Tag: Group Projects

Group Project: Do We Really Need Another Leader?

None of the above. Like most Canadians, the lack of a compelling leader is either a big problem or an admission that we really do not need someone to tell us what to be, we just need someone to administer. It is interesting that many of our southern nieghbours may feel the same thing if ry is right. The Globe and Mail is running articles today examining the current Canadian leadership and gives PMSH some advice:

He should start by asking himself why they haven’t bitten so far. After all, in terms of party standings, the Conservatives are still tied with the Liberals in the low 30s. What’s holding them back? The reasons are evident in the data. A large majority of Canadians associate words such as “controlling” and “partisan” with Mr. Harper. They think he’s too right-wing. Most believe he’s too close to U.S. President George W. Bush. He’s not seen as particularly likeable. A majority don’t think he cares about people like them. And most Canadians feel his government has accomplished little during its time in office.

I dunno but if I have to choose between likeable and capable give me capable. But I am not all that certain that Stephen Harper is all that capable. For me, a center-left non-supporter, he seems more like the first or second leg in a relay. Preston Manning tried to reframe the ideology of conservatism in Canada without any real plan for taking the helm and running the place. Harper has the task of proving a majority is possible but maybe he has to stand aside in a few years for that more charismatic person who can implement policies more in tune with the vision of Reform, someone who can convince me and other swing voters that meddling with actual institutions and constitutional principles is something I want them to do.

Notice I do not even speak of others as leaders even though those parties represent the majority of Canadians and are all to the left (to the left) of the conservatives. For the last two decades, whether under rural or urban overlords, Canadians have been happy to have conservative management by any name as long as enough socialism is being administered by them.

  • Has our relationship to leadership changed? Do we not need someone to frame a national vision preferring just decent management?
  • Is the place of conservatism in the US really any different after the ideological disappointments of the last seven years? If the relay analogy is apt, has the race been won and lost? Can a sensible centrist now reframe it to move it into popularity or is another puritan revival required or, if not, going to be foisted anyway?
  • Is there any major shift in the way politics plays out in North American in the offing? The conservative movement of the second half of the 20th century has been both hugely successful and an utter failure as both nations to one degree or another are reformist social welfare states with hugely successful capitalist infrastructures. What should the next ideological revolution look like? Should it not just be an admission that things are pretty robust, fair and acceptable?

There you go. Something to chew on on this quietest day in the quietest day of the year.

Group Projects: What Will Happen To The Giant Leek Contests?

I know I go on but all this digital stuff is a bit depressing. Just look at these British stats:

The average Briton now spends 50 hours per week on the phone, using the net, watching TV or listening to the radio. However, the mix of how much time is spent on each one has changed radically over the last few years. Daily mobile phone use is up 58% on 2002 and, over the same period, net use has grown 158%. By contrast Britons spend far less time watching TV, listening to the radio or chatting on a fixed line phone.

But what else are they not doing? Talking to people face to face? Playing games? Planting giant vegetables? With the collapse of content in favour of Web 2.0 flashing lights and curved edges, it is getting harder and harder to see any societal shifts or any new generation as empowering so much as distracting and that reminds me of one thing – the fall of Rome. Sure you can compare the fall of Rome to just about anything but that does not mean I can’t pull out the old chestnut for present purposes. So a few questions:

  • What new non-digital activity have you taken on to balance your life…or even to unbalance it?
  • What non-digitalness would you like to take on if you have the resources or the guts?
  • What would you rather compare to the fall of Rome?

There you go. Pure brilliance once again in the seven minutes before I have to rush out the door.

Group Project: What Are you Doing With your Summer?

These group projects don’t always have to be so stodgy. Why can’t we lighten up and just tell each other what is going on this summer. This seems to be what we are up to:

  • Canoeing. I think I am terrified of lakes now. All I want to do is hug the shoreline. There are animals in lakes you know. Hidden ones.
  • Camping. We are planning to take the kids camping in a couple of weeks for the first time. Nothing rustic. There are animals in the woods.
  • Backyard. Having one for the first summer since 2002, we are BBQing plenty and have had a whack of visitors over the last few weeks. We have seven kids under eight right now. Help. Plus there are fewer animals in the backyard but they are still about. Gotta be careful.

Remember – Labour Day is only six weeks off. What are you doing to pack fun into those few days?

Group Project: The “Ridiculous Position” Question

There is a funny thing about the word ridiculous. Anyone that uses it in serious discussion makes me think of Don Rickles. Nothing in a serious discussion is “ridiculous”…yet…

Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his government’s decision to pursue free-trade talks with Colombia despite persistent human-rights problems Monday, saying it’s “ridiculous” to stop economic talks until conditions are ideal. “We are not going to say, ‘Fix all your social, political and human-rights problems and only then will we engage in trade relations with you,'” Mr. Harper said at a joint news conference with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. “That’s a ridiculous position.”

Of course we do that. It is called an embargo and it is a useful tool from time to time. The US uses it against Cuba. Canada’s conservatives advocated its use quite handily against South Africa to great effect. Harper in the general sense, then, is being ridiculous in his general proposition. And there is a little something of Don in Steve when you think about it, something about the inability to smile without sending a second message.

But what about the specific? There are certainly situations where trade is a better tool than embargo. Customers and clients are better to have than criminal drug lords. Yet the US Congress has determined in this particular case that is not the case and has stopped their free trade relationship discussions from moving forward. Is it that Harper has picked a country in need of good news to get some of his own? Is he the patron of dumb causes like Arctic paratroopers? Is he leaving out other more sensible choices like Brazil and Argentina which could make a real difference in the movement of goods because they are, you know, “pinkos”? Or is he the vangard of free stable democratic government and picking a hard case for a good cause, indirectly trying to work to halt the murders of trade union leaders and other forms of repression that country is plagued with?

And if there was free trade with Columbia – what would you buy?

Group Project: Use It Or Lose It

I wonder what the real risk is? If I was in Afghanistan, would I be pleased with the huge outlay for military stuff that will never be used?

“Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty in the Arctic; either we use it or we lose it,” Harper said. “And make no mistake this government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history and it represents the tremendous potential of our future.”

Sadly, we are investing 7 billion plus on 4 month a year presence which will add about a -25 factor to the argument. Where is the promised Arctic paratrooper base? Where are the frigid concrete mining towns that worked out so well in Siberia? What about mandatory northern service as an alternative to conscription?

What would you do to the North to keep it safe from, what, Peru?

Group Project: Commuting Not Pardoning

Interesting discussion in the NYT this morning about sentencing triggered by the commuting of Libby’s sentence. It appears that people are treating it not like a one-off for a political hack but an act of governance which actually has some substantive value in a broader context:

The Libby clemency will be the basis for many legal arguments, said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses. “It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

While there are those who saw the entire prosecution as a political event (aka tin hat conspiracy theorists…and Jay…whose server is down at the moment…) (Ed:…coincidence? I think not…), it is a proper think to prosecute high government officials who lie and obstruct justice in that it is a corruption of justice itself even if the liar is so foolish as to be lying about something ultimately of less consequence than he thought at the time. Crime control and other forms of strict interpretation of these sorts of things are traditionally hallmarks of conservatism. These values are more often expressed in the sentence than the conviction so it is something of surprise to have a conservative President justify the giving of a free-pass to a friend on the basis of sentencing theory.

This speaks to the theory of justice, something that is oddly personal. I say oddly in that there are few movements based around the principles of how we punish each other as a community as there are political parties around economic and social principles. Yet it is through punishment more than any other element of the law that we establish what is right.

So, using the illustration of Libby but perhaps leaving out the glorification of celebrity double standards (unless that is key to your theory of social good), what does this commuting of the sentence say to you? Are judges actually excessive or insufficiently harsh in what they do? And what does that opinion connect to for you as you go about your life?

Group Project: NuGovernment Status Update

I am a bit at a loss at the political plan – you know, the plan to get re-elected. If making everyone unhappy is the road to electoral success, it seems the Not Pre-existing Government is doing a great job:

The receding tide of electoral support for MacKay defies most of the rules of politics. High-profile cabinet ministers aren’t supposed to be in trouble, particularly when they represent poor rural areas. MacKay is not only foreign affairs minister, he controls millions of dollars in local business grants as minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. He is well-liked and holds what was once the safest Tory seat in the country, a seat held for 22 years by his father, Elmer.

The prospect of someone other than a Tory getting in in Pictou County is frankly stunning but the cavalier attitude that goes along with the loss and other likely losses in Atlantic Canada does not seem to be linked to the picking up of seats elsewhere. The green agenda has weakened the resolve and maybe even the interest of many of the faithful. The uncompromising tone belies many last minutes back-tracks.

Aside from the personal affiliations that might make me less than interested in seeing Harper succeed, does anyone else think it is strange at how little he has done to establish his own agenda? To actually get more seats the next time? Or has he done very well with the cards dealt? Group Project rules apply – do not snipe at him – and is there any other pronoun for this government other than “him”? – but think about opportunities or challenges that might have been dealt with differently by another person in the same office.

Group Project: Group Thought

Yesterday Jay wrote the following about his own comment:

David, my bad…

If the CPC wants to advertise on Pam Anderson’s left nipple it’s cool with me. (But it was a fun rant nonetheless.)

My immediate reaction was that he would never have written that if we had been talking about a union rather than a political party of the right. This raises an interesting point that is one of the fuzziest in the world of political blogging. When organizations with power that demand your loyalty and coerce your funds and represent your opinion are the organizations you favour, it is OK. But when it is an opposing position, it is Satanic. Yet the function of the coercion is essentially the same whether it is a trade union, a political party, a religious community or a sports team. Chris actually illustrated the point well in relation to peanut butter.

So that being true, why do we hold on to our given set of ideals so closely if we know the failings of all ideals? Why not admit that we live from individual anecdote to anecdote as the lamb lives from one blade of grass to the next?

Group Project: The Problem With Making Up Stuff

By focusing so completely on avoiding international law, by presuming what has gone before is inapplicable or wrong, it’s tough not to mess things up:

…the chief military defense lawyer here, Col. Dwight Sullivan of the Marines, said he viewed the decision as having broad impact because it underscored what he and other critics have described as a commission process that lacks international legitimacy and legal authority. “How much more evidence do we need that the military commission process doesn’t work?” asked Colonel Sullivan.

I am not going to defend Khadr – not so much as the fact that I have no interest in doing so but really because Darcey will call me funny names and then tell all his pals – but what is the value of Canadian citizenship if we don’t lift a finger (even when the UK has tried and Australia has succeeded for its similarly situated citizens), what is the point of speaking out against child soldiers elsewhere when one carrying our passport doesn’t raise the slightest concern? Now as a man and no longer a child – and a man who has likely been indoctrinated in the Cuban jail more than his terrorist father could have ever wished – he is could well be more intent on murder than he was when fighting in Afghanistan. I don’t doubt it myself.

But maybe now it is time to just try them on good old international law or hold them as run of the mill combatant detainees, you know – POWs, seeing as the war in Afghanistan still continues, and move on from trying to prove the situation is unprecedented. Group Project rules apply. Now at five and a half years of the war in Afghanistan, have things gotten to a point where in perspective we see acts on the battlefield were the acts of war rather than the acts of terrorists?

Group Project: Giambi’s Slip or Blurt

Last night, listening to the ever excellent Tony Paige on WFAN at 3 am, I was listening to callers list any number of reasons to support or decry what Jason Giambi said last week and what should be done about it. It struck me that we’ve been though quite distinct waves of sports and drugs over the last few decades, according to that most important personal characteristic – my foggy memory:

  • 1970s: when I was a kid in school, steroids were what East German swimmers and other Soviet athletes took. We didn’t know their names and could never think of them as heroes as they were cheaters plain and simple. They bad, we good even when we lost to them.
  • 1980s: Somewhere in here Sports Illustrated does a huge article on how high school and college kids in sport are using steroids regularly. In 1988, Ben Johnson certainly let the world know that it athletes from the west used steroids. Sports illustrated posted comparison photos of changes to his shoulder mass. Saturday Night Live did comparison photos to US women sprinters upper lips.
  • 1990s: Lyle Alzado admits doing steroids before the NFL player dies. The early ’90s baseball strike leads amazingly (and quite unexpectedly to everyone everywhere…like…you know…pixie magic dust had settled on the game) to the late 1990 home run boom by all these big guys.
  • The new millennium: Jose Canseco proves you do not have to be clever to be an author and everyone almost admits that people they knew when they were young knew people who did steriods. Barry Bonds approaches Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. Giabmi now says all of baseball should apologize.

So, it is pretty clear that we’ve known about steroid use for a long time and anyone who thinks Mark McGuire’s surprised look means anything is nuts. But why do we care? We like people being able to do amazing things and steroids let them do that even if it later on robs them of their health – after all it’s a free country, right? If we now celebrate the baseball players who came out of the late 1990s, should we not allow the Soviet-era swimmers back into the pantheon, too? And how different is it from Michael Vick hosting dog fighting, anyway? Where do ethics fit in in all of this? And whose ethics? Do we take apart baseball because we want it pure even though we loved the home runs when everyone knew the players were on the drugs? Isn’t it just entertainment and we are all consenting adults?

Group project rules apply.