"I personally think Carney’s statements on the need for change are dead right. Canada needs a profound shift. But that will not happen if those at the top do not recognize the immense inertia they must overcome."
You know what? Looks like Republicans are the place of retreat for unsuccessful businessmen. And seems like Americans are ok with having these folks ruin our economy.
These men join Republican Party to steal our tax dollars to get solvent.
Reading Jean Edward Smith's biography of Ike, and stopping off at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene, Kansas during a drive across the United States almost 2 years ago, I was overwhelmed by several powerful impressions. One was that, like other first-tier American presidents, Eisenhower was a great man but also a good one, a leader in the true, real-world sense of the term.
Apart from his intensive first-hand wartime experience managing international relations and understanding and adapting to the needs of partners and allies, as president he established a thorough and systematic policy process, to make sure he had the best possible information before making a decision. He also asked questions and listened to and valued the advice of competent others--although (as you point out) he didn't always take it. (Thank God in relation to using nukes in Korea).
In short, he had that intangible quality of lived experience, penetrating intelligence (emotional and intellectual), and rock solid character that, in distilled form, is called judgment. Like you, I won't hazard any explicit comparison with the current dear leader and recklessly incompetent WH occupant. But reading Smith and others and reviewing the historical record, the contrast is stark.
And given the stakes in play today, it is absolutely frightening.
Thanks for the excellent thoughts. Would it not be necessary to show some progress quickly (not necessarily 100 days) on many fronts to show Canadians and the world that things are in motion? For example, the CC-295 Kingfisher was supposed to be operational in 2022 and is now supposed to be (May 1, 2025) operational in Comox. The other 4 bases will get them through 2030. The project started in 2016. WTF. There have to be many other defense and other federal projects that could get done with little fanfare if the default answer is yes instead of no. I'm too prone to curtailing provincial responsibilities to discuss housing, health care, and justice in the name of getting things done coherently across the country to even start. How does Carney navigate that morass?
Thanks for a great read - love the way you tie history to today and possible futures.
Re AI Regulation & Bot ID, from my layman's perspective identity is the foundation of trust. (Looking forward to the book!)
Ironically, Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) has an insidious solution for solving the robot identity problem that OpenAI helped to create. He wants to own/control the online identities of actual people so we can prove we're humans. World-wide.
In a move typical of the global broligarchy he is attempting to subsume global government responsibility for our human identities with a new startup called - of course - "World", and a product called Orb that will scan our biometrics for online ID. And which also - of course - will be founded on their new crypto-currency called - of course - WorldCoin.
Some forward-thinking countries and states are already banning Orb but it's a fast moving train. VISA and Stripe have already partnered with WorldCoin to link it with real money, and I expect Sam's friends in the WH will soon remove any roadblocks as they move to extort the world on behalf of US-based technocracies.
Good observations and useful analogy. Change is and continues in an ever rapid pace. We are already a quarter into the 21st century; the world's population is growing; climate is changing; geopolitical posturing is much closer to 'home' and everything is amplified by technology dominating media - social and unsocial. We - Canada - can and need to 'change' to shift to a clearer maturity of self governance and economic independence. That takes knowledge, vision, global experience and team effort. We're no longer playing hockey on the neighbourhood street. We're in the big leagues and need to strategize and execute accordingly for the benefit, growth and independence of the entire country. We are after all getting closer to 200 years old!!
Sir, I say with great respect: "Enough of the World War !! comparisons!" Those comparisons were from another age and they are as appropriate as the current, "Elbows up!" nonsense that was used mindlessly and endlessly during the election campaign.
In truth, I have very low expectations for Carney but, also in truth, if we simply argue that we did something grand in WW II and that that example is proof that we will "get 'er done" then nothing will happen except more of the same nonsense currently (not) happening in our country.
So, rather than exhort people with WWII comparisons, we need very specific goals with very, VERY specific plans, ways of measuring those plans and considerable follow up and humility at our failures and modest successes. That is what Carney needs to do and that is what I do not expect. I may be wrong and I will be happily surprised but I doubt it.
Actually, Sir, I criticized you erroneously and you correctly called me on it.
I saw you speaking about - in a general sense - WWII and I was triggered (again, erroneously) because of all the comparisons over the last few months that have had me quite annoyed at the glib statement that "we" [certainly not the "we" that exists now but a hardier and a more willing to sacrifice "we" of earlier generations] did "this" or "that" in the War and therefore "we" can do it again.
I quite accept that I over stepped - again, my mental error - and I apologize for stating incorrectly.
I agree with your point in inertia but think that the link to being a smoker is not the whole picture. In that instance there is no sense that the inertia of not quitting is a positive for most smokers. Rather, for those who view the current situation or tendency as beneficial (or at least comfortable), there is disbelief that anyone would truly want to upend it. And there is hope that those seeking to destroy are an aberration or can be convinced to change their minds. There is hope that we can get back to the right path. Or that the arc of history will bend back reasonably quickly in the right direction. There is also a sense of balancing fear - of what the person destroying the status quo is doing compared to the pain of having to make bold, society-altering choices which we may look to reverse once the destroyer is gone.
And I think this tendency exists as inherent to the practice of diplomacy. Diplomats rarely feel they are in a position to radically alter the track of another country. They see themselves and their countries as having a reasonably amount of influence in many instances but never enough to push significant change. So, they try to pick their moments of intervention hoping that if they choose correctly they have a chance at effecting a shift. The inevitable result is also inertia where events go by without intervention to conserve influence for the right moment. But one can end up making keeping your powder dry for the right moment forever and never attempt to use the influence.
Yes, the rationalizations vary from case to case, and I'm not suggesting they align here. What matters, rather, is that the ingrained behaviour is inherently self-perpetuating, whatever the reasoning we choose to adopt to justify that tendency.
Bang on in this moment. Bang on in this century.
"I personally think Carney’s statements on the need for change are dead right. Canada needs a profound shift. But that will not happen if those at the top do not recognize the immense inertia they must overcome."
You know what? Looks like Republicans are the place of retreat for unsuccessful businessmen. And seems like Americans are ok with having these folks ruin our economy.
These men join Republican Party to steal our tax dollars to get solvent.
Excellent—love the historical context and the final commentary on the need for strategic clarity going forward
Nicely done.
Reading Jean Edward Smith's biography of Ike, and stopping off at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene, Kansas during a drive across the United States almost 2 years ago, I was overwhelmed by several powerful impressions. One was that, like other first-tier American presidents, Eisenhower was a great man but also a good one, a leader in the true, real-world sense of the term.
Apart from his intensive first-hand wartime experience managing international relations and understanding and adapting to the needs of partners and allies, as president he established a thorough and systematic policy process, to make sure he had the best possible information before making a decision. He also asked questions and listened to and valued the advice of competent others--although (as you point out) he didn't always take it. (Thank God in relation to using nukes in Korea).
In short, he had that intangible quality of lived experience, penetrating intelligence (emotional and intellectual), and rock solid character that, in distilled form, is called judgment. Like you, I won't hazard any explicit comparison with the current dear leader and recklessly incompetent WH occupant. But reading Smith and others and reviewing the historical record, the contrast is stark.
And given the stakes in play today, it is absolutely frightening.
Eisenhower, unlike Trump, was
1. Intelligent
2. Sane
3. Militarily experienced
4. Dealing with US troops as well as foreign troops on the ground and US reactions to US troops in a foreign war
As you say, "The rest is contrast"--and frightening.
Thanks for the excellent thoughts. Would it not be necessary to show some progress quickly (not necessarily 100 days) on many fronts to show Canadians and the world that things are in motion? For example, the CC-295 Kingfisher was supposed to be operational in 2022 and is now supposed to be (May 1, 2025) operational in Comox. The other 4 bases will get them through 2030. The project started in 2016. WTF. There have to be many other defense and other federal projects that could get done with little fanfare if the default answer is yes instead of no. I'm too prone to curtailing provincial responsibilities to discuss housing, health care, and justice in the name of getting things done coherently across the country to even start. How does Carney navigate that morass?
Thanks for a great read - love the way you tie history to today and possible futures.
Re AI Regulation & Bot ID, from my layman's perspective identity is the foundation of trust. (Looking forward to the book!)
Ironically, Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) has an insidious solution for solving the robot identity problem that OpenAI helped to create. He wants to own/control the online identities of actual people so we can prove we're humans. World-wide.
In a move typical of the global broligarchy he is attempting to subsume global government responsibility for our human identities with a new startup called - of course - "World", and a product called Orb that will scan our biometrics for online ID. And which also - of course - will be founded on their new crypto-currency called - of course - WorldCoin.
Some forward-thinking countries and states are already banning Orb but it's a fast moving train. VISA and Stripe have already partnered with WorldCoin to link it with real money, and I expect Sam's friends in the WH will soon remove any roadblocks as they move to extort the world on behalf of US-based technocracies.
See more at https://www.wired.com/story/sam-altman-orb-eyeball-scan-launch-us/
Excellent post! Just a humorous note, what did they do to Ike's arm in that poster. 🤣
I’m feeling a bit of hope; I’ll feel better when I see evidence of regular visits to the gym.
Eisenhower didn't have heel.spurs!
Good observations and useful analogy. Change is and continues in an ever rapid pace. We are already a quarter into the 21st century; the world's population is growing; climate is changing; geopolitical posturing is much closer to 'home' and everything is amplified by technology dominating media - social and unsocial. We - Canada - can and need to 'change' to shift to a clearer maturity of self governance and economic independence. That takes knowledge, vision, global experience and team effort. We're no longer playing hockey on the neighbourhood street. We're in the big leagues and need to strategize and execute accordingly for the benefit, growth and independence of the entire country. We are after all getting closer to 200 years old!!
Sir, I say with great respect: "Enough of the World War !! comparisons!" Those comparisons were from another age and they are as appropriate as the current, "Elbows up!" nonsense that was used mindlessly and endlessly during the election campaign.
In truth, I have very low expectations for Carney but, also in truth, if we simply argue that we did something grand in WW II and that that example is proof that we will "get 'er done" then nothing will happen except more of the same nonsense currently (not) happening in our country.
So, rather than exhort people with WWII comparisons, we need very specific goals with very, VERY specific plans, ways of measuring those plans and considerable follow up and humility at our failures and modest successes. That is what Carney needs to do and that is what I do not expect. I may be wrong and I will be happily surprised but I doubt it.
I did not make anything like a literal WWII analogy.
Actually, Sir, I criticized you erroneously and you correctly called me on it.
I saw you speaking about - in a general sense - WWII and I was triggered (again, erroneously) because of all the comparisons over the last few months that have had me quite annoyed at the glib statement that "we" [certainly not the "we" that exists now but a hardier and a more willing to sacrifice "we" of earlier generations] did "this" or "that" in the War and therefore "we" can do it again.
I quite accept that I over stepped - again, my mental error - and I apologize for stating incorrectly.
I agree with your point in inertia but think that the link to being a smoker is not the whole picture. In that instance there is no sense that the inertia of not quitting is a positive for most smokers. Rather, for those who view the current situation or tendency as beneficial (or at least comfortable), there is disbelief that anyone would truly want to upend it. And there is hope that those seeking to destroy are an aberration or can be convinced to change their minds. There is hope that we can get back to the right path. Or that the arc of history will bend back reasonably quickly in the right direction. There is also a sense of balancing fear - of what the person destroying the status quo is doing compared to the pain of having to make bold, society-altering choices which we may look to reverse once the destroyer is gone.
And I think this tendency exists as inherent to the practice of diplomacy. Diplomats rarely feel they are in a position to radically alter the track of another country. They see themselves and their countries as having a reasonably amount of influence in many instances but never enough to push significant change. So, they try to pick their moments of intervention hoping that if they choose correctly they have a chance at effecting a shift. The inevitable result is also inertia where events go by without intervention to conserve influence for the right moment. But one can end up making keeping your powder dry for the right moment forever and never attempt to use the influence.
Yes, the rationalizations vary from case to case, and I'm not suggesting they align here. What matters, rather, is that the ingrained behaviour is inherently self-perpetuating, whatever the reasoning we choose to adopt to justify that tendency.