New visions for Bloc Quebecois

A somewhat different example of lying can be found with Gilles (Duceppe) with his political party called the Bloc Quebecois (a translation in English would be something along the lines the "combined common front of our culture", so if we had a world parliament and many different political parties, someone from the US could have one called the American Front political party). The rationale for the name helps you understand what they are all about, they do not promote one side of the political left-right ideological spectrum or the other; instead, they promote the culture of the Quebecois and make decisions that support this cultural view of doing things. For someone who is used to a more traditional left/right view of the world it becomes a little confusing to see a regional political party who does not concern itself with regions outside its home-region. Opponents who don't want to think or want to use rhetoric as a weapon against them just write them off as "seperatists who want to destroy Canada". This prejudice actually fuels their existance and they use this prejudice to gather support for their cause. The reality is that this political party promotes the sovereignty of their cultural identity so that it has nationhood status, they are willing to go as far as seperating themselves from Canada if they need to, but they have the secret desire in their hearts to have something similar to what the European Union have.... and they want to unite with Canada on that basis.....

Whether or not this is practical or even possible is not the focus of this particular blog but I do need to put a bit of context so that we can understand Gilles and his political party's agenda. If you can understand that they are not anti-Canadian but merely pro-Quebecois, then you are closer to appreciate their thoughts even if you don't necessarily agree with them.... (I prefer to believe that it is better to understand before you disagree).

The previous two blogs showed lies involving rhetoric in politics. If you remember Stephane was self-contradicting himself by claiming that action X was innapropriate and that he would never do action X but his method of informing us that his opponent had done action X against him was using X as an action.... (two thieves rob the same store and the first one publicly denounces the second thief and then accuses the second thief of disloyalty when the second one claims partnership with the first). Then if you remember the second blog where Jack was using a known moral flaw to drum up support for a decision which would inevitably promote the moral flaw.... (someone tells you that cavities are bad news because you have to suffer through a dentist's office to fill them up so the solution is to avoid the dentist and ask the dentist to please leave). Remember that these lies can be found in ANY political party and unfortunately these lies actually help them to get support because they sound so confident when they use them that most don't bother to actually analyze what was actually said.... (packaging is more important than the product found inside).

For Gilles, the example I will use here is his rhetoric on statistics and how his rhetoric conveniently changes when the statistical results show a new result. This is based upon memory, so if somehow I am wrong, don't worry, I am certain you have seen someone in politics use this very illustration. On one Federal election result, the Bloc Quebecois had lost many seats and many self-proclaimed experts were saying their wishful fantasies that said that the Bloc Quebecois was finally on its way out. Gilles' political party were less powerful in the Parliament than before. What did Gilles say about this? Gilles said that what was important was that he had the majority of the votes within Quebec and that was what was important, the statistics showed that more people voted for this political party within Quebec compared to all the other parties.... To illustrate, let me use an example:

Zone 1--> Party A has 8 votes, Bloc has 7 votes.
Zone 2--> Party B has 8 votes, Bloc has 7 votes.
Total seats-->Party A-->1 seat, Party B-->1 seat, Bloc-->zero seats.
Total votes-->Party A-->8 votes, PartyB-->8 votes, Bloc-->14 votes.
percent seats vs percent votes-->
Party A-->50% vs 27% (approx)
Party B-->50% vs 27% (approx)
Bloc------> 0% vs 46% (approx)
So using these figures, you can see how the popular vote goes to the Bloc yet they have no seats in this particular example. So Gilles points out the statistical facts and uses this to justify doing X or Y in his actions. He has the unofficial majority so that is what is important and that is why he will do what he chooses to do.

Well that's fine and dandy for him, but guess what? The latest elections gives a reversal of fortune for Gilles and his political party. Gilles now has more seats than anyone else in Quebec, but the statistics show that he is quite low in the popular vote. Gilles changes his tune without batting an eyelid.... His argument becomes: "this democracy functions on the basis of the one who has the most seats so that is what is important and that is why he will do what he chooses to do."

Does that not seem inconsistent? Now anyone who thinks this example or the previous two blogs does not show anything wrong and that is the nature of the beast in politics.... Remember, I am not pointing out the immorality of the lie, just pointing out that it is a lie, an inconsistency in rational thinking.... the nature of rhetoric which fuels our democratic debates and our electoral processes. To function well, one must learn to lie well. The morality issue of these actions are not yet brought to the forefront, just illustrations of what is being done and applying the definition of what a lie is and seeing an equal sign between the definition and the actual actions described. If the reader is not shocked and sees this as normal state of operations.... then may I suggest that he has been acclimated to this form of lying.

The reason I state all of this is because, most won't believe that there are lies within the system or that one must be a skillful liar to succeed in our political system so I demonstrate examples, then these same people who would say that there are no lies, will then admit that these examples do in fact show lies but that they are ok-lies. This then becomes a new debate, which lies are ok and which are objectionable? Some are cynical and just assumes everything is a lie so they wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater and they won't bother paying attention to any examples because they already think they know them all and will refuse to see the cases where someone is being truthful. (Both extremes are unfortunate, one must admit that lies happen in this field not believe that there are no lies or that everything is a lie) When we have reached the middle ground and accept that lies do in fact happen, we can then wonder and ask ourselves if this is "normal" and desirable or whether or not something should be done to avoid it or to encourage more scrutiny.

It is always easier to see theft in the economic system because it is tangible and someone is being cheated out of something or other.... whether it be a product or one's time or anything else measurable, theft is easier to determine. The lie within the political system is much harder to ascertain and if there is a discoverable lie, we then have to judge the intent of the one who delivered it, was it deliberate or accidental? If the morality itself of the lie is under question, it brings a new dimension in its detection. So my examples of lying can always be discounted as just part of the game much like hockey has its share of fistfights on the ring.... We don't want our children to imitate the big leagues but we enjoy the occasional bash we see in the big leagues. What I may be aiming for is to have us concentrate in our metaphorical hockey game to promote skating and puck handling to succeed in getting goals instead of accepting or glorifying the metaphorical fistfights (the rhetoric, the lies).

Part of our problem in our society may be this acceptance of the lie within our political sphere as well as the acceptance of the theft within our economic sphere. First step is to recognize it when it happens..... not ignore it and not be cynical either (both are in a bubble world, one is more pleasant than the other but they are both being lulled to inaction).

What statistics can't do

Last night on the national news for Canada (yeah you guessed it, I'm Canadian.... so Canadian issues will probably be explored more than others.... I will still try to make it more universal in issues covered despite local examples.... hope I succeed). Anyway, back to my subject: the news explained that the latest statistics showed Canada working harder than most industrialized nations and yet had declined some more in productivity. According to the news report, Canada has been declining in productivity since the 1990s. Well, I am not a fan of statistics because we have turned this useful tool called statistics and transformed it into an oracle to replace the one at Delphi, but when the oracle says something I have already noticed and mentioned, I point it out to others.... not because I want to give it any more credibility than it already has but because for many people, the oracle is the only thing they will listen to.

Now the statistics don't explain why the figures are the way they are, and that is its biggest weakness, but they do take a basic snapshot of life and from there we can see certain things we may not have been able to see with the naked eye. We say that a photograph does not lie, and as such if statistics is a type of photograph then we can presume that the statistics do not lie. As any photographer will tell you though, one can manipulate the lighting of the area, one can decide a more favorable angle of the subject to be photographed, one can decide to zoom in and focus on an unpleasant section and other techniques or filters can be used which can then manipulate emotionally the viewer of the photograph. Statistics is not all that different, there are ways to arrange the figures to manipulate the reader emotionally to accept some view or other. So we should always be cautious with any image we see and not assume that it is truth, but only an illusion of the truth to better understand what is actually there, like a map is not the location, but only its representative--> its an illusion of the real area; a facsimile.

These figures do not give the reason why our workforce is declining in productivity, just like if you photograph a man walking towards the left of the image, you do not know why he is going in that direction nor do you know why. Well if we can understand statistics in the same way as a photo, we can proceed to use it as what it is: a useful tool, not THE ONLY TOOL available. My blogs of last week offers an interpretation of why we are declining in productivity, but some of us are still like ostriches and have our heads buried in the sand and will not wish to do anything unless the oracle we call statistics tells them what is going on. So I mention these statistics in case some of my readers are ostriches and don't believe what is in front of everyone else's eyes. But I do mention the statistics with the warning: they are like photos, they are not reality.

I once attended a seminar that claimed it was going to explain why people voted the way they did during the last federal elections. I was curious to see if their reasons were similar to my own (not that I am going to mention them in this particular blog). I was severely disapointed, because they spent the entire time producing statistics from 3 different research groups as to what happened. How many women voted this way or that, how the age groups differed in their votes, how the economic lifestyles voted compared to those richer or poorer. If I really wanted to know such things, I just had to pick up a local newspaper who had reported the cold lifeless statistics. No one there could offer any reasons as to why the people voted in such unprecedented ways, the experts were all dumbfounded and claimed that they could not see this coming. Excuse me? Could not see this coming? Maybe had they spent less time studying previous photographs (statistics) and spoke to the subjects of the photographs (hanging out with people) they would not have been so surprised... Of course, an amount of thinking is also necessary.

Imagine that you have a horse race, and you see horse #4 win the race; a group of experts tell you that they will present a seminar to explain why horse #4 has won the race. You show up, because you spent some time with all the horses and you spoke with the trainers and you saw their diet and you calculated that horse #4 would probably win based upon contemplation and life experiences; so you want to see how close your assumptions are compared to the experts who are supposed to know things. The entire time is spent with the experts showing photographs of horse #4 passing through the finish line, a close-up photograph of the horse's right foot as he passes the finish line, a wide angled shot of the horse near the middle of the race showing the wet track.... then when you think that they will now start explaining the why, another group of experts show more photographs taken by other photographers who had a different vantage point. In the end when you ask directly, the why of the winning, each expert shrugs his shoulders and offers possibilities based upon some of the photographs: "Perhaps the wet track for horse #4 made it easier for him to run?" Well that's the most you will ever get from statistics: just numbers.

If you use these numbers to make decisions for society and you use nothing else, then don't be surprised when disaster strikes. If you can glance at the numbers to remind you of the map of the wilderness you happen to be in and carry forward to the destination you already know you need to go (without the map), then you are using statistics properly, like one tool out of many in the toolbox of life.