This post is largely in response to the growing dialogue surrounding Reboot Alberta, the site for which is here: http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
In particular This blog post from Chris LaBossiere: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/15/meet-chris-the-progressive-capitalist.html
and this one from Jason Morris:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/thoughts-on-how-to-do-politics-differently/
both speak to issues I have been giving some thought to lately and are worth responding to.
In essence Mr. LaBossiere's post has contributed to the conversation I have been having with myself about how to define political orientations and positions in our increasingly complex political firmament. Mr. Morris' post relates to my other major intellectual engagement with our political system these days - how do we modernize the structure of the political party to provide a better, more open and effective organization through which our citizens can contribute to the body politic? More on the latter in a post tomorrow, today I want to deal with the question of definitions.
The left/right dichotomy is over two hundred years old at this point, dating as it does from the National Convention of 1791, and over the years these terms' meanings have grown and changed constantly. Originally strictly referring (via seating arrangements relative to the chamber's speaker) to the political loyalties of the members, either royalist or montagnard. With the growth of economic factors in politics the terms grew to accommodate these ideas as well during the 19th century.
Where does that leave us today? In short it leaves us with an old, inflexible and ineffective terminology in general use for describing one another's political views. The result is a hampered dialogue, in which the label assigned frequently fails to convey any useful information, or at least insufficient information. We are in a similar position to a cook whose labels all read "bitter" or "sugary" - we have some information but not enough to make anything beyond the most basic dish.
This tool http://www.politicalcompass.org/ reflects some of the scholarship from the world of political science by marking out people's views on two axes - Authoritarian/Libertarian and communitarian/capitalist. By adding only one more variable a much more useful set of descriptors is created, but as Mr. LaBossiere points out the result still doesn't allow for much individuality. That, fundamentally, is the challenge for Canadian political institutions and representatives - they now exist in a highly individualized and open information environment. As a result citizens are demanding increased attention and, dare I say it, flexibility from their leaders and representatives. The era of the loyal voter, or the one-issue voter, is drawing to a close in Canada and other democracies simply because people are now able to engage with their interests and make choices in a much more flexible way than ever before.
For myself I am in most senses a 19th-century liberal - interested in the greatest possible individual liberty and minimal interference in the lives of its citizens by the state, while still believing that there are spheres appropriate for government action and believing that in those spheres government can accomplish much good. As a result, depending on the issue, I can swing from 'left' to right' quite dramatically; sometimes I am hard to pin down on even individual issues. For example I am a great believer in universal public health care, both on the principle that all citizens should have access to quality care and on the basis that universal provision, via the economies of scale, has proven to be cheaper and more efficient than any other method. Left and right in the same response.
One of the elements I most look forward to at Reboot Alberta is a discussion with a number of people whose thoughts I have enjoyed and been stimulated by about these topics.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Women's Ski Jumping and VANOC
Today the legal effort to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force the IOC and VANOC to allow the women to compete was essentially ended when their appeal was dismissed by a judge in Vancouver. http://www.ctvolympics.ca/ski-jumping/news/newsid=19752.html#olympic+dream+dashed+women+jumpers
As I understand it the fundamentals of the case are as follows. All Olympic events are required by the IOC to have some form of world championship, either via single event or series, as well as national qualifiers to reach that level, to establish international seeding and Olympic eligibility. Women's ski jumping has so few participants and such a limited formal structure that these requirements were not met, and as a result the event was not allowed in. In an attempt to get around the IOC's refusal a number of the athletes and their representatives filed for an injunction from a Canadian court to force VANOC to allow the event over the IOC's objections.
the requirements of the IOC for inclusion were simply not met. Many other sports, including the case of Karate, which is near and dear to my heart, have been unable to get in for one reason or another - but this is an entirely separate kind of case. Ski jumping is in, the issue here is that there are either not enough participants to create the same competition structure that other athletes must pass to qualify or there is no organization to administer the same. Both of these are issues that can be addressed in order to assure access to future games, and the IOC has said as much.
While I am in general a passionate advocate of insuring equal treatment regardless of gender this does not seem to me to be a gender treatment issue. Women's ski jumping wasn't disallowed because it was for women, it was disallowed because every other athlete going to Vancouver had to compete for the right to go, and these ski jumpers would not have had to do so.
In a Twitter exchange with Senator Grant Mitchell he asked me:
@SenMitchell So what. Why can't we see past the bureaucratic to the just and equal?
This is a good point, and something we should always aspire to do - keep our eye on the principle and not get lost in the process. That said I still believe that the inclusion of women in every event shouldn't be a goal that trumps the ideal of elite competition which to me lies at the heart of the games. Set out a process by which every athlete in a given sport qualifies the same way, and once the best in the world gather may the best woman on the day win. Allowing some athletes in 'by the side door' in order to balance the number of men's and women's competitions demeans the accomplishments of the athletes concerned. In addition, since the IOC's decision was made based on clear criteria which the athletes could have met I fail to see how any of their rights were violated - they were simply asked to meet the same standards as other athletes.
Interestingly this line of thought is taking me into thinking about the Title 9 debate in the United States. As I would have to say I would have been a supporter of Title 9 the fact that my view of this case is somewhat different intrigues me. I shall have to come back to this again.
As I understand it the fundamentals of the case are as follows. All Olympic events are required by the IOC to have some form of world championship, either via single event or series, as well as national qualifiers to reach that level, to establish international seeding and Olympic eligibility. Women's ski jumping has so few participants and such a limited formal structure that these requirements were not met, and as a result the event was not allowed in. In an attempt to get around the IOC's refusal a number of the athletes and their representatives filed for an injunction from a Canadian court to force VANOC to allow the event over the IOC's objections.
the requirements of the IOC for inclusion were simply not met. Many other sports, including the case of Karate, which is near and dear to my heart, have been unable to get in for one reason or another - but this is an entirely separate kind of case. Ski jumping is in, the issue here is that there are either not enough participants to create the same competition structure that other athletes must pass to qualify or there is no organization to administer the same. Both of these are issues that can be addressed in order to assure access to future games, and the IOC has said as much.
While I am in general a passionate advocate of insuring equal treatment regardless of gender this does not seem to me to be a gender treatment issue. Women's ski jumping wasn't disallowed because it was for women, it was disallowed because every other athlete going to Vancouver had to compete for the right to go, and these ski jumpers would not have had to do so.
In a Twitter exchange with Senator Grant Mitchell he asked me:
@SenMitchell So what. Why can't we see past the bureaucratic to the just and equal?
This is a good point, and something we should always aspire to do - keep our eye on the principle and not get lost in the process. That said I still believe that the inclusion of women in every event shouldn't be a goal that trumps the ideal of elite competition which to me lies at the heart of the games. Set out a process by which every athlete in a given sport qualifies the same way, and once the best in the world gather may the best woman on the day win. Allowing some athletes in 'by the side door' in order to balance the number of men's and women's competitions demeans the accomplishments of the athletes concerned. In addition, since the IOC's decision was made based on clear criteria which the athletes could have met I fail to see how any of their rights were violated - they were simply asked to meet the same standards as other athletes.
Interestingly this line of thought is taking me into thinking about the Title 9 debate in the United States. As I would have to say I would have been a supporter of Title 9 the fact that my view of this case is somewhat different intrigues me. I shall have to come back to this again.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Remembrance Day
Tomorrow is Remembrance Day, and I wanted to post this list of events that will be happening around the city of Calgary.
- The Military Museums, 4520 Crowchild Tr. S.W. Ceremony begins at 10:40 a.m. Free parking and admission. Always a large event, so come a little early to get parking nearby/ a good spot.
- Jubilee Auditorium, 14th Street and 16th Avenue N.W. Doors open at 9:30 a.m., service begins at 10 a.m., followed by a small ceremony at the Memorial Park Cenotaph, 4th Street and 11th Avenue S.W, at 11 a.m. There will be a more extensive service and wreath laying ceremony at the cenotaph at 12:15 p.m.
- Naval Museum of Alberta, 1820 24th St. S.W., 11 a.m. ceremony on HMCS Tecumseh Drill Deck.
- CPR service, Gulf Canada Square, 10:45 a.m.
- Battalion Ridge, overlooking Westhills Towne Centre. Ceremony with scouts from Dover and Victoria Park starts at 9 a.m.
Personally given the importance of the day and the meaning it holds for me given my family history I prefer to attend a public event, as a statement of sorts. To my mind it is most important to remember, but it is also important to remember together. If the purpose of the day is to memorialize sacrifice then it is also important to think about what sacrifice for the common good can mean, so it seems appropriate to do so as a community standing together. This year I will be volunteering at the Military Museums ceremony as well, in order to contribute a little bit to making that event run smoothly.
Both of my grandfathers volunteered in 1939/40, and it was the middle of 1945 before either of them returned to their homes. They spent longer in uniform during the war than I have spent working on acquiring a PhD, voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their lives and accepting considerable danger because they felt it was the right thing to do. We take our safety and prosperity sufficiently for granted that we often fail to consider the obligations imposed by our privileges - the responsibilities that are the twins of our rights.
Come on out tomorrow and join other members of our community remembering those who have accepted their responsibilities to us, and paid a price for doing so.
- The Military Museums, 4520 Crowchild Tr. S.W. Ceremony begins at 10:40 a.m. Free parking and admission. Always a large event, so come a little early to get parking nearby/ a good spot.
- Jubilee Auditorium, 14th Street and 16th Avenue N.W. Doors open at 9:30 a.m., service begins at 10 a.m., followed by a small ceremony at the Memorial Park Cenotaph, 4th Street and 11th Avenue S.W, at 11 a.m. There will be a more extensive service and wreath laying ceremony at the cenotaph at 12:15 p.m.
- Naval Museum of Alberta, 1820 24th St. S.W., 11 a.m. ceremony on HMCS Tecumseh Drill Deck.
- CPR service, Gulf Canada Square, 10:45 a.m.
- Battalion Ridge, overlooking Westhills Towne Centre. Ceremony with scouts from Dover and Victoria Park starts at 9 a.m.
Personally given the importance of the day and the meaning it holds for me given my family history I prefer to attend a public event, as a statement of sorts. To my mind it is most important to remember, but it is also important to remember together. If the purpose of the day is to memorialize sacrifice then it is also important to think about what sacrifice for the common good can mean, so it seems appropriate to do so as a community standing together. This year I will be volunteering at the Military Museums ceremony as well, in order to contribute a little bit to making that event run smoothly.
Both of my grandfathers volunteered in 1939/40, and it was the middle of 1945 before either of them returned to their homes. They spent longer in uniform during the war than I have spent working on acquiring a PhD, voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their lives and accepting considerable danger because they felt it was the right thing to do. We take our safety and prosperity sufficiently for granted that we often fail to consider the obligations imposed by our privileges - the responsibilities that are the twins of our rights.
Come on out tomorrow and join other members of our community remembering those who have accepted their responsibilities to us, and paid a price for doing so.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The PC AGM and Alberta
Been a busy week buried in the late 1920's, but this weekend's Alberta PC AGM is too interesting not to say something about. I'm still waiting to hear from the people I know who were there, but interesting commentary is starting to appear. A few examples, to be amended once the weekend is over and the commentators have time to mull things over.
David Climenhaga:
http://diary.davidclimenhaga.ca/2009/11/77-solution-its-good-enough-for-now-but.html
Dave Cournoyer:
Before - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/whats-going-to-happen-at-pc-leadership.html
After - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/774-proof.html
Alex Abboud:
http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/state-of-alberta-at-a-crossroads/
Ken Chapman:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-alberta-about-to-enter-empire-of.html
Chris LaBossiere:
Before: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/10/25/run-up-the-middleto-the-right-of-centre.html
After:http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/8/evolving-thoughts-on-ed-stelmach-and-the-pc-party.html
Duncan Wojtaszek:
http://www.phendrana.ca/2009/10/red-deer.html
My personal view is that the leadership 'review' was always something of a manufactured story, given that Premier Stelmach was recently elected to an overwhelming majority and the PC party here in Alberta certainly doesn't need any self-inflicted wounds at this time. The Premier's 77+ % support was actually lower than I had expected, but in a free vote it qualifies as an overwhelming win. Of course the people voting are those who are shelling out the $400 or so to attend the convention, and are members of the party and have a vested interest in the success of the government.
What is really going to be interesting about this weekend's event going forward is whether or not the PCs are able to move forward with any sense of unified purpose or clarity. The party has, along with the government, appeared limp and lost for several years. With a new challenger arising on its home turf the Alberta PCs will, along with the opposition parties, have to take stock and tighten themselves up. Has the AGM helped the party do that, or are a number of the people the party is going to need moving forward still drifting away to either disengagement or other parties?
As a final point it is worth noting that calling the Wild Rose Alliance a 'mortal threat' or anything along those lines to the Alberta PC government is like calling the Colorado Avalanche the Stanley Cup champions based on October's play. Far too early, and these are the games that count the least. It is years to the next provincial election, folks, so lets see where we are in the weeks to come and how that moves forward.
Besides, the government can hardly look much worse after the disastrous budget numbers, the H1N1 mismanagement, the rising unemployment and general communications incompetence of the last few months. Much like Toronto's suffering Leafs they almost have to get better - don't they?
David Climenhaga:
http://diary.davidclimenhaga.ca/2009/11/77-solution-its-good-enough-for-now-but.html
Dave Cournoyer:
Before - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/whats-going-to-happen-at-pc-leadership.html
After - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/774-proof.html
Alex Abboud:
http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/state-of-alberta-at-a-crossroads/
Ken Chapman:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-alberta-about-to-enter-empire-of.html
Chris LaBossiere:
Before: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/10/25/run-up-the-middleto-the-right-of-centre.html
After:http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/8/evolving-thoughts-on-ed-stelmach-and-the-pc-party.html
Duncan Wojtaszek:
http://www.phendrana.ca/2009/10/red-deer.html
My personal view is that the leadership 'review' was always something of a manufactured story, given that Premier Stelmach was recently elected to an overwhelming majority and the PC party here in Alberta certainly doesn't need any self-inflicted wounds at this time. The Premier's 77+ % support was actually lower than I had expected, but in a free vote it qualifies as an overwhelming win. Of course the people voting are those who are shelling out the $400 or so to attend the convention, and are members of the party and have a vested interest in the success of the government.
What is really going to be interesting about this weekend's event going forward is whether or not the PCs are able to move forward with any sense of unified purpose or clarity. The party has, along with the government, appeared limp and lost for several years. With a new challenger arising on its home turf the Alberta PCs will, along with the opposition parties, have to take stock and tighten themselves up. Has the AGM helped the party do that, or are a number of the people the party is going to need moving forward still drifting away to either disengagement or other parties?
As a final point it is worth noting that calling the Wild Rose Alliance a 'mortal threat' or anything along those lines to the Alberta PC government is like calling the Colorado Avalanche the Stanley Cup champions based on October's play. Far too early, and these are the games that count the least. It is years to the next provincial election, folks, so lets see where we are in the weeks to come and how that moves forward.
Besides, the government can hardly look much worse after the disastrous budget numbers, the H1N1 mismanagement, the rising unemployment and general communications incompetence of the last few months. Much like Toronto's suffering Leafs they almost have to get better - don't they?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Stelmach's response to the Pembina Report
The batting around of numbers in political discourse is an ongoing source of frustration to me, since the context that gives the number relevance is often (or even usually) omitted. This is especially prominent in discussions of economics or economic policy, where to put it crudely there are a lot of numbers to choose from.
For a recent example, and some demystification, I strongly recommend this post by Aaron Braaten on his excellent blog. http://www.grandinite.com/2009/10/30/ed-meet-data-data-ed/
For a recent example, and some demystification, I strongly recommend this post by Aaron Braaten on his excellent blog. http://www.grandinite.com/2009/10/30/ed-meet-data-data-ed/
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More Climate Change Policy Conversation
Just a quick post to share some information.
First of all a link to Jeffrey Simpson's article in today's Globe and Mail regarding Canada's policy toward the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference. To quote -
"Once before, Canada went to a climate-change conference, at Kyoto, and made promises it could not and did not keep. It would appear a repeat performance is in the making. Or, to put things differently: new government, same script."
The article is worth a read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/once-again-climate-change-promises-ottawa-cant-keep/article1342392/
On a more inormative note a report is now available on the topic from the Pembina Institute/Toronto Dominion Bank/David Suzuki Foundation & can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/climate-leadership-report-en.pdf
For other policy nerds the math which supports the above report, from MK Jaccard & Associates, can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/mkja-climate-targets-report.pdf
Thanks to Trish Audette of the Edmonton Journal for pointing me to the links.
Minister Prentice's response to the report was certainly not positive - "The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible" - but he hasn't advanced any data or analyses on behalf of the government. It is my profound hope that the government provides us with something more interesting than the obviously empty platitudes that have been advanced for the Copenhagen delegation. I am not wedded to any particular policy at this point, but I have become actively interested in doing research into the sustainability of our current economic models. I would also like to point out that Climate Change, or global warming if you will, is only a small part of the sustainability question. I look forward to a positive program from Minister Prentice at the earliest date!
Globe article on Mr. Prentice's response:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-change-report-irresponsible-prentice-says/article1344485/
*Late Edit* Read some thoughts on this from Ken Chapman on his blog here:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-leadership-and-economic.html
First of all a link to Jeffrey Simpson's article in today's Globe and Mail regarding Canada's policy toward the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference. To quote -
"Once before, Canada went to a climate-change conference, at Kyoto, and made promises it could not and did not keep. It would appear a repeat performance is in the making. Or, to put things differently: new government, same script."
The article is worth a read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/once-again-climate-change-promises-ottawa-cant-keep/article1342392/
On a more inormative note a report is now available on the topic from the Pembina Institute/Toronto Dominion Bank/David Suzuki Foundation & can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/climate-leadership-report-en.pdf
For other policy nerds the math which supports the above report, from MK Jaccard & Associates, can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/mkja-climate-targets-report.pdf
Thanks to Trish Audette of the Edmonton Journal for pointing me to the links.
Minister Prentice's response to the report was certainly not positive - "The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible" - but he hasn't advanced any data or analyses on behalf of the government. It is my profound hope that the government provides us with something more interesting than the obviously empty platitudes that have been advanced for the Copenhagen delegation. I am not wedded to any particular policy at this point, but I have become actively interested in doing research into the sustainability of our current economic models. I would also like to point out that Climate Change, or global warming if you will, is only a small part of the sustainability question. I look forward to a positive program from Minister Prentice at the earliest date!
Globe article on Mr. Prentice's response:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-change-report-irresponsible-prentice-says/article1344485/
*Late Edit* Read some thoughts on this from Ken Chapman on his blog here:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-leadership-and-economic.html
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Reboot Alberta
In ironic counterpoint to the exasperation of my last point I have booked myself a trip to Red Deer in November to take part in the Reboot Alberta event.
This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."
I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.
Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html
Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html
This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."
I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.
Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html
Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
