Poll Results: Why We Care (And Don't Care)

I was interested to find out what exactly made you guys care about politics, and I was slightly surprised with the answers. They made sense, but I was expecting some slightly different trends. (Image: Laila Lalami) Relatively unanimously, participants were interested in politics because of their principles and to ensure they had a word in what affected them. Beyond those two points, the analysis becomes more complicated.

Here is the raw data on the poll:

To me, the most interesting number is the stated lack of interest in political leaders, when that often ends up being all campaign are about. People care about the scandal, promises, and attitude of potential leaders -- sometimes even more than they care about the policies they represent. Ideally a leader represents both themselves and their platform; however, it seems to me that if either aspect shows too many cracks, both problems with platforms or charisma can be equally damaging.

It doesn't surprise me that nearly a majority of respondents considered "Helping Everyone" to be a priority given that this is a progressive blog. The concept of fighting corruption doesn't always come up in the rhetoric of the left, but I noticed that some of my most popular posts deal with the issue of corruption. Thus, I found the low number of people concerned with corruption to be a bit surprising.

I can relate to all of these pre-mentioned options in the poll, but obviously I don't have any trouble caring about politics so I urge anyone who reads the blog regularly and voted for "It's hard to care" to let me know why. Obviously a much larger percent of the population feels this way given the exceptionally low turn-out in the last Canadian election. Even though there was a huge election in the U.S., I think it would have been bigger with a similar level of excitement a few decades ago.

Thankfully no one voted I don't know. I think this was a pretty interesting poll and to those who voted, and those who didn't, write a comment and let me know why you care about the things you do. I'm interested to hear it.
Read more...

Media Ban on Return of Fallen Soldiers: Insult or Respect?

In many countries involved in recent wars, some have questioned whether or not the media should have access to the return of fallen soldiers to the mainland. In the United States a media ban was in effect for 18 years until the ban was lifted early this year. (Image: NY TImes blogs) In Canada, there was a short-lived ban imposed by the Conservative government in mid 2006. An outcry by the public and military along with the families of the soldiers forced the government to end the ban a month later.

As a compromise in Canada, the family must agree to allow media coverage. All next-of-kin members must make this decision unanimously. This condition also appears in the Obama decision. Before the ban in the United States was lifted, the media could not record:

• The return of the coffin
• Any ceremonies at the airbase
• And, the transportation of the coffin from the base

I personally agree with the decision to allow consensual coverage of the return. While the notion of media coverage may seem to trivialize the importance of the life of a human who went to war with the best intentions in mind, no one will view these reports as entertainment or any other type of disrespect. People want to respect and honour what the soldiers gave to their countries. They did not die because the wanted to be viewed as heroes, but, if the coverage is done right, they deserve the moment of recognition this will give them.

The first returning soldier to receive media coverage in the United States will be Air Force Staff Sergeant Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Viriginia, who died in Afghanistan on April 4th.
Read more...

White House Making Strict Bailout Demands

In a somewhat surprising turn of events Rick Wagoner, the General Motors CEO expected to resign later this year, has stepped down effective immediately at request of the White House. The White House is planning to announce its auto recovery plans tomorrow. (Image: LeftLane News) According to reports, President Obama pushed for Wagoner's resignation before announcing his plans. General Motors has been in the middle of the auto bailout controversy, as it tries to recover from years in the red.

General Motors has tried to answer the calls for quality coming from car buyers, but has been unable to shine its tarnished brand. Under Wagoner, quality at General Motors has improved, but sales have continued to slide as a result of momentum towards key competitors. Unlike Ford, who has been able to turn around financially, General Motors has sought funding from congress to prevent the company from entering bankruptcy.

As I mentioned earlier, Obama is on the verge of announcing his administration's plan for the ailing industry. Chrysler and GM are both in desperate need of help, and we will see how the administration answers these calls tomorrow. I hope that GM gets some help, but really think Cerberus needs to step up and help its company, Chrysler. A private company shouldn't be getting public funds; it just doesn't make sense!

Wagoner has done relatively well in a bad situation, but for the sake of public perception this type of move might be needed. Out with the old, in with the new. I'll leave you with this video from Wagoner and other CEOs appeal to Congress for money:

Read more...

Poll Results: No Option on Bailouts?

Many of you voted on my most recent poll asking if you believe letting companies fail is a viable solution. Besides a few outlying votes, most of you believe that we won't solve anything by letting companies fail. (Image: CNN) Though the vote was split between Maybe and No, I tend to agree with the sentiment that we have seen enough damage to Wall Street. So what do we do? Bail out every business in this economy? Every citizen too?

Here are the results:

No, obviously that doesn't work. We witnessed the stock market crash after the Bush Adminsitration let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt. That single major investment bank's failure is credited with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dipping to 8000. But who should the government target to prop up?

Well, the theory of putting the money into banks seems logical. Failing financial institutions would make money disappear and cost the federal government more than bailouts. Why? The federal government insures your bank account up to a certain figure; that means that if a bank fails, the government gives you the money covered.

So banks make sense, but what about other industries? Let's speak quickly about the auto industry. Publicly held companies with no other backing like Ford and GM represent a valid option because they employ so many. Many industries like auto parts also rely on these companies. But, what about Chrysler? Chyrsler is privately held. It's parent company, Cerberus, has holdings that can prop up the business, but it has refused to thus far. This is why I agree with the "Maybe" stance more in this poll.

Major industry-driving companies and banks are fair game for bailouts in my opinion. I draw the line with smaller, privately held companies. I also think businesses should be required to do more. GM and Ford are going somewhere with their plans, but Chrysler is a big mess. The company matters! Smart bailouts help; too many bailouts burden.
Read more...

CBC Mini-Series Blames Death of Old Media on Internet

Well, as big of a role as the Internet may have on the death of traditional media, there’s more to it. Newspaper, Radio, and Television coexisted for nearly a century despite being introduced as replacements. (Image: CBC) So why is it that the Internet is suddenly destroying the traditional media? Why are publishers stopping the presses or radio stations consolidating? It is the promise of the Internet that caused these things, not the medium itself.

The promise of the Internet is interactivity; we have control as users. We’ve made the shift from passive consumers to active creators. Something newspaper, radio, and television cannot provide at the same level as the Internet. Below are responses to each segment in the series:

The End of Radio

Click Here To View This Episode

The focus of this episode is on the ability of a user to pick what they want to hear. User selection is an important shift enabled by the Internet, but it is not a shift in the industry. More content is exposed, but profitability is still key. Podcasts let people share their thoughts to many, listen when and how you want, and reach more people, but it’s still the same model. Satellite or Internet broadcasting is growing, staying, but is not a revolution.

The End of Television

Click Here To View This Episode

Television continuing in a new form is what CBC should hope for as a broadcaster. TV was linear, but is now showing up on more and more devices however and whenever you want. Video blogs do not replace this medium; for them to match the production and content creation levels of television, the same bureaucracy would need to be recreated.

Portable devices can show both professional content and amateur content. The Internet enables this equality and opportunity; it doesn’t mean the end of big media. There's a shift in delivery, not in the inevitability of big players coming into existence.

The End of Print

Click Here To View This Episode

Print is dying, CBC would have us understand, because of blogging growth. Regular people’s blogs are becoming self-sustained small-businesses -- that is definitely a fact. The consensus of the interviews is that the gatekeeper is removed, resulting in a more active democracy. CBC’s failure to focus on this interactivity damages the overall discussion.

Journalists interviewed in the episode reject the power of bloggers; claiming they lack credibility. What they have that these journalists don’t is the collective intelligence. Margaret Atwood claims there is a physical connection to books; they are convenient and real. These are the sentiments of past generations. The Internet may only access 5% of the world’s knowledge, but how much does a book access? How much does a library? The Internet is growing and expanding; it is ahead now and will always be ahead.

Audio, Video, and Text are here to stay. Devices change and evolve. Technological advances consolidate many access methods into few, but that doesn’t change the structure of the system. Big media exists because popularity happens; because there is money to be made. CBC may be right that paper, television sets, and radio receivers are on their way out, but the industry isn’t. Integration and consolidation is the future.
Read more...

Harper Dividing Country; CBC Complacent again

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is again trying to divide Canadians sharply on issues. Meanwhile, the CBC seems to be practicing Yellow Journalism yet again as they report on the latest move by the current government. (Image: BBC) Stephen Harper's government decided to bar British Member of Parliament George Galloway from Canada due to supposed links to Hamas. Hamas has been deemed a terrorist organization by Canada; Galloway is accused of funding Hamas because of his attempts at providing relief to Palestinians after the 2008 invasion by Isreal.

The ties are weak at best, but Galloway is outspoken in his support for Palestinians and for peace in the Middle East. His support of Palestine has drawn negative attention from Jewish groups who see Galloway's efforts as supporting a group that seeks to destroy Isreal. Harper is playing into these divisions and politicizing the issue. So what has the CBC done that I find questionable?

Well, in the printed Globe and Mail and practically all results of a Google Image Search, Galloway is wearing normal attire, but CBC selected an image of Galloway wearing a Keffiyeh scarf -- a traditional patterned headdress for Arab men that is now often wrongly associated with Islamic terrorism. This type of association is often made by those who are passingly aware of the symbol. CBC's selection of this image is questionable at best -- the image goes one further due the the background architecture. Here is the image used by the CBC:

This is the second time I have blogged about irresponsible reporting by the CBC in a way that seems to satisfy the current government. Seeing this trend makes me question the CBC's independence from the government. I would expect this type of Yellow Journalism from a small-time, openly-biased paper like the London Free Press, but the CBC is supposed to be Canada's public, neutral news organization. The ironic part is that the CBC pulls such a manipulative trick while writing about free speech.

I encourage you all to read the Globe and Mail article and compare the background information they give to the information the CBC gives. Whether I agree or not with Galloway, I think everyone deserves a fair shake. Manipulative journalism denies everyone the information they need.
Read more...

Poll Results: America has a Huge Influence

About a week ago, I placed a poll in the sidebar asking you guys what level of influence you thought United States politics had on the world. It seems there is a clear consensus that the U.S. has a pretty big influence. (image: CNN) I agree with these results, as I'm sure most of you can tell by my endless flow of U.S. news on this blog. Sure, Michael Steele acting foolish doesn't hurt or help Canada and the world; but, generally speaking, U.S. policies set the precedence for other countries to follow.

Here are the results of the poll:

While a few disagree with my stance (and the stance of the majority), I think this paints a pretty clear picture. During the last election cycle in Canada, the United States Presidential election seemed to take up more of the newspapers. Is this a bad thing? Maybe.

We often hear concerns over the amount of American content pumped into Canadian households; should those concerns include political news? I think politics is different. It is like other content disputes in that the U.S. content is generally more interesting, but in this case it actually matters tremendously. Having more Canadian movies, television, or radio helps to ensure an independent cultural industry, but is Canada's democracy threatened by U.S. political news?

Maybe it is. When we examine the last election cycle and assume my observations were correct about American election content outweighing Canadian election content, it may explain why Canada's turnout was a nearly historic low. Do Canadians care more about American politics? Hopefully all it takes is an inspirational figure in our system. When will we get that? Who knows...

Look for a new poll tomorrow!
Read more...

Accessible Politics: Canada Edition

Alright, so let's get down to business. How does the Canadian Political system work? Who are the key figures? What are the main roles? Who really holds the power? (Image: Wikipedia) All of these questions have decent answers and I'll address them one by one. I should be clear from the start that the Canadian system has very little in common with the American system. Tomorrow I'll try my best to explain the American system, but it's far more complicated.

How does the Canadian Political System work? (Who holds the power?)

Canada has a very simple system because of how Parliament works. Unlike in America, we don't vote a person for Prime Minister. When we vote on election day, we vote for a member of parliament affiliated with a specific party. The party that wins the most members of parliament seats or the coalition that wins the most seats becomes the government. The leader of this party or group of parties is named Prime Minister. A government can survive if the Prime Minister steps down, but often an election is called in order to avoid angering the public.

Members of Parliament we vote for are part of the House of Commons. This group writes most legislation and has unopposed power, typically speaking. Their opposition could come from the Senate, which consists of individuals appointed for an unrestricted term by Prime Ministers. Though they have power to oppose, they tend to support the will of the House, acting in the same figurative role as the royal representative (the Governor General).

There are some more complex things, especially related to the royal involvement, but we won't get into that.

Who are the key figures?

• Stephen Harper - The current Prime Minister who had been leader of the opposition during the last Liberal government. His government currently has a minority of House seats, which means that it can be dissolved if the rest of the house votes to do so. Harper has yet to win a majority.
• Michael Ignatieff - The leader of the Liberal party (the official opposition party due to having won the second most votes). Ignatieff is relatively new to political life, as he spent many years teaching at universities such as Harvard and writing in the media. Ignatieff has avoided talk of a coalition government as he wants to rebuild the Liberal party without the NDP
• Jack Layton - Has been leader of the NDP for several election cycles. The party initially got a large boost under his leadership, but has since been in a slow decline. Layton was a proponent of a coalition government, but has yet been unable to convince Ignatieff.

There are of other figures, but these are the main power-players. Several historical figures that you should research if you are interested in this topic are: Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chrétien. All are relatively recent, but they are among the biggest names on the list of Canadian Prime Ministers.

What are the main roles?

• Prime Minister - Unlike the American President, the Prime Minister is elected as a member of parliament. The Prime Minister has theoretically more power than the President as Prime Ministers can order their party to vote as a group in one specific way.
• Leader of the Opposition - In a minority government, this role is very important as they usually hold all the swing-power needed to block legislation or vote non-confidence in the government (thus dissolving it). The leader of the opposition can also consolidate the other opposition parties in a minority government to form a majority government coalition.
• The Governor General - is the figurative head of state, representing the monarch of England. She holds authority over the formation of coalitions, the formation and dissolving of a government, among other things. Generally, the Governor General follows the direction of the Prime Minister, but theoretically is not bound by those recommendations.

There are many other key roles, including those of cabinet members, but we won't get into that detail. If you would like more information on the details of the Canadian government I would recommend using Wikipedia's article on the Government of Canada.
Read more...

Accessible Politics

For a while I've been thinking how hard it is to truly make politics accessible. I mean, unless you take the road of satire that is. (Image: Rickwrites) The fact of the matter is that some people just aren't interested in politics, but those people aren't who I'm taking about. My concern is for people who want to be involved in politics, but just can't understand the complex roles or petty squabbling. So how can I overcome this problem here at Thinking:Revised?

I think the best route I can take to make politics more accessible is to stay away from political jargon unless I explain it beforehand. For example, I'm sure a fair number of my readers know what an "earmark" is, but many don't. What is an earmark? It's jargon for the act of attaching a request for state project (schools, bridges, parks, entertainment, etc.) funding to an unrelated bill.

Then there's the issue of petty squabbling. The squabbling in politics is usually petty, but the underlying issues are big. Why is it petty then? Well, the problem with politics is that most issues are not fresh. Since they have already been debated on merit for generations, or even just a few decades, political commentators don't have anything new to say.

So, what can I do? To be honest, though I think it is blatantly obvious, I'm not exactly offering an unbiased viewpoint here. For me, I have taken the approach of satire for the most part. I think this can be effective when writing a biased style because if the satire is good everyone gets it. Petty squabbling should be made light of. The big issues are what deserve to be discussed seriously. Today I'll post the first of two post on the need-to-knows of politics. The first will focus on Canada, the second on the United States.
Read more...

The Crazy Socialist Communism of Canada (Not.)

So, Canada is a bunch of money hungry liberal socialists, eh? Not so fast. Recent reports have shown how Canada, the "Tax and Spend" capital of the world (or so say the neighbors to the south), has avoided the recession due to its active regulation. (Image: CBC) Crazy, eh? Well, I can't say I'm surprised. If there's one thing that U.S. style deregulation causes, it's chaos. There's no two-ways about it, regulation works -- deregulation doesn't.

So, how did Canada remain so prosperous despite it's lack of fiscal conservatism? Truth be told this success has little to do with the government. All the government had to do was pass laws requiring that financial institutions do things within certain constraints. No bailout or handouts, simple legislation.

Why those interested in the success of the financial system (read. right-wing politicians) don't believe in regulation confuses me greatly. The crash of a financial system benefits no one, especially not the private sector. It also doesn't prevent government growth. Regulation, it would seem, is fiscally conservative in its roots.

Being proactive costs nothing. Now, Canada's banks are some of the healthiest on the stock market, which means that Canadians who use these banks are safe from their money and savings disappearing. It also means these banks can continue to loan money without fear.

The article cited at the beginning of this post quotes an economist, Craig Alexander, who points out how regulation forces banks to think long-term. While it may have limited their short-term gains, it benefitted them in the long-term by forcing them to evaluate who they are loaning money to. This is a great success for the country and benefits everyone who has their money in Canadian banks.
Read more...