• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

That's true - and I think they (generally) gnawed reasonably hard during the whole WE circus - but I'm still seeing the "bought & paid for media" moniker being bandied about from people who also point to the same media as proof that there's problems about.

The media weren't backwards about coming forwards for the money.... even if it meant there were Good Media and Bad Media.

Since 1695 there has only been Media. The press was free to anybody with the money to print and they were permitted to say whatever they liked about whatever subject. And disputes would be resolved by the magistrates and the public. The risk is accepted by the person doing the uttering. The amount of risk accepted is based on how strongly they feel about their cause and how deep their pockets.


Truth and facts exist in Utopia.

As to the buying of the media - they join the ranks of the politicians

An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron
 
Seeing as how this thread has taken a distinctly Canadian twist (Sino-Canadian) I'm going to add Frank Stronach's latest National Post missive to the discussion. I agree with him (and for those that ask why I don't post more articles with which I disagree - those are for those I find disagreeable to post).

Why are our living standards rapidly declining? And more importantly, what can we do to halt the downward slide?

I believe the number 1 problem we face is that our country is managed by political parties. As a result, we are governed by short-term political decision-making, which often results in policies that don’t make the most economic sense.



Frank Stronach: Canada needs a democratic revolution​

The best solution to break the stranglehold that political parties have on our democratic process is to introduce citizen representatives into Parliament
Author of the article:
Frank Stronach
Published Mar 28, 2023 • Last updated 3 hours ago • 4 minute read

131 Comments

PHOTO BY TONY CALDWELL/POSTMEDIA

In my column last week, I argued that our system of government no longer works and needs changing. I cited some evidence that our country is mismanaged — from rising debt to a deteriorating economy. But the key point I wanted to drive home was that our country is heading in the wrong direction. By a whole host of measures, we’re getting worse, not better.

When I first came to Canada in the 1950s, most families only needed one income-earner to enjoy a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, own a home and a car, and take annual vacations. That’s virtually impossible today.

Even 30 years ago, a young couple with good jobs — a plumber and a teacher, for example, or a nurse and a salesman — could afford to buy a house in the suburbs and still have money left over to send their children to university and put some savings aside for retirement. But that dream is also out of reach for most couples today.

Why are our living standards rapidly declining? And more importantly, what can we do to halt the downward slide?

I believe the number 1 problem we face is that our country is managed by political parties. As a result, we are governed by short-term political decision-making, which often results in policies that don’t make the most economic sense.

The best solution to break the stranglehold that political parties have on our democratic process is to introduce citizen representatives into Parliament — democratically elected, non-partisan citizens who would have a say in all economic and national affairs. It’s a proposal I’ve championed for many years now, including in this National Post column.

Citizen representatives would vote on all bills brought before the House of Commons and would effectively hold the balance of power in Parliament. In short, they would provide a vigorous counterbalance to the unchecked power of governing political parties.

When you look back in history, most cultures had wise councils. The ancient Roman Senate — or “council of elders” — was typically the chamber where the republic’s wisest and most experienced citizens would dispense counsel and strategic advice.

I envision that our country’s citizen representatives would act as a type of modern-day council of elders. As a result, I believe citizen representatives should be required to be at least 50 years of age and have the endorsement of at least 300 fellow citizens.

Ideally, they would be citizens who have enjoyed successful careers and could bring significant business experience from various industries and professions to their role as citizen legislators. I believe there are a lot of good Canadians with valuable experience who want to serve their country and who would be willing to run as citizen representatives.

In terms of where these elected representatives would sit in Parliament, one option would be to have them replace the political appointees in the Senate. Introducing citizen representatives into the Senate would allow the upper chamber to provide a vigorous check on the power of the House of Commons.

The proposal most often put forward for reforming the Senate is to create an elected Senate, but this would do little to break the partisan stranglehold that currently dominates our political affairs. Electing senators of various party stripes will simply create another layer of politicians — the last thing we need in a country that is already overly politicized and over-governed.

The main problem with having citizen representatives sit in the Senate is that it would require a constitutional amendment and the odds of that happening are very low. Any change would require the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing half the population — the so-called “7/50 rule.”

A more feasible option would be to have the citizen representatives sit in the House of Commons alongside members of Parliament, which may not require a constitutional amendment. If that were to happen, the House would become rather large and cumbersome, since there would be one citizen representative for every three MPs. As a result, we could reduce the current number of MPs by about one-third — from 338 to around 225.

Regardless of where they sat, citizen representatives would make our country more democratic and more accountable, and would give Canadians a much stronger voice in all national matters and a say in the type of legislation that affects their jobs and their pocketbooks. Most importantly, Canadian citizens would wield the deciding vote in how their money gets spent.

National Post
fstronachpost@gmail.com

Frank Stronach is the founder of Magna International Inc., one of Canada’s largest global companies, and an inductee in the Automotive Hall of Fame.

I agree with the diagnosis. I am not sure about the prescription.

As far as I am concerned the bigger problem is that parliament used to be place where people with jobs (even if they were just traders and stockbrokers) came to meet and debate and decide.

Those people have been replaced by people who believe that being a parliamentarian is a job. They see themselves as especially gifted intellectuals.

Put me in the anti-intellectual category. I love me an expert. I can not thole a self-professed intellectual.
 

And the National Post is on a streak....

Words strain,
Crack and Sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip slide and perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still.
—T.S. Eliot

or

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
 
Seeing as how this thread has taken a distinctly Canadian twist (Sino-Canadian) I'm going to add Frank Stronach's latest National Post missive to the discussion. I agree with him (and for those that ask why I don't post more articles with which I disagree - those are for those I find disagreeable to post).







I agree with the diagnosis. I am not sure about the prescription.

As far as I am concerned the bigger problem is that parliament used to be place where people with jobs (even if they were just traders and stockbrokers) came to meet and debate and decide.

Those people have been replaced by people who believe that being a parliamentarian is a job. They see themselves as especially gifted intellectuals.

Put me in the anti-intellectual category. I love me an expert. I can not thole a self-professed intellectual.

At some point since WW2 we decided intelligence = leadership. That is simply not the case. A smart person will surround themselves with smarter people and use their knowledge to formulate decision making. The whole idea of the SME.

Example; if I, as a CPO2 Sup Tech, am put in the position of IC of a damage control section base I will use the SMEs around to manage that section base. And heavily rely on their advice. While I have experience in this matter, they have more and are better trained.

The other issue is our HoC isn't a house of "commons" much anymore. More often our representatives have some status or place in society before getting there. And I question their ability to look out for the middle and lower classes.
 
At some point since WW2 we decided intelligence = leadership. That is simply not the case. A smart person will surround themselves with smarter people and use their knowledge to formulate decision making. The whole idea of the SME.
Intelligence is still a component of leadership. Education I would argue does not equate intelligence or leadership.
Example; if I, as a CPO2 Sup Tech, am put in the position of IC of a damage control section base I will use the SMEs around to manage that section base. And heavily rely on their advice. While I have experience in this matter, they have more and are better trained.

The other issue is our HoC isn't a house of "commons" much anymore. More often our representatives have some status or place in society before getting there. And I question their ability to look out for the middle and lower classes.

Not to nitpick. But yes the House of Commons is still very much “commons”. As in not made of of the nobility. Even at its origin it was mostly made up of high commoners and gentry class of the common folk.
 
Intelligence is still a component of leadership. Education I would argue does not equate intelligence or leadership.

One has to be smart enough to realize they aren't smart enough, I agree. But I like your word change, education for intelligence. Point taken.

Not to nitpick. But yes the House of Commons is still very much “commons”. As in not made of of the nobility. Even at its origin it was mostly made up of high commoners and gentry class of the common folk.

I had posted the same in another thread. Trying to save key strokes ;)
 
Not to nitpick. But yes the House of Commons is still very much “commons”. As in not made of of the nobility. Even at its origin it was mostly made up of high commoners and gentry class of the common folk.
Maybe we need a House of Common Commoners....

The current class of common gentry are essentially the nobility of old.
 
However in keeping with your train of thought I do think we’ve seen a rise of the political class and more specifically direct entry politicians.

I dunno the older I get the more I think some sort of public service needs to have been performed before one can enter politics. Emergency Services, Medicine, Military ect ect.

I know I know, starship troopers and all that...
 
I dunno the older I get the more I think some sort of public service needs to have been performed before one can enter politics. Emergency Services, Medicine, Military ect ect.

I know I know, starship troopers and all that...
But it was pretty much that before in an informal way for a long time. Modern politics have a lot people join their political youth wings or local political associations and then make runs for office.

I mean, look what we have on offer these days here…
 
I dunno the older I get the more I think some sort of public service needs to have been performed before one can enter politics. Emergency Services, Medicine, Military ect ect.
I don't agree with it being public service, but someone should absolutely have some sort of professional experience, expertise, and ideally - demonstrated success in a given field before entering politics. Enough with poli-sci grads turned staffers turned party stars.


"Therefore, to you, and to the fifty governors, I have a request. Please, do not send me politicians. We do not have the time to do the things that must be done through that process. I need people who do real things in the real world. I need people who do not want to live in Washington. I need people who will not try to work the system. I need people who will come here at great personal sacrifice to do an important job, and then return home to their normal lives. “I want engineers who know how things are built. I want physicians who know how to make sick people well. I want cops who know what it means when your civil rights are violated by a criminal. I want farmers who grow real food on real farms. I want people who know what it’s like to have dirty hands, and pay a mortgage bill, and raise kids, and worry about the future. I want people who know they’re working for you and not themselves. That’s what I want. That’s what I need. I think that’s what a lot of you want, too.”
― Tom Clancy, Executive Orders
 
Intelligence is still a component of leadership. Education I would argue does not equate intelligence or leadership.


Not to nitpick. But yes the House of Commons is still very much “commons”. As in not made of of the nobility. Even at its origin it was mostly made up of high commoners and gentry class of the common folk.

Nobility is a word - see my reference to the National Post quoting T.S. Eliot on the slipperiness of words.

The make up of the Noble Class has constantly changed.

The Lords used to be self appointed on the basis of their fighting tails. Then they were appointed on the basis of the Church's favour. Then on the basis of the King's favour (gold bought you a title). Then on the basis of the Establishment's favour. And now, in Britain, on the basis of the Bureaucracy's favour - the expectation is that all good civil servants get a Knighthood where they can sit in judgement on those merely elected by the masses.

In Canada, we skipped all that nonsense and the PM gets to pick his sycophants and guarantee frustration to their successor.
 
As an aside, the Stronach article @Kirkhill is certainly interesting, but am I the only one that found his preamble to only hold the most tenuous of logical links to the meat of his thoughts? Seems really lazy to try to connect what amounts to one isolated hot button issue (the decoupling of the cost of housing from incomes over the last 10-15 years) to justify wholesale democratic reform.
 
I don't agree with it being public service, but someone should absolutely have some sort of professional experience, expertise, and ideally - demonstrated success in a given field before entering politics. Enough with poli-sci grads turned staffers turned party stars.


“Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers.”

― George R.R. Martin
 
I don't agree with it being public service, but someone should absolutely have some sort of professional experience, expertise, and ideally - demonstrated success in a given field before entering politics. Enough with poli-sci grads turned staffers turned party stars.
Is that the fault of the poli-sci grads or is it the fault of the uninformed electorate that votes for them over more qualified candidates?
 
Is that the fault of the poli-sci grads or is it the fault of the uninformed electorate that votes for them over more qualified candidates?
Both.

The parties should have the self discipline to not push unqualified people into public office, just because they think they can win.

The public should take some responsibility to become somewhat aware of the world, and make reasonable choices, rather than vote for the most charming or nicest looking.
 
As an aside, the Stronach article @Kirkhill is certainly interesting, but am I the only one that found his preamble to only hold the most tenuous of logical links to the meat of his thoughts? Seems really lazy to try to connect what amounts to one isolated hot button issue (the decoupling of the cost of housing from incomes over the last 10-15 years) to justify wholesale democratic reform.

Lazy? Or simply recognizing that he is writing in a format that demands a simple hook to get the attention of people so as to advance his idea?

I've tried things both ways. If I write long paragraphs of evidence and support - they get ignored. If I eliminate the long paragraphs of evidence and support I get asked where my justifying evidence and support is.

The best compromise often is to start an argument and look for the opportunity to present your evidence, support and opinions to an engaged audience.
 
They probably aren't going to avoid the suit. But for any "serious" medium it has to be considered as the cost of doing business.
But at the cost of the reporter’s and outlet’s credibility. And the cost of the Sino-philes pointing and saying “See! Nothing to see here! We don’t have to be mean to Beijing. It’s all made up by those nasty anti-Asian people.”

I hope for Sam Cooper’s and Global’s sakes that they know what they’re doing.
 
Back
Top