I'm not a big fan of Twitter. I was vaguely intrigued by the idea at first, and I am sure that there do exist a great many trenchant and pithy pronouncements, all neatly forged within the restriction of 140 characters. But it soon became clear to me that the idea had been hijacked by a bandwagon of users with very little to say, users for whom 140 characters is more than enough to express their petty and infantile views and thoughts.
I was nevertheless a little taken aback recently when Blaise Campaoré, the long-time president of Burkina Faso, chose to broadcast his resignation in a Twitter post (as reported in the Wall Street Journal and other sources).
One would have thought that such a significant statement might have merited something a little more formal than a tweet, where it must have found itself in company with such pearls of wisdom as "My #cat has been sick again" and "What was #Rihanna thinking this time?".
Call me old-fashioned, but the platform seems completely inappropriate for such a proclamation, and if nothing else shows a certain disrespect for his citizens.
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
Friday, October 31, 2014
Toronto's municipal elections: the fallout
The city of Toronto is just recovering from a typically nasty, and atypically long, election campaign. We are still languishing in that dazed-and-confused election hangover state.
And while I have no intention of raking over the coals and revisiting all the issues and personality clashes that have been done to death over the last year or so - suffice to say, in my own humble opinion, we did not get the mayor we deserve, but we avoided the mayor that no city deserves - a recent article in the indispensable Globe and Mail has highlighted one specific issue that I find particularly interesting.
Apparently, 37 out of 38 incumbent counsellors were re-elected, with just 7 new councillors providing some modicum of new blood in council debates (one of which presumably being ex-Mayor Rob Ford, who inexplicably waltzed to a landslide victory in Ward 2 without even trying).
Business as usual or what? Granted, the debate will now be taking place under a less divisive and distracting leadership, or at least one would hope so. But it still begs the question as to what extent voters have actually considered the candidates, what it is that that they represent, and their positions on the various issues.
The dispiriting indications are, however, that an awful lot of people just vote with a knee-jerk reaction, checking the name of perhaps the only candidate they have actually heard of. How else to explain the re-election of demonstrably failed politicians such as Rob Ford, Georgio Mammoliti, et al? As to how to explain such a knee-jerk reaction in spite of the negative press such candidates have garnered throughout their incumbency, I am at a complete loss.
All in all, a poor and somewhat depressing reflection on the value of local democracy.
And while I have no intention of raking over the coals and revisiting all the issues and personality clashes that have been done to death over the last year or so - suffice to say, in my own humble opinion, we did not get the mayor we deserve, but we avoided the mayor that no city deserves - a recent article in the indispensable Globe and Mail has highlighted one specific issue that I find particularly interesting.
Apparently, 37 out of 38 incumbent counsellors were re-elected, with just 7 new councillors providing some modicum of new blood in council debates (one of which presumably being ex-Mayor Rob Ford, who inexplicably waltzed to a landslide victory in Ward 2 without even trying).
Business as usual or what? Granted, the debate will now be taking place under a less divisive and distracting leadership, or at least one would hope so. But it still begs the question as to what extent voters have actually considered the candidates, what it is that that they represent, and their positions on the various issues.
The dispiriting indications are, however, that an awful lot of people just vote with a knee-jerk reaction, checking the name of perhaps the only candidate they have actually heard of. How else to explain the re-election of demonstrably failed politicians such as Rob Ford, Georgio Mammoliti, et al? As to how to explain such a knee-jerk reaction in spite of the negative press such candidates have garnered throughout their incumbency, I am at a complete loss.
All in all, a poor and somewhat depressing reflection on the value of local democracy.
I'm back! Did you miss me?
After some six years of hiatus, I'm thinking I may take up my blog again. Not because I think anyone will read it - that never seemed to be the case, even back in the heyday of the personal blog a few years ago - but more as an exercise in catharsis, a kind of cheap version of therapy. I write for myself, but you are welome to share it.
During my silent years, I have managed to avoid pouring scorn and acrimony on the whole of Rob Ford's mayoralty; Stephen Harper's continued steady erosion of Canadian democracy, environmental integrity and international reputation; wars here, there and seemingly everywhere; and many other matters of local, national and international concern.
But now I'm back, and I plan on contributing my twopenn'orth on issues, both crucial and random, that I come across in the press and in daily life.
I'm sure the world will be a better, and more comprehensible, place for it.
During my silent years, I have managed to avoid pouring scorn and acrimony on the whole of Rob Ford's mayoralty; Stephen Harper's continued steady erosion of Canadian democracy, environmental integrity and international reputation; wars here, there and seemingly everywhere; and many other matters of local, national and international concern.
But now I'm back, and I plan on contributing my twopenn'orth on issues, both crucial and random, that I come across in the press and in daily life.
I'm sure the world will be a better, and more comprehensible, place for it.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Shifting Sands
Last week the Globe and Mail ran an excellent eight-part series of in-depth articles about the Canadian oil patch - the oil sands of Alberta - under the title "Shifting Sands":
Part 1: An empire from a tub of goo
Part 2: The kinder, gentler energy superpower
Part 3: Why Cape Breton shakes in the echo of this distant boom
Part 4: Life on the cold side of the country's hottest economy
Part 5: Frugal Norway saves for life after the boom
Part 6: The climatic costs of rapid growth
Part 7: Looking for solutions to the carbon conundrum
Part 8: Canada, the world and the oil sands
I thought Part 5 in particular was very interesting. I had read before about Norway's ultra-sensible treatment of their significant oil revenues, but this was a good summary, and the comparisons with Alberta and Canada were very telling, I thought.
Part 1: An empire from a tub of goo
Part 2: The kinder, gentler energy superpower
Part 3: Why Cape Breton shakes in the echo of this distant boom
Part 4: Life on the cold side of the country's hottest economy
Part 5: Frugal Norway saves for life after the boom
Part 6: The climatic costs of rapid growth
Part 7: Looking for solutions to the carbon conundrum
Part 8: Canada, the world and the oil sands
I thought Part 5 in particular was very interesting. I had read before about Norway's ultra-sensible treatment of their significant oil revenues, but this was a good summary, and the comparisons with Alberta and Canada were very telling, I thought.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A black and white issue
During this last week, the Toronto District School Board trustees have narrowly but definitively passed a contentious motion to open the door to what it's proponents are calling "Afro-centric schools".
It has generated no end of acrimonious discussion on local talk radio, and a fair amount of bad feeling, as much in Toronto's black community as anywhere else.
The final vote was a narrow 11-9, which maybe indicates just how contentious it really is, and was essentially just a vote on the broad principle (as opposed to principal) involved, especially as it seems far from clear just what "Afro-centric" means, and no locations or grades or firm budgets or even firm timing have been finalized (although, timing-wise, September 2009 has been put forward, and cost-wise we seem to be looking at almost $1 million).
The province of Ontario has been unequivocal in asserting that no new provincial money will be available for it, so any investment in such a project will have to come out of current capital and operating budgets, and the Board is notoriously underfunded already.
So it seems to me that worsening the underfunding of the rest of the school system on a point of principle is wrong-headed. But maybe that point of principle is sufficiently important and sufficiently "right" for us to overlook this? Unfortunately, no.
Undoubtedly the proposal is well-intentioned, but in my opinion and, that of many other commentators both, black and white, misguided.
The intention and primum mobile of the proposal is to address the school dropout rate for English-speaking students of Caribbean descent, which is up to 40% and clearly unacceptable. This proposed solution - which as far as I can tell involves attempting to integrate the history, culture and experiences of blacks in society into the regular curriculum (sort of a Black History Month all year round) - is supposed to miraculously fix that. As though learning about Marcus Garvey and Granville T. Woods is going to encourage these kids to merrily skip along to their schools in the mornings, and leave behind their gangs and street crime in preference for homework and exam revision!
Possibly more worrying is the movement towards segregation and marginalization it would represent. Angela Wilson, the who put forward the motion, claims "It's not about segregation, it's about self-determination" but, whether it is "about" segregation or not, that would be the end the result, and personally I don't want to go there.
I have heard too many black teachers and black mothers from risky areas argue against the proposal to be persuaded by it, and it seems like a dangerous first step down a slippery slope in the wrong direction.
By all means pump more public money into public education and into the most troubled parts of our community (whether they be predominantly Caribbean or not), but this is not the way to go.
It has generated no end of acrimonious discussion on local talk radio, and a fair amount of bad feeling, as much in Toronto's black community as anywhere else.
The final vote was a narrow 11-9, which maybe indicates just how contentious it really is, and was essentially just a vote on the broad principle (as opposed to principal) involved, especially as it seems far from clear just what "Afro-centric" means, and no locations or grades or firm budgets or even firm timing have been finalized (although, timing-wise, September 2009 has been put forward, and cost-wise we seem to be looking at almost $1 million).
The province of Ontario has been unequivocal in asserting that no new provincial money will be available for it, so any investment in such a project will have to come out of current capital and operating budgets, and the Board is notoriously underfunded already.
So it seems to me that worsening the underfunding of the rest of the school system on a point of principle is wrong-headed. But maybe that point of principle is sufficiently important and sufficiently "right" for us to overlook this? Unfortunately, no.
Undoubtedly the proposal is well-intentioned, but in my opinion and, that of many other commentators both, black and white, misguided.
The intention and primum mobile of the proposal is to address the school dropout rate for English-speaking students of Caribbean descent, which is up to 40% and clearly unacceptable. This proposed solution - which as far as I can tell involves attempting to integrate the history, culture and experiences of blacks in society into the regular curriculum (sort of a Black History Month all year round) - is supposed to miraculously fix that. As though learning about Marcus Garvey and Granville T. Woods is going to encourage these kids to merrily skip along to their schools in the mornings, and leave behind their gangs and street crime in preference for homework and exam revision!
Possibly more worrying is the movement towards segregation and marginalization it would represent. Angela Wilson, the who put forward the motion, claims "It's not about segregation, it's about self-determination" but, whether it is "about" segregation or not, that would be the end the result, and personally I don't want to go there.
I have heard too many black teachers and black mothers from risky areas argue against the proposal to be persuaded by it, and it seems like a dangerous first step down a slippery slope in the wrong direction.
By all means pump more public money into public education and into the most troubled parts of our community (whether they be predominantly Caribbean or not), but this is not the way to go.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Are there limits to growth?
An article by Doug Saunders in this weekend's Globe and Mail touches on something I have always wondered about, and now has me wondering all over again: Do we always have to relentlessly pursue economic growth? Will the world necessarily grind to a halt without it?
The conventional wisdom has always been that constant economic growth, as opposed to economic stasis, is necessary, and that without it endemic poverty and mass unemployment would result.
The article mentions the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" report back in the 70's and Herman Daly's theory of steady-state economics. In the current climate of increased environmental awareness and increased worldwide democracy and health improvements, is it time to re-visit these concepts?
I am no economist, but I have always, since back in the 80's, questioned the assumption that economic growth (and as much of it as possible) is a given, mainly with the intention of encouraging equality in an ever-polarizing world, and to alleviate the environmental pressures which growth inevitably brings.
I know it is all tied up with increasing and ageing populations, free trade vs. managed economies, etc, etc, and I don't profess to have all the solutions. And neither do The Club of Rome or Herman Daly for that matter.
But I can't help but wonder if, in a changing world, we shouldn't be letting go of some of these perennial underlying assumptions, in much the same way as the once sacrosanct theory of monetarism had it's day and then was all but abandoned when it's drastic side-effects became too severe and untenable.
I will do some homework on steady-state and zero-gowth economics, for my own edification, but unfortunately I am not the one running the world.
The conventional wisdom has always been that constant economic growth, as opposed to economic stasis, is necessary, and that without it endemic poverty and mass unemployment would result.
The article mentions the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" report back in the 70's and Herman Daly's theory of steady-state economics. In the current climate of increased environmental awareness and increased worldwide democracy and health improvements, is it time to re-visit these concepts?
I am no economist, but I have always, since back in the 80's, questioned the assumption that economic growth (and as much of it as possible) is a given, mainly with the intention of encouraging equality in an ever-polarizing world, and to alleviate the environmental pressures which growth inevitably brings.
I know it is all tied up with increasing and ageing populations, free trade vs. managed economies, etc, etc, and I don't profess to have all the solutions. And neither do The Club of Rome or Herman Daly for that matter.
But I can't help but wonder if, in a changing world, we shouldn't be letting go of some of these perennial underlying assumptions, in much the same way as the once sacrosanct theory of monetarism had it's day and then was all but abandoned when it's drastic side-effects became too severe and untenable.
I will do some homework on steady-state and zero-gowth economics, for my own edification, but unfortunately I am not the one running the world.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Dear Diary...
The worst possible reason for a blog entry is to assure people that I am still alive.
Clearly, given that my last entry was a full month ago, very little recently has caught my notice and/or exercised my imagination enough to galvanize me into putting index finger to keyboard.
I have absolutely no interest in the US primaries, no comment on the high-profile trials of Lord Black and the pig farmer from B.C., and the campaign to rescue Christmas from the grips of politically correct bureaucrats leaves me cold. Benazir Bhutto assassinated? Chaos and rioting in Kenya? Lamentable, but hardly surprising.
I think I have been a bit discouraged by the complete lack of interest in my blog. I wasn't exactly expecting a deluge of correspondence and a flaming, dong-dong, online discussion or anything of that sort. But I thought that maybe the odd indication that someone somewhere is actually reading these pieces might not be too much to expect. As it is, I have absolutely no evidence that anyone apart from me has ever come across these pages, which is a bit depressing. Does that sound pathetic?
Maybe I should just call it Dear Diary...
Clearly, given that my last entry was a full month ago, very little recently has caught my notice and/or exercised my imagination enough to galvanize me into putting index finger to keyboard.
I have absolutely no interest in the US primaries, no comment on the high-profile trials of Lord Black and the pig farmer from B.C., and the campaign to rescue Christmas from the grips of politically correct bureaucrats leaves me cold. Benazir Bhutto assassinated? Chaos and rioting in Kenya? Lamentable, but hardly surprising.
I think I have been a bit discouraged by the complete lack of interest in my blog. I wasn't exactly expecting a deluge of correspondence and a flaming, dong-dong, online discussion or anything of that sort. But I thought that maybe the odd indication that someone somewhere is actually reading these pieces might not be too much to expect. As it is, I have absolutely no evidence that anyone apart from me has ever come across these pages, which is a bit depressing. Does that sound pathetic?
Maybe I should just call it Dear Diary...
Friday, December 07, 2007
We used to be better than this
Ho hum. Another major climate change summit, more prevaricating, and more embarrassing Canadian inaction (or, worse, negative action).
At the Bali conference, long-term US foot-dragging has dragged down Canada and Japan, which seem to have joined together in an unholy trinity of nay-sayers, arguing that local economics takes precedence over international ecology. If it is going to cost us money then, sorry, we can't do it.
I have this nasty suspicion that the rest of the world probably thinks that this is representative of the views of the general population. Certainly, any kudos Canada might have had as a force for good in the field of the environment (although in reality it is some years now since we have deserved any such kudos) is now well and truly shot.
As usual, the main excuse for inaction is the old one of "Well, if China and India are not committed to anything, then why should we? So nyer!" Is there then no place any more for principle, for doing the right thing, for leading by example? If we don't sign on, how can we expect China and India to? If we wait until everyone is on board, the ship will be long sunk.
I am no great fan of Kyoto, but for now it's all we have, a symbolic first step in the right direction. No-one, including me, will believe us if we say that we will break our commitment to Kyoto, but then do more later, and why should they?
Neither can we wait until some miraculous deal is struck which meets all the Tories' conditions (if that will ever happen) before starting to think about what needs to be done to achieve it. By then, still more time will have passed, and the task will be all the more difficult.
It's long past time for some serious action on the issue, whatever protocols are signed or not signed by whoever. If necessary (and it would be), we pay for the carbon credits we need to get through Kyoto, and let that be a lesson to us.
But enough already of this whining and foot-dragging. We used to be better than this.
At the Bali conference, long-term US foot-dragging has dragged down Canada and Japan, which seem to have joined together in an unholy trinity of nay-sayers, arguing that local economics takes precedence over international ecology. If it is going to cost us money then, sorry, we can't do it.
I have this nasty suspicion that the rest of the world probably thinks that this is representative of the views of the general population. Certainly, any kudos Canada might have had as a force for good in the field of the environment (although in reality it is some years now since we have deserved any such kudos) is now well and truly shot.
As usual, the main excuse for inaction is the old one of "Well, if China and India are not committed to anything, then why should we? So nyer!" Is there then no place any more for principle, for doing the right thing, for leading by example? If we don't sign on, how can we expect China and India to? If we wait until everyone is on board, the ship will be long sunk.
I am no great fan of Kyoto, but for now it's all we have, a symbolic first step in the right direction. No-one, including me, will believe us if we say that we will break our commitment to Kyoto, but then do more later, and why should they?
Neither can we wait until some miraculous deal is struck which meets all the Tories' conditions (if that will ever happen) before starting to think about what needs to be done to achieve it. By then, still more time will have passed, and the task will be all the more difficult.
It's long past time for some serious action on the issue, whatever protocols are signed or not signed by whoever. If necessary (and it would be), we pay for the carbon credits we need to get through Kyoto, and let that be a lesson to us.
But enough already of this whining and foot-dragging. We used to be better than this.