Something about the Super Bowl always sucks me in. It’s the essential experience of Brand America. And nowhere was Brand America more on display than in the Chrysler half-time commercial featuring Clint Eastwood letting us know it’s half-time in America...and we’re all scared because this isn’t a game. But, not to worry, if Detroit has bounced back then so can America. Why? Because that’s what we do, we find a way through tough times and if we can’t find one, then we make one.
Now that’s what I call speaking to the zeitgeist of America. I can’t say if America knows it has a zeitgeist but the Creatives who hired Clint know it does. And so does Bruce. He’s just uploaded a song from his new album, Wrecking Ball. It’s called We Take Care of Our Own. It’s classic Springsteen, a danceable guitar lick that draws you in and holds on, as Bruce’s rough voice talks about stumbling on good hearts turned to stone and scenes from hardscrabble America move by. Then the refrain comes in, over and over: we take care of our own, we take care of our own, we take care of our own.
What to make of this? Well, I’d say the good news is America is admitting it’s broke, broken, beaten. And if, as they say, the first step to recovery is admitting the problem, step one is underway. Then again, I have another voice that says “what utter horseshit” (W.U.H., for short). Half-time? The game is over and you lost. You were best in the league in the 20th century but, hey, you had some pathetic general managers of late who drove the franchise into the ground. And as to taking care of your own? Since when?
The latest news I know about taking care of your own is this one: federal law has barred troops from suing the government for any injuries they suffer as a result of malpractice in military medical facilities, no matter how negligent or egregious the error. That’s been in place for years actually, but now they’re extending it to spouses and children of troops. You’d think that when it comes to taking care of our own, Veterans would be the one class of citizens for whom the statement would be true.* And I know I don’t need to talk about how many uninsured Americans there are, blah blah blah, so I won’t. Let’s just say the only way I can understand Bruce singing We Take Care of Our Own in the same way I understand companies that declare Our People Are Our Most Valuable Asset—it’s aspirational. We’d like to act in ways that confirm the statement and we’re sorry we don’t, but we are trying, really, we are.
And so, even if it’s not half-time in America, we want to act like it is. We want to dust ourselves off and believe there’s a whole lot of game left in us and, even more importantly, there’s plenty of time on the clock. And if Madison Avenue (this time it was Weiden and Kennedy actually, headquartered in Portland, Oregon) simply keeps telling us, we’ll come to believe it. And who knows, it may just come true. Right?
*In truth, Canada’s not much better. Back in November, this was the news: Canada's veterans who think they were poisoned in the 1991 Gulf War and in the Balkans can't trust the government when it says they're fine, said scientists at an international conference.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Chit Chat with Europeans and the Marginal Return on Investment
An old friend sends an email he titles "Chit Chat with Europeans" in which he writes:
At a conference in Hamburg there was a pleasant reception at the US Consulate General's, [except for the] overly rigorous American security which the Canadian and New Zealand diplomats thought was funny.
Yes. Laughter as an anti-dote to insanity. I confess sometimes I want to sneak up on the scores of overly earnest American security screeners and suddenly yell ‘boo!” or “nail-clipper!” or “liquid container greater than 3.4oz!”...or, worst of all, "anarchist hacker!"
Whoever thought security screening would become America’s dominant jobs strategy?* If one million dollars buys us security, then one hundred million dollars will buy us even more, right? At some point in the security business, the marginal return on investment has to click in.
Unfortunately when I go online to find out how to calculate the marginal return on investment, I get this:
Q=(2x)³•(3y)²•(8z)² =4608•x³•y²•z²
Px
Py
Pz
Profit=∏=TR-TC
TR=PQ
TC=xPx+yPy+zPz
For simple model without discounting and Δx→0 we can assume:
ROI = (TR-TC)/TC = ∏/TC = TR/TC -1
MROIx=∂ROI/∂x
I have no idea what this means. That’s likely because I’m a product of the American educational system, as is most everyone else in the county which, I suppose, means there’s hardly anyone who can calculate the marginal return on investment. They simply don’t know that spending another 100 million dollars on security doesn’t buy you 100 million dollars more in security. Otherwise they’d stop. Wouldn’t they? Can someone translate that calculation into plain English and send it to the Department of Homeland Security?** Please.
*Why else would there be 158 academic institutions offering degrees in security: http://www.gradschools.com/search-programs/security-management
**You can see DHS Budget in Brief (183 pages!) here: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget-bib-fy2012.pdf
At a conference in Hamburg there was a pleasant reception at the US Consulate General's, [except for the] overly rigorous American security which the Canadian and New Zealand diplomats thought was funny.
Yes. Laughter as an anti-dote to insanity. I confess sometimes I want to sneak up on the scores of overly earnest American security screeners and suddenly yell ‘boo!” or “nail-clipper!” or “liquid container greater than 3.4oz!”...or, worst of all, "anarchist hacker!"
Whoever thought security screening would become America’s dominant jobs strategy?* If one million dollars buys us security, then one hundred million dollars will buy us even more, right? At some point in the security business, the marginal return on investment has to click in.
Unfortunately when I go online to find out how to calculate the marginal return on investment, I get this:
Q=(2x)³•(3y)²•(8z)² =4608•x³•y²•z²
Px
Py
Pz
Profit=∏=TR-TC
TR=PQ
TC=xPx+yPy+zPz
For simple model without discounting and Δx→0 we can assume:
ROI = (TR-TC)/TC = ∏/TC = TR/TC -1
MROIx=∂ROI/∂x
I have no idea what this means. That’s likely because I’m a product of the American educational system, as is most everyone else in the county which, I suppose, means there’s hardly anyone who can calculate the marginal return on investment. They simply don’t know that spending another 100 million dollars on security doesn’t buy you 100 million dollars more in security. Otherwise they’d stop. Wouldn’t they? Can someone translate that calculation into plain English and send it to the Department of Homeland Security?** Please.
*Why else would there be 158 academic institutions offering degrees in security: http://www.gradschools.com/search-programs/security-management
**You can see DHS Budget in Brief (183 pages!) here: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget-bib-fy2012.pdf
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Race To The Bottom
September, and both Obama and Harper seem to be playing “who can gut the environment faster?” Obama gutted the EPA’s smog standards; Harper, Canada’s ozone monitoring.
Harper’s actions are expected. The only tree he ever hugged was an oak when he was seven and playing hide and seek. Obama, on the other hand, actually made promises on the environment. Wasn’t he the man who was going to bring science back into environmental policy? Then again, he never said that science would trump the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber unveiled what it believed to be the real dangers of the EPA's smog standards: seven million jobs could be lost and one billion in compliance costs spent by 2020. Hey Mr. President, whaddya think the American people want, jobs or clean air? Geez, when you put it that way, well, sure, jobs I guess.
As to Harper, he’s ending funding for the network of monitoring stations in the arctic that monitor the ozone layer. Environment Canada is also going to stop maintaining its Toronto-based World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre used by researchers around the world. For those in the know about the science, these cuts are nothing short of a disaster for us being able to understand the complexity of what’s happening to our planet. For Harper, who has always been enamoured with removing information from policy, what we don’t know can’t hurt us.
If the race to the bottom is similar (after all, the main component of smog is ozone), the news cycle about these stories isn’t. Obama’s decision was big news. Certain media outlets raked Obama over hot coals (rumour has it that they’ve been getting steadily hotter during the past thirty years). Keith Olbermann went ballistic, editorials appeared in major paper condemning the President’s action, the decision mattered. In Canada, Harper’s actions hardly saw the light of day.
Environment Canada? There will be more cuts to come. Harper may have come around and agreed there’s global warming, but hey, if we lose the ability to measure it, who can be sure in what direction it’s trending. Years from now Environment Canada might be one guy with a thermometer who sticks his wet finger into the wind and gives us the weather report.
Harper’s actions are expected. The only tree he ever hugged was an oak when he was seven and playing hide and seek. Obama, on the other hand, actually made promises on the environment. Wasn’t he the man who was going to bring science back into environmental policy? Then again, he never said that science would trump the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber unveiled what it believed to be the real dangers of the EPA's smog standards: seven million jobs could be lost and one billion in compliance costs spent by 2020. Hey Mr. President, whaddya think the American people want, jobs or clean air? Geez, when you put it that way, well, sure, jobs I guess.
As to Harper, he’s ending funding for the network of monitoring stations in the arctic that monitor the ozone layer. Environment Canada is also going to stop maintaining its Toronto-based World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre used by researchers around the world. For those in the know about the science, these cuts are nothing short of a disaster for us being able to understand the complexity of what’s happening to our planet. For Harper, who has always been enamoured with removing information from policy, what we don’t know can’t hurt us.
If the race to the bottom is similar (after all, the main component of smog is ozone), the news cycle about these stories isn’t. Obama’s decision was big news. Certain media outlets raked Obama over hot coals (rumour has it that they’ve been getting steadily hotter during the past thirty years). Keith Olbermann went ballistic, editorials appeared in major paper condemning the President’s action, the decision mattered. In Canada, Harper’s actions hardly saw the light of day.
Environment Canada? There will be more cuts to come. Harper may have come around and agreed there’s global warming, but hey, if we lose the ability to measure it, who can be sure in what direction it’s trending. Years from now Environment Canada might be one guy with a thermometer who sticks his wet finger into the wind and gives us the weather report.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
After Jack Layton: What Might Have Been
There was hardly a mention of Jack Layton’s too early death south of the border, so far as I can tell. The outpouring of grief in Canada didn’t seem to trickle into the traditional American media in any significant way. Not surprising. It was somewhat bigger news in the Huffington Post and The Daily Beast. In the wake of his death, the what-might-have-been that most saddens me is his absence from American awareness.
Canadian Prime Ministers, never mind leaders of the official opposition, don’t get much air time in the States. The U.S., after all, is mostly exposed to “All America, All the Time.” A charismatic left-leaning politician from the Great White North isn’t particularly newsworthy. That said, the potential was there, had he lived, for it to be different.
And I was looking forward to that difference. I’m not sure who speaks compellingly for the left in America’s political class anymore. Dennis Kucinich remains out there, but few would describe him as compelling. Most of us would probably jump up and say John Stewart. Oh, that’s right, he’s in comedy. Paul Krugman? Oops, he’s journalism. No, there’s no one I know, at least not from up here.
I like to think Jack, as the first post-Harper Prime Minister, would have had a salutary effect on the left in America. Imagine a Canadian Prime Minister who is entirely likeable, passionately principled but neither obstinate nor impractical, who wears his idealism on his sleeve and achieved power without resorting to attack ads.
Ah, if only. The American left currently seems unable to find its footing, at least in the current moment. And yet north of their border, Canada had a man from the New Democratic Party sweep into the official opposition. He was destined to bring them into power. And then, by George, you’d have it: a genuine party of the left running the country that shares a 5,525 mile border with America.
I would have loved to have seen him on Fox News, his warm, engaging manner, paired with his passionately principled positions, rendering their news anchors as mean-spirited as they are. He might have even created a crack in the American left for one of their own to rise up and speak truth and stand courageously. America would have found itself wanting what he so winningly embodied (in the same way many of us in the States during the Nixon years looked north, with envy, at Trudeau).
But it’s not to be. And it is a loss to America that America will never know.
Canadian Prime Ministers, never mind leaders of the official opposition, don’t get much air time in the States. The U.S., after all, is mostly exposed to “All America, All the Time.” A charismatic left-leaning politician from the Great White North isn’t particularly newsworthy. That said, the potential was there, had he lived, for it to be different.
And I was looking forward to that difference. I’m not sure who speaks compellingly for the left in America’s political class anymore. Dennis Kucinich remains out there, but few would describe him as compelling. Most of us would probably jump up and say John Stewart. Oh, that’s right, he’s in comedy. Paul Krugman? Oops, he’s journalism. No, there’s no one I know, at least not from up here.
I like to think Jack, as the first post-Harper Prime Minister, would have had a salutary effect on the left in America. Imagine a Canadian Prime Minister who is entirely likeable, passionately principled but neither obstinate nor impractical, who wears his idealism on his sleeve and achieved power without resorting to attack ads.
Ah, if only. The American left currently seems unable to find its footing, at least in the current moment. And yet north of their border, Canada had a man from the New Democratic Party sweep into the official opposition. He was destined to bring them into power. And then, by George, you’d have it: a genuine party of the left running the country that shares a 5,525 mile border with America.
I would have loved to have seen him on Fox News, his warm, engaging manner, paired with his passionately principled positions, rendering their news anchors as mean-spirited as they are. He might have even created a crack in the American left for one of their own to rise up and speak truth and stand courageously. America would have found itself wanting what he so winningly embodied (in the same way many of us in the States during the Nixon years looked north, with envy, at Trudeau).
But it’s not to be. And it is a loss to America that America will never know.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Canada Day 2011
Since Canada doesn’t mandate a “State of the Federation Address,” I thought I would use today to report back to the people (or at least to the 8 who say they follow this blog!).
We have a majority conservative government doing very important things. Today we learned that they are mandating the military to have a significant role in Canadian Citizenship ceremonies. A military person will be seated next to the citizenship judge, be able to give a three minute speech (not to be missed!) and shake the hands of the new citizens in a receiving line. Ah yes, the changes a visionary Prime Minister can accomplish!
I regret to say I am only half tongue in cheek. Harper is brilliant at instituting changes that look small but aren’t. He is the politician informed by the butterfly effect—a single salute over at the citizenship ceremony creates a hurricane in the consciousness of Canadians. It may take awhile, but long after he’s left office, we will feel the effects.
And what isn’t a symbolic change often has real substance that never makes it onto the media radar in any meaningful way. Just before the election, the Government gutted the enforcement power of the group that regulates food labels. The legislation still says companies have to label, but the government is now unable to enforce it. Ah yes, the changes an ideological Prime Minister can accomplish!
Of course, the omnibus crime bill will bring in American-style changes to the criminal justice system just as America has realized its system of punishment not only hasn’t been working but is also no longer affordable. But why let that get in the way of Canada moving forward to protect the rights of victims? Harper likes victims, which could be admirable if only he didn't go around imagining more of them than actually exist or work so hard to convince us we're all endanger of becoming one unless he protects us.
Canada's real victims did have an important gathering this past week in Inuvik. Canada’s own Truth and Reconciliation Commission went to the north to give witness to the impact of the residential schools on northern children during the years of forced assimilation. The government created the conditions that lead to so much pain and suffering, and it is now appropriately asking for stories from that sad chapter to be told.
Whether the Canadian postal workers who were just ordered back to work are victims or not depends on one’s politics. To the new official opposition, the New Democratic Party, they clearly are, and therefore the party filibustered to prevent the Government from sending them back to work. Legislating the end of the strike after less than two weeks does seem a bit hasty; then again, if the strike had gone on much longer, Canadians might have had the chance to realize the extent to which effective technology has rendered the postal service less and less relevant. When was the last time I licked an envelope? I think, in an odd turn of events, Harper likely helped the postal workers, whose strike may not have been in their own best interest. Perhaps they should read about the demise of the Pony Express.
Speaking of demise,(what a segue!)the Canadian base in Afghanistan is being transferred over to the Americans, and Canadian soldiers are celebrating their last Canada Day in Kandahar. I am one who believes there never should have been a first day in Kandahar; this last one is long overdue. It was a mistaken deployment. And twenty years from now, if not sooner, we will understand that it was an utterly worthless commitment of lives.(Consider this my 2011 Canada Day prediction.)
And to end in a flurry of good news, let’s not forget that it wasn’t long ago that Arcade Fire won the Grammy for best album, a Canadian who avoided his destiny to be a puck-head was somehow picked 4th in the NBA draft, the rights of gays and lesbians to marry was included in the latest revision to the citizenship guide, and Kate and William are in town on a glorious July day, throwing monarchists and celebrity-watchers into various states of jubilation.
(A unique version of Oh Canada by Asani: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPwjwmDWgQ)
We have a majority conservative government doing very important things. Today we learned that they are mandating the military to have a significant role in Canadian Citizenship ceremonies. A military person will be seated next to the citizenship judge, be able to give a three minute speech (not to be missed!) and shake the hands of the new citizens in a receiving line. Ah yes, the changes a visionary Prime Minister can accomplish!
I regret to say I am only half tongue in cheek. Harper is brilliant at instituting changes that look small but aren’t. He is the politician informed by the butterfly effect—a single salute over at the citizenship ceremony creates a hurricane in the consciousness of Canadians. It may take awhile, but long after he’s left office, we will feel the effects.
And what isn’t a symbolic change often has real substance that never makes it onto the media radar in any meaningful way. Just before the election, the Government gutted the enforcement power of the group that regulates food labels. The legislation still says companies have to label, but the government is now unable to enforce it. Ah yes, the changes an ideological Prime Minister can accomplish!
Of course, the omnibus crime bill will bring in American-style changes to the criminal justice system just as America has realized its system of punishment not only hasn’t been working but is also no longer affordable. But why let that get in the way of Canada moving forward to protect the rights of victims? Harper likes victims, which could be admirable if only he didn't go around imagining more of them than actually exist or work so hard to convince us we're all endanger of becoming one unless he protects us.
Canada's real victims did have an important gathering this past week in Inuvik. Canada’s own Truth and Reconciliation Commission went to the north to give witness to the impact of the residential schools on northern children during the years of forced assimilation. The government created the conditions that lead to so much pain and suffering, and it is now appropriately asking for stories from that sad chapter to be told.
Whether the Canadian postal workers who were just ordered back to work are victims or not depends on one’s politics. To the new official opposition, the New Democratic Party, they clearly are, and therefore the party filibustered to prevent the Government from sending them back to work. Legislating the end of the strike after less than two weeks does seem a bit hasty; then again, if the strike had gone on much longer, Canadians might have had the chance to realize the extent to which effective technology has rendered the postal service less and less relevant. When was the last time I licked an envelope? I think, in an odd turn of events, Harper likely helped the postal workers, whose strike may not have been in their own best interest. Perhaps they should read about the demise of the Pony Express.
Speaking of demise,(what a segue!)the Canadian base in Afghanistan is being transferred over to the Americans, and Canadian soldiers are celebrating their last Canada Day in Kandahar. I am one who believes there never should have been a first day in Kandahar; this last one is long overdue. It was a mistaken deployment. And twenty years from now, if not sooner, we will understand that it was an utterly worthless commitment of lives.(Consider this my 2011 Canada Day prediction.)
And to end in a flurry of good news, let’s not forget that it wasn’t long ago that Arcade Fire won the Grammy for best album, a Canadian who avoided his destiny to be a puck-head was somehow picked 4th in the NBA draft, the rights of gays and lesbians to marry was included in the latest revision to the citizenship guide, and Kate and William are in town on a glorious July day, throwing monarchists and celebrity-watchers into various states of jubilation.
(A unique version of Oh Canada by Asani: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPwjwmDWgQ)
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Canadian Election
When I first moved north and experienced a Canadian election, I was bowled over. Short, focused, not breaking the bank, they were an exercise in concision and execution. This one, however, has me rethinking.
I’m not claiming the interminable election cycle of the States is the right model, but there must be some option we could imagine between the two extremes, where candidates aren’t forever campaigning on the one hand or candidates forced, on the other hand, to get their message out in a short six weeks that doesn’t adequately reveal what their made of.
Canada’s election isn’t long enough to smoke out the pretense, to unwind the spin, and give people a chance to understand the implications of what’s being said. The country has no time to catch its breath before voting. Ready, set, go vote. Like in a basketball game (oops, wrong sport), the winning team is the one who has the momentum.
***********************************
I started this blog originally because I was so shocked that Canadians didn’t understand their own system of government. The Prime Minister, who was pro-roguing Parliament to prevent a coalition, had somehow advanced the notion that he’d been directly elected Prime Minister by the people, as if he were a President. Well, now the chickens have come home to roost.
With everyone thinking they are electing a Prime Minister, people are voting for whom they like best, and that seems to be Jack Layton, the avuncular head of the New Democratic Party. The quality of the local candidates hardly seems to matter.
And yet, there’s something to love about this development. For those who see Harper as evil incarnate, he’s now reaping what he’s sown. Having planted the idea that the Prime Minister is really a President and doesn’t serve at the will of Parliament, Harper is discovering that Canadians are now voting that way, and he is suffering for it. Ah yes, what goes around comes around. Act like a President, and maybe you’ll be defeated like one.
************************************
Meanwhile south of the border where its always morning in America, Democracy is on the skids. This from the editorial in the NY Times of April 27:
Less than a year before the 2012 presidential voting begins, Republican legislatures and governors across the country are rewriting voting laws to make it much harder for the young, the poor and African-Americans - groups that typically vote Democratic - to cast a ballot.
Spreading fear of a nonexistent flood of voter fraud, they are demanding that citizens be required to show a government-issued identification before they are allowed to vote. Republicans have been pushing these changes for years, but now more than two-thirds of the states have adopted or are considering such laws.
The ongoing problem for Democracy continues to be that it is difficult to find democrats. After all, once you’re in power, who really wants the headaches of democracy?
I’m not claiming the interminable election cycle of the States is the right model, but there must be some option we could imagine between the two extremes, where candidates aren’t forever campaigning on the one hand or candidates forced, on the other hand, to get their message out in a short six weeks that doesn’t adequately reveal what their made of.
Canada’s election isn’t long enough to smoke out the pretense, to unwind the spin, and give people a chance to understand the implications of what’s being said. The country has no time to catch its breath before voting. Ready, set, go vote. Like in a basketball game (oops, wrong sport), the winning team is the one who has the momentum.
***********************************
I started this blog originally because I was so shocked that Canadians didn’t understand their own system of government. The Prime Minister, who was pro-roguing Parliament to prevent a coalition, had somehow advanced the notion that he’d been directly elected Prime Minister by the people, as if he were a President. Well, now the chickens have come home to roost.
With everyone thinking they are electing a Prime Minister, people are voting for whom they like best, and that seems to be Jack Layton, the avuncular head of the New Democratic Party. The quality of the local candidates hardly seems to matter.
And yet, there’s something to love about this development. For those who see Harper as evil incarnate, he’s now reaping what he’s sown. Having planted the idea that the Prime Minister is really a President and doesn’t serve at the will of Parliament, Harper is discovering that Canadians are now voting that way, and he is suffering for it. Ah yes, what goes around comes around. Act like a President, and maybe you’ll be defeated like one.
************************************
Meanwhile south of the border where its always morning in America, Democracy is on the skids. This from the editorial in the NY Times of April 27:
Less than a year before the 2012 presidential voting begins, Republican legislatures and governors across the country are rewriting voting laws to make it much harder for the young, the poor and African-Americans - groups that typically vote Democratic - to cast a ballot.
Spreading fear of a nonexistent flood of voter fraud, they are demanding that citizens be required to show a government-issued identification before they are allowed to vote. Republicans have been pushing these changes for years, but now more than two-thirds of the states have adopted or are considering such laws.
The ongoing problem for Democracy continues to be that it is difficult to find democrats. After all, once you’re in power, who really wants the headaches of democracy?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Belief in Climate Change
Could it be that our previous blog entry—about Canadian regulators rejecting efforts to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news—explains the discrepancy between how citizens in the U.S. and Canada view climate change? A poll was recently released (Feb 23) comparing the two countries.
Is there solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer? 80% of Canadians think so. Americans? 58%. Now I’m not saying that the other 42% of Americans are watching too much Fox News (that wasn’t one of the polling questions) but I’m also not willing to say they’re reading the New York Times.
What causal factors determine one’s views on the existence of climate change? In the States, a slew of factors—age, gender, education—all seem to play some part in one’s belief in climate change. In Canada, the belief stays consistent across these variables; young or old, male or female, college educated or not, belief in climate change remains remarkably steady. In fact, a higher percentage of non-college educated Canadians (78%) believe in the existence of climate change compared to college educated Americans(64)%.
However, there IS one causal factor that reveals the most significant difference in one’s belief in climate change: political ideology. Conservatives in Canada and Republicans in the States are far less likely to believe in the existence of climate change compared to Liberals and Democrats.
Now we have come full-circle back to my opening question. Could lax broadcasting standards and a lower belief in climate change be related? Canada’s Prime Minister, an Alberta boy who wants to use the Tar Sands to turn Canada into an energy superpower, apparently thinks so. Who, after all, wants to lower the standards of Canadian news broadcasting? The conservative Prime Minister. On the right end of the political spectrum, it would seem that citizen ignorance is bliss; perhaps it’s even a political strategy.
To read the full report on the poll, go here: http://www.ppforum.ca/sites/default/files/Climate%202011_Report.pdf
Is there solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer? 80% of Canadians think so. Americans? 58%. Now I’m not saying that the other 42% of Americans are watching too much Fox News (that wasn’t one of the polling questions) but I’m also not willing to say they’re reading the New York Times.
What causal factors determine one’s views on the existence of climate change? In the States, a slew of factors—age, gender, education—all seem to play some part in one’s belief in climate change. In Canada, the belief stays consistent across these variables; young or old, male or female, college educated or not, belief in climate change remains remarkably steady. In fact, a higher percentage of non-college educated Canadians (78%) believe in the existence of climate change compared to college educated Americans(64)%.
However, there IS one causal factor that reveals the most significant difference in one’s belief in climate change: political ideology. Conservatives in Canada and Republicans in the States are far less likely to believe in the existence of climate change compared to Liberals and Democrats.
Now we have come full-circle back to my opening question. Could lax broadcasting standards and a lower belief in climate change be related? Canada’s Prime Minister, an Alberta boy who wants to use the Tar Sands to turn Canada into an energy superpower, apparently thinks so. Who, after all, wants to lower the standards of Canadian news broadcasting? The conservative Prime Minister. On the right end of the political spectrum, it would seem that citizen ignorance is bliss; perhaps it’s even a political strategy.
To read the full report on the poll, go here: http://www.ppforum.ca/sites/default/files/Climate%202011_Report.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
