A moment of political inspiration - Norm MacDonald

The other day I watched the BC Legislature on the web (you can post your comments about my dorkiness below), and was entirely surprised and indeed delighted to watch Norm MacDonald, MLA for Columbia River - Revelstoke, rise and deliver an inspirational speech on public services and the political process.


I've never heard anything about Mr. MacDonald, but certainly will pay more attention from now on. Anyone who champions the value of the reasoned and productive debate is deserving of our respect. I really recommend watching the video of his speech. He was calm yet passionate, and his belief in the political process was evident.

The full transcript is available here; this post highlights Mr MacDonald's views on the democratic process.

It is over eight years that this government has been in place, and what you saw with the very short throne speech that we had is a government that really has run out of new ideas — ideas about how to deal with the very serious problems that British Columbians face.

We are uniquely fortunate in this province, and I think whenever we go forward, we have to keep the problems that we have here in context. The problems that we have are manageable. There are solutions, but nevertheless, there are real issues that need to be dealt with.

The philosophy that I have, and the philosophy that those that are in the NDP share with me, is the idea that the wisdom of this province sits within the communities and with people on the ground, and that our job is to take that wisdom and bring it into this House and generate policy that is going to reflect the wider wisdom of the people in British Columbia.

Yet what we see is a government that has centralized decision-making and does not share the information in the way that it needs to with the wider population. It does not allow them to participate in the way that they need to. There are real issues that need to be dealt with.

We have a province where more and more children are slipping into poverty. That's a fact that is year after year after year. That poverty ties directly to policy decisions that are made in this House.

It's very easy to stand up and brag about the fact that there are tax cuts. This is something that the wider public embraces, but there are consequences to that. The consequence for this year is that we have a deficit. That deficit is a deficit that you cannot disconnect from the fact that taxes have been lowered. You have taken away some of the tools that taxation allows you to redistribute wealth so that you don't have large parts of your population falling into poverty. That's sound public policy.

Now, it is something that Canada has in the past done quite well — making sure that you don't allow children to fall into poverty. But it's six years in a province with all the wealth, all the potential wealth that British Columbia has, where child poverty is highest in this province.

Now at the end of the speech, in a very strange choice for this government, there was a quotation from Nelson Mandela. Now Nelson Mandela is an incredible individual. I was in Lesotho in the 1980s, '85-86, and Lesotho was surrounded by South Africa at a time when a picture of Nelson Mandela was illegal to have in a South African newspaper. To write his name was illegal. What he has accomplished is pretty amazing.

To lift a quotation and to choose to paraphrase what he said and put it into the throne speech just seems particularly inappropriate. I mean, he has a pretty clear set of standards that I think wouldn't synchronize with the direction that this government goes.

One of the things he said that I think is a direct quotation, rather than to paraphrase it, is this: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way that it treats its children." Now that's a quotation that is exact from Nelson Mandela. When you look at government policy, what you see is — certainly, with the poverty piece — no effort, no sincere effort on behalf of this government to deal with a very real problem.

You have Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who has called on the Premier — has called on the Leader of the Opposition as well — to meet with her to work together on a poverty plan, asked legislators here to work on dealing on that poverty issue. Yet the Premier will not participate in dealing with that.

We heard nothing in the throne speech that really talks about that issue at all, because it's not a priority for this government. Yet if you're going to quote Nelson Mandela, to be true to what he believes in…. He says very clearly that you have to deal with the issue of child poverty, but year after year I've come to this House and it is never dealt with in a meaningful way. That's fundamentally wrong.

Well done, Norm MacDonald. Take note, Gordon Campbell; that is the way to quote Nelson Mandela. And that is how you should approach public policy, as a tool for improving the lives of British Columbians.*


* Thanks again to Paul Willcocks over at Paying Attention for this simple idea.

How not to deal with an information security breach

Brought to you, of course, by our very own Liberal government. I just copied this straight from Paying Attention (see blog list on the right), who ganked it from Press Pass at the TC in Victoria, so you lazy types don't have to click through the link if you don't want to. It's amusing and scathing at the same time:

The Times Colonist runs a Sunday column called Press Pass, compiled mainly by the newspaper's press gallery reporters- currently Lindsay Kines and Rob Shaw - and legislative columnist Les Leyne. The reporters have broken all the stories on the government's bungled response to a major privacy breach.

On Sunday, Press Pass added this background.

"SUGGESTED READING: With all the hoopla around those missing government files, perhaps it's worth brushing up on the fundamentals. What's supposed to happen when government learns of a major privacy breach?

According to the Key Steps in Responding to Privacy Breaches guide, written by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in June 2008, there are four key steps. Let's contrast them with what happened in this case:

1. Contain the breach and notify privacy/security officials.

If, by that, you mean don't tell the senior bosses or ministers until the Public Affairs Bureau hears about it seven months later, then done and done.

2. Evaluate the risk of the breach.

Let's see. Employee under criminal investigation for fraud has swiped sensitive personal information that could be used for fraud ... we'll go with "high" risk.

3. Notify people "as soon as possible" to warn them their privacy has been compromised.

In this case, wait more than half a year before writing letters to the wrong people.

4. Prevent a future reoccurrence by investigating the cause of the breach.

Or, repeatedly claim ignorance about when you found out or what you knew and bolt from the legislature to enjoy a four-month winter break.

When should you follow these four steps? According to the guide: Immediately.

Maybe someone in government should read this thing."

Dune, the part two: politics and humanity

The first half of Dune has motored along. It's fast-paced, crisp, action-packed and completely intriguing. The Atreides are having a little trouble settling on their new home, the desert planet Arrakis. Everything is about the new planet: the desert, the weather, the Fremen, the worms. At the behest of the Emperor, they replaced their arch-enemies the Harkonnens as rulers of Arrakis, aka Dune, the source of the most valuable substance, spice, which allows for space-travel.

Betrayed by the Emperor, the Atreides are forced to flee, their forces defeated, the Duke captured by the evil Baron Harkonnen, only Jessica the beloved Bene Gesserit concubine, Paul the prodigy and a few loyal lieutenants surviving. They turn to the Fremen, the people of the desert, for help. Paul has been undergoing some changes with exposure to spice, able to absorb and compute infinite amounts of data and see infinite future possibilities.

The complexity of the later books is only hinted at so far. What is evident right away is the careful observation by the characters, the almost unimaginable ability to read people and situations, and the intrigue that accompanies every action. This is politics at its most intense at every level, from personal interactions between family members to galaxy-spanning plots. And everyone is so good at it. This, probably, is why I love the book so much. I want to be Paul Atreides, with the ability to read and process minutiae and predict actions based on the data. I want to be able to know what my opponents will do before they know it themselves. And I want to ride a sandworm.

The first idea addressed in the book is this: what defines our humanity? What separates us from animals? Paul, at the behest of his mother, undergoes a test administered by a Bene Gesserit, one of the school of specially trained female advisors. (and Jessica's superior and teacher at Bene Gesserit school). Holding a poisoned needle to his neck, she tells him that it is a gom jabbar:

"It kills only animals."
Pride overcame Paul's fear. "You dare to suggest a duke's son is an animal?" he demanded.
"Let us say I suggest that you may be human," she said.

She forces his hand into a box, saying she'll kill him if he removes it, telling him that animals will chew off their legs to escape a trap:

"A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he may kill the trapper and remove the threat to his kind."

His hand tingles, then itches, then burns, so much so that he imagines it crispy and blackened. Overcome with the intensity, the Bene Gesserit halts the test, exclaiming that no woman has ever endured so much (and internally wondering if he might be the Kwisatz Haderach, the chosen one).

Apparently the test sets humans free, to fully think, not reliant on machines as they once were:

"The Great Revolt took away a crutch," she said. "It forced human minds to develop. Schools were started to train human talents."
"Bene Gesserit schools?"
She nodded. "We have two chief survivors of those ancient schools: the Bene Gesserit and the Spacing Guild. The Guild, so we think, emphasizes almost pure mathematics. Bene Gesserit performs another function."
"Politics," he said.

Politics, indeed.



Future post ideas:

Spice as oil, the jihad of the Fremen, and the worms.
David Lynch's movie adaptation.
The Guild and the Bene Gesserit: gendered power-play to the nth degree.

Inside politics: CityCaucus stifling dissent?

The folks over at CityCaucus recently posted a review of Michael Geller's That Was The Year That Was event, held this Saturday, examining the first year of the Vision council's term in power. From a rather moderate description of the proceedings, this paragraph drew my attention:

Jonathon Ross took shots at CityCaucus.com, saying that we were "too personal" in our attacks. We've written over 1000 posts since last December. Perhaps I misunderstand the term "personal attacks," but to me it's something like Andrea Reimer did on her Twitter post about Rich Coleman. Yes, we focus on elected officials much of the time, and we put what they do and say under the microscope, but I wouldn't classify it as personal attacks. Writing smears that you must take down from your blog afterward, that I would consider personal. Thankfully, there's been none of that here.

My comment on the post:

It's interesting to read three different summaries of the event (yours, JR's and FB's). Mostly consensus on the discussions.

As for personal attacks, perhaps your definition is a bit more narrow than mine, but comments like: "In fact, the only person who couldn't seem to resist throwing political stink bombs was Jim Green. But for Green it's like a nervous tick – he simply cannot help himself." come across as unnecessary personal jabs, if not outright attacks. And that's just one small example from this post.

I should add, your example (Andrea Reimer re: Coleman) is obviously more direct, I don't mean to suggest that the two are equal.

Their response:

You'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to treat this as anything more than observing the obvious. Everyone knows that Green has been a dogged partisan his whole life, and I don't think there's any shame in that.

Give it a rest, Brenton.

My response:

Hmmm, can't find it in their comment section anymore. It was something about how snide remarks could be interpreted as personal attacks, it all depends on how one interprets the phrase. I then pointed out in response to a commenter above me that the NPA (from whence CityCaucus sprung) had taken honourable positions on a couple of issues.

This morning I went to see if CC had responded (they're usually fairly quick to defend themselves), and to my surprise I couldn't find my second comment and two others by a bit of a loony named Katzenberg who I had responded to who claimed the NPA had never done anything honourable. Ever. Using. Too many. Periods.

Blogs are not public media, no matter what some like to claim. Their owners can moderate, censor, block, or do anything they want with comments. I was under the impression, however, that CityCaucus was in this to stimulate debate, not stifle it. They don't appreciate any criticism, as far as I've seen, but they also have open, un-moderated comment sections. Or so I thought. Katzenberg's comments added nothing to the conversation, but then there really wasn't a conversation as such, just a few other comments agreeing with the post. Was my comment just collateral damage, because I made reference to Katzenberg's comment?

What's odd is that I defended CityCaucus' ex-boss and golden boy, ex-mayor Sam Sullivan. I'm not a big fan, but his stance on InSite was laudable, and I said as much. I think it also could have been the start of a debate on ethics/honour in politics, a subject that is often derided. When should politicians take principled stances and when should they seek compromise? Etc...

Could there be a Batman without a Joker?

This passage from The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy got me thinking*:

"He understood what the priest could not. That what we seek is the worthy adversary. For we strike out to fall flailing through demons of wire and crepe and we long for something of substance to oppose us. Something to contain us or to stay our hand. Otherwise there were no boundaries to our own being and we too must extend our claims until we lose definition. Until we must be swallowed up at last by the very void to which we wished to stand opposed."

Not sure what I concluded. There's something in there about politics and fanatics and activists and framing debates, but it's not a coherent thought yet. Someone with a better sense of Canadian political history could make something of this, I think, though our federal leaders seem to rotate rather than reappear.

*and directly related to the title of this post: I just re-read The Dark Knight Returns, one of the best pieces of comic literature. A psychiatrist posits that Batman is actually responsible for all the deaths caused by his enemies, that Batman is manifesting the evil acts, perhaps to fulfill some latent psychotic drive within himself.

Liberals just hoping to hold ground

This has been coming for a while. Senior Liberals are now saying that just holding onto what they have (95 seats) will be a challenge. Dion's leadership is under serious fire, and hope is partly resting on the leaders debates. What should he do? Three strategists gave their answers to the Globe. This sums up my feelings on the topic: "Not everyone can be a good leader."

Let's say the Liberals lose seats, maybe only 10 (seems likely). How long does Stephane Dion last as leader? I would think they would need a review before parliament sits in February. Can they hold one in November? What about January?

Top Ten moments in Canadian politics (in my political lifetime)

Everyone has their top ten lists. Here's one of mine: Top ten moments in Canadian politics. This list isn't necessarily the most pivotal or controversial, and it only begins when I started to really pay attention to Canadian politics. So, here they are*, in chronological order:

1. Federal election, 1993: The Liberals sweep to power, reducing the once-dominant Conservatives to a mere two seats on the back of Brian Mulroney's personal approval ratings (low, I've heard) and a poor campaign by Kim Campbell.

2. The Delgamuukw decision, 1995: Forever changes Canada's relationship with our aboriginal population.

3. No to separation, 1995: The No side squeaks out a narrow victory in the 1995 Quebec separation referendum. I watched the results and actually wished I was in Montreal.

4. Jean Chretien grapples with protestor in Quebec, 1996: Can't help but like the guy for that.

5. Reform Party reinvents itself, 2000: as CCRAP, the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance party. How do you spell shortsighted? They quickly changed the order of the words in their name to avoid the CRAP moniker.

6. Pierre Trudeau dies, 2000: Love him or hate him, he shaped federal politics more than anyone in the past 40 years. And Fidel Castro was a pallbearer.

7. Jean Chretien keeps Canada out of the second Iraq war, 2003: We narrowly avoid the worst and most useless military engagement since Viet Nam.

8. Martinites oust Jean Chretien, 2003: Eventually leading to the mess they're in now.

9. Jean Chretien shows his balls to the Gomery commission, 2005: His collection of golf balls, that is.

10. 2008 federal election: In the space of a few years, the once fragmented right returns to power while the once natural governing party is is reduced to one of three parties on the fragmented left.

*This is a work in progress, as new events pop into my head.

And the most blogged about award goes to....

The Vision/COPE/Green election pact!

Frances Bula, Irwin Loy and Bill Tieleman all posted in the past two hours about the tentative agreement reached by the three parties. It is big news.* A friend at COPE asked me to urge any COPE members I know to get out and vote for this proposal at the meeting on Sunday.

"I understand that COPE board member Tim Louis voted against this." - Frances Bula

I'm shocked, just shocked, that he would vote against some sort of cooperation between progressives in this city...

*though it's not posted on the Vision website.

Federal polling numbers

New polling numbers from Nanos have the Liberals and Conservatives gripped in a tie. I'm no pollster, but I did take a look at the numbers* and there are a few interesting bits.

-----------May --Aug
Libs: ------34 ----35
Cons: -----33 ----33
NDP: -----15 -----17
Bloc: ------11 -----8
Greens: ---8 ------7

Overall the numbers haven't shifted out of the statistical margin of accuracy since May. Regionally, however, there have been a few interesting changes:

1. In Atlantic Canada the Liberals jumped from 42 to 54%, gaining from the Green mostly who dropped from 10 to 2%.
2. The NDP rose from 5 to 13% in Quebec, largely at the expense of the Bloc, who dropped from 40 to 31%.
3. The NDP also gained in Ontario, from 17 to 21%, while the Conservatives sank to 29 from 33%.

I'm no analyst, but I have a few ideas about the results: The NDP have been pushing hard for gains in Quebec, and it's working. However, will it translate into seats? Difficult to say, but combined with their first breakthrough in the last election, things are looking good for them. The Bloc seem to have lost the struggle for ideas in the province. I would never predict their downfall, but I will guess that the three major federal parties will be looking at Quebec with hungry eyes.

As manufacturing jobs leave Ontario, support for the NDP grows?

The Green Party seems to be absent from the media. I don't follow the party federally at all, so I have no idea why they may have lost 8pts in the Maritimes. I suspect it's because people know there's an election coming and Green support is always highest between elections.

*poll was of 1000 committed voters. 16% were uncommitted. Margin of error of committed voters was 3.4%.

Frances Bula is back

I was quite happy to see today that Frances Bula has launched her own website recently. For those that don't know, Ms. Bula wrote about Vancouver politics for the Vancouver Sun, but recently left to pursue other interests. From her site:

"Currently, I am the city columnist and a contributing editor with Vancouver Magazine and an instructor in the journalism program at Langara College. I also write for other publications in the city, including the Globe and Mail and B.C. Business magazine."

Welcome back, Ms. Bula, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on our fair city. 

John McCain doesn't get the internet?

I don't mean receive, I mean understand. Heather Mallick writes in her usual caustic tone about the presidential candidate's inability to conceive of what a website is. Seems farfetched until you read this quote (speaking of his family):
"They go on for me. They get me Drudge. Everybody watches Drudge."

And this is George Bush on his internet usage: "One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps." Never mind the poor English...

Edit: Apologies if this is just bad blog slagging. It's funny. 

Carbon and other taxes (July 1)

It's an interesting summer so far, with several governments pursuing various taxation schemes. Gas prices are up ($1.52/litre in Vancouver yesterday), and the BC Liberals' carbon tax is taking a beating with the public (82% against last I heard). The Public Eye Online featured an interesting column about the NDP's Axe the Tax campaign. Meanwhile in Ottawa, Stephen Harper has mocked the Liberal's (Dion's, really) carbon tax plan, the Green Shift. Are carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems going to get the public support that is needed? Can politicians sell their plans to a skeptical public?

Here is another interesting column on the NDP's strategy, which is a little too populist for my liking.
And another blog discussing the BC Liberal's carbon tax. And yet another.

BC politics v. 2.0 (June 27)

Here are links to the various news sources I check when reading news on BC politics. It's a little Vancouver-centric, but that's because I am.

Globe BC
Vancouver Sun
CBC
The Tyee
24 Hours
Metro

I also should mention Frances Bula's blog at the Sun, a must-read for those interested in Vancouver politics. Her entries about the Vision Vancouver mayoral nomination process were brilliant. Edit: She quit shortly after this, and has not started a new blog yet. Apparently she has taken a job with Vancouver magazine.

Rather than a website, I think it would be easy to start a daily blog with links to the stories I find interesting.

BC politics (June 26)

There are more than a few good blogs on politics in BC, but I would like to have a BC political news aggregator. (This is in keeping with my general desire to create various websites that I would like to use.) Is it that bothersome to have to search through the Globe, the Sun, the Tyee and other sites that feature news about BC politics? Not really, but it would probably be simple and not too time-consuming to put something together.

Blogs:

Bill Tieleman
Vancouver Kid
Paul Willcocks

(How do I make these links?) (Just figured it out.)