Alberta populism has deep origins in a group of people who have long harboured a libertarian utopia for Alberta. Danielle Smith is the most recent manifestation of this wave of thought. The Jacobin traces her origin story.
My first connection to the internet was made using a second-hand IBM 386 through a dialup modem to the National Capital FreeNet in early 1994. I was an avid reader of several Usenet groups related to cooking, hiking and some of the social and political issues of the day. I was reminded of that great initiation to internet culture when reading this blog post which envisions a kind of barely adjacent, but now out of reach, timeline for how the internet might have developed if Salvador Allende had remained in power in Chile in 1973. Seriously.
While we are contemplating scenarios, how about one that places the crash of the US economy and political system in 2026. It’s a hastily constructed work of fiction, but it underscores how many things COULD go wrong to kick off an era of transformation. I found myself contemplating the position of lots of other people in this story, folks trying to scrape together rent, people who had just quit their jobs for a new opportunity or retirement, a new citizen…
This is the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and Rebecca Solnit is a good person to guide us through the stories and the spiritual meaning of what happened in New Orleans that week and afterwards.
It’s Labour Day. Be kind to those who have to work so you can have a holiday that was hard won by workers. And maybe listen to some great reinterpretations of Juan Carlos Caceres tango music from Le Collective Tango Negro Ensemble.
An astonishing photograph from the Very Large Telescope this week of a planet being born. From the link:
At the center of this frame lies a young Sun-like star, hidden behind a coronagraph that blocks its bright glare. Surrounding the star is a bright, dusty protoplanetary disk— the raw material of planets. Gaps and concentric ringsmark where a newborn world is gathering gas and dust under its gravity, clearing the way as it orbits the star. Although astronomers have imaged disk-embedded planets before, this is the first-ever observation of an exoplanet actively carving a gap within a disk — the earliest direct glimpse of planetary sculpting in action.
Downhill mountain biking is huge here on the south coast of British Columbia. As a young rider for years my son built trails and maintained a few here on Bowen Island. His mentor and inspiration was our neighbour Dangerous Dan Cowan, an absolute legend of North Shore style trail building who built unreal structures here. The history of mountain bike trail development is a folk tradition here. Mountain Life lifts the cover on some that hidden history.
In this ongoing story about Alberta schools banning books, the Alberta premier today had this response to the list prepared by the Edmonton School Board:
“Edmonton Public is clearly doing a little vicious compliance over what the direction is,” Smith said during an unrelated news conference. If they need us to hold their hand through the process to identify what kind of materials are appropriate … we will more than happily work with them to work through their list, one by one, so we can be super clear about what it is we’re trying to do,” Smith said.
The term is “malicious compliance” and it is an excellent tactic. It will be good to see exactly how the premier wants her party’s bigotry expressed in public schools. Here’s the ministerial order, which makes pretty steamy reading on its own.
A wake up call for Tottenham this morning. After a season start with two clean sheets, we met a determined Bournemouth side who brought their high pressing game to North London. After they scored an early goal they kept on going and put Spurs into a slow, defensive, and reactionary torpor. It wasn’t until 77’ that Spurs found some life. Still, some slow decisions and poor passing compromised our ability to take advantage of Bournemouth’s fatigue. We only managed one shot on target, five overall. The Cherries saw out the match with grit and determination and raw belief ,holding on for the win. They played out of this world.
Now that Pierre Poilievre is back in the public eye, it’s worth pointing out why his particular brand of populist politics will never make him a good prime minister.
There was recently a case in Canada in which a man has been charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon for defending himself from a home intruder. Predictably, this stirred Poilievre into a broad-based attack on the justice system as a whole and he is now vowing to introduce a private member’s bill that would broaden the conditions for using self-defense, including killing someone if someone enters your home without permission.
This is a populist tactic. You take an extreme case that is an outlier to the general application of the law, and you call the system broken and promise to “fix” it with a bill that would outlaw that very specific case without any consideration to the other consequences of the law, or to whether the law actually works at all.
In Canada self-defence is permitted by law, but under specific conditions. If the police think you have broken those conditions, you will be charged. It is then up to a judge to hear the case. But it is already legal to kill someone in self-defence. People have been acquitted in the past for even killing police officers who were either undercover, or who were acting illegally. So what Poilievre is advocating for is actually legal now, although I doubt that he is intending that this bill should result in more police deaths. That is certainly not the country I want to live in.
But that is the problem with pandering. You miss (or in this case just ignore) the nuances of cases and you can end up creating the conditions that make the world less safe and less secure, including for the people who support you and for whom you are claiming to champion, all to appear “stronger.”
When you are in opposition, you can do and say whatever you want, because you don’t have the power to make actual changes. A populist will always jump on the outrage train because stoking fear and providing simplistic solutions to problems, even before a court has ruled on the legality of a situation, gets you “points.” in some cases, it might even end up getting you elected, and then you have to govern. And you cannot govern that way. Populists make terrible governments, as we are seeing all around North America at the moment.
A more reasonable opposition leader might say “this case has the potential to erode the rights of Canadians to defend themselves. Let’s see how the trial goes and if we don’t like the result we will propose amendments to the Criminal Code that allow for more latitude in self-defence, but that provide reasonable safeguards for people like delivery drivers, police, paramedics, firefighters, canvassers, and social workers, who by the nature of their jobs, find themselves more likely to be in these situations where they are on the receiving end of self-defence.” That might be a position I would disagree with, because I’m not sure the law needs more latitude, but it is one I would be able to discuss. But how are citizens supposed to reason with a reactionary position based on a single unique case which may well be complicated by a number of mitigating factors? We cannot make laws like that, and Poilievre’s gamesmanship is not designed for deliberation. It is what I call “a drive by shouting” which is when a politician makes bold and brash statements with no regard for consequences simply to trigger emotional responses based in anger, fear, and perceived grievance. It forces a categorical response. And that erodes democratic process.
Poilievre is not a reasonable opposition leader, and his return to politics through his recent by-election has just reminded me why so many people refused to elect his party to govern the country back in the spring. Since returning to Parliament, many in his own party have advised him to change his tone. Many others, including me, are skeptical that he will be capable of that. Many are watching. We need a good opposition leader in Canada right now, even if that leader is the leader of the Conservative Party. Poilievre isn’t it.
Congrats to the Air Canada Components of CUPE who secured a contract between Air Canada and their flight attendants. This was a wild moment in Canadian labour relations. A ten year agreement expired, the union demanded pay for unpaid work and achieved a 99% strike vote. Air Canada preemptively locked out the workers last weekend and began cancelling flights. The federal government ordered the groups to binding arbitration and then ordered the flight attendants back to work. They refused and began an illegal strike. The public largely stayed onside becasue NO ONE LIKES DOING WORK FOR FREE. Then yesterday, the announcement came that the dispute was settled.
This whirlwind week was an important moment for labour in Canada. At the same time as the new agreement was announced, CBC reported last night on the increasing prices of things, especially food, and how the affordability crisis is going. We have heard all kinds of news about price inflation over the past few years, but hardly anyone has talked about wage stagnation. In the past, price would rise, and so would wages. But in the last 20 years, and the last ten years specifically, this difference has become truly unhinged. Nobody in politics with any power, least of all the federal Liberals and Conservatives, have discussed wage increases, but everyone seems to have solutions for inflation, which has largely returned to its “normal” levels.
We need to talk about wages. All the time. You are not getting paid enough. People need to be paid more. And if you are worried about prices increasing perhaps we shouldn’t be because very little of what we are paying in higher prices is going to the people that make things and provide us with the services we need. For things like food, living wages for workers are not the issue. It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together, but we’re still living the neoliberal dream, so at the very least, the lateral thinking needed to do it is wanting.
Chris Mowles has a lovely post on the perils of an unquestioned commitment to directionality in complexity. Our work is never starting from scratch, and what does “going forward” even mean in a non-linear context?
…maybe there is more to uncover about complex experience than talking as if there is only one tense which is important, the future, and only the individual’s rationality and will to map it out. The future is important, and we are oriented towards it, but this shouldn’t prevent us from thinking about how we have become who we are, and what matters to us. What remains of the embers of the past from which we can still derive succour and find resource?
Rosa Zubazarreta has long been a curious “pracademic” – as she calls herself – about facilitation and deliberation. We have met a few times in the past, but I consider her a close colleague in the work of constantly trying to learn about how to host conversations and design group spaces in which dialogue and listening is maximized. She recently had a peer-reviewed article published called “Listening Across Differences” about deliberative “mini-publics” which are small democratic fora hosted in Austria. Her most recent blog post explores the role of AI in group facilitation, a topic about which she is deeply passionate, and about which I am very curious.
It’s happening and I’m certainly willing to explore it more in deliberative contexts. I have run a couple of small experiments using AI to summarize vast amounts of narrative information and advice submitted by citizens to create high level summaries of advice, high level articulations of dissenting opinions and so on. This becomes material for further deliberation. I have been toying with a design where members of a group all spend time feeding information to different GPTs, querying the data in different ways and bringing their insights to a conversation. It’s about how to make vast amounts of opinion accessible, and generate a learning conversation that everyone can participate in.
This is becoming an interesting field and I notice the twin poles of curiosity and resistance in myself. My friend Jeff Aitken sent along a link to Metarelational.ai which feels like a true TRIP to explore. There are several varieties of trained chatbot there. I have seen and explored some of these, each one cultivated like a garden, each one designed to do something a bit different. Honestly, after a hour or so in a session with these tools, it’s hard to know what terms like “relational” mean. I am firmly in the world of knowing and working with human-to-human relationality. The work at Metarelational seems to at times to evokes a kind of eschatology of human relationships stemming from our own design, and a sort of surrender to AI and machine intelligence that feels religious. It uses religious and spiritual terms and language like “agape” and “right relationship” and “interbeing.” I joked with Jeff the other day about when a new religion might sprout up around an AI chatbot. It’s a joke, but given the proclivity for human beings to seek a higher intelligence that has all the answers, and to be led in a course of action “forward” at any costs, I think there is a serious question here.