Teasing the public opinion

Few days ago I was going through old advertisements from the heydays of marketing when, apparently, nobody bothered to check the alleged studies and experts’ opinions that were supposed to back up claims of the advertiser. Or use common sense for that matter. A 12-year old boy was beaming with pride and praise to his dad who got him a winchester rifle for Christmas. A soda giant advertised its caffeine and sugar-rich drink as good for the kids and babies telling mums across the US of A that the earlier they start pouring the beverage down their kids’ tiny little throats the better; for the kids and mums alike. Nowadays, the technique is called “pushing” and what’s grown up from the decaffeinated kids is called a “stereotyped American”. OK, a caricature of the concept. I also learned that, in the 1950s, more doctors smoked a particular brand of cigarettes.

Building on that great tradition of industry backed expert’s opinions, Taser International sponsored studies showed that their stun guns are safe from medical point of view. That would be normal, in a very specific way. What’s not normal by any stretch of imagination is that after several hundred Taser related death and independent expert opinionsns law enforcement agencies still refer to Taser International’s studies in defence of the controversial stun guns use.

Public opinion was teased again this week when an cardiology expert who happens to be on the Taser International’s payroll testified in the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski. Predictably, Dr. Charles Swerdlow said he didn’t think Dziekanski’s death was at all related to the use of a taser. It’s not necessary to go into medical details, that’s for the experts to decide. On the other hand, to base the opinion on the testimony alleging that Dziekanski had a pulse after being tasered 5 times, appears to be a little suspicious because A) it’s a matter of minutes and B) people in coma have a pulse too.

The issue here is that the taser was deployed in a way that contradicted RCMP’s own guidelines and, in an indirect way, to the Taser International lab tests since these involved neither a multiple use nor an police officer kneeling on the tasered person in a way that restrained breathing.

Swerdlow has an obvious conflict of interests but his testimony should stand. It is a great evidence of reluctance on part of both the manufacturer and the RCMP to provide independent tests’ results and to accept independent experts. I just wonder what Dr. Swerdlow smokes.

Why Garth Turner’s Sheeple matters

Accounts written by defecting spies are usually exponentiated to a power which increases with the rapidity of the fall of their former masters or how crushing the defeat of the country they denounced was. To get the approximate representation of what really occurred, one needs to reverse the process and take a root of their accounts.

Accounts of wranglings inside and outside boundaries of corridors of power also tend to bear that handle-with-care sticker. Churchill’s autobiography is almost worthless as a history book but serves well as a psychological profile of the person when checked against what really happened. Which might be difficult because British historiography tends to lean towards producing political manifestos. A hero-by-accident writing about his life? A politician denounced by his own party taking out the dirty sheets? Seriously?

Former Canadian MP Garth Turner’s book “Sheeple” would normally fall into that pitiful category – take a root of a number and wash thoroughly before, during and after use. But it doesn’t. Why? Because the detailed account of the modi operandi of both the Conservatives and the Liberals a) doesn’t reveal anything groundbreaking, b) it doesn’t change a thing, c) it does nothing to advance the author’s political career. Don’t forget, Turner did not defect. He was thrown out from the Conservative party for being a Conservative.

Stephen Harper’s authoritarian style of doing politics and handling communications is well known, Turner who basically didn’t shut up when told so, merely lifts the veil from inner sanctum of the Conservative caucus. The very reason why Turner was kicked out of the party was what was already published. B) Long after Turner had left the Parliament Hill, the Conservatives still didn’t change their ways and, following the September’s general election, neither did the Liberals. As for the “c”, Turner was ostracized from the Conservative party, failed to get re-elected as a Liberal, but his livelihood doesn’t depend on politics.

The book, however, is important, in what it points to or hints at – the deficiencies of Canadian political system. Be it the first-past-the-post voting system (Turner supports change to proportional vote) or the system of political institutions themselves. It may be argued that the current system has worked for years but it only takes one prime minister to exploit existing conventions in the caucus by fostering a public beta version of cult of personality or, at the constitutional level, by forcing the only constitutional brake to prorogue the parliament which declared it would bring the prime minister down.

It should have alarmed Canadians. But there is a profound lack of understanding of how the system actually works among general public, demonstrated by “we elected Harper as prime minister” mantra repeated by people with every possible political affiliation during the last year parliamentary crisis. The drive for a change is scarce among voters and unwelcome within the political elite.

It did “alarm” Turner, though. And this is what matters about the Sheeple, it’s a statement about the state of the Canadian politics. Yes, the book is a political and a bizarre two-way partisan document which at the end comes out as anti-harperian. But in a different, mature, modern and more democratic political environment there would be no need to write it because, very likely, there would only be Stephen Harper, MP. Not PM Harper.

When politics seals the cause

If you really want, you can come up with evidence to support or justify any theory, objective or cause. Inventing a suitable euphemism for a rather unpleasant activity is a good start. Traditional seal hunt becomes a “seal harvest”, for example.

Name aside, seal hunt is a controversial activity but, unfortunately, both sides of the debate often support their respective causes with less then honest arguments and ways of putting them forward. Those campaigning for the ban of seal hunt and the related merchandise tend to use heartbreaking imagery, including pictures of the techniques that are no longer used and the species (e.g. whitecoats) that can no longer be “harvested”. However, that doesn’t relegate the fact that there are wild-life animals being killed en-masse for profit.

The pro-hunt defense is more complex though hardly sophisticated enough to pass successfully through both thorough scrutiny and opponents’ review. The latest initiative came in the form of the “Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals” prepared by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, and endorsed by Gerry Byrne, MP, the Liberal fisheries and oceans critic.

Prepared by the team of, and I quote from the Senator’s press release, “eminent scientists and experts”, it does have a feel of serious document and undoubtedly a solid scientific substance including data from environmental protection groups. The only trouble with politicians hastily harvesting expert opinions under the agricultural moniker is that their activity will very likely backfire.

And as such an activity, the Declaration has very little credibility.

It’s not universal, as it claims in its title. It’s Canadian. Canada accounts for most of the seals killed worldwide and therefore has the greatest interest in promoting the cause. Other countries that practice seal hunt were not consulted. The Declaration is aimed solely at the European parliament members who are about to vote on ban of seal products.

Another issue was presentation. During the introduction of the Declaration to the media, words such as “lies”, “misinformation” and “propaganda” were uttered with rather unsettling regularity in connection with the anti-hunt side of the argument. European parliament members could vote for the ban to “appease animal rights groups”. The same groups whose numbers are being used to justify the sustainability of the harvest. By the way, the use of the word “harvest” is an ammunition material for the anti-hunt camp and they often use within inverted commas. In other words, “harvesting seals” is a linguistic and euphemistic equivalent of the Japanese whaling for scientific purposes.

Canada usually emphasizes the “native” part of the seal hunt, portraying the activity as a natural part of lives of the northern communities. And rightly so, hunt and fishing has been their traditional way of life and source of nutrition, that’s why the proposed EU ban would exempt Inuit hunting. Seal hunting is vital for survival of many northern communities. But again, there is significant difference between traditional seal hunt and industrial, for-profit, activity that is, somewhat ironically, called “seal harvest”. In this context, shifting attention to the historic and native heritage of seal hunt plays on emotions in the same way as a picture of slaughtered whitecoat and, frankly, can be easily, although perhaps unjustifiably, dismissed.

Which is not surprising given the fact that the presentation of the Declaration simply dismissed arguments of the dissenting parties, many of which are valid in the same way as those used in the Declaration itself. The document, scientific as it is, coated in environmental and sustainability furs with a hint of universal pedigree, remains a political initiative of the pro-harvest Canadian political scene.

Canadian Supertramps

Announcement of Bank of Canada’s new lending rate of 0.25% was as interesting as was the explanation behind the decision, shall we say, intriguing. “The global recession has intensified and become more synchronous since the bank’s January Monetary Policy Report Update with weaker-than-expected activity in all major economies.” The Bank has also retracted on its optimistic recovery prediction and revised expected GDP numbers. In other words, the recession in Canada will be deeper than the Bank anticipated.

The thing is, though, that the recession will be exactly like most of economists expected. However, Messrs. Harper and Flaherty were busy listening to the Supertramp’ Crisis? What Crisis? Album, breaking up the country, proroguing the Parliament and, apparently, sharing the aforementioned CD with the Bank’s governor Mike Carney. He went through similar twist-and-turn of opinions as Canada’s finance minister, first predicting almost rosy future and then, again with a considerable delay when compared to most economists, gradually proceeding to the realm of economic reality.

Maybe he, as well as Flaherty, stumbled upon the Breakfast in America album that features the famous Logical Song….

Scrap ’em all

With most attention turned to General Motors and Chrysler respective falls, and the unions, new car dealers fell to obscurity, at least in the mainstream media. Canadian dealers struggle with the credit, or lack of thereof, as the banks are not very keen on financing the shop window of a failing industry. A side but important note: the current situation is not specific to the Detroit manufacturers’ dealers. “Despite record-low interest rate reductions from Bank of Canada, commercial banks have not been open for business for months for our dealers. Thais is not acceptable or sustainable,” said Bill Taylor, the chairman of Canadian Automobile Dealers Association (CADA).

Canadian dealers are now pushing Ottawa to introduce national scrappage program. To be more specific, a program that would actually work because the current fleet-renewal incentive worth $300 will not make a difference. There is still a market for old bangers so why would anyone give up one for $300 if they could sell it for $400. Not to speak that one doesn’t have to spend $300 towards a new car.

CADA is looking for a $3,000 per scrapped car program, which is comparable to incentives run by several European Union member states. CADA made actually a very good case presenting detailed outlines of EU scrappage plans. These all worked, with German and Slovak programs being particularly successful. CADA hopes that the available credit combined with scrappage incentives will revive automotive retail trade. There are 6.8 million cars older than 10 years in Canada, 2.8 million are older than 15 years so there’s plenty of room for renewal.

It remains to be seen what will be the federal government’s response. Ottawa has already provided loans (bailout) to the Detroit manufacturers operations in Canada and it may look as it already did its share. However, it’s questionable to input money into manufacturing when the second piece in the chain, the dealers, have no resources available to buy what’s manufactured, and the third piece, consumers, are thinking twice whether to buy a new car. What dealers are asking for is the environment that will allow that often trumpet and much touted concept of “keep the money flowing in times of crises” actually work.

F1 China GP summary – Wettel

Wettel… Red Bull driver Sebastian Vettel found the impossible level of grip at the rain soaked Shanghai circuit.

Unholy CAW

Unions have become an easy target for those looking for who to blame for the quagmire US automakers ended up in. Some say that Detroit Three have become major pension funds with car making as a side business. Sure, to the most of the automotive world, most of US cars indeed do look and drive as if a bunch of accountants designed them, but that’s not the point.

Both UAW and CAW has been through series of tough negotiations with the Detroit Three during past year or so in a desperate bid to lower the overall costs of running the companies. Hard times didn’t stop Buzz Hargrove, now former CAW leader, to humour members of the general public with claims that it’s the imports that were killing car manufacturing in North America, a state of the affairs for which he blamed the respective governments.

The results achieved in the talks looked good at the time, but with GM on it’s way to Chapter 11 and some serious restructuring being worked out to save what there’s to save, and Chrysler looking half-doomed, calls for even more union concessions intensified. Canadian Industry Minister Tony Clement had to say just few key words to get the message across, such as April 30, taxpayer money and “I cannot do that”.

The warning came essentially only few hours after Fiat, generally regarded as the one and only possible salvation force, said it would walk off the taking over Chrysler if the labour costs in Canada are not slashed to $19. What Clement called a “logical position”, current CAW leader Ken Lewenza deemed “unreasonable” and said it was not going to happen. Buzz Hargrove had something to say, too. He trashed Fiat’s CEO Sergio Marchionne and said something along the line that CAW negotiated costs are already lower than costs of Japanese car makers’ operations in Canada because Japanese manufacturers’ costs are higher in Japan. If you think that doesn’t make sense, Mr. Hargrove failed to realize, among other things, that FIAT is not about to take over Honda nor does the Toyota’s fate depend on Italian investment.

Chrysler tried to blackmail Ottawa and conditioned keeping its Canadian operations alive with a bailout. CAW’s stance is similarly arrogant, the only difference is they have nothing to win and nothing to offer. CAW can only lose. Slashing costs and keeping what’s left of Chrysler running is the highest price they can get. Fiat can act from the position of powerful. CAW cannot.

Are the IIHS and the NHTSA killing US car industry?

America has rather peculiar approach to the car safety. Chrysler Imperial was the first mass produced car with the so-called Sure Brake system that was essentially an early take on anti-lock brakes derived from similar equipment found on aircraft. That was in the early 70s. Fast forward to late 2000s and you find Chrysler’s flagship, the 300, offered without ABS at the basic trim level. Halogen headlamps were long illegal but HID lamps do not have to have self-levelling system installed so they’re free to dazzle oncoming traffic. Degree of safety has been proportional to the price of the car which resulted in the notion of safety being a privilege, not the right.

But if that can be put down to oh-so-loved free market, the following cannot. Car safety regulations in the US are effectively controlled by car manufacturers (NHTSA) and insurance companies (IIHS).

The former is a federal authority, nevertheless the only apparent reason behind its existence is protection of the domestic car industry setting standards that are different from the rest of the world. Not to speak about the cost-benefit ratio used to justify why NOT to introduce a particular safety feature. Or any other advancement. In other words, saving lives and making driving safer is not as important as saving money. Even CAFE (fuel efficiency standards) are designed with Detroit in mind as it effectively takes SUVs out of the equation.

The IIHS serves the insurance companies and, as the April 14 report proved rather conclusively, domestic car manufacturers. The IIHS is known for devising weird (premium-friendly) standards but the latest really went too far. IIHS pitched mid-size cars such as Mercedes C-class, Toyota Camry and Honda Accord (in US specs, Euro-Accord is actually a Acura TSX) against Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit (aka Jazz) and Smart ForTwo – in a frontal crash.

The obvious and much trumped conclusion was that size and weight do matter. Aside from the fact that the tests had very little to do with real world, it’s the selection of small cars that is most suspicious. All are imports. There is no subcompact or compact car made by a US manufacturers. Detroit, of course, relies on SUVs and full-sized cars and has no cars that would be able to compete with Fit or Yaris. Ford’s Fiesta, which is based on Mazda2, still undergoes US testing, and small US cars are just laughable. The IIHS then tried to wrap all up into the fuel economy packaging by saying that small cars aren’t really that efficient and suggested a diesel VW Jetta…

IIHS test does nothing to promote road safety or the fuel economy. It only fosters the the-larger-the-safer myth, that was proven to be wrong by 2003 Transportation Research Board study that concluded the following – “average midsize and large cars have same risk to drivers as average SUV, that safest subcompact and compact cars have same risk to driver as average SUV, that pickups and SUVs (and minivans) impose high risks on other drivers because of their incompatibility with cars, and that average subcompact and compact cars have similar combined risk as average SUV. It’s all down to the fact that although heavy cars do generate more kinetic energy that can be fatal (to both involved parties) they also require more energy to stop and to maneuver which makes them more prone to be involved in an accident.

If both the IIHS and the NHTSA want to help US manufacturers, they should focus on scrapping insensible US regulations in favour of international ECE standards that are proven to lead to greater road safety. But to adopt a US point of view, saving money, ECE would allow Detroit to decrease cost of new cars development. Both GM and Ford have cars capable of competing with overseas manufacturers. But they have them in Europe and can’t import them because of the protectionist system they helped to create.

Unions for the RCMP? Good idea.

Most of those who dismiss the very idea of unionized workforce usually do not fail to utter word communism in the same sentence. Some of those who didn’t forget to grow up mentally tend to associate unions with strikes capable of polarizing and paralyzing if not whole countries then certainly at least cities or industries. And even those who realize the importance of properly run unions often disregard the notion of unions being established within law-enforcement agencies where regulations and ranks are orders and orders are no supposed to be questioned.

But police unions do make sense. It always makes sense where power and politics often mix up. That’s why even Formula 1 drivers form their own unions. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s court victory has given the officers the right to form their unions, as judge deemed the restriction unconstitutional opposing generations of RCMP commissioners who, as The Globe & Mail kindly reminds, were afraid that “police unions would expose Canada to everything from creeping Bolshevism to politicized police”.

Paranoia crept in long ago, surely, the question is where does it originate now. Of course, Cold War thinking is alive and well within certain demographic defined more by mentality than sociological stratification. Even strikes are not a problem. The modern-day reasons for opposing unions in the RCMP stem from different soil.

There’s nothing wrong with the command chain within the RCMP, or any other police force for that matter, on the contrary, it’s perfectly logical within the scope of tasks and the nature of law enforcement or military organizations. But the very nature of a command chain makes it very difficult to raise valid objections even outside the immediate line of duty, such where safety, security, administration or filing and reporting are concerned. What can be even more disturbing, any otherwise sensible command chain can quickly turn into a very effective mechanism protecting higher and/or highest ranks at any given stage on any given level.

It’s not only about whistleblowers or scapegoats. The ongoing British Columbia inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski revealed several instances of RCMP’s own regulations being sidestepped or violated. RCMP unions will not only serve to protect the force’s officers but will also bring more transparency and public control of Canada’s most iconic and internationally recognized police force.

Been to show, will travel?

Reviewing the success of a travel show is a tough job. What does one base the rating on? Number of visitors? Number of catalogs, posters and candies taken and/or given away? Nope. Can you count how many people actually purchased a trip? The fact is people were interested and came to the Travel & Vacation Show in Ottawa on April 4-5. It’s impossible to quantify, but one can’t discount an effect the neighbouring wedding show had on numbers and the demographic profile of visitors. To many, it was a distraction. To many others, it was an inspiration and after seeing wedding merchandise they went to pick their honeymoon destinations.

Anyway, despite the surge of wedding-addicts in the area, visiting Ottawa Travel Show was a pleasant experience. Canadian provinces, of course, dominated the floor, while African countries appeared to have the second biggest presence. I was somewhat surprised by the presence of European countries, or the lack of thereof. Strategically positioned next to the main entrance and neatly packed together were the New Europeans – Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Romania (in this order). The quartet was divided right in the middle by the good old Blighty or, to be more specific, by a travel agency offering specialized tours mainly to Britain. Scotland and Ireland had their own stands, as did the Spain, Iceland and the European Union. The presence of the European unity was only slightly disturbed by the absence of a Polish representative (at least on the Saturday afternoon).

On the other hand, Slovak stand was well manned by Vladimir Wiedermann (Head of the Trade and Economic Section of the Slovak Embassy), Zuzana Eperjesiova, representative from the Slovak Tourist Board, and by Pavel Dzacko of the Slovak House and Renata Dzackova (Nitra Travel). The Slovak stand was decent in appearance yet not boring and certainly overflowing with every possible type of the feel-free-to-take-it stuff; overall well suited for the location and the importance of the event.

The indoor venue, Aberdeen Pavilion in the Lansdowne park, is a cosy Victorian building although a bit shabby in appearance. It used to host ice-hockey games and agricultural shows (hence the nickname “Cattle Castle”). But then, travelling isn’t only about 5-star hotels. Unfortunately, as teams of exhibitors applied finishing touches on Friday, the skies opened and so did the roof and raindrops poured down quite happily on the merchandise. Mr. Wiedermann was less than impressed by the standards offered in a facility hosting an international travel show in the G8 nation capital. Fortunately, upon Mr. Wiedermann’s complaint, one of the organizers offered to rectify the issue and promptly suggested supplying a bucket… Unfortunately, that only added to the sense of a small-town fair that hung in the air in the hall.

However, in spite of all the limitations of the location and the weather, Slovakia got everything it could from the show. And that’s good thing.