The Accidental Citizen?

Most of my blogging has been over here lately (RSS accordingly please!) or here, where I've been writing mostly about political leadership, Parliament and innovations in public affairs journalism.

With others at Samara I've also been working on Canada's first-ever series of exit interviews with former Parliamentarians, and on June 15th we will release the first report from this project. It's called The Accidental Citizen? and reflects the varied, and often unexpected, ways so many MPs described their journeys to public life.

We hope this report, and those that follow, will be a basis for further discussion and will contribute to a greater understanding of political leadership in Canada. With time, we hope this effort will draw attention to the things that function well in our public life, and contribute to a constructive discussion on what can be improved.

If you have a few minutes, please visit the Samara site and let us know what you think.

More on Mars v. Venus, in the opinion-sphere (II)

The latest installment of Mars vs. Venus in the opinion-sphere, in response to the debate posted here and here:

I certainly can't speak for Wente, nor do I intend to let her off the hook. Above all, I find it interesting that we've read different things into the same article.

First, I always read her piece to be about current affairs (i.e., see her 4th and 7th paragraphs), although I agree she could have been more explicit. And while she led by talking about blogs, to me, that was really an (albeit inflammatory) example of a larger point about ways in which the sexes express themselves.

Second, she doesn't lament that women don't have opinions. In fact, she says just the opposite: "Opinionizing in public is a form of mental jousting, where the aim is to out-reason, out-argue or out-yell your opponent. Women are just as good at this as men and, in some ways, better." Her point, at least as I read it, is that women develop and express their points-of-view differently than men, and in ways that don't naturally translate into the "opinion-sphere," be it online or off.

I think this is true. Looking beyond the financed, MSM-associated blogs, there aren't a lot of women bloggers on current affairs that have achieved much scale (i.e., only one of the top 10 political blogs is female). Also, of the first 100 contributors to The Mark, in the politics section, less than a quarter are female.

No doubt there is a structural bias against women and it's pretty obvious that the MSM folks don't hire them. What to do about it is the more interesting question. The online world naturally provides an excellent opportunity for females to establish their voices, and they are doing it in many spheres of activity. I'm just not convinced it's happening as much in current affairs, at least not yet.

I think that's partially because there's not an established "demand" for women's voices from the public (which may partially explain why there are few women in Parliament as well, although there's clearly more to it than that). I think it's partially risk aversion on the part of editors. But it's also the responsibility of women who care about politics and public affairs to speak up more, when it makes sense, even if they risk being wrong or offending.

A comment on my original post elaborates this point.

And on a final point, I actually thought her most "sexist" points were about men, not women! So I end where I began: it's always fun to see how different people read differently into the same article. Mars versus Venus!

More on Mars v. Venus, in the opinion-sphere

Over at eaves.ca is a continued discussion on Margaret Wente's column that wondered why bloggers were mostly men. Over at The Mark, David Eaves raised some great questions about the piece and Wente's understanding of blogs and online media in general.

I had a slightly different read of her column, which I thought to be more about the differences in the way men and women express their opinions, which betrayed some concern over the lack of female voices in public affairs commentary.

In his response, posted here and pasted below, Dave accused me of letting Wente off the hook:

Alison, I think you are letting Wente's off the hook by changing her argument. I'm going to disentangle your comment to address what I think is the main point:

1. What was Wente's Thesis?

It wasn't that women are under-represented in blogging or in traditional media (two very different things). No. Wente’s piece was about how women – because of something innate – don’t want (or worse, can't) engage in political debates because they don't want to share (or don't have!) opinions. You and I are concerned about the under representation of women, but this was not Wente's concern. (it later became a concern after she was shown how ridiculous her argument was - but it wasn't in the original piece).

2. Blogging and news media are primarily male worlds

So what if we are generous and we say this is what Wente was trying to raise a concern about. Here I agree. These worlds are largely male. But now we are conflating to VERY different things. Mainstream media and the online world of social media.

In the world of traditional media (or, financed blogs) women are under represented because managers – either at the Globe or Macleans - choose not to hire women. (Or, one can believe Wente – and you think women don’t have as many opinions)

In the online world there are clearly a lot of women who blog and tweet about politics (as you point out). What is more disturbing is that many of them may not be getting as much profile profile as their male peers. (note the part of the HBS articles in which men tend to have 15% more followers than women). Here we have lots of women with opinions, but not as much recognition. This is not what Wente argues. I'd argue that there is a structural bias against women – we learn to perceive their voices as less relevant. There isn’t an innate inability to have or share opinions (as Wente claims) – our society has decided not to value them as much. This is a serious problem. But it is also antithetical to everything Wente believes. She derides structural feminist critiques.

So I don't think we should let Wente off the hook. Her article misinformed those Canadians who know the least about the net (newspaper readers) about the role women play online. Worse, I believe it helped undermine women in the political space by suggested they didn't have as many opinions to share.

You can read my response here.

Where are the women? Maybe Wente has a point!

Last week, Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente upset online commentators with her column that asked why most bloggers are men. One of Canada's top political bloggers, David Eaves, wrote a great piece that poked holes in many of her arguments.

I had a slightly different take on Wente's column, which I read less as a diatribe on the blogosphere (although there was no doubt some of that it) and more as plea for more women's voices in public affairs commentary online.

While she didn't say this in the original column, I read bits of her online discussion, where she clarified she'd written it from the point of view of current affairs. Wente wrote, " I was referring in my column to the type of blogging that refers to news and current events. This is largely -- though by no means exclusively -- a male world, just as radio phone-in talk shows and televsion panels of people analyzing and opining on the days' events."

As a woman deeply interested in matters of public policy and current events, I agree with her.

Let's take Ottawa as an example. In the blogosphere, save for Kady O'Malley at CBC and Susan Delacourt at The Toronto Star, I struggle to think of many more female commentators of any scale in Canada.

Scroll down here, to "Blog Central," at Canada's national newsmagazine, for just one example of what I mean. To be clear, these are all excellent writers who I rely on to help shape my own views on things... I don't wish any of them to stop writing. I only wish Maclean's would add a female or two to its mix.

Of the top 10 political blogs in Canada, only one (#10) is authored by a woman.

On The Mark, a online opinion journal, of the first 100 contributors in the "politics" category, less than a quarter are female.

If we take Eaves' point about columns being a type of blog, in the Globe and Mail, Wente is the only woman with a regular gig commenting on public affairs.

I know there are a lot women blogging and tweeting out there, there's just not a lot of them doing so about current affairs or politics, at least not in a high profile way in Canada. There are also lots of women reporters on the Hill (most of whom tweet, and whose reporting I follow), just not a lot with profile in the commenting scene, either online or off.

The more interesting question to me is why, and if anyone else cares about this, what to do about it. Wente "blames" it on men's propensity to step up and speak out. Maybe we women need to do a bit more of that.

I'll include myself as a guilty party - as a pretty regular blogger (mostly over here), I think about my blogging more as a curating and less as opining. Maybe that should change.

Or maybe editors have to do more to hire/encourage women in this way, if Wente's right that they're not naturally predisposed to opine.

Or maybe readers have to demand more of it, and encourage those who are trying.

Or maybe it's just Canada.

I don't know. But I think Wente has a point. Thoughts?

P.S. Thanks to the female-penned The Pundit's Guide and to @tideswaters for reminding me of their great work. And who can forget @withoutayard's awesome blog? If other female policy-wonks want to send me links to their blogs, I'll compile a list and share it online.

Dispatch on emotion and public policy

Congratulations to the organizers of the emotion and public policy conference, held last week at U of T. A full dispatch is available on the Samara blog.

"There is power in the collective experience"

Congratulations, Canada, on our Olympics. A lovely tribute, warts and all, from CTV.

Volunteer with Samara

We've had a busy few months at Samara... 65 MP interviews done and a series of public affairs journalism seminars about to begin... and we're now looking to build a volunteer team to help with our next phase of activities. If you're looking for an opportunity to contribute to the public life of this country, and like thinking about and researching tough problems, please consider applying.

More information is available here.

New sources of public ideas?

Privately, I've often whined that I wished universities would do more to engage in public debate on the important issues we face. Filled with lots of smart people and endowed with a significant public mandate (supported by public monies), I'd love to see more active debate and discussion initiated and sustained by our universities and the people within them.

A blanket statement, I know, and not entirely fair. There are many academics who work hard to disseminate their ideas to wider audiences (here's my recent favourite, on healthcare) and many schools provide lists of their professors willing to talk to the media on any range of subjects. Furthermore, it's a tough thing to change, as academics' most important incentives do not reward them for writing op-eds or being talking heads, and most news outlets don't devote much air-time to thorough discussion or opinion anyway (here and here being a couple of notable exceptions).

Still, I'm encouraged by the potential new media creates for greater dissemination of ideas from our universities. I've started a Twitter list of releases from as many of our Canadian university feeds as I can find. You can follow it here, and if you know of others that should be added, let me know.

MPs and religion

UPDATE: Thank you to a reader who pointed out a factual error in the initial post. It has been corrected.

Over at Samara we're working on our MP exit interview project. One observer , in reading this post about this post about Canada's amateur politicians, asked me over Twitter if our lack of a "political class" meant there was more influence of religion in our politics and wondered also how that was related to the amount of formal education MPs had. I agreed to look further into the educational backgrounds of MPs to see how many had religious training.

The answer only includes the sub-set of former MPs involved in our project, and we know a bit about their backgrounds already. However, for more specific detail on any religious training, I emailed our summer intern, Devan Sommerville, for help. Devan compiled excellent biographical packages on 139 MPs involved in our project and is a wealth of knowledge on politics in general.

His response is longer than Twitter allows, so I've paraphrased his answer here:

Several of the former MPs in our sample had formal religious training. The Hon. Bill Blaikie (NDP Elmwood-Transcona) is an ordained minister in the United Church. Raymond Gravel (Bloc Repentigny) is a practicing priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Those are the former MPs that stand out in my mind from our sample, and there may have been another one or two with theology degrees.

It is worth noting that both these men championed social policies that were often at odds with their respective denominations. In fact, Gravel was forced to resign or be removed from the priesthood due to his support for issues such as gay marriage.

Your questioner also wondered about party affiliation. While there certainly are some vocal Christians in the Conservative party (Stockwell Day, Chuck Strahl, Harold Albrecht, David Sweet, Maurice Vellacott, etc), it is not a purely “low-brow” Conservative issue. Many have post-secondary education, although not in theology. Furthermore, longtime Toronto Liberal MPs like Tom Wappel (ret) (Law – Queen’s) and John McKay (Law – Queen’s) are active Christians as well, and have legislated from that perspective. In fact, the strongest bastion of Liberal opposition to the gay marriage amendment was in the GTA (Scarborough, Etobicoke and Mississauga) – mostly from MPs that opposed it on religious-moral grounds that went beyond just Christianity.

So there's a bit more colour on the question. As with many things, not as straightforward as it may seem.

Some thoughts on Parliament

Over at the Samara blog, I've been writing a bit about the functioning of Parliament. I've been inspired by the interest in this month's proroguing of the House and by and this paper, written by my former professor Ned Franks.

First, some evidence that Parliament is, and has been, spending less and less time sitting over the past half-century.

Second, it looks like governments are a lot less effective at getting things passed too.

Finally, in response to some great questions from a reader, a few different angles. There's been a much wider variety in Parliament's sitting days, over time. In some years, it barely sits. In others, it barely rests.

Also, it looks as though, even with prorogation, the Canadian Parliament sits much more than several of its provincial and international counterparts.

The British Council is looking for up-and-coming young Canadians

The British Council, the UK's organization for cultural relations and educational opportunities, is looking for early-career Canadians (and others) to participate in their TN2020 network, which includes participation in their upcoming summit in Chicago in June 2010.

They are particularly interested in people focused in one of the following three areas: sustainable living; economic inequality and access and divided communities.

More information, including how to apply (applications are due on January 17), is available here.

It's the end 'o the year...

...and the end 'o the decade, giving journalists and commentators an opportunity to summarize things in easy-to-digest lists. Over at the Samara blog, we've captured a few of the best lists that have stumbled our way:

• Foreign Policy's list of the top 100 Global Thinkers. A reminder of all the wonderful people out there doing incredible things.
• Barnes and Noble's best politics and policy books of 2009. I like this list, because unlike those from the Globe and the NYT, there are only four books, and they highlight those that had the most influence this year, regardless of when they were written.
• The results of the Hill Times' annual all-politics poll, and their best Canadian politics/policy books of the year.
• A compendium of other lists, including the most requested New Yorker articles this decade, the Atlantic's most-read stories of the year and the top political cartoons of 2009.

And if that's not enough, the end-of-year news quizzes, courtesy of the Globe and the NYT, are here.

Enjoy, and please add any more below.

Me, on JHR

Ben Peterson, founder and ED of Journalists for Human Rights, writes a fabulous blog full of excellent tips on building non-profits. I was honoured to be included among his roster of guest bloggers, writing on volunteer management. Based largely on my experience with Canada25, which had several hundred volunteers working at any one time, I did my best to summarize some of the things I learned on how to work well with volunteers. You can find my post here.

It's that time of year again...

....when newspapers and other publications make me feel further guilty about how many important things I have not read.

Here we have the Globe's 100 best reviewed books of the year. Despite having the desire to read about 25 of them, I've only actually read two, although I loved and recommend them both.

My success with the New York Times' notable books of 2009 was even worse. Thankfully, there was a small overlap with the Globe's list, and I scored one point.

Wish me luck for next year.

Some recent Samara posts

A few of my recent posts are available on the Samara site:

• How minority governments could work, if history were to be a guide
• A piece pondering if there's an ideal voter turnout, inspired by a great question I received while speaking at the NOW conference in Calgary
• The POTUS-tracker, an excellent tool for those who want to know how the US President spends his time
• A reminder (like we need it!) of the ugliness of politics
• A summary of the pundits' take on our democracy, circa 2009

Comments welcomed from far and wide, either here or on the Samara site.

Notes from political engagement panel in Calgary

Here are the rough notes from a talk I gave at the NOW conference, organized around the Dalai Lama's visit to Calgary. The topic was young people's political engagement. We were asked to address the oft-stated comment that young people, despite their low voter turnout, are much more engaged than people realize, just not in the traditional ways.

----

A. I was first presented with this type of question about 8 years ago, as a result of my work with Canada25. More frequently, however, it was presented as "why don't young people vote more?" Usually, fingers point at one or more of the following four groups:

• Young people themselves - lazy, apathetic, don't understand etc.
• Parties or politicians - not inspiring, don't have a message that appeals to young people, don't provide accessible ways to participate
• Media - too negative, focused on personalities or the horse race, turning us all off, and young people in particular (even more so in that they don't follow traditional news - see bullet one)
• Our representative institutions - out of date, too complex or difficult to understand, uninviting or unappealing

B. While I don't know the reasons (and it's likely a combination of many), I'm not sure the the dichotomy set up in the initial question is productive. Both government and non-governmental ways of participation are important, and serve to both provoke but ultimately strengthen the other. Furthermore, we know that participation in one often leads to participation in (or at a minimum, understanding of) the other. More specifically:

Government has big bucks to spend, regulatory and agenda-setting power and the ear of the media. However, they are not the be all and end all.

Non-profit and civil society work is also crucially important to having a strong public sphere. It is a wonderful source of ideas, it provides important services to people, it helps educate the public. Furthermore, it serves as an important check on government power, and can be adversarial. This can push government and create better policy.

C. So that said, what do we know and not know about young people's participation? In short, what evidence is available suggests they don't really participate quite as much as we'd think. They vote far less. They're less engaged in other political activities (such as rallies and the like), and in other causes (e.g., the environment) or civic associations. Furthermore, their participation is not only lower than in other age cohorts, but it's falling, particularly since the 1970s. In addition, those with lower levels of education and income are even less likely to participate.*

The reasons for this are less known. Perhaps it's a stage-of-life issue (i.e., young people are doing "grown up stuff" like marrying, buying houses and having kids later). Perhaps it's generational (i.e., something particularly unique to young people today). And naturally, there's lots of stuff the stats don't capture.

For example, employment in non-profit and public service is growing, which may indicate people are more engaged through their employment. The internet is likely changing people's frames of reference, increasingly their awareness of public problems and perhaps making them feel greater affinity to them. Whether this translates to action over time remains to be seen. Finally, demographics may also play a factor. There are a lot of people in Gen Y, and they're said to be a very globally aware generation. As they come of age, they will invariably shape a form of public engagement as the last large cohort, the boomers, did in their youth.

D. That said, we still have good reason to be concerned about what appears to be a growing level of disengagement among all age cohorts. Voting, party membership, campaign participation, protests... all these activities are low and getting lower. Furthermore, polls suggest Canadians have pretty low levels of political knowledge, even after campaigns.

On one hand, Canada has, on the whole, pretty good government. But on the other, there are signs of drift. It's never healthy to take good government for granted. So we're back to where we started.... what is at issue and what should we do about it?

*Data are from the book Citizens by William Cross (part of the Canadian Democratic Audit).

Recent stuff on the future of journalism

There is no end to the ruminations on the future of journalism, newspapers and media in general. I'm heavily reliant on the Twitter-sphere to keep me abreast of the latest and greatest. My curation is modest at best, but here are a few I've enjoyed of late.

Over at the Samara blog I've listed a few events I've attended lately, including:

• Mathew Ingram's talk at the TEDxTO conference
• The CJF's recent panel , featuring Ira Basen and Rem Reider, exploring the changing media environment
• A Samara-hosted lunch with the former editor of the WashingtonPost.com's editor, Jim Brady, who talked about covering politics and public affairs in a changing media environment

I thoroughly enjoyed the different take on things presented by Maclean's editor Ken Whyte in his 2009 Dalton Camp Lecture, delivered at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, NB. If you care about journalism, newspapers, public debate and democracy, you should take a listen. The research he did into his book on William Randolph Hearst no doubt contributed greatly to the long view he takes.

I'm also looking forward to reading Alex Jones' book Losing the News. Alex is the director of the Kennedy School's Shorenstein Centre on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and the author of a great book on the family behind the New York Times. I loved their brown bags while I was a student there, and it's great to see them posted online now. Mark Bowden's piece in the Atlantic is also on the top of the pile these days.

Coming up: Those in Toronto may want to sign up for Ryerson's October 2 panel titled "What's Next for News," featuring media futurist Clay Shirky (read his latest ideas here) and Cult of the Amateur author Andrew Keen.

More recommendations welcome!

Friday evening giggle

My friend Sarah just sent me this. It's silly, but I found myself laughing aloud more than once (although I won't mention which lines provoked such a response). It's aimed at those 25-35, apparently, but I wouldn't limit oneself if they fall outside the range.

----

> -I would rather try to carry 10 plastic grocery bags in each hand than
> take 2 trips to bring my groceries in.
>
> -I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.
>
> -More often than not, when someone is telling me a story all I can
> think about is that I can't wait for them to finish so that I can tell
> my own story that's not only better, but also more directly involves
> me.
>
> -Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you
> realize you're wrong.
>
> -I don't understand the purpose of the line, "I don't need to drink to
> have fun." Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and
> sticks when they've invented the lighter?
>
> -Have you ever been walking down the street and realized that you're
> going in the complete opposite direction of where you are supposed to
> be going? But instead of just turning a 180 and walking back in the
> direction from which you came, you have to first do something like
> check your watch or phone or make a grand arm gesture and mutter to
> yourself to ensure that no one in the surrounding area thinks you're
> crazy by randomly switching directions on the sidewalk.
>
> -That's enough, Nickelback.
>
> -I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger.
>
> -Is it just me, or are 80% of the people in the "people you may know"
> feature on Facebook people that I do know, but I deliberately choose
> not to be friends with?
>
> -Do you remember when you were a kid, playing Nintendo and it wouldn't
> work? You take the cartridge out, blow in it and that would magically
> fix the problem. Every kid in America did that, but how did we all
> know how to fix the problem? There was no internet or message boards
> or FAQ's. We just figured it out. Today's kids are soft.
>
> -There is a great need for sarcasm font.
>
> -Sometimes, I'll watch a movie that I watched when I was younger and
> suddenly realize I had no idea what the f was going on when I first
> saw it.
>
> -I think everyone has a movie that they love so much, it actually
> becomes stressful to watch it with other people. I'll end up wasting
> 90 minutes shiftily glancing around to confirm that everyone's
> laughing at the right parts, then making sure I laugh just a little
> bit harder (and a millisecond earlier) to prove that I'm still the
> only one who really, really gets it.
>
> -How the hell are you supposed to fold a fitted sheet?
>
> - I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear
> your computer history if you die.
>
> -The only time I look forward to a red light is when I’m trying to
> finish a text.
>
> - A recent study has shown that playing beer pong contributes to the
> spread of mono and the flu. Yeah, if you suck at it.
>
> - LOL has gone from meaning, "laugh out loud" to "I have nothing else to say".
>
> - I have a hard time deciphering the fine line between boredom and hunger.
>
> - Answering the same letter three times or more in a row on a Scantron
> test is absolutely petrifying.
>
> - Whenever someone says "I'm not book smart, but I'm street smart",
> all I hear is "I'm not real smart, but I'm imaginary smart".
>
> - How many times is it appropriate to say "What?" before you just nod
> and smile because you still didn't hear what they said?
>
> - I love the sense of camaraderie when an entire line of cars teams up
> to prevent a dick from cutting in at the front. Stay strong, brothers!
>
> - Every time I have to spell a word over the phone using 'as in'
> examples, I will undoubtedly draw a blank and sound like a complete
> idiot. Today I had to spell my boss's last name to an attorney and
> said "Yes that's G as in...(10 second lapse)..ummm...Goonies"
>
> -What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
>
> - While driving yesterday I saw a banana peel in the road and
> instinctively swerved to avoid it...thanks Mario Kart.
>
> - MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I
> know how to get out of my neighborhood.
>
> - Obituaries would be a lot more interesting if they told you how the
> person died.
>
> - I find it hard to believe there are actually people who get in the
> shower first and THEN turn on the water.
>
> -Shirts get dirty. Underwear gets dirty. Pants? Pants never get dirty,
> and you can wear them forever.
>
> - I would like to officially coin the phrase 'catching the swine flu'
> to be used as a way to make fun of a friend for hooking up with an
> overweight woman. Example: "Dave caught the swine flu last night."
>
> -I can't remember the last time I wasn't at least kind of tired.
>
> - Bad decisions make good stories
>
> -Whenever I'm Facebook stalking someone and I find out that their
> profile is public I feel like a kid on Christmas morning who just got
> the Red Ryder BB gun that I always wanted. 546 pictures? Don't mind if
> I do!
>
> - Is it just me or do high school girls get sluttier & sluttier every year?
>
> -If Carmen San Diego and Waldo ever got together, their offspring
> would probably just be completely invisible.
>
> -Why is it that during an ice-breaker, when the whole room has to go
> around and say their name and where they are from, I get so incredibly
> nervous? Like I know my name, I know where I'm from, this shouldn't be
> a problem....
>
> -You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work
> when you've made up your mind that you just aren't doing anything
> productive for the rest of the day.
>
> -Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after DVDs? I don't
> want to have to restart my collection.
>
> -There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are
> going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.
>
> -I'm always slightly terrified when I exit out of Word and it asks me
> if I want to save any changes to my ten page research paper that I
> swear I did not make any changes to.
>
> - "Do not machine wash or tumble dry" means I will never wash this ever.
>
> -I hate being the one with the remote in a room full of people
> watching TV. There's so much pressure. 'I love this show, but will
> they judge me if I keep it on? I bet everyone is wishing we weren't
> watching this. It's only a matter of time before they all get up and
> leave the room. Will we still be friends after this?'
>
> -I hate when I just miss a call by the last ring (Hello? Hello?
> Dammit!), but when I immediately call back, it rings nine times and
> goes to voicemail. What'd you do after I didn't answer? Drop the phone
> and run away?
>
> - I hate leaving my house confident and looking good and then not
> seeing anyone of importance the entire day. What a waste.
>
> -When I meet a new girl, I'm terrified of mentioning something she
> hasn't already told me but that I have learned from some light
> internet stalking.
>
> -I like all of the music in my iTunes, except when it's on shuffle,
> then I like about one in every fifteen songs in my iTunes.
>
> -Why is a school zone 20 mph? That seems like the optimal cruising
> speed for pedophiles...
>
> - As a driver I hate pedestrians, and as a pedestrian I hate drivers,
> but no matter what the mode of transportation, I always hate cyclists.
>
> -Sometimes I'll look down at my watch 3 consecutive times and still
> not know what time it is.
>
> -It should probably be called Unplanned Parenthood.
>
> -I keep some people's phone numbers in my phone just so I know not to
> answer when they call.
>
> -Even if I knew your social security number, I wouldn't know what do to with it.
>
> -Even under ideal conditions people have trouble locating their car
> keys in a pocket, hitting the G-spot, and Pinning the Tail on the
> Donkey - but I’d bet my ass everyone can find and push the Snooze
> button from 3 feet away, in about 1.7 seconds, eyes closed, first time
> every time...
>
> -My 4-year old son asked me in the car the other day "Dad what would
> happen if you ran over a ninja?" How the hell do I respond to that?
>
> -It really pisses me off when I want to read a story on CNN.com and
> the link takes me to a video instead of text.
>
> -I wonder if cops ever get pissed off at the fact that everyone they
> drive behind obeys the speed limit.
>
> -I think the freezer deserves a light as well.
>
> -I disagree with Kay Jewelers. I would bet on any given Friday or
> Saturday night more kisses begin with Miller Lites than Kay.
>
> -The other night I ordered takeout, and when I looked in the bag, saw
> they had included four sets of plastic silverware. In other words,
> someone at the restaurant packed my order, took a second to think
> about it, and then estimated that there must be at least four people
> eating to require such a large amount of food. Too bad I was eating by
> myself. There's nothing like being made to feel like a fat bastard
> before dinner.

Recent stuff...

A few recent posts I've done for Samara:

1. I had an op-ed in the Globe and Mail and received lots of comments. The original piece is here, and a summary of what I heard back is here.

2. Fall is almost upon us, and with it some great events looking to up our public discourse. Here are three that may be of interest. Others? Please let me know.

Some blogs (and one op-ed), published elsewhere

Most of my writing is posted to the Samara site of late. In case you've missed them, here are the highlights:

• An op-ed, publised in the Globe and Mail, with a call for all of us to reinvigorate our public life
• A first summary of some interesting writing on political leadership in Canada. If you have any other ideas, please let me know.
• A piece on alumni associations for MPs

I will continue to post here periodically, but for more regular posts, please RSS here.