Mar 06 2012
3 Comments
Politics

How to stop another “Robocalls”

Most people in the country are aware by now of the “Robocalls” scandal. It’s the story of purported voter suppression in the past Federal Election. Voters were allegedly given misdirection by automated phone calls on their voting location. The number of people effected is possibly as high as a quarter of a million Canadians (according to a poll released the other day, Elections Canada is currently going through 31,000 complaints directly from voters.) This doesn’t take into account other claims that voters in some ridings who were identified as Liberals were reported harassed by crank phone calls in an attempt to persuade them not to vote for the Liberal candidate.

The key issues moving forward are how to stop something like Robocalls from happening again, as well as how we can better prove who has done and said what and how to hold them responsible for what they have said?

Simple enough right?

My thoughts actually go back to one election campaign idea I had talked about with people during the last federal election. That is, I firmly believe that all campaign advertising from automated phone calls to radio and television ads, should be voiced by the leader or candidates themselves. No one else. No narrators, no professionals, just the leaders or candidates speaking directly to the voters themselves.

In my ideal world, I would require them to identify their names and party affiliation. Doing so accomplishes a number of things:

  • There would be a greater liability for what is said. If you’re selling the voters misdirection or just flat-out being untruthful, you’ll actually be more liable for what is said. Your voice will be on the public record and that record is something you would have to answer for.
  • Voters would know, if there is no party name and if it’s not the voice of the candidate, it’s a fake call and to ignore it.

I would also require a couple of other safeguards. First would be that candidates and parties could only pay for advertising with Canadian payment options such as Interac or a Credit Card or cheque with a Canadian bank. A subpoena or court order has a lot more clout with a Canadian company then something like PayPal which is harder to coerce into handing over information.

The obvious additions to reforms to prevents something like Robocalls from happening would also be:

  • Detailed records. When you pay an advertiser or ad agency, beyond how much did you actually pay them, there needs to be a spreadsheet available as a record of whom did you call, when did you call them and, if needed, what was said. Recordings of all pre-recorded “robocalls” would have to be kept on file for 10 years. With the digital age, this could all easily be automated and wouldn’t be an issue.
  • If you’re a company doing work for a party/candidate during an election, you have some responsibility in the matter. You cannot pretend to be Elections Canada or any Government of Canada department or agency. You cannot broadcast a message given to you that says that and you cannot accept anonymous payments.
  • No automated phone calls on Election day. The trust level is broken, this should almost be a non-issue at this point.

Again, all these are simple solutions and going forward hopefully we hear more ideas and thoughts like this as we do what we can to rebuild a suddenly fragile and questioned democracy and as the hunt continues for the truth about Robocalls.

Tagged , , , ,
Feb 14 2012
Leave a comment
Politics

Your Privacy is on Life-Support

Your online privacy is on life-support and Vic Towes and Stephen Harper have their hand on the plug.

As our real world lives become more and more intertwined with our online selves, proposed new legislation puts your online life in the hands of authorities. Authorities who will be able to, without a warrant, see everything you’re doing online. By simply declaring that they think you’re up to something illegal, they could compel Internet Service Providers to hand over information on you and provide authorities with lawful access to watch over everything you do online, desktop, laptop, tablet or mobile including where you are.

What’s really happening is the first step in a world where the conservative government tries to control the internet. A world where, once we step down the rabbit hole, there’s very little standing in the way of Canada becoming a country under complete surveillance much the way China and other dictatorships are today.

“What’s next?” is also the big question. After having their “hand in the honey pot” as it was put, do they then declare that certain activities or websites are prevalent in the internet and then enact legislation to shut them down?

There’s no more cloak hiding the conservatives in Harper’s government who want things like abortion outlawed. Could searching for a clinic be blocked? What about other activities that the government decides “aren’t in the best interests of Canada”? It would only be a short matter of time before the entertainment lobby said that Torrents were a scourge of the internet and needed to be stopped. They could be easily found and if you were suddenly called something ridiculous like a copyright terrorist or an anti-capitalist terrorist, you’d be found, stopped and punished.

Having fun on Tumblr or Pinterest? All it would take is someone claiming (not proving) that you were sharing copyrighted materials to have your computer put under surveillance. They could force your ISP to deny your connection.

Have a webcam or microphone on your computer or cell phone? There’s nothing that I could find in the legislation that would stop authorities from considering using them as part of their surveillance.

And then, when does your opinion become the topic du jour? When is what you’re saying online start being spun as “inciting antigovernment or treasonous behaviour”? When do your words put you in jail?

Does what I’m saying take the bill to a logical extreme? Maybe. But it may also just be the road map of what’s to come.

To top it all off, it will cost you more because the ISP’s will have to install millions of dollars of hardware and software to make it possible. They’ll be required in a 16 month span to allow the type of access that is being asked of them and the government most certainly is not footing the bill, Canadian consumers will be.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the issues this will cause. By putting a door where there was no door into peoples lives before the government could be allowing for unauthorized usage as well. Not to mention potentially compromising network security across the country providing access to hackers and foreign spy networks. That would be any network too; banks, stock market, government databases, even things like Dropbox or iCloud. Everything.

There is nothing good coming from this bill except more government control. It’s been sold as:

‘[you] can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.’
—Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety

I have nothing to hide. But I also wouldn’t let Vic Toews or Stephen Harper see what was in my mail, how much I have in my bank account, what I’m watching on TV or talking about on the phone. Why should the Internet be any different?

You can find so much more on http://www.openmedia.ca including how to contact your local MP and let them know what you think. You can also get your MP’s contact information here

Here is the CBC story as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/swf/UberPlayer.swf?state=sharevideo&clipId=2196373198&width=480&height=322

Tagged , ,
Feb 13 2012
2 Comments
Life

People, you frustrate me sometimes

First things first, there are highs and there are lows in social media. The ability to literally change the course of history in countries has been proven over the past couple of years. The influence and motivation to rise up together in so many different ways is incredible.

And then there’s moments like when people defend Chris Brown.

First, lets go back 3 years (apparently the amount of time that the Grammy’s felt was OK to let him promote his records on stage)

First, he hit her head against the passenger window.

Rihanna then “turned to face Brown and he punched her in the left eye with his right hand,” says the paperwork. “He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand.”

According to the notes taken by Detective De Shon Andrews, blood filled Rihanna’s mouth. Brown, 19, allegedly told her, “I’m going to beat the s— out of you when we get home. You wait and see!” Rihanna called her assistant and left a message saying, “I am on my way home. Make sure the cops are there when I get there.” The police notes say that prompted Brown to reply: “You just did the stupidest thing ever. Now I’m really going to kill you.”

The report also says that Brown bit Rihanna and put her in a headlock, and that she almost lost consciousness.

“Brown resumed punching [Rihanna] and she interlocked her fingers behind her head and brought her elbows forward to protect her face,” according to the notes. “She then bent over at the waist, placing her elbows and face near her lap in attempt to protect her face and head from the barrage of punches being levied upon her by Brown.”

Charming. He’s a real idol. A true hero and role model. Someone whom an industry should shine the spotlight on and highlight on their biggest stage right? Well, first, the Grammy’s kinda suck and they’ll always cater to one thing: money, so I know why he was there.

For the most part, the endless barrage of tweets while he was on stage (for which most people tuned away to another channel instead of subjecting themselves to) were fantastic. From the serious:

“While Chris Brown is performing, let’s take a moment to remember the thousands of Canadian women killed in domestic violence each year.”
-@christineestima

To donate to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence go here http://www.ncadv.org/donate.php.
-@Shananigans5

To the humorously upset:

So which one of those dancers is Chris Brown’s probation officer?
-@mdotbrown

Stan[d]ing ovation for Chris Brown!? What the hell is wrong with you people?
-@Shananigans5

They say you shouldn’t judge music by the artist’s personal life, but you also shouldn’t beat the shit out of your girlfriend, Chris Brown.
-@SarcasticRylie

But then I got to a tweet from @shankell. She is listed in her profile as Host of the Toronto Rock, Social Media Manager and Featured on @CBCsports. That’s three companies. All of which I’m sure would prefer not be associated with domestic violence. As a “Social Media Manager” one would assume that one would know the value in what you put online and how quick it can spread and damage companies and reputations. Common sense should tell you what to say and not say on a lot of things.

So, instead of that little voice saying “maybe I should keep this to myself” we got this tweet:

I LOVE CHRIS BROWN! ……….now whatcha gonna do? #Grammys
-@shankell

To which I responded “Unfollow?“  and I got:

@markhoffberg ok! Why you let one man ruin your day is beyond me.
-@shankell

and I, appropriately in my opinion, responded with:

.@shankell yeah I guess he only beat and choked a woman within inches of her life, we should really give him a standing ovation.

Now, for those not familiar with how Twitter works, by putting the period in front of my tweet, it means everyone can see it.

Shortly after, the original tweet was replaced with “Hate me – but I love Chris Brown.”

Now, I don’t hate you. In fact, I just started following you. You seem perfectly normal and nice. I followed you on twitter after seeing you volunteer your time to host at the Heart and Stroke Auction on Saturday. I thought that you would be someone who, doing that, would be worth following.

I definitely don’t hate you, but I do think you, and hundreds like you, need to get your head out of your ass.

Do people get second, third and fourth chances. Yes, all the time.

Do I think people can learn better and rehabilitate? Yes.

Do I think the Grammys should be showcasing a person who pled guilty to the severe beating of his girlfriend less then three years earlier? No. It sends the wrong message to women that their value is less then someone who has “talent” and sells records. He’s not even off probation for doing it yet!

Women, old and young, like everyone else, deserve reinforcement of positive images. Not this crap. Not one where people stand and cheer for Chris Brown like he was the returning hero coming back from exile forced upon him by the evil Skeletor.

After the Grammys, Brown took to Twitter himself:

People who make mistakes and learn from them are ROLE MODELS too. Im just happy to inspire growth and positivity!

Being at an awards show, performing, selling records and even being in the same room as Rihanna is just something that should have never happened. Nothing inspirational could be gained from this. The only positive that came from this wretched display was men and women coming out and speaking against domestic violence tonight.

Prior to tonight’s ridiculousness, @melissagrelo, a TV host, and prominent personality in the city (Toronto) with around 15,000 followers had posted this with some other tweets while at a Chris Brown concert (a while back: 2011-09-13 03:08:01) and it enraged me:

I dissociate the artist from the deed. @chrisbrown at #MolsonAmphitheatre. @LiveNationON http://t.co/DPOWdr8

I can’t remember exactly what I responded with, but I did remember how just weeks before, she was gushing about how great a man Jack Layton was and about all the great things he did.

Now Jack Layton did a great many things. He did a lot for his political party and advocated for a lot of groups. To me, one of the most important was the White Ribbon campaign (http://www.whiteribbon.ca/).

He was a co-founder and, to quote the site, “He felt men had to have both a role and responsibility in working to end violence against women, that we needed to step up our efforts in promoting gender equality, and be accountable to challenging the most harmful aspects of masculinity.”

Now, I sent a few responses to Ms. Grelo’s direction pointing out the hypocrisy of her tweet, unfollowed, and went on my way.

People, men and women, in positions of any influence at all, have to take a look in the mirror and think about a great quote that we all too often don’t really live by, but should:

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

Is it ridiculous to call them “words to live by”? Sure. But I’d have trouble looking in the mirror, after having not said anything, even if it’s just a rant on a blog.

I want my son to grow up in a world full of strong, confident women and to be a great man who respects them and sees them as great equal people. Hopefully he can grow up in a world where people know better then to glorify someone like Chris Brown, or at the very least, be the kind of man who speaks out about it.

Hello Giggles has an article (much better then this one, thanks to @Anita_Chauhan for the link) detailing the anemic reaction to what Chris Brown did to Rihanna, and poses a fantastic question that takes this argument in another direction: “What if Chris Brown had hit Taylor Swift that night?”

This a capture of the tweets, in case of any doubt

Tagged , , , , ,
Feb 02 2012
4 Comments
Politics

Canada’s Senate Problem (and my solution)

In Canada, there are 105 Senators working for a base salary of $132,300. That’s nearly $14,000,000 total in base yearly salary. That is just, of course, the base of the costs. That is not their offices, assistants, pensions, health plans, staff, or operating the actual senate, doughnuts, coffee and the supplies needed to wipe the dust off the stodgy friends of the government of the day. Friend who get a nice lifetime gig free of real responsibility and effectiveness. Should a Senator appointed in 2009 (Patrick Brazeau) be allowed to stay in the job without recourse until November 11, 2049?

Serving no real purpose but to rubber stamp bills and perform procedure, the “Red Chamber” not only serves as a waste of money for Canadians but is an affront to the democracy that the Senate is supposed to be a part of.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Now, there are a number of options that have been proposed on what to do with the Senate including its complete abolishment. But I believe it’s time for the Upper House to serve a greater purpose to the people of Canada. One that adds a different form of representation for electors in Canada.

The current set up of the House of Commons is formed by a first-past-the-post electoral system (read more here) which has its draw backs. The biggest of those being that the popular vote often does not truly reflect the number of the seats each party receives in the House of Commons. My proposal for the Senate would resolve that issue and bring balance to the first-past-the-post system without the need to change how the House of Commons is elected or run additional expensive elections. My proposal keeps the House of Commons as it is and uses the Senate to enhance the balance in voting.

My Proposal: Have the Senate composed of members of the various party’s based on the popular vote in the Federal Election.

The current Senate is composed based on 4 regions:  Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime and the Western provinces. Seats are separately assigned for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut.

This proposal changes the Senate from a regional representation body to one that represents the actual popular vote in the country composed of a 100 seat chamber (with room for a rounding bump of a seat if needed). I would also allocate 5 additional seats for what the census would call Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Metis, Inuit).

The 5 Aboriginal seats I feel are important because of the nature of representation of Aboriginal people in the country. Making up 5% of the population but operating on wholly different governing systems, there’s a lack of a voice in the direction of the country as a whole. The members would not be members of an existing party list but would be determined by other means and certainly not limited to those on or off reserves.

After a Federal Election, the number of Senate seats for each party would be determined based on the popular vote. The parties would then select members to represent them in the Senate. The parties would have a list of potential candidates available within 10 days of the writ of election being dropped.

Senators could not have been candidates in the election which determined the Senate count and can not run for the House of Commons in the next election. The purpose of this caveat is to make sure candidates for the House of Commons aren’t running with a “fall back” position and that people wouldn’t be put forward as Senators with the intention of boosting them up for the next election. Senators would be there to represent the various parties point of view based on the popular vote.

The Breakdown based on the 2011 Federal Election

Conservatives: 40 seats
NDP: 31 seats
Liberals: 19 seats
BQ: 6 seats
Green: 4 seats

plus the additional 5 Aboriginal seats.

What it would mean

To start; the Senate would not be able to take down the House of Commons and force an election. There is fairness and then there is complete instability. The House of Commons has governed the country long enough to be considered the more important of the two houses therefore it shouldn’t be able to be forced into election by the Senate.

The Senate would however give a broad-based representation of the views of Canadians as a whole. Because Senators would come from a party list, the members would be hand selected to assure the view and opinion of the party was maintained and broadcast. The hope is that the intellectuals of the parties would be able to duke it out at a second Question Period.

By having the Senate created based on popular vote, it would also encourage voting by showing electors that their vote counts for more, and just because their candidate may not win, it does not mean their vote was for nothing.

Having been chosen by the parties, the Senator list would give a glimpse into the thinking of the parties and who would be representing the voters. The selection of the various demographics such as age, race and sex would play a part in who voters were choosing.

By avoiding a separate election for Senators, you’re eliminating a huge cost to the taxpayers (hundreds of millions of dollars). Also avoiding additional costs would be the parties, by not having to budget for an additional 100 candidates in each election.

Also, because each vote now counts for something, the number of “paper candidates” would be reduced. Parties would have additional encouragement to get candidates into the seats to get votes, providing motivation to run serious candidates even where they have a lesser chance of winning.

I do realize there is more to this type of change then just doing it, but each party would have its own reasons for supporting this type of change, whether it be past election promises or as a compromise to full proportional representation (a type of election system rejected in a referendum in Ontario, making it a less viable option.)

Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Side note: Alternatively, if regional representation was to be retained, those regions could be refined to 4 inclusive regions with the same names currently being used evenly divided across a Senate of 100 seats with 5 additional seats for what the census would deem Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) as well as single seats for the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut.


Tagged , ,
Jan 02 2012
Leave a comment
Politics

The Year That Was

My top stories of 2011 (no particular order)

Jack Layton
The political summit of a lifetime, the shocking and sudden passing and the drastic change of the entire political landscape. Layton’s rise from leader of an also-ran party to become the second most important politician in the country was a feat to watch. A politician who sold his vision of the future to a country that showed it was looking for a charismatic leader selling hope.
No one knows where the man who became “Jack” would have taken his party and the political landscape, but the void left by his death has been evident. Harper and the conservatives have had their way unimpeded since Layton’s passing. Layton wouldn’t have changed much in the vote outcomes but would have been a voice and a face for the majority of the country that didn’t vote for Harper.
Theres no doubt that no one person effected this county as much as Jack Layton did this year.

The Concussed Brain
-Sidney Crosby, due in part to concussion mismanagement, has become the Eric Lindros of this generation. A player who, when healthy is the most talented on the plant, but one for whom we’ll always be watching for the next big one, and the one that will put him out forever. And that’s the least disturbing of worries about hockey players brains.
Three deaths, two directly suicide, one self inflicted, that the popular hypothesis ties to the emotional impact of being a fighter in the NHL as well as the physical impact the brain takes in repeated fights, has raised questions about what hockey is to us and the possible changes that need to happen.

Stephen Harper
- The most powerful Prime Minister in history. Don’t question him, don’t get in his way.
Once an opposition member adamant about political transparency, electoral reform and decried the abuse of power of majority governments has become the leader he most despised.
Under Harper, power has become more condensed within the Prime Ministers office, Freedom of Information has become closed off and debate and answering for policy in the House of Commons has died.
The conservative movement in the country didn’t extend to the Ontario election as predicted, but it did prevent another Liberal majority in the province, which probably will lead to another election sooner then later.

The Celebration of Death
Bin Laden, Giddalfi, Il Jong. An evil trinity responsible for death and suffering across the globe. All dead in the same calendar year. And we had front row seats and cheered on their deaths. I don’t know if we should ever cheer on the death of another human being, but these deaths certainly brought that out in us. No doubt their deaths are the passing of some evil from this world, but I don’t know what our 140 character reactions to it say about us.

Changes are a comin’
-In a domino effect, countries across the world fought and died for change and hope, shedding the ties that bound them to repressive and abusive leadership. The future changed for generations across the world, hopefully their replacements are better.

Honorable Mentions:
Who Yu talking about: The new look Blue Jays possible persuit if Yu Darvish and the sudden change to the perception of the team as a result of the fallout.

Vancouver’s fall from grace: After an amazing Olympics, the riots after the Stanley Cup finals are a shame the city will have trouble wiping clean

Oct 28 2011
Leave a comment
Life

Past Halloween highlights

We’ve done a lot for Halloween in the past, here’s some highlights.

20111028-113521.jpg

20111028-113540.jpg

20111028-113601.jpg

20111028-113608.jpg

20111028-113617.jpg

20111028-113625.jpg

20111028-113632.jpg

20111028-113639.jpg

20111028-113645.jpg

20111028-113654.jpg

20111028-113702.jpg

Oct 11 2011
Leave a comment
Politics

Not buying what you’re selling

It was definitely time to get back into blogging, and what better topic then the Ontario Provincial Election of 2011. I’ve been fighting what to do with my blog here, and given what over half of my online reading and communication has been, I’m going to be doing mostly political commentary and analysis.

Missed opportunities

To me, the Ontario election was a series of missed oppourtunities by all parties, some small, some very large:

1. Communication: The world is passing a lot of politicians by. Given the improved use of social media in the Federal Election, I expected the provincial election to have that type of grass roots approach and really speak to people. Other then a few exceptions, I felt it was a let down. Just having a Facebook page or Twitter account isn’t sufficient. Some ridings were really close, with candidates only a couple of percentage points apart and to be in direct contact with people is way more effective then simply putting up lawn signs.

A noteable “#fail” was in my own riding of Brampton-Springdale where the local PC candidate was blocking people who were asking tough questions. Not just ignoring, but a full block.To me, this was totally unacceptable and just resulted in my repeated mentions of it on a frequent basis (blocking doesn’t stop @ mentions on Twitter.) A quick look through my tweets by whomever was in control of her account would have seen that I was grilling a large number of politicans on twitter for a wide variety of issues.

2. First Nations’ Issues: I can’t overstate how backburner this election showed First Nations’ issues actually are. Just total passive, dismissive comments, on very infrequent occasions with zero policy initiatives.

The Changebook has one mention First Nations, and that’s in a mention of repealing the Far North Act and giving them the share of the mine tax (only on new mines too.)

The main policy document of the NDP has no mention of First Nations, but they do have a Respect for the North website which has a section that covers First Nations (http://respectforthenorth.ca/2011/09/14/respect-for-northern-decision-making/). While admirable and important, tell me how many times you heard a member of the party speak about it when on TV, radio, in print or online? The highlight of their policy was definitely in the proposal for establishment a full-time Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I do wonder if they’ll push for that in their position of power in the minority government.

The Liberal Platform had no mention of First Nations either, but they too had a seperate platform for the North, which included mention of policy involving First Nations’. Only one of the mentions actually dealt with issues that were exclusively First Nations. Again, why not a main policy or directives that would benefit First Nations’ people.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on First Nations. Far from it actually. But I do know one thing: for all our touting of Canada being the greatest country in the world, the best for business and a free and equal land, we have a whole group of the population which lives in impoverished, third-world conditions and we’re happy to turn a blind eye to it.

3. More debates: One debate? seriously? Not to go with the usual Ontario elitism, but this is the most important province in the country and two of the three leaders are new to people, while the third leader has had two terms as premier on the record to tout and to be questioned on. The high point of conversation and investigation by people in this election was the debate, of which there should have been more.

Not only should there have been more debates, but I believe there could have been ones targeting the most imporatant topics according to the people and then finishing a week before the election with overall final debate. Using different formats could keep them fresh.

Also two other things about the debates: Steve Paikin should be allowed to run those specific ones like he runs The Agenda; get the answer and make it clear when someone is skirting an issue. Second, it should be an independent body that organizes the debates, which would be mandatory, even the USA has this part right for their presidential elections.

4. Showing the differences: Remember when you were given two pictures in grade school and told to spot the differences? Well put the leaders and the parties next to each other, cancel out their personalities and show me where the great differences and vision are?

There was a blueprint written by the NDP in the Federal Election; show you’re different. Don’t proclaim to be a choice for change, tell people what those changes are going to be and let them choose. A lot of people mistake the federal NDP’s strategy as a campaign of positivity and assume that’s where the success lay. The success lay in the ability to motivate people that their vote could make a difference and that they could be inspired to stand behind someone who was capable and had the vision to lead the way. The leaders and parties in this election couldn’t find the pulse of the people in this province with a road map. The micro targeting got micro voting results, which brings me to the next point…

5. Encouraging the actual vote: There are legitimate reasons for not voting, I just don’t buy that they apply to more then about 5-10% of the province, certainly not half of it. It was a beautiful day, and Elections Ontario had a record number of opportunities before the day to cast your vote. It wasn’t a surprise to people that it was election day. We’re so connected now that there was no mystery there.

The results show that the Liberals have won 53 ridings with only 18.4% of eligible voters supporting them when you factor their percentage of the popular vote against the number of people who could have voted in the province.

So what went wrong? What could make a difference? Posting names of people who didn’t vote? Funding to regions based on percentage of vote? Mandatory voting? A different political representation system? A Tax Credit for Voting? Online Voting?

All those are ideas floated about in my conversations with people.  I’m embarrassed that some of the areas surrounding me were some of the lowest turnouts ever recorded, but across the provice I do equate a lot of the poor turnout to the average voter not buying what the parties and their leaders were selling. And the truth is, it’s not only about actually voting, but it’s about an educated vote as well.

It’s about someone having a stand and choosing an MPP for that reason, or even refusing to vote at the polling station and being counted as a protested vote (not spoiling it on purpose, because they group those with people who couldn’t understand the instructions.)

There’s got to be ideas out there; the online engagement of people, targeting different groups of people like the poorer or younger members of the province, a way for citizens to challenge the claims being made to an independent office and dozens of other ideas that could all work together to make voting more appealing.

The problem is why would a government that just got elected on these conditions ever do anything to change them? The changes have to be motivated by the people who believe in democracy. I believe that there are great ideas out there, including a combination of many of the above. But what can we do to increase the actual interest?

I think the answers lie out there and it’s something I’m going to be talking about a lot more, with a focus on someone who stole a seat in this election by harnessing the youth of his riding.

6. Going beyond the perception or claim of “cleaning up politics”:  My ideas:

  • Voicing your own commercials for direct accountability. If you’re making a claim as a party, you’ll do it in your leaders voice.
  • An independent site for the reporting of campaign donations in real time, not months after the fact (including who they work for or are associated with and if they’ve donated to anyone else.)
  • Tougher stances during the debates, giving the mediator the power to push for a real answer.
  • Reduction of out of campaign election advertising extending beyond the restriction on lawn signs, but to include billboards, online sites and attack ads.
  • Mandatory and obvious declaration requirements on attack ads and other “non-official” sites that are involved with the campaign. If it was paid for, built by or funded by a party, that party’s logo, name and involvement would have specific requirements to show people who is doing what more clearly and reduce some of the smear campaigns.
  • A tough stance on online interference: if you work for the party, that has to be declared on your bio on twitter or declared at the end of a comment online. This has been happening a lot more where parties are hiring people to go online and pretend to be average people to try and sway opinion.
I hope you enjoyed reading, feel free to leave comments, I’d love to hear from you!
Tagged
Feb 14 2011
Leave a comment
Life

My wife is a milk strategist

It’s early in the morning, my son decided he wanted to be up before the sun and I’ve got him up, ready and downstairs for breakfast.

Those who know me, know I operate on Tea. First thing in the morning, then around 11, around 2 and then maybe once or twice more plus a guaranteed cup or two if I find myself at my parents place at any point in the day. It’s replacing the other fluids in my body… for the better.

After boiling the kettle and then brewing the tea on the stove, I add the sugar and go for the milk in the fridge. I pour the milk out of the bag and it tops off my cup with every last drop that’s left.

Now, some would find this to be a coincidence.

It is not.

It is a devious plan to always have me replace the bag of milk.

And it works.

My wife had a glass of milk with some cookies the night before. She was the last one to pour and knew that the next thing that would be made with this milk was my tea the next morning. So instead of topping off the glass and replacing the bag, she didn’t leave it empty, but with just enough so that I could whiten my tea in the morning. Not too little or too much, but literally just enough.

This strategy is employed the same way later in the day. Dinner comes and it’s time for a glass to go with my meal and BAM, just enough to fill one of our Ikea glasses and not a drop more.

She’s crafted this to a fine art. There’s no revenge. It’s not a battle or a war because if it was the closest resemblance would be Kramer at the Dojo.

If there’s ever an opportunity to teach this at a professional level, she’ll be to milk strategy what Mark Zuckerberg is to social interaction on Internet.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 485 other followers