get to control the levers of power anyway?"
Then I think, "Oops! They were elected! Oh no! Were those nincompoops elected by people of questionable judgment who the opposition now thinks will suddenly show great judgment and elect the opposition, the government-in-waiting?"
I really think constant attacks are counterproductive.
An opposition should act like a government-in-waiting instead of waiting and waiting and waiting until the governing party simply can't be stomached anymore and a mass protest vote throws them out. I think I might see some of that going on in Alberta.
No government-in-waiting has presented itself to the satisfaction of Albertans. The electorate seems to becoming convinced that a change is good. I mean look at all the examples of incompetence that have been endlessly pointed out by the opposition.
But whom to support? A strange new party has arisen that no one really knows very well. That seems to be in its favour as it seems to get to know a party is to learn to distrust it. This new party doesn't seem to be much more of a government-in-waiting than the old opposition party. But it is attracting people with previous government experience to itself. It has been saying it will do some specific things better than the current government. The electorate sort of know some of the people leading the new party even if they don't know the party.
It looks like this new party could become the de facto government-in-waiting, sort of by default.
On the federal scene, we have the same kind of opposition tactic - attack, attack attack.
You know, I think that all this attack stuff that the current federal government also used to do when in opposition and Alberta's current governing party has done even while in government, has soured the electorate to politics in general. The electorate and its media representatives have become extremely cynical. If a politician was to hand a bucket of water to a person whose house is burning, it could be refused. The person is likely to think some even greater tragedy will be triggered by taking that politician's bucket of water.
Lately we have had some interesting positive examples of government-in-waiting activity.
The Alberta opposition worked hard to understand what the energy industry in Alberta needed to have government do to support it in becoming successful once again. We have the opposition going around the province to see what the people need to have happen in the restructuring of healthcare.
Federally, the opposition put forward Bill C248 to support immigration to Canada that Canada has known it needs for the last thirty years. The opposition has also put forward bills S-241 and S-242 to change the regulation of credit and debit card transactions in keeping with strengthening financial regulations in response to lessons learned in the recent and current financial crisis.
These are thoughtful acts intended to remedy what the sponsoring parliamentarians see as serious shortcomings in Canada's statutory and regulatory infrastructure.
These are four examples of opposition acting as government-in-waiting.
What happens then?
Heard anything about the energy sector consultation in the form of proposed statutes and regulations or procedural changes to address the needs uncovered through that effort? Heard anything about proposals suggested for restructuring healthcare (not drafted as the process is still young) that can be shown to reflect the needs of the electorate and that are not already written up in a policy manual even before the public consultation process began?
Heard about the senators and their supporting parliamentarians engaging in public consultations in support of the proposed bills and any amendments to them? Heard about the opposition refusing to support its own proposed bill C248!
We almost had government-in-waiting! But not quite.
It's hard for me to understand why oppositions don't stick to their proposals to try to turn them into reality. That's the kind of tenacity and courage that I think the electorate can relate to. What if the government steals the ideas and claims them as their own? Who cares! Even the opposition has to remember that it has to represent all the electorate, not just those that elected them. It then has to pick a priority issue and stick to it until the desired outcome is achieved or the government quashes the effort against the interests of the electorate.
Opposition is government. Opposition has to act like it!
Mike
It is truly revealing to be on such a party's email list. A lot of very well written and well researched stuff comes out opposing the governing party of the day in whatever jurisdiction.
The method of opposing is where my marvelling starts.
Opposition parties level a constant barrage of accusations of incompetence, ignorance, negligence, wrong-headedness, sneakiness and sometimes just plain old evil at the governing party.
I suspect that I am not the only person for whom a steady diet of righteous indignation finally has an effect opposite of what the senders intended. I finally think to myself, "Quit whining and do something about the situation already!"
Even if every little detail of government decision-making and activity or lack of it deserves condemnation, I still can't help but think, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it. These guys are clowns. How did they get to control the levers of power anyway?"
Then I think, "Oops! They were elected! Oh no! Were those nincompoops elected by people of questionable judgment who the opposition now thinks will suddenly show great judgment and elect the opposition, the government-in-waiting?"
I really think constant attacks are counterproductive.
An opposition should act like a government-in-waiting instead of waiting and waiting and waiting until the governing party simply can't be stomached anymore and a mass protest vote throws them out. I think I might see some of that going on in Alberta.
No government-in-waiting has presented itself to the satisfaction of Albertans. The electorate seems to becoming convinced that a change is good. I mean look at all the examples of incompetence that have been endlessly pointed out by the opposition.
But whom to support? A strange new party has arisen that no one really knows very well. That seems to be in its favour as it seems to get to know a party is to learn to distrust it. This new party doesn't seem to be much more of a government-in-waiting than the old opposition party. But it is attracting people with previous government experience to itself. It has been saying it will do some specific things better than the current government. The electorate sort of know some of the people leading the new party even if they don't know the party.
It looks like this new party could become the de facto government-in-waiting, sort of by default.
On the federal scene, we have the same kind of opposition tactic - attack, attack attack.
You know, I think that all this attack stuff that the current federal government also used to do when in opposition and Alberta's current governing party has done even while in government, has soured the electorate to politics in general. The electorate and its media representatives have become extremely cynical. If a politician was to hand a bucket of water to a person whose house is burning, it could be refused. The person is likely to think some even greater tragedy will be triggered by taking that politician's bucket of water.
Lately we have had some interesting positive examples of government-in-waiting activity.
The Alberta opposition worked hard to understand what the energy industry in Alberta needed to have government do to support it in becoming successful once again. We have the opposition going around the province to see what the people need to have happen in the restructuring of healthcare.
Federally, the opposition put forward Bill C248 to support immigration to Canada that Canada has known it needs for the last thirty years. The opposition has also put forward bills S-241 and S-242 to change the regulation of credit and debit card transactions in keeping with strengthening financial regulations in response to lessons learned in the recent and current financial crisis.
These are thoughtful acts intended to remedy what the sponsoring parliamentarians see as serious shortcomings in Canada's statutory and regulatory infrastructure.
These are four examples of opposition acting as government-in-waiting.
What happens then?
Heard anything about the energy sector consultation in the form of proposed statutes and regulations or procedural changes to address the needs uncovered through that effort? Heard anything about proposals suggested for restructuring healthcare (not drafted as the process is still young) that can be shown to reflect the needs of the electorate and that are not already written up in a policy manual even before the public consultation process began?
Heard about the senators and their supporting parliamentarians engaging in public consultations in support of the proposed bills and any amendments to them? Heard about the opposition refusing to support its own proposed bill C248!
We almost had government-in-waiting! But not quite.
It's hard for me to understand why oppositions don't stick to their proposals to try to turn them into reality. That's the kind of tenacity and courage that I think the electorate can relate to. What if the government steals the ideas and claims them as their own? Who cares! Even the opposition has to remember that it has to represent all the electorate, not just those that elected them. It then has to pick a priority issue and stick to it until the desired outcome is achieved or the government quashes the effort against the interests of the electorate.
Opposition is government. Opposition has to act like it!
Mike
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Investment Safety - Part 2
Okay, I'd better clarify.
Yes, when a company fails, creditors will almost always get a greater percentage of their investment repaid out of the proceeds of liquidation than will equity holders.
I do wonder what motivates companies to take on capital investment and investors to invest in companies.
I think companies take on capital investment to enable them to realize business opportunities they have identified. It often takes capital today to enable earnings tomorrow.
So the company is taking on an obligation to combine its business acumen and productive ability with investors' capital to realize its goal.
The investors, meanwhile, commit to the company to help it realize its goal with the belief that their capital commitment will earn a reward arising out of the successful achievement of the goal.
So both the investors and the company are motivated by achievement of a common goal.
I then suggest that investors and companies alike work to arrive at a capitalization solution that does not threaten to turn the investment into a non-enabler, or worse yet, a disabler.
How can non-enabling and disabling happen?
Debt servicing can hurry a company along its way to failure when its best laid plans don't turn out as quickly as hoped because of errors in execution or slumping demand for the company's produce because of bad weather or a generally slumping economy.
Now the company finds itself required to keep digging when it is already in a hole.
Equity participation does not threaten the company unless the equity owners decide that the company team doesn't deserve their trust and they replace them. This is a dangerous situation as the vision may not be shared by the new team. The team may be "allergic" to the old vision thinking they maintain their positions by avoiding anything that had anything to do with the past.
But that's not the real point as far as the investors are concerned. Should the company fail no matter the best efforts of all concerned, the investors are probably not going to achieve either goal. The produce will not be delivered and they will not earn a reward for their involvement and they may even lose part or all of their capital.
We then need to work harder to come up with solutions that enable the goal of the desired produce to be achieved even though the first company fails in the execution. That failure should not have been a direct outcome of the capital investment.
Solutions are out there and we shouldn't need Scully and Mulder (of X-Files) to find that "truth" that's out there.
Mike
Yes, when a company fails, creditors will almost always get a greater percentage of their investment repaid out of the proceeds of liquidation than will equity holders.
I do wonder what motivates companies to take on capital investment and investors to invest in companies.
I think companies take on capital investment to enable them to realize business opportunities they have identified. It often takes capital today to enable earnings tomorrow.
So the company is taking on an obligation to combine its business acumen and productive ability with investors' capital to realize its goal.
The investors, meanwhile, commit to the company to help it realize its goal with the belief that their capital commitment will earn a reward arising out of the successful achievement of the goal.
So both the investors and the company are motivated by achievement of a common goal.
I then suggest that investors and companies alike work to arrive at a capitalization solution that does not threaten to turn the investment into a non-enabler, or worse yet, a disabler.
How can non-enabling and disabling happen?
Debt servicing can hurry a company along its way to failure when its best laid plans don't turn out as quickly as hoped because of errors in execution or slumping demand for the company's produce because of bad weather or a generally slumping economy.
Now the company finds itself required to keep digging when it is already in a hole.
Equity participation does not threaten the company unless the equity owners decide that the company team doesn't deserve their trust and they replace them. This is a dangerous situation as the vision may not be shared by the new team. The team may be "allergic" to the old vision thinking they maintain their positions by avoiding anything that had anything to do with the past.
But that's not the real point as far as the investors are concerned. Should the company fail no matter the best efforts of all concerned, the investors are probably not going to achieve either goal. The produce will not be delivered and they will not earn a reward for their involvement and they may even lose part or all of their capital.
We then need to work harder to come up with solutions that enable the goal of the desired produce to be achieved even though the first company fails in the execution. That failure should not have been a direct outcome of the capital investment.
Solutions are out there and we shouldn't need Scully and Mulder (of X-Files) to find that "truth" that's out there.
Mike
Monday, October 5, 2009
Investment Safety - Why ask the question?
Has anyone asked the managers of her or his pension fund which is a safer investment for pension funds, debt or equity?
This latest financial crisis presented an opportunity to make such an analysis.
As I see it, there is only a relatively small difference in safety between the two, with equity being the safer in a general economic downturn and financial crisis.
Debt investment typically expects relatively low returns in the form of regular cash payments for interest. The return of capital may be regularly paid in cash or in the case of bonds may be delayed until the end of the term of the contract.
Equity investment may yield cash as return on investment in the form of dividends, by definition, being drawn from profits. The equities, generally shares or stocks, remain with the investor as part ownership in the enterprise.
When the enterprise is financially successful the dividends might be higher. The investment market will tend to recognize the increased security of the investment by driving up demand for the securities, thereby driving up the share price and offering an opportunity to gain on the investment.
On the other hand, the debt investment will yield regular return on capital in interest payments and return of capital by virtue of the repayment schedule. An enterprise debtor's financial success will only be reflected in reliability of those fixed or nearly fixed interest payments. Sudden large gains due to price appreciation of the debt instrument are unlikely to occur, as they would with equities.
When the enterprise is financially unsuccessful, it will pay no or smaller dividends, limited by the amount of accumulated surplus. The investor will still hold claim to a portion of the enterprise.
For a time, the debt investor will continue to receive returns in cash, both returns on and of capital. However, those returns will themselves threaten the solvency of the firm and might bring about its eventual demise. Will the debt investor recover all the investment? Perhaps, but more likely will recover only some of the investment with no chance of ever recovering the rest.
Of course, the equity investors face the same situation. They may recover something upon wind-up, or not.
Why ask this question when nearly every investor with even a passing knowledge of financial securities already knows these answers?
I ask it because I want fund managers to think about the implications of their investment decisions within the economic environment.
Ideally, fund managers would look for investments that pay cash returns on and of capital, while not being lost to catastrophic business failure.
The returns might never be as great as they might be with equity investments.
On the other hand, they might never be lost either.
We had pension and other wealth funds feeding the bubble economy for quite a few years. How do we know that? The funds' income was in the form of cash, usually the savings portions of employee income. Many funds were becoming cash rich, actually over-burdened with cash. They had to earn rewards that matched the investment markets so the piles of cash were more and more heavily invested in real estate, mortgages and equities.
These were almost all market risks, betting that the managers could continue to buy low and sell high indefinitely to meet future obligations to beneficiaries.
Betting that it will always be possible to buy low and sell high is the essence of a bubble market.
Fund liquidity and solvency needed to pursue other avenues to returns on and of capital that came only in the form of cash. These opportunities needed to be generating returns during good and normal economic times. The investment also needed to at worst lie dormant until economic times improved and returns could again be generated through economic activity. Perhaps these opportunities could be neither conventional debt nor equity investments, but some other form of investment.
Did fund managers look for such opportunities? We can't be sure. Apparently they didn't find them as I have not heard of a single instance where some fund manager emerged from the depths of the financial crisis with performance indicating such an opportunity was found and successfully exploited.
Such a fund manager would have appeared as a sunlit diamond in the rubble.
Mike
This latest financial crisis presented an opportunity to make such an analysis.
As I see it, there is only a relatively small difference in safety between the two, with equity being the safer in a general economic downturn and financial crisis.
Debt investment typically expects relatively low returns in the form of regular cash payments for interest. The return of capital may be regularly paid in cash or in the case of bonds may be delayed until the end of the term of the contract.
Equity investment may yield cash as return on investment in the form of dividends, by definition, being drawn from profits. The equities, generally shares or stocks, remain with the investor as part ownership in the enterprise.
When the enterprise is financially successful the dividends might be higher. The investment market will tend to recognize the increased security of the investment by driving up demand for the securities, thereby driving up the share price and offering an opportunity to gain on the investment.
On the other hand, the debt investment will yield regular return on capital in interest payments and return of capital by virtue of the repayment schedule. An enterprise debtor's financial success will only be reflected in reliability of those fixed or nearly fixed interest payments. Sudden large gains due to price appreciation of the debt instrument are unlikely to occur, as they would with equities.
When the enterprise is financially unsuccessful, it will pay no or smaller dividends, limited by the amount of accumulated surplus. The investor will still hold claim to a portion of the enterprise.
For a time, the debt investor will continue to receive returns in cash, both returns on and of capital. However, those returns will themselves threaten the solvency of the firm and might bring about its eventual demise. Will the debt investor recover all the investment? Perhaps, but more likely will recover only some of the investment with no chance of ever recovering the rest.
Of course, the equity investors face the same situation. They may recover something upon wind-up, or not.
Why ask this question when nearly every investor with even a passing knowledge of financial securities already knows these answers?
I ask it because I want fund managers to think about the implications of their investment decisions within the economic environment.
Ideally, fund managers would look for investments that pay cash returns on and of capital, while not being lost to catastrophic business failure.
The returns might never be as great as they might be with equity investments.
On the other hand, they might never be lost either.
We had pension and other wealth funds feeding the bubble economy for quite a few years. How do we know that? The funds' income was in the form of cash, usually the savings portions of employee income. Many funds were becoming cash rich, actually over-burdened with cash. They had to earn rewards that matched the investment markets so the piles of cash were more and more heavily invested in real estate, mortgages and equities.
These were almost all market risks, betting that the managers could continue to buy low and sell high indefinitely to meet future obligations to beneficiaries.
Betting that it will always be possible to buy low and sell high is the essence of a bubble market.
Fund liquidity and solvency needed to pursue other avenues to returns on and of capital that came only in the form of cash. These opportunities needed to be generating returns during good and normal economic times. The investment also needed to at worst lie dormant until economic times improved and returns could again be generated through economic activity. Perhaps these opportunities could be neither conventional debt nor equity investments, but some other form of investment.
Did fund managers look for such opportunities? We can't be sure. Apparently they didn't find them as I have not heard of a single instance where some fund manager emerged from the depths of the financial crisis with performance indicating such an opportunity was found and successfully exploited.
Such a fund manager would have appeared as a sunlit diamond in the rubble.
Mike
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Eat Local - support accountability and safety
One of the great arguments in favour of our food production system in North America and other places in the world, is the remarkable cost efficiency characterizing our food production.
North Americans, in particular, pay quite a small portion of their income on food.
That's a desirable thing, to have more people able to afford food to support life.
The New York Times' Michael Moss yesterday reported the tragic case of Stephanie Smith of Minnesota:
While we could address all kinds of issues about corporate responsibility, personal responsibility, carbon footprint, market concentration, government responsibility and other large policy issues, I think we need to focus on a very simple issue.
What is the definition of food?
My Penguin English Dictionary 2nd Edition defines food as "material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat, along with minerals, vitamins etc. taken into the body of a living organism and used to provide energy and sustain processes essential for life."
In the case of the delinquent hamburger, it meets the definition right up to "sustain processes essential for life."
I like my dictionary, but I will quibble. I prefer this simpler definition, "Food is material taken into the body to sustain processes essential for life."
I suspect, as I have not taken any sort of definitive survey, that most of us believe that for food to be food, it must sustain processes essential for life.
It seems to me there is an effort here to see how close the industry can come to not producing anti-food and occasionally it slips over the line. It's not so much that the "food" is more or less effective at sustaining processes essential for life, but that the "food" does not sustain processes essential to ending life.
When that line is crossed, that "food" is then not cost efficient.
It is all cost, no benefit.
In fact, it creates new cost, the cost of health recovery or death. Let's add to that the opportunity cost of lost productivity of the sick person and her or his family. Let's also add the cost of redirection of scarce health care resources to look after someone made ill by believing that the "food" is food, not non-food or anti-food.
Now, Let's have another look at the cost efficiency of our food system.
I wonder if we don't have better assurance of food meeting its definition when we eat local, where the accountability is transparent and there is an added peer pressure to avoid contamination or spoilage that may threaten the producer's neighbours.
Certainly, local food must be prepared and handled properly to avoid the same disaster, but at least the chain of accountability has a much better chance of being short and transparent enough to be effective at putting effective preventive measures in place.
Mike
North Americans, in particular, pay quite a small portion of their income on food.
That's a desirable thing, to have more people able to afford food to support life.
The New York Times' Michael Moss yesterday reported the tragic case of Stephanie Smith of Minnesota:
E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?hpWhile we could address all kinds of issues about corporate responsibility, personal responsibility, carbon footprint, market concentration, government responsibility and other large policy issues, I think we need to focus on a very simple issue.
What is the definition of food?
My Penguin English Dictionary 2nd Edition defines food as "material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat, along with minerals, vitamins etc. taken into the body of a living organism and used to provide energy and sustain processes essential for life."
In the case of the delinquent hamburger, it meets the definition right up to "sustain processes essential for life."
I like my dictionary, but I will quibble. I prefer this simpler definition, "Food is material taken into the body to sustain processes essential for life."
I suspect, as I have not taken any sort of definitive survey, that most of us believe that for food to be food, it must sustain processes essential for life.
It seems to me there is an effort here to see how close the industry can come to not producing anti-food and occasionally it slips over the line. It's not so much that the "food" is more or less effective at sustaining processes essential for life, but that the "food" does not sustain processes essential to ending life.
When that line is crossed, that "food" is then not cost efficient.
It is all cost, no benefit.
In fact, it creates new cost, the cost of health recovery or death. Let's add to that the opportunity cost of lost productivity of the sick person and her or his family. Let's also add the cost of redirection of scarce health care resources to look after someone made ill by believing that the "food" is food, not non-food or anti-food.
Now, Let's have another look at the cost efficiency of our food system.
I wonder if we don't have better assurance of food meeting its definition when we eat local, where the accountability is transparent and there is an added peer pressure to avoid contamination or spoilage that may threaten the producer's neighbours.
Certainly, local food must be prepared and handled properly to avoid the same disaster, but at least the chain of accountability has a much better chance of being short and transparent enough to be effective at putting effective preventive measures in place.
Mike
Ethics Clash
Congratulations to Allan Markin for proposing an ethics centre for Calgary.
The Calgary Herald noted his proposal on October 2, 2009:
Nicholas Kristof posted an op-ed piece in the New York Times today that illustrates the importance of Mr. Markin's proposed development.
The insurance industry feels it has an obligation to protect each company's viability, thereby protecting employees, owners and the communities that rely on those jobs and the tax base of their businesses. They then feel their ethic binds them to protect that viability by avoiding taking on high risk policies, ones that have a markedly higher chance of triggering a claim than other policies.
The family Mr. Kristof talks about is trying to work together to save the life of the father. The family's ethic is preservation of the species, the family and the people they love.
As a society, the people of the United States have to decide which ethic must take precedence.
I happen to agree with Mr. Kristof. However, in a democracy, the ethic is that the electorate must decide which ethic takes precedence. Mr. Kristof is only one vote. I don't come up to that bar as I am not a citizen of that great country.
The citizens of the United States have hard work ahead of them. Ethics centres can't but help them in that effort.
An ethics centre! What an opportunity to develop critical thinking, wisdom and judgment!
Mike
The Calgary Herald noted his proposal on October 2, 2009:
Flames co-owner plans ethics centre for Calgary
by Mario Toneguzzi. http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Flames+owner+plans+ethics+centre+Calgary/2058076/story.htmlNicholas Kristof posted an op-ed piece in the New York Times today that illustrates the importance of Mr. Markin's proposed development.
Dad’s Life or Yours? You Choose
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/opinion/04kristof.htmlThe insurance industry feels it has an obligation to protect each company's viability, thereby protecting employees, owners and the communities that rely on those jobs and the tax base of their businesses. They then feel their ethic binds them to protect that viability by avoiding taking on high risk policies, ones that have a markedly higher chance of triggering a claim than other policies.
The family Mr. Kristof talks about is trying to work together to save the life of the father. The family's ethic is preservation of the species, the family and the people they love.
As a society, the people of the United States have to decide which ethic must take precedence.
I happen to agree with Mr. Kristof. However, in a democracy, the ethic is that the electorate must decide which ethic takes precedence. Mr. Kristof is only one vote. I don't come up to that bar as I am not a citizen of that great country.
The citizens of the United States have hard work ahead of them. Ethics centres can't but help them in that effort.
An ethics centre! What an opportunity to develop critical thinking, wisdom and judgment!
Mike
National Post October 3, 2009 The Most Hated Man in Mecca
At first I thought the National Post was reporting on a new Fox News reality show.
Have volunteers come forward vying for the title. Have the eliminations take place in Mecca with phone-in balloting and three judges adjudicating the contestants' performances.
You know,the American Idol thing.
Turns out it was the editors' selection only, along with the reporter/columnist.
I also thought the headline carried a certain amount of glee. "Whoopee, people hate us!"
I'm not sure that's the way to have influence in Mecca. While I disagree with the hatred of Kurt Westergaard, especially putting a price on his life, I'm not convinced stirring up hatred against oneself is an effective way to win friends among and influence the Saudi Muslims of Mecca.
I suspect the over-the-top cartoons were a bit of pandering to Islamophobia in Denmark and perhaps other European populations.
I can see how it might appeal to the ,"Whom we should hate today.", proselytizers like Beck or Limbaugh. But aren't they the same ilk as the condemners to death of Mr. Westergaard?
I mean, when was the last time hatred brought us peace, harmony and neighbourliness?
Mike
Have volunteers come forward vying for the title. Have the eliminations take place in Mecca with phone-in balloting and three judges adjudicating the contestants' performances.
You know,the American Idol thing.
Turns out it was the editors' selection only, along with the reporter/columnist.
I also thought the headline carried a certain amount of glee. "Whoopee, people hate us!"
I'm not sure that's the way to have influence in Mecca. While I disagree with the hatred of Kurt Westergaard, especially putting a price on his life, I'm not convinced stirring up hatred against oneself is an effective way to win friends among and influence the Saudi Muslims of Mecca.
I suspect the over-the-top cartoons were a bit of pandering to Islamophobia in Denmark and perhaps other European populations.
I can see how it might appeal to the ,"Whom we should hate today.", proselytizers like Beck or Limbaugh. But aren't they the same ilk as the condemners to death of Mr. Westergaard?
I mean, when was the last time hatred brought us peace, harmony and neighbourliness?
Mike
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Alberta's Bill 50
Thank Deborah Yedlin for her clear analysis of Alberta's electrical energy situation, the grid system in particular and the danger of Bill 50.
Good work Ms. Yedlin.
Find it at http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Getting+bogged+down+flawed+Bill/2061330/story.html
I'm still a little confused by what the issue is with Alberta's Progressive Conservatives, however.
When Ralph was in, Calgary PC's told us he could do no wrong. A great many other Albertans had differing opinions. I always assumed it was a case of , "My Party, My Leader. If I disagree I probably don't have all the facts."
Now it seems that Mr. Stelmach can do no right. Yet Other Alberta PC's, especially rural members, seem to have a less firm opinion.
It can't be that old story, Flames - Great!, Oilers - Yuck!, Stampeders - Great!, Eskimos - Yuck!, Calgary someone - how to react to no one in particular is difficult, Edmonton's Stelmach - Yuck! When it comes to political leaders, Yuck wins by default?
It can't be that simple, can it?
So what's really going on?
Mike
Good work Ms. Yedlin.
Getting bogged down in a flawed Bill 50
Find it at http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Getting+bogged+down+flawed+Bill/2061330/story.html
I'm still a little confused by what the issue is with Alberta's Progressive Conservatives, however.
When Ralph was in, Calgary PC's told us he could do no wrong. A great many other Albertans had differing opinions. I always assumed it was a case of , "My Party, My Leader. If I disagree I probably don't have all the facts."
Now it seems that Mr. Stelmach can do no right. Yet Other Alberta PC's, especially rural members, seem to have a less firm opinion.
It can't be that old story, Flames - Great!, Oilers - Yuck!, Stampeders - Great!, Eskimos - Yuck!, Calgary someone - how to react to no one in particular is difficult, Edmonton's Stelmach - Yuck! When it comes to political leaders, Yuck wins by default?
It can't be that simple, can it?
So what's really going on?
Mike
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
US senate on health care reform
The Los Angeles Times reported the result of a vote by the US Senate with the headline
The crux of the issue seems to be "Republicans, however, argue that the government program soon would turn from an option into a dominant force. As Grassley put it, "The government is not a competitor. It is a predator.""
I wonder who the prey is. I suspect the reference is made to an issue of predatory pricing, where the public purse is believed intrinsically incapable of avoiding unfair competition so would use predatory pricing to kill its competitors, the private insurance companies.
I'm not sure that it's fair to refer to any government agency as a predator, but it is possible that private insurers could not compete with a public insurer because they cannot be as effective.
What's the point of the human endeavour known as healthcare? It it to help people live longer, better, more productive lives with a more desirable quality of life? If that's the point, then that's the measure of effectiveness.
If the point is to make sure legitimate businesses remain viable and offer reward to their owners, employees and customers, then perhaps the public option is not so effective.
I think that's the issue to be decided. What do people in society want? What delivery mechanism is most effective at achieving that?
Sounds simple doesn't it? Asking what delivery mechanism is most effective at delivering that is where the trouble begins. Do we focus on the health of people in the immediate, one person at a time? Do we focus on the health of people beyond a person's lifetime, one society at a time?
I'm of the opinion that going beyond one person and one person's lifetime is irrelevant to human health.
I wish the Senators well. They have hard work ahead of them.
Mike
Key Senate panel votes down 'public option' for healthcare.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare30-2009sep30,0,2490541.storyThe crux of the issue seems to be "Republicans, however, argue that the government program soon would turn from an option into a dominant force. As Grassley put it, "The government is not a competitor. It is a predator.""
I wonder who the prey is. I suspect the reference is made to an issue of predatory pricing, where the public purse is believed intrinsically incapable of avoiding unfair competition so would use predatory pricing to kill its competitors, the private insurance companies.
I'm not sure that it's fair to refer to any government agency as a predator, but it is possible that private insurers could not compete with a public insurer because they cannot be as effective.
What's the point of the human endeavour known as healthcare? It it to help people live longer, better, more productive lives with a more desirable quality of life? If that's the point, then that's the measure of effectiveness.
If the point is to make sure legitimate businesses remain viable and offer reward to their owners, employees and customers, then perhaps the public option is not so effective.
I think that's the issue to be decided. What do people in society want? What delivery mechanism is most effective at achieving that?
Sounds simple doesn't it? Asking what delivery mechanism is most effective at delivering that is where the trouble begins. Do we focus on the health of people in the immediate, one person at a time? Do we focus on the health of people beyond a person's lifetime, one society at a time?
I'm of the opinion that going beyond one person and one person's lifetime is irrelevant to human health.
I wish the Senators well. They have hard work ahead of them.
Mike
Importance of Civility
Thomas L. Friedman has a great op-ed piece in today's New York Times about a critically important issue, civility in public (and I suggest - private) discourse. It's titled :
He speaks of deligimation of others with our language. I refer to this as dehumanization or just plain insulting. His word choice is exactly appropriate.
Worth reading and remembering in our daily affairs.
Mike
Where Did ‘We’ Go?
and can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?ref=opinion.He speaks of deligimation of others with our language. I refer to this as dehumanization or just plain insulting. His word choice is exactly appropriate.
Worth reading and remembering in our daily affairs.
Mike
Words Can Be Electric - Are Ontarians paying attention?
We have the continuing saga of electrical utility deregulation surfacing in Alberta.
The headline in the Calgary Herald "TransCanada says power line would foster competition" alerts us to this.
We see words and phrases from the old days of deregulation return as TransCanada argues in favour of a major expansion of electrical grid capacity.
"What transmission does for a load is it gives access to competition, you can get your generation from many different sources,..."
I think I see at least two issues at play here.
There is a focus on the introduction of Bill 50 which allows the provincial government to use a hurry-up process to place transmission lines where the engineers think the lines will provide the most efficient transmission of electricity.
That has advantages for sure. However, the government sullied the process by doing silly things like hiring securities firms to spy on rural citizens asking the government to prove its case before going ahead with construction on their farms.
The government perhaps knew it shouldn't trust these rural folks simply because by and large it was rural folks responsible for electing this government. That level of distrust of rural folks can't help but generate an equal level of distrust directed at the government from these same rural folks.
However, I'm not sure that's the biggest issue. I think the biggest issue is more electrifying and that is cash.
When the electrical utility was deregulated, the argument was that the retail sale of electricity would be made by many unregulated sales people instead of a few regulated and vertically integrated power generators.
The argument was that this would give consumers choice over whom they bought their electricity from. With a limited supply of energy, some argued that this would only drive up prices as more retailers bid on an unregulated commodity in short supply. Albertans were assured that this was a good thing as those increased prices would attract generators to the market, creating a greater supply and work to hold down prices in the long run.
The trouble is there was a much greater return on investment by simply charging more for the available commodity than there might be for taking the risk of adding more supply and driving down prices. Consumers are more concerned about security of supply than high prices. Consumers could always put off discretionary purchases such as food, medicine and a new car in favour of making sure the house stayed warm and the lights stayed on.
While new generating capacity has been added since the beginning of deregulation, it has not caught up to rising demand, thus assuring Albertans they have the bragging rights to the highest or near highest electrical energy costs in North America.
On the other hand, there have been some interesting opportunities for electrical energy retailers.
Now, let's suppose Alberta builds its much-needed grid expansion.
If it's done without decentralizing electrical generation to have generation as close as possible to consumption, it will have assured itself of inefficiency by having to transmit large amounts of energy over long distances.
The massive cost will be justified by the current shortage situation and because security of supply can literally be a life or death situation, Albertans will be told they have no choice but to support this expansion.
This massive cost will also justify building new large grid capacity for export out of Alberta, especially to the energy hungry southwestern United States. There may be transmission costs incurred to service those folks, to be sure.
However, ask any farmer or rancher or petroleum producer how that works. If that farmer, rancher or petroleum producer has to incur added costs to meet his or her particular situation, can he or she expect to recoup those added costs in international and inter-provincial fee market competition?
Has that ever happened yet? What are the chances it will happen now?
Grid expansion must be planned very carefully or Albertans could find themselves paying for that expansion in order to enable foreign consumers to compete with Albertans for access to electrical energy generated by Albertans to meet Albertan's needs.
The original quote: "What transmission does for a load is it gives access to competition, you can get your generation from many different sources,..."
So let's look at that quote again.
"What transmission does for a load is it gives access to competition, " Can't argue with that. Consumers have greater access to competing generation and retail sales because of increased grid capacity. But, which consumers ... Albertans or Albertans AND people in other provinces and other North Americans as well? Does that kind of competition help to hold prices at an affordable level?
"... you can get your generation from many different sources, ..." Is there really a better profit opportunity in building new generation versus charging more for existing generation? Is that profit opportunity further enhanced by having access to more demand or to having the same generating capacity spread more equitably around the existing demand?
What is there about this policy that really works for all Albertans? How is the implementation going to make sure that benefit comes to all Albertans?
I urge Ontarians to watch this unfold in Alberta as their deregulation is unfolding in Ontario. There may be things to learn.
Mike
The headline in the Calgary Herald "TransCanada says power line would foster competition" alerts us to this.
We see words and phrases from the old days of deregulation return as TransCanada argues in favour of a major expansion of electrical grid capacity.
"What transmission does for a load is it gives access to competition, you can get your generation from many different sources,..."
I think I see at least two issues at play here.
There is a focus on the introduction of Bill 50 which allows the provincial government to use a hurry-up process to place transmission lines where the engineers think the lines will provide the most efficient transmission of electricity.
That has advantages for sure. However, the government sullied the process by doing silly things like hiring securities firms to spy on rural citizens asking the government to prove its case before going ahead with construction on their farms.
The government perhaps knew it shouldn't trust these rural folks simply because by and large it was rural folks responsible for electing this government. That level of distrust of rural folks can't help but generate an equal level of distrust directed at the government from these same rural folks.
However, I'm not sure that's the biggest issue. I think the biggest issue is more electrifying and that is cash.
When the electrical utility was deregulated, the argument was that the retail sale of electricity would be made by many unregulated sales people instead of a few regulated and vertically integrated power generators.
The argument was that this would give consumers choice over whom they bought their electricity from. With a limited supply of energy, some argued that this would only drive up prices as more retailers bid on an unregulated commodity in short supply. Albertans were assured that this was a good thing as those increased prices would attract generators to the market, creating a greater supply and work to hold down prices in the long run.
The trouble is there was a much greater return on investment by simply charging more for the available commodity than there might be for taking the risk of adding more supply and driving down prices. Consumers are more concerned about security of supply than high prices. Consumers could always put off discretionary purchases such as food, medicine and a new car in favour of making sure the house stayed warm and the lights stayed on.
While new generating capacity has been added since the beginning of deregulation, it has not caught up to rising demand, thus assuring Albertans they have the bragging rights to the highest or near highest electrical energy costs in North America.
On the other hand, there have been some interesting opportunities for electrical energy retailers.
Now, let's suppose Alberta builds its much-needed grid expansion.
If it's done without decentralizing electrical generation to have generation as close as possible to consumption, it will have assured itself of inefficiency by having to transmit large amounts of energy over long distances.
The massive cost will be justified by the current shortage situation and because security of supply can literally be a life or death situation, Albertans will be told they have no choice but to support this expansion.
This massive cost will also justify building new large grid capacity for export out of Alberta, especially to the energy hungry southwestern United States. There may be transmission costs incurred to service those folks, to be sure.
However, ask any farmer or rancher or petroleum producer how that works. If that farmer, rancher or petroleum producer has to incur added costs to meet his or her particular situation, can he or she expect to recoup those added costs in international and inter-provincial fee market competition?
Has that ever happened yet? What are the chances it will happen now?
Grid expansion must be planned very carefully or Albertans could find themselves paying for that expansion in order to enable foreign consumers to compete with Albertans for access to electrical energy generated by Albertans to meet Albertan's needs.
The original quote: "What transmission does for a load is it gives access to competition, you can get your generation from many different sources,..."
So let's look at that quote again.
"What transmission does for a load is it gives access to competition, " Can't argue with that. Consumers have greater access to competing generation and retail sales because of increased grid capacity. But, which consumers ... Albertans or Albertans AND people in other provinces and other North Americans as well? Does that kind of competition help to hold prices at an affordable level?
"... you can get your generation from many different sources, ..." Is there really a better profit opportunity in building new generation versus charging more for existing generation? Is that profit opportunity further enhanced by having access to more demand or to having the same generating capacity spread more equitably around the existing demand?
What is there about this policy that really works for all Albertans? How is the implementation going to make sure that benefit comes to all Albertans?
I urge Ontarians to watch this unfold in Alberta as their deregulation is unfolding in Ontario. There may be things to learn.
Mike
Monday, September 28, 2009
Who's what?
A fellow from Ontario wrote the other day. He was commenting on the comparative credibility of Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper. He supports Mr. Ignatieff but was concerned that he didn't seem to have the credibility he felt Mr. Igantieff deserved. He was wondering what Mr. Ignatieff could do about it.
Interesting thought.
As I thought about it, I wondered if he should not have included Mr. Layton as well. I'm guessing that because Mr. Layton's party holds few seats in parliament and is a leader of a party given little change of gaining government, his credibility, along with Ms. May's, is taken to be sort of irrelevant.
Interestingly, as I see it, Mr. Duceppe's credibility is not premised on his ability to form government, but his ability to lead a separatist party into the Commons. He is credible among voters. He is immediately identifiable among political leaders.
There is a real problem here. I wonder if it is not related to the strident apathy gaining ground among electors.
I think we focus too much on the so-called right-left split. I think a much more telling measure is relevance.
It occurred to me that most of us Canadians, Albertans, perhaps most residents of every province, possibly except for Quebec, would have a difficult time coming up with a single sentence or phrase that defined each party or each leader for us individually.
Try it. Imagine some media personality, Rick Mercer perhaps, coming to your door with a camera crew in tow and asking you to define each party and each leader in turn with a single sentence or phrase. That's who each party and leader are for you.
I think it's more difficult than we think it might be.
I think that is partly a result of political "machines" being too careful to avoid alienating any voter, or heaven help us!, group of voters. So they present bland personalities with no personality. When someone has no personality, how far can that person be from having no character, not a bad character, just no character.
Now imagine these non-personalities asking us to have them act as the trustees of our political power. It's hard to trust someone we don't know. When we don't know them, why are they asking for something from us? Am I going to pick a trustee from a group of total strangers with no knowable personality?
Perhaps I'll stay home and watch the Riders. I may be frustrated from time to time, but I trust I will be engaged and entertained.
So, prior to an election, we have people telling us only part of their story. We have to wait until after the election to learn what the winners' personalities and characters are like by watching their actions.
That's too late!
The way I see it, a democratically elected government is there to advocate the interests and aspirations of each person in that society. The idea is to protect that which is going well and to change that which is not going well. How do elected officials know what's going well?
They ask the people.
The people are the same no matter who has been elected. Their interests and aspirations are the same. The difference in the candidates and parties should be our expectation of how each candidate will respond to protect what's good and improve what's not. What strategies will they employ to exercise our political power on our behalf?
What vision will they try to move us to? Will that vision complement and support ours? Do they understand that in human affairs, the process of achievement is far more important than the achievement itself? In fact, since living is a process, do they realize that the process of governing is the only important thing government can do?
Ask people what should be improved and protected. Pay attention to the process of governing and the engagement of the people in governing. Make sure people know who the candidates and elected officials are and how they think and how they see the world.
When these are being done, we can expect the disaffected to become engaged in the electoral and other participatory processes. We can expect people to make real choices because real choices are possible.
We might yet evolve into the democratic society we can all live every day!
Mike
Interesting thought.
As I thought about it, I wondered if he should not have included Mr. Layton as well. I'm guessing that because Mr. Layton's party holds few seats in parliament and is a leader of a party given little change of gaining government, his credibility, along with Ms. May's, is taken to be sort of irrelevant.
Interestingly, as I see it, Mr. Duceppe's credibility is not premised on his ability to form government, but his ability to lead a separatist party into the Commons. He is credible among voters. He is immediately identifiable among political leaders.
There is a real problem here. I wonder if it is not related to the strident apathy gaining ground among electors.
I think we focus too much on the so-called right-left split. I think a much more telling measure is relevance.
It occurred to me that most of us Canadians, Albertans, perhaps most residents of every province, possibly except for Quebec, would have a difficult time coming up with a single sentence or phrase that defined each party or each leader for us individually.
Try it. Imagine some media personality, Rick Mercer perhaps, coming to your door with a camera crew in tow and asking you to define each party and each leader in turn with a single sentence or phrase. That's who each party and leader are for you.
I think it's more difficult than we think it might be.
I think that is partly a result of political "machines" being too careful to avoid alienating any voter, or heaven help us!, group of voters. So they present bland personalities with no personality. When someone has no personality, how far can that person be from having no character, not a bad character, just no character.
Now imagine these non-personalities asking us to have them act as the trustees of our political power. It's hard to trust someone we don't know. When we don't know them, why are they asking for something from us? Am I going to pick a trustee from a group of total strangers with no knowable personality?
Perhaps I'll stay home and watch the Riders. I may be frustrated from time to time, but I trust I will be engaged and entertained.
So, prior to an election, we have people telling us only part of their story. We have to wait until after the election to learn what the winners' personalities and characters are like by watching their actions.
That's too late!
The way I see it, a democratically elected government is there to advocate the interests and aspirations of each person in that society. The idea is to protect that which is going well and to change that which is not going well. How do elected officials know what's going well?
They ask the people.
The people are the same no matter who has been elected. Their interests and aspirations are the same. The difference in the candidates and parties should be our expectation of how each candidate will respond to protect what's good and improve what's not. What strategies will they employ to exercise our political power on our behalf?
What vision will they try to move us to? Will that vision complement and support ours? Do they understand that in human affairs, the process of achievement is far more important than the achievement itself? In fact, since living is a process, do they realize that the process of governing is the only important thing government can do?
Ask people what should be improved and protected. Pay attention to the process of governing and the engagement of the people in governing. Make sure people know who the candidates and elected officials are and how they think and how they see the world.
When these are being done, we can expect the disaffected to become engaged in the electoral and other participatory processes. We can expect people to make real choices because real choices are possible.
We might yet evolve into the democratic society we can all live every day!
Mike
Saturday, September 26, 2009
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh - Irony in Steeltown
On Thursday, September 24th, the New York Times reported on the preparations anti-globalization protesters in Pittsburgh were making to ensure their protestations were as effective as possible.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/getting-out-the-anti-globalization-message/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema4
Pittsburgh became famous as a steel town. Its National Football League team is the Pittsburgh Steelers. It has more recently become a capital in the United States Rust Belt as the iron industries have fallen on hard times, notwithstanding the firms making steel from iron ore were global giants.
Ironically, the protesters have marshalled the resources provided by other global giants in information and communications technology to make sure their efforts were carefully coordinated and their message was instantly communicated around the globe. Does that make the protesters themselves globalizers?
Don't get me wrong, the protesters have great points to make. The world is steadily becoming a culturally poorer place because of the globalization being protested. An example of this is the great number of indigenous languages that promise to become extinct within a few generations.
Languages are not commodities. Languages present the world in unique perspectives. Many facets of our global reality are better understood because because different peoples talk to each other about what they see and learn.
Of course, globalization has exposed us to others' cultures and points of view. The dictates of efficiency in commerce within corporate bodies tend to argue in favour of sameness however.
Interestingly, people supposedly speaking the same first language use the same words and phrases differently, to the point of not being able to communicate with each other effectively at all.
I see the protesters focussing on corporate power as the dangerous levelling device destroying cultures around the globe. I suspect I am in the majority. I suspect that most of us see the protest being about corporate power.
What I don't see is a meaningful explanation as to what that means to you and me in our daily lives. What's the impact of the insidious or blatant exercise of this power?
Without those explanations and in the context of the setting of a much reduced Pittsburgh with a nearly extinct corporate wealth creator, job creator and carbon polluter, corporate power doesn't seem so permanent and therefore not so frightening.
It seems to me that irony makes selling of an ideal difficult as another idea than the one intended may be the one learned. Accidental irony, as in this case, I think has a high likelihood of disabling the protesters educational process completely.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/getting-out-the-anti-globalization-message/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema4
Pittsburgh became famous as a steel town. Its National Football League team is the Pittsburgh Steelers. It has more recently become a capital in the United States Rust Belt as the iron industries have fallen on hard times, notwithstanding the firms making steel from iron ore were global giants.
Ironically, the protesters have marshalled the resources provided by other global giants in information and communications technology to make sure their efforts were carefully coordinated and their message was instantly communicated around the globe. Does that make the protesters themselves globalizers?
Don't get me wrong, the protesters have great points to make. The world is steadily becoming a culturally poorer place because of the globalization being protested. An example of this is the great number of indigenous languages that promise to become extinct within a few generations.
Languages are not commodities. Languages present the world in unique perspectives. Many facets of our global reality are better understood because because different peoples talk to each other about what they see and learn.
Of course, globalization has exposed us to others' cultures and points of view. The dictates of efficiency in commerce within corporate bodies tend to argue in favour of sameness however.
Interestingly, people supposedly speaking the same first language use the same words and phrases differently, to the point of not being able to communicate with each other effectively at all.
I see the protesters focussing on corporate power as the dangerous levelling device destroying cultures around the globe. I suspect I am in the majority. I suspect that most of us see the protest being about corporate power.
What I don't see is a meaningful explanation as to what that means to you and me in our daily lives. What's the impact of the insidious or blatant exercise of this power?
Without those explanations and in the context of the setting of a much reduced Pittsburgh with a nearly extinct corporate wealth creator, job creator and carbon polluter, corporate power doesn't seem so permanent and therefore not so frightening.
It seems to me that irony makes selling of an ideal difficult as another idea than the one intended may be the one learned. Accidental irony, as in this case, I think has a high likelihood of disabling the protesters educational process completely.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Calgary Glenmore By-election
Gosh, a lot of trees have been chewed by pundits working over the outcome of this little by-election in Calgary.
Interestingly, most pundits have recognized that electors of this quiet part of Calgary sended the Premier a message.
Well, I don't know what message that is exactly.
Mr. Hinman is a capable guy, I'm sure. He was the leader of the new Wild Rose Alliance Party. He is now their one opposition member of the Alberta legislative assembly.
No reflection on Mr. Hinman, but Progressive Conservative voters really did not want to scare the government too much. Electing the Liberal would be electing a credible cabinet member in waiting. Electing a single Wild Rose MLA was a bit like sending a eunuch into the harem. Mr. Stelmach agreed that with Mr. Hinman elected, nothing new will arise by way of government policy. Albertans elected a conservative after all. Mr. Stelmach opined that the government simply did not get its message out well enough. That's not promising a new message, simply communicating the old one better.
Pundits have been going on about how Mr. Stelmach is not really a very acceptable leader, especially in the rarified air of the towers of downtown Calgary. Small "c" conservative ideas are fine. The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta might be acceptable, after all it has been elected for thirty eight years.
What's Mr. Stelmach to do?
The Alberta Liberal candidate, a very credible candidate, came in a close second.
I have heard it said by pundits and others that the Liberal brand is a tough sell in Calgary. I've even heard Liberals, mostly left wing Alberta Liberals to be sure, suggest that the Alberta Liberals could be electorally successful if only they ceased being Liberals.
Or at least changed the party name.
Then it hit me! It's so darned obvious!
What Mr. Stelmach needs to do is change his name. Just the first name? Just the surname? Oh what the heck, go for it. Change both of them. What an opportunity for public engagement. Mr. Stelmach could ask the people of Alberta to suggest names. He could then hold a referendum, or series of referenda, to choose the name most acceptable to Albertans.
Voila! Problem solved! Mr. Stelmach will then be a popular guy!
The pro-name choice Alberta Liberals will then have been proven correct. Name calling works!
Until the people have chosen, Liberals may have to run with an interim name, something like the Alberta Blanks, or Fill In The Blanks, but most certainly not the Alberta Blankety Blanks.
Mike
Interestingly, most pundits have recognized that electors of this quiet part of Calgary sended the Premier a message.
Well, I don't know what message that is exactly.
Mr. Hinman is a capable guy, I'm sure. He was the leader of the new Wild Rose Alliance Party. He is now their one opposition member of the Alberta legislative assembly.
No reflection on Mr. Hinman, but Progressive Conservative voters really did not want to scare the government too much. Electing the Liberal would be electing a credible cabinet member in waiting. Electing a single Wild Rose MLA was a bit like sending a eunuch into the harem. Mr. Stelmach agreed that with Mr. Hinman elected, nothing new will arise by way of government policy. Albertans elected a conservative after all. Mr. Stelmach opined that the government simply did not get its message out well enough. That's not promising a new message, simply communicating the old one better.
Pundits have been going on about how Mr. Stelmach is not really a very acceptable leader, especially in the rarified air of the towers of downtown Calgary. Small "c" conservative ideas are fine. The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta might be acceptable, after all it has been elected for thirty eight years.
What's Mr. Stelmach to do?
The Alberta Liberal candidate, a very credible candidate, came in a close second.
I have heard it said by pundits and others that the Liberal brand is a tough sell in Calgary. I've even heard Liberals, mostly left wing Alberta Liberals to be sure, suggest that the Alberta Liberals could be electorally successful if only they ceased being Liberals.
Or at least changed the party name.
Then it hit me! It's so darned obvious!
What Mr. Stelmach needs to do is change his name. Just the first name? Just the surname? Oh what the heck, go for it. Change both of them. What an opportunity for public engagement. Mr. Stelmach could ask the people of Alberta to suggest names. He could then hold a referendum, or series of referenda, to choose the name most acceptable to Albertans.
Voila! Problem solved! Mr. Stelmach will then be a popular guy!
The pro-name choice Alberta Liberals will then have been proven correct. Name calling works!
Until the people have chosen, Liberals may have to run with an interim name, something like the Alberta Blanks, or Fill In The Blanks, but most certainly not the Alberta Blankety Blanks.
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
