“Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century,” Sir Nicholas writes.
The report suggests that 1 per cent of global domestic product be spent immediately on dealing with climate change, to avoid higher costs later. Failure to act would lead to a drop of 5 to 20 per cent of global GDP and make large swaths of the Earth’s surface uninhabitable.
Tony Blair is positioning the UK as a global leader in the efforts to deal with climate change, and has signed on Al Gore as a special advisor to the government.
The digital generation, in real time, is instantly informed and ready to react. They donâ€™t need to be told by MSM reporters and columnists what to think. They donâ€™t wait twelve hours for stories to be written, turned into page layouts, put on presses, and then be delivered on paper by 12-year-olds. Theyâ€™re beyond being told by TV talking heads what matters and what doesnâ€™t. They are their own media. Weâ€™re all media.
The implications for political leaders are profound. The fact no other MP that I know of has an interactive web site is a worry. The fact most MPs rely on brochures sent to homes as unaddressed admail underscores the digital divide being created. This will change, of course. But as it does, there will be a grinding between the 19th Century form of representation we have now â€“ the PM as president, not elected directly by the people and demanding unanimity of thought â€“ and the 21st Century political reality in which democracy gets messy again, people have far more access and control, and the top guy will be, by necessity, a broker and an inspirational leader.
This excites the digital crowd. Excites me. One thing about the future â€“ itâ€™s coming.
For a long time, Comedy Central has passively allowed the sharing of online clips of its showsâ€”because letâ€™s face it, itâ€™s helped them generate the kind of water cooler talk that has made them a ton of money.
The cultural and social importance of Daily Show clips as part of the political blogosphere can’t be understated. Without Jon Stewart’s recontextualizing political figures’ propaganda, public discourse would suffer. Yes, I’m serious. Clearly there is a public interest in fair use.
But apparently, all good things come to an end when there is money and attorneys involved. I assume the only online clips that will remain will have to qualify under fair use â€“ probably short clips, with social or political importance.
COOPER: Why do you think, though, this story, this — what is happening really hasn’t gotten much traction? I mean, people don’t want to hear about it. I mean, I know the ratings for this segment are going to go down because people turn this stuff off.
SULLIVAN: That’s how it always happens. People always, when these things occur, look the other way. People think it’s always going to happen to someone else or they think that these people are somehow all terrorists. They’re terror suspects. 90 percent of the people we detained in Abu Ghraib were innocent, it turned out, as the U.S. admitted. Dozens of people in Guantanamo were completely innocent, as the Army and military subsequently admitted. So, there is no process to determine who is innocent or guilty in these matters. They’re being detained without charges.
This video clip goes on to describe the case of Canadian Maher Arar as evidence of the risks of this path.
And now to add evidence as to why torture is a flawed intelligence tool, we find out that some of the faulty intelligence used by Colin Powell at the UN (to make the argument that Sadaam was working with al Qaeda as justification for the Iraq invasion), was evidence extracted by torture.
Having been stuck at home sick far too much lately, I’ve been following political news more than usual. Garth Turner’sbanishment from the federal Conservative caucus is a fascinating story. With all the optics of a heavy-handed reaction to control independent thought and expression by a draconian and communications-obsessed Harper PMO, John Ibbitson argued that the move could blowback on the Conservatives.
Garth’s blog is central to the whole episode – he spoke his mind, freely, openly and with total transparency like a good blogger should. Passionate about the possibilities of “digital democracy”, now Independent MP Garth of Halton is a socially-progressive libertarian. But party politics, particularly in a highly centralized policy shop like Harper’s Conservative government, makes such independence, transparency and openness a career limiting move. I’ve found it fascinating to follow his story and inside perspective of parliament, including today’s post about the often infantile, frequently entertaining drama of question period and the continuing saga of Belinda and Peter’s star-crossed love. (Seen here in happier days.)
The Garth Turner episode is a fascinating collision between two sets of values: those of openness, transparency and accountability and the values of political power and control. Are blogs a solution to responsibility and accountability failures in politics? Maybe, to a point. Political action and party politics require a degree of control over message in order to maintain the power necessary to move an agenda forward. It appears that blogging (and the conversations it enables) tends to come with those values of openness and accountability firmly embedded. But I think that widespread adoption might just turn politicians’ blogs into just another mainstream medium for messaging and spin without authenticity – just like bad, boring corporate blogs. It is Garth’s independence, and the controversy it sparked, that makes his blog worth reading for a wider audience today. With that national platform and audience, Garth’s blog and the story of his turfing from caucus has released a couple of memes into the wider culture. How can social media change politics? Is central party control the only way to govern this country?
Politics and blogging are strange bedfellows. Because of my role as an independent consultant who has been doing work for the Ontario government, I have avoided writing about politics on this blog. I have tried to focus my writing on my interests in public policy, technology and business in a politically neutral way. But everything is political, so drawing those lines becomes more and more difficult. So, I added a Politics category and I’m letting myself venture into the issues of the day in the hope of encouraging conversations on topics neglected in mainstream media.
The interesting times continue in the technology and creative industries in Ontario and the Toronto region. I thought I would post a summary of today’s Ontario provincial budget speech, as it relates to research and innovation, the technology and creative industries and creative communities.
The big theme here is that cities, creativity and innovation are becoming major areas of government attention and investment. This is necessary to help transform the Ontario economy from it’s industrial present to its knowledge and creativity-driven future. Livable cities, cultural vitality and social inclusion of disenfranchised communities are central to achieving these goals. (See Richard Florida)
Given the macroeconomic context and the nature of global competitiveness, I expect that future budgets and governments will continue to invest in these areas. This is not a momentary blip or flavour of the month, but the beginning of a steady march of change. This transition marks a historical opportunity for creative professionals, innovators, community builders and social entrepreneurs to step up and carve out a place for themselves in this future.
A long-ish overview of some key areas that won’t be extensively covered in mainstream media follows, along with my thoughts and perspective on the underlying issues. After the jump…