Police state? Thanks, Black Block.

Firstly, kudos to the Globe and Mail for speaking to and publishing the words of those involved in the Black Block techniques at the G8/G20.
It makes clear the motivation behind the violence - lash out against the corporate entities that are allegedly oppressing the populace.

“Look here, look at the reaction to austerity measures in Greece, look at the anger surrounding BP in the Gulf,” Mr. Bowen said. “The whole global economy is coming down. We are going to kick it until it breaks.”

One black blocker even argued the vandalism was helping spread the messages of non-violent protesters.

He claimed that Black Bloc acts as “a wrecking ball” that clears the way for other protest groups to state their various cases. Smashing windows at Hudson’s Bay Co., for instance, “actually opened up space for Canadians to stop and think about the colonial history of HBC,” Mr. Hundert wrote.

I see this as a teachable moment - an opportunity to restate what's evident in the way media covers protests marred by violence.
Destruction takes the lead. Your violent acts don't clear the way for other messages. They don't carry any political message through editors' filters. Violence is an opaque lens on the real issues that have upset you and motivated you to kick and smash.
If you're truly anarchists as you're often described, then maybe you're happy that the violence focuses the debate on the power of police instead of the politics affecting our daily lives.
You would do anything to elicit a heavy-handed police response, undermining public confidence in the social order.
But outside your living-room revolutionary brigades, there's a public that may well side with police in this debate. They see your antics as deplorable, and therefore the police justified in their use of force.
For that sizable part of the populace, you reinforce the need for a heavy-handed law and order state. You make the subversion of civil liberties seem like a necessary recourse to keep store windows in place.
The media you're aiming to saturate? Reporters are told to report at risk of arrest, or to leave.
Suddenly the list of your opposition grows - it's the corporations and governments, then it's the media, then it's the populace itself. Who exactly are you with? Who are you serving?
Do you care? Or are emotional fits enough to scratch that itch for action on your grievances?

Is education the wisest focus?

Michael Ignatieff stood before Canadians Sunday to try and convince them he's feeling their every-man pain ... by reminding us all he's a professor.
Hit 'em with textbooks, he said in his convention closing speech Saturday.
Well, maybe he offered a bit more nuance:
"A recovery strategy must be a strategy for learning," he proposed for our ailing economy. He folded in the need for early childhood education, easier access to finances needed for post-secondary schooling, fighting illiteracy and improving the education system for Aboriginal peoples.
Smile and nod policy, all.
But will offering voters a lesson drive them to the ballot box?
I've never seen a poll that put education as a top issue of concern for voters. Right now it's the economy.
So yet another Liberal leader is proposing to fix the economy with indirect but expensive policies. It was incredibly difficult to link the Green Shift to economic prosperity because you can at no point say, "if I spend a dollar, you get a job." In this case, it's more like, "if I spend a dollar, you'll get an education, which should help you get a job - if they economy is good."
It's seems simple enough, but little more than "tax carbon, which you don't like, and save on income taxes, which you like."
It's good policy, but tough politics.
Like saying we need a green economy reached through an environmental focus, trying to tackle the economy through improved education makes sense. In an election campaign, however, it comes off as a dodge to the main issue.
It wasn't until Dion dropped the Green Shift and addressed the economy directly that even a breath of wind filled his campaign sails.
MI would also have to posit this professorial solution without sounding like a professor - arguably his biggest unconquered weakness.
Considering every speaker leading up to Michael's speech spoke almost exclusively about the need to win, I'm a bit surprised Liberals are willing to travel the winding road again.
Here's hoping it doesn't lead to the political wilderness.

Its the time of the season for voting

A gem I stumbled upon thanks to CBC's embrace of iTunes: the At Issue panel final session from a few weeks ago.

Interesting idea was touched upon, and I'd like to add a bit.

Heibert, Coyne, Gregg and Murphy stumbled upon the idea in chatting about federal election timing (they all later nominated the question as the most overdiscussed of the political year) that Dion et Green Shift are best to move before the winter season, when those home heating bills start to roll in -- the idea being that even though Dion could sidestep the high gas prices (in argument, at least) by pointing out his plan does not tax gas, he would have no answer to people's stress over the thought of even higher gas bills other than to say that, uhhh, there'll be some money coming to help that . . . next year.

So, it may be the winter of dismay for the Liberals, but the Harper government may not be able to stand the heat of the summer.

Since climate change fell upon popular awareness, every major weather event has seemed to trigger a connection with a need to get to work on global warming. If Canada faces an extremely hot or busy summer storm season, the tough talk of paying a price for carbon would at least seem viscerally justified.

This all leaves (pardon the pun) the fall as go time for the Liberals. One has to think that if Dion and party cannot sell the Green Shift in the period of a summer and an election, the thing is truly an albatross.

Looking far back, but not too far

A handy consequence of posting so infrequently: the first thing you see is an old post that is of the right vintage to uncork and taste.

Interesting to look at the last paragraph of my last post before the update. Now, Silly Hillary, who clearly along with many other people does not read this blog, decided to hold out to a bitter end before quitting the race. Despite that, Obama is in the lead according to every poll that I've seen. My argument slain? Hardly.

Mainly, Obama has been chasing hard after blue collar centrist votes with several policy shifts to the middle (I generally don't penalize folk for moving to the centre, hense I'll leave flip flop in the dictionary) and a lot of face time in some rather red states (July 4 in Montana?). This is of course, entirely logical and expectable, and my previous observation was hardly a eureka discovery -- but, it's nice to confirm that I'm at least starting from a sane point of view.

Unholy union may be neccessary

The New York Times notes two trends related to organizational vote in the Pennsylvania primary.

9:39 p.m. | Signs, Signs, Signs: Check out the picture of the Clinton rally on our site. What jumps out is how many union signs are there. We noticed this at Senatr Clinton’s rally late Monday night at the Palestra. The unions _ AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers among them _ have stood by her. This may be good for the TV backdrop but it emphasizes her institutional support, not a rising up of the grassroots.

In fact, among white union members with no college education, she is winning almost three-quarters of the vote. That’s significant.

While it is one thing to have unaffiliated workers voting en masse for one particular candidate, it's another when unions power one to victory. Unions are core Democrats, but have, in past, turned Republican (known as Reagan Democrats).

Two possibilities prevail:

By holding in the contest, Clinton is unintentionally working to drive Reagan Democrats back into the Red fold. The bitter rhetoric of her campaign, her tagging of Obama as an elite, may well turn unioner attitudes toward Obama sour if (or when) he takes the nomination. This would be potentially disastrous for the Democrats. One should note that during his 2000 primary bid, John McCain chased
the same Reagan Democrat votes that are fueling Clinton's survival. Bitter attitudes plus a friendly GOP message could collapse the grandstand beneath Obama, who has proven appeal in traditional red states but needs the confidence of traditional Democrats in order to pursue and capitalize those Red state votes in November. Betting on a turn in Mississippi seems foolish if Pennsylvania goes Republican.

Obama has shot his candidacy in the foot with the god and gun loving comments. If, as some critics have suggested, Obama's rhetoric is truly empty, then perhaps this was the sign; or, perhaps his oftly-cited "authentic" tone may have turned around on him. Even Obama believers will have to concede that the comments made him look like a pretty marginalized candidate: one who speaks largely to a class of urban idealists who, by a long stretch, do not form a majority in America. Insulting the pride, lifestyle and worldview of any group of people is a sure path to eliciting a powerfully negative emotional reaction. Obama dropped a seed of defeat with that comment, and these results may be sign that it has begun to sprout. An irrational, emotional turn against Obama would seal his fate in November.

In the frame of either understanding, the best solution is for Hillary to quit the race as soon as possible and genuinely work with Obama to sway the unions, and blue-collar Democrats, into his favour. Obama's message could be reshaped to keep traditional democrats in the fold, especially after two Bush Republican terms and with so few policy differences between the candidates. Hillary, in contrast, has proven throughout the campaign to be too polarizing a figure to reach out to independents and new Democrats, a quality needed against McCain's independent appeal. Obama still has the best electablility formula, with age and voice that suit a desire for change far more than the 70-some-year-old McCain, but that equation wains with each Hillary attack or chance for ill-informed misspeak without proper coaching.


UPDATE:

I'm not sure the 9 point margin really lends favour to either perspective i discussed. There seemed to be particular regional issues for Obama from what I'm reading, and the issues of spending and ground organization will have played a large factor. Mr. Obama clearly has the money, and evidently not the machine -- the opposite can be said for Ms. Clinton. Those factors aside, another interesting factor arose: voters who named the economy as their top issue in exit polls voted strongly (56 to 44 per cent) in favour of Clinton. Considering Obama lost Pittsburgh and almost all of the rest of rural Penn., I'd say he needs to bring forth, or at least passionately express an economic plan before Indiana to have a hope of scoring a decisive win there. His straight talk has fallen on deaf ears in manufacturing America.

Into the wild: a preamble to some grand thoughts, I'm sure

Watched Into the Wild this weekend.

First off, what an incredible story ... the fact that it was based on a real-life story showed in the shining development of the main character and the salient notations of the sister. Life is strange and wonderful.

I was deeply affected by and related strongly to this movie. A week ago I sat perched atop a cliff overlooking the Jasper-area valley and felt, I believe, the same thrill as Chris would have: an unsullied sense of personal achievement, which also serves to make the view rewarding and satisfying you couldn't find without the work of climbing.

Yet, sitting there, I found myself in the exact same paradox as Chris found himself prior to his death (no, I was not contemplating jumping ... would have done the trick from that height, though): seeing this gorgeous view and indulging the feeling it induced, but wanting so much to share what I could see. I took a picture at that moment, and some have told me that the view looks amazing. Yet, I know that there's little sensation behind that mention.

Yet, I have climbed mountains with people before and found myself feeling isolated from their perspective: I think it is truly an individual experience, standing on top of a mountain. So, why the yearning?

I can fully picture sitting atop a peak with a best friend or significant other, but imagine that, at the moment, one dynamic would take precedence: the relationship between me and the other person, or relation between me and the environment. Which would take you? Truly telling of person.

Expect thoughts on the answer soon.

Big Love for civility

For those of you deprived of well-written television (which should be nearly everyone, from well before the writers went on strike), you have to check out an HBO show called Big Love.
The series follows the trials and tribs of a polygamist family living in secret in the suburbs of a city in Utah.
The show is socially insightful in a way similar to All in the Family: it takes taboo subjects and throws them on screen for you with all their beauty and ugliness in full view.
Of course, having to hide their lifestyle is a constant source of conflict in the series. Everyone the family runs into has an opinion (keep in mind, the show is set in the Mormon state with its sorted history with polygamy). Some are certainly ready, willing, and aching to expose any polygamist they see. However, the vast majority seem to disapprove, but take a "stay out of the bedroom" approach when they come into direct contact with a family.
A sentiment bubbles that could feed a witch-hunt, but never seems to boil over.
Rather, people seem content to shove things back under the carpet when they slip out. This is far from a genuine or honest approach, but it keeps the peace.
To me, this is an expression of citizenship.
People take pains daily to simply avoid making themselves uncomfortable. But the show expresses a logic behind letting polygamy be, so long as its not abusive (most reported and prosecuted polygamy cases have come to light because of accusations of abuse first.) Every citizen of a community, be it a religious or civic one, has an interest in maintaining civility and peace.
The vast majority are not polygamists and wouldn’t suffer if they were all arrested. Most are against polygamy. However, tolerance is maintained because it is a tone that permeates all the interactions between citizens in their community.
In the face of this notion I consider what the Harper government’s latest move to leave a Canadian death row inmate in the U.S. hanging (or stuck with a lethal needle.)
We have arrived at a day, it seems, when the politicisation of our citizenship is clear and present.
The decision has either, knowing Harper’s penchant for strategizing, a vote-winning (or solidifying) intention or is driven by pure ideology.
Ronald Allen’s crimes have already been committed. He will not walk free in any case. This is not an issue of safety, but rather of ideology.
We have known, like the citizens of the community in Big Love, that attacking individuals hardly leads to peace and civility. Law, ruled by angry mobs attacking this cause or that, leaves everyone unsure of what is sacred and what one can expect.
Harper’s move has let a populist (though not very popular according to polls) sentiment that would like to see murderers killed by a state rule at the cost of the sanctity of our citizenship.
Canada is known to embrace stands, like those in favour of gay marriage, that may not be supported by mass opinion but stand nonetheless for inalienable rights.
The citizens of Utah in Big Love have embraced that same notion of maintaining civility. Yet, we let ours go. Let the witch-hunts begin.