Harpernian Irony

 

 

Before heading abroad to join extremist groups such as Islamic State, some Canadians have been stopping first in northern Alberta to earn money to finance their terrorist activities, the chief of the Edmonton Police Service says.

 

“You can go up to Fort McMurray ... you’re relatively anonymous, you’re in one of those work camps and you can make a hockey sack of money in a very, very short period of time,” said Rob Knecht.

 

Let's be clear, folks, there are only two things that matter - the economy and security.  We can easily secure the economy by reducing taxation and therefore government services (and making sure people understand this through massively expensive marketing campaigns) on the one hand while focusing all our attention the extraction and export of natural resources, especially oil.  What can go wrong with that?

 

The next issue, those perilious troubles lapping at our shores and scurrilous rabble-rousers and sociology-commiters on our own soil.  They must be stopped by extreme security measures, increased monitoring of private engagement and of course, tougher penalties.  And if we happen to get some information that may prove useful (at least politically) through torture, oh well, eh?  It's like those missing aboriginal women; it's their own fault for getting mixed up in such things as being a native woman or being a man with a name like Maher Arar. 

 

The Harper government has curtailed the free flow of information, the basis of intellectual thought.  They have provoked strong emotions with their rhetoric and actions for political convenience.  They have increased security that by the very nature of the system they're strengthening targets minorities unfairly, resulting in an imbalance in civil liberties.

 

Oh yeah, and the putting of all eggs in the oil basket isn't working out quite the way they'd planned, is it?  So much for being history's actors.

 

This is master strategist Stephen Harper at his best; his approach to government is fostering a disruption of social cohesion that fosters the very kind of internal risks he wants to fight against.  All that may be intentional, depending on how cynical he is.  But to tout oil as the only economic solution that matters when all evidence has pointed to the contrary, and now the reality is proving the point?

 

They say Harper is a man with a sense of humour.  Hopefully, he appreciates the humour in all of this.

Election 2015: Godzilla vs. The Zombie Apocalypse (UPDATED-IER)

He also wants Ottawa to fund infrastructure aimed at countering the effects of climate change.  It's not clear what he means by the latter.

It should be.  This could be a subtle stroke of genius by Team Trudeau - one all the lobbyists out there should be paying attention to.

Watershed management and floods.  Ice storm-ready buildings and the tools necessary for rapid response.  Emergency Preparedness plans that extend beyond the 72 hour cycle to what we've been witnessing, which is week-long or longer crisis impacts.

Oh - and individual training, community preparedness and better resource-allocation mechanisms between jurisdictions.  Not to mention the social-emotional learning, self-regulation and other things that go along with it.  Throw in some Open Government/citizen engagement for good measure.

Stephen Harper has done a great job over the years of positioning the greatest threats Canada faces as human (or not-quite-human) - terrorists lapping at our shores, separatists trying to tear us apart, special interest groups undermining everything that real Canadians hold dear.

It's man vs. man.

It has been in Harper's interest to get us angry, paranoid and functionally fixed on getting what we want right now, to hell with everyone else.

It's also how he's governed; fear the Zombie Apocalypse and build up the fire walls.

If Trudeau's team are being as clever as we should hope they are, they've landed on the perfect narrative to counter the Harpernian Progressive Apocalypse:

The Sustained Severe Weather Event.

It doesn't matter what kind of coffee you drink, whether you're a social elitist, a Bay Street power broker, a rural farmer or a middle-income worker anywhere.  When nature strikes, all of that gets stripped away.  If anything, in crises like these heroism tends to come from the ground up, not the top down.

Why?  Because it's in times of shared crisis that real leaders emerge, the kind that rally people to common purpose.  This doesn't tend to be a profitable enterprise, as leaders suck at putting themselves first.  It takes periods of darkness for their lights to shine fully.

In a people vs. nature conflict, it's in everyone's interest to work together.  We're still afraid - fear is a powerful motivator and politics is all about motivation - but what we fear isn't someone out there right now who wants to hurt us.

It's something that could happen to all of us that, collaboratively, we can prepare for.  It feels good to get ready.

Just(in) for fun, there are a growing number of man-vs.-nature movies coming out over the next year or so that will reinforce this concern into our social conscience.

Weather the storm together, or trust one leader to keep the zombies at bay.

The functionally fixed oak of a leader that is Harper, or the dynamic, empathetic force of nature that is Trudeau.  This can be portrayed as the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force.

It can also be framed as reaction vs. preparedness.

Now that would make for an interesting ballot question.

UPDATE:  Hard hit municipalities across southern Ontario had said the recovery efforts could cost more than $250 million, including $106 million just for Toronto.

I swear to god, I don't plan these sorts of narrative-builds out in advance.

Ontario is tapped out - you can reactively blame whoever you want, but the fact remains the province does not have enough cash to support municipalities in their ice-storm damage repairs.  And that doesn't even touch what damage might occur if we have a particularly torrential spring.  

Think flooded streets, flooded basements, mold, damaged cars and roadways - the potential costs are a nightmare.  When the storm hits, people (whether voters or not) aren't going to be focused on who to blame, but who can help.  

You know who does have some coin to spare, though?  Ottawa.  The federal government, if it was feeling civic-minded, could assist the provinces and municipalities directly in a coordinated effort to mitigate existing storm-damage costs and better prepare to avoid or minimize future damage.

To change course like that, though, you need to be more like a reed than an oak.

Winter's coming to an end, it's time to get ready for Spring...

UPDATED 27/2/14 - He noted, however, that more extreme weather - like Toronto's December ice storm - may be more likely in the future due to a warming planet.

Indeed...

UPDATED 8/21/14

"And frankly, this terrorist caliphate in our judgment represents an increasing long-term threat to the security of our own country.  It is that serious."

Terrorist caliphate, like a mindless hoard.  Increasing threat, security of our country. 

Not to minimize the horrific beheading of James Foley or to absolve the murderers of the heinousness of their act, but what exactly is the risk they pose to our own country?  Are we worried they're going to bomb us?  Are they coming here next to behead Canadians on our own soil?

The answer is no.  They are a threat to Canadians overseas; they present a threat in terms of recruitment, probably, but that's got as much to do with internal conditions that make terrorism seem like an appealing choice to some.

Maybe Harper believes in what he says; maybe he's being a political opportunist.  Both have happened over his tenure, though I'd say we've seen more of the latter than the former.

Either way, you can see why "only we can keep the zombies beyond the wall" is a compelling narrative for Team Harper.

Winter is coming, however, and they may find that trying to keep threats at bay simply isn't enough.

Time will tell...

 

Harper's Inbox

The existence of Harper’s enemies list was revealed last week when an e-mail sent from the PMO to ministerial aides ended up in the wrong inbox. The e-mail cheerfully requested that lists of enemy bureaucrats, as well as lists of “enemy stakeholders,” be developed for incoming ministers and their staffs.

Sigh!

It's definitely not positive that Team Harper is keeping an enemies list, for all the reasons Kinsella describes.  It'll be interesting to see whose names have made it on to that list - will a lot of random blogs with little traction find themselves under the watchful eye of the PMO, or will a lot of folk who fancy themselves as worthy enemies of the state be disappointed that they don't merit a mention?  Probably a bit of both.  If there has been illegal activity engaged by this government to suppress its perceived opponents, justice should be served for all parties.

But it's not the fact that a list exists that makes me shake my head in dismay so much as the sheer, ignorant overconfidence on the part of the PMO that made them think they could compile such a list in this day and age without it leaking out.

The risks of sending something to the wrong inbox are huge and well documented - how many people did Team Harper plan to send this out to?  More than that, what if anyone on the recipient list had a personal connection to one of these enemies?  Might they not have felt compelled to send it to that person as a warning?  What are the odds that one of the staff on the receiving end could be thrown under the bus and decide to leak this in revenge?  What if a recipient feels at some point that the Conservative Ship is going down and decides to use the leaking of the list as their saving grace? 

What if, horror of horrors, one of the recipients had a conscience and questioned themselves whether it was appropriate at all for a Political Party to keep a hit list?

It is exasperating how short-sighted this all is, as was the Senate shenanigans, the Committee Disruption Manual, the Cadman Affair, etc, etc.  There's a small cadre of hyper-confident and marginally oblivious crew of insiders somewhere, chuckling to themselves about how in control of everything they are.  They think people won't notice, won't care or that there's always an underling to throw under the bus or a distraction they can throw out to keep the consequences of their actions at bay.

I have written at length about the fallacy of overconfidence, the illusion of conscious control, how the assumption of success leads to sloppiness and of the importance of looking at the entire map of potential consequences rather than assuming "we are smart, they are dumb."

I've also laid down a suggestion as to why this kind of thing keeps happening; players of old have mental models of what they used to be able to get away with and keep trying to recycle - the horses and bayonets of political tricks.  Or, aggressive but not overly creative newbies look for tricks that have worked before without considering how changes in media might have altered the playing field.  Of course, I'm a back-of-the-class kid, so why should any of the really successful people - like Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright and Stephen Harper - pay attention to me?

The fact is, I'll bet dollars to Tim Horton's doughnuts that if the PMO actually got to know some of these enemies of theirs, they'd learn something beneficial.  Maybe even make some allies or pick up on some policy ideas to crib that could even help keep them in power.

Here's the thing, though - to correct destructive behaviours and evolve as an individual means accepting it isn't about us and them and realizing it's not such a bad thing to commit sociology.

What can I say - the truth hurts.

Forget Mind Mapping - What About Brain Mapping?

Ever notice how a mind map, a brainstorming session, energy usage maps (reflecting social clustering, i.e. civilization) and brain maps all look the same?

 

Interesting, is all.

Scientists Reveal New Model of Brain: Thought Processes Mapped

 

The brain can look like a chaotic place if you don't know what you're seeing. Individual neurons apparently fire off at random, not corresponding to a simple stimulus or response linkage. Now, though, researchers have created a new model--or map--of the brain that explains this apparently chaotic activity.

 

In order to actually create this model, scientists looked at the brains of rhesus monkeys. These apes are closely related to humans, which makes them a perfect example to use when studying the brain. The researchers focused their attention on the activity patterns of 237 neurons that had been recorded using electrodes implanted into the frontal lobes of the apes.

 

Yet the researchers wanted to examine brain activity, which meant that something had to spark it. The apes were taught to recognize images of different objects on a screen. When they were shown these images, about one third of the neurons demonstrated mixed selective activity.

 

A mixed selective neuron is one that does not always respond to the same stimulus. For example, the neuron didn't respond the same way to the picture of a sailing boat or a flower. Instead, its response differed as it took account of the activity of other neurons. The cell adapted its response according to what else was going on in the ape's brain.

 

So what does this mean exactly? Just as individual computers are networked to create concentrated processing and storage capacity in the field of Cloud Computing, so too are the neurons of the brain. The links in the complex cognitive processes that take place in the prefrontal cortex play a key role. In addition, the researchers found that the greater the density of the network in the brain, in other words the greater the proportion of mixed selectivity in the activity patterns of the neurons, the better the apes were able to recall the images on the screen. Mixed selective neurons are important in rhesus monkeys, and so are also probably important in our own brains

 

"When you zoom out from looking at individual cells and observe a large number of neurons instead, their global activity is very informative," said Mattia Rigotti, a scientist at Columbia University, in a news release.

 

The findings reveal that brain research shouldn't just be satisfied with simple activity patterns. Instead, it should take the chaotic patterns into account, as well. Together, they can reveal a larger picture that puts the chaos into context.

 

The findings are published in the journal Nature.

Team Harper Taking their Home Game Abroad

 

In response, Mr. Baird read comments made by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in 2010, when he referred to the “occupiers of Palestine” as the “descendants of apes and pigs.” Mr. Baird called the slur unhelpful to Mideast peace. Mr. Aboul-Magd replied that Mr. Morsi was praised by Western governments for brokering a 2012 ceasefire in Gaza between Hamas and Israel.

 

Diplomacy is not their strong suit.  Unfortunately for Canada, diplomacy is the only way to establish relations and get deals done on the international stage.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to commit sociology.

 

Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty: Ideology in the Absence of a Plan

A good read, this.  Some highlights cut and pasted below:

 

During that time we were fortunate to work with ministers who wanted to hear advice and engage in discussion before they made decisions. That’s how good policy decisions are made.

 

 

The real purpose of your consultations seems to be to deliver photo ops, quotes and conditioning for the upcoming budget. We note that the prime minister has now decided to get into the pre-budget consultation exercise. Rarely do your “public” consultations ever lead to any policy actions. In fact, in the past, most major fiscal actions have been taken without consultation.

 

 

Our most important recommendation is that you implement a “real strategy” to support economic growth and job creation and not focus on more tax expenditures.

 

 

We believe that the government should put aside its sole policy commitment of eliminating the deficit by 2015-16, and introduce a medium-term strategy to support job creation and economic growth.

 

 

What is emerging is a widening “fiscal divide” between a federal government of diminished size with sound finances, and provincial governments with deepening fiscal imbalances resulting from growing spending pressures (health, education, infrastructure) and slower economic and revenue growth. This growing fiscal divide is not sustainable.

 

 

These irrational brawls with the PBO inevitably end up making the government look like it has something to hide and cannot be trusted. Both your credibility and the credibility of the government have suffered as a result.

 

 

Given the vagueness and opacity of the 2012 budget and the size and breadth of the two budget ominous bills, it’s hard for us to understand how a minister of finance could agree to them in the first place. Your credibility has suffered as a result.

There is an urgent need to restore the role of Parliament and its committees in assessing, reviewing and approving proposed legislation. Without sufficient information, Parliament and its committees cannot properly assess the budget. Parliamentary debate is stifled, public involvement is ignored and good public policy is derailed.

 

 

Unlike your predecessors, your legacy so far is one of a minister of finance who inherited a surplus and immediately eliminated it with a two-point cut in the GST, against the advice of all economists (including the ones in your own department) except one — the prime minister.

 

The budget needs to be much more explicit on proposed policy initiatives, providing details and background information sufficient for Parliamentary assessment and a better understanding by the public. Budget omnibus bills should be restricted to proposed tax changes only and all proposed spending initiatives should be presented either through the Main Estimates or through separate legislation, submitted to the applicable parliamentary committee for review.

 

 

It was you, along with the prime minister, who in the fall of 2008 stated the country would avoid a recession and never go into deficit. We all know how that went. You were subsequently forced to go ‘Keynesian’ and bring in a budget which introduced a major temporary stimulus program. This was the right thing to do, but it was imposed on you by the G20 and the rules of political survival. In your 2010 and 2012 budgets you introduced cuts in spending designed to eliminate the deficit over the “medium-term”. This seems to have become the only achievement that you want for your legacy.

We believe you can do much more. There is a need now for the federal government to take action to support medium-term growth and job creation, while maintaining a long-term sustainable fiscal framework. The government has the fiscal flexibility to do exactly that.

 

 

But first, you have to turn off the policy “autopilot” and take action.


It pays to think ahead - especially considering the consequences when you don't.

The NRA Pulls a Vic Toews

 

The 3-D shooting game has nine different firearms and three "immersive" shooting ranges. Originally rated as 4+ -- described this way in the iTunes rating system: "Applications in this category contain no objectionable materials" -- the game's rating was changed late Tuesday to 12+, and a warning added: "Frequent/intense realistic violence."

 

In his statement a week after the tragedy, NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre placed part of the blame for the proliferation of violence in America on "vicious, violent video games."

 

The concern isn't so much that this is a blatantly hypocritical and socialy dangerous approach - that's just the symptom.  The big issue is the confabulation behind these reactive decisions by the NRA.  Forgive them, lord, for they know not what they do.

 

 

The Partisan Mind

For psychologists, it was sweet vindication since Bartels’ findings fit perfectly with cognitive dissonance theory — which holds that the stronger someone’s commitment to a belief is the greater the mental contortions he will undergo to protect that belief from contrary information. Ignore. Rationalize. Even turn upside down. The strongly committed person will do whatever it takes — and wind up saying something goofy as a result.

 

People really don't like this concept.  They prefer to think they are in complete control of their thoughts and actions.  Alas, evidence doesn't seem to point that way.

 

The brain is a storage, filter and executive command system; it has its own internal threat-assessment guide that you didn't consciously build - evolution and life experience have done that for you.  But, like every other part of your body, the mind can be harnessed and channeled:

 

Of course that isn’t inevitable. People can and do maintain a critical distance, examine their perceptions and beliefs, ask if they really make sense or not, and even overturn them when necessary. But that’s hard mental work under any circumstances. When commitment is extreme — as it is with any fierce partisan — it’s exhausting.

You just have to be conscious of how it operates, first.

Two Political Approaches

 

 

Rob Ford - rebellious, stubborn, reliant on gut instinct and fully convinced of us own argumentative superiority.  He's populist in his presentation; he genuinely fights the system on behalf of the little guy.  Lots of them love him for it, but what does he get done?  How much falls through the cracks for not meeting his "so what" smell test?

 

 

 

Adam Vaughan.  Does his homework, prepares his arguments and own the floor.  If you tangle with him, know your stuff inside and outside.  He sure will.

 

 

There's an anti-intellectual movement out there; angry, scared and frustrated people want validation; sugar for the soul in the short term, but it rots you to the core over time.  Then, there's the reasoned, balanced approach of making a case and backing it up. 

 

I would say, we need both.  Balance, not competition, is what is required; if you're too busy tipping to the sides, your forward mobility is limited.

 

Go watch Bill Clinton's DNC 2012 speech for an example of how to best bridge those two approaches.

 

Here's How It Begins

Two stories I've just read, indicating the next slip into the spiral:

Rob Ford:

He said he wasn't sure why the statement was made. "I don't understand conceptually, at all, because it really speaks to perhaps some who may not be fully cognisant as to what some of the real challenges are," he said. "I would think that either the mayor has spoken in a moment of just emotion but I would think that the notion of immigration or immigrants being the problem is the wrong notion."

Jason Kenney:

“When the minister goes to the House of Commons … and they get centralized into the minister more and more of the power, it does give you concern because then you no longer have a parliamentary democracy, you are moving more and more towards an autocracy with power centred into the minister’s hands.”

This won't end well - not for anyone.  Sadly, it's those who think they can ignore past lessons and make up their own realities that are the ones doomed to repeat history.

Don't Hate Harper

"But in the anti-Conservative fever swamps, there’s no discussion. There is rage."

I've said it before and, sadly, I know I'm going to be saying it again - in his attempt to play the emotion card as a way to make Canada more conservative, Stephen Harper is only succeeding in making Canadians angrier. It should really come as no surprise - when you keep hitting the fear button, you make people more reactive. You tell them their resources are being taken away, you trigger a deep-rooted gut-reaction that rails against rather than stands for.

 

 

 

It's a disconcerting trend. People are beginning to feel that discussion can't work, that militancy is the only way to make things happen. Screw the other guy, we're going to fight for what we know is right. While the trend towards reactive, emotional behaviour society-wide is not all on Harper's shoulders - we've been witnessing the rise in violent division across the Western World - his approach is adding fuel to the fire.

 

 

 

This isn't good for Harper, nor is it good for the long-term prospects of his party. It certainly isn't good for Canada, or our position in the world. The solution, though, isn't to fight fire with fire, to become that which we might stand against. The answer, as always, is to drill down to the places where we agree and engage the Other in finding shared solutions.

 

 

 

Move Forward Together is not and cannot be the property of any one given group - it has to include everyone.

 

 

 

If we can't live together, we're going to die alone.

Puzzling Out Society's Problems

Police commanders issuing orders contrary to the democratic fabric of the community they are charged with protecting.

Junior officers blindly following orders they should have known were wrong.

Chris Mazza – on suicide watch but still wanted for questioning  over the real ORNGE crush.

Strict message discipline starting to crack, letting out the steam that’s been building.

Ideology being pursued at the expense of national well being.

To me, all these are all pieces in an emerging puzzle picture; by putting selfish or partisan interests ahead of the Public Good, the so-called Machiavellian strategists are blindly leading us – and themselves – into one rake after another.

This is because they aren’t thinking broadly enough, nor far enough ahead.  Traditionally, there hasn’t been enough real-time accountability for them to put that much effort into long-term, public interest strategy.  Thought, of course, emerges from the mind -  but mental health isn't something we've wanted to talk about, either.

That’s starting to change.

Demographic reality, political and economic reality, social challenges and social media are all forcing us to be more conscious about our actions. 

Go fast, go alone.  Go far, move together. 

Welcome to the 21^st Century.

Mitt Romney, Limbic Thinker

"I certainly don't believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual."

That's kind of the point, isn't it?  Young Mitt didn't think - he reacted to what he preceived (believed) to be a threat to the status quo, and reacted aggressively.  Based on Romney's own recollection, it could have been any kid that was different - it was the lack of conformity that caused Romney to act in an aggressive, offensive way.

This isn't the first time Romney's conscious cognition has been brought under scrutiny.  In fact, there seems to be a lot of "might makes right" in Romney's overall presentation, instead of consciously thinking ahead.  It's not a good basis for decision-making.

Leadership isn't about reacting - it's about careful contemplation and getting input.  This kind of approach leads to the best, considered, balanced decisions. 

The American people should think hard about what sort of leader they want in these variable times; the more they think about it, the clearer their option will become.