Thoughts wander

Die, already!

2009-10-15T06:07:00.001-07:00

A recent headline in local papers featured another image of a starving black child eating some gruel from a tin pail in a refugee camp. Boring! Been there, done that! Is there any news out there?
Way back in 1969, one of Canada's best, Lester Pearson, advocated and led the world to agree to commit 0.7% of national GDPs to development assistance to least developed nations. Decade after decade, Canada and other nations have re-committed to the goal, most recently popularized as the "Millennium Development Goals".
At the same time, decade after decade, as technology has made communication much more efficient, we have seen the images of starving black children. Pictures of the mothers are perhaps less common, because many of them died in childbirth. At the same time, decade after decade, we have encountered economic crises of many kinds, whether hyper-inflation or the "bubbles" that have made a few extremely wealthy and made most poor. Decade after decade, the economy or a war have been the reasons given by nations who are unwilling to live up to their international commitments.
So another photo of another starving black child somewhere on the other side of the globe just doesn't do it anymore. It doesn't matter anymore to politicians, because it doesn't buy votes. It doesn't matter anymore to the media, because it doesn't sell papers. The public is tired of the pictures. Take them away! Leave us alone! Die already! Horrible sentiments that amount to unofficial policy. So they die. By the millions. We have wars and economies to mind.
This is not leadership. It doesn't matter if we "win" the wars and solve the economic woes. They'll be back. Just like the starving children. Just like the sick and dying mothers.
The tragedy is that this is all so readily preventable. "Come on! Simply living up to our international commitments to the Millennium Development Goals will not solve these problems! Don't be naive!" I can hear you. In fact, that's what our "leadership" has been saying decade after decade, in one way or another. That is, when they say anything at all about the problem.
Rather than honouring our word; rather than shifting policy; rather than attempting a globally agreed-upon strategy; we prefer to do nothing. Leadership doesn't do nothing. Leadership does SOMETHING. Our governments will do nothing. They will not lead. What will YOU do?

LeaderSLIP

2009-10-07T08:34:00.000-07:00

Leadership in Canada is taking another drift away from accountability, responsibility, and service. Whether Omar Khadr, Suaad Mohamud, or Robert Djiekanski, the position of the Canadian government is consistent in its unwillingness to support and serve Canadians. Instead, in the case of Omar Khadr, it hides behind American process, choosing inaction over taking responsibility as other Western nations have done. The result: Canada is the only Western country to leave a citizen in Guantanamo. In the case of Suaad Mohamud, officials as high as the Prime Minister's Office did nothing when informed of passport problems in Kenya, preferring inaction that led to months of needless separation from family in Canada. In the case of Robert Djiekanski, the feds avoid responsibility by claiming that provincial inquiries have no jurisdiction over federal institutions. While stating their "sincere" regret over Mr. Djiekanski's death, they hide behind "policy". Instead of helping Mrs. Djiekanski, they choose to let her suffer.
Leadership takes responsibility, before, during, and after issues. Mr. Khadr could be brought home to Canada to face judicial processes. Mrs. Mohamud could have been issues a DNA test within days of her identity problem. Mrs. Djiekanski could receive comfort that her government cares about her situation and will make sure to follow through on her complaint, and make sure others do not suffer a similar fate she and her son have.
While our Prime Minister plays piano and sings at a gala he decried a year earlier, real Canadians are left on their own. Canada gravely needs a return to the concept of "service" among our elected politicians. Not the kind of service that seeks re-election, but the kind of service that improves the quality of life for real Canadians, and serves rather than ignores Canadians with needs.
Our leadership has become leaderSLIP.

Leadership?

2009-09-18T09:24:00.001-07:00

Mr. Harper based his entire election campaign(s) on the issue of leadership. Time and again, he and his party have not only promoted his leadership, but also attacked other leaders, as a strategy to make their leadership look better. While Mr. Harper is to be lauded for very strong and positive comments to a Canadian-American cross-border trade organization on Thursday evening, he has failed on a colossal scale in terms of seizing an opportunity to demonstrate leadership while in the USA on this visit.
Climate change, energy security, border management, Afghanistan, and other foreign affairs issues are not disconnected interests. Failure to include and highlight them as fundamental aspects of robust and sound economic policy and practice reflects lack of vision and leadership.
Further, at the same time as Mr. Harper extols the virtues of our close relationship, speaking in terms of family, he has missed a glorious opportunity to speak to the single most important and divisive issue facing Americans: health care. In addition to the other Ministers with him, our Health Minister could have accompanied him to America. A news conference to set out the facts of Canada's health care system could have cleared the air of a lot of slander, lies, and false information about the Canadian system promoted by health care lobbies and ideologues in America. It could have been a real and timely injection of leadership into a context where America is in desperate need right now.

PUKE Central

2009-08-28T06:50:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought it couldn't get stranger... ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce Canada's new Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Gary Doer! Oh, wait, Mr. Doer needs to resign from being Premier of Manitoba first. (Heard in the distance: "I resign!") Great! - now, lets get on with political leadership as usual in Canada.
Since its inception, Canada's Senate has been used and soundly criticized for being nothing but a happy retirement center for friends of political powers, a rubber stamp factory for the government of the day.
Yesterday, Canada was brought to a collective gag reflex yet again when Steve, the Harper, appointed several cronies to the Senate. Not even smart enough to pay the Senate lip service as a credible institution, Steve the Harper says all the new appointees will be supporters of his agenda. So much for the last remaining shred of any concept of "sober second thought", which is supposed to be what happens in the Senate. Blatantly and with no regard for Canadians' desire for balance (as expressed in successive minority governments), Steve the Harper at least owns his opinion of the people he appoints: his personal puppets. (Makes ya wonder at the mentality of this latest round of Harperites -as if ya didn't have enough reason for wonder already!)
The Liberals, in a stunning burst of creativity, call this "Harpocrisy". After the shock of something interesting coming from the new Ignatieff - yawn - Libs, we can only laugh at the ridiculous farce of pots calling kettles black. Could Canadians be stupid enough to buy any of this.... stuff? It may be different bums, but it's still the same old poop!
But back to the center of today's attention: two guys with equally goofy grins telling each other how wonderful they are. In Gary the Doer's version of it, it sounds like this: "I'm glad to be part of a great Canadian team, with you as leader". I'll pause, to allow sufficient time for you to wipe the puke off of your shirt and keyboard....
Canadian politics and the democratic process seems to be taking a headfirst dive into irrelevance. With no alternative, the best Canadians can do is stay away from the polls on election day. Even hyper-partisan rhetoric is losing steam. It's just too tiring to maintain a straight face while suggesting that your version of events is more holy than theirs.
It's time for a change, but not the kind of change we've been used to. Switching what bums are in which seats does nothing to change either the bums or the poop they dish out. We need a new system. Gotta go - more nausea setting in.

Journalism becomes entertainment becomes blogs

2009-07-04T17:07:00.000-07:00

It's not news anymore: newspapers and other "classic" media are in peril. Even reporters are asking if traditional media journalism is dead, in favour of bloggers, tweeters, and whatever other means of sharing information is now available to just about anyone. In Iran, Twitter became a democratic champion recently, by providing important information to fellow Iranians and a watching world during the "election" debacle and subsequent protests, while traditional journalists were restricted to their hotel rooms.
But what of real journalism? Let's be honest: bloggers (like me) are just highly opinionated people who either like the sound of their own online voices, or people who think their blogging actually makes a difference. Yes, there are some examples of socially empowering blogging, as noted above. But most blogs are just the rants of people who use the Internet as a release for pent up frustration.
I think the media itself is to blame. In my city in Canada, a local radio station, one of the most popular radio stations per capita in North America, established itself by featuring a growly watchdog whose daily morning talk show was a festival of his opinions, with dissenting opinions expertly edited out by a capable producer. He was replaced by someone with an even more hyperbolic sense of self importance, with hyper-opinions to match. Now, except for a friendly morning show, the station is almost exclusively a celebration of outrageous opinion, fueling callers who express their equally outrageous opinions.
Editorials are almost extinct, because what passes for news in many venues these days is editorializing entertainment, not journalism. Even Canada's national public broadcaster has its share of highly opinionated "journalists" and news readers. A direct result is the increasing absence of real journalism, the kind that researches several sides to a story before printing the facts. In its place is ubiquitous airing of opinion, masquerading as journalism.
It's not just journalism that suffers. We seem to be losing the capacity (did we ever have it?) for rational, reasoned, public discourse, discussion, and debate. Almost absent is any venue that features an airing of differing viewpoints by people who respect each other enough to actually research and present well. Equally rare, it seems, is the potential to evaluate positions and make informed decisions, a foundational plank of democratic process. In their place are arguments, name calling, "attack ads", character assassinations, and increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric.
The media did it to themselves. Bewitched by the easy money that comes with Springer-like journalism, they gave more and more time and space for entertaining tripe that sells instead of substance that serves. Even Parliament plays for the sound byte like obedient puppies looking for a treat.
Will the public get tired of this trend? Will an appetite for substance replace the feast of sugar-gorging opinions? I hope so. I hope we get back to a place where journalists write whole stories instead of just enough to get folks upset enough to share their uninformed opinions. I hope editors return to a professional standard again, instead of the existing money standard.

A Small Glimmer

2009-06-17T13:46:00.000-07:00

Canada's Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition are on the throes of a "deal" to prevent an election during the short Canadian summer. Canadians weighed in before they met, with only 14% wanting an election now, and 78% firmly opposed.
My naturally cynical leaning says it'll just be a matter of time before the political spin ratchets up again and we're back in the tension of an imminent election.
Regardless, it would be unfair not to mark the moment when our political leaders seem to actually respond in keeping with Canadians' stated preferences. Though responding to the public is far from a complete picture of leadership, at least it suggests that there are glimmers of a much misplaced ethic of service in the corners of our nation's highest political offices. Yes, I know it could all be just that no one is ready to take responsibility for triggering an election. Not exactly stellar leadership. But in this moment, I'll celebrate the possibility that Canadians' desire not to have an election has been honoured.
It may be a small glimmer, but in the deep, deep darkness of political spin and multiple-speak, it seems like a lightning bolt in a night-time Canadian prairie thunderstorm.

Sooo... tired...

2009-06-12T20:12:00.000-07:00

I can't say I'm surprised. That's not to intimate that I saw it coming. I don't think anyone did. At least not in the dramatic ways we've seen it over the past several weeks. Still, it's not unusual, even if it is a bit over the top. I'm talking about the crisis of leadership in our country, most especially among our top political leaders.
As fast a review as I can manage: our financial manager goes from predicting a surplus of a few billion to a deficit of over 34 billion - whoops! make that 50% more at $50+ billion - in just a few months. The reason for the deficit is because of the massive stimulus measures and auto bailouts.
Meanwhile, two health crises hit the government: a flu pandemic and a shortage of medical isotopes that affects diagnosis and treatment of some of the worst kinds of cancer and other diseases. It's the second time in three years that the nuclear reactor that makes isotopes has shut down, and it's not pretty.
There's more. The Minister responsible for the nuclear reactor leaves secret government documents at - wait for it - a media office, where it could have been publicized all over the world. It was at least photocopied. Her underling is fired. Then, a five-hour tape of her and the pre-dismissed underling surfaces. It includes her talking about how the isotope crisis is a "sexy" file, one that will vault her career. She is taped slagging her colleague, the health minister, then another colleague who has introduced a private member's bill (a "bad career move", she calls it), and another colleague, who she says is pandering to big business.
What's wrong with this picture? Some of the most entry level jobs available to ordinary people demand people who can work well in a team. Every job I've ever had - and every one anyone I know has ever had - demands conscientious employees whose first responsibility is to the organization for whom they work, well ahead of career aspirations. I can't think of a context where lying or grossly distorting the truth is an acceptable work practice.
Yet, this is what characterizes many of our top political leaders, the parties they belong to, and the system within which these things happen. Perhaps only in the church would someone responsible for finances be able to miss the boat by such a large margin without seeming to bat an eye. Maybe in business, but those folks are usually found and prosecuted, even if it's too late. Think of Madoff...
As for the Minister who can't seem to concentrate on her job - her public service job - more than she concentrates on her own career goals, it's impossible to understand how it is that she keeps her job. And as I type that, I hear myself thinking "Well, that's politics".
Now, there's the problem. Politics is sick. I mean it's in a very ill context, and I'm not sure it can recover without a massive shift in the paradigm of politics in Canada. Canadians seem poised for such a shift, electing three minority governments in a row. But that doesn't impact our political parties even a little bit.
Oh! Let's not forget the brand new "attack ads" being run by our governing party against the leader of the Opposition party, and there's no election campaign right now!
As for the Opposition, it could be said that they're between a rock and a hard place, but that's just too generous. While Opposition poll numbers are up, Canadians are very clear that they do not want an election. How does the Opposition "oppose" without triggering an election that Canadians will interpret as opportunistic? How can they hold back without being labeled hypocrites?
Time for one aspect of a new paradigm for politics: speak simply and truly. sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? What with all we know about marketing and branding and so on (obviously, I don't know all that much!), we have learned to "spin" and "re-direct" and "handle", or "manage" media, to maximize the potential return. We have learned how to do anything and everything but speak the simple, plain truth. When have you heard a Canadian government leader say "Wow! We really screwed that up!" Even after being shown as an opportunistic manipulator, a government minister can't even say "I had lousy priorities." The finance guy can't say "this is over my head". You won't hear the Prime Minister invite anyone outside his party to join his cabinet. No one seems able to quit the lying, stretching, manipulating, shifting, twisting, or otherwise brutalizing information.
It's all just so tiring. And without deep pockets or deep connections, ordinary Canadians are shut out of the process. Try joining any party and demanding plain speak. You'll be "dis-invited" real fast.
How do we get from her to there?

Really?

2009-05-17T14:38:00.001-07:00

Canada's Cons have thought long and hard; they have considered all the most important things on which to spend their time; no stone was left unturned so that they could offer to Canadians a great reason to consider the Cons for leading the nation, so they could communicate their grand vision for Canada and call Canadians to rally around them as they lead us forward. Really?
A while back, the Cons spent a lot of cash - millions - creating attack ads against the leader of Canada's Libs, Stephane Dion. Dion gave them some great quotes and some reasonable video moments to contribute to the Cons' goal of obliterating the opposition Libs. It was a lavish expenditure that proved effective, not least because Dion seemed handcuffed by the ads most of the time. It backfired, however, with a childish ad of a bird crapping on Dion's shoulder. (Seriously - this is what passes for leadership in Canada's political institutions!)
Now, with Michael Ignatieff firmly at the helm of the Libs, and the Libs overtaking the Cons in national polling, it's time (I guess someone thought at Con HQ) to "go on the attack" again. New ads have been released, doing their best to dis Iggy for living outside of Canada and for being smart. One supposes that the Con brand of Canadian stays at home and doesn't go to school (??)
So, big deal, right? It's politics, right? I'll beg to differ, as you may have suspected. During election campaigns, there's plenty of room to dis a political foe's leader, their policies, and their record (if they have one). Even here, there are limits of taste, however, as anyone who remembers the mocking of former PM Chretien's stroke altered facial structure can attest. Good job he wasn't in a wheelchair, or they could really have had some fun, I suppose!
But this is getting tired, for one. It's tacky and cheap, for another. and it's really schoolyard-ish, isn't it? Remember when the bully in the schoolyard would try to pick a fight with someone by saying "You're ugly!", or "You're stupid!"? And they would respond by saying "I know you are, but what am I?" Yeah, that's what this is. Another junior high school bully wannabe trying to pick a fight with someone so they can assert their "leadership" of the schoolyard crowd - at least those who cared about them at all.
Come on, Mr. Harper. You're the Prime Minister of Canada, for goodness' sake! Is this how you want to communicate? Really? Is this what you think the political institution should be and how political foes should engage one another for the good of Canada and Canadians? Really? Is this the best you can do? Really? Do you really want your and other kids in schools to emulate your party's style and preferences? Really? This is trashy, cheap, and beneath the dignity of any party of the Government of Canada and the institution of politics - isn't it? Grow up! You definitely do NOT look better simply because you try to make others look worse than you.
This is your best for Canada? Really?

Plus and Minus Leadership

2009-05-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

They're just allegations. There's no "proof". There probably never will be "proof" one way or the other. And the principle of innocence until proof of guilt is a baseline for the rule of law. Those are not the issues. When a former Prime Minister is still testifying 25 years or so after the events transpired, concerning money that he received but didn't declare as income until much later; money that he received courtesy of a deal he may have made before leaving office as PM; alleged influence peddling of the kind any even slightly accountable government wants to avoid... well, that may be leadership, but it doesn't put the person, the system within which they function, or the people being led on the plus side of any leadership ledger. This is the stuff we want to get rid of, not encourage more of.
On the other hand is a lady in southern Manitoba who passed away recently. Just an "ordinary" lady. Not elected to office, or in the public or media eye at all. She lived, and she died, just like all people everywhere. Survivor of Canada's residential schools system that ruined many First Nations people, she somehow decided to forge ahead on a positive course. How she found the strength that many of her counterparts couldn't find is remarkable in itself.
She became a counselor extraordinaire, helping many, many people overcome addictions or their own histories of being abused. Communities of people benefited from her consistent volunteering, mentoring, teaching, counseling, advising, serving, and giving - in ways that boggle the mind, to the point that if someone admired an object she owned, she often gave it to them. After decades of selfless life and winning some high honours in the process, Gladys Cook passed away on May 9, 2009, in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. Her life leaves everyone who knew her, the system, and all the people who enjoy life in Manitoba and many other places around the world distinctly on the plus side of the leadership ledger. Pardon the pun, but may her tribe increase and somehow infect the halls of public leadership in Canada and every nation of the world.
May her memory live on, and may her example inspire thousands, millions, of present and future Canadians to live and lead on the plus side.

"New" leader hints at vision

2009-05-03T18:51:00.000-07:00

Can Michael Ignatieff be called the "new" leader of the Libs, since he's been functioning in that capacity for several months already? His anointing this past weekend made what could have been an interesting weekend into something less than.
It was both refreshing and disappointing to hear him speak of a vision for Canada. The encouraging part came not from words about education and R&D. While both are necessary to ensure the longer term sustainability of Canada as a nation, they are often too easily relegated to simple components of a survival strategy. To be specific, it would have been nice to hear that education is so important as to warrant provision of free undergrad degrees to Canadian students as a national education priority. But we didn't get that far. It would have been nice to hear that his government would throw the windows open to support R&D in areas of energy and economic sustainability, or medical research that would ensure Canada a place of world leadership in these areas, again, rather than merely maintaining enough activity to survive.
But there was one bright spot. Mr. Ignatieff spoke, albeit briefly, about an international leadership role that Canada could play. That seems to be the only mention of such a global leadership role we have heard from our politicians since the earlier days of Chretien, or as far back as Pearson. Yet, this is precisely the kind of visionary thinking and speaking that we need from our Canadian leaders, regardless of the sector within which they exist.
If we could lift our eyes off of our own issues and believe in ourselves enough to think that we might, in humility, have something to offer the world (something deeper than "our banks aren't in trouble") in terms of values, or ethics, or facilitation of respect and appreciation for diversity (not to mention our international development leadership history in days gone by), our own internal issues and struggles might seem more manageable. At least, we would get a better perspective on them than by simply lowering our gaze to include only our own needs and issues.
Canada is a great country. We have great people, from all over the world, and from right here. Our ability to coexist (not without struggle) as a multiple-identity nation is a great accomplishment. It qualifies us to reach out to other nations as a servant, offering our best to supplement their best and forge something we could never do on our own.
While commentators rightly state that Mr. Ignatieff has yet to make his vision for Canada clear, this is a good sign. We need more of it, more often, and with greater boldness than we have become used to in the past decade or so. Sharing the gift of Canada with the world is a worthy pursuit, part of a lofty vision, and one that will continue to build our nation even as we share what we have and who we are with nations who could benefit from our experience.

Gono. Go? No!

2009-04-20T07:19:00.000-07:00

Still reeling from stun mode after the Vatican said it was being "intimidated", another unrelated story by the Associated Press deepened it a bit this morning.
In Zimbabwe, a nation brutalized by its President, Robert Mugabe, the governor of the central bank, who has helped lead the nation to a decline in GDP of 40% from 2001 to 2007, and a further 14% in 2008 (that's over 50% in the last 8 years!) was reinstated for five years by Mugabe. No, it's not stunning to see Mugabe make stupid decision after stupid decision at the expense of his people for his own gain. What's stunning is an admission by the bank governor, a Mr. Gono.
Gono admits today to having "borrowed" funds from the accounts of wealthy individuals and companies to prop up Zimbabwe's government ministries. The individuals and companies were not consulted, of course. Why would they be in the fiefdom of Mugabe?
Meanwhile, Grace Mugabe (how's that for an ironic first name?) was not prosecuted for beating up a photographer who dared to take some photos of her on a shopping trip in Hong Kong recently. She cut the photographer's face with her diamond ring in the process (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1163710/Robert-Mugabes-wife-given-diplomatic-immunity-alleged-street-attack-Briton.html). The Mugabes' daughter attends university in Hong Kong, where the Mugabes also reportedly own a mansion worth about $12 million USD. Mrs. Mugabe's shopping trip occurred while Zimbabwe was in the peak of a cholera crisis and said they didn't have funds to deal with it.
I'm guessing that the Mugabe bank accounts (or those of his ministers) weren't among those from whom the Zim central bank governor "borrowed". I'm guessing that maybe Mugabe needed some more cash to pay for his wife's shopping trip.
Standing by and watching Mugabe is not enough. All Mugabe assets should be frozen and all his economic activity shut down until he resigns and/or is imprisoned for his genocidal practices against his own people. He should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity at the International Court. He may be the worst leader currently in power in the world.

Even more irrelevant?

2009-04-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

I couldn't help but notice the latest follow-up to the story of a couple of weeks ago when the Pope visited a couple of African countries and made comments about condoms. (check http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/04/17/9146336-ap.html) The reaction of the Vatican underscores for me the lack of stature of the present Pope. To review: the leader of one of the world's largest multi-national, multi-billion dollar (and religious!) organizations visits a small country in Africa, a country where the Church made great inroads on the backs of European explorers and expansionists who "helped" original people convert. Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands turn out to hear what "Papa" will tell them. Talk about a power imbalance! In that context, only one person can intimidate. In that context, it may be impossible for the Pope not to intimidate. The Pope, presumably choosing from a wide range of encouraging and helpful topics, settles on condom usage. His Church doctrine forbids the use of condoms. Any comment he makes about condom use will, of necessity, intimidate the faithful to abandon condoms and return to true Catholic behaviour. The Pope says what he says, and most of the world, including the vast majority of those who work firsthand with HIV and AIDS patients/clients, are astonished and upset that he would so negatively (and carelessly) affect their many years of hard work and success to encourage condom use as one means of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The Belgian parliament is so outraged, it feels it is necessary to pass a motion expressing their upset. Now the Pope and the Vatican claim they are the victims of intimidation tactics! The Pope! The Catholic Church! Intimidated! By the Belgian Parliament! If only it were that easy!
To me, this reaction affirms the weakness of the Pope's original comments and calls into question his motives for expressing them in the first place. If this is God's representative, then surely he is above intimidation by mere, mortal man. If he is speaking for God, then surely he should speak with great boldness and - pardon the expression - damn the torpedoes. If he is not speaking for God, then perhaps he should be much more diligent to own personally his comments, especially when they affect such a sensitive and important cause and so many tireless practitioners. Indeed, perhaps he should remain silent where he has extremely questionable credibility.
Once again, the present Pope and Vatican reveal how much greater a leader John Paul II was. The more Benedict says, the more we miss J.P.2.

Leadership defined

2009-04-16T05:51:00.000-07:00

The story is far from brand new as I type. The video of Susan Boyle should be seen. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
Seriously, check it out. Before you read on.
Now, here's a link to a brilliant article from Collette Douglas Home in "the Herald", a British paper, written about Susan and her story. The article ends by saying that her character is of greater importance than her talent or her looks.
The link: http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.2501746.0.The_beauty_that_matters_is_always_on_the_inside.php
Leadership defined: the character and commitment to do what's right and best, even at personal cost. Susan Boyle owns it. Collette Douglas Home and the Herald recognize it in Susan and embrace leadership in journalism.
'Nuff said.
(Really, check out the links.)

Leadership insanity

2009-04-01T07:08:00.000-07:00

A new law in Afghanistan, passed by President Hamid Karzai in February, means women will be subject to marital rape, forbidden from leaving the house without their husband’s permission, and have no custody or property rights, according to United Nations organizations who have seen the law. Announcement of the law came while Western leaders were busy making speeches about progress in Afghanistan. They quickly changed their tone to express their dismay and outrage, demanding that the law be changed.
What will it take for our government to come to its senses and end the needless sacrifice of Canadian lives for a cause that is increasingly hopeless? Yes, our troops believe in what they’re doing there; they’re professionals, so that’s normal. They have demonstrated their professionalism by giving their lifeblood in the highest rate of any Western military force there.
In Canada, since the Conservatives first won leadership of a minority government, foreign policy and development assistance has largely been shifted towards the Afghan theatre. At the same time, statistics on official development assistance are no longer made public and military budgets for the Afghanistan conflict have been exceeded dramatically.
Surely this leads to only one conclusion: our involvement in Afghanistan is a failure. Not because of our troops – they remain some of the finest forces in the world. Our strategy (such as it has been) is not working, and will not work, any more than the strategy of the Russians before us, or the British before them. The fact is that the Afghan worldview is significantly different from Canada’s. Our presence there, and the sacrifice of our young women and men will not bring about the change in values and worldview necessary to transform Afghan society into a culture whose values mirror our own. In Afghanistan, people will cultivate poppies to provide drugs for the world. In Afghanistan, power will be centered in the hands of warlords, whether perceived as benevolent or not, and whether or not there are “democratic” elections. Afghan government corruption, after eight years of our presence there, has increased so that Afghanistan moved from 114th to 176th (out of 180) most corrupt nations in 2008 (Transparency International). The corruption extends well into the President’s group of insiders.
It is time for leadership. Leadership that owns its failures and make changes. Leadership that stops the flow of Canadian blood for a lost cause. Leadership that ends failed policy and shifts development priorities to contexts where the common good will be achieved. Leadership that calls the international community to ostracize Afghanistan and develop a new strategy of isolation and partition that will minimize Afghan influence on the rest of the world. Leadership that will challenge Afghanistan to transform itself from within.
Sadly, that kind of leadership is not available in Canada, at least not in the two parties who support our military involvement there and hold the majority of votes in Parliament. Neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Ignatieff seems prepared to bring this near decade of failure to an end. Rather than admit failure in a war that has taken longer than World War 2, they seem intent on testing the definition of insanity by maintaining failing policy and strategy and expecting different results.

"Monarchy": irrelevance defined?

2009-03-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

Just this week, the British government acted to stop discussion of a bill in the British Parliament. The bill would have done the unthinkable: it would have opened a discussion of reform of the monarchy. "Monarchy": a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch. Of course, Britain is a "limited monarchy": a monarchy that is limited by laws and a constitution.
As part of the British system historically, Canada is part of the spectacle that is the monarchy, and we pay dearly for it, with national and provincial representatives who get nice homes to live in, and multi-million dollar budgets for all kinds of things like travel and groceries and clothes and so on. It's no wonder that calls for reform of the monarchy never come from those within the system. Who would be so foolish as to cook your own Golden Goose?
There are all kinds of reasons to reform (I would prefer "do away with") the monarchy in the 21st century, not least of which would be that the actual powers of our limited monarch are so limited to be of almost no effect (read: "irrelevant"). Add to that the ridiculous expenditure of gobs of cash for a few select individuals to live as pampered house pets with unlimited passports and you have a massive case for reform. I don't even have to mention the scandals that plague "royalty" on an ongoing basis, generation after generation. (At least we can be thankful that they're not running around chopping heads off at will anymore!)
But the "reform" almost considered this week in the British Parliament had to do with a ground breaking move that would officially "allow" members of the British "royal family" to marry Catholics... yeah, let that sink in for a minute or two...
I suppose this is a big deal for some. After all, the British monarchy is perhaps best known for its move to dissociate with the Catholic Church so a king could divorce a wench who wouldn't make boys for him, and select another one who might. Since the Catholic Church wouldn't give him a divorce, the Church of England came into existence (ain't that deep theological stuff?)
I repeat and remind us all that we are in the 21st century. This kind of "issue" is so far from the relevance index for the public that it simply proves the complete irrelevance of the monarchy. Yes, there's still a "feel good" for nationals that the monarch provides. But it pales in comparison to that of a great British soccer or cricket star. Do we really think that God is gravely concerned about a person's religious affiliation, rather than their wisdom, character, and leadership?
The problem is that this is supposed to be leadership. Democratic leadership. "Democratic": pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all. Why do we put up with this nonsense? Why don't we demand reforms that actually serve the public good and strengthen democracy? What are we waiting for?

More on an irrelevant Pope

2009-03-26T07:03:00.001-07:00

So a Harvard researcher is releasing his findings that the Pope may be right: condom usage may not prevent AIDS. The bottom line is that use of condoms sometimes encourages greater freedom sexually, thus mitigating the positive effects of condom usage on prevention of HIV transfer.
On-the-ground HIV/AIDS workers in Africa have always said that abstinence and monogamous fidelity are the best at preventing HIV. And they have also said, if/when abstinence and marital fidelity are not possible (whether because of personal values or multiple partners before decisions for abstinence/fidelity), a condom is the best tool to prevent transfer of HIV. Their work has done much to help stem the rate of transference in many contexts.
The Pope said that condoms actually make the situation worse. He maintains that only abstinence and monogamous fidelity, through conversion of the heart, will help stem the tide of HIV transfer. He, like many other Popes before him, seems to think that by telling others how to behave, it will happen. How did that work through the Catholic Church's history? Apparently not so well, as attested to by the numbers of sexual abuse and exploitation cases visited by priests and bishops, the ones who, on the Pope's behalf, tell their parishioners how to behave.
No one I know in Canada, the U.S., or Africa, disputes that abstinence and monogamous fidelity are the best ways to stop HIV transfer. Similarly, no one I know in Africa advocates that condoms not be used (including the few Catholics I know there). Why? Because, as much as it is preached, as much as it is legislated within the Catholic Church, abstinence and monogamous fidelity are still beyond the Church's and society's grasp. An argument exists about whether that's wrong or not, but that's not the only point the Pope should be addressing.
When it is within the power of your hand to do good, says the author of the proverb, don't withhold it. The Pope not only has withheld good, but has made it more difficult for AIDS workers to effectively do their jobs. Turning away from the condom is as effective an AIDS prevention measure as sex with a virgin or rubbing one's genitals with an onion, or showering immediately after unprotected sex. To be more clear, the Pope has moved from irresponsible to irrelevant. He is a sad disconnect from the legacy left him by Pope John Paul II.

When the Pope doesn't matter

2009-03-18T09:17:00.000-07:00

On his way to Africa, the Pope decided he needed to offer his wisdom concerning AIDS, given that sub-Saharan Africa has the highest AIDS prevalence rates in the world. His best contribution to Africans coping with blisteringly high prevalence rates is that Africans shouldn't use condoms, because they don't have any effect on AIDS transmission. The Pope should have consulted the US Center for Disease Control, and a long list of studies published on the issue. Overwhelmingly, they confirm that condoms do, in fact, help prevent the spread of the HIV virus, which leads to AIDS. The Pope's comments are a major blow to the hundreds (thousands?) of AIDS workers in clinics all over sub-Saharan Africa who are working tirelessly to educate the population and stem the tide of AIDS.
The Pope's comments match in absurdity the comments of another high profile leader of note. Jacob Zuma, the leader of the South African ANC Party (and potential next President of South Africa) stated that he was not in danger of contracting HIV because after unprotected sex, he had showered, and he had rubbed his genitals with an onion! Others in Africa still believe that having unprotected sex with a virgin will reverse AIDS in a diagnosed patient.
Perhaps the Pope also believes the world is flat.

Scumdog millionaires

2009-03-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

Hah! The rush to hate the bonus-cashing executives at AIG in the USA is at fever pitch. After receiving hundreds of billions (does anyone know how much money that really is?) of dollars of “bailout” or “stimulus” (or both!) money, the latest gig at the failed institution is to pay $165 million in bonuses to executives who have “earned” the contractually bound bonuses. See? It really is fun to poke the eyes of leaders, isn’t it?
Really, who can blame the public for being outraged at this travesty of economic justice? Given that the only reason these folks still have jobs is because the taxpayers have dumped truckloads of cash into the company, it’s nauseating to hear that bonuses were paid at all, let alone in such staggering numbers. Interesting. There are so many issues connected to this, it’s amazing. Here are a few:
How about the fact that the bonuses are contractually obligated? Do contracts not mean anything? Wouldn’t we all want our contracts to be honoured?
How about the fact that obscene bonuses are part of the normal operating procedure in a capitalist, free enterprise, market based economy?
How about the many, many, many (it’s a lot) other excesses of corporate America (other countries, too) that seem to go unnoticed? Does anyone care about offshore accounts for rich executives and companies? Does anyone care about evasion of taxes? Does anyone care about an ever increasing gap between the extremely wealthy few and the rest of the population?
This is certainly a failure of leadership on the part of executives who received bonuses. Not because they don’t have a technically legal right to the money, but because they should have a higher ethical standard than this. That some or all of them haven’t stepped forward to announce that they are forfeiting their contractually obligated bonuses is also a waste of a great opportunity to come off as a hero for the American public. Imagine the rush to coronate such an executive as the next great American hero? That person would have a never-ending list of public speaking opportunities, many of which would pay big-time. Or, in the remote chance that they had a charitable bone in their body, it could lead to a massively successful fund-raising initiative for some of the world’s major causes.
Before we empty our hands of the stones we have planned for these executives, however, we need a good dose of reflection. Is our own commitment to unbridled capitalist greed so great that, under ordinary circumstances, granting and accepting such inordinately high bonuses is actually OK? Are we not grossly offended that many executives earn more in a day than many of their employees earn in a year? Or that many of them earn more than entire populations of people in developing nations? While we’re at it, is limitless personal gain an acceptable value for a global society? Let’s not forget that we also pay regular homage to entertainment and sports stars – heck, we even pay blowfishes like Rush Limbaugh multiple millions to puke out his nonsense!
It’s not the leadership of these few execs at AIG that we should be giving the greatest scrutiny to right now. They’re only functioning acceptably in a system that we have created and accept as normal. It’s us who needs to make some changes. It’s time for some serious re-think of societal values in a global context.

2009-03-13T10:31:00.000-07:00

How wonderful that even Con institutions like the Manning Institute have to have fundraisers. Like other special interest groups, they exist because people give them money. Thus, we get to see political leaders, from time to time, as they really want to be, in an atmosphere of friendly freedom to say what they would really like to say in public, but know they wouldn’t get away with.

Case in point: Steve the PM’s speech to the Manning Institute last night. Let’s explore his rhetoric to see if we can find logic, reason, and leadership. First, the recession was caused by American consumers and investors who borrowed too much money. This is “unconservative”. And (presumably American) regulators failed to prevent the recession while the private sector wasn’t conservative enough. Who heads the banks who lent money at fever pitch for the past decade or more? Do Canadian investors have any money in American stocks? Are the regulators who failed to prevent the recession the same ones Harper and other Cons would prefer to do away with so markets can be even more “free”? Isn’t consumerism the engine of our economy? Doesn’t the entire system depend on continually increasing consumerism in the private sector?

Carbon taxes are bad; Obama’s stimulus package is silly; reduction of tax breaks to the wealthy is bad. Economists disagree among themselves about carbon taxes. Many believe that carbon taxation, along with innovation, is the key for not only environmental protection, but the development of a new economy. Some nations are actually living that experience. Obama’s stimulus package is silly, but Harper agreed, with the rest of the G-8 leaders that 2% of GDP should be spent on economic stimulus. Welcome to the silly club, Steve! Reduction of tax breaks of the wealthy is bad, but reduction of the GST to buy votes is good, even if extremely shortsighted. Besides, the wealthy should continue to enjoy incomes that are several hundred times the size of the incomes of the people who work for them. That’s the Con way. That’s fair. That will keep them borrowing to fuel more economic expansion. If the wealthy fail economically, they’ll be too big to fail and will qualify for handouts. But let’s make it increasingly difficult for laid off workers to qualify for EI, even though it turns a massive profit and fuels the government’s income.

Liberals are evil and dominate our public service, which is therefore evil and would be even more evil if Liberals were in charge. When Opposition parties agree on anything, it’s “toxic”. In a Con universe, Libs are evil. They must be eliminated.Naturally, if we vote for anyone but Cons, we're probably evil, too. Only if Opposition parties agree with the Cons and stop opposing are they worth anything. How does that work with the Parliamentary governance philosophy? Is the same logic in effect when Steve agrees with the other Opposition parties to topple the Libs?

Freedom, family, and faith are what Cons are all about, says our PM. Freedom from regulators, one supposes. Family of Cons, no doubt, because if family members voted Liberal, they would be evil and need to be eliminated. And faith… faith equals good morals. Steve says freedom’s exercise demonstrates morals. This is interesting. Does Steve’s faith permit him to publicly mock and slander public servants or members of the electorate, simply because they don’t share his ideology? When there’s a gap between what one says and does, is that good morals? How about the morality of a growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor? Or the morality of leaving developing nations to fend for themselves? Is our participation in the Afghanistan war (let’s not forget Steve wanted us in Iraq, too) a demonstration of good morals? Many would say no.

Sorry, Steve. This isn’t leadership. Whatever it is, it shouldn’t try to pass itself off as moral, or “faithful” or “free”, because it has a cost. And it’s not just you who bears the cost, Steve, in your inability to get a majority (imagine how many Con ideologues and insiders would then be in the Senate, courts, and federal institutions) and implement your “vision” at will. The cost is loss of confidence in the democratic and political process. The cost is an increasing diminishment of respect for difference, the backbone of what little Canadians have historically articulated as a national value. The cost is loss of personal and leadership credibility. If this is "your" vision of freedom, faith, and family for the nation, no thanks to it all.

Oops! It’s Friday morning! Time to put the sweater back on and face the public.

Original leadership sin

2009-03-12T06:38:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Harper, Rush Limbaugh, Jack Layton... Osama... the Pope... here's to a long list of people, self included, whose names can be noted on a list of "original sinners". Seems pretty rough to put Osama's name in a list with anyone, let alone the Catholic Pope, but while we're at it, let's add "the Church" to that list, too. If there's anything transmitted from Adam to everyone else, it seems to be the shifting of blame to another locale.
Adam did it, in response to being found out by God: "the woman you gave me" - Adam was good: he shifted blame both to Eve and to God. "It's your fault I'm like I am and do what I do!" For Rush, it's anything not Conservative, including Republicans who aren't as tersely fanatical as he is. For Jack, it's Conservatives. For Osama, of course, it's anyone and everyone living outside his cave, especially towards the West. For Steve the PM, it's Liberals, of course, and the best thing we can do is eliminate them. In the Pope's case, it's the world "out there" that has these problems. Bad people doing bad things, because Adam passed the "bad gene" on to everyone. Roman Catholic teaching (I don't "confess" to having an insider's knowledge) seems to let the Pope off the hook, as it were, through its doctrine of papal infallibility. While the Pope is not perfect, it goes, the conditions under which he is infallible seem to be stacked in ways that make him pretty close to perfection, and, by extension, the church he leads almost the same.
Jesus had something to say about all this: "Let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!" (John 8:7 NLV) and "Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye." (Matthew 7:5 NLV).
Jesus isn't necessarily against calling to attention the faults of others, especially when those faults are committted very publicly by very public figures representing very public institutions. He rails against the Pharisees and religious teachers of His day and the system they represent and defend. And He's not gentle about it. Indeed, this Sunday's Lectionary readings have Him lashing out, quite literally, at buyers and sellers who have set up shop in the Temple. What Jesus seems to infer, however, is that when we call attention to the faults of others, we need to take extra care to own our own faults just as publicly and vociferously. The removal of the "log in our own eye" seems a condition to the ability to see the "speck" in our friend's eye. In other words, authority to blame others is attached to accepting blame ourselves, sometimes for the very sins we wish to point out in others.
Might the Pope's "encyclical" (apparently the highest form of papal teaching that exists) have more "authority" if he included the church in his description of how greed besets the human condition? Even some Catholic voices seem to think so, judging from blogs about the issue. One cannot help but think about the church's complicity in modern times during some of the most brutal political regimes in the world, a church that said and did nothing about injustice while political systems committed economic genocide. Might the Pope's correct identification of "injustice" carry greater credibility if his church released the names of priests and bishops who abused people here in North America, but were moved on to other parishes, often to re-offend? "Outsiders" would overwhelmingly say "Yes!"
This blog is all about pointing out the faults of leaders, especially in the public and political spotlight. I'm far from pure myself. I don't consider himself to be a shining example of anything pure or perfect. Far from it. I live in a tension between forgiveness and penance, but write about public and political leadership, or lack thereof, in order to call forth something bigger and better in others who seem more equipped or favoured to make public leadership contributions than me. The logs in my eyes make it difficult to see, sometimes, but I am fortunate that I have friends who help me remove those logs from time to time, just long enough to see specks that need to be identified. Now, let's get on with it.

Gordie goes to Washington

2009-03-04T08:44:00.000-08:00

Just now, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain, spoke to a joint session of the American Congress/Senate. Of course, in order to get the American leaders' attention, he began with the customary lavishing of praise on the historic military efforts of America. Then he proceeded to deliver quite a good speech that called on America's sense of leadership to be brought to bear on a global effort to wrest the economic crisis to a hopeful future. All good, and delivered with credible passion. He called on America and other nations to forge new trade arrangements, new financial industry rules, and new commitments to respond to the environmental crisis, massive and laudable goals in their own right, but truly monumental when taken together.
Within his text, he spoke of the responsibility of nations to work for the common good of all humanity, specifically by addressing stubborn economic disparities, so that all nations could enjoy the wealth of nations, including wealth of opportunity, wealth of education, wealth of health, and so on. As a speech goes, this may have been one of the best works given to date concerning teh economic crisis, and one of the best in recent times to stir a sense of vision that extends beyond national interests. Full marks to the speech writers and Mr. Brown's ability to deliver it with passion.
Mr. Brown is not the first British Prime Minister to make great speeches including commitments to developing nations. Many other world leaders have also spoken passionately about this kind of commitment, starting with Canada's (that's right - CANADA's) Prime Minister Pearson in 1969.
So how are the great world leaders doing with the commitment? So far, only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have met their international commitments to the Millennium Development Goals. While 12 other countries have specific plans to meet the .07% of GNI for MDGs, none has made it as yet. Canada doesn't even have a plan to do so.
SO, why are we listening to great speeches by leaders from countries who don't do what they primise to do? Why are we, the public, sitting on our hands and doing NOTHING to hold ouor governments accountable to their international commitments? Why aren't we listening to the leaders of the countries who actually do what they say they will do? Wouldn't their expertise be more credible and reliable than the (so far) empty rhetoric of leaders from so-called superpowers?
Does not stated faith in God of any kind demand that we care for (in Biblical terms) "the least of these"? If we're not caring for them, is our faith credible?

Rush Limbaugh Harper

2009-03-02T12:52:00.000-08:00

There's a big kerfuffle in the States these days. WEll, OK, there are several. The subject of this post, however, is the kerfuffle between Rush Limbaugh and (is it "Remington"?) Steele, the chair of the Republican Party. Surprise! The kerfuffle is about something Limbaugh said. He said he hopes Obama and the Democrats fail. That attracted national attention, which led to Mr. Steele saying something like Rush should stop that.
Everyone who has seen Rush Limbaugh even once knows that he is a firm believer in hyperbole and extreme rhetoric. These recent comments extend beyond even his preference for exaggeration. Given the rather historic proportions of the current economic crisis, surely everyone would find ways to hope for the best, even if we fundamentally disagree with each others' ideology.
And there's the rub - and the connection to Canada. Our Prime Minister has long been known for his deep ideological disagreement with and desire to eliminate the Liberal Party of Canada. Frankly, during the heat of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, most of us shared at least some of his sentiment. We made the Liberals pay by returning them to government with a minority, then replacing them with two consecutive Conservative minority governments. Part of the reason we didn't give the Cons the majority Harper longs for is precisely because of his attitude towards Liberals and other Opposition folks.
We want a Parliament where political parties will work together. We don't want an Opposition free Parliament, and we don't want the governing party to have it their own way, regardless which party has the most seats.
When Mr. Harper stands up in the House every day to respond to questions by attacking others, or when his party chooses, in tough economic times, to spend millions on attack ads, we see the elevation of a partisan, political agenda over an ethic of public service. We see a government that still doesn't "get it", like the sponsorship Liberals didn't get it. Rush prefers his ideology to national success. He wouold rather see the Dems fail and ruin the country than see the country prosper, even in spite of the Dems' politics. When Harper and his team would rather focus on eliminating their rivals than governing the nation, they do not serve the people who elected them or the nation they are responsible to govern. They simply seem like northern Limbaughs.
Surely someone out there has a personal ethic and a leadership ethic that respects opponents enough to dialogue with them. Surely someone out there understands that, while there may again be a time for partisanship and ideology, such issues are best reserved for philosophical debates, and set aside for the common good. Have the arguments about ideology, but bring our best minds together to forge a new path for Canada for the short and long term.

Strange New Feelings

2009-02-25T05:46:00.000-08:00

As one of the people who could be described as having no life, I watched the entire Obama speech to the joint House of Reps last night. As I did, I experienced some strange and new feelings. But let me set the context. I am Canadian. Like other Canadians, and possibly like other citizens of smaller nations next to superpowers, part of my identity is about not being American. Whether during the "trickle down" foolishness of Reagan, the Gulf War of Bush 1, the embarrassment of the Lewinski scandal of the CLinton era, or the eight years of Bush 2 (arguably, the most ridiculous two terms of any American president or world leader), there has been no shortage of opportunity to identify why I would prefer to be distanced from the American identity.
The election of Barack Obama piqued a world's curiosity and interest, and mine, too. I'm a student of leadership, someone who leads, and someone who responds to others' leadership. Previous posts will illustrate my frustration over the lack of leadership provided by Canadian leaders. I am not different from other Canadian cynics who are frustrated by people in positions of national leadership who do not possess or elicit a sense of national destiny or vision. It's a symptom of promotion to the level of incompetence. Our leaders seem content to be administrators, people who will "get us through", but who do not present a sense of what we're "getting through" to.
Barack Obama, as President of the USA, is another American president who believes that America is the greatest nation in the world. Whereas Bush 2's vision of America was the world's (hypocritical) policeman, Obama's vision seems to be more about engagement, partnership, and modelling values based leadership. He believes America can lead the world again, as Americans live the values they talk about, and treat the world as not their possession, but as a place where they can make a significant contribution to creating a better world for everyone.
Sure, I know some of this comes from the "Manifest Destiny" psyche that shapes much of American identity. But it seems there's more to Obama's rhetoric. He seems to actually believe what he's saying. Yes, others have, too, but Reagan, for all his grandfatherly charm, seemed like a retired car salesman trying to dump that Rambler in the corner on your grandmother. Bush 1 seemed like a middle child struggling to prove his worth. Clinton often seemed just a playboy. Bush 2 seemed, well, just ridiculous.
For the first time in my life, as I listened to Obama last night, I felt myself amenable to the concept of living in America. It felt strange. It came not from Obama's charisma - that will fail. It didn't come from great rhetoric - his speeches are first the property of his writers. It came instead from real vision, a commodity so scarce in Canada that it's difficult to know how to respond to it.
In no way is Barack Obama the person who is going to "save" America; it will take ordinary (and extraordinary) Americans to do that. His flash will fade. His hair will gray. But Obama is a leader cast in the mold of King and Kennedy, someone who has real vision commensurate with his position. The only Canadian leader in my lifetime to possess anything similar has been Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Obama's (or any leader's) vision, there is universal agreement that he has it and is able to express it in ways that inspire others to share it. My strange new feelings aren't about America; they're about a dream that Canada will someday produce a national leader who can inspire Canadians again. Can we?

Substantial Leadership

2009-02-21T06:32:00.000-08:00

By many accounts, Steve the PM's handling of the Obama visit this week went pretty well. Several media types are lauding him for how he was able to stand up with the Super-Prez in photo ops, and how he handled himself during the press conference following the visit. Fair enough. That our PM didn't faint might be a sign of strength, Obama mania being similar to that of the Beatles variety some decades ago (not that I would know personally, I'm just not that old).
But let's get some things straight: Barack the Prez's leadership will not be measured by his skills as an orator, regardless how inspiring and evocative they may be. Nor will it be measured by the charisma he exudes and of which so many gush, including our PM and Michael, the Ignatieff ("Oh, he's just so focused, and looks right in your eyes when you're talking!")
Inspiring rhetoric and personal charisma are certainly aspects of strong leadership. Indeed, they are often the focus of the media's evaluation (they do, after all, want sound bytes), and, thus, our own. We seem to regard these aspects of leadership more highly than we regard other, arguably larger leadership characterisitcs and practices, such as the ability to foster an ethic of service that informs all decision making and bureaucratic endeavour; or the ability to bring differing views together to solve major problems like we have now; or, in the absence of great crises, the ability to bring those differing views together to develop a shared vision of the future, to which all Canadians can be rallied, one that rises over ideological preferences and political priorities.
Example: our own great Obama-like figure, the late Mr, Trudeau, had charisma and rhetoric aplenty, but failed to lead in such a way that Canadians from east through west could join his party. His strength of vision was truly admirable, but it wasn't one developed through consultation with Canadians from every stripe. Thus, he was another in a long line of PMs who alienated, rather than included the West. His definitions of "just society" were not developed over a broad coalition so that more traditional groups of society could share it. He is widely admired for good reason, but we probably won't embrace another leader in the same way.
So, let's get back to our own Steve, the PM. Does he have great charisma? Absolutely not. Next to Super-O, he seemed wooden, contrived, and often uncomfortable in his shadow. Does he have great rhetoric? Only among those who share his ideological passions. And what of his accomplishments? Well, he has managed to lead a minority government for a comparatively long time, albeit with an unwelcome election last fall. He has managed to manipulate the processes of Parliament so that he has yet to be defeated, even gaining enough Opposition support to pass a buget in thimes of massive economic crisis. Certainly, these are accomplishments, often brought forward on the backs of alienated groups in the process (women, unions, Quebecers, artists, and many more). But where is the vision that inspires bureaucrats and citizens alike to a noble future?
What Canadians are looking for is someone who will bring varying approaches to the same table as equals. Someone who knows how to broker difference into shared strength. Someone who can do this work behind the scenes, and then present the results of their hard work to the public. Someone who puts ideology and politics behind the common good of the people, through an authentic ethic of service that is strongly reflected in their rhetoric.
To paraphrase a great band on that score, "We still haven't found what we're looking for."

Tina Had it Right

2009-02-10T06:50:00.000-08:00

Way back in 1985, Tina Turner recorded a song that featured in one of the "Mad Max" movies (I think it was "Beyond the Thunderdome"). The movie was about a post-cataclysm world in which oil, water and food were scarce commodities and gangs competed for community leadership and resources. Max was a fairly typical bad boy/hero who saved a community from a worse fate and so on... kitschy, I know. The song was "We Don't Need Another Hero", and it came back to my mind this week, as I watched Barack Obama's first televised news conference (it's the economy, stupid); as I watched the Israeli elections unfold (it's security, stupid); as I watched Steve the PM and his gang surrender their Con ideology for political power (we don't know what it is, stupid).
I wondered if perhaps I and Canadians might be putting too much pressure on Steve the PM and other political leaders. The world is watching, waiting, hoping, that Obama secretly wears a cape featuring the letter "S" under his suit. Israel is watching, waiting, hoping their new PM will provide security in the most volatile region on the planet. Canada is watching, waiting, hoping, that somehow, our political leaders will have something to offer (Bring back "Captain Canuck"!).
I remember the heady days of Steve the PM and the Cons' first minority government. It was all about leadership, they said. Steve immediately spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign to tell us all that he was the best and only real leader in the country. But several years later, Steve and the Cons haven't been able to deliver on their promises of tremendous leadership, because they have been unable to separate leadership from brute force and intimidation. The result is that, with a new leader in place, the Libs are back "on" in the spotlight, gaining not so slowly on Steve and the Cons. Sigh....... same old, same old...
The world, it seems, still wants a hero to save us. We are fixated on "Sully" and his crew, who ditched an airplane out of which all passengers emerged alive. The story won't go away, not just because it's a good one, but because we really want a hero. And "Sully" is a good one, let me say.
My thoughts wander, however, to whether hoping for a hero is a good philosophical approach to solving problems and/or calling forth vision. Hoping for a hero helps us stave off the nagging sense of responsibility we have for our own common fate, our own common good. Simply electing someone to office and then expecting them to "save" us seems irresponsible and is proviing pretty unrealistic. While I think we have a right to expect leadership from elected leaders, I don't think it's fair to expect heroism.
Sorry to do it, but to paraphrase Whitney Houston (!), the hero is in us. A better quote is the one attributed to Gandhi: we must be the change we want to see in the world. Participation in democracy is much more than voting in an election. We, the people, need to take responsibility for our own context. If our governments won't call us together to dialogue and find our best solutions and our best vision, maybe it's time for a whole new citizens' movement here that will do so. Yes, I know it will be tons of work and probably a fair amount of time. But what's the alternative? Sitting around watching, waiting, hoping for a Con or Lib hero to "save" us? How has that worked out for us so far?

Aaaarrrggghhhhhhhhh!!!

2009-02-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

How does one express one's increasing frustration through electronic/written means? This past week, news of record job losses in Canada greeted Canadians already unsure of their and Canada's economic future. In America, in the new administration of hope, debate over minutiae of a stimulus package takes priority over agreement on getting something started sooner rather than later. Pressure built as their own job numbers took a massive hit.
Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), an independent monitor of government finances, expressed concern about the accuracy of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget numbers, in particular the projection of economic growth of 1.9% in the latter half of this year. He also strongly suggests that the projections for federal revenue in the budget lack credibility, which would throw the whole budget into a state of silliness. Jim, the Flaherty denounced the PBO's comments without reading his report, while Steve, the PM, denounced Jack the Layton for rejecting the budget without reading it. It's a freaking gong show!!!
Our Finance Minister's best advice to Canadians in the current economic downturn is "Brace yourselves". How's that for vision? How's that for leadership? Should the economy be stimulated by tax cuts or spending initiatives? Which ideological preference is more suited to the current needs? WHO CARES!!!
A rocket scientist like me can think of a few programs that would create work instantly while contributing to reduction of greenhouse gases. Here's one: how about hiring an army of people, paid $20.00 an hour, to massively expand the insulation programs already in place in the country? Crews could visit home after home, offering packages at greatly subsidized rates that would allow homeowners to insulate their homes and reduce their need for non-renewable heating fuels. Thermostats could be turned down in big ways in the country. And buckets of money could be put into the home renovation business, increasing property values, adding to realty spending, which we're told is the "biggie" to get us out of the downturn. Meanwhile, thousands of people could do the work on a piecemeal basis, with guideliines produced by the government, so labourers wouldn't spend too much time doing a job, and home owners would be assured of a good job at a good price.
That's just one initiative, but it's a big one, factoring in the larger commercial projects such a program could also impact. How about crews of people going door to door to replace light bulbs with the new fluorescent ones? How about crews of people building houses for First Nations people, even if they don't have tremendous construction experience? works for Habitat Humanity, doesn't it? Seems too simple, doesn't it?
A brain surgeon like me can also see the value of developing new means of generating electricity, so homeowners and businesses could reduce their dependence on electricity from other sources. Imagine the boom of making and selling solar panels and windmills that could be deployed in small or large contexts. Imagine the people that would be employed from manufacturing to sales and installation. Imagine the power savings through renewable energy sources. Imagine if these devices could be allowed to contribute to the power grid and homeowners and businesses could get offline and maybe even make a few bucks at no cost to the government whatsoever, in fact at tremendous savings.
Of course, there are many reasons why such initiatives are too stupid to work or even to try, but they are working in other nations. Why not Canada? BECAUSE THERE'S NO VISION HERE OTHER THAN "BRACE YOURSELVES"!!! AARRGGHHHHH!!!
Time to get the boots on! Time for some major and deep House cleaning!

Three Important Words

2009-02-05T08:18:00.000-08:00

Tuesday night, on several taped interviews with major US networks, the new President uttered three powerful and impactful words. With Valentine's Day coming, one might think the words would be "I love you", but that would be a bit strange, even from a President who is charting a new course in American politics.
To put his words in context, let's remember that former (it's so nice to type that word in front of his name) President Bush, in all his eight years in office, never once uttered the words. Only in the last few days of his administration did he begin to admit that he may have made some mistakes. His sidekick, Dick, the Cheney, has never been able to entertain the notion that he may have made some mistakes, even though his were some of the most obvious and costly blunders ever made in American history. Cheney will always be remembered for his ignorance, arrogance and stupendous errors in judgment - even more than the Bush who trusted and relied on him.
The three words uttered by President Obama were "I screwed up". One almost has to pause when typing or reading the words, because it's been so long since we've had a President admit fallibility. In the Pope-like Bush years, mistakes never happened, at least not in the minds of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, even though the rest of the world could see it.
The concept is humility, and it doesn't weaken the President. Rather, it strengthens his credibility and causes us to trust him more. With expectations somewhere in the stratosphere as Obama took office, it was inevitable that he would not fulfill them. It was also inevitable, as he liked to remind everyone, that he would make mistakes. Now that he has, he can actually admit them.
Imagine if such a concept came to Canada! Rather than a petulant Prime Minister who goads the Opposition into a fight he can't win, and then hides under the GG's skirt; rather than a PM who goads provincial leaders into fights, and punishes the people in those provinces with unilateral and behind-the-back changes to equalization formulas (while he cuts other behind-the-back deals with the Premiers he likes); rather than a PM who would rather taunt the Opposition than respond to their own often partisan attacks with dignity; we have a PM who, like the Bush, is always right. We believe that about Harper as much as we believed it about the aforementioned gang of three American thugs.
We can hope. Obama is coming to Canada and will meet with Steve the PM. Maybe Steve can ask him what the three words mean and when they could and should be used. Maybe Steve can learn...
By the way, have you noticed that even the Pope seems to have made a mistake? In reinstating a bishop whose interpretation of the Holocaust is remarkably twisted, public opposition to the reinstatement has caused the bishop to fly a trial balloon of adjusting his views a bit, and has forced the Pope to issue new demands that the bishop fully recant his ignorance of the Holocaust. Who says miracles never happen? Now, how will the Catholic Church legitimize this "change of mind" on the Pope's part? It doesn't matter, as long as it marks a new precedent.
Steve, when Popes and Presidents are wrong, maybe you could utter the three important words yourself. Put a sweater on if you have to.

Steve and the Rock

2009-02-03T15:21:00.000-08:00

Last fall, as Steve the PM went against his own fixed election date legislation and rushed Canadians to teh polls, he stubbed his toe on a stone called Premier Danny Williams. Danny the Premier, in a strong tradition of Newfoundland orators, took on Steve the PM in an "ABC" (Anybody But Conservative) strategy because he said the PM had broken his word to Newfoundland and Labrador. The ABC campaign could have hit mainland Canada, but Danny restrained himself. Still, his efforts resulted in a closed door to Conservative MPs, with the Rock electing six Libs and one NDP MP.
Since then, of course, we've had the democratic debacle of last fall and a brutally partisan economic update and the prorogued Parliament that saved Steve's skin. Now, we're back, and the Speech from the Throne and budget talk about a great new spirit of collaboration and cooperation and general niceness. The budget reflects at least some amount of second thought by a PM who is very interested in retaining power.
The budget will be voted on in minutes, and it will pass. It's the first test of whether Steve the PM has really learned to be consultative or not. Meanwhile, the PM has stepped in to change the funding arrangement known in Canada as equalization, a move that will cost Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.5 billion. While some other provinces are also negatively affected, Newfoundland will pay the highest price. Indeed, the same PM has cut a major deal with the government of Nova Scotia to undercut the Atlantic Accord, giving them millions of extra dollars. Seems N.S. gets the goods and the Rock takes one to the chin, stomach, ribs, kidneys, and certainly to the head.
In the first real test of Steve the PM's new spirit of collaboration, he takes opportunity, instead, to punish the people of the Rock for sticking up for themselves. Seems if he can't win a fight in Parliament, he'll take it to the provinces, or at least the one that dislikes him most.
Steve, you could have taken the high road. Danny could have been just the stone you stubbed your toe on last fall. But now, he's a rock, on the Rock, and you look like a spolied schoolkid.
My thoughts wander to what next tricks Steve the PM has up his sleeve. Quebec is already in Steve's rearview mirror. Who will he "cooperate" with next? Let's stay tuned!

Ted, Steve, and Trust

2009-01-31T08:37:00.000-08:00

Interesting interview yesterday on "Larry King" (CNN). Featured was Ted Haggard, of New Life Church fame in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the home of about 50% of the national evangelical organization head offices in the States. You will remember Ted from his two-year-old fiasco that started when a meth dealing male prostitute revealed that Ted was one of his meth and sex customers. That ended Ted's pastorate and his leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals. It was another in a series of very public and very large scale Christian ministry leaders caught in an activity which they often preach against, and which have been the very definitions of what being Christian is not.
Ted talked about his fall from public favour, his relationships with his wife (also on the show) and family, his ongoing struggles with same-sex attractions, and his ongoing and developing faith. His wife talked about the same issues, as well as how and why she continues to love and suppport her husband.
Ted was a major player in the religious and political landscape of America. His tumble from leadership was a deep blow to many, and a massive disappointment to millions of Christians in America and many more millions around the world. At the same time, many people celebrated his fall, some because they profoundly dislike religion, especially his kind.
Yesterday's Ted Haggard was a very different person from what he used to be. Gone was a sense of formula-based faith and leadership. In its place was "just a guy" who now sells insurance and is trying to find his way forward with family, faith, and life. In other words, Ted seems (to me) to be much more of a "normal" human being. He readily discussed his ongoing struggle with same-sex attraction, which he still considers unacceptable for his faith/life. He talked about his struggle with finding work and making a living for his family.
Frankly, though it still seems a bit early when listening to him, it seemed to me that Ted is just about ready to make a very positive contribution to faith and life, now that he has found out that his (and others') formulas and prescriptions and answers don't work for himself, and he shouldn't offer them to others as their secrets of success. I look forward to seeing and hearing Ted and his wife when they have completed this leg of their faith/life journey and when they have found ways to articulate their experience and gained wisdom.
Here's the thing: many people already know the life lessons that Ted is learning. Their lives have been so full of struggle in so many ways, and they have tried so many formulas and solutions for themselves, that they know there's no prescription for a happy and successful life. And they have a built-in... malarkey receptor that triggers whenever they hear someone espousing another prescription, especially when it comes to faith and life issues.
Many more people have the same receptor for political prescriptions. In Canada, for example, in a context where we have had 140+ years of Lib and Con political leadership, with its comparative share of powerful leaders humbled by their own scandals, from sex to corruption to cronyism, Canadians know intrinsically the prescriptions presented by political leaders are probably not foolproof. They also know that the people presenting them are as prone to hypocrisy in their ideologies as are the religious leaders of the past fifty years or more.
Trust is the commodity of life and leadership now more than ever, since we are in uncharted territory for our generation and for our nation, and we have a healthy cynicism towards "pat" political prescriptions, just like we do for "pat" religious ones.
When Steve, the PM, or Michael, the Iggy, or Jack, the Layton or anyone in political leadership stands up like a preacher to present their ideological prescriptions for the nation, trust is their greatest commodity. We know their solutions, their ideologies will fail. We know they will probably fail. All we want to see is whether they know what we already know. We're looking for their admission that they and their policies are not perfect, even while they call us to follow their lead. In fact, without such a display of humility, we are prone to deepen our cynicism.
Ted Haggard is learning humility in a very difficult way. Steve, the PM, had his first brush with it last fall, and had to scramble to prevent a meltdown of his party, his career, and his government. The coming months will demonstrate whether he is actually learning humility or whether he will merely adapt his strategy to avoid more public lessons. Canadians will reject false humility, whether from Steve, Mike, or Jack. We want the kind of humility that seeks wisdom from every corner. We reject ideological, charismatic, and religious prescriptive leadership that lacks humility. When our political and religious leaders figure that out, their leadership will be strengthened and Canada will be able to chart a new course forward for Canada, for Canadians, and for our global fellow citizens.

A Manifesto of New Politics

2009-01-30T11:01:00.000-08:00

For three (is it four?) elections in a row, and countless polls, Canadians are pretty clear: we want our politicians to work together for the good of Canada and Canadians. What do we get instead? Partisanship so strong that Parliament shuts down. A budget exercise that is only consultative because power will switch if it isn't. Then there's the same old, same old jockeying for position and whether the parties can get and/or keep power.
Since our politicians don't get it, and our elections don't include "Propositions" like the States, so we can explain it to them while we vote, here's a short primer on what Canadians mean when they say they want politicians to work together, and what they mean when they elect minority governments:
1. SERVICE is the foundation for political/public work, not power. If you're a politician, consult a dictionary to see what the word means.
2. MINORITY means we don't think any single party has enough vision, wisdom, or sense of strategy to lead our nation or us on their own. If you're a politician, please re-read the previous sentence at least seven more times.
3. COLLABORATION is a service value, not a power strategy. We want all our parties to value working together over tired, self-serving, and power-centered ideologies that have all proven to be insufficient for our nation and us. COLLABORATION is a higher value for Canadians than is our political parties' ideologies or their rhetoric. It's time our politicians catch up to where Canadians are.
3a. INCLUSION is how we get the best of everyone. Power politics is about excluding the other parties. The new politics is about INCLUSION of the views of "the other". INCLUSION is a subset of number 3, above.
4. RESPECT is required, not mere tolerance. While tolerance may have been a Canadian value, in our politics, that's just not good enough anymore. We want - we demand that our politicians RESPECT each other. Their posturing and rhetoric in and out of Parliament only makes them look foolish and unworthy of our respect and trust. RESPECT is a fundamental aspect of maturity. It's time our politics and our political parties matured to match the level of their electorate.
5. DIALOGUE is how we consider and compare each others' views. Our political parties should have as many multi-party "caucuses" as they have behind-closed-door party strategy sessions. For an understanding of why, please see number 2, above.
6. COMPROMISE is what we expect from our politicians. It starts with politicians and parties realizing what is described in number 2, above. Once politicians and political parties actually believe that they and their strategies are imperfect, it should flow logically that they can give up some of their position for someone else's. That doesn't make losers out of some politicians; it makes winners out of Canadians.
7. LEADERSHIP is not "my way or the highway" or who has the loudest voice in the room. It's not charisma and sound bytes, fuzzy sweaters or cool Youtube videos. It's the ability to bring people and ideas together to forge a "best" way forward, rather than an ideological way forward. The best leaders are those who can bring together diverse views to produce more than what could ever be accomplished by separate politicians and parties.
8. VISION is not about dealing with the "tyranny of the urgent". It's about crafting a national consensus and setting it out in such a way that it generates inspiration and rallies people to champion it as if it were their own (because it is their own). VISION isn't about "What's in it for us"; it's about Canada and Canadians making our best possible contribution to the development of the human species. It's about how we can lift everyone in our global context to a newer, higher level of living and being with each other.
There's more, but this will do for now. Canada and Canadians would be better if our politicians would embrace the new politics. It's not hard, it just takes will and courage. Shouldn't those be basic qualifications for political service?

Vision?

2009-01-30T09:57:00.000-08:00

OK, the federal budget is out, and it'll pass, thanks to the Libs (more on that later). This post is concerned with a massive repentance on the part of the Cons in the new and comprehensive budget. Specifically, Cons are historically the party of "conserving" (note the word "conserve" as a root of "Conservative") resources, energies, efforts... in other words, maintaining the status quo and making sure we don't lose what we have.
It's amazing what a nice global financial crisis can do, isn't it? Whereas the Cons have always preached the Gospel of financial conservatism, balancing of budgets, paying down of national debt, and reducing both government and government spending, they now embrace spending, spending, spending our way out of economic misfortune.
In other words, they have repented from their historic raison d'etre in favour of the fiscal philosophy and approach most commonly associated with "Liberals" (shudder) and "tax and spend" NDP-ers, who, it is known, will ruin everything they ever touch by spending money they don't have and then increasing our taxes to pay for their largesse.
To be fair, the Cons are not going to increase our taxes to pay for the new (burp) feast of spending. The middle class and corporate Canada will benefit most from some new tax reduction measures that are also part of he budget. Like we have benefitted from a reduction of the GST, a move that could have maintained government coffers and ability to deal with the crisis. But enough of those trivial details...
The Bloc will, of course, vote against the budget. So will the (sputtering) NDP. But new Lib leader, Michael Ignatieff (now the subject of NDP attack ads a la the Cons' recent job on Dion) will support it, while making sure the Cons spend everything they said they would spend. He hates the budget, but will support it, because... well... because! (read: "I'm new, and we don't have money for an election right now.")
So, let's sum this up: Cons no longer care about fiscal conservatism. Libs no longer care about whether Cons are in government or not. NDP is now the "No Darn Purpose" party. And the Bloc is... well, they're actually pretty consistent. Green? Who knows? Elizabeth May (is she still the leader?) is incognito.
My question: WHERE IS THERE ANY SENSE OF VISION FOR CANADA??? NONE - none - of these parties, in relation to the budget, offers any sense of vision whatsoever (maybe the Greens do, but who would know?). They've all been so transfixed by the economic crisis that all sense of vision is restricted to 2 to 5 years ahead, and is limited to surviving the crisis. THAT'S A LACK OF LEADERSHIP, folks! THAT'S A LACK OF VISION! And that's the new politics in Canada.
Fortunately, President Obama is visiting Canada soon. Never mind a speech to the Houses - let's lock him down with all our federal politicians and see if somehow, a sense of vision will rub off. Maybe hope will be so audacious as to infect someone in Canada's political public service.

Scramble for what?

2009-01-26T07:24:00.000-08:00

I know it's a day early, that the federal budget is due tomorrow and is expected to answer questions, some of which will be included in this post. However, the larger question has to do with vision and leadership for Canada and Canadians. As I type, media are saying that the government's releases of numbers ahead of the tabling of the budget are "astonishing", both in terms of the size of the numbers, and the break with the tradition of revealing the budget in the House of Parliament, where elected members have the responsibility to debate and decide, along with the privilege to see and respond first to the government's proposals.
It's no secret (see previous posts) that I am far from a supporter of the Conservatives and their leader Stephen Harper. However, during the last election campaign, he talked about fiscal planning and made the excellent point that vision and budgets should not be cobbled together "on the run" and on the back of a napkin. The massive shift in Conservative knowledge of and planning for the economy since the "update" was dropped in Parliament in November gives me great reason to wonder how many napkins were used to put together their seeming dramatic conversion as they release information about tomorrow's budget.
For example, we have gone from an expected $5 billion surplus, as Minister Flaherty announced in the update, to a $34 billion dollar deficit, $13 billion of which exists before stimulus dollars are factored in. That's an $18 billion dollar shift. Not only that, but it's a shift from $13 billion dollar surpluses to a $13 billion dollar deficit in three years of Conservative fiscal planning and administration. Did the conversion happen on napkins, or is the Conservative record one of poor planning, and short-sighted, politically driven decisions, like the slicing of the GST, a move that cost $12 billion annually in federal revenues? Either way, it's a bad record.
In the past three years, it has been obvious that the Cons have little respect for the House, especially for the opinions of the Official Opposition and other Opposition parties. The recent poke in the eye delivered in the fiscal update brought us to a political fracus unprecedented in recent memory. It has also been obvious that the Cons have little respect for the Canadian public, as they close ranks and shut down access and openness, decreasing accountability, though these were the very things they said they would champion as they were campaigning.
As we wait for tomorrow's budget, these and more questions remain:
Will the budget be a reactionary document drafted merely to beat a short-term crisis?
Will the budget reflect Conservative priorities or will they be abandoned in the short-term?
Will the budget introduce new tax breaks for groups that don't need them, putting in place elements of systemic deficits that are very difficult to reverse after the crisis passes?
Will the budget reflect any sense of long term vision for the country?
What will the budget offer in terms of Canada's contributions to global leadership?
I suppose we'll know the answers to these and other questions tomorrow. More leaks before the budget will certainly be restricted to those areas where the Cons stand to make some short-term political gains. Perhaps that's the most consistent plan we can expect from the Cons and Harper.

Two More Steps Down

2008-12-29T18:06:00.000-08:00

The fast descent down the steep decline into even deeper gutter politics continues. As we expected last week, our Prime Minister Steve and his sidekick, Steve the Lesser, the "Democratic Reform" guru followed through on their promise (?) to appoint 18 senators to Canada's "esteemed" upper house. Having just watched the movie "Slumdog Millionaire", I can only compare this latest sacrifice of moral authority on the part of Steve and the Cons with the dive the hero took through the floor of an outhouse into... well... the stuff that falls down through the floor.
Steve the PM left Steve the Fletcher with the task of explaining why the Cons had to break the record for patronage appointments to the Senate. While Steve the Lesser provided his scripted explanation to the media, he included the lines about the unholy, undemocratic, and unelected coalition that are so familiar to us already. How, he said, could the Cons, in all good patriotic conscience, permit Senate appointments to fall into the hands of the afore-mentioned demonic coalition, who would rush to appoint opportunists, socialists, and - shudder - separatists? This would be unconscionable! [Author's note: I'm feeling smarmy just writing about it - imagine how skanky the Cons must feel actually doing this stuff!]
Steve the Lesser's explanation is what constitutes the two-step decline of this piece's title. Sigh... one of Steve the PM's appointments was a fellow from Newfoundland named Fabian Manning. Now, Fabian is a paragon of public virtue (like so many of the trough appointments in the Senate) who spent lots of time and energy raising funds for the Cons, thereby qualifying him thoroughly for the Senate. Nothing new about that. What's interesting is the slime that's all over Steve the PM as a result. Remember Steve's great moral cause: the elected Senate? Remember how insistent he was that appointments should be made based on candidates elected in their provinces? Well, only two provinces have taken Steve the PM up on that stellar package, and Newfoundland/Labrador is not one of them. In fact, Fabian, the "other" Manning, just ran for office in the last federal election and got thumped. So, Fabian is so unelected that he can't even win a Commons seat, much less a Senate one! This must be what the Steves mean when they say "unelected, unholy, and undemocratic"! They're defining it by their actions!
But there's a second step down that's worthy of note. In Steve the Lesser's ranting and foaming at the mouth to the media about "separatists" being appointed to the Senate by the etc. coalition, he said it would be unpatriotic for "separatists" to be appointed; deplorable; ridiculous; horrendous; what descriptors can you think of to add?
That's where a gentleman named Michel Rivard comes in. In Steve the PM's rhetoric about "separatists" and "unholiness", one can only assume that he forgot that Mr. Rivard's background includes some pretty serious work as a PQ MNA. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the PQ the provincial "separatist" party? Aren't they the party that supplies workers for the federal Bloc "separatists"?
Well, in fairness, Mr. Rivard only did one term for the PQ, and it ended before 2000. He's had a Damascus road conversion experience to the federalist Alliance party, and its leader, Steve PM. And he's followed Steve the PM through the twists and turns of ethics and principles that are the Alliance and then the Con parties, shedding moral integrity all the way. I'm sure his appointment is "holy, elected, and democratic", because Steve PM made the appointment, and not the etc. coalition. Excuse me while I rush to the bathroom to chuck some Christmas cookies!
Oh, well. It'll all be better soon. After all, Steve PM has put on his fuzzy sweater again. He's talking nice again. We'd be foolish not to trust him now!
Happy New Year!

The Two Steves

2008-12-22T13:17:00.000-08:00

Today, December 22, 2008, is a day of historic proportions in Canada. It's a day when, coast to coast, we are dealing with very cold, very snowy, and/or very windy weather. Even our West coast has snow and minus 15 degree temperatures, and that's rare. On such a cold and wintry day, what could give us warmth and comfort? Why, a new round of patronage appointments to the Senate and Supreme Court, that's what! Can't ya just hear the Christmas music in the background?
Our national political gong show has found another new bottom on which to rest for a bit, before probably continuing its descent into an abyss of insincerity, unbelievability, and absolute disconnect with the lives of regular Canadians. Today, Canada and Canadians endured the single largest appointment in history to the Senate chamber, by the man who, more than any other, more even than the historical NDP, championed rejection of pork barreling patronage appointments to the Senate by his arch enemies, the Liberals. Yes, Steve (the Harper) set a record for political largess today - can't you just feel the cold steel as it jabs between the third and fourth vertebrae of your back? EIGHTEEN (18!) new appoitnments to the Senate!!
Even if you aren't a Reformer, or Alliance-er, or Conservative, even if you think their policies read like a playbook of the National Citizens Coalition (isn't a coalition un-democratic?), even if on a cold and snowy day battling Christmas traffic, you wouldn't give the Cons the benefit of a Christmas doubt, on the Senate, you just had to agree with Steve. This is a chamber that needs overhaul. While some kind of check and balance would be good for the nation, it just shouldn't ever be a tool in the Prime Minister's hands, useful for rewarding political party fund-raisers and campaign organizers from the past.
Well, today, mighty Casey has struck out. The righteous wind in his sails seems to have leaked out like a breeze through a screen door. On perhaps the only remaining platform of moral authority for Steve and the Cons, the floor has suddenly disappeared, like a trap door under our hero on the original "Get Smart"series. Steve, what's happened to you? Have you decided that it's better politics to operate without any shame? Tell us it ain't so, Steve.
Well, let's not forget the other pig at the trough today: a new justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Steve had promised (almost) on his dying grandmother that he would never make a patronage appointment to the Senate or the Supreme Court. In the case of the Senate, if he did make appointments, it would only be for senators duly elected in the provinces. And for the Supreme Court, it would mean a full review by a Parliamentary committee of all parties, especially in a minority Parliament. One deft swoosh of the knife, and there goes that last shred of moral authority, too. After all, Parliament's not sitting. If it was, Steve would be out of a job at the hands of the unholy alliance of unelected and undemocratic Libs and NDP-ers, with the Bloc serving as the string section for the choir.
But, you ask, why does the title of this post say "The Two Steves"? Well, because the new (and substantially larger) Con cabinet just appointed by Steve the Harper contains a new Minister, and one Winnipeggers can be so proud of. It's Steve the Lesser, Stephen Fletcher, the Minister of... wait for it.... Democratic Reform!!! Oh! Oh! My sides hurt from laughter and having to go to the bathroom!!! "Democratic Reform"???!!???
The two Steves. Our own Dynamic Duo. How refreshing to have national politicians who say what they mean and do what they say! How rife with credibility are these two bastions of democratic integrity, even as they spew venom against the "unelected, unholy, and un-democratic" coalition that must be avoided, lest Canada be thrown headlong into crisis.
If this is reform, Steves, what exactly did we need reforming from?

Jesus, Robert, and Steve

2008-12-11T19:05:00.000-08:00

Well, let's start with Jesus, since it is the season His birthday is celebrated and all... Interesting that Richard Cizik, leader of the National association of Evangelicals (U.S.) has to resign because he favours same-sex unions and care for Creation. Interesting that people who claim to follow Jesus are unable to set aside their visceral hatred for gays, and would rather use up the planet than steward it with care. Their preference must be for a manger scene bedecked with plackards proclaiming "God hates fags!", heated by belching oil furnaces and lit by electricity from dirty coal plants. Good job Rev. Cizik didn't say something truly blasphemous, like "We shall overcome!", or "Yes, we can!"
But on to Robert Mugabe, a self proclaimed Christian, who cares for his people and is an innocent victim of Western colonial powers. It's not enough that his nation has set records for inflation rates. It's not enough that his people are doing everything they can to get out of the country so they can get food. While he dines and jets about, his people now also have to deal with a cholera outbreak, substantial enough to kill hundreds and maybe thousands more citizens who have so far escaped all the other ravages Mugabe visits on them, as well as the beatings and murders reserved for political opponents. But it's all OK now, because, just a few days after calling for assistance from aid groups he previously drove out of the country, he has declared the cholera outbreak to be over. Now there's a Christmas miracle!
And, speaking of politics, let's not forget our hero, Steve Harper, the quintessential leader, himself a professing follower of Jesus. A crusader of legendary proportions, Steve railed against his arch rivals, the Liberals and their disgusting, trough-eating, patronage granting corrupt way of governing Canada. Not too much to argue with there. So finally, Steve has the reins of power. How does he lead? How does his party chart a new course of "openness", "integrity", "accountability", and "transparency" (all his words)? Why, by taking the opportunity, in a minority Parliament nonetheless, to make every last drooling patronage appointment he possibly can - to agencies, organizations, and the Senate, that place that he is sworn to abolish, even though the decision is not up to him, but must be made with agreement of the provinces. So, let's see... the party that vowed not to take pay raises, not to live in Stornoway, not to use power for its own sake, not to slither into a sense of entitlement... that party of high moral and Christian integrity (at least, if the rhetoric of most evangelicals is to be believed) is now firmly ensconced in its own sense of entitlement after three short years! Ah, but it's really not three years. It's much longer than that. This party's and government's reach into entitlement goes all the way back to Steve's mentor, Brian, the Mulroney. Now that's leadership!
Are Canadians cynical and ambivalent about government and Christianity? Does anyone wonder why?

Canada or Politics?

2008-11-29T11:04:00.000-08:00

The Ottawa circus is a perfect example of why ordinary Canadians are checking out of the democratic process in droves. Whether Prime Minister, Official Opposition, or other parties, personal and party interest has trumped the reason these people hold office. They are supposed to serve the interests of Canadians. What better time to do that than when the country is in a commonly agreed economic crisis of unprecedented proportion? But what do we get from our leaders? From our Prime Minister, we get a brilliant, but purely political move to undermine the financial ability of his political enemies. No economic stimulus in response to the advice of economists and leaders from all political stripes and backgrounds.
What do we get from other parties? Anger and reaction, first of all, to the political tactic. Understandable. What's not understandable is that, though they have had as long as the governing party to craft an economic stimulus package, they seem not to have one at all. Their anger at the minority government is legitimate, but loses credibility without a proposal to fill the vacuum left by the government.
Ordinary Canadians know exactly what is needed. We know what, and we know how. In times like this, historically, political leaders and parties have elevated public interest over political interest and actually worked together. That's exactly what's necessary now.
Our leaders could decide to meet for three days to pool their collective wisdom (OK, that may be a stretch of an assumption) and craft an economic package that, while it won't meet any of their parties' specific preferences, will meet the need of the nation and her citizenry. Markets would respond very positively to such a move.
Why, then, is there no willingness to do so? Precisely because, among the leaders of our existing parties, and perhaps in their membership, there has been a dearth of vision for a long time. In the absence of vision, the only thing left is political interest, and that's where we've been for some time now.
It's time for a new politics in Canada. If our present parties and leaders won't present one for us, perhaps it's time for a Citizens' Movement to step up. Perhaps a new voice... "The Neutral Five", assembled from all political parties, who will commit to putting Canadians' interests ahead of any partisan interests, could offer a new politics with real vision. When will we make our first move?

Obama and Canadian democratic process

2008-11-05T21:12:00.000-08:00

With so many other people around the world, I watched as much as I could of the emotional election of Sen. Barack Obama as the President-elect of the USA. I saw record voter turnout, and heard his acceptance speech, which was as eloquent as he can be.
My thoughts went to our own election and the record low turnout. For me, the connection is clear. Our national leaders could barely articulate any sense of vision beyond "I'm the best person", or "I'm a leader", or "I can manage the economic crisis". It didn't even get as developed as the fairly worn but standard "Will you be better or worse off in four years with (insert candidate's name here)?"
Aside from Obama's statesmanlike charisma and communication mastery, he also carries a sense of destiny and vision for America. Among other issues, he identifies cutting poverty in half in America and around the world, sustainable green economic efforts to stem global warming, reduction of dependence on war (substituting diplomacy and smart foreign policy), and cultivating an ethic of life, whether through reduced numbers of abortions, reduciton of genocide, and discontinuance of torture. Don't you wish a Canadian had thought of this stuff? Wouldn't it have been great to hear these issues identified mere weeks ago in our Canadian campaign?
Not only does Obama ask Americans to restore America at home, he carves out a global leadership role for the nation such as has not been seen or heard since the heady days of JFK. No wonder voters participated in the democratic process in record numbers. I don't just mean voting, but participation in primaries, which, for all their strangeness to Canadians, are at least one form of conversation held across the nation, from state to state. When did Canada last have any kind of national conversation about our country's sense of call in the global landscape?
The appeal of Obama, in my estimation, goes well beyond his oratory, his intellect, and his race. He is someone with vision who calls others to aspire to higher ideals than paying bills and restoring the economy (though those goals are not absent). Citizens want that kind of leadership, they want someone to call them to something greater, they want to fulfill an inate sense of call to contribute to the wellbeing of the planet, because they understand that we are all in this together.
My thoughts wander... and I wonder if, when, who, how... this might ever happen in Canada. If Stephen Harper is a leader, it will happen with him, and now would be as good a time as any. If not, then what, and who? We don't need an Obama; one is enough. We need a Canadian who calls us forward and lifts our heads and eyes off of ourselves to something greater. We, too, need to hope...

Dobson Does Democracy

2008-11-02T15:10:00.000-08:00

If you're old enough, you'll remember a skanky porno movie called "Debbie Does Dallas". Since I haven't seen it, I can't make a completely accurate comparison, but I imagine "Debbie" doing Dallas is about as subtle, classy, and credible as Dobson Doing Democracy, as in his posting of a fictional letter written from the perspective of a "Christian" in 2012, looking back wistfully on how her/his freedoms have been destroyed since electing Barack Obama in 2008.
As someone who grew up in the evangelical context, I am ashamed that Dobson tries to represent an evangelical perspective. Indeed, if Dobson defines evangelical, then I'm happily (and quickly) tossing and affiliation I have to "evangelicalism".
His fictitious letter describes the destruction of many civil rights because of Obama's appointments to the US Supreme Court. It talks about how hard it is to get medical attention now. You see, since health care is free, and so many people want it, you can't get it because the lineups are too long (how's that for insane "logic"?). Private (read: right-wing evangelical) broadcasting is gone, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality are everywhere, the Boy Scouts have disbanded, and businesses are closing all over the place.
Why? The writer says the letter isn't "predicting" what will happen if Obama is elected, but it does all come back to Obama's election in 2008.
Evangelical Jim Wallis (Sojourners) responds by telling Dobson he owes America an apology. I'm not so sure. I think one of the great gifts of Obama's candidacy is that he seems to be forcing all the insanity out of groups who are paranoid that he may actually be elected. If there was any doubt before about the political (NOT religious) ideals and aspirations of Dobson and gang, they have now been erased forever. Gone is any remaining credibility he has as a Christian. The crass and demeaning tones of Dobson's letter are seldom matched by writers he calls "pagan".
Dobson has finally torn off the rest of his mask of Christian love and shown himself for the raving politician that he is. Long gone are his gentle tones, his soothing prayers, his "focus on the family". This is full-on warfare, and Dobson shows he's got the weaponry of fear, loathing, and slander at his full disposal and in full deployment. This is a man who definitely does not believe in loving or praying for his enemies, regardless of what he says on his radio show or magazines, and regardless of what Jesus says.
Perhaps it would be best for America and "evangelicalism" if someone truly horrific were elected, someone who removed the tax protection of churches, someone who enforced the separation of church and state held in high rhetorical regard by many "Christians". Presumably, many churches would close and this kind of ridiculous and visceral politics, masquerading as "Christian concern" could finally end. Besides, these folks could then retreat into a persecution complex and find true happiness. With any luck, they would go live in caves far from people.
Please, Dr. Dobson, stop before you bring irreparable damage on the innocent folks who support yoru ministry because of your positive past. The more you insist that Christians think like you, the less people want to be Christian at all. Have you forgotten comletely the cause of Christ, or has politics become your only "focus" now?
Here's another thought: would you have the same critique if Obama weren't black? Have you done the personal gut check to see if some of your rhetoric is connected to race? Just my wandering thoughts...
Fred