3-Oct-12 Is lobbying good for democracy?

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing the pros and cons of lobbying in democratic government.
 
Lobbyist pushing the point of view of particular interest groups seems to be a staple in democratic governments.  We cringe at the thought of big business or pharmaceutical industry hiring high price advocates to promote their narrow point of view to our politicians.

Worse still, we worry about them donating and subsidizing our elected officials with election campaign funds or some other benefit.

We elect our representatives to parliament to govern and make good policies and yet we don't have complete confidence in their ability to look after the interest of the country and its citizens while influenced by lobbyists.

Is lobbying harmful to a democracy?  Can something be done?

It seems to me that lobbyists are no different than lawyers arguing a case for their client.

When we are involved in a court case,  we hire lawyers familiar with the legal system to advise and represent us to put the best light on our case.
 
Lobbyist, I presume, are people who are familiar with the workings of parliament and work with their clients to put the best light on their client's appeal to the law makers.

In the court case scenario, we have either the judge or jury to decide on the lawyer's representation of the case.  In the parliament's scenario, we have our elected politician to balance the view point from the various competing lobbyist as well as other considerations to draft new legislation or modified existing ones.

Lobbyist are involved with all kinds of causes. Besides big business, the environmental groups, organized labor, volunteer organizations, just about anyone who is interested in making a change to the status quo.

So what can be wrong with lobbying?

For starters, groups with more money and resources ended up with more persuasive power and they do not necessarily represent the interest of the general population.
 
Lobbying also narrow focus on issues and runs the danger of loosing sight of the big picture, it can also oversimplify issues into left right politics, labeling issues and building walls of opposing views instead of promoting discussion.

But the alternative of not allowing lobbying seems to be stopping free speech.  Are we not lobbying when we want to speak to our member of parliament about an issue?

With limits on campaign contributions, we are already limiting how single organizations can influence political party and politicians.

In Canada, there is a commissioner overseeing lobbying and handling complains and conflict of interest situations.  https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00000.html

What else should be done?

In the end, should we not just concentrate on encouraging better politicians to stand for office?

Let's hear your ideas this Friday.   

Meeting on provocative dressing, freedom or responsibility

We had our ideas cafe meeting last night on provocative dressing, freedom or responsibility.

It was a stimulating discussion and the ideas went far beyond the traditional understanding of provocative dressing which usually denote a sexual overtone.

The prominent issue is whether women are being blamed for acts by man.  However, through the discussion I had the realization that this is not so much a gender issue but an issue of what social groups we should consider in our everyday actions.

In a theoretical civil society, where individual freedoms and rights are respected by everyone, women can dress however they wish regardless of the sexual interest they arouse in men.  This is no different than the rich flaunting their riches in front of the poor masses or the glutton enjoying their meal in front of a hungry audience. We are individually free to do what we want and the rest of society have to deal with their reaction from what we do.

However, the real society we live in includes people who do not assume their responsibility to respect individual freedom of others.  That is why we have the courts and prison system to deal with the outcomes, police and plain cloth detectives to deal with enforcement.

It is pointless to debate with the rest of responsible society on the theoretical basis for freedom of dressing when it is the irresponsible members that needs to be dealt with and they are not participating in the discussion.

So, women can dress as provocatively as they want in a crowd of civilized responsible scene but they are endangering themselves doing so in a dark street in a less desirable part of town.

The parallel here is the police warning people not to leave valuables in plain sight in their cars as this can lead to break-ins.  It is definitely the right of the car owner to leave whatever he wants in plain sight in his car.  Some towns even pride themselves in the ability to not lock their doors with no fear of losing anything. 

Among the responsible members of society where this discussion is going on,  this is not an issue.  It is the people who do not respect others that is the problem.

The discussion went far beyond sexually provocative dressing.  In answer to Shula's complain of why is it always women that have to bear the responsibility for dressing properly, Rafi answered that he can be just as provocative if he wears a Nazi uniform and walk down main street.  Or he can be just as provocative in the jersey of a visiting sports team while at the game of a home team.

The dressing issue extends further as part of our personal identity.  We choose our clothing for many reasons: warmth, covering what we want to conceal, projecting our idea of beauty, and creating a certain image of our identity. 

Beyond that, there is dressing for protest and also to alter our true identity.

Beyond dress, our house, car, the company we keep, are all part of the overall picture of our identity and we can be provocative with any of these components.

Provocativeness is also relative to the expected social norm.  Showing an ankle in some countries where women are all covered up can create a scandal while nudity in a nudist colony is unremarkable but wearing something is.

Upon the remark that woman choose their cloths for man, Shula's answer was that it is easy for women to dress for man but it is other women that is more difficult to dress for as other women are more discerning than men and they are also looking to dressing as a way of competing and figuring their social order.

Something I have been wondering and good to have agreement with!

28-Sep-12 Provocative dressing, freedom or responsibility?

Next Friday at the Ideas cafe,  we will be discussing the controversial topic of provocative dressing, whether it is just a matter of complete freedom for the dresser or whether there are responsibilities involved.


The issue came to prominence when a spokesman for the Toronto police was advising women to not dress too sexily. This in turn provoked the reaction from women's groups that women should dress what they like and any hint of restricting that is an attempt to attribute blame on women for attacks and violence from men.



"Slut walk" demonstrations were carried out at various locations encouraging the freedom to dress anyway women wanted.

What do you think?

Is it possible to move it out of the emotionally charged area of gender politics and look at it some other way?

Would we consider it crass for a person of means to display his/her wealth in front of those less fortunate? and then not offer to share any of it?

Would a chef cook up an appetizing meal day after day, spread it's enticing aroma to the hungry crowd watching, but do it for show only and not offer any of it to the crowd and still seem right?

Should the chef be offended if someone ask if they can sample the food?

But of course, wealth and appetite are not the same as affection and sex. So we have to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from situations that are not entirely parallel.

However, there are parallels.  Would a chef not happily welcome a well known food critic to sample the food and write a favourable review?  Would the rich not welcome an opportunity to contribute to a charity or cause of their choice and get some recognition in the process?
 

So perhaps it is the ability of the dresser, rich person, or chef to choose whose attention they want to welcome.

It is, perhaps, a matter of targeting the right audience versus just broadcasting to all; including those who the sender of the message wanted nothing to do with.

Absolute freedom stops at the ability to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Is there an equivalent line for dressing?

Raffi reminded me that provocative dressing included choosing to dress all covered up where face recognition is the norm.



What an interesting world we live in!

Sept 14, Should intent or consequence be the basis for judging?

This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe,  we will be discussing whether an action should be judged by its consequence or intent.

Should an incompetent murderer receive a lighter punishment because of his/her's in ability to carry out the murder?

Should a prankster's scheme that went terribly wrong causing death deserve serious sentence because he initiated the action though without intent to kill?

Consequences are easy for all to see after the fact but intent can be well hidden in the perpetrator's mind. How do we extend the justice system to what someone is thinking?

Is thinking badly a crime?
 
What about diversity of opinions for discussion.  Should the mere thought or intent to question authority be subject to punishment? Should intent or planning for a criminal act be illegal if it was never carried out?

So maybe the line is beyond thinking about criminal action but drawn at the point of some action being taken.

But how far?  A bank robber that stop short of entering the bank perhaps should not be arrested but what if he enters the bank with the intent to hold up the cashiers but turn around before pulling the gun out?  Perhaps after he threaten the cashier but did not take any money?

Is a bank robber with cold feet innocent?
 
The police have been telling citizens not to be heroic and just do what the robber wanted when confronted so as to minimize the chance of getting hurt. So a bank robbery with cooperating cashiers commits less of a crime than when encountering conscientious employees that resulted in a confrontation with the robber and perhaps injury and death?

Our justice system is based on presumed innocence.  How do we gather evidence on someone's intent? Does the difficulty in getting evidence on intent make the system less just?

How does probability play in this evaluation? No matter how skillful or incompetent the perpetrator is, the consequence is always subject to luck and probability.  Intent is therefore a better measure, but then we are back to the thought crimes and thought police again.

For the politician that was found to have smoked pot but claimed that he did not inhale, what was his intent and how should he be judged?

Sept 7, Is attractiveness a valid reason to discriminate?

On Friday Sept 7 at the Ideas Cafe,  we will be discussing whether attractiveness is a valid reason to favour selection decisions.

Employers in Canada no longer ask for a photograph of applicant in their resumes while in some parts of the world, it is still an accepted practice.

I am not sure when and how the practice of not asking for pictures started or whether it is just a means of stopping racial discrimination.

However, for employers in the hospitality business,  there is a case to be made that an attractive employee creates a good first impression as well as builds good relationship with customers.  It is an undeniable fact that we warm up to attractive people more than unattractive ones.

I assume that basketball scouts cannot be blamed for discriminating potential players because of their height, then night club owners should legitimately discriminate base on their employees attractiveness?

How does this square with the idea that we are all entitled to equal opportunities in life?

Perhaps we should accept that we are not all "born equal" but we should have equal access to life's opportunities.

Is access enough? Access without practical acceptance, whether for short basketball players or unattractive waitresses, seems just theoretical with no practical implication.

What is the alternative?

Should we mandate basketball team with average player heights and have judicial boards judging waitress attractiveness?

Or should we alter our biological tendency to attractiveness?

Should we stop admiring beauty in art as well?

What about diversity.  In our quest towards equality, are we suppressing diversity?  How does diversity and equality coexist?

Let's hear your ideas on Friday at Waves in New Westminster!