KAIROS, Bev Oda and Conservative Dogma

The recent revelations of government finagling over funding KAIROS shows us some of the great problems that are manifesting in the Conservative Party's execution of their legislative and policy dogma.

On the CBC website is a copy of the signed document with a "NOT" penned into a key sentence, with no date, initials or other information that would validate its existence and traceability.

The first question that I have to ask is why did a document in such a questionable state of authenticity was ever used to implement anything? If I write a cheque, and substantially change the amount of that cheque, I am obliged to initial each change I make. Surely no less a requirement should apply to the documents used to define and guide the implementation of government policy.

If, as Ms. Oda claims, the "NOT" was absent from the version of the document that she signed, then we must ask ourselves who added that word and when. Several issues arise in my mind. First, who had access to the signed documents after signatures had been acquired? Second, does the Minister's office not keep digital records of documents signed by the minister? ... and if not, why not? If there are such records, let's see them immediately.

Then we come to the next issue that deserves our attentions. The HarperCon$ ran on a platform of increasing government accountability and transparency. Does it not strike anyone else as odd that such a simple control as requiring copies of signed documents to be maintained (even electronically) at the various levels of authorization are not being executed? Further, how is it that nobody in either the government or the bureaucracy noticed this unusual alteration of a document? Or was this change done by one of the minister's political staff after the minister signed it purely for unofficial political reasons?

This business stinks - and, paraphrasing Shakespeare, Something is rotten in Ottawa.

The Evolution "Debate" - An Observation

This post has its roots in some observations about the reactions I have observed when the "devout" (read fundamentalist) are confronted with evidence, or are pressed to provide evidence to substantiate their position.

The common pattern is to pull up a collection of largely disproven arguments. When those objections are reasonably disproven, one of two things typically get dragged out - a series of "why doesn't evolution explain ", or a variation on Pascal's Wager.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about someone who is a member of the clergy or simply a follower of the faith, the pattern is consistent. No amount of persuasion will get them to even attempt to consider or assimilate new information.

This reveals a serious problem in the modern practice of Christianity, especially in the more hard-line groups. The real strength of Christianity in its early years was its ability to adapt and absorb as it encountered new situations and practices.

Through much of the re-awakening and renaissance, the Church was both the primary force of objection to the findings of early science as well as the sponsor of so many of those whose work ultimately became the foundations of science in some form or another.

Then there is what we see today - a concept of faith that is rigid and inflexible. One that is unwilling to consider anything except that which validates their interpretation of scripture. Whether I think about the current Pope in Rome, or the so-called "evangelical" leaders, the story is the same - rigid adherence to an inflexible understanding of the "absolute truth" of scripture.

It seems to me that what has happened is that monotheistic faith has reach a predictable point. No longer is it able to adapt to a changing world, but instead it is now insisting that the world must conform to it.

The railing of the Pope against "creeping secularism" is an excellent example. Instead of providing a meaningful alternative through leading by example, we find the Roman Catholic Church increasingly mired in scandal and its very credibility on such matters being rendered moot. The continued insistence of evangelical leaders on a very judgmental and harsh interpretation of scripture is being rendered equally irrelevant every time a high profile evangelical leader is found to be engaging in the very activities they decry as evil and sinful.

In the past, religions have been able to morph and change to fill the power vacuum that often exists with the gap between the day to day realities of governance and the guidance of that government overall. Today, the increasing rigidity of how scripture is interpreted for "truth" has rendered these bodies unable to morph and fill in the gaps. Instead, they are becoming obstacles to be overcome and later discarded as they cease to be constructive members of the dialogue.

Oh That's A Surprise

It seems that CTS Television has just dumped McVety's Word TV program:

CTS (Crossroads Television System) regrets that Word TV will no longer be broadcast due to its lack of compliance with the CTS Code of Ethics to which Word TV agreed under contract.

Last week, its producer and host, Dr. Charles McVety erroneously communicated that CTS was being pressured to censor Word TV; these comments are inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that Word TV failed to keep its agreement to comply with the CTS Code of Ethics and indicated a refusal to comply in the future. Unfortunately, numerous attempts by CTS to work with Dr. McVety were unsuccessful.

Cue the violins, I'm sure McVety's going to be bleating that he's a martyr even louder now.

In spite of the fact that the issue is much simpler - McVety was distorting the truth to suit his political agenda.

Where The HarperCon$ Don't Understand Canada

Canada is a unique country on the world stage. On one hand, we represent one of the largest, most diverse geographic areas under a national government on the planet. On the other hand, we're also very sparsely populated, with only a little over 30 million people.

In the past, Canada has been perceived as 'punching above its weight' on the world stage. Punching is perhaps the wrong term. We had enjoyed a very long period of influence that exceeded our population and overall economic strength.

Since 2006, the HarperCon$ have been prancing about the world stage trying to make Canada appear to be a major power. Whether that is some of the ridiculous defense purchasing commitments they have been making, or Harper trying to bully other world leaders (e.g. China) doesn't matter. What we have is a leadership which is trying to make Canada play a role as schoolyard bully.

Unfortunately, this is rooted in a profound misunderstanding of Canada's real power on the world stage. Our prominence on the world stage isn't rooted in our ability to force others to bend to our will, and is unlikely to ever be. No, Canada's real influence lies in our ability to persuade others to 'do the right thing'.

This is not that different from how women accomplish things in society. In terms of pure physical strength, a women generally can't overpower men. Yet, women have a great deal of influence over people in general. Why? Because they can persuade others to do the right thing. Women don't achieve persuasion by physical force, but through other more subtle means.

Canada's power lies in its ability to act as a broker between America and the rest of the world. Our strength lies in being seen to stand up against America when it is doing something foolishly wrong-headed, and yet being seen standing with the American government when it is appropriate. The ability to be an 'honest broker' with Washington is important, and it buys us credibility with other powers in various regions of the world.

Canada strutting about the world stage like some puffed up dandy as Harper has been doing really looks quite ridiculous. Even if we were to focus ourselves on becoming as big a military power as possible, we simply aren't a big enough country as a whole to be able to put forward an army big enough to impress any but the third tier powers in the world.

If they ever realize that Canada needs to conduct itself on the world stage in a more feminine manner in order to be effective, the more macho elements of the CPoC are going to be truly appalled.

Ted Morton's Alberta

Members of Alberta's Progressive Conservative Party may want to think carefully before selecting Ted Morton as their next leader.

Morton doesn't represent anything close to the politics of Peter Lougheed - in fact, in my view he represents a much more mean-spirited kind of politics.

First is the fact that Ted Morton is among those who signed the infamous Alberta Firewall Letter several years ago. At best, the Firewall Letter is a neo-separatist document that attempts to argue that Alberta should isolate itself from the rest of Canada.

Second is his legislative record. As this article points out, Morton hasn't exactly got a record of even-handedness in legislation.

Among his crosses to bear is a controversial law he championed that gives cabinet unilateral control over all land use with little compensation and no judicial accountability or appeals process. The law “extinguishes” individual land rights.

I find that particularly interesting since a long standing hot button issue among those who would be Morton's "base" is property rights. That he would engineer and support a bill that so blatantly undermines property rights in a province like Alberta tells us a great deal about Morton's desires. He isn't a politician with 'grass roots' desires - he's after power and power without consequences or accountability.

On issues like human rights, Morton's track record is equally deplorable. His zombie Bill 208 legislation is so blatantly hostile to GLBT people it's not even funny, and generally hostility to GLBT people also brings with it a parochial view of women which is very limiting to women's ability to participate fully in society.

Morton is (and has been) a polarizing force in Alberta's politics. The PCs need a broad base of support in order to survive the upcoming election - there's a lot of competition emerging on Alberta's political landscape, and polarization will not do the PC's any favours.

Both the Alberta Party and Wildrose Alliance are eating the support bases of an increasingly polarized and fractured PC party. Selecting Morton as a leader will not be favorable to the PCs. (although it will make for one heck of a dogfight with the WRA...)

The Quest For Knowledge Continues

While correlation doesn't equate to causation, this is definitely interesting indeed.

Transsexual differences caught on brain scan

Antonio Guillamon's team at the National University of Distance Education in Madrid, Spain, think they have found a better way to spot a transsexual brain. In a study due to be published next month, the team ran MRI scans on the brains of 18 female-to-male transsexual people who'd had no treatment and compared them with those of 24 males and 19 females.

They found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter – and the female-to-male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006). "It's the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised," Guillamon says.

I like seeing such results appropriately framed with a sense of clarity about what they really tell us:

Guillamon isn't sure whether the four regions are at all associated with notions of gender, but Ivanka Savic-Berglund at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, thinks they might be. One of the four regions – the superior longitudinal fascicle – is particularly interesting, she says. "It connects the parietal lobe [involved in sensory processing] and frontal lobe [involved in planning movement] and may have implications in body perception."

What an interesting bit of research - I hope that there's more like this to come.

Alberta Politics Just Got Interesting

First Dave Taylor moves to sit as an Alberta Party MLA, and then Stelmach steps down.

I'm not sure what to make of all this just now, but things definitely just got interesting.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the Alberta Party is well positioned to fill a void in Alberta's politics and Dave Taylor may be just the right guy to help them become a visible part of the process.

As for Stelmach's departure, I think it tells us that the PC party is not a united monolith at all. There's too many signs that suggest he was pushed out - and likely as not pushed out by the extremist right who are beginning to fear that the Wildrose Alliance is eating their base of support up.

With an election likely in the next year or so, 2011 should be very interesting with the PCs trying to portray themselves as "renewed" and two new parties competing for the votes of voters long disaffected.