Thank you for your public service stories

I just wanted to say thank you to the many of you who sent me your public service stories. I’ve been putting the finishing touches on my APEX presentation and your thoughts, advice and anecdotes have been helpful. If you’ve been holding back and opted not to send me something I’d still be interested in hearing from you.

Also, just a little housekeeping. Some of you may have noticed that I’ve put a tag cloud in the sidebar. I’m pretty psyched about this development and hope it will enable people to zero in on topics of interest more easily. FYI, I’ve also added a few new books to the book review section, although the readings been a little on the heavy side.

Stephen Clarkson's Big Red Machine

Not sure I’ll ever get around to writing a full review of this book but, I thought I’d share these thoughts.

Stephen Clarkson’s writes from an old school left perspective. At its best, this perspective can have some significant benefits, as it teases out certain types of conflicts that can be profoundly important. However, in this regard it is also a fairly blunt instrument. By focusing on certain data points and trends it can be helpful in analysing the past, but it locks one into the prism that prevents you from seeing the opportunity of future change (the very problem with this book – as it seems to predict an endless future of liberal victories). At its worst however, it is barely even an instrument of analysis. For example, Uncle Sam and Us : Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State was very long on opinion and quite short on analysis. Moreover, data was carefully selected that would confirm his thesis, while contradictory data was summarily ignored.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what interests me are perspectives that spark new insights and new debate. With Clarkson, one knows his conclusions before reading the book and as a result, I suspect the readership generally self-selects itself. Those who already agree with Clarkson pick up his books, those who don’t, don’t.

Big Red Machine is in keeping with this approach and so has its own hard to swallow statements, like this one of page 5:

“Surprisingly for a party that ultimately help build and manage the capitalist state, it (the Liberal Party) emerged to express the grievances and demands for social justice and economic freedom of those oppressed by the oligarchic power structure that prevailed in the British North American colonies drain the first half of the 19th century.”

Why are social justice and economic freedom incompatible with a capitalist state? From what I have seen social justice is no more at odds with capitalism then it is with every political economic system, be it authoritarian, communist, socialist, nationalist, etc… The real question is how do we manage our political economy to maximize its benefits and minimize social injustice. This was the goal of the progressive movement for much of the 20th century: applying the minimum rule set necessary to enable capitalism to sustain itself and ensure its compatibility with our democratic and social justice values.

In sum, Big Red Machine is an okay book (mind you, having never written a book myself I still have enourmous respect for those who’ve written one, not to mention five or more). But if you’ve must prioritize your time, I might skip it.

To be fair, I’m also bummed that this book displaced Free Culture on my “recently read” list. Now there’s a book that should be mandatory reading!

New lows on Afghanistan

How I wish that the government wouldn’t hide behind our soldiers when facing criticism over the direction and leadership of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Their response politicizes the debate in an unconscionable manner.

If you are going to lead, then lead. Get used to the fact that that may mean answering some difficult questions from the public, and the opposition parties, from time to time.

The most recent example of this phenomenon comes courtesy of Stockwell Day in this weekend’s Globe & Mail:

“Mr. Day said yesterday that the opposition attacks had to stop because they were affecting Canadian officials in Afghanistan. ‘Stop maligning our corrections officers and stop maligning our troops’ Mr. Day said.”

The whole ‘criticizing the government is tantamount to not supporting our troops’ is not only appalling, it’s passé. Even President Bush doesn’t use this line anymore.

Let’s be clear. We aren’t criticizing Canadian soldiers or corrections officers when we express concern that the Afghan prisoners they hand over to local authorities may end up being tortured. These men on the ground are simply following orders (and may even assume that the correct safeguards are in place). We are however, being critical of the political leadership that oversees this mission and has a duty to uphold international (and Canadian) law.

I’m supportive of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. We have real, material national interests at stake in this conflict. My concern is that we do it right, even when that may not be the easiest course of action.

More on the Public Policy Forum Dinner

Eric Reguly of the G&M won this year’s journalism award and gave a great speech on the failure of Canada’s business leaders to compete for global capital. He asserted that, after the British threw capital at us in the 19th century, and the American’s threw capital at us in the 20th, Canadians have become complacent. Having not been compelled to compete for capital in the previous two centuries, 21st Canadian business leaders now retreat and sell their businesses when confronted with the need for more capital. Worse still, some simply transform themselves into declining income trusts, abandoning even the pretense of a future as well as the needed hard work necessary to attract capital. His speech was angry, impassioned, and offered an interesting analysis.

The only counter argument I can think of is the notion that Canada is a grower of small and medium sized businesses. And that it is okay that we sell off our larger companies because we are constantly new ones to replace them. I’m not confident this is the case, and it would only make sense if the funds from sold businesses are used to help grow new ones. Sadly, the state of venture capital in this country seems to indicate otherwise…

Interestingly, journalists seem to always kill at PPF testimonial dinner. Last year Chantal Hebert gave a good speech which you can download a PDF version of here.

[tags]public policy forum, journalism[/tags]

Congratulations to Engineers Without Borders

Since they are too humble to say it (it’s not even on their webpage!) fellow Canada25 alum Parker Mitchell and fellow ActionCanada alum George Roter won the Public Policy Forum’s prestigious Young Leaders Award for founding and then growing Engineers Without Borders (EWB) into the successful organization it is today.

I’d encourage anyone not familiar with EWB to check out their webpage. They are an amazing organization that exemplifies how ordinary Canadians are empowering themselves to take action and help make the world a better place. When we talked about empowered Canadians in From Middle to Model Power, these engineers are a perfect case study.

If you are already familiar with EWB I strongly encourage you to donate money to them by clicking here.

Finally, I’m embarrassed to admit that back in the dwindling days of the Martin administration, just after the International Policy Statement was released (anyone remember that?) Parker bet me an expensive bottle of whiskey (single malt – but brand yet to be determined) that Canada would begin contributing 0.7% of its GDP in overseas development assistance by 2012. It’s a bet that I took, not because I wanted to be right, but because I knew it was a good bet. However, to ensure good karma… Parker, if I win, I’ll donate double of whatever the bottles costs to EWB. And of course, we’ll drink it all together. In one sitting.

[tags]EWB, engineers without borders, public policy forum, NGO[/tags]

Spare a Public Service Story?

APEX, or the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (phew! that was a mouthful) has asked me to speak at their 2007 Annual Symposium, which has been themed – Public Service Matters: Says Who? They’ve entitle my talk “Does the Public Service Matter to Generation Y?”

My work from last year has lead me to conclude that while it remains unclear if the Public Service has a hard time attracting recruits, it definitely has a hard time retaining people. For example, when the public service sent out a survey to new hires to assess job satisfaction, almost 10% of respondents had already departed. More importantly, there is clearly a generational divide… new hires under 30 say they are more likely to leave than those over 30 (37% vs 22%).One piece I intend to talk about is how Gen Yers do care about public service, they just don’t necessarily want to be part of the public service. A decision made easier given all the options they now have to directly engage on issues they care about.I’d love to hear from other Gen Yers out there both in and outside of the public service. If you are so inclined please send me your story about why you love working in the public service, or why you left/dislike it. Please feel free to post it, or if you’d prefer to, you can email me directly.[tags]APEX, Government, Bureaucracy[/tags]

Why does the daily show feel like crossfire?

Just finished watching tonight’s daily show. Everything was typically funny until Senator John McCain came on…

All of the sudden the show turned (ironically) into a crossfire-like mess of mindless interruptions, accusations, and crowd pandering rants. Isn’t this everything that Jon Stewart makes fun of?

Sigh… I wish there more Assif Mandvi. He is by far the funniest guy on the show.

[tags]The Daily Show, Jon Stewart, John McCain[/tags]

Headline: CBS opposed to free speech and an open internet!

It has been fun to watch the traditional media find new reasons to explain why they are indispensable and the internet our enemy. Previously, my favourite ‘story’ had been that traditional media (and newsprint in particular) are essential to democracy.

CBS however, seems to have found a new problem. Check out the line of questioning followed by the CBS reporter in this video as he interviews Jeff Jarvis. As he suggests, the internet clearly promotes some dangerous, unmediated “free speech.” Obviously this new medium must be monitored and mediated (perhaps by CBS?).

Who would have thought that CBS would one day – even implicitly – advocate censorship?

This should serve as another warning. The traditional media is simply not going to cover stories about how they and the large cable companies are trying to restructure the internet in their favour (by directing users like you to their content as opposed to the sites of their choice). Indeed, they are doing the opposite, building the case for why the ‘wild internet’ must be tamed and turned into an online gated communities.

9_oGbQ1VZp8

Thank you to Taylor Owen for pointing my browser in this direction…

[tags]netneutrality, cbs, free speech[/tags]

OpenCities

Last week I had a great time at a planning session for the upcoming Toronto OpenCities event. Interested in helping out? Check out the webpage.

During the initial discussion people shared their notions of what Open City means. During the conversation Kevin B. noted the Wikipedia definition of Open City:

“In war, in the event of the imminent capture of a city, the government/military structure of the country that controls the city will sometimes declare it an open city, thus announcing that they have abandoned all defensive efforts. The attacking armies of the opposing military will then be expected not to bomb or otherwise attack the city, but simply to march in. The concept aims at protecting the historic landmarks and civilians who dwell in the city from an unnecessary battle.”

This definition may seem so divorced from the OpenCities project so as to be unhelpful. However, I think the opposite may be true. City governments and city infrastructure (public transit, urban planning, etc…) have, for too long, treated their own citizens as enemy armies – a force to be kept at bay, to be controlled and kept out of the cities inner workings. Open Cities is about tearing down a city’s last defense – its own operating system – and opening it up to let us all contribute.

What does that mean? Whose knows. But Open Cities is about figuring it out. Hope you check it out.

[tags]OpenCities, Opensource, Toronto, Centre for Social Innovation[/tags]

Online debates

Who knew a comment piece about Vimy and the Peace Prize would lead to a debate about whether or not Angola was Cuba’s Vietnam? Less difficult to understand (although perhaps only somewhat) is the debate about whether Pearson would be in the Conservative Party if he were alive today.

Finally, one highlight moment is when “Popeye Dillion” tries to refute my friend Robin Anawak (who unlike Popeye uses his full real name in the online discussion) by stating “Asif, you and Robin must be ‘newbies’ to this country…”

The top 10 hits of a google search of Robin’s name all refer to him. In three of these, the two sentence summary under the link indicates he is Inuit. Yes, you don’t even have to go to the webpages.

Robin is no newcomer, his family has been here longer then almost all of ours… but more importantly, why did it matter in the first place?