Canada is screwed in the long term
I’m not found of believing in miracles, but imagine for a second that one happens and after 2015 we have either a NDP or Liberal majority, or even some coalition arrangement of the two.
Either case will be better then what we have now, obviously, but in either case we’re still stuck with these schmucks in our chamber of “sober second thought.”
Some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s newly-appointed senators are emerging as global-warming skeptics in the wake of aggressive government positions to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, slam environmentalists and downplay potential damage caused by Canadian oil and gas exploration.
“I felt like it is kind of an insult to be a denier for a long time,” said Sen. Bert Brown, last month at a parliamentary committee studying energy policies. “It feels pretty good this morning.”
…
“I have to admit that what I read tells me that there is not a consensus among scientists,” [Senator Nancy] Greene Raine, another senator appointed by Harper, told the committee when it heard from Environment Minister Peter Kent, earlier last fall. “There are many different points of view and different kinds of research happening out there. One of the things that I am starting to see now is quite a few studies showing that we may be heading into a period of global cooling, which would maybe be a lot more problematic for Canada than global warming. Our country is on the cool side.”
Imagine for a second that a progressive government gets in to the House of Commons and passes the Jack Layton Climate Change Accountability Act. Once again, we’ll have to suffer through this ineffectual body blocking the legislation that could actually put some science-based targets on our emissions.
The only thing that may save our country is Harper’s own Senate-reform legislation that may force these senators to resign after 9 years.
Of course, then we may run into the situation where the senators realize the law has no teeth without a constitutional amendment and they refuse to step aside.
I don’t have much else to add. Basically we’re screwed.
Brand politics
Dan Gardner’s latest article compares the success of the Conservatives and failure of the Liberals in terms of their basic branding message.
He argues that one of the keys to the success of the Conservatives is that they have identified and sold their brand as “small government and individual liberty.” He rightly notes that their actions often contradict their own brand, but in marketing beliefs matter more than reality (this is why people still equate fiscally conservative with fiscally responsible).
He goes on to note that the only brand the Liberals have been holding onto is “the party that governs.” This worked fine when the Liberals were in power, or even in Official Opposition, since they were the natural alternative. Now, as a third-place party, though, the Liberals continue to look arrogant and like they stand for nothing.
He finishes by arguing that the Liberals should adopt a core theme of being “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” to differentiate themselves from both the Conservatives and the NDP. Gardner otherwise ignores the NDP in this piece, so it’s up to us to come up with what their key message is, perhaps “progress through cooperation” or more cheekily “The party that Jack built.” Going through the NDP’s preamble leaves it a bit ambiguous what the key message should be.
And here’s where the first chip in Gardner’s article appears.
While the idea of branding is pushed hard by marketing execs and gurus, it remains unclear if the evidence actually supports the notion that having a solid brand will improve your sales or whether the converse is the case.
In Hard Facts…, the evidence-based management book I recently reviewed, the authors are quite sceptical of claims that establishing a concrete strategy will lead to organizational success. Instead, they declare it a dangerous half-truth, noting that while strategy is important, leadership and effective implementation is often far more critical.
This point can be demonstrated in the Liberals where Bob Rae’s (interim) leadership has generally been seen as quite successful so far in revitalizing the party, including recent spikes in poll numbers.
Gardner somewhat acknowledges this point near the end of his article when he says
But it takes more than grassroots gab sessions to cultivate an identity and craft it into a brand. It takes calculated leadership of the sort that Stephen Harper deployed to make “small government and individual liberty” the Conservative standard.
I generally like Gardner’s work, and while there is some to like in this piece, it comes off as a weak argument to me, since he failed to really bring in any evidence for his assertion. He cites one example of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives as where effective messaging has worked, but with so many confounding variables (fundraising ability, willingness to smear and lie, increasing the vitriol, never-ending campaigning, centralizing all messaging, etc.) it’s a really weak case. If anything, the Conservative example shows us that strong leaders are more important than simple messages, perhaps the Liberals should keep looking for their next messiah leader (i.e. someone who can communicate).
Management for skeptics
At some point near the end of last semester I checked out Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton from the SFU library.
As a graduate student I had access to term loans from the library so I took the book out knowing that at some point I’d get through it. The book is due back this week, so naturally I rushed through and finished reading it just before I have to send it back. So here’s my review.
The book was written in 2006 and is Pfeffer and Sutton’s attempt to apply the techniques of evidence-based medicine to managerial practices. Pfeffer is a professor of organizational behaviour in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford and Sutton is Professor of Management Science & Engineering in the Stanford Engineering School.
Browse any bookstore’s business section and you’ll find more gurus and magic solutions than even the health and self-help sections. This book attempts to lay out the basics of the scientific method for the business world: Hypothesize, observe, and evaluate. They argue that decisions need to be made by considering the best data possible and that all projects need to be designed to collect useful data to evaluate their success and failure.
The middle section, and the bulk of the book, is dedicated to debunking some common half-truths in the business world. They then offer some sound, evidence-based advice on each topic.
Specifically, they cover whether work and the rest of life should be treated as fundamentally different; they ask whether the best organizations have the best people; they analyse the effectiveness of financial incentives; they look at whether a focus on strategy will help or hinder an organization; they ask whether organizations need to constantly change; and finally they question the role of great leaders in the success of organizations. These are all called dangerous half-truths because while there is some evidence to support each assertion, there is also much that gets overlooked by reducing complex management decisions to catchphrases like “change or die.”
For example, in the Strategy is Destiny? chapter, they note that organizations do need to know where they’re going, but spending too much time on developing a strategy has caused many companies to ignore the implementation of that strategy. Similarly, in Change or Die? they point out that all change is risky, and those risks are often underestimated by those championing change, while on the other hand to stagnate in any industry is potentially even more risky.
The entire book will be familiar ground for those in the skeptics movement, but what’s nice is that this pushes into an area often ignored by skeptics – even within our own organizations. We like to talk about the need to base medical decisions on hard facts and reason, but that advice is no less true when it comes to making business decisions. So while most of the book may come off as common sense, following the evidence is notoriously difficult for our species.
Finally, I will note that many skeptics argue for science-based rather than evidence-based medicine. This distinction is meant to identify the need to include logic and reasoning in the decision making process. Pfeffer and Sutton acknowledge the need for more than just raw data, especially when no data is available. In such cases, they argue that an idea should be questioned skeptically before adopting, especially the hidden assumptions of an idea. They also seem hesitant to use the phrase science-based to avoid confusion with the subject of scientific management.
For more on evidence-based management, check out their website.
John Horgan on Smart Meters
I wrote this morning’s post last night and scheduled it, assuming in part that it would be a few weeks to never when I received a reply (as if often the case with many politicians).
It was to my surprise then that one of the first emails I read this morning was a reply from John Horgan. He actually responded to me before I posted this letter!
Anyways, his response displays honesty and a respect for democracy. I think the skeptics can feel safe with the BC NDP for now.
Good morning Ian, thanks for the e-mail.
I have been monitoring the smart meter program since it was announced in 2007. I have significant concerns about the cost of the initiative and the absence of an independent assessment of the benefits or possible impacts of the technology. In addition, I do not believe time of use metering will have much impact on conservation. Our water based system is not as sensitive to hourly price spikes as thermal based utilities. Our conservation activities should be focused on reducing overall consumption, not just peak times as the smart meters plan proposes.
I am not a physician nor a physicist. I have received over 5000 e-mails from people that profess an intolerance to wireless radiation. I have no concern about impacts to my health, but they most certainly do. I was asked to table a petition as is my right and responsibility as a Member of the Legislature and that is what I did last Thursday - 15,528 signatures.
Evidence will always guide my personal activity. I do not fear monger. If you have issues with the StopSmartmeters website, I suggest you contact them.
Regards
John Horgan
Putting conspiracy theories to the vote
Inspired by the success of the No HST campaign that saw British Columbians of all stripes push back against a government bent on implementing policies against the popular will of the people an with no mandate, some fear mongers are hoping to repeat that success in the hopes of banning smart meters.
I almost want them to succeed in getting enough signatures so that we can really put this to a vote and we can have a clear demonstration of how intelligent our province really is. Although, I’m not quite willing to risk it against the ability of a vocal minority of quacks to sway a large number of people.
What’s more disappointing than the attempt to get a petition going is NDP energy critic and past leadership candidate John Horgan’s position
Meanwhile, NDP energy critic John Horgan plans to present another petition against smart meters, called Occupy Smart Meters, in the legislature. Horgan did not respond to Straight messages by deadline.
The Straight also notes that BC Hydro’s smart meter program spokesperson didn’t respond to calls by deadline, which makes me wonder how quickly they pushed this story through. Regardless, Horgan and the NDP’s position (further elucidated on Horgan’s website) may be one of criticizing the costs and heavy-handed implementation rather than unfounded technophobia.
Skeptical leadership and CFI drama
I have a huge 3000+ word post over at Canadian Atheist on drama at CFI Canada. If you dislike the messy underbelly of egos and in-group politics, take a pass.
Related to the entire theme though is a recent Dan Gardner article on leadership in isolation. In it he discusses recent studies that have found that we make poorer decisions the more power we get.
The concept can be understood in Darwinian terms. Ideas, like organisms, compete for their environment. A bad idea with a lot of competition will die off, while it may have a better chance if not exposed to variation. I’m not talking about memetics, since we actively select out good ideas when we can contrast them with bad ones.
If a leader is surrounded by yes-men and women who agree with him or her, the landscape of ideas generated will be very small. Meanwhile, when people are able to disagree without fear of punishment, more ideas can thrive and compete.
This is why, regardless of one’s own aptitudes and skills, power corrupts. Everyone is susceptible to it.
Being good skeptics, we need to identify and be aware of issues like this when we design our organizational structures. The root causes of the ongoing CFI Canada debacle are a lack of trust, transparency, and accountability. Without an open exchange of ideas, corruption and acrimony spread.
Such drama isn’t the exclusive purview of CFI and it’s corporate structure. Humanist Canada was embroiled in a strikingly similar controversy a year ago when their board split over the actions of their executive director. HAC seems to be getting back on track, potentially a testament of the ability of the membership to throw the board out and elect a new slate.
I don’t know the perfect solution to these types of divisions. I think there needs to be clear lines of accountability, and a means of dealing with divisions in boards that doesn’t make every issue so personal. I’m wide open to any and all ideas, and I’m definitely willing to try anything to ensure the stability and longevity of the BC Humanists for years to come.
Is Zero Tolerance the best response to bullying?
School bullying, especially bullying targeted against LGBTQQ children, is finally getting the attention it merits.
Rick Mercer’s viral rant on teen suicides (see below) has been viewed nearly half a million times in a mere week.
This morning on the radio, Mercer discussed the video with local indie rock station The Peak, and admitted he was overwhelmed with the unexpected – and positive – response.
Skeptical triple play
Every so often a number of stories pile up in my “I have opinions I want to express about this piece of news” list. Today’s theme is stories of interest to skeptics.
Oh Georgia Straight, why do you publish such crap?
Sometimes I appreciate the local coverage that the Georgia Straight provides. They’re coverage of the Vancouver election is extensive, and they’ve provided pages for every school and parks board candidate so far to get their word out. Hell, they questioned Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts on whether she though George Bush should be arrested for torture.
But then they have a day when they put out a pair of articles like they did last Thursday.
Troofer is no Gandhi
I subscribe to a lot of blogs and news feeds and read a lot in a day.
Out of all of these words that cross my eyes, some are worth sharing, and appear on my Google+ or Facebook streams. Some annoy me a bit more and I feel like writing about them. Sometimes I have the time and wit to feel like I can contribute, other times it sits as an open tab on my desktop for a week until it embarrasses me by not being written, and I close it.
And then there are the stories that I almost want to avoid because I don’t really want to add any voice to their absurdity. It’s a fine line between my need to spout opinions about these topics and my desire to see them go away. Some claims need to be addressed and dissected, others are barely deserving of ridicule.
I still can’t decide where this story fits, because it has several angles that are both intriguing and worthy of that derision.
A week ago Dick Cheney came to Vancouver to a backdrop of protesters and NDP MPs calling for the federal government to arrest him as a war criminal. The protests seem to go over well, with only one significant clash between the protesters and police who ensured the security of the event.
On the one hand, I strongly agree with the protesters. There is strong evidence that Cheney knowingly ordered American soldiers to torture Iraqis. While I don’t believe we should silence those who disagree with us, I would argue that our federal government at least ought to be consistent – considering it banned controversial British MP George Galloway from entering Canada in 2009 for his support of Palestine.
On the other hand, I am reticent to associate with some of these protesters
Pearson [charged with assaulting a police officer at the protest] is a founding member of the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society, an organization that questions the U.S. government’s official version of the events of September 11, 2001.
Pearson even dropped by the Georgia Straight yesterday, who was more than happy to give him more space for his story
Pressed if he ever has been accused of being a government provocateur or agent himself, Pearson responded: “I’m a little too radical for most people to think that way, I think. One thing I will emphasize is that I’m an activist, not a pacifist. You might want to write that down.”
Asked what that means, Pearson replied: “Exactly. What does that mean? I’m an activist. I’m not a pacifist. I’m not Gandhi. No. When somebody assaults me, I will stand up. I won’t just turn my cheek and take the other slap. That’s the difference. A pacifist would just take the slap. I won’t.”
A little part of me just wants to point and laugh at Pearson, the rebel with a broken cause. Ridiculing him as a way to discredit his faulty conspiracy theory. The best line I see in that quote is that the Straight actually quoted him saying “You might want to write that down.”
But it’s hard for me to disagree with Pearson’s protest here. Cheney is evil (remember, Cheney shot a man) and has faced no consequences for his actions.
Although, unlike Pearson, I see no evidence that Cheney ordered the Twin Towers destroyed through some extravagant cover-up.
Subscribe to posts