TORONTO, ONTARIO - This week's radio pick comes from Wisconsin Public Radio.
As I try to ignore the "war on Christmas" at this time of year, I look instead for things that we all have in common, and To The Best of Our Knowledge provided such a nugget this week. I never thought of it this way before, but post "peak-oil" and other environmental disaster scenarios represent a "ecological apocalypse" similar to religious visions of apocalypse according to Colin Beaven. A variety of views on eco-revolution were presented in a 53-minute program.
Listen to To The Best of Our Knowledge "Going, Going, Going Gone"
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Holiday: CBC Sounds of the Season
Host Matt Galloway and a guest reacted to an ironic sports joke during the taping of CBC Radio One's "Here and Now" during the "Sounds of the Season" on 5-December-2008
TORONTO, ONTARIO - On Friday, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) held its annual Sounds of the Season fundraiser for the Daily Bread Food Bank. Held in the Glenn Gould Studio in CBC's headquarters building on Front Street in downtown Toronto, the event featured live broadcasts of the two long-form, drive-time local Toronto broadcasts (Metro Morning and Here and Now) and the taping of two Saturday programs (Fresh Air and Big City, Small World), all broadcast on Radio One (CBLA 99.1 FM in Toronto).
Despite getting in line well in advance of the door opening for the afternoon drive-time "Here and Now" broadcast, I was not seated until the second hour of the show, but I was still able to enjoy the final two hours of the program. What truly surprised me was that the program was being done completely live--no delay whatsoever as is now common even on supposedly-live broadcasts in the digital era. When I turned on my walkman just to see how the top of the hour national news was being handled, I was surprised to hear in my earbuds exactly what was directly reaching my ears in the 350-seat auditorium.
CBC Newsman Robert Fisher and Traffic Reporter Jim Curran, both broadcast veterans, at the Sounds of the Season broadcast on 5-December-2008
That made the smoothness of the broadcast all the more remarkable. Despite the live audience, despite the substantial number of guests (all music for the three hours was performed live), despite the unfamiliar surroundings, the broadcast was nearly mistake-free. If I hadn't been watching him with my own eyes, I would never have known that host Matt Galloway was not in his normal studio, and the same applies to news anchor Robert Fisher and traffic reporter Jim Curran. I have seen this so many times from the CBC now that I am convinced that they are the best in the world.
Juan Cloran and Blair Williams performed a scene from "It's A Wonderful Life" during the CBC "Sounds of the Season" on 5-December-2008
Many of the normal "Here and Now" features and guests came by during the broadcast, from theatre critic Lynn Slotkin to "News at Six" host Bernie McNamee, but what really made the broadcast were the special features. Probably the most unique segment was the performance of about ten minutes of "It's A Wonderful Life" done by the Canadian Stage Company, a direct throw-back to the early days of radio.
The Barenaked Ladies performed "Green Christmas" and "Jingle Bells" during the broadcast of "Here and Now" during the CBC "Sounds of the Season" on 5-December-2008
The variety of musical genres is diverse on a normal day on "Here and Now", but on this day, the live performances spanned an amazing range. Cuban rapper Telmary was followed by How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? winner Elicia MacKenzie and the cast of the Mirvish production of The Sound of Music. Indo-Canadian singer Bageshree Vaze sang in Hindi while the Barenaked Ladies played games with English--and I've only mentioned half the performers.
Daily Bread Executive Director Gail Nyberg provided Matt Galloway with an update on fund-raising during the "Sounds of the Season" on 5-December-2008
Of course, the purpose of the day was raising money to feed the hungry, and by the end of Here and Now, more than $116,000 and more than 7000 pounds of food had been collected.
The live broadcast of "Here and Now" ended with a sing-a-long of "Deck the Halls". I'll probably never sing with Elicia MacKenzie, the Barenaked Ladies' Steven Page, and Robert Fisher at the same time ever again.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Politics: Only the Liberals are Shaky
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I wanted to substantially avoid Canadian politics for awhile since parliament is prorogued until late January, but there is a point that needs to be made. All this material about the "coalition" falling apart is not precisely correct--what is really falling apart is the Liberal Party itself. Sound familiar?
Like it or not, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois aren't likely to withdraw from their arrangements with respect to the coalition on their own volition. For the NDP, this is not just a chance to remove the Conservatives and Stephen Harper from power, but a chance to actually do some governing as part of the coalition. After being demonized as separatists (and falsely called part of the coalition) by the Conservatives, the Bloc has no interest in anything that could be construed as helping the Conservatives.
The only party that might pull out of the coalition is the Liberals, and that's what Liberal Member of Parliament Jim Karygiannis really meant when he said yesterday that he "cannot see it holding together" until the end of the year. The antecedent of "it" in his sentence was clearly supposed to be the coalition, but the coalition isn't changing unless the Liberals initiate it.
The problem, just as it was in the last election campaign, is that the Liberal party seems utterly incapable of rallying behind present leader Stéphane Dion. While I have long had difficulty understanding the internal rejection, it is clear that the Dion response to Harper's statement on Wednesday night--which some have dubbed the "Blair Witch Project" speech for its poor production values--didn't help Dion's standing. While the Prime Minister wasn't exactly impressive that night, Dion looked less polished than most high school student body presidents.
Furthermore, if the October election had a clear conclusion, it was that Dion had been rejected by Canadian voters. The Liberals were the only party to lose seats and their percentage of the vote was the lowest in the party's history. If anyone lacks a mandate to govern, it is Stéphane Dion, and that is the main substance of the argument that the coalition would be illegitimate which I happen to agree with. Change the leader of the coalition, especially to Michael Ignatieff, and suddenly a lot of people are much more comfortable about the idea.
When people like Jim Karygiannis say that the coalition will not last through the prorogation, what they are really saying is that Dion will not last as the coalition leader or as Liberal Party leader through the prorogation. It seems extremely likely that Dion will be replaced, and while that might open the door for the coalition to break up, that is not a foregone conclusion.
A Liberal leadership race is already underway, one that was supposed to finish in May. Instead, the Liberals will probably find a way to choose between Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Dominic LeBlanc as soon as possible. One assumes that LeBlanc, as the least known of the three, is unlikely to come out the winner. Between Rae and Ignatieff, there is a clear calculus. If Rae wins, there is the distinct possibility that more centrist MP's in the Liberal Party may cross the aisle and join the Conservative Party, giving the Conservatives a majority (this may happen anyway, but that's a topic for another day, and it is certainly more likely if Rae, a former NDP member, were to become leader). If Ignatieff were to become the leader, Rae supporters would have nowhere to go. For this reason, I expect Ignatieff to become Liberal Party leader, and thus the leader of the Coalition.
Ignatieff has seemed lukewarm about the coalition, particularly in light of negative poll numbers towards it, so it is possible that he might pull the plug on it, assuming the Conservatives are smart and present a reasonable budget in January (which I used to think was a given, but in light of the past few weeks, I wouldn't put anything past Harper). If the coalition does still exist and votes down the government, there is no way the Governor General will not call an election, considering that Prime Minister Harper will request it and one of the parties has a new leader. If the coalition folds and the Conservative government survives, then the next time the Conservatives overreach like they did in the Fiscal Update, the government will fall then and an election will be called.
The bottom line? I expect Michael Ignatieff will become the leader of the Liberal Party as soon as the party can figure out how to do it. Then, one way or another, there will be another election, and how that one turns out will have mostly to do with how the Conservatives and Stephen Harper behave between now and then.
Like it or not, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois aren't likely to withdraw from their arrangements with respect to the coalition on their own volition. For the NDP, this is not just a chance to remove the Conservatives and Stephen Harper from power, but a chance to actually do some governing as part of the coalition. After being demonized as separatists (and falsely called part of the coalition) by the Conservatives, the Bloc has no interest in anything that could be construed as helping the Conservatives.
The only party that might pull out of the coalition is the Liberals, and that's what Liberal Member of Parliament Jim Karygiannis really meant when he said yesterday that he "cannot see it holding together" until the end of the year. The antecedent of "it" in his sentence was clearly supposed to be the coalition, but the coalition isn't changing unless the Liberals initiate it.
The problem, just as it was in the last election campaign, is that the Liberal party seems utterly incapable of rallying behind present leader Stéphane Dion. While I have long had difficulty understanding the internal rejection, it is clear that the Dion response to Harper's statement on Wednesday night--which some have dubbed the "Blair Witch Project" speech for its poor production values--didn't help Dion's standing. While the Prime Minister wasn't exactly impressive that night, Dion looked less polished than most high school student body presidents.
Furthermore, if the October election had a clear conclusion, it was that Dion had been rejected by Canadian voters. The Liberals were the only party to lose seats and their percentage of the vote was the lowest in the party's history. If anyone lacks a mandate to govern, it is Stéphane Dion, and that is the main substance of the argument that the coalition would be illegitimate which I happen to agree with. Change the leader of the coalition, especially to Michael Ignatieff, and suddenly a lot of people are much more comfortable about the idea.
When people like Jim Karygiannis say that the coalition will not last through the prorogation, what they are really saying is that Dion will not last as the coalition leader or as Liberal Party leader through the prorogation. It seems extremely likely that Dion will be replaced, and while that might open the door for the coalition to break up, that is not a foregone conclusion.
A Liberal leadership race is already underway, one that was supposed to finish in May. Instead, the Liberals will probably find a way to choose between Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Dominic LeBlanc as soon as possible. One assumes that LeBlanc, as the least known of the three, is unlikely to come out the winner. Between Rae and Ignatieff, there is a clear calculus. If Rae wins, there is the distinct possibility that more centrist MP's in the Liberal Party may cross the aisle and join the Conservative Party, giving the Conservatives a majority (this may happen anyway, but that's a topic for another day, and it is certainly more likely if Rae, a former NDP member, were to become leader). If Ignatieff were to become the leader, Rae supporters would have nowhere to go. For this reason, I expect Ignatieff to become Liberal Party leader, and thus the leader of the Coalition.
Ignatieff has seemed lukewarm about the coalition, particularly in light of negative poll numbers towards it, so it is possible that he might pull the plug on it, assuming the Conservatives are smart and present a reasonable budget in January (which I used to think was a given, but in light of the past few weeks, I wouldn't put anything past Harper). If the coalition does still exist and votes down the government, there is no way the Governor General will not call an election, considering that Prime Minister Harper will request it and one of the parties has a new leader. If the coalition folds and the Conservative government survives, then the next time the Conservatives overreach like they did in the Fiscal Update, the government will fall then and an election will be called.
The bottom line? I expect Michael Ignatieff will become the leader of the Liberal Party as soon as the party can figure out how to do it. Then, one way or another, there will be another election, and how that one turns out will have mostly to do with how the Conservatives and Stephen Harper behave between now and then.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Economics: Mackenzie On Why Canada Was Hit
TORONTO, ONTARIO - As fate would have it, the Education Committee of the local Parkdale-High Park New Democratic Party happened to schedule weeks in advance a session about the economy on a night when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and opposition leader Stéphane Dion both appeared on television to make their cases to the Canadian people. Neither of leaders gave a memorable speech or said anything new. The NDP event, on the other hand, featured economist Hugh Mackenzie's views on the current situation, some of which were very informative.
One thing I had never understood about the financial crisis was why, if Canada had a sound banking system unlike the US, there had been (and to some extent, continues to be) a liquidity problem for businesses. Mackenzie pointed that businesses in Canada, like their US counterparts, had long ago stopped relying on lines of credit from their banks for their day-to-day cash needs, and were also participating in the short-term paper market, in which they effectively traded short-term bonds as required overnight to maintain liquidity.
A compelling (at least at the time) reason to use the short-term paper market was that those loaning money could invest in structured investments--which contained other paper assets, which had come to include the bundled bad mortgages from the United States that have played such a central role in the crisis--in order to earn another 1%. When the crisis hit, nobody would buy the structured investments, not knowing what they might hold, and that meant money was no longer being exchanged; the liquidity had run right out of the market.
While the smoke has cleared somewhat, Mackenzie pointed out that the difference between the interbank rate--what banks charge each other for overnight loans--and the corporate loan rate has gone from 20 basis points before the crisis to 1600 points today. That's right, it used to be a 0.2% difference and now it's 16%! It's not hard to imagine how that makes things tough on businesses.
Probably the most amusing story of the night was Mackenzie's recounting of his encounter with the Quebec travel agent who gave away trips to the Caribbean if it snowed on a given day. It had snowed, so he had to provide the trips, but Mackenzie found out that the travel agent didn't care, since he had purchased insurance. What kind? A weather derivative. Mackenzie felt that pretty much proved the case that derivatives are not different than gambling.
People at the meeting were mostly looking for answers of what should be done now, and while Mackenzie did have some suggestions, his real bottom line was not reassuring. Fundamentally, the Canadian economy is too integrated with China's resource needs and the industrial needs of the US to recover on its own. The best that can be done in Canada is to try to be ready to capitalize on the next uptick in the economy when it eventually occurs. He pointed out that the 1981 recession, while deep, was recovered from in about four years because plants were largely kept intact and people laid off. The 1991 recession was not nearly as deep, but recovery took longer. Mackenzie believes that is in large part because plants were shutdown and dismantled. The 2008 recession may be deeper than the 1981 recession, and again plants are being permanently shut down.
In Hugh Mackenzie's opinion, it might be a very long path to recovery.
One thing I had never understood about the financial crisis was why, if Canada had a sound banking system unlike the US, there had been (and to some extent, continues to be) a liquidity problem for businesses. Mackenzie pointed that businesses in Canada, like their US counterparts, had long ago stopped relying on lines of credit from their banks for their day-to-day cash needs, and were also participating in the short-term paper market, in which they effectively traded short-term bonds as required overnight to maintain liquidity.
A compelling (at least at the time) reason to use the short-term paper market was that those loaning money could invest in structured investments--which contained other paper assets, which had come to include the bundled bad mortgages from the United States that have played such a central role in the crisis--in order to earn another 1%. When the crisis hit, nobody would buy the structured investments, not knowing what they might hold, and that meant money was no longer being exchanged; the liquidity had run right out of the market.
While the smoke has cleared somewhat, Mackenzie pointed out that the difference between the interbank rate--what banks charge each other for overnight loans--and the corporate loan rate has gone from 20 basis points before the crisis to 1600 points today. That's right, it used to be a 0.2% difference and now it's 16%! It's not hard to imagine how that makes things tough on businesses.
Probably the most amusing story of the night was Mackenzie's recounting of his encounter with the Quebec travel agent who gave away trips to the Caribbean if it snowed on a given day. It had snowed, so he had to provide the trips, but Mackenzie found out that the travel agent didn't care, since he had purchased insurance. What kind? A weather derivative. Mackenzie felt that pretty much proved the case that derivatives are not different than gambling.
People at the meeting were mostly looking for answers of what should be done now, and while Mackenzie did have some suggestions, his real bottom line was not reassuring. Fundamentally, the Canadian economy is too integrated with China's resource needs and the industrial needs of the US to recover on its own. The best that can be done in Canada is to try to be ready to capitalize on the next uptick in the economy when it eventually occurs. He pointed out that the 1981 recession, while deep, was recovered from in about four years because plants were largely kept intact and people laid off. The 1991 recession was not nearly as deep, but recovery took longer. Mackenzie believes that is in large part because plants were shutdown and dismantled. The 2008 recession may be deeper than the 1981 recession, and again plants are being permanently shut down.
In Hugh Mackenzie's opinion, it might be a very long path to recovery.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Politics: The Only Way Out is a Resignation
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In a matter of hours, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will address the nation about the ongoing political crisis in the country. While I don't expect for a minute that he will do so, probably the only way out of the crisis is for Harper to announce his resignation in favor of a new, Conservative Prime Minister.
Let's review for a moment the past few months in Canadian politics. Prime Minister Harper, for whatever reason, decided to call an election in September. Six weeks later, a new government was elected that looked quite similar to the old one--a Conservative minority. Sure, the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois gained a few seats and the Liberals lost some, but in essence the Canadian people (if they can be said to have collectively done anything at all) elected a minority government. Implicit in a minority government in the parliamentary system is that the parties work together to govern the country.
For whatever reason, the Conservative government chose not to work with the other parties and instead included items in the Financial Update (notably, not the Throne Speech) that threatened the basic principles and the very existence of all the opposition parties. In response, the opposition parties have now signed an agreement to defeat the government (which they collectively have the votes to do) and install a Liberal-NDP coalition government headed by outgoing Liberal leader Stéphane Dion until May, when the new Liberal leader would take over. The Bloc Quebecois, while not a part of the coalition, has agreed not to defeat it for eighteen months, so that would be the expected lifetime of the government.
Now, the Conservative government is fighting for its existence, and is expected to ask the Governor General to prorogue the parliament until the budget is tabled in January. Prorogation is the ending of a parliamentary session without dissolving parliament, in effect creating a recess and allowing everything to start over when it returns, but it is normally invoked at the end of a session, not the very beginning.
So, there are three alternatives immediately available, all of which involve the Governor General. She may grant the request to prorogue, and the crisis goes on, but might be resolved before parliament returns. If the world financial crisis, demanding government oversight if not action, were not going on, this would clearly be a good alternative.
If there is no prorogation, then next Monday it is likely that the opposition parties will vote down the government, and then the Governor General will have to decide whether an election is called or the opposition is asked to form a government, which they are clearly prepared to do.
Neither one of those alternatives is appealing in the current environment. Having another election just four months after the previous one will not only cost $300 million, but could well lead to the same result again--a minority Conservative government. There is hope for a different result as turnout will likely be higher, but in a time of financial pitfalls, the process of going through elections cannot be good for the stability of the country regardless of its outcome.
Installing the coalition doesn't resolve the problem, either. While certainly a legal government by any standard, the fact that the Liberals and the NDP combined have fewer seats than the Conservatives and that the leader of the coalition would be the one politician who was clearly rejected in the last election means that much of the country will view the coalition as illegitimate. The argument that support of the Bloc Quebecois makes it illegitimate is absurd, especially coming from people that might start their own separatist movement in the west, but that doesn't render the other arguments absurd. The fact the coalition could well last for eighteen months or more, lending stability in that sense, and that it represents cooperation amongst parties, which is what should be happening in a minority parliament, doesn't matter. All of these issues don't matter--all that matters is that the coalition will be viewed as illegitimate, and for that reason, I suspect cannot be accepted by the Governor General.
So, if a new coalition government doesn't solve the problem and an election quite likely would not, that leaves prorogation. I suspect that the Governor General, whose role is ultimately to ensure the function of parliament, may well grant the Prime Minister's request as the best course in a bad situation. But, once prorogation occurs, something else has to happen to end the crisis, or things go right back to where they are now come January.
It seems to me that the only thing that actually resolves the crisis is for Harper to resign and allow a new leader to form a Conservative government. The Canadian people voted for a Conservative-led government, but they voted for a Conservative-led government that would work with the other parties in a minority parliament. Stephen Harper, after the Financial Update, has lost the confidence of the opposition parties and they will not trust him--they have made that abundantly clear. However, if the Conservative party had a new leader, and that leader demonstrated a willingness to work with the opposition parties instead of threatening them, then the crisis can be resolved. The Canadian people would get a functioning government, and it would be the one for which they voted, even if it had a different leader.
Unfortunately, based on past experience, there is little reason to believe that Stephen Harper will resign. One can only hope that prorogation will be granted and that internal pressure on Harper can be escalated as quickly as possible.
Let's review for a moment the past few months in Canadian politics. Prime Minister Harper, for whatever reason, decided to call an election in September. Six weeks later, a new government was elected that looked quite similar to the old one--a Conservative minority. Sure, the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois gained a few seats and the Liberals lost some, but in essence the Canadian people (if they can be said to have collectively done anything at all) elected a minority government. Implicit in a minority government in the parliamentary system is that the parties work together to govern the country.
For whatever reason, the Conservative government chose not to work with the other parties and instead included items in the Financial Update (notably, not the Throne Speech) that threatened the basic principles and the very existence of all the opposition parties. In response, the opposition parties have now signed an agreement to defeat the government (which they collectively have the votes to do) and install a Liberal-NDP coalition government headed by outgoing Liberal leader Stéphane Dion until May, when the new Liberal leader would take over. The Bloc Quebecois, while not a part of the coalition, has agreed not to defeat it for eighteen months, so that would be the expected lifetime of the government.
Now, the Conservative government is fighting for its existence, and is expected to ask the Governor General to prorogue the parliament until the budget is tabled in January. Prorogation is the ending of a parliamentary session without dissolving parliament, in effect creating a recess and allowing everything to start over when it returns, but it is normally invoked at the end of a session, not the very beginning.
So, there are three alternatives immediately available, all of which involve the Governor General. She may grant the request to prorogue, and the crisis goes on, but might be resolved before parliament returns. If the world financial crisis, demanding government oversight if not action, were not going on, this would clearly be a good alternative.
If there is no prorogation, then next Monday it is likely that the opposition parties will vote down the government, and then the Governor General will have to decide whether an election is called or the opposition is asked to form a government, which they are clearly prepared to do.
Neither one of those alternatives is appealing in the current environment. Having another election just four months after the previous one will not only cost $300 million, but could well lead to the same result again--a minority Conservative government. There is hope for a different result as turnout will likely be higher, but in a time of financial pitfalls, the process of going through elections cannot be good for the stability of the country regardless of its outcome.
Installing the coalition doesn't resolve the problem, either. While certainly a legal government by any standard, the fact that the Liberals and the NDP combined have fewer seats than the Conservatives and that the leader of the coalition would be the one politician who was clearly rejected in the last election means that much of the country will view the coalition as illegitimate. The argument that support of the Bloc Quebecois makes it illegitimate is absurd, especially coming from people that might start their own separatist movement in the west, but that doesn't render the other arguments absurd. The fact the coalition could well last for eighteen months or more, lending stability in that sense, and that it represents cooperation amongst parties, which is what should be happening in a minority parliament, doesn't matter. All of these issues don't matter--all that matters is that the coalition will be viewed as illegitimate, and for that reason, I suspect cannot be accepted by the Governor General.
So, if a new coalition government doesn't solve the problem and an election quite likely would not, that leaves prorogation. I suspect that the Governor General, whose role is ultimately to ensure the function of parliament, may well grant the Prime Minister's request as the best course in a bad situation. But, once prorogation occurs, something else has to happen to end the crisis, or things go right back to where they are now come January.
It seems to me that the only thing that actually resolves the crisis is for Harper to resign and allow a new leader to form a Conservative government. The Canadian people voted for a Conservative-led government, but they voted for a Conservative-led government that would work with the other parties in a minority parliament. Stephen Harper, after the Financial Update, has lost the confidence of the opposition parties and they will not trust him--they have made that abundantly clear. However, if the Conservative party had a new leader, and that leader demonstrated a willingness to work with the opposition parties instead of threatening them, then the crisis can be resolved. The Canadian people would get a functioning government, and it would be the one for which they voted, even if it had a different leader.
Unfortunately, based on past experience, there is little reason to believe that Stephen Harper will resign. One can only hope that prorogation will be granted and that internal pressure on Harper can be escalated as quickly as possible.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Holiday: Canadian Pacific Holiday Train
People lined up to tour the cab of the Canadian Pacific Holiday Train's locomotive during its performance in Toronto, Ontario on 2-December-2008
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Of the eight remaining class I railroads in North America, only the Canadian Pacific runs a Holiday Train over its entire system. In fact, the Canadian Pacific system is so large, running from Quebec and New York in the east to British Columbia in the west, that it actually takes two trains to maintain the ten-year holiday tradition. The so-called "United States" train ran through Toronto yesterday enroute from New York to Illinois, and the "Canada" train performed in the "Junction" neighborhood tonight.
City councilperson Bill Saundercook spoke before the Canadian Pacific Holiday Train's performance in Toronto, Ontario on 2-December-2008
The primary purpose of the "Holiday Trains" is to raise money for local charities. In the Toronto area, the Daily Bread Food Bank is the major beneficiary of the performance, and their volunteers were prominent in the crowd during the performance. City councilperson Bill Saundercook, who introduced the event, made a point of highlighting their presence. In the first nine years of their operation, the trains have raised C$3.56 million and more than 1.8 million pounds of food for local communities.
Santa Claus joined Johnny Reid and Tracey Brown onstage during the Holiday Train performance in Toronto on 2-December-2008
The attraction of the events besides seeing the holiday lighting displays on the trains themselves are the performers on the trains. This year, the Canadian train featured Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame member Tracey Brown and Canadian Country Music Awards winner Johnny Reid, who put on a concert that was almost devoid of country music during the Toronto show. The half-hour concert was instead full of holiday music and upbeat pop music classics. Free concerts usually aren't as good as those associated with the Holiday Train.
Canadian Pacific should be commended for having the class to put on the Holiday Trains each year and raise money for local charities. While the turnout was modest for a free event in Toronto, perhaps three hundred people, a similar amount are known to turn out in the smallest of rural towns when the trains perform across the continent.
The classic Canadian Pacific observation car "Van Horne" brought up the rear of the train at Osler Street in Toronto on 2-December-2008
The Holiday Trains still have several dozen performances to go in Canada from western Ontario to Vancouver, British Columbia and throughout the United States' midwestern region. For detailed schedule information, refer to the Holiday Train web site.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Philosophy: Glitch's Razor
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I violated one of my strongest personal principles in my Friday post on the Fiscal Update Crisis in Canada. I tried to create a case for a conspiracy within the Conservative Party. This was a violation of what for lack of a better name I'll call Glitch's Razor: Never blame on a conspiracy what can be blamed on simple incompetence.
Pretty much everyone has heard of Occam's Razor. While more formal treatments and even Wikipedia explain how the modern interpretation of it is not strictly accurate, in modern North American culture it can be summarized as "the simplest explanation is usually the best." Sometimes it is even equated with the KISS principle--Keep It Simple, Stupid. I personally always liked the wording that is apparently common in medical school, "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras."
Glitch's Razor is a corollary of Occam's Razor, postulating that incompetence is a simpler explanation for a low-probability event than a conspiracy, and thus in applying Occam's Razor, the explanation involving incompetence would be expected to be correct. Even under more rigorous views of Occam's Razor, Glitch's Razor would still follow, as it is about ignoring superfluous portions of an explanation (the conspiracy, which by definition involves at least a small group people if not a large one) when the core explanation (incompetence, often of only one person or perhaps a small group of people) is all that is needed.
It seems such an obvious corollary that I am surprised it does not appear to have ever been named. Clearly, thousands of people have had the same thought, and the similar wording "never suspect conspiracy when incompetence can achieve the same result" appears in many counter-arguments to conspiracy theories. If anyone knows of a citation of the origin of this thought, I will be happy to quit calling it Glitch's Razor, as it is far from my original thought.
As a principle, Glitch's Razor applies throughout one's life. In a number of work situations, I have used it to accurately predict the behavior of remote management. Once, my immediate supervisor was convinced that he was to be fired because of a string of events that he took as directed at him personally. Applying Glitch's Razor, I predicted that the events just showed a lack of understanding by the remote management team--basically, incompetence in managing our site, not a conspiracy against the site or my boss in particular. While I was right on that point, the same incompetence detected by Glitch's Razor eventually caused the whole site to be closed in an ill-advised manner.
Do you think your bank is out to get you? More likely, their programmers didn't test their own software adequately. Do you think the government is trying to bankrupt you? More likely, they can't understand and administer their own taxation laws. Was there a conspiracy to make your train late? More likely, a maintenance or operations employee didn't perform some task, and the train was delayed enroute as a result.
Obviously, Glitch's Razor applies in politics, even in Machiavellian politics. Even people that are trying to put something past their rivals or the populace can mess things up. Perhaps the best recent example occurred in Washington state, where professional initiative organizer Tim Eyman simply wrote Initiative 985 poorly. There was no big, successful conspiracy ganging up on him--people just didn't like the initiative.
So that brings us back to what has happened since last Thursday in Canadian politics. It is entirely possible that the Conservative over-reaching in the Financial Update was strictly incompetence by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He could have misjudged the reaction that would come from the opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Party. By Glitch's Razor, the possibility of incompetence is more likely than a conspiracy within the Conservative Party.
I still have a hard time believing that Stephen Harper is actually that incompetent. But, in the absence of evidence for an alternate narrative, it is an explanation that probably should be accepted, at least if I really believe in my own Razor.
Pretty much everyone has heard of Occam's Razor. While more formal treatments and even Wikipedia explain how the modern interpretation of it is not strictly accurate, in modern North American culture it can be summarized as "the simplest explanation is usually the best." Sometimes it is even equated with the KISS principle--Keep It Simple, Stupid. I personally always liked the wording that is apparently common in medical school, "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras."
Glitch's Razor is a corollary of Occam's Razor, postulating that incompetence is a simpler explanation for a low-probability event than a conspiracy, and thus in applying Occam's Razor, the explanation involving incompetence would be expected to be correct. Even under more rigorous views of Occam's Razor, Glitch's Razor would still follow, as it is about ignoring superfluous portions of an explanation (the conspiracy, which by definition involves at least a small group people if not a large one) when the core explanation (incompetence, often of only one person or perhaps a small group of people) is all that is needed.
It seems such an obvious corollary that I am surprised it does not appear to have ever been named. Clearly, thousands of people have had the same thought, and the similar wording "never suspect conspiracy when incompetence can achieve the same result" appears in many counter-arguments to conspiracy theories. If anyone knows of a citation of the origin of this thought, I will be happy to quit calling it Glitch's Razor, as it is far from my original thought.
As a principle, Glitch's Razor applies throughout one's life. In a number of work situations, I have used it to accurately predict the behavior of remote management. Once, my immediate supervisor was convinced that he was to be fired because of a string of events that he took as directed at him personally. Applying Glitch's Razor, I predicted that the events just showed a lack of understanding by the remote management team--basically, incompetence in managing our site, not a conspiracy against the site or my boss in particular. While I was right on that point, the same incompetence detected by Glitch's Razor eventually caused the whole site to be closed in an ill-advised manner.
Do you think your bank is out to get you? More likely, their programmers didn't test their own software adequately. Do you think the government is trying to bankrupt you? More likely, they can't understand and administer their own taxation laws. Was there a conspiracy to make your train late? More likely, a maintenance or operations employee didn't perform some task, and the train was delayed enroute as a result.
Obviously, Glitch's Razor applies in politics, even in Machiavellian politics. Even people that are trying to put something past their rivals or the populace can mess things up. Perhaps the best recent example occurred in Washington state, where professional initiative organizer Tim Eyman simply wrote Initiative 985 poorly. There was no big, successful conspiracy ganging up on him--people just didn't like the initiative.
So that brings us back to what has happened since last Thursday in Canadian politics. It is entirely possible that the Conservative over-reaching in the Financial Update was strictly incompetence by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He could have misjudged the reaction that would come from the opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Party. By Glitch's Razor, the possibility of incompetence is more likely than a conspiracy within the Conservative Party.
I still have a hard time believing that Stephen Harper is actually that incompetent. But, in the absence of evidence for an alternate narrative, it is an explanation that probably should be accepted, at least if I really believe in my own Razor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)