Gardner opens his editorial by noting, accurately, that Canadian Conservative Minister of Parliament Jason Kenney has directed that men and women will not be allowed to wear a veil during the Canadian citizenship ceremony. Gardner also writes that this affects Muslim women who wear the Niqāb. Anyone that doesn’t take the oath, doesn’t become a Canadian.

Gardner, rightly, also points out that the Niqāb is different than a turban, a yarmulke, a hijab or “Senators jersey.” Gardner’s point is that some folks argue that the Niqāb is no different and he thinks this is misguided. I think I agree although probably for different reasons. But it’s generally an interesting point.

It is also true that human babies can distinguish between their mothers faces and a stranger’s face. Babies recognize faces and they can distinguish between some individuals and there is a growing body of evidence that these capacities are, in some sense, built into our brain. There is some controversy about the ages and the precision of these capacities, but these are generally interesting issues.

It is also true that the human brain is a pattern seeking machine. Humans can’t help but perceive and be stimulated by real and imagined patterns.

It is also true that some human facial expressions are common and shared across cultures. This is compelling evidence that these facial expressions are, in some sense, built right into our brains and are, in some sense, universal. The work of Paul Ekman and others in this field is interesting stuff.

It is also true that facial expressions can add to, shift, or radically change the meanings of spoken words. And I think it’s an interesting idea, deserving of more consideration, that women who wear the veil may be in some way restricting or changing their capacities to communicate with others and to have others emotionally connect with them.

And, perhaps most poignantly, I agree that “many of those who loudly condemn veils out of a professed concern for women are simply anti-Muslim bigots.”

Some of it has not been particularly fun. My ideas have been criticized and some of those criticisms have been effective and, er, correct. But I have also been personally attacked. And sometimes my ideas were dismissed unfairly. A startling number of people have expressed xenophobic and, yes possibly, racist views.

There have been some upsides too. There have been voices of wisdom and insight. Some folks have engaged earnestly and with humility. There have been some interesting and effective criticisms of my criticisms. There have been some who are willing to admit their errors along the way. Looking back I can see that some of the comments I have made were hasty and abrupt. I have tried to speak and write honestly and gently, but I think I have failed in moments.

But I also think that some of my concerns of Gardner’s article are really important. But ultimately, it’s not for me to judge. But I do think it’s a worthwhile exercise to further reflect on these issues. I think there are several, actually many, important epistemological and ethical issues surrounding Gardner’s opinion piece from the Ottawa Citizen. And over the next few weeks I would like to write a series of shorter posts reflecting on these issues, one idea at a time.

By way of overview, I maintain that Gardner’s conclusions significantly overreach the evidence that he puts forward. The claims in Gardner’s article that I find troubling include, but are not limited to:

• that reasonable arguments can be made in favour of Jason Kenney’s announcement that no one can wear the veil during the Canadian citizenship ceremony
• that reasonable arguments can be made in favour of banning the veil in public, as France did
• that the veil is anti-woman
• that the veil is anti-human
• that the veil is anti-social
• that the importance of the face to human psychology cannot be overstated
• that the universality of human emotional facial expressions is relevant to this issue
• that we can no more stop looking at faces than stop breathing
• that the pattern that the human brain most wants to find is the human face
• that the veil cripples integration
• that veils smother identity
• that the face is the locus of identity
• that the face is the canvas of emotion
• that the veil prevents subtle affection from being expressed
• that the veil prevents deeper trust from being established
• that women who wear the veil have no identity

In summary I find these claims problematic because they are:

• hyperbolic and total
• an effective public relations screen for Jason Kenney’s announcement
• expressed in a context that lacks nuance, caution and a recognition of Gardner’s own biases and knowledge failures
• positioned as being authoritative, because Gardner “sees the veil for what it is”

Once again, for the record. I am not an expert in Islam. I am an atheist. I do think it is possible to criticize and judge individuals, religions and religious institutions, even as a privileged outsider. I will also add that I hold open the possibility that the claims that I’ve listed above, could in fact, be true. The epistemological issues at play here is not just whether they are true or not. The issues are how they are justified. They are regarding the way these claims appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Wednesday, December 14th. And the issues at play here are also ethical issues.¹

This is not the time for quick theories and rushed claims. Gardner has suggested that I expect too much from a thousand word opinion piece. Perhaps I do. Gardner thinks that I have persistently overlooked the length constraints of journalism. Maybe I do. So I think it’s worth reflecting on this and other constraints I find endemic in contemporary journalism. These are, after all, constraints on the way we know things and on the way we communicate this knowledge to others.

Similar constraints in time are not just endemic to journalism. I acknowledge, for example, that the post I wrote in response to Gardner’s column was rushed. By the time I read Gardner’s piece, had an unsatisfactory Twitter exchange with him and thusly committed to explaining my concerns via a blog post, my work day was well underway. But I was committed, so I wrote the piece.

That is partly why I want to slow down and take more time and energy to reflect on the variety of things wrong with Gardner’s article. But the first post I write will be a reflection on what is right about Gardner’s article. That seems important.

Dan Gardner wrote the piece, today, December 14.¹ It’s not as bad as many articles written on the topic. But there are some significant failures of reasoning.

I should note that I am not an expert in Islam, immigration policies, or pyschology.² I should also note that Dan Gardner has written two books in psychology, which in his words are “books praised by psychologists.” I should also note that I find Gardner’s writing generally better than then average newspaper or magazine reporter.³ But this is also part of the problem.

First problem

The column is a total of twenty three paragraphs. Most of the article is a review of some basic psychology.⁴ Starting at the fifth paragraph, a full twelve paragraphs are committed to reflecting on human psychology, faces, brains, pattern recognition and human emotions. If the article was just about this, I would have no problem. Most of the notes Gardner makes about emotions and faces I find reasonable. You can find most of it in TED talks, or books on popular psychology or even in Skeptic Magazine. It’s worth reading and reflecting on these kinds of issues. And I’m happy to see newspapers trying to publish this kind of information.

The problem is what happens before and after those twelve paragraphs. The last of theses twelve paragraphs is this:

This work, along with a mountain of other research, has established that the face is hardwired into human psychology. It is the locus of identity. It is the canvas of emotion. We are so supremely sensitive to faces that the tiniest changes in facial musculature — even inadvertent or unconscious changes — can completely alter the apparent meaning of spoken words. Suppressed anger can be revealed, desires surfaced, lies exposed. A subtle affection may be expressed. A deeper trust established.

I mostly agree with all of this. The face is important to human psychology. It is a canvas of emotion. Micro-expressions are interesting. Emotions can be revealed. A deeper trust can be established through the mutual sharing of facial expressions. It’s all good, if a little banal.

I don’t believe, however, that the face is “the” locus of identity. I doubt any psychologist would say so. It is a locus. You can see here that Gardner has begun his descent into fuzzy reasoning. He needs to in order to do what happens next.

In the very next paragraph, a claim is made that damns the entire article. In the very next paragraph, number sixteen, he claims:

But none of that can happen if a veil is in the way.

If he had just said, the veil can interfere with this, I would be okay with that. Heck, I think sunglasses interfere with some pattern recognition and social interactions. I think hats do to. That’s why poker players wear sunglasses and hats. But to conclude that none of this can happen with a veil is unfounded. None is an absolute term. None is total. It’s rhetoric. And it’s rhetoric from someone who probably has never interviewed, or had a basic relationship with, a woman that wears a veil. ⁵

Gardner goes on to write that a woman “who consistently wears a veil in public is cut off from the people around her” – another claim that has no argument, no citation, no data, no evidence to back it up. Similarly with his claim that “she has no identity.” That’s utterly false.

A woman who chooses to wear a veil still has her words, her voice, her body, her eyes, her hands, her movements, her behaviours, her choices, and probably myriad other important loci of identity, with which to create and maintain relationships.

Luckily, a woman who has actually chosen to wear a veil wrote to Gardner to try to help him understand the topic that he was publishing on. But, unfortunately, his response demonstrated we he failed to see why her criticism crushed some of his central claims.

A second problem in reasoning

In the fourth paragraph, Gardner argues that the veil “cripples integration.” I think this is his thesis and the rest of the article is meant to be a kind of theoretical argument for it. But he actually presents no direct evidence of this. And it’s no wonder. This is actually a hard issue and I doubt a newspaper has enough interest or money to pay someone to get clear on the issue. There could be a hundred reasons with women wearing a veil might have a hard time integrating into Canada. To his credit, Gardner does mention repeatedly that bigotry is also a problem, but he never really grapples with it enough to satisfy me that he takes it seriously.

But I think basically his argument looks something like this:

premise 1: Human faces are essential to good social functioning.
premise 2: Anything that partly covers the face, will block good social functioning.
premise 3: A veil covers the face.
conclusion 1: A veil blocks good social functioning.

premise 4: Good social functioning is necessary to social integration.
premise 5: The veil blocks good social functioning.
conclusion 2: Therefore, the veil blocks social integration.

This kind of reasoning is much more interesting if we can actually see what the arguments are.⁶

I actually think that premise 1 and premise 2 are both demonstrably false. Human faces are not essential to normal human social functioning. Nor is covering part or all of the face sufficient to blocking good social functioning. That’s why telephones work. That’s why internet chat works. That’s why veils at weddings are so great. That’s why it makes sense sometimes to wear a veil to a funeral. The poker game succeeds just fine when the superstar wears sunglasses. Scuba divers wear masks and welders too. Veils work just fine in some contexts.

In the case of music auditions, large veils, that block gender and race assignments, actually improve social functioning.⁷

The issue here is context. We live in a misogynist and patriarchal context. We live in a culture that makes jokes about rape. We live in a society where the single largest cause of nonfatal injury to women, is abuse from a partner.⁸ We live in culture that is racist towards Islamic people and brown people.

So does a veil “cripple social integration”? Good question. Maybe it does. But I reject the claim, without signifcant evidence, in a context where white men feel entitled to police the behaviours of women and racialized minorities.

It is more plausible to me that more important determinants to failed integration include: misogyny, racism and language barriers.

A third problem in reasoning (Actually it’s not a problem: update)

In the first few paragraphs, Gardner claims that veils are anti-woman, anti-social, and anti-human.⁹

Someone could plausibly construe the rest of his article as an argument (even if unconvincing) as to why the veil is anti-social. But there is obviously no argument as to why the veil is anti-woman or anti-human. To do so would require some more premises like this:

• Any behaviour that is anti-social, if committed by a woman, is also anti-woman.
• Any behaviour that impedes or changes social interactions, is anti-woman.
• Because our evolutionary forebears didn’t wear veils, it is anti-woman, for a woman do to so now.
• Because most human brains can’t resist looking at and recognizing faces, it is anti-woman for women to wear veils.

These premises are all obviously bogus. But perhaps Gardner has some better premises that he’s not telling us about. Until then, his claims are not reasonable, and his conclusions are not warranted.

[udpate]

After a considerable and difficult Twitter exchange with Dan Gardner, he expressed some concerns with my analysis. This third problem might not be a problem. He pointed out that his argument was roughly this:

They [veils] make it very difficult for women to fully engage as equals in society.

Here is the approach that I didn’t see. He claims others did. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it is a plausible approach that deserves further consideration. Regrettably, Gardner thinks of himself as a “human talking about other humans” and doesn’t appear to have a gender analysis or an analysis of power and privilege. So, there you go.

He said some stuff I agree with

I’ve already mentioned that Gardner makes many true and interesting claims about faces and human brains. Gardner also concludes the article by saying that “we must protect a stigmatized minority from bigots” and that we must “defend the freedom to dress as we wish to the greatest extent practicable.” I agree.

In summary

Gardner’s article might be contributing to public discourse about women’s rights and veils. But Gardner’s article also contributes in some unhelpful ways. The column contributes to the prevalent cultural norm that it’s okay for guys to, injudiciously¹⁰, theorize about what is anti-social, anti-woman and anti-human. When men do so, there should be an expectation of a greater burden of proof. Tacit premises should be made explicit. Personal bias, thoughts and reflections should be duly noted. Citation should be required (give me a hyperlink). And one’s recognized expertise about the issue, in this case Islam and veils, could be helpfully included.

But at the very least, the reasoning shouldn’t be fallacious.

Hello everybody out there… I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be anything big and professional like gnu)… it probably will never support anything other than AT-hard disks, as that’s all I have… – Linus Torvalds

The first reason to listen to it is that McVety sounds a little crazy. Actually, so crazy did McVety sound, that for a minute, I actually thought that he was faking it for a humour piece. But it’s not. And he wasn’t.¹

Another reason to listen to it, is that the interview is instructive. It’s instructive, in part, because McVety demonstrates common ignorance about human rights. He also demonstrates, rather conspicuously, that the values professed by the Institute of Canadian Values are repugnant. And importantly, the kind of institutional homophobia that he is defending is evidence toward a building case that it’s time to defund Catholic schools.

Context: Ontario and some anti-bullying laws

The Institute for Canadian Values is upset because the provincial government of Ontario is looking to pass laws requiring schools to create anti-bullying clubs, if students expressed an interest. This could create a situation where, if students at a Catholic school expressed an interest in a gay-straight alliance club, then the school would be required by provincial law to make space for creation of that club.²

The idea makes total sense to me. I think it’s a no-brainer. And the It Gets Better video that Dalton McGuinty posted to Youtube is worth a watch because he admits that just saying “it gets better” is not enough. That’s why it’s so important to enact policies and practices that help it to get better for queer folks.

McVety is ignorant about rights and freedoms

McVety thinks that “homosexual clubs” are an infringement of his, and others’, rights and freedoms. But the requirement of a school to create a gay-straight alliance of some kind, would not inhibit the practices of any religion.³ In this sense, it’s a little bit like having a racialized-minority club for students who get bullied about being black or First Nations. This does not inhibit the practices of any religion.

No one would be stopping religious folks from worshipping. No one would be stopping religious folks from congregating or praying or reading their sacred texts. Clubs are going to be formed so that queer youth can get the support they need in an environment where violence is sometimes only a brief moment away.

McVety doesn’t understand bullying or violence

McVety argues that clubs don’t help kids that are bullied. He argues that the clubs created to help queer students, who don’t feel safe, makes things worse and increases bullying. But he has no data, and he makes no effort to pay lip service to science. It’s not clear to me that he has any pedagogical expertise.

Part of the problem is that he lacks understanding of the very notion of bullying. When he says that he is being bullied when the Ministry of Education calls him a homophobe, he’s dead wrong. He misunderstands the power relations of bullies and he misunderstands the actual violence that bullying makes space for. For the record, I don’t know if anyone from the Ministry has actually called McVety a homophobe. He claims so.

But I think McVety deserves to be called out. The views he expressed in the interview were homophobic.⁴ Here’s why.

McVety’s comments on As It Happens were homophobic

Freedom of religion is not a freedom to teach hate. Freedom of religion is not a freedom to create a culture of hate. Whether it is hatred to blacks or women or queers, freedom of religion does not trump our common moral sense. The only reason McVety could have for being opposed to a gay-straight alliance is that it interferes with the interest of the school to promote a culture opposed to homosexuality.

McVety argues⁵ that “this legislation is going to force the Catholic Church to instill anti-Catholic values.” McVety thinks that pro-queer clubs are antithetical to Christianity. ⁶

…well the fact is that they have been able to do this in public schools, but in Catholic Schools this of course goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church. But now the Premier is going to use the heavy hand of the law and legislate Catholic classrooms and schools to have homosexual clubs and that is a violation of the separation of Church and State.⁷

If McVety is right, we need to defund Catholic schools

McVety argues that the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and Catholic schools, is that “homosexuality is a destructive process” ⁸ and that if you have “gay clubs encouraging to the contrary then, of course, this goes against the precepts of the school.”⁹

If this is true, then Catholic schools aren’t queer tolerant. That means that they are teaching hate. In that case, it’s time to stop putting taxpayers dollars towards Catholic schools. It’s time to defund hatred.

Additional thoughts

Today there is a second part to this report by As It Happens. It’s an interview with the Minister of Education, and I won’t miss it.

The article overview

The title of the Abma’s article¹ had two versions:

1. Let Kyoto die, scientific journal Nature says
2. Let Kyoto die, prominent scientific journal says

Riffing off of this title, Abma leads with the idea that prominent scientists are opposed to Kyoto. He refers to two articles published recently in Nature. He gives a brief history of Kyoto and summarizes some of one of the article’s analysis of the shifting geopolitical circumstances we find ourselves in.² All the while, Abma repeats the mantra that someone, not him, thinks that Kyoto should die. ³ He makes note of a range of things Diringer wrote and closes with a couple of quotes by the Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, John Bennet.

Some basic problems with Abma’s ‘journalism’

Some leading voices on climate science have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol be put to pasture as international representatives meet in Durban, South Africa, to discuss the environment… In a recent issue of the science journal Nature, both an editorial and separate commentary article suggested that clinging to hopes of a renewal of that agreement, or another pact with binding emissions targets, does more harm than good in achieving meaningful dialogue on how to fight climate change.

These are the leading paragraphs of Abma’s article. Abma, unfortunately, never links to the journal Nature. He doesn’t even give us enough bibliographic information to find half of the articles he refers to and uses as part of his argument. Citations are a basic requirement of anything trying to pass as reporting. And for this reason alone, this article fails to be more than public relations and advertising.⁴

The framing of Diringer’s article is false

By the time the reader gets through the first few paragraphs, they have been led to believe that prominent scientists are opposed to Kyoto and want it to fail. But this is false. It is in this sense that Abma’s article flatly misrepresents the views of Elliot Diringer, who believes that:

1. global warming is happening,
2. global warming is caused by humans,
3. it’s possible to mitigate the impacts of global warming through the regulation of industry,
4. an international agreement of some kind is required to mitigate climate change,
5. this international agreement should be binding, eventually

These are important, basic points of diringer’s analysis, that Abma leaves out. He never mentions them.

Elliot Diringer essentially argues that while Kyoto has failed so far, the fact of it’s failure is unfortunate. The Kyoto accord is failing, however, and given the changing geo-political realities we face, the “binding-or-nothing mentality” should be curbed. He argues, in short, that there should be some kind of international, binding agreement.⁵

In fact, Diringer concludes his article by claiming that In Durban, parties should work towards eventual binding commitments:

In Durban, parties should indeed set their sights towards eventual binding commitments. But they should focus primarily on the more prosaic nuts and bolts of strengthening transparency and support for developing countries. However incremental, such steps will get us further than a recurring cycle of false expectation and failure.

You would never actually know this if you read the National Post. And that’s the problem. ⁶

Structural deception by the National Post

It’s not just because they say false things. Everyone says the occasionally false thing. And the National Post writers do a pretty good job of not saying false things too often.

But the best propaganda is always true.

This is the way sales and marketing people do it. Say true stuff. Don’t open yourself up to the obvious criticisms that come with saying false things. There’s no need to take that risk. Instead, simply leave out the true things that don’t help your case.  And pay special attention to the order of facts and the emphasis that you put on the things you write or say.⁷

The National Post is trying to sell influence

The National Post wants to be seen as something other than sales and marketing and advertising and public relations. That’s why their description says “Canada’s trusted source for National news.” This way they can try to get in under the bullshit radar that folks have.⁸

The brand power enjoyed by the National Post is shared by many other news organizations that don’t deserve it. It’s a problem with modern press and modern media. Fox News is not news. Nor is the the National Post. Nor, I believe, are many other organizations pretending to be.

On my view, the National Post would benefit from taking seriously Rebecca Blood’s blog ethics.

Comments by regular readers of the National Post revealing of National Post narrative

As further evidence of the structural bias of the National Post, I present a smattering of comments by various fans and readers of the Derek Abma article. I should point out, that the bulk of comments were by posters that had anonymous handles. I make note of this because it is a common enough tactic by oil industry public relations firms to flood commenting areas with comments that appear to be from different people.⁹ I also want to note that the bulk of comments were anti-Kyoto, anti-anthropogenic climate change, and anti-regulation. So basically, the comments reflect the narrative of the National Post.

The world is only warming by about one degree C  a century. And that is coming out of the Little Ice Age. Plus, no warming for the last 12 years or so. I see no need to panic. Yes, lets take Kyoto out behind the barn and put an end to this sick beast.  T-Rex,  thanks for reminding us of CLIMATEGATE 2.0   Now if only the Post would run a story on this new release of political warming science E-mails. – Paddle N. Fish (8 likes)

Sherwin Arnott is a great example of a person with an IQ of 80. – SteveDobbs (10 likes)

Nature is an AGW Mike Mann sucker with NO hope of honest reporting on anything. In fact Nature is closer to an AGW Bible accessory that a science magazine. – T-Rex (8 likes)

They just don’t get it..their science was proven wrong…made made global warming/climate change was a scam from day one…..its a huge money trail to no where…..yet its hard to wean ones self off the public teat……thats what the are crying about….// – Ken E. (10 likes)

Not only should Kyoto be buried but these eco terrorist groups who want to destroy the economy should be shut down. Look what they did to Europe, and through the EPA, the US. – Robmax (12 likes)

The Kyoto Agreement was the biggest hoax ever foisted on the industrial nations… Al Gore who lives in a mansion and drives gas guzzlers another phony… – Yusume (47 likes)

I thought I already knew that fracking was dangerous for aquifers. I thought I already knew that fracking was bad for the land and for families and for First Nation’s communities. I thought I already knew that chemicals used in fracking were toxic. I thought that I already knew that the oil and gas companies that are doing shale gas extraction have no real long term commitments to the land or the people that live there.

But when a rancher, or a policy analyst that has done research in the region, or a hunter that grew up there, or a land manager from the Fort Nelson First Nations can explain the challenges and impacts of fracking, in person, it hits home a little differently.¹ The other advantage of having Indigenous presenters² is that it helps me better understand how these “environmental” issues are also colonial issues. It can be easy to get lured into the idea that colonization is a distant event. It’s not. It’s happening.

I was struck by one reflection by Lana Lowe, Director of Lands and Resources with the Fort Nelson First Nation, that the treaty was signed in the Northeast out of a sense of peace and sharing. But the treaty today is held up by government³ as a sign of surrender.

Resources

For some definitive analysis and an excellent values driven assessment of fracking, check out Ben Parfitt’s report. and this report by Pembina [update]. Also, Andrew Nikiforuk of the Tyee is an expert on oil and gas development, including fracking. This hopeful article provides a good overview of the larger political landscape and makes particular notes about the other places in the world that have had the brains and the guts to properly ban and properly regulate shale gas extraction:

All over the world, governments are taking real action to address and curtail the fracking industry. Quebec has brought in a moratorium. So has France and U.S. states like New Jersey. Even Texas legislators are talking about taking action. – Tria Donaldson

Over the summer, I noticed that the poster still gets some attention and decided to launch a text abbreviation reference website on this basis. It was an experiment in user experience, WordPress, php, typography and Search Engine Optimization.

Some months later, Becky helped me to improve the design. If you have a chance, check it out. The theme we built to house the content at Texting Abbreviations later got re-used at a site that had, I hoped, more social relevance. ¹

I should mention that Texting Abbreviations currently has a WordPress plugin installed that I have very much enjoyed using. It’s called Search Meter and it logs all searches and makes special note of the unsuccessful searches. This has been very handy.

I also tweeted at Ford Canada, whose half page ad was featured under the article, to see if they had ideas about the situation. It is, after all, bad branding for them to be associated with overt racism. I also tweeted at the National Post, to make sure they understood my disdain.

To Scott Stinson’s credit, he responded to me. Kudos.

As part of our Twitter exchange, Stinson agreed to read a blog post, if I wrote one. So I did.

You can read my analysis of the joke and the National Post’s defense of it over at Racetalk. You should head over there now, because, to be honest, the post you’re currently reading is kind of boring. But, in case you’re interested, I conclude that the joke was racist. I further conclude that the National Post’s retelling of the joke was racist. I also conclude that Scott Stinson’s defense of the joke was racist. I conclude even that the laughter by the MPs in the audience, was racist. And here’s a summary of just one of the argument structures.

Summary of just one of the argument structures

premise: The Joke Crosbie told was racist.
lemma: If someone retells a racist joke, without acknowledging the racism, the retelling of the joke constitutes a racist action.
Premise: The National Post retold the joke without acknowledging the racism.
Conclusion: Therefore, the National Post’s retelling of the joke was racist.

More of that at my fuller analysis on Racetalk →

As a first case approximation, I subscribe to the view that democracy is about giving people power over the policies that affect their lives.

This heuristic is not simple, but it means we can compare the way different democracies function. It means that sometimes, a state has more of the stuff even though they don’t vote every four years. It’s not rocket science. Would you rather have a community council, running water, or a vote in a national election? Which one gives you more power over your day to day circumstances?

I’m not saying that you have to choose between electricity and a ballot box. That would be a false dichotomy. Obviously. But the point is to actually ask ourselves the deeper question, ‘what is democracy?’ It’s not simply voting, of that we can be sure. And a place like Canada, can certainly have more of it, or less of it.

Which is why I’m tired of this bullshit saying that gets trotted out.

 Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Winston Churchill

This saying is usually operationalized as an attempt to stifle someone’s interest in criticizing the way a specific democracy functions. And it makes it sound like ‘democracy’ is a single form of government. Hogwash.

This video via the Olive Ridley Crawl (and on twitter).

Normal

There is a neutral, technical, use of the term ‘normal’. Normal is a statistical concept. A particular breed of grass has a normal height. The Earth’s orbit has a normal frequency and vibration and the Earth has a normal distance from the Sun. Ice cream normally melts in the sunshine. There are different ways of calculating these norms, but despite this, these are perfectly reasonable, neutral was of speaking.¹

But.

Even though it is statistically normal for humans to have a generally heterosexual orientation, in most public and social contexts, it would be completely inappropriate to say that homosexuality is not normal. To say this, even if you are not cognizant of the impact, is homophobic. Intention is not the issue here. It is, after all, not what you say, but what people hear.

And this is the difference between normal¹ and normal². One of them is loaded. One is politically and socially significant. One is inappropriate in many contexts. Thus, as my very good friend has pointed out to me, “normal is only found on washing machines.” ²

Success or failure

An old roommate of mine once lamented the moralization of the terms ‘success’ and ‘failure.’ When an engineer says something failed, they generally mean this in a neutral, technical sense. The bridge stopped functioning and collapsed. The circuit did not uphold the intended logic. Constructs fail. No biggy. It’s my understanding that, back in the day, success was simply what happened next. One could very well have said that after the bridge was erected, it succeeded in failing. ‘One thing succeeded another’ had no implicit expectation of progress, in much the same that that engineers say ‘failure’ without a tacit moral condemnation.

But.

‘Success’ and ‘failure’ need to be used cautiously. There are some contexts where you are better off not mentioning success or failure. This is a simple social moray. Break it, and you could lose your job, or hurt your loved ones. To say out loud, for example, that your son’s team failed on Sunday, is absolutely tone deaf to the impact of your words.³ To note that your wife has failed to send out the invitations on time, lacks social nuance.

I’m actually of the nerdy camp that says we should have courage to use it more often. Let’s get neutral and descriptive failure. The folks in silicon valley do it: Fail Faster, etc. The reason I am including this digression into success and failure, is that many people understand this, in a way they don’t about ‘normal’ or ‘special interest.’ This case is less abrasive and if you bust someone socially abusing ‘success’ or ‘failure’ there is less chance that they will feel a need to retreat to the more neutral use.

Special interest, or special interest group

There is a neutral use of these terms. Special interest groups are bands of people getting together to advocate their interests. Awesome. This is a somewhat unusual usage, however. Much like ‘statistically normal’, this is the more technical and neutral meaning that folks retreat to once they have revealed their politics, sometimes accidentally. It’s a somewhat broad meaning because, by this criteria, any social movement or lobby is a special interest group.

That said, I do think the term is somewhat slippery. It’s a relative term in so far as some groups will be more special, or more specialized, than others.

But.

This phrase plays an important role in social and political discourse. It is a loaded term. It is value laden, and it can sometimes reveal the values of those that use it. And there are many contexts in which it is inappropriate to attribute it to a group.

Canadian Suffragists, for example, were not a special interest.⁴ To say so, flattens the importance of their interests in the larger tapestry of our society. I am not a woman, but I still benefit from, and am thankful for, the hard work of the Suffragettes.

First Nations are not a special interest. To say so glosses over the tragedies of historical and contemporary colonial practices. To say so, makes colonization an afterthought.

Unions are not a special interest group. There are over a half million Canadians in CUPE alone. To say that unions are a special interest makes it sound like the interests of union members, or the interests of labour, are fringe. But the interests of labour are fundamentally at the center of the way we should form our communities.

What is a special interest group

A paradigmatic example of a special interest group, is Falcon Breeders. They are few. And they form alliances in order to lobby the various provincial and federal ministries about all things falcon. Most people will agree with me that they are a special interest group.

Interestingly, it is likely that the falconry folks will, themselves, object to being identified as a special interest. Most people don’t like it. That’s because some folks listen to the conservative framing and priming served up by the National Post and other big business media for the last last thirty years. They have been slowly and patiently grinding away at the legitimacy of special interest groups. It is often a term of derision.

One commentator I follow has noted that “there is a problem defining special interests in the same way one goes about defining who’s a terrorist.” ‘Special interest’ can be code for the group that I hope no one will listen too, because they are small, or unique, or loony, or have an opinion that is not mine.

That’s the connotation. But back to the nerdy, neutral, relative use.

Can a political party be a special interest?

The short answer is, obviously, yes. The Rhino Party was (is?) an example. The Natural Law Party was another obvious example.

Can a (major, national) political party be a special interest?

If you can get past the initial worry that the question appears to contain the answer, I think this question is interesting. It’s interesting because I think ‘special interest’ is a relative term. It’s also interesting because conservative commentators have been insinuating or explicitly saying that the NDP is a special interest group for years. They posit this, much the same way folks continue to claim that unions are a special interest.

In my humble opinion, the Conservative Party of Canada is more of a special interest than the NDP: the Conservatives serve a narrower class of interests.

Here is a list of the soundbites I brainstormed:²

1. Scientists can’t predict the weather, how can they predict the climate?
2. The Earth is cooling, not warming.
3. The hockey stick graph is bullshit.
4. Everything is made of oil.
5. You drive a car, so don’t be a hypocrite.
6. We can’t stop climate change so there is nothing we can do.
7. Scientists don’t all agree about global warming.
8. The Earth might be warming but there is not enough evidence linking it to human activity.
9. Getting oil from Alberta is more ethical than getting it from Iraq or Iran or Nigeria.
10. Getting coal from Alberta is more ethical than getting coal from Columbia.
11. Alberta keeps Canada in the black.
12. If we don’t keep increasing oil production, and consumption, humans will starve.
13. Mitigating climate change is a waste of money.
14. We’re better off spending money to end world hunger.
15. Lethbridge will become like Arizona, which is a good thing.
16. The world is better off being warmer.
17. Climate change is a socialist conspiracy.
18. Only hippies care about climate change.
19. The oil industry meets and exceeds all industry regulation.
20. It is not government’s role to regulate free markets.
21. The IPCC is corrupt
22. The market will correct itself.
23. Only the free market can solve climate change.
24. Coal is clean.
25. We file a report if we spill a single drop of gas when we fill up our trucks.
26. We regulate ourselves and we set the standard worldwide.
27. We use coal to make clean energy.
28. Alternative energy sources are not enough so we need to expand oil production.
29. One word: China.
30. Volcanoes cause climate change, not Albertans.
31. Solar flares cause climate change, not Albertans.
32. The Earth’s orbit causes climate change, not Albertans.
33. God will keep us safe from climate change.
34. The Earth will always bounce back.
35. The sky isn’t falling.
36. Anyone who cares about climate change is an alarmist.
37. Consumer choices will solve climate change.
38. Government officials can’t be trusted to solve climate change.
39. Ocean ice is an obstacle to trade.
40. Don’t threaten our economic recovery with environmental regulation.
41. Don’t threaten our economic stability with red tape.
42. Our economy is an island of peace and security. Don’t put it at risk.
43. Let Stephen Harper take care of it. He is making a green plan that is custom made for Canada.
44. We have to wait and see what the U.S.A. is going to do.
45. Global temperatures have always been this way from time to time.
46. The oil industry is committed to habitat restoration.

I thought I had done pretty well making a list of public relations soundbites designed to stifle action to mitigate climate change. Then I discovered that some others have already done a better job. This guy even organized the arguments and included basic, intermediate and advanced counter arguments. But as well organized as these guys are, there are seriously hundreds and maybe thousands of websites out there, some well funded and some not, espousing climate denial.

And fascinating it is. It is perhaps the greatest epistemological challenge ever devised by an evil genius. Place billions of humans in a finite space. Give them different worldviews, disparate access to wealth and power, and widely ranging systems of knowing. Give the folks with more access to wealth and privilege a vested interest to keep the other guys confused about a pressing issue. Add in folks that think they are entitled to the resources without acknowledging the finite constraints of said finite space or their impact on the social and political fabric of said space.

It reminds me of the kind of puzzle presented to me when I speak to someone that believes the Earth is only six thousand years old. It’s the same kind of interpersonal puzzle I face when I talk to someone that believes there is a white man in the sky that killed his son on everyone’s behalf. It’s a puzzle. And I don’t know the answer.

Anyway, here it is: http://www.whatthefuckismyalbertaoilstrategy.com/

It’s an important issue and dear to my heart, so I couldn’t bring myself to respond on Twitter. Too few letters and too many ideas.

The context for this conversation

By way of context, I should add that we had been tweeting about the challenges of teaching children about human sex and reproduction and, well, Santa Claus. I won’t get in to that here, except to say that I have some qualms about propagating the myth of Santa Claus. Parents have it tough so it’s not like I want to lecture parents about what they ought to do. But I have some concerns and I welcome ongoing societal discourse about this. That was when @snobiwan¹ said, “In a world of secondhand knowledge, how is Santa different than the orbital model of the atom?”

I then followed up with a “Ha ha. You joke.” The response was interesting. He said, “they’re each inaccurate, but serviceable, models.” And that’s when I realized that he was getting at something that I enjoy to talk about.

Similarity and difference

I responded quickly by simply saying that there are many similarities and many differences depending on your interests and criteria. This is a total throw away statement since any two things in the universe can be seen as similar or different depending on the criteria. I uttered this tautology because I wanted to respond as honestly as I could within the constraints of Tweetsville. I should add that I’m not the fastest Tweeter.

But I also said this, because it seemed to me that he wasn’t simply saying that Santa Claus and the orbital model of the atom have similarities. He was suggesting that they are more similar than different; he was suggesting that the similarities matter more than the differences.

I could be wrong about @snobiwan’s actual intentions or ideas about this. So I should be very careful putting words in his mouth. Twitter can be very difficult, at least for me, in this regard. But I do think the idea should be considered even if this is not @snobiwan’s idea.

What are the differences between Santa Claus and the orbital model of the atom?

The differences that stand out to me are:

1. The orbital model of the atom is generally presented as a model, and Santa Claus is generally presented either as a fact or as a myth.
2. The orbital model of the atom is about something that is independent of human beliefs: atoms and chemical bonds are real even if humans stop existing. Santa Claus is a story about a phenomenon that is dependent on humans and human beliefs.
3. The orbital model of the atom is an important part of the history of physics and chemistry. Santa Claus does not play an important role historically in any part of the scientific project.
4. The orbital model of the atom is not part of a seasonal mythology that has enmeshed itself economically and spiritually in our society. Santa Claus is an integral part of just such a phenomenon.
5. It is somewhat common, and somewhat easy, for adults and children to substantively misunderstand the orbital model. But it’s less common, and more difficult, to get the Santa Claus story substantively wrong.

These are the differences that jump out at me. There are infinitely more, if we include such details as Santa wears red and the orbital model doesn’t, or that Santa was rebranded by Coke and has pagan roots or what have you.

But there are important similarities too, and perhaps @snobiwan was trying to focus on the similarities, not to the exclusion of the differences, but just to enjoy the similarities.

The similarities between Santa Claus and the orbital model of the atom

They are both, strictly speaking, false. This is a pretty cool similarity. Electrons don’t really have orbits or discrete paths, they have probability clouds. Of course, ‘probability cloud’ is also a term that requires a cautious application. This is the challenge with trying to talk about atoms when you don’t do the mathematical modelling. But Bohr, and others did everyone a great service when they developed the orbital model and it still functions in many contexts and has a place in modern chemistry, even acknowledging the ways in which it lacks precision and accuracy and when it’s misused it can lead to bad inferences.

The Santa Claus story is also false, and yet can be used to understand the cultural phenomenon of Christmas and mass consumption and modern advertising. You can’t really understand the modern Canadian child without knowing the Santa Claus story. Hmmm, I think I’m talking myself out of the importance of the similarities.

Oh wait, the similarity that @snobiwan was getting at, is that they are both second hand stories. I guess this is true for folks that are ignorant about atoms, in the same sense that it’s true for folks (children) that are ignorant about Santa Claus. So kids trust parents on the story about Santa Claus in a way that is kind of similar to the way that many folks trust chemists about stories about atoms.

Since humans are social and since the sum of human knowledge depends on our social nature, we are constantly having to rely on complex webs of, well, second hand stories, about what is and isn’t so. Santa Claus is a story. And the Bohr model can be seen as a story too I guess.

I’ll conclude by saying that I think the terms ‘story’ and ‘second hand story’ are a little flattening of the differences for my tastes. But it is sometimes a worthwhile exercise to entertain these ideas!

I guess I’m realizing this anew, and it’s finally time to change the tagline of my blog. This is the third incarnation. It started out as “to infinity and beyond…” With prodding from Hugh, I managed to arrive at “Media, design & beyond…” The current iteration, “Media, Design & Epistemology…” feels more final. You will have probably noticed that I couldn’t quite free myself from the grip of the ellipsis.

AMERICAN HUMANE monitored the animal action. No animals were harmed.

This matters because people care. Folks have been worried about the treatment of the nonhuman animals in movies, and they have been pressing on the movie industry to care too. And now the movie industry cares. And it’s good public relations to announce that you don’t hurt the nonhuman animals when you entertain people.

But it’s only good public relations, in the long term, if it’s true.

And this is the challenge before the Calgary Stampede. They argue that they treat the nonhuman animals ethically. But at the end of the Stampede, they can’t announce what every Hollywood movie announces. And that’s a bind.

Or, if you prefer the second choice, you get a series of article tagged “climate change” by Peter Foster, Lorne Gunter and Rex Murphy:

The billion-dollar Environment department claims its work is “science-based,” but the briefing notes show that it relies for its beliefs about man-made climate change on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose credibility has been severely damaged by numerous scandals. Still, when one considers how many jobs at Environment depend on a combination of climate alarmism and starry-eyed optimism about the policy process, plus attendance at those endless rounds of international meetings in exotic places, it’s not surprising they plead for the issue to be taken seriously. – Peter Foster, “Bureaucrats offer up green misinformation” Aug 2, 2011

It is essentially to remember — and to help people sleep at night — that the temperature consequences of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are hotly debated by well-credentialled scientific skeptics, whose case has been bolstered by Climategate and the flood of scandals about the politicization, corruption and incompetence of the IPCC (even if that flood hasn’t quite washed up on the shores of the mainstream media). — “CO2 just not capable of trapping dangerous heat” Lorne Gunter, Jul 29, 2011 – Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010

It is absolutely terrible reporting. It’s not news. It public relations for the oil industry. And it’s not new. It also fits the pattern of the problem of the Conservative White Men.

I say all of this because I have questions for Michael Shermer.² He has assessed the science surrounding climate change and published saying that: 1. the Earth is warming, and 2. this warming is caused by human activity, in particular CO2 production. This is great. ³

But Shermer has also published saying that there will only be “moderate warming with moderate changes.” He leans heavily on the analysis of Bjorn Lomborg and concludes that:

In my opinion we need to chill out on all extremist plans that entail expenses best described as Brobdingnagian, require our intervention into developing countries best portrayed as imperialistic, or involve state controls best portrayed as fascistic. Give green technologies and free markets a chance.

I should note that Chris Mooney of Desmog Blog has a podcast and an article about his interactions with Shermer and it’s definitely worth a listen and a read.

But my questions for Shermer have a slightly different approach. Like Skeptic Magazine readers, I am deeply interested in the way folks form beliefs about reality. And I am also interested in public relations and professional influence peddlers. And like the Tobacco industry’s interests in government spending and regulation of cigarettes, the oil industry has always had interests when it comes to government spending and regulations relating to climate change.

Continued retreating denial

I respect Shermer’s credentials and his approach on countless topics. From religion to dowsing rods to priming and junk science, Shermer is, in my opinion, right about many things. And he’s the first person to say that we shouldn’t believe him simply because he says so. Kudos.

But it does seem to me a little suspicious that he espouses a particular political ideology. He is a libertarian. Now I too have a political ideology (not libertarianism). ⁴ My point is not to say that clear thinking individuals can’t or shouldn’t have ideological leanings. My point is that is does seem to be a bit more than a coincidence that Shermer’s ideology is also the ideology that informs Conservatives and Republicans who are aligned against accepting or doing anything about climate change.

That is to say, Republicans and Conservatives have been lead deniers of climate change for thirty years. And now that denying climate change is untenable, they are denying that it’s worth doing something about it. So my question to Shermer is, is this grounds for suspicion?

There appears to be a structure and purpose to the shape that denial takes. The stages of climate change denial are well documented. The denier first denies that the Earth is warming. Then when they can’t sustain this, they deny that it’s caused by humans. Then when they discover that it is caused by human consumption, they deny that there is anything we can do about. Then when they realize that this is untenable, they deny that it’s worth doing anything about it. Then when they are forced to admit that we can and should do something about it, they deny that government should have any real active role in doing something about it.

The goal, at every stage of denial, is to deny that we should do something collectively. This defense of the status quo, is a defense of oil industry interests. It is also a defense of Libertarianism. Let’s call this continued retreating denial.

Warrant for skepticism

Shermer himself agrees that Republicans and Conservatives need to stop denying the fact of anthropogenic climate change. But he aligns with Republicans and Conservatives to affirm that we should continue to deny doing anything about climate change.

But here’s the thing. There is a huge oil lobby. There is a massive cover up campaign. The oil industry has intentionally confused the public about the scientific consensus. The Conservatives and the Republicans continue to deny the fact of climate change, and they do so because they deny that government ought to be in the position of regulator. And Shermer shares a political ideology with the Republicans. And Shermer denies that government ought to do something about it. Perhaps most importantly, Shermer relies heavily on Bjorn Lomborg, who’s other books and analysis on the topic of climate change have fit the pattern of continued retreating denial. Lomborg’s recent book, Cool It, which Shermer purports to be depending on for his analysis, was reviewed by economist Frank Ackerman of Tufts, saying that, “Lomborg has a weak grasp of some of the essential details and commits elementary mistakes, with little or no citation of sources that would explain his results.”⁵ Finally, and also importantly, many of the groups that lobbied against tobacco reform are the same groups lobbying against climate change mitigation and energy reform. They are also the same groups lobbying against other state interventions, like healthcare. They are the same groups.

So, Shermer. This appears to be enough evidence, structured in a predictable manner, to warrant deeper investigation into your social and political bias on this matter. Isn’t it? Wouldn’t you be skeptical?

The deeper brand is a set of unconscious beliefs. It is the ground on which all news outlets stand. This brand includes the notion that news outlets are responsible to our communities and our nation state. It includes the idea that news is part of the effective functioning of a democracy. The brand includes the concept that the press know the difference between opinion and fact and that by and large and in the long run, they don’t get their facts wrong.

Perhaps most important, and perhaps most invisible, the brand includes the idea that the journalists and editors know what is most important and most relevant to investigate. News is not sales. News is not public relations. News is not advertising. News is not influence on behalf of a single political ideology. News does not work on behalf of a special interest. News is not just for a small portion of the population. News is driven by values and ethics. This is the brand on which news stands. Because I like the challenge of naming brands, and because it will make the writing more interesting to have a name, let’s call this news brand, gravitas.

News outlets depend on this brand

People consume the news of a particular outlet when they trust the news from this outlet. Advertisers in turn pay to keep the lights on for news rooms when there are enough readers to justify it. But as important as readership is, it’s not the only determinant. Advertisers care about the brands of news outlets, quite aside from the readership. Yes, of course the brand affects the demographic: an affluent readership is better than a poor one: a larger readership is better than a smaller one.

But advertisers can also be understood as sponsors. If an athlete is discovered breaking the law or acting unethically, their brand equity drops and advertisers will pull their sponsorship deals. This behaviour is not simply because the athlete will have fewer fans; in many cases their fan base is not affected. As we are discovering with The News of the World, advertisers care about the brand. ² My point is simply that it’s not a straight line between a brand and readership and advertising dollars.

My broader point is that we need to pay attention to the brand of news outlets and how these brands are developed and managed. Most importantly, we need to ask ourselves if news outlets are living up to the brand they depend on.

Business interests versus press interests

Many newspapers and other outlets have been financially rescued in the last ten years by shifting in the direction of sales and entertainment. More sports, more tragedy, more fluff, more gore, more sex. FOX news is an obvious example. Some analysts, academics and historians think this is not new. The hard business of keeping the lights on has always been part and parcel with the history of the printing press. But even if we accept the weaker thesis, for generosity’s sake, that this is simply an artifact of news rooms trying to survive the growth of the internet, we can still see the dilemma that news rooms are faced with.

Any given news room relies on it’s brand, on it’s gravitas, to sell advertising, keep the attention of readers and meet it’s social responsibilities. On the other horn, business interests are requiring that news outlets have fewer experts on staff, have less time to understand and contextualize issues, do less serious reporting, and move in the direction dictated by the surveys and metrics of the sales and marketing department. And you end up with something pretending to be news, but ultimately failing to be news.³

Three techniques to maintaining the news brand

One classic technique has been referred to by some as bundling. Newspapers could retain their gravitas despite the large section of sports, the large section devoted to cars, and the large amount of advertising, because these portions of fluff and public relations and , well, advertising, were physically bundled with some hard hitting, socially responsible, reporting on business and arts and politics.⁴

A second technique is to keep a few reporters around that actually do serious reporting. Call this human resource bundling. News outlets need entertaining, business savvy “journalists” and they also need some actual journalists to maintain the brand. Of course it’s not black and white. This phenomenon is a spectrum and it’s context dependent and a particular reporter can write pieces that have more and less gravitas. But it’s worth identifying this as a seperate phenomenon from bundling because there is sometimes a difference in the quality of individual reporters and it’s important to understand that journalists are kept around by news outlets for the same sort of strategic reasons that baseball players with different virtues are kept around by professional baseball teams.

Let’s not overlook the importance of the logo and tagline and look and feel of the whole package. It needs to be observed that there is an institutional look and feel to quality news. We soak this up in myriad subtle ways and the authority of any newspaper or television news anchor, in the mind of an average consumer, is enhanced by the music intro, the official titles, mission statements and typefaces. Don’t want this to be true? Me neither, but just imagine if the Guardian published in Comic Sans.

A fourth technique: appearance of political balance

I mentioned in my introduction that part of the invisible brand of news is that they do not serve the interests of a particular political party or their ideology. I think it’s worth identifying a fourth technique for managing the brand that focuses on the question of political leaning. A news outlet like FOX is obviously strongly leaning towards right wing political ideology and support the Republicans heavily. Sun Media obviously have a right leaning political analysis and favour the Conservative Party of Canada. But what about the National Post? What about the Globe and Mail? They have, I think, so far effectively retained their news brand. They are both recognized as institutions with gravitas. But how?

Noam Chomsky and others have steadfastly contended there have always been loud and public accusations that the media is too liberal. ⁵ Ongoing public debate about whether the press is too liberal effectively frames the issue and stops inquiry into whether news outlets create a right leaning distortion or slant. This is the myth of the liberal media, and it’s an important part of how news outlets manage their news brand.

Defenders of the myth point to the likelihood of journalists to vote for center left political parties, which really shows nothing at all. Chomsky says the real question is, are the journalists free to report what they want, and what they think is important? Two recent defectors answer this question in the negative.

There is also a common belief that because news outlets generally anger all political parties equally, the news must not be serving the interests of a particular party. The assertion that the news equally angers all parties is, of course, never evidenced.

A fifth technique: firewall

In light of the phone hacking scandal of The News of the World, we need to mention firewalling. When a portion of a news empire is exposed as having lacked the right values and ethics, then the brand of the entire organization is in danger. A firewall is raised between the toxic portion of the empire and the remaining healthy portion. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, but so far they seem mostly untouched by the tainted brand of The News of the World. But people are noticing who is coming to the defense of Murdoch‘s news outlets. So the success of the firewall remains an open question.

Final word to Jay Rosen

In a recent article by Jay Rosen in the Guardian, Rosen argues that “Rupert Murdoch’s news organisations are not in the news business. What they crave is influence.” It should be noted that Jay Rosen has high standards for the use of words like “press” and “news” and “journalism.” So when he says that News Corp are not news, what he is really saying is that they fail at being news. So while News Corp may hang on to some remnants of the news brand, they have not performed at the required standard. So they’re a glorified public relations firm. They’re a lobbying firm:

News Corp is not a news company at all, but a global media empire that employs its newspapers – and in the US, Fox News – as a lobbying arm. The logic of holding these “press” properties is to wield influence on behalf of the rest of the (much bigger and more profitable) media business and also to satisfy Murdoch’s own power urges.

But they’re not the only ones posing as news. In my humble opinion.

Avaaz continues to rock. Nice to see a political analysis beyond, “F1 was cancelled due to political unrest.”¹

But my intent is not to extoll the virtues of DePape or her act of protest. Instead, I want to say why David Akin,¹ of Sun Media, has written so poorly on the topic.

The only reason I even read the posting by Akin, is that Mike Moffatt tweeted a link to it calling it brilliant. Looking back now, I wonder if Moffatt actually read it.²

I find two glaring problems with Akin’s analysis. He thinks acts of protest are too often shortcuts that lack impulse control and that DePape is not committed to making long term social change. Most importantly, he doesn’t understand what democracy is.

Akin fails to understand the concept of democracy

Democracy is not simply about having national elections. Many countries have elections, but fail to meet a basic threshold of democracy. Democracy is not simply yes or no, on or off, black or white. It doesn’t work that way.

Democracy is a matter of degree. Most people get this intuitively. When more people vote, we have more democracy. When the electorate is better educated on issues, we have more democracy. When people’s human rights are protected, we have more democracy. When the power of corporations and rich people to spend money on elections and lobby government is curtailed by regulation, then we have more democracy. When people who wield power are expected to account for and justify their power, then we have more democracy. When citizens are able to elect representatives that reflect their values and interests, then we have more democracy.³

Seriously, Akin, are your following this? It’s not brain surgery.

When DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab spring,”⁴ she was calling for democratic renewal. She was saying that we need more democracy.

She thinks this, and I think this, and most Canadians think this. And in part, we think this because Stephen Harper wants less democracy. The Conservative Party of Canada wants less democracy because it is bad for some businesses. Democracy is bad for Big Tobacco. Democracy is bad for Big Oil. Democracy is bad for any business that knows that the community wants to make them accountable. Part of democracy is regulatory oversight on behalf of community interests. But regulatory oversight is bad for many business interests; notably, interests from Alberta that pay for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the business media that cheerlead for them. The speech from the throne didn’t even mention climate change.⁵

Akin pretends to not to understand this. It is, after all, his job to not understand this.

Akin’s article gives no evidence and yet frames DePape as being not interested in hard work or commitment

Akin’s entire article works to frame Brigette DePape as someone who prefers shortcuts. But a protest is not, as a rule, a shortcut. To say so reveals just how out of touch Akin is with the challenges of making social change. A protest, is the symbolic nub of a larger analysis and commitment to progressive social change. This larger analysis and commitment to social change, Brigette DePape has in spades.

That said, some protests fail to be effective. This one has not failed in it’s symbolic power. Akin certainly has not provided any evidence that it failed. He has written at length about the virtues of diligence and perseverance and the value of taking the long view. Great. DePape probably, and I certainly, agree with these virtues. By simply asserting otherwise, without evidence is inappropriate.

If Akin simply disagrees with her claims, just say so. If Akin simply thinks she shouldn’t have stood up to Harper this way, just say so. Akin is, I believe, a Libertarian. He probably doesn’t believe in climate change. And, like other rich people, he probably hates paying progressive taxes. But if this is his problem with DePape he should just say so.

Instead, Akin employs rhetorical devices to make DePape out to be less courageous and less hard working than she is. He even refers to DePape by her first name. This is a patronizing move that coheres with his overall undermining tone. Yes you have a better paying job and you are an older, taller, white, right wing, middle age man with Big Oil cheering for you and lots of privilege. And yes DePape is a younger, less well paid, woman that is standing up to, among other things, Big Oil.

But more than that, he argues that DePape and her supporters think that symbolic protest is the only way to make change:

“Brigette DePape may despise Stephen Harper’s politics but showing up in the Senate — or anywhere else in Canada — with a sign that says “Stop Harper” and issuing a press release after the fact is so not going to change things, one feels pity for her and her supporters for, if this is how they believe change will happen, they will never know it.”

I see no evidence that DePape has not considered that there are other ways to make progressive social change. She votes. She no doubt has canvassed. She no doubt participates in committees and other democratic forums. So do I and I’m a DePape supporter.

Did I already mention that the throne speech didn’t even mention climate change? Harper has committed to a balanced budget in 2015. Good one.

All of this happened without my consent. I wasn’t asked if I was okay with them scanning my ID. I wasn’t asked if I was okay with them storing my personal information. It was just assumed that if I was to go in, this would happen. Because I’m a curmudgeon, I asked what happened when he scanned my license. He claimed they only use the data if “something happens” or they “call the cops.”

All of this strikes me as an unfortunate problem for the Victoria night club scene. I surmise from these measures that the downtown nightclub scene must be violent. So the bars want to work with the cops to deal with the violence but they are now risking their brand by surveilling their customers. Hence they are understandably hush hush about the surveillance.

Apparently, they don’t share the data with anyone other than the other venues and the police. And apparently, the data gets erased every morning. Says the door guy. Good times in the capital city of the best place on earth.

Feminist Rock Camp 2011 [pdf] (poster)

Reasons I left iPhone

I had an old 3g iPhone. And it was good. And then I was instructed to update to a new operating system that impaired it’s functionality. I was given no warning, no ability to revert, and no warning that their new software was not backwards compatible. I lost some intellectual property which I rediscovered by using the iPhone Explorer and I lost some functionality that I had previously enjoyed. In short, I felt betrayed.

But this is not the only reason that I’m tired of Apple or tired of my iPhone. A couple weeks ago I used some free software to make a map of my various positions in time and space. Turns out that my iPhone was secretly mapping my movements. I say secretly because whenever I was prompted to use the geolocator options, I would always opt out. It’s a good reminder to take terms of service very seriously and apparently I’ve been lax. It is interesting that the Apple people seem to be claiming it’s a bug. It is also interesting that the vast majority of iPhone users didn’t know. It is also interesting that many folks seem okay with this. Yet another reason for me to don my tinfoil hat.

The final reason that I’m getting off the iPhone boat, is the calendar software. We have been paying for a service (MobileMe) to synchronize our calendars and contact lists and task managers. But the latest calendar updates are ominously not backwards compatible with my desktop. And the updates are also not optional. Jack asses.

All of that to say, I’m giving a new mobile device a try. So far, I love it. Most importantly, I don’t have to wait 30 or 50 seconds for the app to open, then watch it crash, and then open it again.

premise 1: Canada’s newspaper of record would only endorse a centrist political party.
premise 2: The Globe & Mail is Canada’s newspaper of record.
premise 3: The Globe & Mail endorsed the Conservatives.
Conclusion: the Conservatives are, therefore, a centrist political party.

Since the conclusion is absurd, and the argument form is valid, at least one of the premises must be false. But which one?

This might help. It helps to know we’re not the only folks that think our First Past the Post system needs reform. ²

Download the PDF poster of Stephen Harper. The dimensions now strike me as a little odd at 23″ by 34″. Huh.

This is probably my last post until after the election. Good luck to all of us.

But no longer. I wrote about Rex Murphy last year. Anyone that follows me on Twitter will know that I have posted some of my challenges with Rex Murphy there. And, crucially, I committed to writing a post defending and footnoting my claims. This is it. Here are six of my tweets and their reasons. ¹

But first, I will express one point of admiration. Rex Murphy is a curmudgeon. For this I admire him, in part, because I am somewhat of a curmudgeon. And curmudgeon-ness is a power. It’s a virtue. But it’s not enough. And his defects are many.

My challenges with Rex Murphy: #2 he is ignorant about climate change.

This is a big one. It’s his job to understand the significant issues of our day. But most of what he is on record saying about climate change works to:

1. undermine public confidence in the science of global warming
2. undermine public opinion of the policies Canada and other countries have tried to initiate to mitigate climate change

He succeeds at undermining the legitimacy of the conventional wisdom of global warming by being, well, confusing about his claims. He uses obfuscatory language when discussing the facts and he casts doubt at every turn on the scientist that purport the facts. He speaks mostly in derogatory and demeaning ways about environmentalists and climate change activists. And while some of his individual criticisms are defensible, the nature and direction of his criticisms is patterned.

Take, for example, his televised rant on the so called climate-gate emails: http://youtu.be/lgIEQqLokL8 He casts a number of aspersions on the scientists studying climate change and casts a number of aspersions on the activists and advocates trying to make social and cultural change. He uses the following language (partial list): “alarmism,” “manipulation,” “destroying the data,” “unprofessionalism,” “ideology,” “dishonest science,” “stink of intellectual corruption,” “lack of neutrality,” “lack of good science,” “partisan.”  But he has never returned to the issue to retract his claims. He simply has never bothered to follow up.

It’s not rocket science. Just go to a real newspaper online and see what they say.

The thing is that there are real and important issues around climate change. And we need curmudgeons asking questions and pushing for a better analysis. But when every soundbite you issue works to confuse the electorate, support the oil industry interests, and undermine public opinion about global collective action, then you deserve biting criticism.

It’s worth doing a search on the DeSmog Blog for “rex murphy.” And just in case you think it’s all old news, just check out his recent soundbites at the National Post as of April 16 2011.

Remember this the next time someone says that the science of global warming is “settled,” for many environmentalists are inspired not by science, but by spirituality — Andean and otherwise. – Rex Murphy

It’s worth noting here that many of his individual points are defensible. Most of the best propaganda is, after all, true. But the article’s logic is invalid. You cannot argue from some hand picked examples of environmentalism (no matter whether they are actually examples of fuzzy thinking or not) to the general conclusion that “environmentalism rots the mind.” That’s a bullshit argument. And it’s a fancy piece of rhetoric that fits a larger pattern in which his columns and soundbites are continually critical of certain issues, in this case climate change, and never critical of others.

My challenges with Rex Murphy: #4 he complains about expedience in electoral communications, but he is, himself, a master sophist.

Take, for example, his recent article of April 16, 2011. The first sentence is a question. It’s the question which frames everything he says in the article. He asks the question, because he can deny asserting it, in the next sentence. Here’s the full first paragraph:

Does environmentalism rot the mind? I am beginning to believe that the more feverish and agitated greens are suffering from a morbid condition. There is, it appears, no intellectual folly to which they are immune, no frenzied leap off the pier of reason they will not joyfully execute, in their reliably bizarre efforts to horrify the rest of us into supporting their cause.

Anyone can ask a question. I could ask some about Rex Murhpy. Does Rex Murphy eat kittens? Does Rex Murphy have actual friends? Is Rex Murphy getting senile? These are just questions. I’m not asserting that he is senile. I don’t know that. I have no evidence. wink wink It’s a slick move. In the very next sentence, once he’s already planted the framework and subtext for the rest of the article, he says something very safe. Actually, if you read the second sentence carefully, it’s practically a tautology. He basically asserts that he is beginning to believe that the more agitated greens are mindless. Well, that’s a very carefully constructed sentence. It’s a highly defensible sentence.

This device works like this. Is Rex Murphy a jackass? I’m beginning to think so, because sometimes he acts like a jackass.

There is a second rhetorical device that Murphy employs in this first paragraph. His argument structure is to find some people that identify as environmentalists and then argue that their ideas are crazy. And maybe the people in his examples have crazy ideas. Most people will think so and that is why Murphy picked these examples. But the move is to then argue that all environmentalists are crazy. That’s what the article is about. He’s not informing us of the national green mvoement of Bolivia. Not really. He’s actually informing us about the nature of environmentalism here. But he paints all environmentalists with the same brush. It’s a tremendous leap of inductive logic. Were it not so cleverly hidden in his well penned prose it would be laughable. But it somehow passes.

Both of these techniques are very strategic acts of communication. Murphy somehow thinks that he’s allowed to do this but that politicians aren’t. We should expect more from politicians. But we should also expect more from journalists.

Interestingly, the article, which I thought was editorial is listed under NEWS. Here’s a screenshot.

My challenges with Rex Murphy: #5 he doesn’t want an election but then proclaims that the election is “unwanted, unwarranted and unwelcome”.

Rex Murphy doesn’t like this election. That’s fine, that’s his opinion. He says so here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/pointless+campaign/4587006/story.html

He says so again on March 26 here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/26/rex-murphy-liberals-hope-to-sell-a-civics-lesson-as-a-campaign-theme/

And he says so again on March 25th. He uses the language of “unwanted, unwarranted and unwelcome” on March 25: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/25/rex-murphy-if-nothing-else-the-election-will-mean-the-last-of-familiar-faces/

It’s a classic fallacy of reasoning. It goes something like this:

premise: I think that x.
premise: I'm important.
conclusion 1: Therefore, everybody thinks that x.
corollary: If everybody thinks x, then x is the case.
conclusion 2: Therefore, x is the case.

Rex Murphy makes a lot of money. His work, on the radio and on television and as an author, all adds up to him making a healthy paycheck. I say this because he has the time and resources to get clear on issues and educate himself. Generally speaking, scholars have moved beyond the arcane “objective” language of the 1970′s in which every opinion was stated as objective fact. If you want other people to think the election is unwelcome, just say so. If you think the election is unwelcome just say so. But don’t use the term “believe” to discuss the likelihood of an election, and then just pass off “unwanted, unwarranted and unwelcome” as fact.

For the record, I want, and welcome, the election.

My challenges with Rex Murphy: #6 he considers the prorogation of parliament, by Harper, a “great non-controversy.”

Murphy says so on August 7 of 2o10, “The Perils of Question 32B”: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/07/rex-murphy-the-perils-of-question-32b/

My challenges with Rex Murphy: #9 he has been, by and large, a Barack Obama detractor and an admirer of Sarah Palin.

See “When crisis strikes the world, Obama falls silent” and “Mid-terms touch on American despair.”

And, almost unbelievably, see April 10, 2010 “Understanding the Sarah Palin effect.” The National Post seems to have taken this article down. They do a terrible job of archiving their content. But I found a cached page of this troubling article here.  ²

But there she is, in all her roughness and candour, and her spiky wit and ability to irritate her self-nominated betters. She also happens to be the most naturally charismatic politician at the moment in the United States. She is the one major figure who can claim authenticity without morally choking on the word. That makes her the populist rallying point of a nascent rejection of the fervid partisanship and Washington insiderism that is eroding the consent on which American politics is founded

It’s not the first time Murphy applauds Palin. On November 20 of 2009 Murphy praised Palin’s capacities at length.

My challenges with Rex Murphy: #10 he doesn’t understand human rights. And he repeats too many #cpc talking points.

On April 03, 2010, Murphy wrote “Please don’t call it ‘human rights’” and in this article (article here), he claims that:

By some crude osmosis, or just from the luxuriant carelessness of our pampered lives, we have overturned one of the great concepts of all human law. The concept of human rights, as experience and history inform us, is protection from the state’s power, not oversight, interference and punishment by the state’s power.

The core concept of human rights is the protection of the irreducible safety and dignity of the individual from the massive and arbitrary power of the state. Not, the state wandering in, with its apparatus and procedures, its boards and tribunals into the doings, or speech, of the individual. This is what the Guy Earle case, in its triviality — it’s about heckling, remember — upends. It perverts the name of “human rights,” earned in blood and suffering in circumstances of utter consequence and unspeakable misery.

This is flatly wrong. The core concept of a human right is not the protection of an individual from the state. Our human rights are entitlements in toto; they protect us from churches, individuals, companies, organizations, families, corporations and states. And for the record, most human rights that are actually protected, are protected by the state. Only a wealthy libertarian would claim that the core concept of a  human rights protects us from the state. I have some complicated thoughts and feelings about states and governments myself. Some days, I even drift towards anarchy. But I also understand that the state also occasionally affords the protection of our human rights. And so should Murphy.

And this is one of the problems with Rex Murphy. He seems all to happy in his job at the National Post to reflect and amplify the soundbites of the Conservative Party of Canada (#cpc). Just browse the string of headlines found at http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/author/rmurphynp/

What you will find, is a string of articles that:

1. frame the election as unnecessary and dangerous
2. condemn politics as a waste of time
3. frame detractors of the Conservatives as time wasters
4. disparage environmentalism
5. undermine public confidence in climate change science
6. promote the role of the oil sands in Canada
7. are critical of Michael Ignatief
8. abuse the notion of human rights

On January 15 2011, Rex Murphy titled his articled with the very metaphor that Harper himself uses to characterize his leadership and economic policies: “Harper didn’t move mountains — but he kept our seas calm.” Rex Murphy, and the National Post, should have a duty of disclosure.

Just admit who you’re voting for and who you want others to vote for.

It’s more honest.

In 2007, Harper cut $1.2 Billion in spending for the establishment of quality national childcare. However, he never kept his promise to cut the $1.4 billion in tax breaks he gives to oil companies (the wealthiest corporations in history). – www.shitharperdid.com