While not a new idea, Jeff Stone, a California Republican on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, wants to explore the idea of secession. The idea is to create a utopian conservative enclave that can address issues of improved border security, balanced budgets, better schools, lower taxes, and a stronger economy. While actual secession is very unlikely, a debate can address worthwhile issues of governance and policy, particularly the distribution of tax revenue. The geography of this new state would be rural and agricultural, with vast tracts of desert, akin to a neighbouring state to the east. So, it was fitting that Democratic Governor Jerry Brown’s spokesman, Gil Duran, served up this diss::

“It’s a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody’s time. If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there’s a place called Arizona.”

Speaking of Arizona, let’s be clear where low taxes leads a state in an economic downturn. This Harper’s article from last summer highlights the problems in a state loathe to raise taxes and where selloffs and privatization only goes so far::

“Although dozens of states are facing budget crises, the situation in Arizona is arguably the nation’s worst, graver even than in California. A horrific budget deficit has been papered over with massive borrowing and accounting gimmickry, and the state may yet have to issue IOUs to employees and vendors. All-day kindergarten has been eliminated statewide, and some districts have adopted a four-day school week. Arizona’s state parks, despite bringing in 2 million visitors and $266 million annually, have lost 80 percent of their budget, with up to two thirds of the parks now in danger of closure. The legislature slashed the budget for the Department of Revenue, which required the agency to fire hundreds of state auditors and tax collectors; lawmakers boasted that these measures saved $25 million, but a top official in the department estimated that the state would miss out on $174 million in tax collections as a result.”

While Arizona flounders, the article notes political attention has drifted to culture war topics like immigration.

The idea of a “South California” brings into sharp relief the problem of governance in a diverse state—a state with several distinct regions, each with their own demographics, industrial bases, access to water resources, and political cultures. If California’s budgetary woes continue, which is very likely given the slow recovery prospects, it’s natural that geographic alignments become stronger and influence political discourse. In the past, this has invoked the culture war, but this can be dicey terrain. Ask Pete Wilson, who played that card only to get hammered for it later and estranged by his own party.

Vidcap of Saltspring Island teacher Kristi Kallip attempting to keep the crowds at bay, sitting atop a police car being smashed while holding out peace signs.

Originally posted on r h i z o m i c o n

I’m not sure why, but I just had a feeling the Canucks were going to lose Game 7 of the Stanley Cup. It may well be from my experience in the 2002 World Series when San Francisco went up 3-2, only to lose two straight and series. So, when I was flipping around in the wee hours of EDT to catch the score, the Canucks loss was overshadowed by the riots following the loss. The Province has an interesting article on how Vancouver hasn’t progressed since 1994 [see 1994 footage of 40-50,000 rioters taking to the streets], when the Canucks experienced a heartbreaking game 7 Stanley Cup loss. A Vancouver constable summed things up::

“People complain that this is a ‘No Fun City,’” said Const. Colin Naismith, lifting up his riot-protection mask. “Well, they had their chance. This is what happens when you let the floodgates open.”

Rioter wielding a hockey stick takes out some frustrations on a Bank of Montréal branch.

I think the Vancouver Police made the right call in how they handled things, given that there were estimates of 100,000 people watching the game on Georgia St. on bigscreens in downtown. The scale of people out on the streets was immense and giving the crowd a reason to escalate the violence would have been a bad move. Imagine the use of coralling with 100,000 people on the streets. In contrast, during last year’s G20 protests in Toronto, there were only 10,000 protestors and allegedly a splinter group of 2,000 black bloc was responsible for damage caused through vandalism. While it may be disturbing to see vandalism and property damage, it’s a delicate balance between ensuring public safety and not pouring gasoline on the fire, given the huge crowd, and ensuring civil liberties. Moreover, a heavy-handed approach, a characterization levied at the Toronto Police for their handling of G20, can result in a PR fail and a sense that free speech rights within the Canadian Charter of Freedoms are being undermined, in the name of public safety. The Vancouver riot had nothing to do with public safety, but with a brutish Hobbesean state fueled by social contagion—as rioters sense a lack of consequences for acting out given the sheer scale of the mob, it gave more people the courage to act out. The best thing for law enforcement to do would be to focus on stopping any assaults and getting out videocameras to add to the panopticon of visual surveillance in the city consisting of about 1,000 cameras. Let the rioting crowd simmer down and document the vandalism and sort it all out later—criminally and civilly. Imperfect? Sure. Some scofflaws might get away with their vandalism or worse, but as evident in this case of a Toronto officer accused of assaulting a bystander during G20, the panopticon can catch up with you long after the emotion of the moment and the criminal deeds were done.

Well, it makes one wonder what would have happened if Canada lost the hockey gold last February in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver {although the crowds on the street were in the tens of thousands, not 100,000} and also what would happen if election results were big screen televised public spectacles with large gatherings.

Finally, all of this reminds me of Paul Thomas Anderson’s video for Fiona Apple’s cover of “Across the Universe”, on the soundtrack for Pleasantville {1998}::

Writer/Producer Sameer Asad Gardezi is behind a trio of videos that are a response to a video entitled “Hate Comes to Orange County” {below}, where protestors and local politicians {Ed Royce [R-40], Gary Miller [R-42] and Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly} expressed their views about an event at the Yorba Linda Community Center. The event in question was a fundraiser held by the Islamic Circle of North America, an America Muslim relief group, raising money for women’s shelters. The controversy about protest centres on the taunts, including derogatory comments about Muhammad being a pervert, references to wife beating, and the ever popular “go home terrorist”.

Gardezi is using these satirical videos to push back on this divisive speech::

“I can’t say that this was my revolutionary stance to vindicate a group of people…It was the only way I felt I could react to the situation in a way that could satisfy me — if other people felt the same that was the cherry on top.”

He’s using humour, on a YouTube channel titled teapartyyouthla, in the Aladdin videos [see part 1] to take a Disney pop culture icon and turn the extreme rhetoric against it::

“We weren’t explicitly unveiling anything or trying to provide a new truth, just trying to break down something that already exists and use satire as a way to showcase that.”

There’s also a Facebook page with this gem::

“Let’s never forget a kabob is an evil hot dog. Nonetheless, thank you for the post KABOBFest.”

Gardezi noted the use of humour with the blowback from the Alexandra Wallace debacle, where a notorious fameball UCLA student posted an anti-Asian rant to build an audience–further questioning the adage that any PR is good PR. Sameer wanted to tap this satirical vein with his videos. I think this is an interesting addition to the discourse, using hyperbole and projecting context on to a sacred cow of sorts. I also think that this shtick is a whole lot fresher than Stephen Colbert’s, which is getting stale and sharing far too many jokes with The Daily Show.

The province of Ontario is increasing funding for 6,000 graduate students in high demand areas such as engineering, health, and environmental sciences. Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government is set to increase funding for 60,000 total students by 2015-2016.

I think this is a step in the right direction for Ontario and Canada to address the innovation and productivity gaps that plague the economy. AnnaLee Saxenian, author of Regional Advantage, examined the innovation clusters of Silicon Valley and Route 128 in Massachusetts. Historically, both are areas with strong technical universities that were generously funded during the Cold War, but what emerged in California was a culture of innovation.

“In the 1970’s both the Route 128 complex of Boston and the Silicon Valley were centers of high technology industry, but by the 1980’s the Route 128 area was stagnating while the Silicon Valley, after experiencing economics shocks, was moving ahead to become the unchallenged global leader in high technology. The difference in the two areas was not in resources or location but in their commercial culture. Route 128 firms tended to be insular and proprietary, whereas the Silicon Valley firms were open and linked by social and economic networks which enabled them to adjust to the vissitudes of market shifts.”

In today’s Toronto Star, an article on a Toronto Board of Trade report cited a need for increased regional coöperation among the economic development entities in the Greater Toronto Area. The report cites the regional transportation planning of Metrolinx as an exemplar of regional planning. I think there’s a tremendous opportunity for the development of Toronto as an innovation cluster, but I think the big challenge won’t be in terms of funding, but in terms of creating an innovative localized culture that permeates the regional institutions, including government, higher education, hospitals {in medicine and healthcare}, and business. So, I can see the Ontario Liberals touting plans to integrate their higher education policy with one for regional innovation incubation. The MPP for Toronto Centre, Glen Murray, is the Minister for Research and Innovation, which runs the Ontario Network of Excellence (ONE). One on the ONE members is MaRS, an organization designed to bridge science, government, and business, which the Ontario Liberals have committed funding to::

“To continue to foster that environment, Murray announced a $2.25 million commitment over the next three years for MaRS so that it may continue its mandate to foster innovation in Toronto by harnessing expertise from across academic and business sectors to aid in launching and developing companies. MaRS will become one of 14 centres in the province-wide ‘Network of Excellence’ being built to foster innovation.”

Toronto is a confluence of different types of capital and global flows, with high levels of educational attainment, being a landing area for immigration, serving as a financial centre, and being a hub for the culture industries. What I’ve been reading is that much of Canada’s innovation occurs in extraverted industry clusters, which would tend to dilute regional advantages that take advantage of localized networks. The exception being the entertainment and culture industries. What I don’t know is what the business culture is like in innovative sectors in Ontario–is it more like California {informal, open, networked, greater mobility} or Massachusetts {formal, closed, hierarchical, and path dependent} in the 70s and 80s? The stakes are high, given the state of the economy and hopes pinned on innovation for future growth in GDP and jobs, which Murray is keenly aware of::

(Source, click to enlarge. Story background.)

It breeds disrespect. That reference in the blog post title is to Mr. Harper’s government and the actions it has taken which have bred that disrespect for one of the most esteemed institutions in Canada. The seat of our government has seen tremendous disrespect under his leadership. Not caring that one of your ministers inserts a “not” after a document had been signed by others, for example. Not respecting members of parliament who ask the government for the most basic of financial information supporting billions in purchases the government seeks to make. Making light of an historic contempt verdict. To cite the more egregious examples of recent memory and not even needing to go near the famous incidents of prorogation.

Breed disrespect, reap protest.

Some say the Throne Speech’s reading in the Senate was not the place, tut tut. The easy group think response rears its head right from the get go. It allows you to give a nod to the sentiment of protest but just say, well, maybe it should have been somewhere else. Essentially agreeing with the protest then, which is the most important aspect. But if it had been somewhere else, it wouldn’t have achieved a fraction of the impact.

Friday’s incident may be a harbinger of things to come under the Harper majority. Creative protest in forms unseen to date. Brigitte DePape, the protesting page, felt strongly about the Harper agenda for Canada. There are many, many more just like her and she certainly sent her message during Friday’s Throne Speech.

Today, the Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled a budget with plenty of emphasis on reducing the deficit, much like what’s going on in the US. This, despite the fact that the interest rates are telling a story where financial markets are not that concerned about the deficit. This pattern is evident in both Canada and the US. Interest rates are showing there’s no crowding out—government spending taking up capital and resources that businesses can use. The reality of the situation is uncertainty and a dearth of good prospects is causing the business community to sit on huge stocks of capital.

Nevertheless, for various political reasons the deficit is touted as a menace that must be dealt with, not just in North America, but globally. The media is contributing to the Jedi mind trickery, dubbed the “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop”. The WaPo blog by Greg Sargent states::

“The relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers to spend still more time talking about it and less time talking about the economy,”

while linking to a National Journal study examining the gap between mentions of “unemployment” versus “deficit”::

“the broadening gap demonstrates just how effective conservatives have been at changing the narrative of economic policy from one dominated by talk of fiscal stimulus to one now in lockstep with notions of fiscal austerity.”

In Canada, the opposition parties aren’t on the same page with the Finance Minister and the Conservative Party, but don’t have the votes to stop the budget. While ink is being spilled about how fast the deficit will be reduced in Canada and whether of not the Conservative projections are wide of the mark and overly rosy, the elephant in the living room is the lingering high unemployment rate::

The problem with the deficit discourse is it fails to address the issue of unemployment and real economic problems, with the only way the issue goes away is if the economy grows. In fact, I feel being a deficit hawk in this economic climate is playing with political dynamite. The economic indicators do not support deficit reduction, given that the business community is loathe to expand. So, if the deficit hawks are wrong and unemployment and economic stagnation persists, they are opening themselves up to criticism. I think the hope is that a business cycle upswing will render the deficit issue moot, so the perception is that it’s “riskless” to jump on the deficit reduction bandwagon.

In the US, both Democrats and Republicans are viewing the deficit as the evil menace that must be thwarted at all costs with ample help of the media. While a Republican presidential candidate would differentiate themselves by embracing a populist and expansionary economic approach, it would be political suicide. Any politician advocating increases in government spending would face an uphill battle and be forced to educate the public on matters many don’t have the time and the patience for.

The jury is still out on how the New Democrats and Liberals play the deficit card in Canada in the future, but it may be an easy one to play if unemployment remains relatively high, businesses remain tentative, and the economy continues to stagnate.

“Black people—specifically, young black people—do seem to use Twitter differently from everyone else on the service. They form tighter clusters on the network—they follow one another more readily, they retweet each other more often, and more of their posts are @-replies—posts directed at other users. It’s this behavior, intentional or not, that gives black people—and in particular, black teenagers—the means to dominate the conversation on Twitter.”

So, these “blacktags” {perhaps made famous by #ifsantawasblack}  are more prone to go viral. According to Baratunde Thurston, the Web editor of the Onion::

“Twitter works very naturally with that call-and-response tradition—it’s so short, so economical, and you get an instant signal validating the quality of your contribution. (If people like what you say, they retweet it.)”

Currently, the Australian Labor Party and PM Julia Gillard are developing a framework to implement a carbon tax. Actor Cate Blanchett is in a manufactured controversy over her appearance in a privately funded pro-carbon tax ad in Australia. Cate is getting support by the left and critisism on the right for being “out of touch”, with Terri Kelleher of The Australian Families Association claiming::

“It’s nice to have a multi-millionaire who won’t be impacted by it telling you how great it is.”

This article reminds readers that Cate Blanchett is a Hollywood actor worth $53M, while the opposition leader Tony Abbott told Parliament his thoughts on the matter::

“People who live in eco-mansions have a right to be heard [in reference to the Blanchett’s $10 million Sydney home]…People who are worth $53 million have a right to be heard but their voice should not be heard ahead of the voice of the ordinary working people of this country.”

The opposition is focusing on the financial impact for the rank and file and how it will raise prices and hurt jobs. The Labor plan is to implement a carbon tax for 3-5 years before switching to a cap-and-trade system. The tax would be between US$21.4 and 32.1 per tonne [$CAN 20.8 to 31.3 per tonne].

The rhetoric is flying in both direction. The following video attempts to debunk the above ad, but while it looks like it’s identifying false claims, it’s merely citing opposing views.

The problem with taxes is the public doesn’t want to pay them and that many are buying into the neoliberal myth of low taxes that encourage a race to the bottom. Raising taxes tends to be good fodder for the opposition, but it doesn’t always work. Carbon taxes are one of those things that aren’t easy for the public to understand. During the recent election in Canada, the Conservatives tried to nail the NDP {at the time 4th. and now the official opposition party} on its cap-and-trade proposal. Unfortunately, one of the pro-Conservative economists, Jack Mintz at the University of Calgary and a boardmember for Imperial Oil, flubbed it on Twitter earning himself a hashtag fail. He made an erroneous assumption that wasn’t a part of the NDP policy by considering fossil fuels that consumers use in his calculations. I have a sense that in Canada, the electorate is getting wise to the rhetoric and there’s an increasingly partisan divide, particularly on economic issues.

Attacking Cate Blanchett for being out of touch as part of a “regular joe can’t afford it” appeal is a dangerous tactic when the tax hasn’t even been finalized. Nevertheless, taxes are a boogeyman of politics. Australian Labor might want to look at the British Colombia experience with its carbon tax.

British Columbia is going on 3 years with a carbon tax, which was first met with resistance when implemented by the BC-Liberals {centre-left} under Premier Gordon Campbell. Carole James and the BC-NDP {centre-left} was making it a wedge issue in the May 2009 provincial elections. Robert Gifford, an environmental psychologist and a professor at the University of Victoria said::

“Initially, some people heard the ‘t’ word and went into a tizzy…Then the end of the world didn’t happen, and people just accepted the tax.”

Now, three years later, the public has accepted the tax in BC, the BC-NDP has softened on it and isn’t using it to attack the BC-Liberals, despite another election looming. I was skeptical of the efficacy of the tax {July of next year it goes up to $30 per tonne}, as I wasn’t seeing a clear path to behavioural changes with the particular implementation of policy by the BC-Liberals. After three years, others agree that the policy is flawed and some are advocating that the policy be fixed to address some of its perceived faults , in terms of environmemental outcomes and economic fairness. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has a report with recommendations on how to fix the carbon tax by fine-tuning the policy and closing loopholes.

The opposition in Australia, led by Tony Abbott, who is claiming the sky will fall with the carbon tax may be putting all his chips on this one issue. Attacking Cate Blanchett on an issue that the electorate is evenly divided on is risky. Attacking her with arguments that she’s rich and can afford the tax can appear to be offsides and can magnify the very celebrity status that she’s using to support her causes. Blanchett responded to her critics by stating her support on the carbon tax is conditional on “generous compensation for low and middle income households.”

I’m working on research on backlash effects, particularly as it pertains to social media. It appears that Tony Abbott is trying to attack the carbon tax, but in a way that can set up a backlash. In my model, components of trustworthiness of Blanchett might drive voter perceptions, particularly with respect to ability, integrity and benevolence. The stronger the perception of her on these dimensions, the greater the likelihood of Abbott fueling a backlash against attacks on her and the carbon tax.

I have a new article on Dennis Miller’s satire in the American Communication Journal. Using a textual analysis program, I conducted an exploratory study of the comic political convert’s communication patterns across nearly two decades. Currently, I’m working on a grant using the same methodology to examine a much larger body of discourse like this, so would welcome any feedback or further thoughts: Satirical Visions with Public Consequence?: Dennis Miller’s Ranting Rhetorical Persona

If you’re like most of my liberal elite buddies, you think Sarah Palin’s recent rumblings about getting into the presidential derby is a great boom for Democrats. Well, I’m less giddy. Here’s reason #1 from Ron Brownstien’s analysis of a recent Pew survey:

63 percent of African-Americans and 54 percent of Hispanics said they expected their children to exceed their standard of living. Even college-educated whites are less optimistic (only about two-fifths agree). But the noncollege whites are the gloomiest: Just one-third of them think their kids will live better than they do; an equal number think their children won’t even match their living standard. No other group is nearly that negative.

While Republicans have a history of elite-driven presidential nominations, Palin has one advantage that Romney, Pawlenty or Hunstman do not…. she resonates with working class whites. This group remains angry, economically distressed and “searching for their country.” Who do you think they think is going to find it for them?

You’ betcha!