Scaling up communities – part 4

December 12, 2008 — xanthippa

As part of capturing The Big Picture of our society, I have been examining the benefits and costs of scaling up of our communities.

In Part 3, I looked at the establishment of governance structures as a necessity to administer our societies which have scaled up to become states.  The people who enable the governance structures are, in the core meaning of the term, ‘agents of the state’.  (The lead-up posts can be found here:  Part 1 and Part 2.)

The moral dilemma which agents of the state face is simple in its mechanics, but complex in its resolution.  Perhaps it cannot really be satisfactorily resolved – only ‘put up with’, or managed, in one way or another.  And, in a way, this dilemma is also the ‘last check’ on the power of the state…

There is an inherent dichotomy between being an individual – with individual moral views and opinions – and being an agent of the state whose very purpose is to carry out the will of the state.  This cannot be easy, as it is unlikely that every agent of the state will agree with every single policy of the state – yet, it is their job to implement them all.

An ‘agent of the state’ is anyone who is directly hired by the state (civil servant) or who is officially licensed (contracted) by the state to deliver a service on behalf of the state.   (In this series of posts, I use the word ‘state’ in its core meaning:  it could mean provincial, municipal, federal, state, or whatever other political unit has sovereignity of a specific geographic area within a specific sphere of influence.)

This is not the ‘licensing’ – as in certification, where the state accredits someone to practice in a specific field on their own – like, say, plumbers or electricians.  Plumbers and electricians (etc.) may be ‘licensed’ by the state, but their clients contract them privately, not to deliver a government-mandated service.  (There are exceptions, where the state may hire private contractors also licensed to practice by the state, but that is ‘special case’.)

It is a different kind of ‘licensing’.  This kind of licence contracts the licencee to perform services on behalf of the state:  it is this ‘on behalf of the state’ which makes such a licensee an agent of the state. 

When delivering services to its citizens, the government is bound by a different set of rules than a private citizen, or a private business, is (or, at least, it ought to be).  A private contractor may bid on a job – but is not obligated to enter into a contract to pave someone’s laneway in pink interlock brick, if pink annoys him. 

The government already has a pre-existing contract with each citizen to deliver certain services in return for the taxes already levied upon its citizens.  Once a citizen chooses to exercise their part of the contract, the government is obligated to deliver such services.  And, the person who has accepted to be the government contractor is obligated to deliver this.

To put it into different terms:  if I run my own soup shop, I may need a business licence – but it is my shop and I pick what is on the menu.  If, on the other hand, the government got elected on a promise to provide 5 specific kinds of soup in soup kitchens, free to every citizen once a day, and if I get contracted by the government to run a soup kitchen, I cannot then turn around and say I will not make pea soup (that being one of the 5), because it is against my convictions or conscience or whatever!  Either, I open my own shop, and run it pea-soup-free – and get paid by my clients.  Or I accept to be paid by the government, in which case I will indeed be serving pea soup. 

This, of course, translates into areas much more controversial than pea soup….which, by the way, I rather like. 

Socialized healthcare, for instance, is one such area:  each and every physician who does not hand a bill directly to the patient (or their insurance company), but is paid by the state – each one of these physicians is an agent of the state.  And, each and every one of them is obligated to serve pea soup – or prescribe ‘the morning after’ pill, or perform abortions, or whatever other medical procedure the government has agreed to provide to its citizens, as long as the physician is profesionally qualified to perform such services. 

Yes, I know – many of my conservative readers may not like this.  It seems repugnant to many of us that a physician who is opposed to abortion on demand may be forced to prescribe ‘the abortion pill’…. 

I agree – it is WRONG. 

But it is not wrong because the government is forcing the physician to ‘act against their conscience’.  The government is doing no such thing:  the physician had agreed to abdicate his or her personal convictions or beliefs when he or she accepted to act as an agent of the state!

So, the fault does not lie with the demand that agent of the state actually deliver the services they are contracted to. 

The fault lies in forcing physicians be the agents of the state in the first place!

If a physician has a private practice, there is no way a government should be able to compel him or her to perform a procedure the physician does not want to – whether through moral convictions or because the doctor is having a bad hair day.  Independant professionals ought not be compelled to perform services against their will.  

But, it is a completely different situation if the physician is an ‘agent of the state’ … 

If the agents of the state refuse to carry out the very tasks the state has mandated – ones necessary for the state to fulfill its contract to its citizenry, that state will cease to function.  If not remedied, the state will cease to exist. 

This is the ‘last check’ on the state which I mentioned earlier:  by refusing to carry out the will of the state, should the action be too abhorrent, its agents can indeed bring about the end of such a state!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Aqsa Parvez – we remember you

December 10, 2008 — xanthippa

jijabvictim.jpg

Aqsa Parvez – a martyr of ‘official multiculturalism’

One year ago today, Aqsa Parvez, a girl on the cusp of womanhood – was brutally murdered by her family because she dared to make a choice:  to be herself.  Now, her body lies in an unmarked grave – no name, no picture, just #774…

The story of Aqsa Parvez touches me very deeply.  I am an immigrant who successfully integrated into the mainstream society – despite the disaproval from some members of my cultural community.  December 10th is the anniversary of when I arrived in Canada.  Aqsa and I both desired freedom.  The date which marks the beginning of my life in freedom is the very same as on which hers ended- what a tragic irony! 

Aqsa’s tragedy reminds me of probably the smartest, most intelligent person I had ever met.  She went to University with me and my husband – and graduated with the highest marks in her Engineering class.  A year or so after University, she met up with my husband and me and told us she just got engaged to a distant relative in the Pakistani community in England. 

She had met him once, for about an hour, and they talked.  She said thay both shared similar background:  growing up in a traditional family, needing to always be trying to balance their expectations and their desire to be part of the mainstream culture.  She thought this would be a good common ground from which they could build a relationship which balanced all these pressures.  So, both of them told their families they will agree to the marriage.

That was the last time we saw her or heard from her.  I was no longer allowed by her family to communicate with her – even to give her a wedding present my husband and I got for her.  Nor would they accept the present from us and forward it on to her.  We have no idea what happened to her.  Back then, we did not really understand it – so we were puzzled, instead of frightened for her.  Now it is too late to find her.  So, when I see Aqsa, I see my friend, too, and wonder what her fate is.

What happened to Aqsa – and my friend – and what continues to happen to many other men and women and children – is a scathing denunciation of our official multiculturalism, because this is where the road of official multiculturalism necessarily leads.

Aqsa Parvez was murdered because she dared to cross the boundaries of multiculturalism’s cultural apartheid!

The difficulty with ‘official multiculturalism’ is that is actively works to prevent the integration of immigrants into mainstream culture (or between different groups within one culture).  It is difficult enough to integrate as it is, but when there are official, semi-official, or, ‘officially tolerated’ barriers added, overcoming these real and artificial barriers becomes very difficult to achieve.  In Aqsa’s case, it proved impossible!

In effect, multiculturatsm introduces something very similar to a caste system.  A  ‘cultural cast’ system, if you will.   If you are in one pidgeonhole, then you are judged according to these rules, if you are in a different pidgeonhole, a different set of rules applies!  And never the two shall meet!

I have criticized this in the past, because it gives the leaders of the immigrant’s ‘cultural community’ power over the newcomer – and impacts how the integration will happen.  It often traps people into the same cultural norms they had fought hard to escape from!

And while I do not advocate ‘assimilation’ – which would require an immigrant to abandon who they were before coming here – it is essential that we ensure successful ‘integration’ of new immigrants!  Without learning how to succesfully interact with people in the mainstream culture, without the opportunity to create social bonds outside of their narrow ‘cultural community’, the new immigrants will, in fact, become ghettoized!

Policing in a multicultural society becomes difficult, too.  Each ‘cultural minority’ is taught not to identify with the over-arching state and its structures.  Many of the people within these communities are victimized by their neighbours – but seeking police protection has come to be seen as a betrayal of one’s own cultural community…  So, immigrant communities become not just socially isolated – they become legally isolated, too.  And very, very vulnerable…

It is time to call ‘official multiculturalism’ by its proper name:  CULTURAL APARTHEID!

Equal, but separate! 

We were not willing to tolerate this bigotry when the divisions were based on skin colour!  Does a person control the culture into which they are born any more than they control the colour of their skin? 

So, please, can someone explain to me why should we now be bullied into tolerating apartheid based on culture?

Because, at both its philosophical core and in its practice, that is exactly what multiculturalism is!

Political Correctness be damned – I will say it, true and direct, because if I do not, my fellow Canadians will continue to suffer.   (I apologize for my rough language, but I really get worked up about this!)

Wearing a headscarf has nothing to do with Islam.  There are plenty of good Muslimas who choose not to wear one!  We must get this straight, because wearing a headscarf is not a religious custom, it is a cultural one.  Yet, some people truly believe that it is part of Islam – and if we ignore this connection, we can never hope to improve this situation! 

This needs to be addressed:  both the role of the scarf (hijab) and the relative roles within the family, whatever the religious or cultural background.  We are all citizens, with certain rights that must not be taken away from us.  Regardless of my belief  (cultural, religious or anything else) in my rightness in doing something – if it is against our secular laws, no amount of ‘religious tolerance’ or ‘cultural tolerance’ can excuse such an action! 

I am very happy to say, Canadian Muslim leaders – from the moderate and brilliant Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress  to the ultra-conservative and extremely controversial Imam Syed Soharwardy – have spoken up to openly condemn what happened to Aqsa Parvez…. from robbing her of her life to the dishonour of burrying her in an unmarked grave!

 

It is time for all of us to have a critical, realistic look at  what are the practical results of official multiculturalism?  Has it helped our society?  Has it helped immigrants?  Has it helped anyone but the bureaucrats who make a career out of administering it?

The data from the experiment of ‘multiculturalism’ is in – let us see how the numbers add up!

It seems pretty clear they add up to #774!

 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, opression, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Scaling up communities – Part 3

December 9, 2008 — xanthippa

We, humans build communities.   As our societies grew, since the dawns of history, so did the size of our communities – and we reaped a lot of benefits from this.  Yet, the ‘scaling up’ process -while raising our standard of living – has some costs associated with it, too…

Part 1  of this series looked at the significance of Dunbar’s number (about 150):  the number of people who comfortably fit into our Monkeysphere (that is, the people we relate to as individuals, rather than statistics).  This is about the maximum size of our community, before we start ‘scaling up’ by perceiving ‘others’ as concepts, rather than individuals….the reason why the suffering of our parent or child ‘touches’ us more than that of a stranger.  

In Part 2 , I tried to demonstrate how scaling our communities up meant heaving to sacrifice some of our individuality (having to interact with more people than can fit into our Monkeyshpere – and whose Monkeyspheres we cannot fit into) but that the benefits of this,  specialization and greater productivity, benefits us by allowing us to reach a higher standard of living.  The side-effect of this scaling up of communities is the emergence of governance structures.  

Here, I would like to look at one of the many implications of scaling governance structures up – and the emrgence of a specific group of people to administer them:  the ‘civil servants’.

I cannot remember which king is said to have uttered:  ‘I AM the State!’ – perhaps there were many.  Yet, most ‘states’ (and here, I use the word state to mean a political association with sovereignity over a defined geographic area) today are not ‘a person’. ‘State’ is a concept which only exists when real flesh-and-blood people act as its agents. 

In other words, a ‘state’ cannot ‘do’ anything ‘physical’, because it is not a corporeal being in and of itself.  A ‘state’ cannot pick up a stapeler, or a gun – or write a constitution.  It is individual people, the agents of the state, who act on behalf of the state:  they carry out the actions necessary to establish the state’s existence and perform the physical actions needed to fulfill the obligations of the state in the social contract between it and the the polulace which created it.

As we have already seen in the earlier parts, as we, humans, get more successful at ‘community building’, our communities get bigger and we can no longer decide each ‘common position’ in the same way we used to:  we no longer know every other member of our society personally, so the methods of the ‘smaller scale community’ are no longer applicable. 

By ‘scaling up’ our communities, through our social contract, we have chosen to give away some of our individual decision-making choices and agreed, in certain areas of our life, to abide by the decisions that ‘the group’ has arrived at.  The group may choose to accept the decisions of its leader, or each citizen may be able to vote on every desision, with the majority opinion becoming binding on the group – or any number of other methods…but that is not the point of this post.

The point I am making is that once this ‘group decision’ is achieved on a specific topic, it becomes the ‘law’ (OK, I am simplifying the process – but not the principle) or ‘policy’ of the ‘state’.  This ‘group decision’ is implemented/enacted/put into practice/fulfilled through the governance structures of the state – with ‘the civil servants’ acting as ‘the agents of state’ who carry out the actions necessary to enact (enforce, fulfill, etc.) it.

In democratic systems – and I am specifically referring to our ‘Western Democracies’ – it is not likely that every citizen will agree fully with every ‘law’ or ‘policy’ of the state.  And, in our Western systems, that is a good thing, because it is through open debate that we grow.  (OK, so this bit is more theoretical, lately, than most of us would like, but in principle…)

And this is where we run into a real problem, a bit where the ‘scaling up’ of our community creates a moral dilema:  what happens when the civil servants – the very agents whose actions are the only means for the state to act in order to fulfill its social contrats with its citizens – what happens when these agents of the states personally disagree with what they are obligated to implement?

While they are ‘off the clock’ as private citizens, they have every right to be the individuals they truly are.  Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state – what should govern their behaviour?  Their inividual views and opinions, or the policies/laws the society has agreed to accept? 

Difficult question, to say the least.

IF they should follow the ‘social contract’ mindlessly, they risk becoming the very agents of injustice, of ‘tyranny of the majority’ – and atrocities like the Holocaust could NOT have happened without ‘agents of the state’ refusing to enact immoral policies, blindly putting into practice the unthinkable.  Never again!

On the other hand – what happens if the majority of the citizens approve a just law, yet one which is not favourable to the civil servants?  What if it is designed to protect a minority – but not a minority that (for some unknown reason) the majority of civil servants do not respect?  Or, what if it is meant to curb the intrusion of civil servants into citizens’ lives?  It is not unprecedented that most of the agents of the state would be morally opposed – or, at least, personally unwilling – to bring these policies/laws into practice…

So, where does the balance lie? 

At which point should the civil servants set aside their individuality – and their morality – in order to perform the will of the group?

Difficult question, to say the least.

Without the civil servant’s denial of their individual morality, while acting as agents of the state, the state cannot effect its will – and so it will effectively cease to exist.  Yet, without applying their ‘morality’ to their actions, the civil servants may be empowering immoral laws or policies.

Where does the balance lie?

In my never-humble-opinion, the civil servants are the ‘last check’ on the state:  they cannot but evaluate their own actions based on their personal morality.  Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state, they may not act upon this personal morality.  It is up to them to weigh the balance between continuing to act as agents of the state – or not.  If they choose to no longer act as agents of the state, they must abdicate their role of ‘agent of the state’….

In other words, if enough civil servants resign over moral objections by refusing to enact the will of the state, the state will cease to exist.  This must be a heavy weight on the conscience of each and every civil servant!

Return to ‘The Big Picture’

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

REAL cultural tolerance!!!

December 8, 2008 — xanthippa

A few days ago, I had an experience that proved to me something I think most of us already know:  the ‘official bureaucrats’, ‘brave and steadfast guardians of multiculturalism’ (in the name of which they are ready to oppress us) really have no clue what ‘being multicultural’ is all about!!!

Having arrived a little early for my son’s ‘parent-teacher interview’, I walked around a little, admiring the pictures and poems posted in the school hallways.  Unusually, in front of the library door, there were a couple of chairs and a desk.  In these chairs sat two girls, I’m guessing about 12 years old.   They were supervised by one of their Mom’s (sitting off to the side) – their smiles betrayed the heritage.  Both mother and daughter wore a hijab – so I am making a presumption that they were Muslim.  The other student, the daughter’s friend, did not wear a hijab. 

Yet, the two of girls were obviously good friends – and they made an awesome team.  These two girls decided that it was important to help kids less fortunate then they – and they figured out a way they could make a real difference in the world!

In order to raise money for a charity helping kids in Africa, they focused their creative efforts.  Taking up card-stock, delicately ornate origami paper, glue and calligraphy markers, they made a whole slew of Christmas cards to sell to parents coming to the parent-teacher interviews!

When I asked, they told me they came up with the idea together.  Their eyes shone with pride of ‘doing right’!  And, they were justly proud – their cards were beautiful!  At a $1.00 a piece, I saw every parent passing them (including myself) dump all the change from their wallets and walk away with a stack of Christmas cards.

The Mom was the ’empowering parent’:  not only did she agree to supervise the ‘sales’, she was the one to buy the supplies, too.  The Mom was happy when other parents stopped and asked questions, and she looked downright ‘parentally proud’ when someone complimented the two girls or their Christmas cards – or their greater goal! 

And the girls deserved every compliment they got!  Many young people have awesome ideals, but these two girls had actually figured out a way they themselves could have an impact in making this world a better place for others.  My deep respect goes to them!

Now, I would like to repeat the reality of this:  I (an ignostic) have just bought a whole pile of the most beautiful Christmas cards ever from 2 very young people, one of whom wore the hijab (and, thus, was presumably not a Christian).  And the adult supervisor/enabler was (in my best guess) a Muslima.  I have no clues as to the cultural or religious thoughts of the third person.  Not one of us found anything in the least offensive in making, selling and buying cards wishing everyone to have a ‘Merry Christmas’!

To me, that is a perfect example of the way that people – without government imposed ‘official multiculturalism’ and the bureaucrats who force us into cultural apartheid – will do that most human thing ever:  build communities! And it proves we can do it without regard as to our background culture, religion, or any other superficial means of labeling us, classifying us and dividing us! 

That whole ‘divide and conquer’ will only work if we allow ourselves to be divided!  And if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will be conquered and our rights and freedoms will be taken away!

We must not be hiding our cultural icons from each other, for fear giving offence!  If we hide them, we cannot share them – nor can we rejoice in them!  We can learn from each other by sharing in each other’s festivals, ideas and thoughts.  That is the most human thing ever – and we must not allow those who wish to rule us by dividing us into ‘cultural solitudes’ to succeed!

We can understand that anything which celebrates the human spirit and the beauty of caring and sharing can help us build our community and grow as human beings.  And, at times, our young people can even teach us how sharing in each other’s celebrations can help people whom we do not even know!

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is REAL cultural tolerance! 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, ignosticism, immigrants, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Dangers of online journalism

December 5, 2008 — xanthippa

This article might be of interest to the online community we call the blogosphere:

CPJ’s 2008 prison census: Online and in jail

Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium.

…

China continued to be world’s worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years. Cuba, Burma, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan round out the top five jailers from among the 29 nations that imprison journalists. Each of the top five nations has persistently placed among the world’s worst in detaining journalists.

…

“Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack.”

…

Illustrating the evolving media landscape, the increase in online-related jailings has been accompanied by a rise in imprisonments of freelance journalists.

…

“The image of the solitary blogger working at home in pajamas may be appealing, but when the knock comes on the door they are alone and vulnerable,” said CPJ’s Simon. “All of us must stand up for their rights–from Internet companies to journalists and press freedom groups. The future of journalism is online and we are now in a battle with the enemies of press freedom who are using imprisonment to define the limits of public discourse.”

Read the whole story here.

My husband has been googling for classes in how to bake a file into a cake…

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Carleton University students redeem themselves

November 26, 2008 — xanthippa

This is an update to yesteday’s post, which – among other things – linked to a story about how Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) had passed a resolution which warrants being quoted here in full:

Motion to Drop Shinerama Fundraising Campaign from Orientation Week
Whereas Orientation week strives to be [as] inclusive as possible;
Whereas all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve the their diverse communities;
And Whereas Cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men
Be it resolved that: CUSA discontinue its support of this campaign
Be it Further Resolved that the CUSA representatives on the incoming Orientation Supervisory Board work to select a new broad reaching charity for orientation week.
Moved: Donnie Northrup           
Seconded: Meera Chander

‘Shinerama’ is part of ‘frosh week’:  students offer to shine people’s shoes in exchange for donations to charity – the Cystic Fibrosis Association….

Before we go further, it should be noted that this ‘motion’ was kept tightly under wraps until the meeting itself – the ‘agenda’ for the meeting was not made available even to those attending, etc.  In other words, it stunk a lot…  And, one of the two reps to vote against it (and who brought it to public attention) got TONS of emails from the ‘approving’ members criticizing him for his move and – yes, calling him ‘a racist’!!!

Well, here is a reaction from Carleton University’s own student newspaper, the Charlatan:

The unprecedented negative reaction that Shinerama-gate has brought to Carleton should show CUSA that it needs to take council operations more seriously.

In the future, CUSA needs to think before it acts.

But that is not all!!!

The Carleton University students have been very vocal in their criticism of CUSA – and demands that ALL the members of the Association who voted FOR this ‘proposition’ resign immediatelly!!!  (At least, that is the gist of the polite ones…)

In other words, Carleton University is kind of like our society at large:  most of us are actually quite decent folk who DO know right from wrong….but because we don’t have a strong desire to boss other people around, we don’t go ‘into government’.  The ones who have this strong desire to engineer the behaviour of others are not usually representative of the rest of us…but, as Douglas Adams said, we vote for them anyway because otherwise, the ‘wrong lizzard might get in’…

And, just like when most Canadians learned about the racist excesses Section 13(1) has been subverted to the service of, when most of the students at Carleton discovered the insanity of their leaders, they are very unanimous in demanding their heads (in the sense of ‘resignation’ – nothing more…..this IS Canada, after all!!!). 

To quote a great thinker, Carleton Students are saying:  Fire. Them. All.

This actually gives me hope!

 

UPDATE:  CUSA has reinstated Shinerama, with CF as the supported charity.  What is more, Donnie Northrup, the author of the motion, has resigned.  As for the rest of CUSA – they may still be impeached by the student body!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , . 7 Comments »

Food for thought

November 25, 2008 — xanthippa

Today, I would like to offer a few other posts which bring some food for thought:

George Jonas:  Dalton McGuinty’s Singapore of the North

National Post editorial board: Thought police are thought police, not ‘facilitators’

Jonathan Kay on cystic fibrosis, and the disgrace of Carleton University’s Students’ Association

Damaging Israeli Flag Creates Unease at Bell High School (that should have been defacing, not ‘damaging’!).

It just makes my head spin…

 

Update:  It has been determined that the Israeli flag (part of a multi-national flag exhibit) at Bell (the high school of both John Manley and John Baird) had been damaged by a student of Palestinian heritage.  No informaition is available on what, if any, disciplinary action the student will face for her actions.

UPDATE:  Carleton University students redeem themselves

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , . 3 Comments »

Government ‘standardization’ and ‘big business’

November 24, 2008 — xanthippa

Perhaps it is no surprise that most ‘big businesses’ could not exist (or become so ‘entrenched’) without the willing or unwitting support from governments.

I am not talking about the big bailouts of banks or car manufacturers during times of financial uncertainty.  While I think these are very ill advised (certainly in the current form), they are not the subject of this post.  To get there, we need to go quite a bit back in time, to when the Western world was enjoying quite stable economy.

Since my background is in technology, I will concentrate on this aspect – though my sources are pretty convincing that this is indicative of an overall trend within both the US and Canadian governments, in multiple fields.  And, to be honest, the ideals are very good!  So, let me get to the meat of the story…

Long time ago, when computers were just becoming the thing in innovation (yes, the buzzwords of the day were ‘automation’ and ‘co-operative’, then ‘innovation’; later along came ‘synergy’…. if you have had any contact with the language of ‘bureaucrateese’ (and much of it has been aped by the mainstream media (MSM) – albeit, with a 6-12 month delay), you know exactly what I mean.  We’ve worked our way through ‘centers of excellence’ to ‘best practices’; from ‘co-operation’ to ‘collaborative efforts’; from ‘synergy’ and ‘quality initiatives’ to ‘governance structures’ and ‘connectivity’. 

I hate buzzwords!!!   But that is besides the point.

When ‘office automation’ first became possible with the use of desktop computers and intranets, we saw an incredible spark of creativity.  People came up with creative ideas, started small companies and developed solutions to specific problems – and governments bought the solutions.  It made life better for everyone!

But, as time marched on, it became apparent that different government departments actually had to interface with each other.  Now, all these original solutions presented a bit of a problem – they were not really set up to interface with each other.

It was a natural maturation of the system that governments started to standardize their equipment across all the departments.  One central decision was made as to the system to be used, then all the departments had to do their best to try to fit their applications into it and migrate their operations onto this centrally approved platform.  It is not a perfect system, but at least the right hand knows what the left is doing, so to speak.  And, since this central solution was so big and important, it was natural that the bureaucrats making the purchasing decisions understood that only the biggest and most important players in the marketplace would be sufficiently large to provide the solution.  Obviously!

The effect of this centralization process on all the small hi-tech companies which had sprung up to develop the specialized applications for the various departments was predictable:  it dried up their marketplace completely. 

The result? 

Those ‘little guys’ who became ‘authorized re-sellers’ of the ‘big guys’ products survived – by turning into remoras… with limited horizons.

Other ‘little guys’ who managed to diversify to applications for the private sector suffered a lot of growing pains, but some of them made it.  Not enough of them survived – and their growth was much slowed down, as they did not have the steady support of the government contracts which allows some risktaking in developing new niches.

I quite understand the requirement for standardization of the government systems.  I have no complaints with this!  HOW it was achieved – that is another story! 

Not only did the government (my knowledge of the  Canadian government practices in this area is quite extensive) failed to support the development of emerging small to medium sized companies (these companies are necessary to keep the industry evolving and healthy), they actively undermined them. 

I have seen cases where the small/medium sized Canadian company bid on a government contract – and satisfied all the requirements in the RFP (request for proposal).  Now, for a large project, a company like this may invest several thousand dollars (depending on the contract, it could run high into 4 digits) in preparing the proposal with which to bid for the contract.  The costs are both in development of the solution (after all, you need to propose a solution!) and in the manpower to prepare the document itself.

And, I have also seen technically superior, more cost effective bids from small/medium sized Canadian companies rejected, on the grounds that on page 53 of the proposal, there was a misplaced comma – or the French translation was not gramatically correct.  A large multinational corporation would win the contract…

It pains me to even write about it – but I have seen this happen over and over and over.  Governments prefer working with one large company rather than supporting the growth of a healthy domestic industry in that field.  This is not a healthy attitude – for the government, for the emerging companies and the industry, but most importantly, this attitude has incredibly detrimental impact on the citizens.

Why?

By granting a ‘preferred vendor’ or ‘pre-approved vendor’ status on one or two large companies, the government can exercise incredible control over them.  Worried about loosing their profitable monopoly (or near-monopoly) status, these companies become willing to do just about anything to keep their biggest customer, the government, happy!

Let’s consider the scenario I described in this post, where the City of Ottawa government granted one large multinational company a monopoly to provide internet service to all the ‘rural Ottawa’ residents.  They kicked a number of smaller ISPs already present in parts of this marketplace out – legislating them out of business.  Really.  And the folks running the city thought this was a thing to be proud of!

Now imagine that someone ‘at the City’ lets it be known to the monopoly holder that all internet traffic must be monitored ‘to prevent hate speech’….  Do you think the ISP will put his monopoly at risk, or set up filters on the network that would ‘monitor and report’??? 

Big business enables ‘big brother’ to have eyes….

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Controlling who provides our internet access

November 21, 2008 — xanthippa

Several weeks ago, a popular Ottawa openline radio talks show host was going ballistic over what had happened to his internet access.  He lives in the rural part of the city (the City of Ottawa contains both the urban and much of the surrounding rural area).  And while people in many parts of the rural region could not easily get high-speed internet connections, he happened to live in a largish village that had that service.  For years, he was very happy with his internet provider.

This changed.

One day, his ‘regular’ provider – a small, local company – simply went away and was replaced by a big company.  And his internet stopped working ‘right’.  No problem – when there is a change, things are bound to happen… he had no problem with that, as long as things got fixed.  The new provider had a 24-hour support number (so far so good) where customers could report problems and have them dealt with right away.

So, he called the number.  Automated answering system – understandable, so our host goes through the menues.  And more menus.  And more menus.  After over an hour of this, he gave up…

I cannot recall the exact details of this – but I do recall the basics.  And his lines lit up with callers eager to add their own horror-story about the terrible service they had received from this particular provider.  Many were upset that they had no choice to remain with their other providers – there were several, if I am not mistaken.  Yet, all had, simultaneously, dissappeared and were replaced by this one large company whose service was at best poor and customer support mostly non-existant.

What happened?  This is the background to the story:

The City of Ottawa had received complaints from rural residents about the fact that they could not get high-speed internet access.  (This would be referred to as ‘pressure from below’.)  Being a very responsive government (when they want to be), the city councillors decided to solve this problem.  Since the council is made up of people many of who had never held a non-political/public service job in their life – they came up with a somewhat predictable solution:  give one internet provider a monopoly right over all the rural region of the city in exchange for ‘hooking everyone up’!

They put it out to tender, then selected a large international heavyweight with a prestigious name to provide the service.  Very proudly, they announced this success in a press release!  Now, everyone is equal! 

Did you follow what just happened?

Yes, getting a high-speed internet service is a good thing – even for people who choose to live out in the countryside.  I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is that the way the City of Ottawa government chose to solve this robbed the rural Ottawans of their rights!

THEY GRANTED SOMEONE A MONOPOLY!!!  And what is more – they effectively forbade companies already providing a commercial service to their customers from continuing to provide this service!

And they are proud of the evil they had committed!

In my never-humble-opinion, it is exactly governments like these that were the reason that beautiful-sounding word, ‘defenestration’, was added to our language!

But consider the mindset at work here:  ‘the government’ is, by definition, a monopoly.  People running this particular government (the majority, anyway – enough of them to outvote the ‘rest’) have no experience outside of the ‘government monopoly’.  They truly and honestly think that monopolies are the best solution to just about every problem.  And then they implement ‘solutions’ such as these…

But this goes beyond just meddling by an incompetent government.  It is a real-life, managable-scale example of how governments and monopolies (or their variations) support each other.  The bigger the government, the bigger the companies – the more tangled the strings get.  But they are there!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

CRTC ruling: it’s OK to throttle your customers!

November 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Even though this is not where I was planning to go next in my ‘Big Picture’ look at what is happening around us, the timing of the CRTC’s ruling makes it convenient to call attention to what is happening with the internet.

Today’s article in the Financial Post, titled ‘CRTC denies request to ban Internet ‘Throttling”, we learned that Canada’s top censors communications regulating body, the CRTC, have ruled it’s OK bor Bell Canada to throttle internet trafic as they please – as long as they throttle everybody’s traffic equally….  Yeah, pull the other one!

“”Based on the evidence before us, we found that the measures employed by Bell Canada to manage its network were not discriminatory. Bell Canada applied the same traffic-shaping practices to wholesale customers as it did to its own retail customers,” said CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein.”

…

“CAIP outlined how Bell Canada’s throttling has slowed down usage of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol calls, encrypted traffic, peer-to-peer file sharing and virtual-private networks to 30 kilobytes per second (roughly half the speed of a dial-up modem) from 4:30 p.m. to 2 a.m. Normal speeds are about five megabytes per second, about 166 times faster.”

Uncle Stalin always used to say that controlling the means of communication is the best way to gain power.  It is ‘good’ to see that his message has hopped class barriers and that the mandarins at the CRTC have taken his lesson to heart.  Or something like that…

Whatever the reason, it is a message we must not ignore – especially when the CRTC is – reportedly – also considering serously altering the way internet is accessed in Canada.  I addressed this in an earlier post, but the upshot was that instead of just ‘surfing’ the net as a user would like, the ‘sites’ would be ‘bundled’ just like channels are bundled from a cable provider.  Then, the user could buy a ‘package’ that would include access to some 100 pre-approved ‘bundled’ sites.  Any website (or blog) outside of these ‘big ones’ would cost a buck or two (to be set) per click…IF they would be available at all… 

Yeah, a slow death of ‘throttling’ to anyone not in the ‘bundle’….  So, perhaps we ought not be surprised that this same set of people thinks it OK for Bell to slow internet trafic to the internet providers themselves to half the dial-up speed…during the hours that people are home and ‘surfing’. 

I guess the only question remaining here is:  what is their motivation in maintaining this consistent stand?

Perhaps the answer is simpler and more crass than most of us would imagine…

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »