April 16 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The French government wants to make it illegal to promote “extreme thinness” - with offences punishable by up to 3 years in jail and fines of up to €30,000. They consider pro-anorexia websites and rail-thin models as incitement causing suicide or death. So much for an individual being responsible for themselves.

As with any tragic topic, particularly one which predominately affects youth, eating disorders pluck the heartstrings. Mothers who struggle to keep their daughters alive grace the television screen in well-funded campaigns to stamp out anorexia and bulimia. Advertisers, fashion runways and magazines are regarded as the evil spreaders of negative imaging causing young girls everywhere to die in the pursuit of skinny.  Amidst all the drama and heartache no one ever seems to question the role of individual responsibility.

It’s a tough question; to what degree an individual should be responsible for themselves? Most governments now exist predominately based on a notion that they provide some service to the population which is governed. Like feudal tutelage, under which a ruler promises to protect people in exchange for tithes, modern governments are expected to act in the best interest of the people in exchange for taxes. Since much of the Western world has managed to find peace with itself, the threat of invasion or traditional war is practically non-existent, thus Western governments are increasingly micro-managing their populations. In some ways, absolving individuals of being responsible for themselves, guarantees a role for governments.

Deferring responsibility for ourselves to a higher authority, however, is a slippery slope. Regulating personal preference is a dangerous encroachment into the private realm. If we admit that we can’t manage the most basic aspects of life, such as our own self-preservation, at what point is that authority able to simply make all decisions about our well-being without even consulting us? After all, if we aren’t responsible, how can we be expected to make sound decisions?

The prevalent approach to squarely lay blame upon the fashion and entertainment industries suggests another troubling development in Western society: the diminishing role of the family in providing necessary life skills.  In yet another act of responsibility-absolution, many believe that the television and other media are the root cause of eating disorders. Traditionally, however, children develop patterns of self-image from their parents. So, the issue of parental responsibility should also be questioned: if the media has this great an influence, who is doing the parenting? Of course, this will be the most painful question for parents to answer. No one wants to admit culpability in the troubles plaguing one’s children. Yet in our choice to develop a society which doesn’t just open the doors of equal opportunity for women, it pushes them through without an alternative, children who are not responsible for themselves is but one of the consequences. This is what happens when a system raises our children.  

Banning the grotesquely skinny won’t make eating disorders disappear. If there is demand for the ultra-skinny image, the thin model will continue to be offered. The issue of why we have this problem (which I might add is likely unique to a pampered society that can afford to obsess about such things) is more complex and systemic than grieving parents and lawmakers wish to believe. The most unfortunate aspect of it all is that given the tragic nature of the subject the notion of who is responsible is so entrenched that the issue isn’t something allowed for debate. In this sense, grief and tragedy trump logic and reason.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

April 16 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The Ottawa Citizen recently ran an article outing the Canadian government for its lack of a Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) plan. The only way this can be surprising is if one has never had to deal with the government in this country. 

How does a country as advanced and wealthy as Canada find itself without CIP? It’s simple, politics: not the electoral sort; not entirely the partisan party-based sort; but the traditional sort that “involves intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control” particularly as it relates to “the structure, organization, and administration of the state.” 

It’s a systemic problem that isn’t at first glance so apparent to a person on the outside .

Blinded, we focus our attentions on the elected figures from whom we demand so much accountability. We have notions that an elected official, whether he or she has a background in the subject matter for which the appointed post requires, is ultimately in control of an entire department. Whatever goes wrong is the fault of that elected representative; is he or she not, after all, in control?

Elected officials, however, are focused on what the name suggests: the next election. Regardless of how pristine and accountable we wish them to be, elected officials are in a perpetual race for popularity. (Just watch CPAC; the House of Commons is like a day-care for adults where each one screams louder and more stubbornly than the last in a bid to be heard.) Under constant threat of that next popularity contest, elected officials prefer measures that offer instant results; something tangible to take back to the electorate today; tomorrow isn’t as important; long-term strategy is for the national political martyr. Every measure, every issue is considered by a minister and his or her respective staff through this prism of looming elections. Their jobs are under eternal threat based on the whims and fancies of a widely ignorant electorate. Such is the nature of our system of democracy.

That’s why we built up that permanent mega-bureaucracy! An extensive system of bureaucrats enjoying jobs-for-life, some even unionized. Once inside one never need leave. The government bureaucracy is cushy, safe and a breeding ground for mediocrity. Salaries are determined by seniority of role, which in turn can be measured by how many others are directly under that role in the seemingly unending layers of hierarchy that is government. The permanent bureaucracy is an entity onto itself complete with self-interests and internal divisions as various departments (and individual bureaucrats) compete for “limited” funds in a race for ever-larger fiefs and more seniority. Best of all, the bureaucracy is seldom recognized by the public as distinguishable from the elected body; indeed, when bureaucratic shortcomings are brought to the public attention it is the elected representative “in charge” who is held accountable.

The bureaucracy, far from being always under the control of ministers and other elected officials, has ideas of its own. Bureaucrats, no different than others not-employed by the public sector, have party allegiances. It’s even been claimed that the bureaucracy leans considerably to one side of Canada’s political spectrum with strong ties to Canada’s most-frequently ruling party. This makes for an interesting competition between, say, a Conservative government and the bureaucracy.

Throw in interest groups and lobbyists and it’s a wonder that Canada has plans for anything at all! 

This is not to say that all of government is full of self-interested people; indeed, the government has been taking in some of Canada’s brightest minds. Unfortunately, once inside it’s like facing a giant boulder speeding down the hill in your direction - at best it can be slightly redirected with much effort, but never stopped. Anyone standing in the boulder’s way will simply be crushed.

In some ways it’s a good thing that much of Canada’s critical infrastructure (that is short of those national monuments…) is in private hands. At least given economic interests, we might have some guarantee that communication networks, for example, will still work in an emergency.

Posted in Disasters, Security Measures, Politics | No Comments »