April 22 2009 by The Systemic Analyst.

CanWest, among others, is reporting “A senior RCMP officer issued a surprise apology Tuesday after a former Mountie spokesman said that he provided inaccurate information about the death of a Polish immigrant at the Vancouver International Airport.”

Why it has taken this long to admit some truth in a case that was videotaped is beyond us. We said at the time of the incident that the approach the force was taking would do nothing but tarnish an already battered reputation (see The RCMP Taser Case: How Not To Handle An Accidental Death.)

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

April 20 2009 by The Systemic Analyst.

Senator Colin Kenny is right about one thing in his latest public commentary about the state of security in Canada: during a recession crime rates spike (see: United States Homicide Rates & Recessions, in A. Wanless, “Alternatively: Towards a Better System,” 2009). The Senator’s proposed measures to counter the likely rise in crime, however, aren’t quite as illuminating.

Putting more police on the beat isn’t going to fix the problem with crime because it doesn’t address the root causes for such activity; furthermore, increasing the ranks of law enforcement certainly won’t achieve any sort of immediate fix as training new officers (good ones anyway) takes time and then the question becomes what to do with the enlarged forces after the economy improves (if it does)? All of this is to say nothing of the rampant corruption in at least one of Canada’s larger police forces that will probably only worsen with the economy.

Beyond all of this, there is a simple problem with math in what the good senator is telling the public that is a bit misleading; in pointing out how many more officers the U.S. Coast Guard deploys in the Great Lakes, Senator Kenny neglects to note the considerable difference in population between Canada and the United States; granted, 14 RCMP officers isn’t all that many to patrol such a vast area, but Canada also doesn’t have the 300 million people its neighbour to the South does.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

April 19 2009 by The Systemic Analyst.

Michael Coren makes a good point; men and women are essentially different from one another. Of course, difference doesn’t preclude equality; what difference does is render men and women equally good at different things. While I agree with the underlying argument of Coren’s piece, I can see why many wouldn’t. A dialogue in the West does need to begin about the views that have become so entrenched we are afraid to publicly discuss whether such thinking is reasonable or even beneficial as a society; because of this viewpoint-internalization, however, most people will react defensively to even the gentlest questioning of the status quo; provocation and incautious use of the word “equality” might be one more reason the discussion is delayed.

“So Canada sacrifices another victim on the altar of equality.

Last week a young girl dressed up as a soldier died in the increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan. She was 21 years old, had been in the country for two weeks on her first tour of duty and probably weighed a little over 100 pounds.

Please know that I mean no disrespect to Karine Blais or to her family and I grieve for her and them. But what on earth was she doing in such a place and in such a job?Look at the photograph of this beautiful girl. Look at the innocence, the gentleness, the grace. All of them precious aspects to the human character. So when I say that she was “dressed up as a soldier” I mean it as a compliment. I’ve known soldiers all of my life and I have an invincible respect for them. I’ve seen their courage, integrity and sheer decency.

I’ve also seen their capacity for controlled and righteous violence, which is absolutely essential for any fighting man. Yes, man. Because there are few if any women who have the skills required to serve as a front-line combat trooper.” Click here to read more.

Posted in Central Asia, Politics | No Comments »

November 12 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB), produced by the influential think tank LEAP/Europe 2020, predicts that the US Government will default on its debt anytime before next summer. The analysis presented in their recent issue here suggests that the default will occur due to the following five factors:

“• The recent upward trend of the US Dollar is a direct and temporary consequence of the collapse of stock markets

• Thanks to its recent «political baptism», the Euro becomes a credible «safe haven» value and therefore provides a «crisis» alternative to the US dollar

• The US public debt is now swelling uncontrollably

• The ongoing collapse of US real economy prevents from finding an alternative solution to the country’s defaulting

• «Strong inflation or hyper-inflation in the US in 2009?», that is the only question.”

The outline presented in the GEAB generally corresponds to what we have been saying for a while with regard to the future of the US (and all the implications for those countries tied to it). The ‘global financial meltdown’ that is unfolding now is far from reaching its climax, one reason being the impending derivatives bubble that must burst and destroy the false economy based on speculation in order to start re-building the global economy. Those who expect any ‘meaningful results’ from the upcoming G20 meeting in Washington this week will be disappointed. To put it simply, if the US creditors wait a bit longer they would get a better deal. The important question that GEAB raises above regarding the US should be considered in the following manner: will the impending (hyper-) inflation be dealt with through internal implosion (with all its ramifications for the social order in that country) or a World War as has occurred many times in the past?

Posted in Economic Issues, In The News, Other, Disaster Management, Security Measures, Europe, North America, Politics | No Comments »

October 17 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The movie below is written and directed by Peter Joseph. It is 123 min long and offers a lot of food-for-thought. We welcome your comments.

Posted in Identity Management, Security Measures, Health Preparedness, Economic Issues, In The News, Water Issues, Food Security, Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Environment, Politics | No Comments »

October 15 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The systemic crisis that now unfolds in the world cannot be fully understood without first understanding what role ‘money’ plays in all areas of human life. Initially introduced as a means of exchange between consenting parties, money was tied to tangible goods produced by spending physical energy (both resources and labour). In the last 400 years money has turned into an ‘independent’ player that has commodified every aspect of human life, without exception. In other words, from a marginal tool of exchange in social interactions (otherwise governed by centuries-long traditions of moral and behavioural codes) money has became the ultimate end-goal, codifier and master of all relations. Needless to say, in the present system the control over the supply side of money determines everything else. The article by Charles Eisenstein entitled ‘Money and the Crisis of Civilization’ presents a simple review of how this system was created and sheds light on why it won’t be able to survive. To date, the continuation of the system was characterized by cycles of wars and conflicts to prop it up. How many people have paused and considered what is coming next?

Posted in In The News, Economic Issues, Politics | No Comments »

May 29 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

David Eddie has published a wonderful perspective on the Bernier follies in the Globe and Mail. It’s simply a must read:

“Headline: “He ‘destroyed my life,’ girlfriend says.”

Then she returned the favour.

So many questions remain unanswered in the wake of the Profumo-like scandal that brought down former cabinet minister Maxime “Mad Max” Bernier this week:

What was he doing in Julie Couillard’s house so long after they had broken up? Why did he leave sensitive documents there? Then, when he realized they were missing, why didn’t he ask for them back? Why did she take so long to say she had them?

And why did she have to do it so publicly? “Honey,” so many of the pundits seem to be saying, “why you gotta go and be like that?”

If you ask me, he did it to himself. He set the trap, carefully arranged the sticks and leaves over the pit, then stepped on it and fell in. If ever a man was “hoist by his own petard,” it was Mr. Bernier (with Ms. Couillard the petard).

To me, the whole thing looks like a “booty call” gone horribly wrong.

At first, I was perplexed by the timelines of their relationship. They broke up in January, supposedly, perhaps even December (she decided to end it, she says, “shortly before Christmas”).

Yet they were seen together after that at numerous political functions.” Click here to read more.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

May 21 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

With moves in Alberta and Saskatchewan to enable the provinces to hold elections for Senate nominees there has been increasing coverage of the Stephen Harper backed plan to reform the Canadian Senate. On the surface, the arguments in favour of Senate reform look good - staging elections will make the Senate more accountable, more democratic and it will prevent political party domination of an outgoing government on the incoming one - but dig a little deeper and the logic behind it becomes ever more elusive.

How, for example, will electing a Senate make it more accountable? The belief that elections directly lead to accountability is a popular one in Canada: if the person who is elected fails to do his or her job constituents can remove that official in the next elections, so the thinking goes. Limited terms and frequent elections are believed to be means to end corruption and increase accountability. Few who are not involved with government realize, however, what the effect of elections is on the ability to govern responsibly. Leaders who live in constant fear of losing their jobs in the next elections have a hard time focusing on long-term strategy. Indeed, if media coverage of politics is any indication the most important concern for any elected representative is, in fact, the next elections be they in 2 months or 2 years. The very reason why senators had been appointed for such lengthy terms was to ensure that at least someone in the government was focused on the issues as opposed to elections. Thus, making the Senate an elected body might not bring about the accountability being touted.

Considering issues of accountability, the role the Senate plays in providing criticism of the government (anygovernment, red, blue, orange or green) is often forgotten. The Senate committees might just be the only bodies putting forth the sort of biting analysis we need. Elected officials certainly don’t want the system to be seen as faulty it could cost them the next elections; the bureaucrats, whose advancement is determined by their perceived efficiency, don’t want much public criticism of the system which they effectively run. The only body that is currently offering any insights into the shortcomings of government is the Senate - just consider the committee reports on Airport Security and Aid in Africa.   

On the assumption that electing the Senate will make it more democratic, the question begs, do elections alone create democracy? In a party-based political system many Canadians already feel that elections aren’t really providing them with much of a say. In an informal survey International Perspectives conducted in October 2007, 52% of respondents said they felt their voices weren’t being heard in a party-based electoral system.  Much of the problem stems from the allegiance elected representatives must pledge to the party to which they belong; to many Canadians it would appear that politicians have more loyalty to the political party that supported their candidacies than to the constituents who voted for them. Although senators have political affiliations the job security afforded by the current terms of appointment ensures that senators who disagree with the party’s approach to an issue can push back - I’m not so sure that elected senators would be so independent. Thus, although the idea of elections conjures notions of democracy, the inherent problems with our current system suggest that an elected Senate might not be any more or less democratic than the existing one.

Canadians are easily (perhaps too easily) excited whenever mention is made at how much money is spent by government. The spending of tax payer dollars is the perfect sound bite to incite public support for change of a system: elected governments love to use the “wanton-waste-of-your-money” messaging against the sometimes uncooperative permanent bureaucracy; opposition parties love to use it against ruling parties; and, now, supporters of Senate reform are using it against the British-modelled institution. I hope that Canadians are able to look past the usual tools for leading the masses in desired directions, thinking past the carrots. It just might be that an institution like the Senate, as bizarre as it may seem to our Liberazi lenses, is the only thing with at least some public interest left.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

May 13 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

Instead of writing again on the Serbian situation, I’ll let Ljubodrag Simonovic speak. The following is a very insightful and thought provoking interview Simonovic gave recently on Serbian television.

Posted in Europe, Politics | No Comments »

May 1 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

A friend recently turned me onto The File by E.X., a wonderfully, biting column printed in the Ottawa Citizen. For anyone who hasn’t read it yet - do! The following is an entertaining column from last week. (Thanks, Alex!)

When it comes to hiring, The System is a product like any other, trying to appeal to the elusive youth demographic

In its first report, the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service states that more work has to be done to “brand” the public service, that is to say, to market The System. Specifically it says that there “is a need for a strong and positive Public Service ‘brand’ that will support the marketing of the Public Service as an attractive employment option for talented Canadians.”

Public servants were happy for the clarification. Rumours had been circulating that the Harper government intended to brand all liberal, lefty public servants - which according to them was all 250,000 - on the left buttock with the letters CNG (Canada’s New Government).

The Committee seems to be arguing that if The System can create a strong, well-leveraged brand it will attract potential employees more easily than weaker brands will. One can only assume that weaker brands include provincial governments and the City of Ottawa.

The Committee does not indicate what specific product line should be marketed as part of a Government of Canada branding strategy to attract Generation X, Y, or beyond. Should it be The System’s streamlined human resources practices? Its vigorous policy analysis? Its modern management practices?

Susie, Jacob and Mohammed were fourth-year students applying for jobs in the federal government. According to the Committee, it takes an average of 22.4 weeks to staff a position from inside the public service. It didn’t dare speculate on how long it takes to hire someone from outside. Still, the three students were young and had an entire lifetime ahead of them, so they were prepared to go through the process.

Like many of their generation the quality of life, particularly the quality of work life, was important. And so each of them asked themselves: “What would be the ideal brand personality of the place where I work, and does the federal public service fit the bill?”

Brand personality answers this question: if the product - in this case The System - were a person, how would you describe him or her? Friendly? Intellectual? Totally nuts? As it happened, each of the potential employees had in mind a different brand personality for the ideal workplace.

Susie wanted to work in a System that had a personality like Hallmark: down-to-earth, sincere, genuine, and old-fashioned. She had been raised in a caring suburban family home with liberal parents who had followed the teachings of Dr. Spock and Penelope Leach on raising babies, kids and teenagers. She had never been spanked, had been treated with respect, and had been given the appropriate balance of firm guidance and fulfilling freedom. Not surprisingly, Susie expected to work in a System with a caring boss who acted like Robert Young in Father Knows Best.

Susie imagined a workplace where her co-workers were sympathetic and respectful, not intruding but always there when needed with a supportive word. Kind of like the 15 teddy bears and giant pandas strewn about her bedroom.

Jacob had just graduated from engineering school and had a different image of the ideal workplace. He wanted to work in a System with an accomplished, influential and competent personality. He imagined a System that ran like a pristine assembly line: cool and mechanically efficient, everything moving with perfect precision. Sometimes he dreamed of a mythical 1958 General Motors plant that ran with machine-like effectiveness inside, and turned out gleaming, glitzy cars for the outside.

Mohammed was always moving. Just like Richard Dreyfuss as Duddy Kravitz in the movie, he seemed incapable of standing still. He radiated a manic energy built on ambition, brass and confidence. The thought of sitting at a desk in a large government department had no appeal. He wanted action, to work in a System with the brand personality of the Toronto Maple Leafs: energetic and unfocused. In his System, organizations worked at breakneck pace with a sense of permanent urgency to resolve issues immediately. There was no long-term planning in Mohammed’s office. It was an organization with ADD.

Eight months later, all three found themselves working in The System. Susie was in a spirited hyper-sector that seemed to be running on a continuous treadmill just to keep up with the demands of the Once New Government. The Director was a petty tyrant.

Mohammed found himself in a division that operated with the quiet, operational efficiency of a Swiss bank.

Jacob ended up in an agency where everyone knew everyone else and there was a cheerful, courteous and supportive atmosphere.

All three quit within the year.

E.X. knows that rejuvenating The System is a top priority. The only trouble is that this means hiring young people. For more E.X. go to ottawacitizen.com/exfiles.

Posted in Other, Politics | No Comments »