Live tweeting #rebootab for Metro Calgary
Reboot Alberta 2.0 is underway! Granted so far all we’ve done is mingle and drink at the bar while watching Olympic highlights and the Canada/Slovakia hockey game.
As part of Reboot Alberta I will be live tweeting the event. As an added challenge, not only will I be tweeting for my followers and myself, but I will also be tweeting for Metro Calgary and their readers.
Last week I was approached by Metro Calgary Managing Editor Darren Krause (who you can follow on Twitter here) about my willingness to participate in a journalistic experiment for his publication. Coming out of the Manning Centre Conference on the Alberta’s Future he was looking a way to potentially integrate information about events such as that and Reboot into a format that is interesting to his readers AND allows for ongoing, in the moment, updates from the conference.
There is something very different from writing a post event review. Theoretically this will allow readers to get the feel of what the event was like in the moment. So, the idea he had – the idea we are going to try to implement – is that I will live tweet the event and Metro will publish a selection of my tweets that provide the feel of the event in their Monday edition.
This obviously provides a bit of pause for me. Not only are my tweets going out to my 1,300 followers but they are also going out to Lord knows how many Metro readers. Will this change what I write? Maybe. I guess time will tell. At the very least it provides a more serious attention to Reboot Alberta’s Chatham House rules. These rules, which Reboot operates under, state that anything you hear can be repeated, but it can only be attributed with expressed permission.
So look out what you say around me! Who knows, it may end up in the paper. Just let me know if you want your brilliance attributed.
Finally, a big thanks the Darren Krause and Metro Calgary for trying something new and different. Hopefully this experiment works and is interesting. Either way, credit is due for MSM trying to integrate a new kind of journalism. I’m looking forward to it!
What is a ‘progressive’? Part 3 – Interconnectedness
This post is part 3 in an ongoing series trying to define “what is a ‘progressive’?” in advance of Reboot Alberta 2. You may view part 1 here and part 2 here.
The three ‘pillars’ of progressivism – interconnectedness, understanding and adaptability – are in that particular order for a very specific reason. Although it was not apparent until the very end of the brainstorming session.
When my group at the first Reboot Alberta sat down to have a lively discussion about “what is ‘progressive’” we very quickly determined the first thing an individual needed to progress wisely is understanding of the issue (more on this in my next post). We also relatively quickly came up with the concept of adaptability – i.e. what you do with your understanding – although we did not call it this at the time (more on adaptability two posts from now).
With these two pillars, we thought we had defined ‘progressive thinking’ very well: gain understanding and then be willing to be adaptable in your implementation. However, as time in the session began to draw to a close, we saw the big error in our thinking.
How does one create understanding in the first place?!
Certainly we all think that we have a good deal of understanding. But when you look at the issues in great detail you begin to realize the complexity of the information involved the decision making process. Multiply that complexity by the hundreds of decisions a politician must make during their turn and you begin to see how difficult it must be to actually have good understanding of each and every one of the issues. So, where does understanding come from? Obviously it’s not just a God given thing – we’re not born with it – otherwise politicians (and people in general) would not do dumb things. We would come out of the womb as baby geniuses if this were true.
This is where our group came up with the concept of ‘interconnectedness’.
It’s a simple concept really, the more interconnected you are, the more likely you are to have better information, which leads to better understanding.
When I speak of interconnectedness, I’m really talking about two different kinds of interconnectedness, both of which are part of the whole leading to developing understanding.
The first is your network. The more people you know, the more groups you are involved with, the more conversations you have with people, the more understanding you’ll gain. It’s basically osmosis. Hang around with smart opinionated people and you’re bound to think more like them. (This is a basic tenement of psychology and the political equivalent of your mom saying “if you keep making that face, it will stick like that”.) We go to school and take courses to learn. Without the interconnection between yourself and the teacher, your understanding can not grow as quickly or robustly.
There is another deeper reason for having a larger, smarter network however: to correct you when you’re wrong. The better (in terms of quantity and quality) the input you receive, the greater the likelihood is you will output something worthwhile. This is why it becomes imperative to familiarize yourself with sources of knowledge that differ from what you have traditionally sought. Cognitive dissonance can be a powerful enemy because we are so loathe to fight it; as winning that battle would mean proving we are wrong. Listening to as many voices as possible can lead to better understanding.
If there is one thing I have learned while trying to do this in my own personal life, it is this: even the most seemingly crazy person, has at the root of their rantings, a decent point. A point which should be considered and explored further. (Seriously. Try it. You may be surprised at what great ideas you’ve been dismissing because of the method they’re being delivered via.)
The second kind of interconnectedness comes from systems knowledge. Having the ability to see how a change in one area can affect change in another area and potentially cause a cascade of fallout (good or bad) is a vital skill to have. Especially when dealing with issues as complex as those the average politician encounters on a regular basis.
Thinking each decision we make operates independently of any other issue is simply not how life works. If you decide to stay at home tomorrow, you will encounter entirely different options that you would have if you walked out that door. The same is true in politics. And it goes beyond the basic: if you lower taxes you have to offer less services (although this is a good example). This form of interconnectedness extends to complex issues such as economy and it’s relationship with the environment. Where is the correct balance? We can’t make decisions regarding one, without considering the ramifications in the other. What tools are in place to allow us to examine this balance – if any? Even within the same sector – the economy for example – interconnectedness allows us to examine assumptions. Is GDP the best measure of our economy? What is it measuring? Is basing our entire financial well being on growth for growths sake wise? Being interconnected means being able to make these judgements without leaving any vital piece of information out of the equation.
This form of interconnectedness also applies to time, not just sectors. It forces us to consider both short term and long term outcomes, before ‘understanding’ attempts to strike the proper balance needed after taking into consideration all the various pieces of data available.
The other main reason my Reboot Alberta group added ‘interconnectedness’ to our list of traits of ‘progressiveness’ is because it helps answer what to do after you’ve gone through ‘understanding’ and ‘adaptability’. We struggled with this single line free flow model. Once a decision has been made is that the end of the process? What does one use to gauge the adaptive course forward?
Interconnectedness also allows for a feedback loop to be created. Without this loop adaptability simply could not exist. Instead the model would be problem > understanding > decision. Which, I think can be argued, is far too similar to what we currently most of the time. The feedback loop created by interconnectedness allows for error detection and course correction (adaptability).
Now, what you do with all that information you’ve gathered through your interconnectedness? That is ‘understanding’; and that is the next post in this series.
PS – Despite my best efforts, it does not look like I will complete the final three posts in this series (understanding, adaptability, openness and transparency) before Reboot Alberta 2 begins tonight. I will write these posts still, of course, but, sadly, it will not be before the beginning of the conference.
Alberta’s proposed electoral boundary MAPS!
Yesterday the Alberta Electoral Boundary Commission released its interim report. You can download a full copy of it here [PDF]. But let’s face it, all you really care about is the maps section. What area do you live in now? What new constituencies have been created?!
Well, me and my mad Photoshop skillz are here to help you out.
Below are three maps I put together to help sort out the changes for you. I’ve layered the current (black) boundaries over top of the proposed new boundaries (red). Feel free to click on each of the images for a better view of the changes.
Alberta:
(Sorry, this one is big so it’s harder to see the changes without getting up close.)
Calgary:
Edmonton:
If you are looking for larger copies, I’ve uploaded them to my Flickr account. If you need still larger copies, I have those too. Just email me.
A political party that is willing to adapt!? Meet the Alberta Party
It is not very often you hear about a political party being willing to rethink all of its policies and principles. Somehow in the process of moulding themselves into representing what the majority of citizens want, these core ideals that formed the initial impetus for the creation of the party – sometimes decades old and potentially out of date or irrelevant – escape scrutiny. I believe in order to really affect change, we must all be willing to take a deep look inside ourselves to find what flaws may be holding us back. Without doing this, and examining our principles, we would really just be rearranging the deck chairs (policies) on an extremely poorly designed ship that runs the risk of sinking if it were to innocently graze an iceberg.
This is why I have to applaud the Alberta Party. After decades of near irrelevance, the party has lifted up its eyes and has publicly stated it is willing to temporarily suspend its policy document to entertain if there may be a better way.
In case you haven’t heard yet, the Alberta Party, which has been in existence since 1985, last month began having conversations with a group of political upstarts calling themselves Renew Alberta. The culmination of those discussions resulted in an announcement this past week of a “merger” between the two groups.
I know several of the Albertans involved in Renew Alberta. The one thing they share in common, is a passion to find a better path toward creating a better Alberta. While they, like the Liberals, Wildrose Alliance and Alberta NDP, believe we deserve a better government, what really sets them apart is their belief that there must be a more participatory form of democracy in our province. Their focus is not so much on what the other parties are doing, as it is on the 60% of Albertans that did not vote and those of the remaining 40% that felt their vote really didn’t matter. Engagement can be a powerful thing – and it something that the majority of Albertans obviously don’t feel.
The enthusiasm and work ethic of the Renew Alberta people is admirable. As is the vision of the Alberta Party to accept them into their fold to help determine if their policies really do connect with Albertans or if there is a way for them to course correct.
The Big Listen is what the Alberta Party is billing as the focus of this collaboration. And again, I think it is commendable that a political party is willing to let the public at large dictate what their policies should be, instead of a small group of members who may or may not represent the views of Albertans.
Will the Alberta Party be right wing or left wing at the end of The Big Listen? Who knows?! But that’s the thing that excites me. If done right and fair, the one thing we will know for sure, is that they represent the ‘average’ Albertan. If they can build a regular feedback loop into their governing structure, this could make them… well, dare I say it?, the perfect party. One that is not governed by petty politics or the whims of its caucus, leadership or members; but instead one that is directly governed by the average citizen.
Of course all this utopian talk is more than likely ‘pie in the sky’ dreaming. Let’s be realistic for a moment and not get too far ahead of ourselves. Many folks out there appear to be skipping over this step. Jane Morgan, the former executive director of the Wildrose Alliance has raised some very good questions about how this merger came to be within the structure of the Alberta Party’s constitution. Alberta Party board members have done a decent job of responding to her criticism, but at the end of the day it is the current Alberta Party membership who will have the final say. Either they will embrace this new way their party will operate in the future, or they re-trench and leave. I certainly hope it is the former, and that they, as well as their board, improve their governance structure down the road. They will have to to be able to control the beast they could potentially be releasing by putting policy decisions in the hands of the public.
A few people have also questioned the merger of these two groups: The Alberta Party previously dismissed as a ‘right-wing’ fringe party, and Renew Alberta as ‘lefties’. How could it be two groups of people, so different in make up, could come together so seamlessly to work for a better future? Well, if the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ can, in this instance, put aside their differences and come together in the ‘centre’ – which is by definition where the majority of Albertans reside on the political spectrum – then their may just be hope for intelligent discussion free of rhetoric after all.
(Another thing that excites me about this new party: the diversity. The Alberta Party stereotypically is seen as older and rural, while Renew Alberta, rightly or wrongly, is seen as younger and urban. How nice to see differing people getting along for once.)
I think the ground work for this partnership is laid out very well in the Alberta Party’s (now temporarily suspended) policy document entitled, “Reforming Alberta”.
From the introduction to the Alberta Party’s Policies and Procedures document we can see what the two groups may share in common when it says: “We demand accountability and responsibility from our elected officials and civil servants… [T]he Alberta Party has created a bottom up organization in which the power resides with the members…”
Even it’s mission statement could be seen as something the two groups might commonly share: “To protect and promote the freedoms and best interests of Albertans.” One of the tactics outlines for how the Alberta Party will fufill this mission is “increase citizen participation in democracy by improving the process.”
I for one, can’t wait to see where this new group may go with lofty goals such as these. Either way, it will certainly be a thrill to watch.
What is a ‘progressive’? Part 2
This post is part 2 in an ongoing series trying to define “what is a ‘progressive’?” in advance of Reboot Alberta 2. You may view part 1 here.
To define “what is a ‘progressive’” I would recomend we start with defining ‘progressive’. But where do you start when trying to define ‘progressive’? To get the ball rolling, we might as well start with the basics: the dictionary definition of the word ‘progressive’ courtesy Dictionary.com.
pro·gres·sive [pruh-gres-iv]
–adjective
1. favouring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7. of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
8. Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
9. Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.–noun
10. a person who is progressive or who favours progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
11. (initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.
12. Grammar.
a. the progressive aspect.
b. a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.
Of course if we are going to examine what ‘progressive’ means I suggest we also must examine its root word: ‘progress’.
prog·ress [n. prog-res, -ruhs or, especially Brit., proh-gres; v. pruh-gres]
–noun
1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree.
2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp. with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created.
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination.
5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.
6. Biology. increasing differentiation and perfection in the course of ontogeny or phylogeny.
7. forward or onward movement: the progress of the planets.
8. the forward course of action, events, time, etc.
9. an official journey or tour, as by a sovereign or dignitary.–verb (used without object) pro·gress
10. to go forward or onward in space or time: The wagon train progressed through the valley. As the play progressed, the leading man grew more inaudible.
11. to grow or develop, as in complexity, scope, or severity; advance: Are you progressing in your piano studies? The disease progressed slowly.—Idiom
12. in progress, going on; under way; being done; happening: The meeting was already in progress.
Perhaps just as importantly we should take a peek at the etomology of the word ‘progress’. It comes to us through the combination of two latin words: from progressus, pp. of progredi “go forward,” from pro-“forward” + gradi “to step, walk,” from gradus “step”.
What can we take from these dictionary definitions and the etymology? Well, setting aside the political definitions, it appears almost all the definitions revolve around “moving forward” or “improvement” or “advancement”. But is this all there really is to being a ‘progressive’? So long as you keep moving forward or improving things you are a progressive? If so, then almost everyone in politics can be defined as ‘progressive’ because they all are trying to improve their constituency.
On the flip side of things these definitions might prove to be very helpful in getting at what a progressive is, but they are not very helpful when trying to define what is progressive. Surely not all progress is good progress.
Take a look at the history of warfare as an example. We went from fighting with our hands, to sticks, to knives, to guns, to bombs, to the atomic bomb. Fighting with your hands, knives or even guns is one thing, they are all targeted at one individual or a small group, but once you get to the atomic bomb, we are talking about having the ability to destroy the entire planet in a matter of minutes. Is this progress? According to the preceding definitions of ‘progress’ and ‘progressive’, yes, having the ability to destroy the world is progressive.
The same can be said for technology. During the college bowl games, I remember seeing the “e-coin toss” and thinking, did we really need to make a coin flip electronic? Really? What’s wrong with a coin? It’s simple and effective; with little room for improvement. What a waste of time and resources. I’m sure you too can think of a half dozen examples in your own life where ‘progress’ was made seemingly only for progress’ sake.
Clearly there has to be more to being a ‘progressive’ than just progressing.
And clearly this is where we depart from the traditional political definition of ‘progressive’ as well.
I think this is where the three pillars of being a ‘progressive’ – interconnectedness, understanding and adaptability – my group at the first Reboot Alberta came up with, may come into play. Through using these these tools I believe we can find a better definition for ‘progressive thinking’, which, in my mind, will allow us to make decisions that are more wise than the traditional definition of ‘progressive’ allows for.
Tomorrow I will continue in this vein by beginning the exploration of the interconnectedness ‘pillar’.
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
