tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81927552024-03-18T10:54:35.436-03:00Canadian StudiesWelcome to this Canadian Studies blog. Its an on-line, on-going open letter on subjects that interest me or seem important to Canada. I welcome comments and criticism, but not flames.Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.comBlogger384125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-71439766820647520612023-12-22T08:57:00.001-04:002023-12-22T08:57:29.174-04:00Blue Jay Way II: A Real GambleI don't want to be mistaken for an old baseball fuddy-duddy. Last year I complained about analytics, but I did so as a fellow traveler. I was an early devotee of Bill James and still feel many of the points he made represented an advance in baseball thinking. I've continued to read him on and off over the years and believe there is an important role for analytics in baseball. If I can reframe my concern, the problem is not that it has "gone too far." The problem is that it is being misapplied. Analytics refers to the use of advanced statistical analysis to make decisions in baseball. Baseball managers have been using stats for a long time (think Earl Weaver and his recipe cards), as have players. The problem occurs when statistical evidence is misapplied. I'll give you an example. <div><br /></div><div>Generally, most managers today carry large bullpens (a minimum of 7, sometimes 8) relievers. The idea is to bring in a reliever at the start of an inning so that the bases are "clean" and to have the reliever pitch no more than one inning. And, this is true. If you limit any given pitcher's exposure while creating as favourable as possible situation in which they pitch ... that pitcher will do better. It does not, however, mean (1) that they are a better pitcher than they were. It just means that stats are disguising their ability because they've been pitching in favourable conditions, and (2) it doesn't necessarily save runs because someone had to pitch in an unfavourable situation and that is usually the previous pitcher. Imagine this situation, a starter labours into the fifth where there are runnings on second and third with one out. What should you do? If you bring in a reliever, you are asking the reliever to pitch in an unfavourable situation. If you leave in the starter, they are pitching in an unfavourable situation, And, you are running the risk of leaving that pitcher in one batter too long. Anecdotally, this seemed to be one of the Jays problems. In order to create a favourable situation for the bullpen, they seemed to be leaving the starter in -- particularly near the end of the season when they needed wins -- one batter too long. And, because they burned through so many pitchers, they often turned to the wrong pitcher in the pen to get them out of trouble. Sometimes, those pitchers just were not up to the job. </div><div><br /></div><div>You see the situation: analytics is not <i>solving</i> the problem. It is <i>redistributing</i> the problem. Said differently, I am not certain -- as I posted last year -- that analytics is doing much to help the Jays win. So, what should the Jays do this year? In my last post, I intimated that the Jays front office gambled last year. They downgraded the offense to bring in potentially short-term solutions to their defensive problems. The problem with that gamble was that: (1) it did not work, and (2) it created the need for more personal gambles down the road (aka, this off-season). </div><div><br /></div><div>The Jays do need to address the holes in their lineup, but how they do it depends on the nature of the gamble that they want to take. For instance, for me, I'd like to find out if Schneider really can play second base. That's a gamble because one is gambling on player development. A safer solution would be the cast of the thousands we saw last year which is actually a way of avoiding a decision while hoping someone catches fire (last year, it turned out to be Schneider but too late in the day to substantively affect the kind of team the Jays were). </div><div><br /></div><div>A different kind of gamble might be to make use of their team in a different kind of way. I don't know if that is possible. For instance, I'd love to see starters go deeper into games, lessening the need to carry so many arms in the bullpen and making more space on the bench for platoon players, defensive subs, pinch runners, and the like. In other words, rather than trying to make analytics work like everyone else in the league -- something I don't think we have any reason to believe the Jays can do -- I'd like to see a real gamble that involves doing something different. Tampa Bay, a team that makes heavy use of analytics, has also been a team that innovated. Analytics was, in fact, an innovation at one point in time, as was an opener, as was the one-inning bullpen pitcher, as was the supersub. TB has stayed in the hunt because they have confidence in their own ability to judge talent (they don't need to turn to free agency to find good players), because they have tended to have really good player development, and because they have not been afraid to take chances. This may be the result of Tampa being Tampa. They might have to take chances because their small market does not allow them to do anything else. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Jays have been oddly the opposite. They have turned to free agency because they have not developed the talent they need. They have been indecisive and cost players (like Biggio) the kind of playing time they needed to develop. And, they have not taken chances but rather followed other's lead (their organization of the pitching staff mirrored Tampa's, for instance). Will the Jays break from their established routes? I don't think they will this year, but another subpar season and they may have no choice. And, for my buck, that would not be a horrible thing. </div>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-47889715841339794022023-12-20T20:19:00.000-04:002023-12-20T20:19:56.713-04:00Blue Jay Way ... Ramblings on a weird off season<p>Most of the time, I can figure out what the Jays front office is doing. I might agree with it; I might not, but I can usually see what they're attempting to do. Last season, for instance, was a gamble. It is the logical thread that runs through problematic roster decisions. The Jays front office knew a number of things going into last season. They knew, for instance, that the starting staff they had put together was going to be good. They (and I) might have gotten the reasons why it was good wrong (just for the record, changing park effects might also have played a role), but they had reason to believe it was good. Likewise their bullpen and defense. These were supposedly the missing pieces to the puzzle that would put them over the top. The gamble that they took was that their offense was "good enough." They were removing key offensive pieces to bolster the D and bullpen, while guessing that Vladdy, Bo, Kirk, Springer (who, shifted to a less demanding defensive position, might be able to play a full year) and others would contribute enough offense to push the team into the playoffs, particularly in the light of expected off seasons in Boston and NY. If it had worked, everyone would have been happy and this off-season would look differently. In fairness, they may not have been wrong. They just weren't right enough. </p><p>It didn't work and the Jays front office has been in pursuit of even bigger gambles. Press reports seem to suggest that they are in the game, but they're not winning. They have been unable to land the big names -- Ohtani and Soto -- who would have helped them. In the meantime, their team aged dramatically, Chapman apparently wants a large multi-year contract to return, and it is not clear who is going to play second base, third base, and either centre or right field, depending on where Varsho ends up. The Jays could try re-signing Chapman but I'm not certain I'd want to pay 100 mil $ over multiple years to find out whether the decline in his offensive ability is real or not. </p><p>So ... what happens this year? The problem with gambling is that it leads to more gambles. Look at what has happened to San Diego over the last several seasons as an object lesson. When a gamble goes wrong it can really go wrong. And, what is worse, it limits your options for the future. San Diego, for instance, found themselves in a place where their front office decided that their gambles had failed. Their high-priced players were not capable of winning and so they had one choice left: blow up the team. The Jays are not in this situation ... but they are close and that is, I think, the reason for the oddities of this off-season and an inability to figure out what their front office is doing. </p><p>The front office gamble last season had several effects. First, it made the Jays older. They shipped out a young and very promising catcher, kept Merrifield to play 2B and sometimes in the outfield, signed a veteran starter, and brought in veteran outfield help. The Jays still have young talent (Vladdy and Kirk are 24, which is about the age most players make it to the majors, Bo is 25 and Varsho is 26). Biggio, Espinal, and Jansen are all 28 (established in prime players), Springer is 33, Berrios is the youngest starter at 29. The others are all 32+ except Manoah, about whom we don't know much (except a lot of trade bait rumours). What is more, the decision to not play Biggio has likely cost him development time. Biggio has not necessarily made it difficult to keep him out of the lineup but one has to wonder. He was benched, first, for Espinal based on a good half season; then relegated to playing out of position in a backup/platoon role. Said differently, he's 28 but with an unknown future. His defence was never great to begin with and with all the missed time ... it hasn't improved. My guess is that he is at best a break-even defender at second and less than average at third. </p><p>Where does all this leave us? With the same bunch of questions we had at the end of the season and a ticking clock. In the not-too-distant future, the Jays will start to lose their talent to free agency, particularly, I think, if this team does not do more to win. With Spring training just around the corner -- which is amazing to think about -- this kind of indeterminacy can't be good. What is more, because the Jays are not a young team, their window is closing. And, I might be missing it but there doesn't seem to be a tonne of talent in the minor league system and little that seems major-league ready. With a small core of young talent moving toward free agency, an older starting staff, and holes in the lineup, the Jays will enter Spring training and, I suspect, the upcoming season on edge. Certainly, the ongoing media speculation on just about every possible free agent or trade indicates that the media, at least, will be looking for answers.</p><p>Are there any? I have little desire to engage in idle speculation since there are so many rumours so I'll content myself with just one: Cody Bellinger. I like him and he had a good season last year, but his value is likely higher than it ever will be again. He is going to want to be paid and the market for outfielders has been pushed sky high in recent years. If you were getting a guarantee, that is OK, but Bellinger is not a guarantee. His year, last year, was good, but it was not great. He has some flexibility because he can play first base or the outfield but he is an average defender. Over the span of his career, his dWar (a common measure of defensive ability) is OK to average. At 27, he is younger than Biggio or Jansen, but he is also injury prone and has been remarkably inconsistent. Like Chapman, I am not sure I'd want to pay what I'm going to have to pay to find out what is coming next. </p><p>Yet, these are the decisions the Jays have to consider and that is really my point. The Jays may elect to gamble again because, like San Diego, they feel they have to. A veteran team, looming free agency costs to secure the young core, an unspectacular farm system, and line-up holes all point in that direction. </p><p>Will the Jays gamble again? ... it remains to be seen. They are also in dog fight of a division. The Yankees will be better next year as will Boston (who seems to have a core of good younger players), Baltimore should continue to improve and Tampa Bay is ... well ... Tampa Bay. Sooner or later they have to fall to earth or have an off season but they are likely the best managed team in the AL and that works in their favour. </p><p>Will the Jays gamble? I don't know but the logic I've tried to lay out suggests that they will. There is a different kind of gamble they could take, one that does not involve blowing up their team to start again or venturing too deeply into the market for the remaining free agents. It involves rethinking their analytics-based approach to baseball. This is a gamble I'd really like to see them take but here, at least, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath. </p><p><br /></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-80862184495992322272023-09-04T15:19:00.002-03:002023-09-04T15:19:15.536-03:00Well ... this was predictable: More on Analytics, Boredom, and Baseball<p>I had set out to write post on the way analytics had made baseball boring. And, I wanted to do that without sounding like an old timer railing against change for not other reason that he railed against change. Instead, it is boring because each team follows nearly exactly the same strategies. MLB is fighting against those strategies (expanding the bases, introducing pitch clocks and rules about pitcher disengagement). This is not because analytics failed. It is because it succeeded. Analytics worked, or at least seemed to. One could use massive amounts of data to position defenders, organize the pitching staff, and change the "launch angle" on swings to gain an edge on other teams. Tampa Bay might be the new poster child for this approach to baseball and it is hard to argue with success. The Rays are almost always in contention and almost always with a team that is among the least expensive (in terms of overall salary) in the majors. They have worked ideas such as the now outlawed shift, the starter+bulk pitcher, multiple substitutions, and pitch limits harder than just about any other team. </p><p>The very problem is their success. Every team now has an analytics department and every team is using the same data. The result is that there is precious little variation in baseball strategy between teams. For instance, no one lets starters pitch deep into games any more. In fact, deep into games has been virtually redefined as getting through the fifth inning, the minimum number of innings a pitcher can pitch to record a win. The Jays have four starters who have been basically uninjured this year (I know Gausman has missed a couple of starts) and it is not clear any of them will get to 200 IP. The point is not that the Jays are doing anything different or unusual. They are doing exactly what everyone else is doing. The only starter in the AL who looks like he will make it to 200 IP is Cole (as always data from Baseball Reference). In the NL, three or four might make it. </p><p>The addition of the universal DH has also created a a higher degree of homogeneity in baseball strategy across MLB. The absence of a DH forced NL teams in the past to adopt different strategies than AL teams (greater pinch hitting and using more small-ball, one base strategies). I know we need to guard against nostalgia, but there were appreciable divisions of strategy between the baseball teams of my youth. Some were based on speed (KC, Oakland, the Expos, St. L). Some were based on power (Milwaukee). Some where based on platooning (the Jays, Orioles, and Tigers under Sparky). Some managers were quick hooks (Alou). Others expected their starters to work for their living (Vernon). Said differently, when different teams played each other it was often a conflict of strategies as it was a conflict of players and teams. </p><p>This is no longer the case. I was watching a Jays/Reds game a week or so ago and each team managed its pitching staff in exactly the same way. The only difference was that the Jays starter (Berrios) pitched 5.2 innings. The Reds (Kennedy), 5. There then followed a stream of pitchers pitching one inning (or, in the case of the Jays, the final out of the 6th). The next game was as close to a repeat as you could get. The Jays needed to yank Richards faster than they wanted to because he was a bit off his mark, but that was it. What minor differences there are, are a product of talent (Cleveland has to run because it lacks home run power) or taking advantage of particular situations (the Rockies were running on us because our catching is weak at throwing out runnings). Other coaches take advantage of situation but the overall strategies aren't varying. The result is that baseball fans basically know what is going to happen before it does and that does not make for a particularly exciting game, at least from a strategy perspective. </p><p>Analytics have created two effects on the way baseball teams are organized. First, there has been an expansion of the bullpen. Most teams carry eight bullpen pitchers and five starters, taking up 13 roster spots, or half the team. Because there is almost no such thing as a complete game anymore (Lyles looks like he will lead the AL with 3; the Jays have a total of one complete game -- Bassitt -- this year), and because no one uses a reliever for more than an inning, more pitchers are needed. This leads to point two: because roster sports are needed for pitchers, no one carries a dedicated DH any more (there are no Edgar Martinez, of Big Papi's, or Hal McRae's ... with the notable exceptions of the Dodgers but is anyone surprised Roberts is doing things differently? And, Phil as they try to get Harper into games). And, players are prized by the degree to which they can play more than one defensive position. </p><p>For the Jays, the effect is periodically shaky outfield defence because we play infielders in the outfield (our backup or platoon outfielders are Biggio and Merrifeld, both infielders). Throughout much of the year, our backup third basement and shortstop was Santiago Espinal, a player who was so not reliable as a short stop that the Jays traded (we really traded nothing so I am not all that concerned) for Paul DeJong. I actually think Merrifield has done the job the Jays asked him to do this year and it has not an easy job. He makes the odd really good catch as an outfielder if he is moving forward but he has problems with balls over his head and tends -- as we would expect of an infielder -- to misjudge them. There were plays I've watched where Biggio, likewise, seemed completely miscast for the role he was asked to play. </p><p>Is this a management issue? I'm argue that the heavy use of analytics creates this problem. Because the Jays are using up so many roster sports on pitchers, they can't carry a real back up outfielder. </p><p>Likewise, the Jays have to suffer with Vladdy at first. I'll grant him Vladdy due. He did not come up playing first base, defence is not his primary value, and he does make some good plays. But, overall, his defence is hurting the team (it even hurt the team last year in his Gold Glove winning year, its just that all other first basement were worse). The Jay would improve if they had even a break-even defensive first baseman and moved Vladdy F/T to DH. But, they can't because no one -- exceptions noted above -- carries an F/T DH anymore. Instead, it is used as place holder to give a player a rest. Because benches are so thin, there are just not a lot of backup players to fill in and so the DH spot is used to spell a player from fielding for a game. Or, for the same reason, to keep a player with a minor injury in the game. </p><p>Not only does this homogenize strategies but, with regard to the Jays, it has made them a worse team. I am not saying Vladdy could be the Jays Big Papi, but I actually don't see any reason why he could't be. </p><p>And, I have not even mentioned what "max effort" is doing to pitchers arms. </p><p>In short, it is hard to complain about the Jays. I have and will. But, we also need to see that the problems with which the Jays grapple are inherent to this era of baseball (for instance, I know Hernandez had horrible defence. I said it. But, the response to that does not need to be to trade him, even while I think the trade worked out. Another alternative, would have been to teach him how to be an outfielder but, for whatever reason, that die not happen). </p><p>I find myself drifting from baseball and have been trying to figure out why. This post, I guess, is in that spirit. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-22059082370398536342023-08-25T09:29:00.002-03:002023-08-25T09:29:29.548-03:00Analytics, Boredom, and Mis-assessing MLB Player Value<p>The analytics revolution in baseball was about uncovering player values. It was about moving away from relying *just* on traditional stats (RBIs, runs, wins, etc.) to try to find ways to assess players independent of their context, say a manager who misplayed them or a pitcher who won a lot of games because their team scored a lot of runs. Since Bill James and others first starting making the case for a better approach to baseball math over a generation a go, we now have a raft of new statistical categories that sub in for traditional numbers. This includes OPS, OPS+, wins above replacement (WAR), etc. There are mathematical variations in some of formulae used to calculate these stats (not every determines WAR in exactly the same way), but by and large I think these new stats are remarkably useful for determining player value. But, they also have their problems particularly when combined with an MLB penchant to measure just about everything that can be measured, at least this seems to be Sportsnet's approach with the Jays, where we are treated to a daily discussion of "exit velocity," distance home runs are travel, etc. I find this fascination less useful and I also want to explain why. </p><p>What is now called analytics was about finding more effective ways to evaluate players. The original analytics writings did not dismiss older stats, but argued that they needed to be understood better and in context. For instance, imagine a player who drives in a lot of runs and hence has a lot of RBIs. Was that a product of their ability to hit in the clutch (when, say, their team had a runner scoring position) or was it a product of the fact that the players who batted before him were on base a lot. If that were the case, a player would have more RBIs and not necessarily be any better at driving in runs than a player who have fewer. </p><p>I'm going to come back to this but the two most important offensive skills in baseball are the ability to get on base (hard to score without people on base) and the ability to advance runners (that is move them from one base to the next). Some players are really good at that. The batter in front them gets a double and is on second with none out. The next batter, hits the ball behind the runner, allowing him to advance to third. It doesn't show up on standard score sheets but that is a productive out, moving a teammate to third with one out where he can now score with a sac fly. Analytics attempted to find ways to enumerate these skills so that a player could be assessed on their merits. </p><p>I agreed with analytics. I think its advances were understood long before baseball had analytic departments or anyone had seen <i>Moneyball</i>. It makes sense that the ability to get on base is important and that it does not matter exactly how one gets on base. Thus, on base percentage is a more important statistical measure than batting average. I get it.</p><p>I don't think "we have gone too far" with analytics but I worry that analytic stats are disguising other stats. I'll say it again, Bill James never rejected traditional stats. Instead, he worked with them and interpreted them. The substitution of one stats for another taken out of its context -- I'll say it again, taken out of its context -- disguises a player's value and that, it seems to me, is one of the problems that haunts major league baseball today. The Jays are a case in point and I'll give you an example: Brandon Belt. </p><p>The Jays brought Belt in to provide veteran leadership and good defence at first. He was never going to play everyday but rather was a role player, doing time at DH and backing up Vladdy at first. He could defensive sub in tight games. It is a valuable role on the team. Belt got off to a bad start, as happens but the Jays kept him in and he's played more and more over time. Right now, he's batting third and seems -- barring something unforeseen -- ensconced their for the rest of the year. </p><p>When you watch Jays games, the announcers make a lot of the fact that some -- often nameless -- people were down on Belt because of his slow start. I might say that anyone who knows much about baseball was not down him and recognizes that not everyone gets out of the gates at the same pace. It is annoying (and likely more so to the coaching staff) but nothing to write home about. It is a regular part of the game. After this, however, the announcers go on to make a comment the goes something like "Belt has the second highest OPS, OPS+, etc., since date X."</p><p>This is less useful. It is good to know but what are more traditional stats telling us about Belt: that he's not driving in runs at the pace one needs from a top of the order guy. Right now Belt has 350 plate appearances (the lowest of a non-catcher starter or a player who has not missed time for injury, but not a bad number). The problem is that he has only 37 RBIs and 15 of those RBIs come from homers. IOW, aside from himself, Belt has driven in only 22 other runs this year. That is a bad number no matter how you cut it. My point, of course, is not that Belt is secretly a bad player. I don't think he is. My point is that the focus on new analytic stats -- where he looks really good -- disguises the fact that the Jays have put a guy at the top of their lineup who is not doing what a guy at the top of the lineup is supposed to do. </p><p>There are a lot of qualifications, to be sure, and it would not be fair to lay the blame for the Jays inconsistency at the feet of the Belt. But, it might also be fair to say that he's not well cast to the role in which the Jays have him. </p><p>Likewise, the fascination with exit velocity -- the speed of the ball coming off the bat -- and distance for HRs create other problems. It does not matter how hard a ball is hit if that speed is not producing actual hits. Vladdy hits the ball harder than just about anyone. But, that velocity is not translating itself into either hits or RBIs. Again, don't get me wrong. Vladdy is an exceptionally good younger player who I'd want on my team. He's also the opposite of Belt. He got off to a blazing start. Hitting .309 by at the end of April (I get my data from Baseball Reference) with an .885 OPS. We don't need to worry too much about precisely what that stats means but it all-star level. He's been up and down with a lot of down since. Right now, he is not on pace to drive in 100 runs, something you need from your best player. In this case it is not an analytic stat that is disguising a problem but the fascination new measurable stats. </p><p>Let me make this point clear: if a ball is a HR, what difference does it matter how far it traveled? It might be interesting for fans, but not relevant to the score. If you need to hit the ball 400 ft to get a home run, what difference does it make if the ball is hit 401 feet or 456 feet? If you hit a home run, what difference does it matter that its exit velocity was 106 mph or 90 mph. If you said "none," you were right. </p><p>I didn't get to boredom and baseball so I'll carry that into another post, but finally, let me say a word about "best in the league since date X" syndrome. Baseball loves this kind of language and the Jays media is riven with it. But, it is also a problem. Again: I get it. Media commentators are trying to show a trend -- a player heating up or someone who has made an effective adjustment. But, it also misses a point and that point is this: it does not matter when you lose games if you lose them. For instance, imagine that a team needs to win, say, 90 games to make the playoffs. That means that they will lose 72 over the pan of the season. Does it matter when they lost those games? Again, the answer is no. The fact that a player gets off to a bad start is not a reason to throw them away and. there will be ups and downs over a season. But the fact that a player is playing well at a certain moment and not at another moment could be a problem for a team that is looking for consistency, as the Jays are. Said differently, this start -- or this approach to reporting stats -- disguises something important. Playing poorly and losing games at the start of the season can keep. team out of the playoffs as surely as playing poorly and losing games late in the season. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-38149576503701882292023-08-17T15:50:00.003-03:002023-08-17T15:50:23.240-03:00Not the Team We Thought<p>Since I usually post my complaints about the Jays, I thought I'd post some positive comments because I am positive. That might sound odd after the loss last night (amid more not good fielding), but I don't think this is a bad team at all. In fact, I never did. What is more, this is not the team I thought it was, nor I suspect most Jays fans and what has me upbeat is precisely that. The Jays are a really good pitching team. The have a problems with defence but their defence, particularly in the outfield, is good. I don't like the phrase "ready to go on a run" and I am not certain they are. One of their remaining problems is inconsistent play. But, I see no reason they can't get into the playoffs and I see no reason that can't win a round, maybe more. So, what is good about the Jays? </p><p>Before we get ahead of ourselves, let's keep acknowledging that team has problems. For whatever reason, it is not scoring runs. You know the data as well as I do. They are near the bottom of the league in hitting with runners in scoring position and with runners on base. Moreover, a number of their key players have taken a backwards step either year over year or in comparison to how well they played earlier this year. Some of this is explainable. The issue with regard to Springer, for instance, is not that he had a bad run and will come around (as the announcers keep saying -- and he might). The issue is that he is a banged up 33 year old outfielder. He will lose bat speed, for instance, and that will limit his offensive abilities. But, and here is what I think is important to note. The Jays brain trust -- whom I faulted for some pretty poor pitching decisions very recently -- has also made the right decision to get him out of the lead off spot and try to find a place where his skill base <i>is</i> useful to the team. The first good thing to note about the Jays right now, then, is that for the first time in a while, the team decision makers (whomever these are) seem to be responding to the talent that is in front of them and making decisions on that basis. (As opposed to, in the past, trying to create a plug and play team, Gibby-proof team.) </p><p>Second, I'll also give the Jays front office and field level management credit for not panicking when Manoah went off the rails. To state my point above again: they responded by assessing the talent they had and what they could do with it -- a very Tampa Bay like decision making strategy -- rather than trying to copy another team or using players in ways that moved them out of their comfort zone. They used off days to their advantage and made use of what they had (a potentially good opener in Richards and a potentially good bulk guy in Francis) to get them through a potential problem. For the record, I also think they handled the other Manoah problem tactfully so I'll mention it here. Manoah, you may know, is at AAA and the demotion was needed. It was needed because there was no place for him on the roster (there was nothing that he could do that another pitcher could not do better) and because he shot his mouth off in a press conference about watching to pitch to Ohtani and saying that the decision to walk him was Schneider's. His comment drew a laugh but what was missed were two things: (1) the issue is not what Manoah wanted to do because he was a "competitor" but what gave the team the best chance to win, and (2) the answer he gave sucked. His job is not disagree with his manager but to say precisely point 1 above. It is not about how a player feels. It is about how a team wins. And, players that won't put winning ahead of themselves ... well ... they end up in AAA. </p><p>Third, despite some recent trips to the IL but a number of key players, the Jays have been relatively healthy. I saw that data recently but I forget where (an in game graphic, I think), but the Jays have lost fewer games to injury than most other teams. And, most of those games lost were known (Ryu and Green) at the start of the season. In fact, the Jays have really only had one rough stretch with regard to injuries (and that is right now) over the season. They've gotten more out of Kiermaier, Springer, and Belt than I thought they would. In other words, whatever was not working in the past -- because the Jays were loaded with injuries -- has been corrected (better planned days off?) and the team is enjoying the effect of that. </p><p>Finally, I see nothing wrong with tight pitched games. Whether by design or luck, the Jays have built an impressive bullpen. I still don't like the one pitcher, one inning approach, but the bullpen is deep and it is good. I feel a bit bad for players like Francis and Jackson who will be out of a job in the near future because they have made a contribution. But, we no longer have to live with the possibility that the brain trust will elect to turn a key game over to a pitcher who they did not think was good enough to make the team (see a pervious post on this) in the first place. </p><p>I expect a spate of transactions before the weekend series. Green and Richards will likely be coming off rehab, which means Francis and Jackson are headed to AAA. Bichette will come off rehab as well and so one infielder is likely hitting the road. If I had to guess, it would Schneider Jr., but we'll see. Keeping DeJung makes sense to me because he provides a defensive sub for Bichette late inning in close games where we have the lead. But, we'll see. </p><p>In short, I am looking forward to the back end of the season. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-3057856811919988932023-08-04T17:31:00.001-03:002023-08-04T17:31:17.168-03:00The Oddities of the Jays Approach to Pitching <p>Despite what it might look like, pitching decisions in baseball are not made willy-nilly. And, while the manager is responsible for them (and has the ultimate on-field call), they are no longer made simply by managers or managers alone. Instead, pitching decisions are charted out. While everyone would like a starter to go as long as they can, baseball coaching staffs chart out numerous possibilities. If our team is ahead in the seventh by X+ runs, and the starter is tired or losing the zone or has hit their pitch limit, they are replaced by A. If we need a platoon advantage, they are replaced by B, if we are behind ... and we needed to replace the starter .... you get the point. The manager makes the decision -- the call on the field -- but he's had the benefit of advise from pitching coaches, his bench coach, there is a guy down in the bullpen, and the team analytics department. The individual decision that we, as fans, see is actually a collective decision made by a baseball team's brain trust. </p><p>With that in mind, the Jays brain trust makes decisions that I often find difficult to figure out. Put differently, that defy figuring out. I'll give you an example. On Tuesday night the Jays got battered by the Orioles 13-3. It was likely a game that they had no chance of winning regardless of individual decisions because the Os were on and the Jays were not. But, the game marked the return of Hyun-Jin Ryu to the staff after over a hear off recovering from surgery for a major injury. Ryu looked good and pitched well. He got off to a bit of a bumpy start, but was efficient. He was throwing strikes, not going deep into counts. He gave up two in the first and another in the second but blanked the Os for the next three innings. At this point, he had thrown -- I forget the exact number but -- high 70s in terms of pitches, which is not a tonne for a starter. Why not pull him? He'd look good, the Jays were in the game, and as a team the Jays had accomplished what they set out to accomplish. They got a good game from a starter who they want to re-integrate into their starting rotation. </p><p>For reasons I don't understand, the Jays sent him back out for the 6th, he was promptly touched up for a home run and was then pulled. My question is this: what was the difference between the 5th and the 6th. Why was that one batter important? And, why was in more important than keeping the score as low as possible and getting a pitcher back into the swing of major league games? There may be a logic here but I can't see it: what difference did the handful of pitches Ryu threw in the 6th make other than to put the Jays behind. Because the Jays scored no more runs, they would never have caught up even if the Orioles hadn't battered our bullpen, It is an odd decision.</p><p>Odder still: last night. The Jays were short staffed. With both Romano and Richards on the IL, they were clearly hoping for a long start from Gausman and that was a reasonable expectation. He's pitched very well this year. It was not to be. Gausman ran into trouble in the 2nd and while he recovered his pitch count soared. One out into the 5th, he'd thrown 103 pitches and so he needed to come out. Gausman had given up another run in the 5th as well. The Jays turned to Bowden Francis who had just been recalled and he did the job. Francis has actually pitched rather well for the Jays but in limited action. He's spent most of the year in the minors. After Francis came the newly acquired Cabrera. Fair enough, this is what the Jays acquired him for. But, at this point odd decisions started. </p><p>The Jays really needed to win this game. It was not critical but losing it dropped the Jays 7.5 games back of the Orioles with 52 games left in the season, an almost insurmountable lead. Losing the game meant that the Jays were, in effect, conceding the division championship. The bullpen, as I said, was thin but the Oriels only had a 3-1 lead. The game was still in range. And, with this important game on the line, the Jays brain trust elected to turn the Jays fate over to Thomas Hatch, a player who they had just recalled from the minors and, previous to last night, had thrown a total of 4 innings in the bigs this season. </p><p>Let's think about the logic of this. Here we have a very important game that the Jays need to keep the division championship in their sights. If they win, they're 5.5 games back instead of 7.5. Still a tall order but close enough that a mini-losing streak for the Os is all the Jays would need to get within a game or two, and we play them again. So, is this the situation in which you would turn to a guy who 24 hours before you did not think was good enough to be in the majors? Quite literally, this is a guy who, barring injuries, would not even have been on the team. The options the Jays had were limited and I'll get to that in a minute. But, there were options. Mayza is the obvious one. Hicks would have been a stretch but apparently he had said (at least according to Dan and Buck) that he could go, and Swanson was the other option. I suspect Swanson was being saved to be the closer but since Hatch surrendered 3 runs in the next 2+ innings, both Mayza and Swanson ended the game on the bench. </p><p>Making matters even more odd, the Jays designated Hatch today. In baseball terms that means, in effect, they fired him. Any other team can take him for his salary and need to provide the Jays with no compensation. If no one else claims him, I suspect the Jays will keep him in the minors but let's process this. The Jays trusted a critical situation in a critical game to a guy who they themselves did not feel was good enough to be on staff and who, the next day, they didn't feel was good enough to keep on the roster. Does this make sense? </p><p>How did we get here? The Jays will claim that the thin staff -- injuries and another player on leave -- forced them to. That is likely exactly what they think, but it just does not make a lot of sense. There is another reason they are short staffed and that relates to the construction of their pitching staff. </p><p>There is nothing unusual about the way in which the Jays have built their pitching staff. They have it set up like this: the starter gets through 6 innings (or, at least 5) and the Jays then had it over to the bullpen. A series of pitchers in succession pitch 1 inning (or, less if there is a needed platoon advantage). Just about everyone does the same thing. One of the interesting effects analytics has had on baseball is to flatten out strategy differences. Everyone looks at the same data, everyone has analytics departments that crunch numbers, and, on an aggregate level, the data shows something so everyone does exactly the same thing. </p><p>I won't get into the details of why this is done. I'm not trying to say that there is no a reason for it. It just has not served the Jays well. The Jays carry a tonne of pitchers (which also limits in-game decisions, an issue I'll address another time but also something else that is very common), usually 8 relievers and 5 starters but right now 7 relievers and 6 starters because Ryu and Manoah are both back and the Jays intend to go with a six-pitcher rotation because they have a spate of games without a day off. I don't inherently disagree with this decision but it further cramps the bullpen and what happens if ... if, say, your starter has a bad inning and reaches his pitch count early? What happens is that you turn a critical game over to a guy who was not on the team a day or two before and is not now. </p><p>It is a bit like crying over spilt milk, but can I ask about the logic of one-inning relievers? The only guy on the Jays staff who regularly pitches more than an inning in relief is Richards and even he would not meet the definition of "long man" of my youth. The Jays bullpen lacks depth not in the sense that they don't have arms. They do. I think its a good bullpen if each game unfolds according to the 6-1-1-1 formula. But the absence of longer relief was high-lighted last night. Since just about everyone builds their bullpens in the same way, I wondered as I was thinking about last night's game, has anyone looked back on what managers like Felipe Alou did in the past? Alou worked his pens hard but tended to use a much more limited number of pitchers and kept relievers in longer than people do today. </p><p>The Jays handling of the pitching staff, then, was odd in two ways. They made a really odd in game decision that they did not have to make and they have constructed their bullpen in a way that seems to force odd decisions, or at least make a greater chance for them. I'll be honest. I'm disappointed in how the Jays have played this year and I am looking for reasons that they've under performed. They are a good team and have not played poorly. But, they've not played to the level I thought they would and part of that, I think, relates to the oddities of their approach to the pitching staff. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-19462885281822566512023-08-02T15:30:00.002-03:002023-08-02T15:30:31.209-03:00Canadian Women's Soccer and the Politics of Commitment<p>The Canadian women's national soccer team made an early exit from the World Cup. That's a drag because they are a good team that went into the tournament with heightened expectations. Another reason this is a drag is the gender politics that have followed this team for a good long time. There is simply no reason that the women's team should be funded at a rate so shockingly different from the men's team and Canada Soccer should be completely embarrassed that it could not even conclude a temporary, interim deal with the team until the World Cup was underway. One can only speculate on how this level of uncertainty has affected the team. This is not an issue of motivation but, as the team made clear in its press release related to the funding agreement (you can find that <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/soccer-womens-team-compensation-deal-1.6920967" target="_blank">here</a>), related to directly to training. To be compensated equally with the men's team, the women's team will have to allow Canada Soccer to transfer resources from training. In other words, Canada Soccer has said "we will pay you the same but not resource you the same. You'll get the same money but not the same support." It is horrible, as the PR notes, that the women's team was forced to make this choice and, if you are a soccer fan, it raises deep and fundamental questions about Canada Soccer's commitment to winning. What is even worse ... its a short term deal that seems to expire at the end of the year. Canada Soccer's commitment to gender equality (even such as it is), in other words, is temporary and then defaults back to its pay women less stance. For its part, Canada Soccer does not even mention the deal on its <a href="https://canadasoccer.com/news/" target="_blank">website</a> (or, did not when I checked).</p><p>None of this is as it needs to be. While I am shocked by the blatant character of Canada Soccer's gender discrimination, I am not surprised by it. In fact, I'd be surprised if the opposite had happened, if Canada Soccer had pro-actively (without being urged to and without the women's team needing to go public) took it upon itself to create the conditions for equality in a substantive way. Imagine the different headlines that we could have been reading: Canada Soccer realizing commitment to gender equality: women and men now compensated and resourced the same. I get that that sounds pie in the sky but why should it? Why is Canada Soccer, in 2023, trying to get away with inequality? </p><p>For its part Canada Soccer seems to be in something of a financial mess. Earlier this July, it found itself backtracking on agreements with the national teams because, it said, the deal had been worked out without the approval of its Board of CFO (you can find that story <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-mens-team-statement-july-25-1.6917581" target="_blank">here</a>). But, that's not an excuse. All that had to happen was that the Board and CFO approve the deal. The exact financial machinations are difficult to track down but Canada Soccer is funded through a different body: Canada Soccer Business. Its website bills it as follows: "Canadian Soccer Business (CSB) is an independent commercial agency that offers a suite of representation services, delivering corporate partnerships, sponsorships and media rights for entities that make up the backbone of soccer in the country" (citation: <a href="https://cansb.ca/" target="_blank">here</a>). Its web site has the standard feel good stories on it, but it seems that what has happened is this: Canada has outsourced funding for its national soccer teams to a private agency that withholds a portion of the revenue it receives (say, prize money from the World Cup) in order to fund both its own operations and the Canadian Premier League (see <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/soccer-womens-team-compensation-deal-1.6920967" target="_blank">here</a> for information), which -- according to its website -- seems to be its main client. This is potentially lucrative as CSB also retains media rights to the national teams. If you want to find out more about the CPL by clicking on the line on CSB's web page, you'll be directed to another web page v-- or, at least I was -- asking you to donate (in a cycling banner at the top of the <a href="https://canpl.ca/" target="_blank">page</a>). The nature of the deal Canada Soccer has with CSB seems to be pushing Canada Soccer to <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/article/canadian-soccer-business-defends-deal-with-canada-soccer-amid-possibility-of-bankruptcy/" target="_blank">bankruptcy</a> and has -- according to the men's team -- delayed its payments from the men's World Cup. Canada Soccer, it seems, has attempted to balance its books through the time tested method of paying women less. </p><p>One of the things I find particularly offensive about this is the way in which Canada Soccer tried to assure us that it is committed to the national team. Being committed to something, one should note, involves something more than stating a commitment. Canada Soccer has said it is committed to getting a fair and equal deal for the women's team but the last agreement expired in 2021. Not only is that a long time but the path to a fair and equal deal is easily available to them. It involves ... well ... resourcing and compensating the women's team equally. Another example, from its web site, is Canada Soccer's vision, the first part reads "Leading Canada to victory [...]." If we were to ask the national teams about that commitment, what do you think they would say? How do you "lead" a team to victory when you make the players fight for equality. I think a team that's been without an agreement for two years and was forced to choose between compensation and training, might have something to say about the how real that commitment feels to them. The point is simply this: it is easy to say one is committed to something but we should not mistake that for an actual commitment. </p><p>The same type of commitment was evident politically from the new federal Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Carla Qualtrough. Now, I am going to state clearly that I don't think being Minister of Sport in Canada is an easy job. The embedded and systemic inequalities and abuse that have come to light over the last several years are serious and require serious efforts. You can find some information <a href="https://nationalpost.com/pmn/sports-pmn/canadas-sport-minister-pascale-st-onge-unveils-slate-of-safe-sport-reforms" target="_blank">here</a>. On the other hand, at least part of the problem seems to be systemic and when we have people in powerful positions, one might expect something more than a statement of a reiterated commitment, as we received from Qualtrough. Their statement was reported on CBC as follows: "My background is as a human rights lawyer, so you're never going to hear me say anything but pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value. Our women deserve equal opportunities as our men and we're going to make sure they have it." To me, this amounts to little more than virtue signalling. As a minister, one should not simply say they support equality. I'll be honest: I would have thought that was a precondition of the job. Instead, what we have is a person who is uniquely placed to use the authority of the state to accomplish this ... say to help develop a new funding mechanism and to cut out the private business intermediary that seems to be draining money away form the national teams. And, yet, the best we can get out of them is the Coles Notes version of their CV and a commitment to promote the very equality that their government has so far ignored. </p><p>I don't think this will bode well. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-40488917207628456602023-07-26T14:03:00.000-03:002023-07-26T14:03:00.401-03:00Running Backs and Truth Worth: <p>NFL running backs are upset. By any metric, it has not been a good off season for running backs who feel that their worth to their teams has been devalued. IOW, their paycheques don't match their value. You can read stories about that <a href="https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38058656/star-nfl-rbs-meet-zoom-talk-state-position" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/26/nfl-running-backs-are-angry-and-peace-seems-a-long-way-off" target="_blank">here</a> if you need a quick update. Is this true? Are running backs not receiving their "true worth"? </p><p>That is a more difficult question to answer then it might seem. <i>The Guardian</i>'s interpretation (cited above) is that the relative decline in running back pay is a product of changes to the game. RBs are just not as offensively valuable as they once were; other positions (quarterback, wide receiver, and in the defensive mirror "edge rusher," and cornerback have become more important and, hence, more valuable). The NFL's Collective Agreement might also be depressing running back salaries and that is likely true (see the ESPN piece cited above), but that is a complex issue and difficult to address in a short post. My view is that the real problems lie elsewhere and I'll get to those but first, let's think about worth. </p><p>We need to acknowledge that "true" worth -- in sport -- is a difficult thing to peg down. RBs are not going broke. The average salary for top tier RBs in the NFL will be over $10 million this year and some (for instance, Derrick Henry) will make a bundle more than that. Said differently, one of the better NFL running back will make more money this year than the vast majority of Americans will make over their lifetimes. We are not talking about someone scrapping by and since this issue is often framed as being about the best RBs in the game, I'll take that as a fair point of comparison. I'll return to this issue later because I think it is important. </p><p>We also need to ask this question: why is a player paid whatever they are paid? How actually do we calculate their worth? The short answer is: to win games but that is not 100% accurate. Pro sports is a business. Players are paid because they win games but also because they attract fans, TV deals, sell merchandize, and make money for owners. Let me give you an example: the SF 49ers pay Christian McCaffrey whatever they pay him on the assumption that he will make more money for them. If he doesn't, he will be gone (as he was in Carolina) and the NFL is a remarkably fickle league. There is a connection, to be sure, between winning and making money. But, that fit is not perfect. </p><p>One also needs to think about value in terms of replacement costs. Anyone who has ever calculated the cost of car repairs verse payments on a new car knows exactly what I am talking about. One problem running backs have is that there are a lot of them. I recognize depth has been a problem for some teams (the Bears, for instance, and Baltimore) but the truth is that there is no shortage of good running backs moving their way through US college ranks at any given moment. While great running backs are almost certainly as hard to find as great quarterbacks of game changing linebackers, there is a steady supply of backs from which to pick and a number that will be all stars. Some (McCaffrey) come with a lot of hype. Others (the recently released Elliott) seem to come out of the blue if you are not paying a great deal of attention to US college games. </p><p>What this means for a player's value is complicated. It means that they are simultaneously worth more than their skill on the field might indicate (because of TV contracts and merchandize) and potentially less, particularly if a team thinks they can generate the same level of wins (or, owners think they can make the same amount of money) without someone else at that position. </p><p>This means that there is not straight forward way of calculating a players value (even while the Collective Agreement tries to do in a limited number of instances). We should also acknowledge that a player's value can extend beyond their playing days. The growing football industry in the US absorbs bunches of former players for TV and radio, for colour commentary and PR. There are speaking tours and product endorsements. A player with name brand recognition -- Henry, Jonathan Taylor -- should be able to transform that recognition into income, adding to the income they derive from the game, even if it does not show up in their playing salaries. </p><p>Where does this leave the calculation of true worth? Likely in several places but there are a couple of other points that I should likely make. The first is that sports media is awash in hyperbole. I likely spend too much time watching sports but the number of players described as "stars" "superstars" etc., shocks me. There have been times I've sat and listened to a commentator and thought to myself "well, heck, everyone can't be a star" because that means no one is. Get it? If everyone is great ... what sets one person ahead of another? This is actually a key question if we are trying to get at worth (I'll leave its ethical merits to the side for this discussion). If every running back is great, then ... why should one be paid more than the other because they all have the same skill level. The on-going hyperbole has this effect. It anoints players as great (or some other such wording) and convinces people that Player X or Y is "among the best in the game" but people are actually saying that about so many players that they just can't all be true. IOW, there is a disconnect between sports media language and player rankings. </p><p>As an example I think Saquon Barkley is a really good RB. Is he one of the best in the game? Is he a game changer? Maybe, but he also has an appreciable injury history. Last year was the first year in four that he played what we could call a full season. If I run the Giants, I might say OK, yeah I Barkley's good but how much is an oft-injured player worth? Karem Hunt is another case in point. Really good but a backup who has missed appreciable playing time in the last four years. These are just examples to illustrate a point and I don't want to get too hung up on details. </p><p>The other consideration in the multi-generational wealth being handed out in other sports, notably basketball and soccer. I don't know what to say about this because the figures truly are staggering, but I suspect it reflects market value as opposed to player value. For whatever reason (fewer players which equals more money per player, more revenue because of more games?) basketball just has more money to pay individual players than football. I get it. RBs in the NFL who are feted in the media see this -- along with QBs in their sport -- and they want it, too. After all, they are routinely told they are great, game changers, historic, etc. Should they not be paid at least closer to that level. </p><p>They aren't and, unless things change, they won't be. Should they be? I don't know. I calculate value differently and so I can't say. </p><p><br /></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-16482070258395075402023-07-03T17:51:00.000-03:002023-07-03T17:51:51.878-03:00Russia and the War in Ukraine<p>By any account, the war in Ukraine has been a disaster for just about all concerned, but for different reasons. For the Ukrainian people it has created a near disaster with large parts of the country occupied, infrastructure under constant attack, mass civilian deaths and deportations, and significant military and economic losses. For Russian — and specifically the Russian government — that situation is not as bad but it is really bad. I will confess that I don’t know if Ukraine will, in the end, win the war. I actually don’t even know what that means. What I do know is that Russia has already lost. How so? Just about every aspect of this conflict from the perspective of the Russian government has failed. Its intelligence, command and control, logistics, tactics, and weaponry. There are several points to consider. </p><p>First, Russia has lost the vast majority of its front line armour. According to Oryx (which is about as good an estimate as one is going to get), Russia has lost over 2000 main battle tanks, huge numbers of armoured personal carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and infantry mobility vehicles. It has lost thousands of other vehicles and appears (at times) to be relying on panel vans to move supplies. Its Black Sea fleet has been virtually incapacitated, Ukrainian operatives have illustrated that they can move across the frontier and set fire to oil storage facilities, factories, and other buildings and derail trains. One needs to take social media reports with a grain of salt but there are reports of Russians using shells manufactured in 1939, and obsolete T-54 battle tanks have been reported in the field. What is equally important is that Russian weapons are clearly vulnerable to western weapons. While there is more than enough blame to go around for this, it is evident that simple point-and-fire Western anti-tank weapons appear to be able to incapacitate even the latest Russian armoured vehicles. </p><p>What this amounts to is this: Russia's weaponry has failed on two counts. Russia has now lost massive amounts of heavy weapons. I don't know exactly how long it will take Russia to replace its lost weapons but I would be shocked if this is not a decade long situation even acknowledging that redevelopment is needed as much as replacement. Russia is so low of weapons -- and soldiers -- that bizarre Wagner mutiny was virtually unopposed inside Russia. There was simply nothing to stop them. And, its weapons are just not as good as they were generally thought to be. </p><p>Second, for whatever bizarre reasons, Russia's assessment of the situation in Ukraine was so wrong it is ... stunning. Russia had had considerable success in the post-Soviet era attempting to extend its "sphere of influence." It has done this in a number of ways. Let's not give too much credit to computer manipulation during American elections. Instead, Russia has worked with right wing populists (Hungry, Trump), who are, for their own reasons, favourable to Russia. It has used Wagner mercenaries to prop up and so curry favour in the Middle East and Africa. It has ruthlessly repressed internal dissent, and it has made its level best of separatist movements to carve up Georgia and the Moldova, for instance. There was success in 2014 in taking control of Crimea and part of the Dombas in Ukraine. What was wrong this time was legion. It is almost as if the Russian government assumed that nothing had changed since 2014. Russia underestimated the degree to which the Ukrainians would fight back, the degree to which Ukraine and NATO had effectively retrained Ukraine's military, the degree to which western (and other) countries would rally round Ukraine providing vital support, the potential degree of support of its own allies, let alone Russia's own abilities to conduct an extended mission on foreign territory with limited logistics support. </p><p>Put together, what all of this means is that Russia will emerge from its debacle in Ukraine far weaker than it went in. If the objective of attacking Ukraine was to establish a friendly government, seize or secure resources (particularly but not exclusively in the Dombas), secure military facilities (Crimea), while illustrating the speed and effectiveness of its military ... every possible objective has not only failed so far but has failed completely. Add to this that Russia's supposed allies in central Asia don't seem to want much to do with it -- and must, now, necessarily be considering a potential post-Putin future -- its standard of living has been hit -- and will continue to be -- and hundreds of thousands of Russians are in exile, providing a potential basis for a long-range anti-government opposition. But, it gets worse. Whatever territories Russia has been able to seize are not secure nor are the military basis in the Crimea. They can only be protected -- if they can be -- by an extended and expensive conflict. Said differently, Russia's military basis are less secure than they were, it access to resources have been impeded and cannot be secured, and at least some section of its population has become deeply skeptical of governmental leadership. </p><p>And, we can throw in the kicker. NATO has expanded and the EU will as well. The Russian invasion of Ukraine forced Sweden and Finland off the fence and shifted the centres of authority in NATO to the east. As this conflict moves well into its second year, Poland has emerged as a key player in NATO, while a block of Balkan countries has become a key focus on both the EU and NATO. The addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO will augment this shift. In other words, if the objective of the invasion was to enhance Russian power, the result has been the exact opposite. The conflict has served to enhance the military and political power of countries hostile (or, now hostile) to Russia. </p><p>The odd thing is, I don't think it needed to be this way. There have already been a number of analysis of what went wrong for Russia, but the big thing that went wrong was the decision making process. Even under the most favourable circumstances, the Russia could have hoped for was to secure more Ukrainian territory losing less of its own soldiers. It would still be embroiled in this scenario. There is a need for a critical analysis of the governmental situation in Russia -- including the balance of various social classes and their connections to specific sections of the economy -- that can highlight the political organization of the state that made possible these kinds of decisions. Russia has been able to maintain its field operations only through fairly drastic means (use of mercenaries, prisoners, foreign workers, and minority groups) as front line soldiers. But, that can't continue for ever. Ukraine's counter offensive is slow but they make gains each day, destroy more Russia equipment each day, and force more drastic measures (such as flooding a vast region to slow down a counter offensive), but each of these movements can only buy time. They can't reverse what has happened. Moreover, Ukraine is now strong enough that it has no reason to leave this conflict "frozen." If that worked in Moldova and Georgia, the relative balance of power will means it won't work here. </p><p>I think, before the invasion, maybe two or three years before, there was room for a solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict that could have prevented the war. That solution involved each country accepting certain things that it did not want to accept. For instance, Russia needed to abandon separatists in the Dombas. This was always an artificial movement anyway. If Russian-speaking Ukrainians living in that region were concerned about their culture and autonomy within Ukraine political solutions were available. This included some form of bilingualism and local autonomy or semi-federal arrangements. Both sides could have agreed to a demilitarization of the region and separatists needed to disarm. All this could have been possible, if Russia and Russian-speaking separatists were being honest. If they weren't ... well .... I suspect they weren't. </p><p>Crimea could have been much more difficult to address but some kind of condominium status might have worked, monitored by third parties or the UN. Agreements on off shore authority would need to be worked out but, again, all this would have depended on the honesty of those involved. These kinds of deals don't seem great but they allow Ukraine to avoid costly and destructive war while allowing Russia -- and Russian separatists -- the security for which they claim they were looking. </p><p>In the longer run -- and I suspect this is one of the reasons the current government of Russia would not have been interested in this kind of deal -- Russia would also have to accept Ukraine's borders and accept its sovereignty. This means that it has the right to arm itself and the right to make its own international decisions. Exactly why Russia should be concerned about that, however, is a bit confusing to me and might require the kind of political-economic analysis I noted above. </p><p>I say this because I can't see how a European-oriented Ukraine is, in any way, a threat to Russia. Before the conflict, Russia itself was pretty European oriented. It sold mass amounts of energy to Europe, its elites vacationed in the west and had extensive business interests there. There is also a long-running cultural connection. On some things -- say, opposition to ISIS -- there was even room for common international accord. Complaining about a European-oriented Ukraine seems at best hypocritical so something else must have been going on. </p><p>I might also take the time to say that this conflict is not the fault of the Ukraine, the US, the EU, or the west. Let me pick an example, the idea that Russia has a natural interest in Ukraine and this means that Ukraine does not have the right to select its own system of international relations is a serious backward step in IR. Anyone making it is either a toady or working with some sort of bizarrely backward conceptions of IR. We are not -- and should not be -- in a time where people can say that, say, the US caused the conflict by maintaining a relationship with Ukraine. It did not. The decision to start this conflicts rests solely and exclusively with the Russian leadership and the problems it has created are their responsibility. Because they made such bad decisions, the problems are going to take a long time resolve and will cause tensions, potentially, for decades to come. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-10719066109869007762022-11-02T16:11:00.003-03:002022-11-02T16:11:33.219-03:00The Jays: The End of the Season<p>The Jays season did not turn out the way we hoped. I don't think it was a horrible season but it was a frustrating one. I know all teams hype themselves in the pre-season (few teams go into a season saying to their fans "we are going to play poorly this year"), but, the Jays hype certainly set high expectations. Exactly what those expectations were remained a bit unclear but at a minimum they involved reversing the previous season's narrow miss of the playoffs and, potentially, making a deep run. On paper (and, I know the problems with "on paper"), the Jays looked like a contender. They certainly talked like one. </p><p>For me, what was frustrating about the season was that the Jays never really seemed to get on track, never really realized their potential. Why was that? I think several factors played a role. Much discussion has been devoted to Schneider's decision to pull Gausman in the second playoff game against Seattle and that may have been the wrong decision but I also think it would be wrong to believe that seasonal disappointment hinged on one decision a manager made in one game (however important that game was). Instead of focusing on individual decisions, let's look at some more systemic issues. </p><p>First, injuries: everyone suffers from injuries and depth is a big buzz word but some injuries are more predictable than others. Key injuries to Ryu (who was pitching poorly before this injury and at the end of last year anyway), Springer, Hernandez, and Gurriel were not 100% going to happen but they were more predictable because of age or injury history. Springer is a good player, but any time you enter a season with a 32 year old outfielder with an injury history, you have to imagine that this is a potential problem. Hernandez and Gurriel are not as old as Springer, but they have their own injury histories. I liked the key replacement outfielder -- Tapia -- because I think he was asked to do more than was expected of him. That said, according to Baseball Reference (where I get all my data) he has a sub .700 OPS and a 91 OPS+. What this means is that the Jays sent a 9% offensively worse than average outfielder up to bat 433 times. </p><p>Second: their defence was shaky. You would not notice this listening to Jays commentators, but Bichette had a negative defensive WAR ( or dWAR, a measure of defensive). This means he cost the Jays runs playing short stop verse an average replacement shortstop. Vladdy -- despite winning a <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/article/vladimir-guerrero-jr-fulfils-defensive-potential-by-winning-gold-glove-at-first-base/" target="_blank">Gold Glove </a>(the sad a bitter truth is that there are no defensively strong first basemen in the AL, almost all starting first basemen were defensive liabilities) -- had a negative dWAR, as did Gurriel, Tapia, and Hernandez, and Chapman's dWAR was nowhere near as good as people might think (and dramatically lower than his best seasons before joining the Jays). The Jays do have good fielders (Kirk at catcher), but as a team they don't play good D. I watched players give up on balls or throw to the wrong base. </p><p>This is frustrating because it is something other than the booted ball mistake that every player makes over the span of a season. These are fixable problems. During the season I listened to announcers rave about the Jays taking fielding practice (some version of "they are out every day ..."). But, they are professional ball players. They are supposed to be practicing. That is their job. I teach for a living. Raving about a professional baseball player taking fielding practice is like saying "Andrew should be rewarded for doing class prep." If you have a teacher who does not do class prep that is a different and more serious problem but you don't get a reward for doing it. It is simply a requirement of the job. Likewise, suggesting that a professional baseball player should be acclaimed for taking fielding practice seems more like a smokescreen than a serious comment and it begs a further question. If the Jays are practicing, why are they not getting better? </p><p>Third, the Jays base running was not good. It was not horrible, but it shouldn't earn any celebrations. They were tied for the second lowest stolen base percent in the majors (that is, they were getting caught attempting to steal more frequently than all but one team), and their other base running metrics are middle of the pack. They were middle of the pack on getting picked off and slightly better than middle of the pack (top third, say) on Outs On Base (that is when a player made a base running mistake that lead to an out). Only Tapia and Springer had good stolen base ratios. Bichette led the team with 13 steals but was caught 8 times. This means that his base running likely cost the team runs. It is a marked difference from the year before when Bichette, Semien, and Hernandez had really good stolen base ratios. </p><p>Finally, a more subjective point. There were times where it seemed something was wrong with the team. I don't think the "boys will be boys" bench atmosphere served the Jays well. It is better -- much better -- than the toxic atmosphere that pervaded the Jays a few years ago. If I had to choose, I'd pick this iteration of the Jays over what we saw a few years back. But why do we have to choose? The on-going party atmosphere seems good but it also seems to distract from the kind of discipline that winning teams seem to have. In my view, the Jays were not well served by celebrating homers in games they ultimately lost or in games that they won by wide margins. One instance I found telling relates to Vladdy. I recall a game where, between innings, he sat with the bullpen, as opposed to sitting on the bench. He was obviously upset at the Jays poor play but that is not the kind of leadership the Jays need. </p><p>I recognize that this concern is not something that relates only to the Jays. Every team seems to have their version of a home run jacket (a chain, a hat, a cart, etc.), and stat inflation is nothing new. I remember Bill James, years ago, trying to figure out a way to delineate meaningful RBIs from tack ons in games where the end result had already been decided (the baseball equivalent of garbage time points in basketball). I believe he gave up. </p><p>What is my point? My point is that the Jays have problems but those problems are fixable. Defence and base running are skills players can learn. There is no inherent reason why Bichette, for instance, should not be an outstanding base runner. There is no inherent reason why Gurriel needs to throw to the wrong base. I will be interested to see what the Jays do in the off season. I suspect they will be involved in some sort of trade, perhaps involving the surplus of catching that they have and maybe one of the extra middle infielders they have kicking around. I also think they have a good crack at the division next year. I can't see the Yankees getting any better. They were not a good team in the second half. Nor Boston. The Oriels may take another step forward but their team is young and has pronounced weaknesses. TB is always there but sooner or later the smoke and mirrors that sustains that team (by which I mean incredibly good field level management) will not be able to cover over the talent deficit. The Jays should begin next season as the favourite to win their division. I think they can but addressing these problems would help. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-50057477384485193902022-02-04T16:16:00.002-04:002022-02-04T16:16:37.918-04:00Society and Rights (Part II): Public Good<p>In my last post, I tried to argue that thinking about individual rights as if they existed in isolating was actually threatening to those very rights. This is one reason, I am suggesting, for taking "society" seriously. You don't have to like my wording. You can argue for state or civil society or some other wording. What it means is the same: there is some kind of collective social organization the operation of which is important. The issue, it seems to me, is not so much "does society have rights?" -- my original discourse -- but the degree to which we take this collectiveness seriously as part of the way in which we think about our society. Asserting individual rights in the absence of their context, I argued, was not a rejection of rights. To the contrary: it was a recognition of the necessarily social (political, legal, economic, cultural, etc.) institutions that were needed to maintain those rights. A failure to access these institutional dynamics, their autonomy, our our need to maintain them (say, an independent judiciary, a legal code, a free press) would end up subverting the very rights we seek to defend. </p><p><br /></p><p>I also argued that we needed to be careful with conceptions of the public good. Historically, the term has often been mobilized to maintain the marginalization of already marginalized groups. A key example is efforts to limit the equality of gay and lesbian Canadians (say, with regard to marriage, adoption, spousal benefits, etc.). Using all kinds of different language, we were told that it was not in the public good (it was non-traditional, it would cost too much, it threatened the family -- none of which turned out to be true). Said differently, discussions of the "public good" should be entered into carefully. </p><p><br /></p><p>But, it is still a discussion that we need to have. Why? We need to have this discussion because we need to determine if there is some sort of collective enterprise that is socially or nationally valuable outside of individual rights. I'd suggest that there is. This can include public infrastructure projects (like roads and bridges), matters of national defence and protection (the military, coast guard, search and rescue), health (standards for meat processing, e.g.), emergency situations (floods, power outages, etc.), and a range of others. I suspect my list will not surprise anyone. It is not exhaustive, but the fact that it seems so ordinary is important because it shows us the degree to which we have simply come to accept some conception of the public good as valuable in our lives and good for our society. </p><p><br /></p><p>We understand public good policies and activities for a range of reasons. These can be captured under the discourse of social good or fairness or something else but there are a range of rationales for undertaking a public good action. These include: economies of scale (that it is less expensive than having the same actions undertaken by the private sector), emergency preparedness (the subject of a previous post), and natural monopolies. They can be undertaken because there is a general benefit and spin off effects that go beyond the original beneficiaries. I'll give an example to illustrate my point: imagine someone builds a road. Who benefits from that road? Well, the people who drive on it, to be sure, but also the people who now have access to police and emergency services, people for whom fire protection is now possible, people whose relatives can visit, people whose clients can make it to their place of business, people who shop at stores supplied by delivery trucks riding on roads. I'm not done but I'll stop because you can see the point. It is relatively easy to specify the original beneficiary. If I drive on a road, I benefit from that road. But, in most -- I'd argue the vast majority -- of cases, I benefit whether I actually drive on it or not. </p><p><br /></p><p>We can make very similar points for things like water purification (if you don't think that is important, think for a minute about those communities that don't have it), snow removal, electricity, communications networks. Said differently, for a range of matters we can identify goods or services that involve much more than the key or first or original beneficiaries. Indeed, in some cases, it might be difficult to disentangle who was the key beneficiary from who is a subsidiary beneficiary. </p><p><br /></p><p>This opens up questions that I've addressed in the past about who should pay for these kinds of services. I won't return to that, but you can see that the easy "user pay" argument does not really hold up well here since we cannot really figure out who the users are and who they are not. I've noticed, for example, that many key proponents of individual rights (people who claim to reject the authority of the state and say that taxation is illegitimate and who argue that one should pay only for those things they use, drive on roads). In all of these instances, what we are talking about is a public good. </p><p><br /></p><p>We can actually specify the benefits these goods bring. Remember, this is social science so it is not like gravity. I'll likely post on "can you guarantee?"-like questions in the future some time after I've had a chance to put my thoughts in order. The key point I want to make is that benefits accrue broadly. For instance, my property value is enhanced by good roads, schools (about which I have not spoken), water purification, power generation, parks, clear lakes in which to swim, lower crime rates, and a host of other things. My quality of life improves (I am less subject to crime, more likely to enjoy concerts in the park, I can be safer swimming, etc.). I am more likely to have community volunteers. I am more likely to be safe in my home and be protected during a natural disaster or power outage. </p><p><br /></p><p>Let's spin this out for a just a minute more: roads let me vacation in different parts of the province, minor sports (for which there is often a fee but who built those facilities?) provided fun and exercise for my children, search and rescue keeps me safe while I am kayaking, public health measures and regulations help prevent me from getting food poisoning, and on down the line. </p><p><br /></p><p>I won't go on any more, because you can, I am sure, see this point too: public goods bring all sorts of public benefits. We lose track of these benefits when we too quickly assert "individual rights." Please note this: it is not that individual rights are not important. It is not that they should be relegated to some kind of collectivist gulag. It is that the discourse that pits individual rights against collective actions is misplaced. It prevents us from seeing the interaction between the two and the general benefits that we all enjoy from public good measures. It is good and wise to periodically have discussions about these issues. It would, however, be wrong to begin from a false distinction that pits the one against the other. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-17297987775961926032022-01-24T09:33:00.003-04:002022-01-24T09:33:49.684-04:00 Does Society Have "Rights"? <p>This is an odd question and one that would have been answered differently in the past. If we were to go back into the not-too-distant past, we would find that important conservative thinkers -- such as George Grant -- argued that it did. They would not have used a different language but they would have used words like "public good" and "nation" in place of rights and society but we would be in the same ballpark. It was precisely for this reason that Canadian governments undertook economic development projects or promoted electrification or better roads. The basic idea was this: society (the nation, the province, the people) had interests that transcended those of individuals. It was these bigger issues (national defence, for instance) that we could think of as a proper -- but not the only -- sphere for government acting for society, or the common good. </p><p><br /></p><p>Today, we have run into serious problems with this line of reasoning. Part of it is what Michael Ignatieff called "rights talk" that is: a form of discourse suggesting that if rights can simply be respected and enhanced, all of our political or economic or social problems will be solved. I'll address this contention in a more sustained way in a future post because it has taken on odd forms and so reviewing what we can see as some of the limits of right is worth doing. For now, however, let's content ourselves with a different kind of question: does society have rights? </p><p><br /></p><p>At its worst, discussions of "society," what it does, its effects, etc., have become a bit of a caricature. The idea that "society" is responsible for crime or other social problems has been pilloried by neo-liberals and right wing populists to the point that it is difficult to have a conversation about the subject. References to something being "society's fault" are often dripped in sarcasm. It is a short step from a rejection that there could be social determinants of, say, behaviour, to rejecting the idea that society has interests that should be respected. Under Covid, we have seen some extreme forms of this (a subject I've been trying to address in other posts). Here, the opponents of public health measures have tried to argue that they should have no force and effect because they infringe on individual rights. This argument is constitutionally shaky. It is not a good argument and has very little to recommend it in terms of constitutional law. The key point, however, is something different: we have seen that there is a very small but significant body of people who believe that their rights as individuals must necessarily stand above and nullify collective rights, including provisions for public safety. </p><p><br /></p><p>We don't have time to over everything that could be wrong with this subject and I want to approach it from a different direction, anyway. Instead of asking if this is true, what I want to ask is this: do you believe that there is no such thing as the public good? I can almost hear someone say "sure, but public good is best realized through individual rights. Circumventing or limiting individual rights harms the public good." Let's not dismiss that argument because there are merits to it. Due process of law, for instance, is vital to the public good and it is an individual right. Free speech is vital to the public good and it is an individual right. Equality is an individual right and vital to the public good.</p><p><br /></p><p>I want to make these arguments because I have often worried about the reverse argument: that we need to discriminate against specific people in the public good. Those who are old enough will remember that this was an argument often used to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians. We can't have equality in marriage because it is not in the public good. I've heard people argue against settlements for the victims of residential schools, and humane policies for refugees on very similar grounds. I recall in college a particularly horrible moment where a friend argued that a group of refugees should be deported (regardless of their future life prospects) on a similar ground (it was not in the public good to accept refugees). In each of these instances, breaches of equality, or rights, or simple humane behaviour are justified in the name of the public good. And, have you noticed that in each of these instances, and many others I can think of, the public good is defined in a way that reinforces the inequality of already marginalized groups: Indigenous Peoples, refugees, members of the LGBTQi community. </p><p><br /></p><p>It seems to me very important to bear this in mind before we too quickly reject arguments about individual rights. I don't. In previous posts, I've tried to argue for individual rights but also for what I would contend is a correct understanding of individual rights. Individual rights, I have argued, are not licence to do whatever you want. There are limits to them and those limits are reasonable and widely accepted. The key example that is always used is "yelling fire in a crowded building" when there is no fire. In this instance, needlessly endangering the lives of others for one's own amusement is not a right, but (a) a threat to others rights (their life, safety) and (b) a crime (making a false statement that recklessly endangers others' lives). Likewise, an example I've used before is that I cannot use my free speech to spread lies about my neighbour because, say, I don't like her business and want to drive her into bankruptcy. Here again I am treading on her rights and breaking the law. </p><p><br /></p><p>Rights are then (a) vital to the health of society (and often a needed protection for marginalized social groups), but (b) not a licence to engage in any behaviour one happens to want.</p><p><br /></p><p>Where does this leave a discussion of society's rights? In several places. First, I suspect that my discourse is weak and inhibiting my ability to make the points I want to make. If you have suggestions to improve it, I will take them. Second, it leaves us thinking about boundaries and limits. Does a social perspective necessarily harm the rights of others. It clearly can. Those people who tried to turn back gay marriage because they believed it harmed society were clearly saying that we should not respect the equality of certain people. These people will be lesser citizens that do not enjoy the same rights as straight people. But do all limits have that effect? Could some be reasonable and could some even help advance individual rights? </p><p><br /></p><p>In a previous post, I tried to make precisely this point. Collective actions -- taken by society through the state -- can become a mechanism to enhance individual rights. In other words, counterposing individual rights against collective action mystifies an important link between the two. Let's take due process of law as an example. It is a good example because due process of law (the right to trial, to know charges against you, to defence, against arbitrary imprisonment, etc.) is rightly widely viewed as fundamental a democratic order based on the rule of law. </p><p><br /></p><p>Yet, in this example, you can see that the individual proclaiming their right by themselves won't get very far. In point of fact, we have an entire apparatus of state that is set up to ensure the smooth functioning of due process. We have lawyers and crown attorneys, legal aid, written judgement, independent police forces that are not run by crown attorneys, autonomous judges, the news media, etc. It is all of these social actors -- of this collective action -- that makes due process of law (and likely much more that I have not thought about) a reality. Without it, it could quickly descend into wishful thinking. Don't believe me? It has happened elsewhere. </p><p><br /></p><p>I'll leave off on this point and address other issues in subsequent posts. What it means, however, is that we need to protect society's rights (only some of which I have listed above) in order to ensure that individual rights are protected. We need to ensure vibrant social institutions and legal institutions. Individual rights don't ipso facto make for a good society. But, without protecting these elements of our social order, individual rights would remain at best fragile. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-66037241040549049182022-01-20T11:20:00.002-04:002022-01-20T11:20:23.532-04:00 Living With Covid: Preparedness and Taxes<p>I've tried to suggest that "living with Covid" needs to mean something more than just trying to roll back the clock and ditch as many restrictions and public health measures as possible in what will be an effort to "get back to normal." Instead, it means recognizing the endemic quality of a dangerous disease. That will necessarily means that we cannot ask the most vulnerable elements of our population to bear the burden our normalcy because that will, in effect, mean that one person will suffer (pay the price) for another's benefits (behaving as if there were no disease). Instead, we need to recognize that there will be changes to the way we live our lives. Most of these changes, I'd argue, do not impose any loss of freedom or challenge rights. They are minor restrictions that can and should be accepted as the minimum action we can take in order to help ensure the security of citizens living under the conditions of an endemic virus. I am optimistic that, with further medical advancements, these kinds of limitations will lessen over time, but I don't think they will disappear entirely. Or, at least I think they shouldn't. We will, for instance, still need to have provide for outbreaks, localized lockdowns, new variants, booster shots, access to new medications, and potentially a range of other factors. </p><p>I hope you can see my point: living with Covid does not mean doing nothing. On the contrary, it means being better prepared for public health emergencies. (If I had my way, I'd extend this to other potential emergency situations, as well, like, for instance, climate. change. I don't means to suggest that Covid is somehow unique as an emergency. But, it makes a good example because it is current and that can, I hope, allow us to also think about other issues and preparedness in general.) One of the problems with the early stages of the pandemic was that Canada was not prepared. I suspect that planners knew we should be but were caught between a rock and a hard place. I've not had to plan for a pandemic but I've been involved in administration and I suspect I know what is going on. </p><p>Preparedness requires money. You need to buy a bunch of stuff and keep that stuff on hand in case it is needed. In the case of Covid, this included PPE, ventilators, hospital capacity, medicines, isolation capacity, among other things. We also needed human capacity on a significant scale. One of the problems with preparedness stuff is that you keep it on hand but don't use it. It is stored somewhere (in basements, warehouses, etc.) and, if you are the planner (the government officials and civil servants in charge of preparedness), you really, really hope you never use it. That's right: you go out and buy tonnes of stuff that sits around with the aim of not using it. </p><p>I suspect you can see why this instantaneously becomes a problem. Governments don't like stuff sitting around unused. For more than one reasons, governments are always looking to cut spending. They look to cut spending because some governments simply disagree with government spending, because they need to balance the books, because there is more than one good cause on which to spend (that is, there are multiple demands for government funding). And, if you are the government of the day, there are opposition parties that are sitting around telling Canadians that if they just elect them, things will get better. They will balance the books or provide a tax cut. In this situation, governments -- just about any government -- will look to control costs. An NDP government (hypothetically) will not necessarily want to cut taxes but they tend to not want to raise them and they tend to want to spend the money on things that citizens need in the here and now. It is not just moderate Liberal or right-wing Conservative governments that can run into this problem. </p><p>The result is that governments tend to skimp on preparedness. You might even feel for them. After all, leaving all this stuff sitting around hoping we don't use it seems like a dead loss, a waste of resources. If we didn't spend the money on stuff that will sit in a warehouse, someone might reason, we can spend it on other things: safe roads, proper water supplies for Indigenous communities, keeping post-secondary tuition within the bounds of reason, doctors and nurses for rural communities, new schools. The temptation to skimp grows and it grows more and more if you get away with it. If you skimp on preparedness spending one year and we don't have enough PPE on hand for a health emergency but *there is no health emergency* -- well, that skimping seemed to pay off. If you were a Conservative government, you could take that money that you did not spend on PPE (or, other preparedness measures) and turn it into a tax cut. If this goes on for a number of years, well ... that is the problem. Each year you "get away" with not spending on preparedness (which is, again, buying stuff you will not use), a greater gulf opens up between what you have on hand (preparedness) and what you will need if there is an emergency. </p><p>That is what happened in the early stages of the pandemic. Moreover, it didn't just happen to the government (although government is easiest to fault). What we discovered is that same thing was going on in the private health care sectors as well, such as senior citizen care facilities. We know the Ontario situation best because the situation seemed particularly bad but I suspect it was not unusual. What we saw was that private seniors care facilities simply did not have a stock of PPE on hand. Government regulation was shockingly limited (in some cases, it appears that no inspectors visited facilities). And, human capacity was lacking. Each of these factors combined to create a disaster. Seniors dying and a complete breakdown, in some instances, of services that could only be addressed by the military. </p><p>More recently, we've seen this again and this time, and I will confess, it is more than a bit annoying. We've seen a lack of rapid test supplies and, in NB at least, no public distribution of N95 masks. </p><p>What does all this mean for "living with Covid?" It means that we need to learn to think in a different way. We have to take preparedness seriously. That means that we need to be willing to commit the resources we need to ensuring that we're ready for the next wave even if that wave does not come. Why is this a "bigger issue?" Because it costs money and potentially a lot of money that may never be recouped. If we are taking the idea of having a proactive policy to live with Covid seriously, it will mean that we will buy a bunch of stuff that will -- ideally -- never be used. Where are we going to get the money to buy this stuff? Two places and they are both the same place: taxes and charges that private businesses levee for things like senior care facilities. You can see why it is a big issue. If we are going to live with Covid, taxes will almost certainly need to increase. </p><p>Is that good? Is that right? Is that fair? I don't have the space to address those issues. It seems to me that we need, however, to address this matter as a society. In fact, a willingness to commit the resources that we need to preparedness might be a sign of the degree to which one is actually willing to live with Covid. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-7666864164277601612022-01-18T09:48:00.000-04:002022-01-18T09:48:05.371-04:00Living with Covid (Part III): More on Restrictions<p>In my last post, I tried to argue that it was important both to protect vulnerable populations from Covid and they should not be asked to absorb the cost of "returning to normal." I want to make this point clearly. If we are going to accept that Covid is endemic, it mean (to me at least) something other than making that statement and ignoring the effects of it as if they did not matter. It means making reasonable provisions for the safety of citizens and ensuring that the cost of our return to normalcy is not paid unduly by one part of society. </p><p><br /></p><p>Another thing it means is that there is a need to think about what restrictions mean and what restrictions will need to be in place. This matter, I think, cuts to the heart of the question of normalcy for a significant number of people. While I strongly suspect that the word "normal" has a range of meanings (as I intimated in my last post), one meaning it has for some Canadians is that they can live their lives without the restrictions that were imposed on them as a result of the pandemic. We heard a lot about this in the early pandemic days. People complained about not being able to get to their cottages or see family and friends or play sports, among a range of other things. Different people clearly have specific issues that are closer to their hearts than others. I have friends, for instance, (and this is in no way belittling or disagreeing with them) for whom attending sporting events is paramount. I know others for whom religious services top the list. </p><p><br /></p><p>If we are serious about living with Covid, however, we are going to have to think about the character of liberty in our society. The list of actions I noted in my original post on this subject contains a number of actions that amount to restrictions. For instance, masking is a restriction. The requirement says that you must be dressed in a certain way to enter certain premises and this is different (a change) from the way things were in 2019 (in New Brunswick at least). How can we justify restrictions if our objective is to "return to normal"? Or, put differently, are these restrictions justifiable in a free and democratic society? </p><p><br /></p><p>We should begin by acknowledging that this is an issue where "the devil is in the details." It is also dependent on context. To get around these proviso, let me take an example that is as specific as I can. Is the requirement to wear a mask a mask, for instance, an unreasonable requirement that undermines an individual's right? How this question is answered depends a great deal on the specifics. For instance, if a person cannot wear a mask because of, say, a medical condition, then that requirement becomes unreasonable because it threatens someone's life. But, what if it does not? Let's continue with this example to illustrate the the point about restrictions and rights. </p><p><br /></p><p>A number of people who oppose masks have asserted their right as an individual to make up their own mind about their own face coverings. The idea here seems to be that an individual has the right to decide matters related to their self. It is difficult to disagree with that ... except, we already have a bunch of rules that limit people's control of their own actions and we have introduced these rules often for public safety. For example, people who have certain dread diseases do not have a right to enter Canada. The government might still choose to let them in, but entry in that circumstances is not a right. My behaviour is regulated every day and in a range of different contexts. What is more, these requirements come from a range of different sources: different levels of government, private businesses, minor sports associations, schools, places of worship, etc. For instance, the government requires me not to drive in excess of a certain speed. If I do (and allowing I am caught), I can be fined. Businesses require me not to loiter, my church requires me to behave in specific ways. The minor sports association for which I coached required me to be certified, etc., etc. I'll bet you could add in some other ones related to your work or recreational activities. </p><p><br /></p><p>The upshot of this is that regulation -- restrictions, limitations -- sound really horrible (an affront to freedom!), but they are actually part of our lives. They don't do anything to harm our lives and they do a lot of make improve it. One of my objectives as a coach was to try to introduce kids to games I really liked in ways that allowed them to keep playing the game long after they were on my team. Many of the rules of my minor sports association were intended to do precisely that as well. They restricted behaviour (fans were not supposed to curse at players, for instance) but that restriction was intended to build attachment to the sport (our common aim). While restrictions sound bad, most of us just go about our days, do our jobs, drive at the right speed, lower our speed in school zones, pay for our food at restaurants, etc. Said differently, there is nothing in itself horrible in these restrictions. Not only do we have them, most other societies do and most people in ours support them. </p><p><br /></p><p>Does it actually harm me not to be able to break these restrictions. Again, context is important. I might, for instance, need to exceed the speed limit in order to get to my doctor for a life saving procedure. In that context, obeying the restriction would threaten my life. But, in other instances, does it? While there may be six year olds who are upset that they can't drive cars, I suspect most of us are quite happy about it because it keeps us (and, the six year old) safe. I am happy that my neighbour can't legally break into my house and take my TV. That is a restriction on her behaviour (a limit on her freedom) but it is one that is reasonable and acceptable. </p><p><br /></p><p>What is more, we voluntarily enter into many of these restrictions. When I volunteered to coach, there were rules I had to accept. My employer requires a certain standard of behaviour from me (I have to be honest, for instance, and do my job). Said differently, far from being an imposition, most of us not only accept certain restrictions but voluntarily enter into more of them. And, there is the rub, what happens when someone does not want to obey restrictions and claims that they don't accept them. We'll need to come back to this because it is a complicated question. For now, you can see my point. We have a range of restrictions in our lives and, unless someone happened to mention it to you, you would not have known about most of them. As a society, we tend not to see these restrictions as a problem, we tend to see them as important for our and others protection, to ensure that businesses and schools can function, and to promote common objectives. </p><p><br /></p><p>With that in mind, and allowing no medical problems, let's go back to the original question: does wearing a mask pose an undue restriction? I'd argue not. It does not restrict one's freedom of movement. I can go to the next town over to shop just as I could before. It does not limit my freedom of association (I can still hang out with my friends). It does not limit my freedom of worship (I can attend my church or another one, if I so choose). I do not forego due process because I wear a mask, I don't lose my job, I don't have to give up my blog. Said differently, virtually nothing has changed. I can still go where I want, see who I want, watch the TV show I want, read the book I want, write what I want. The only thing that has changed is that when I do go out in public, I need to wear a mask. </p><p><br /></p><p>With *that* in mind, we can ask again: is that a valid restriction? No freedom nor democracy is sacrificed. There might be problems with election in Canada, but those pre-dated masks and they will post-date them, too. No other key rights are lost. The only thing that has gone on is that I have to take a small step (at very little cost, although I think the cost should be zero) and perhaps suffer a bit of inconvenience. Is that inconvenience worth it? If it saves someone's life ... sure it is. More than sure. In fact, consider the message we would be saying if we said "no." What we would be saying is that someone's life is not worth my inconvenience. This is not a threat to a fundamental right or my life or my security of person or my job. What I am saying I am unwilling to accept a minor inconvenience to help protect someone else's life. If I made that statement, what would it say about me? What message would I be sending to my kids? </p><p><br /></p><p>We often like the message as long as it pertains to us, but what if the situation were flipped? What if your life could be endangered because I did not like a minor inconvenience? Or, you partners? Or, your children's? If you establish the principle that someone's life is not worth a minor inconvenience, you have established the principle that *your* life is not worth a minor inconvenience. I think my life is worth more than that. </p><p><br /></p><p>Sometimes, I think about these issues in personal terms. With all this argument laid out, would I want to be friends with someone who persisted with an anti-mask perspective. I don't know about you, but I am not at all certain that that is a person I'd want to associate with. If I could not trust them to take simple care for someone else with a minor issue of inconvenience, how could I trust them with something important? </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-46221844342469456832022-01-16T10:42:00.000-04:002022-01-16T10:42:02.780-04:00Living with Covid: Part II (Costs and Benefits)<p>In my last post I tried to argue for a pro-active approach to "living with Covid." What I mean is something different than this discourse often means which, it seems to me, amounts to doing nothing in an effort to turn back the clock. What is the problem with this approach? Why not just turn back the clock and eliminate public health measures and restrictions? After all, Covid (we are told) is endemic and so we might as well "get on with our lives." </p><p><br /></p><p>To me, this is an irresponsible approach to living with Covid. It is an approach that abrogates our responsibilities to provide safety and security for citizens. The security of citizen, in liberal-democratic thought, is, in fact, a fundamental requirement of the state and states that cannot guarantee this security, in fact, abrogate their power and authority. </p><p><br /></p><p>That sounds vaguely ominous but if we stop to think about it, it makes a certain level of sense. It is an idea embedded in the western liberal tradition (a tradition with appreciable strengths and weaknesses) and, hence, is not new. It is not some sort of "woke" (another word I don't fully understand nor seem to know what it actually means other than lefty) plot or discourse. It is a foundational element of western liberal democracy. </p><p><br /></p><p>It is also irresponsible on an ethical level because it is, often, a way of unloading costs. Let's think about Covid as an economic problem. I don't mean the effects of state spending during Covid and government deficits. Costs are born in a number of ways. They are born through taxes, prices that we pay for masks, lost time from work, extra expenses at the grocery store, and they are born in health. Those who suffer from ill health (or, worse) from Covid are paying one of the prices of the disease. What I am asking who bear the costs of Covid? We know that Covid affects different populations unevenly. It tends to have more deleterious effects on older people, people with pre-existing conditions, poorer people, and minorities, more than it effects others. Anyone can be negatively effected by Covid, but the chances are much higher that if you are younger and in average shape, you'll get through Covid without dying. You may be laid up for a couple of weeks or you might have at worst cold-like symptoms. Others, however, are not so lucky. </p><p><br /></p><p>What happens when we accept (too quickly) that Covid is endemic and continues to circulate in society? We make a judgement about who will pay the health price for this endemic circulation. If I were to say that I don't want restrictions because I want to "return to normal," there is a good chance that I'll get through it. The chances for others are less, however, and what I am actually doing is asking someone else to pay the health price for my liberties. Because I don't want restrictions, I am willing to let other people become sick and, potentially, die, particularly those from vulnerable populations. Is that fair? That can be a tricky question to answer because we can have different definitions of fairness. A better way of putting it is this: should someone else pay the price for me? If all we meant by "returning to normal" is that I would have to pay my own price, then that might be acceptable. At the least, in my view, it would be a stronger position than asking someone else to pay the price. What do we think about a healthy twenty year old asking an ill sixty year old to pay with their health so that the twenty year old can go to a pub without restrictions? </p><p><br /></p><p>I have phrased the question this way because the supposed "right" to avoid health restrictions (to not mask, to not take vaccinations, to not isolate, etc.) is often phrased as an individual right: "I have the right to ...". Individual rights are important. But, we should also not forget that all rights are bounded. In western liberal thought, for example, no right is absolute. It exists to the extend that it does not harm another or limit the rights of others. Thus, for instance, I have a right to walk to down the street, but I don't have the right to push people out of my way and injure them so that I can walk. They have the exact same right as I do and so have the same right to be walking down the street. The price of my right is recognizing that others have the same rights. They cannot interfere with my rights, but I have to also not interfere with theirs. </p><p><br /></p><p>This is important for a range of reasons. Personally, I think it is a more mature and accurate perspective. When I see people asserting "I have a right to" without considering who pays the price of their rights (potentially with their lives), it has always struck me as an immature approach to rights. It reminds me of a kid screaming for a cookie or yelling at their parents to watch a TV show. Surely, our political philosophy and the organization of state and civil society, I think at such times, should rise to a higher level than that? </p><p><br /></p><p>But, even if you don't like my analogy (and that can be a matter of personal taste), asserting rights as if they were some sort of trump card is inaccurate because it neglects the fact that we live in a society and that society is required for the exercise of our rights. What do I mean? Let's go back to the security of the person argument. Most of us like security of the person and we should. I'd argue that it is necessary for a good life and that good societies (and we can talk about what a good society is another day), provide for it in one way or another. Have you thought of all the things that are needed for your security of person? We have fire departments, and urgent care facilities, ambulances, and laws, courts, police departments, coast guards, and health regulations. And, that is just the short list. Without the police, we are subject to predation and crime, without fire protection and urgent care we are at the whim of fate, without laws people could break contracts with us without recourse, and the list can go on.</p><p><br /></p><p>You can see what I mean: the full realization of our rights requires an apparatus of state to make it meaningful. I would argue that the meaningful part of right is that it can be operationalized, that it is guarded, protected, enhanced. Asserting rights without this recognition -- with the recognition that society plays a vital role in the protection and preservation of our rights -- is to make an inaccurate statement about the character and nature of rights. It is to misapprehend society and believe something that is not true. </p><p><br /></p><p>I want you to note something. I am not, here, asserting that "society" has rights, which is something I also often hear. I've not given it a lot of thought and so don't have a view on that particular perspective at this point in time. What I am saying is something different: society is necessary for the realization of our rights. It is how we know that fires are put out, criminals are apprehended, that the food we eat is safe. Far from being a drag on our rights, we need society to create the conditions for the full and meaningful exercise of those rights. I am not saying that society does this well, or perfectly, or that it could not be made better. As my friend Mark says, "don't hear what I am not saying." With regard to Covid, however, what I am saying is that assertions of rights that ignore the significance of society and social context begin from an inaccurate perspective. They begin from the assumption that society (almost) does not exist. </p><p><br /></p><p>This is important because "living with Covid" will involve collective social action and, if I am even close to being right, some sort of new restrictions. It is these restriction against which many people rage. I do understand that people want to "get back to normal" because "normal" for them signifies a whole bunch of nifty things (safety, lack of anxiety, being able to see friends on the spur of the moment). I would that it were true, but I also don't want a society that builds my normalcy on someone else's life. I want a society that works to enhance and make rights meaningful and that, I suspect, will require that we accept some level of restrictions (masking, directionality in grocery stores, restrictions on the numbers of people in buildings, etc.). Maintaining these restrictions is a way of ensuring that we accept the idea that one person should not have to pay the price of another's rights. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-88163227515658026982022-01-14T12:47:00.000-04:002022-01-14T12:47:17.523-04:00Living with Covid: What does it mean? <p>Over the last year or so I've heard a lot of people talk about "living with Covid." I will confess that I was not entirely certain what they meant because they themselves were often not clear. In the case of Republicans in the United States (or, at least the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party), living with Covid seemed to mean doing nothing in terms of public health while an unusually large number of people died who -- and this is the sad truth -- did not actually need to die. </p><p><br /></p><p>I've met a number of people in my neck of the woods who basically meant the same thing. When they talked about living with Covid, they tended to mean that public health measures should be as limited as possible and restrictions should be as limited as possible. For me, this is a particularly poor way of thinking about what it means to live with Covid. After all, if we flipped the question around and asked about what it might mean to, say, live with Polio or the Plague or Ebola on similar terms, most people would view that as a really bad public health policy. After all, we do have to live with Polio, the Plague, and Ebola, but no one counsels doing nothing about them. We have to live with crime, but does that mean that we will take no actions to limit or control or punish criminals? </p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, the extreme response on the other end -- lock us down -- is likely unproductive for a range of reasons. These include: no government is going to do it. It is not a viable long-term strategy for the kind of interconnected world in which we live (for example, it assumes a security of supply chains and I am not certain I would make that assumption). I have not seen the data on mental health and I am worry that these two words have become some sort of catch all discourse mobilized in any situation to justify just about any particular policy recommendations someone is making but it is an important consideration. Indeed, I'd argue that it is so important that we should be making specific provisions for it, rather than assuming that "going back to normal" will resolve mental health problems in and of itself. </p><p><br /></p><p>So, what does -- or, should -- "living with Covid" mean? I think it should mean several things. Most importantly: I think it should mean that we will need to redefine "normal" and to understand the stresses, strains, and opportunities that it provides. What might this look like? For purposes of discussion, I think it could involve a number of things. A non-exhaustive list might look something like this: </p><p><br /></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Maintaining stricter limits on the number of people who can be in a store or restaurant or gym, etc. </li><li>Maintaining contact information for patrons </li><li>Keeping sanitizer at entrance ways and requiring its use upon entry</li><li>Maintain directionality in grocery stores and potentially other venues like restaurants and pubs, where this is possible. Planning for directionality can be added to considerations in new construction (much in the saw that access requirements were in the past). </li><li>Vaccination education is a long story, I know, but it should be maintained and there may be a need to restrict access to some venues to the vaccinated. I personally believe that vaccination can also become a requirement for immigration and travel to Canada. I recognize that there are problems with this that will need to be addressed. For instance, not everyone has the same access to vaccines. In the shorter term this will need to be taken into account, but we can maintain the longer run objective as an aspirational ideal. </li><li>It might also be useful to restrict hours. In my town, for instance, hours for the liquor store and for shopping were more limited at the height of pandemic concerns last year. </li><li>I personally like senior hours for grocery shopping. One of the stores in my town, for instance, opened early a couple of mornings each week to provide space for seniors to shop (they should shop at other times, but two hours each week were reserved for seniors alone). </li><li>Masking in public areas may need to be maintained. </li><li>Public provision of N95 masks (or, whatever the kind of mask that is needed).</li><li>Public provision of rapid tests.</li><li>Ensuring a robust public health care system that can both respond to flare ups and conduct its regular work. </li><li>Providing a globally equitable access to vaccinations and public health measures. </li></ul><p></p><p><br /></p><p>I'll venture more slowly into a consideration of education because, the truth of the matter is that I don't know a great deal about public education and how it operates. I'm reticent to start suggesting things to teacher and parents who have a much higher level of first hand knowledge than I. However, I do think there are consideration for higher education that can help and I'll address those in a future post. </p><p><br /></p><p>My list above is not exhaustive and there is, of course, room for discussion but you can see what I am trying to suggest. The current discourse is to impose restrictions in response to public health problems when those problems reach a certain level. They are often imposed "with regret" and with the proviso that this will be for as short a time as possible. I find this approach reactive. What we need to do is to think about a pro-active response. We may not be able to eliminate Covid (I might debate that but let's assume it for now), but that doesn't mean that we can't take steps to provide for as high a level of safety and security as possible. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are a couple of questions that my proposals need to answer. I have mentioned in the past that the burden of proof rests on those making proposals. I often hear, for instance, people say "we have to do something." This could be true but what we need to figure out is whether the specific course of action is both useful and viable. The key questions that need to be addressed are:</p><p><br /></p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Will these kinds of permanent changes create more harm than good? Are they not undo restrictions that can be accepted in emergency situations but which, under other conditions, become an unwarranted and perhaps unconstitutional intrusion on individual rights (among other things)? </li><li>Will these changes actually do any good? </li></ol><p></p><p><br /></p><p>Let me take the second question first and leave off the first for another day. The short answer is that no one knows the future. We can't provide guarantees on just about anything, but we can make reasonable projections. For instance, ensuring that seniors have a dedicated grocery shopping time does not mean that seniors will not catch Covid (or, something else). But, it can lower the chances and it can proactively address mental health issues with regard to seniors, many of whom are deeply concerned about -- indeed terrified of -- Covid. It seems to me that the great merit of (to use just this one example) of special seniors shopping times is that they can address both the health concerns (providing better protection for a vulnerable population) and mental health concerns (alleviating some measure of fear with regard to being out in public). It is a proactive statement that shows "hey, we are thinking about this issue." And, it quite literally harms no one. The most I can figure is that there might be a small staffing cost increase for some groceries stores. Moreover, in larger centres, different stores could take turns so that whatever minor costs there might be can be spread around. </p><p><br /></p><p>This is just an example. I use it to show how living with Covid should not mean going back to 2019. But, instead, developing a proactive strategy that looks at how we can actually live with Covid. This involves changes to how we do things as as society but we need not resist those changes. They can help address mental health issues and can provide services that ensure a higher level of protection for vulnerable populations. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now, I recognize that that one was easy. Other provisions I have suggested will likely be greeted with a higher level of skepticism. There are costs to providing M95 masks and rapid tests. Some may have concerns about limiting capacity in spas and gyms and classrooms. In my next post I will try to address those or at least lay out a way of thinking about these issues. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-4167285034814922282021-08-23T14:51:00.004-03:002021-08-23T14:51:42.287-03:00Vaccinations and the State (Part II)<p>In a previous post I tried to show that two of the key arguments against requiring vaccinations miss the mark. The inflamed rhetoric of "freedom" verses vaccination is an abstract debate that has little applicability in the real world. In the real world, we constraint freedom of action all the time in order to enhance people's freedom. We don't allow people to beat up others to get what they want, we require parents to look after their children, and we have rules that prevent you from lying publicly about other people (defamation). What this means is that once we move the issue of vaccinations out of the realm of a first year debating club and consider how requirements actually function in our society, this becomes much less of a yes/no issue. </p><p>Not only that, while we compel people do all manner of things in our society (not drive until a certain age and passing a test, properly store fire arms, drive below a certain speed on the road), we do these things in the name of freedom. A quick example: I start a business because I know people cannot lie about my product. Imagine the reverse situation. I start a restaurant and people (say, my competitors) are allowed to say I poison my customers ... I'd likely not start my restaurant. The law against libel and defamation enhances my ability to make meaningful choices. Likewise, preventing people from beating others up to get their way expands freedom allowing us to do the things we want without fear that someone will come by and beat us up and, say, rob us. </p><p>I also tried to show that the slippery slope argument is problematic. It is not a trump card (we don't know what will happen next so ....), but an argument and that argument can, in that case, be subject to reasonable proofs. It is a question of evidence; not of speculation and necessarily needs to be. If speculation was our policy and legal standard, we would be in pretty bad shape. Why? Because speculation is, necessarily, speculative. It is a hypothetical situation that might or might not happen and different people's speculations can lead in different directions. What one person sees as a reasonable speculative probability; another does not. Because there is little way to determine which speculation is correct we cannot, without recourse to some kind of evidence, make it the basis for policy decisions. Thus, I see little evidence that a vaccine requirement (something we already have had for a range of vaccines and for certain professions) will cause an erosion of democracy. </p><p>Finally, there are other grounds on which we can and do compel behaviour. We compel behaviour because it is fair. The example I've used before is paying taxes. We have people pay taxes because they derive benefits from public policy. I periodically hear people say things like "I should not have to pay tax X if I don't want." This comment is often made, however, from a perspective of ignorance. For instance, some people might not want to pay the percentage of their taxes that go to fire protection because, they might say, they don't intend to use the fire department. This argument sounds reasonable except when you consider the fact that these people have already benefitted from having fire protection. Having fire protection makes everyone safer whether you use it or not. It stops fires from getting out of control, increases property values, etc. Same thing with public works (water, roads, bridges). Consider this example. Someone might say "I don't drive, why should I pay a gas tax?" Well, you don't. That is levied at the gas station but you do benefit from roads. Do you buy groceries or clothes or heating oil? Did someone hook up your wifi or did you need to use the hospital? Roads are essential for all of our well being, Hence, we have to pay for them because they don't build or maintain themselves. Hence, paying something for the benefit (even while not as much as the person who drives) through indirect costs is fair. If you did not pay, you would be in a situation where others were paying your share and you were benefitting. You were, in effect, off loading costs onto me. </p><p>Vaccinations can be like that. When you have a large population where most people are vaccinated, it is possible that non-vaccinated people can off-load the cost. Because a large enough people are vaccinated a population immunity of sorts is created and you (or, say, your child) can derive a benefit (not getting ill) without paying the cost (getting vaccinated) because others have paid it for you. Sometimes there is serious confusion about this. I have heard people say "well, my kid is not vaccinated against measles and they didn't get sick." There is a real faulty logic here that we won't get into but you can see what has actually happened. The anti-vax parent has, in effect, offloaded their child's safety onto parents who vaccinate their kids. </p><p>The real problem, of course, is that the anti-vax parent has mistaken safety caused by population immunity for safety in general. The irony is that it is the very efficacy of the vaccine that makes people safe and allows people to think that they don't need to vaccinate. And, yet, you can see what happens when we are unable to get to population immunity. The situation becomes more grave. It starts to strain resources (say, in the health care system), threatens the economy (there is a further irony here that we don't have time to address), and threatens people who have been vaccinated via breakthrough infections. The key thing about these points is that they are not speculative. They are empirically demonstrable. Thus, we can point to hospitals with increased numbers, for instance, in American states well into their next wave. <br /></p><p>From a rights perspective, the issue is this: where does your right begin and my right end? This is the old "fire in a crowded building" argument. The standard argument is that your right ends when it infringes on my right and vice versa. I don't have any easy answer to this but rephrased the question might be this: do you have a right to engage in behaviour that we know endangers my life? In terms of speeding on the highway of driving drunk or misusing a fire arm, the answer is no. </p><p>This is not a lock sync argument. It is, however, a way of saying that compelling vaccinations is an argument that is on a continuum. People who believe that they can easily assert their right against it as if calling something an individual right made it immune to any argument is inaccurate. </p><p>In my view, then, the state is within its bounds to require vaccination for certain jobs, particularly but not exclusively those that deal with high risk populations (say, those living in long-term care facilities or those with health problems). In my view, private institutions (say, universities) are also right in so doing -- although for slightly different reasons that I won't get into. Finally, requirements are also legitimate in those instances where there is a risk of passing on infections that can create dangerous situations for third parties (say, people who work in the public schools) or creating situations for widespread infection. </p><p>Does this mean that we say "my way of the highway" to those who oppose vaccination? I don't think so. I think that we can, depending on the circumstance, do our best to accommodate people. Such accommodations might range from transfers to other departments, working or studying from home, providing timelines, or perhaps other measures. Said differently, where possible, we should do what can reasonably be done to accommodate differing perspectives on vaccination. But this would not be a relationship of equals, as it were. The anti-vax position would be accommodated where it could be. I don't imagine, for instance, that students would be forced to learn from home because their teacher refuses a vaccination. I do imagine that it might be possible to transfer that teacher into a different job (say, curricular development) that does not involve interaction with unvaccinated minor populations. In short, I am not looking for a balance of a half-way point but something that can work for most people while underscoring the legitimacy of requiring vaccination. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-91239030532027940342021-08-20T09:14:00.002-03:002021-08-20T09:14:25.375-03:00Blue Jays Pitching <p>What is wrong with the Blue Jays bullpen? It is not that this is a recurring question this year but ... it seems like a perennial question. To be 100% fair, the year began on a bad note for the Jays' bullpen. Yates went down before the season. Merryweather almost right away, and Borucki and Mayza have been on and off the IL. And, Pearson, who was supposed to provide some depth somewhere, went down early too and seems to be stuck in some kind of funk. Let's be fair again. The Jays upper management rebuilt the bullpen. Trades were made for Cimber, Richards and Hand, and Saucedo, and Snead were called up. Finally, the bullpen has had to pitch in ... well ... not major league parks and move home field three times. I know the rest of the team has as well (and, the effects might be showing) but this has to be a particular problem for pitchers because it allows hitters to take advantage of smaller fields. In short, while the bullpen has taken a lot of heat for the Jays recent struggles and have taken heat over the entire season, the current context has created a situation where problems seem almost to have been bound to occur and where a serious effort was made to (1) create a good bullpen and (2) to rebuild it after it problems started to occur.</p><p>Earlier this year, Jays Manager Charlie Montoyo expressed some frustration (which is rare) with the bullpen when asked about the situation by reporters. I forget his exact reply but, in effect, he said "these are the pitchers I have. I don't have much else that I can do other than use them." This is true. He can only use the players on his team. I don't think there is an easy solution but I also think part of the problem is the way the Jays manage their bullpen and the frequency with which bullpen questions occur suggests that this is an institutional problem. If we go back to the days Gibby managed the team or even before it, what the Jays have tried to do institutionally is foolproof the bullpen. Using the current strategy -- common to most teams from what I can tell across the majors -- the goal is for the starting pitcher to get through the sixth inning, fifth if they look like they are starting to struggle ... or, even if they are not. The mantra is don't let the other team see your starter for the third time because by that point they have figured him out and batting averages will rise. Going along with this, relief pitchers are to be geared to "maximum effort." Ideally, they will pitch no more than one inning, throw as hard as they can so that fastball speeds ranging into the high 90s (Romano is +99) are now common. One inning, 14-15 pitches, and make way for the next guy. This is a strategy that the Royals used in their good years. The overall management of the staff might be complicated by using an "opener" (in the manner of the Rays) and then having a "bulk" pitcher (instead of a starter) come in for five innings or so, until giving way to the bullpen. </p><p>It is more-or-less this strategy that the Jays have tried to implement and it is this strategy that has almost consistently (with the exception of the back half of one season) failed under both Gibby and Montoyo. Like many strategies, I think it developed for a number of reasons but I also think we might ask questions about its universal applicability. More exactly, if it is not working for the Jays, might it be time to consider a different strategy? </p><p>This strategy has a number of implications: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>It forces teams to carry a larger number of pitchers than they used to</li><li>This means that most teams have short benches and I'd not be surprised if the Jays did not have one of the shortest benches going. </li><li>Because one is carrying fewer position players (so one can carry more pitchers) it means that there is an on-going search for the "super sub," a player who can play multiple positions. Under Gibby, for instance, the Jays tried to play infielders in the outfield (with predictable effects) and Montoyo has done this occasionally (with predictable effects) as well. IOW, it creates defensive weaknesses.</li><li>These defensive weaknesses are further augmented by the fact that the larger number of pitchers means that teams (like the Jays) can't really carry defensive subs. I could be wrong about this but I have a sense that in my youth, more teams used defensive subs to shore up their defence late in games. </li><li>Platooning has become less common for the same reason. Bobby Cox, back in the day, used to carry five outfielders; the Os carried six for a while. One year the Jays platooned in LF, RF, 1B, DH, 3B and at catcher. Now that kind of extensive platoon system is not possible. There just is not enough room on the active roster.</li><li>The regular (perhaps even "over") use of the bullpen also means that pitchers get tired. There is an on-going need, it seems, for "fresh arms" and so teams make just a bazillion roster moves over the span of a season. Pitchers, in particular, but also bench players, seem to always be going up and down to AAA to make room for a yet another pitcher. I haven't checked this but I'd guess that the Jays average considerably more than one roster move per week. This creates a lot of instability on a team. If your regulars know that they are there come what may (and, not going to come out because there is less platooning and fewer defensive subs), the reserves and the bullpen seem remarkably unstable over the span of season. I can't say for sure, but I wonder what this does to players' sense of belonging? </li><li>It also takes the thinking out of the game for managers. In effect, in-game decision making shifts upward to upper level management and analysts. Managers implement a strategy that has been determined for them. I am sure there have always been tensions between managers and general managers and presidents, but I am a bit surprised by how few there seem to be. GMs seem to look for managers who can implement a plan, rather than, say, Filipe Alou or Earl Weaver who can develop one. The best managers today (Dusty Baker, Dave Roberts, Dave Cash) still seem to be in charge. It is not at all clear to me that Montoyo is in charge with the Jays. The game seems to become like a flowchart. If starter reachers 90 pitcher or 2+ times through and we are ahead, pitcher X is brought in in the 6th, X1 in the seventh, X2 in the eights, etc. If we are behind, pitcher Y, etc.</li><li>It also makes the game predictable. If this system works as it should and you are the opposing manager, you basically know your opponent's game plan with regard to a number of things before the game begins. </li></ul><div>I know that there always were game plans and that is a good thing. What it means for a staff, however, is that you need, almost every game at least four pitchers (a starter and 3 relievers). Often more. I think the Jays used 6 pitchers the other night in their loss to the Nats. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is the point at which this strategy becomes counter productive. Because one is using so many pitchers, the chances that one of them will be have a bad night seem to magnify. Bill James made this point years ago back in the <i>Baseball Abstract </i>days (I think, don't quote me). It seems to me that this is common sense. Roy Halladay, a starter but I person who I think we could conclude knew what he was talking about, once said that he felt he had his best stuff only about 10% of the time. The other times, he needed to feel his way, be crafty, work through problems. His goal -- an intelligent one -- was to minimize the number of opposing batters on base to minimize the number of runs if he made a big mistake (a home run). Now if this is true for a guy as good as Halladay, how much is it true for other pitchers? To restate the problem: the more pitchers one uses in a game the greater the chance we will find one who just doesn't have it that night. </div><div><br /></div><div>One of the interesting things about this strategy is that it worked for some teams, but there is an important distinction. The managers who developed this -- and, other, strategies, like the "opener" -- were responding the talent they had. Yost used the one pitcher per inning for the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings because he had the talent to do that and he was making the optimal use of his talent. Joe Maddon, in Chicago, used a different strategy, bringing in his best relief pitcher early in games (particularly in the playoffs) to ensure that his team kept the lead (rather than saving the best relief pitcher until the end of the game to get the save). Tito Francona did the same thing in Cleveland. IOW, the pitcher pilling up the saves -- the usual marker of a relief pitcher's value, or one of them -- was not the best pitcher on the staff. Cash used an opener because that was the talent he had available to him. He has moved away from it -- to no discernible negative effect -- because he has different talent and he responds to that. Said differently, in attempting to foolproof the bullpen, the Jays (and other teams) have misused a strategy. They have taken a strategy designed to respond to a particular coalescence of talent and tried to use it compensate for a lack of talent. It is like trying to use a rock as a hammer. It might work to pound in a nail but without the claw on the back end, it won't easily pull out a poorly driven in nail. Said differently, I am not surprised that the Jays efforts to make use of the strategy have not worked. I am a bit surprised that they have stuck to it as along as they have.</div><div><br /></div><div>What should they do? Well, first they should acknowledge the bad luck they have had and accept that a significant part of the problem lies in bad luck injuries. I also think they should congratulate themselves on trying to rebuild their bullpen. The third thing is that they need to re-evaluate their management of the pitching staff. That might not be possible this year. We might be too far down the path of this season to make any change possible but we are also approaching the point of now return. I don't see how the Jays can mathematically catch Tampa for division title so they need to look at a wildcard playoff spot. That means they need to make up 4.5 games between now and the end of the season. That is possible. It is one good streak combined with the As having a bad string of games. It is a problem that they have to climb over Boston and Seattle, too, but there are enough games left for the Jays to make up the difference and they've got at least six games in the next short while against the Tigers. But there is little room for error and so if they pile up another loss on two (or, the As go on a winning streak), there might be no reason *not* to try to innovate, if we are not making up ground with the existing strategy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Here are some potential innovations or at least things to think about: </div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Is there any way for starters to go longer in games? By having starters go a bit longer, the number of innings that the bullpen needs to carry lessens. The pitch count is useful but it also can't be a tyranny and there is no reason that a major league pitchers should be removed (unless they are in bombing) if their pitch count is lower than 90. </li><li>Can we consider a long reliever? Tampa has messed around with this this year using a veteran former starter. Back in the day, all teams had a long relief pitcher (usually either a veteran who was no longer up to starting or a kid looking to get into the majors). In the days of four pitcher rotations, the long-relief pitcher doubled as a spot starter (particularly for double headers). Having a pitcher who can come in an eat up three or four innings saves a lot of wear on the bullpen. </li><li>Can relievers -- particularly closers -- pitch more than one inning. Romano has done that ... what ... once this year? I forget the results. Imagine, however, this scenario. It is the eighth inning; two on, we're up by one. The game in on the line. Who do we want in pitching? Do we want our best pitcher or do we want to save that player until the ninth so they can start with a clean slate? Even if the closer does not actually close the game, I think we need to get our best chance of winning in the game. </li><li>Could we regenerate the middle relief pitcher. If 2 times through the lineup is some sort of limit (and, I will confess, I am not sure it should be. I'd like to see some comparative data on it), why should we pull a reliever after one inning? In this case, the interpretation of the data seems contradictory. If you start a game or are the "bulk" pitcher that comes in, in the 2nd, you can see the other team twice. If you come in, say, in the 6th, you can see 3-6 batters. Why should the inning in which one enters the game, have such an effect? </li></ul><div>I think the combined extension of starters (and the Jays starters have not been bad) and the use of long and middle relief would allow them to lower the number of relievers they need to carry. This could, then, also serve as a way to expand the bench. I don't think we will get to this point and strategy has changed enough that it might be impossible, but in the strike shortened year, Alou used what was, in effect, a 5 pitcher bullpen. That creates a lot of extra space on the bench. The kind of strategy also bring in your best pitchers in key situations, rather than having. then sit on the bench, or defines specific roles for pitchers and allows them to develop into them. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>The pennant race might prevent such a strategy this year and I am not saying everyone word that comes out of my keyboard is gold. But, if we get to a point where we have to press the panic button, why not try something different? What we are doing is not working. </div><p></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-39907598751792269462021-08-13T15:55:00.000-03:002021-08-13T15:55:00.087-03:00Vaccination and the State (Part I)<p>Can the state compel vaccinations? There is more than one answer to this question, but I will confess that my own thinking is not 100% settled. The first and most obvious answer is "of course it can." Pass a law, institute penalties and vaccination passports, and presto. But, this is not really the question people ask when they ask this question. The question is not about the ability the state to force people to be vaccinated, but the ethics of so doing. Is the state "right" in compelling vaccination or is this an example of "overreach?" Do people have a right to determine what goes in their body and, if so, might not any law -- say, one requiring vaccinations for long-term care workers, teachers, those who seek to attend hockey games -- be subject to a judicial (Charter) challenge, whereby the complainants will look to the courts to throw out laws that mandate vaccination. This is a more complicated question. It is made more complicated by the fact that anti-vaxxers have adopted a feminist "my body, my choice" language. (There is something odd about this language but I'll address that in a separate post.) </p><p>One serious problem in answering this question lies in the fact that public discourse on this subject has reduced the argument to slogans (potentially, as I'll suggest in the future, misappropriated). In part, this is a political and rhetorical strategy. By creating a simplified discourse, the opponents of vaccination seek to make their case that requiring vaccinations is wrong. The discourse is polarized and, I think, intentionally so to admit only a limited consideration of the issue. It is often framed as "the government can't tell us what to do with our bodies" or reframed as a question "do you think the government should be able to tell you what to do with your body?" Framed in this way, the obvious answer is "no." It seems to provide a license to allow the state to do all kind of things -- to compel people to do all matters of things against their will -- and so seems to be a clear and present threat to democracy. </p><p>Without giving my view yet (because I want to work through an argument), my sense is that this discussion needs to be moved out of the realm of rhetoric and into a real world situation for it to be meaningful. I've tried to make this point about other matters before and I do recognize that politics is politics, but I still think it bears asking what might a real world perspective on this issue tell us? </p><p>First, I am not certain that the issue is one of individual freedom verse tyranny. As a society, we compel our members to do many things. We are compelled to respect speed limits, pay taxes, feed, care and educate our children, among a host of other things. We are compelled not to walk across the street and strike our neighbour because we don't like the new tree they have planted. In other words, there are many things we are compelled to do. We are compelled to do things because they maintain the safety of others (speed limits), we are compelled to do things because we have a duty of care (look after children or report crimes), we are compelled do things because we derive benefit from them (pay taxes) and it would be unfair for us to derive benefit from something and stick others with the bill. We can be compelled to things because of emergency situations (war or pandemics) or because natural disasters create unusual pressing circumstances in which action needs to be taken. We are compelled to do things to promote the smooth operation of public facilities (I can't go on the ice until my team is playing. I can't just jump on in the middle of someone else's game.) </p><p>The key to these situations is not that we are not compelled to do them. Nor are people "sheep" for blindly following government. Instead, most of us follow these rules because we agree with them. I don't disrupt others' hockey games because I want to play mine. There is, for me, a benefit to the smooth functioning of a recreation facility and if that requires me to wait until my game starts, that is what it requires. If I naturalize the idea that anyone can jump on the ice any time they want, we no longer have a hockey game, do we? Likewise, while there is a lot of grumbling over taxes, most Canadians accept taxes and don't have problems paying them. The recognize the benefits they gain from public expenditures (better roads, health facilities, schools, lower crime, etc.), and recognize that if we want these benefits, we have to pay for them. Road crews, police officers, fire fighters, etc., don't work for free. And, I am not allowed to walk across the street and strike my neighbour to prevent them from walking across the street and striking me. </p><p>None of this is perfect. People speed when they shouldn't. People neglect children when they shouldn't. People get into fights. But, what do we say when this happens? Why didn't someone stop this? How did the police (or school officials or coaches) not notice? In other words, in instances where required behaviour breaks down our answer is not to eliminate the requirement because we agreed with it in the first place. It is to ask why it was not enforced. </p><p>In the real world, then, we have rules that we follow as part of our citizenship. It is a requirement of citizenship and is broadly accepted because these rules make sense (in a democratic society, there is the added consideration that rules are accepted because they can be changed, but that can also be the subject for another post). In fact, they make so much sense that most of us don't bother to talk about them. I don't know about them because I have better things do with my time then spend it going through a list of things with which I agree. Instead, I tend to focus on my work, my family, things I like to do. </p><p>This is important because it leads to this point: the difference between requiring vaccination and freedom is not the stark matter to which anti-vaxxers point. It is not white/black, you were free and then the government forced you to kind of thing. The distinction, if there is one, is a far, far more a matter of degree than kind. </p><p>Might this be a slippery slope? If we let the government require vaccinations, someone might ask, what next? I think this can be a fair argument but it is often misplaced. Let me flip the question around and ask anti-vaxxers this question: "OK, fair enough, what do you think is next?" Because we have vaccinations, will the free press suddenly disappear? Will we be compelled to leave our jobs or barred from living in certain parts of the town? I might be exaggerating, but you can tell from the last point that I am asking historically based questions. Rather than hinting darkly that a vaccination may lead to "slavery" or "totalitarianism" or the "loss of our freedom," can the opponents of vaccination name specific things we will lose? </p><p>This is not a rhetorical question and I am not trying to shift the burden of argument. It might be an important consideration. It might allow us to identify problems in advance -- perhaps even ironic or unforeseen problems that could follow from requiring vaccinations. But, I also think that we need to have this discussion to determine whether or not the concerns of anti-vaxxers are valid. After all, if one is going to argue for specific policy actions (not requiring vaccinations) that have implications for people's health, I think the least we can do is spell out the full implications of that argument. I am not the person to do this but my sense of the matter is that before we take actions that are potentially harmful to others, we likely should have compelling reasons. The demise of democracy can be one of those reasons. I won't go into all the details but I would accept that but before I do, I would like to know that democracy is really imperilled. </p><p>Let's pause because I have not yet answered my question and I am on the verge of going on too long. Instead of answering the question "is it right to require vaccinations?" I've tried to shift the balance of the argument in a different direction. I've tried to contextualize the argument about requiring people to do things to a real world setting. Set in this context, the requirement is less a stark difference from public policy than a difference of degree. This difference of degree might be amenable to a slippery slope argument but we'd need to see the evidence of that. Rather than asserting that a vaccination constitutes a loss of freedom, what precisely is being lost and how does it affect your life? For instance, what can you *not* do after being vaccinated that you could do before. Do you lose your right to vote, the ability to publish a blog, due process of law? These are exaggerated examples but if we are going to talk about the loss of freedom ... then they might be appropriate. I've also tried to suggest requirements are part of living in a civil and democratic society. People follow rules, in other words, because those rules make sense to them. There are further issues to address and I will pick them up in my next post. </p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-66013114661917758802021-05-11T09:04:00.001-03:002021-05-11T09:04:53.795-03:00The Case Against Masks: Or, Legal Challenges Against Covid Restrictions<p>A number of different groups are launching Charter challenges to Covid-19 restrictions. The challenges are a sign of the politics of our times. According to <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/police-oath-pandemic-legal-challenge-1.6012099">CBC</a>, a group of current and retired police officers in Ontario are suing for the elimination of mask requirements, curfews, and restrictions on public gatherings on the following grounds (qtd: CBC): </p><p></p><blockquote><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Canada's pandemic laws "are not rational" and have "no force or effect." </li><li>Lockdowns, stay-at-home orders and curfews are "forms of martial law." </li><li>Wearing masks, social distancing and lockdowns are "ineffective" and "not scientifically or medically based" because they're based on coronavirus cases the legal documents claim "are 96.5 per cent false."</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><p>In another instance, seven churches in Manitoba are arguing that public health restrictions circumvent their freedom of conscience and assembly. Again, according to <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-churches-charter-challenge-covid-1.6009289">CBC</a>: </p><p></p><blockquote>Seven rural Manitoba churches hope to convince a judge that the province's lockdown measures are unjustified violations of Charter-protected freedoms of conscience, religion, expression and peaceful assembly — and that the chief medical officer of health failed to consider the "collateral social and health costs" of locking down society. </blockquote><p>Do these suits have any merit? No and the courts will not find for them. Why? Because these cases are being launched on grounds that fundamentally misunderstand the application of the law and the nature of judicial review in Canada. Let's look at several key points. </p><p>First, in each case the challenges seek to make their case on the basis of philosophy. For instance, they argue that we should take social and health costs into effect when enacting public policy and, because of this, eliminate public health measures. The problem with this contention is that it is actually a bad argument because the second point (the elimination of public health measures) does not follow from the first point (which, loosely paraphrased, is that people's mental health is important). In fact, it may contract it. Said differently, there is a disjuncture between the contention and the legal remedy it seeks to address it. </p><p>How so? Well ... it is rightly difficult to argue that mental health and the social considerations in which it is based should not be considered in public policy. I think they should be. It is one of the reasons I support public education, increased funding for higher education, and a single-user pay health care system. The problem this argument runs into is that it ignores the social and medical context in which public health measures were enacted. While you may not think this is the case, context is vitally important to the operation of the law. For example, if I aim a gun at someone and shoot them, I have committed murder. If a gun accidentally goes off, I may have committed some other crime but I have not committed murder. If I walk across your lawn for the fun of it, I trespass. If I walk across your law to save a life, I have engaged in a necessary action. Said differently, to argue about mental health and social costs without consideration of the context in which laws have been enacted, the intent of those laws, and their efficacy, is to make an argument in opposition of the operation of Canadian law. It is to appeal to the courts to rule against a foundational element -- the context in which an action takes place is important -- of the law and I find it difficult to believe that they will do that.</p><p>Second, this is important because the issue is not that there have been been social costs to the pandemic. To the best of my knowledge, no one debates that there have been costs. The problem for these challenges is this: that is not the issue. The issue is that the government of Manitoba was not dealing with a point of abstract principle. In fact, I'd bet if you were to ask the government of Manitoba if it preferred a different course of action, you'd get a resounding "yes" in response. I'd guess they would say that they have taken public health actions reluctantly and only after considering their full implications as a matter intended to protect the lives of Manitobans. Pandemics, by definition, have social, mental, and physical health costs. These costs are independent of government policies and the problem with the challenge is that mis-ascribes the root of the mental and social costs it seeks to address. In other words, it suggests that policies protecting the health of Manitobans are at fault and not Covid-19. The government of Manitoba made the decisions to accomplish specific aims: it was dealing with people's lives and making a sincere effort to protect those lives. They determined, as did btw every other responsible government in the world, that some measure of temporary restrictions were necessary to do the best to protect lives, particularly of those who were most vulnerable. The legal issue is not "do restrictions create issues for people's mental wellbeing?" The issue is: "was this course of action justified in the circumstances as a temporary measure designed to protect lives?" I may, personally, continue to not like those restrictions but that does not make the unconstitutional. </p><p>I want to draw specific attention to the temporary character of public health restrictions. In most provinces, restrictions are implemented for a fixed period of time and must be renewed. If they are not renewed, the cease to have force and effect. I initially found this continual renewing of restrictions annoying (yes, we know the border is closed and we know it is going to be closed for a certain length of time ... why do you keep renewing this agreement?) until I realized that this was the point: this measures are not permanent restrictions that will have permanent force and effect. They are temporary measures designed to deal with an emergency situation in which that, by definition, requires unusual actions. And, as a result, they need to be continually re-assessed in order to ensure that they are temporary. </p><p>If we think of public health measures in this way, the argument being made by the Manitoba churches seems rather odd on a philosophical level as well. What we are talking about is not a defence of freedom of conscience (religion) but an argument that says my religion is so important to me that I am unwilling to accept temporary limitations that could save others lives. I don't believe this is the statement these churches intend to make. Indeed, I think they believe that their actions will have no social or health effect (which is also odd for an argument that is premised on recognizing the importance of social issues). What I am saying is that when the courts assess this issue, this is a consideration that will weigh on their assessment: to what extent can the government take limited and temporary actions that are designed to prevent potentially broad case deaths in society? Is it ethical, I think the courts will ask themselves, for us to open the door to actions that endanger lives and in a way that will necessarily fall unevenly across the population. The most vulnerable members of society will, as we have seen, pay the highest price for a lack of public health measures. Removing public health measures, in this way, creates an uneven danger to others. I find this difficult to believe the courts will accept. </p><p>The final important matter to consider is the empirical basis upon which these challenges rest. The fact that every respectable medical professional and scholarly assessment of the pandemic supports public health measures is important. The courts decide matters on the basis of law and particularly as it pertains to the constitution, there is an element of philosophy embedded in the decision making process. The constitution, after all, is not simply a division of powers or a set of higher laws but a statement of ideals and aspirations. This said, courts also connect decisions to evidence. Evidence is, in fact, particularly important to the operation of the law in Canada. Said differently, I cannot simply make an argument to the court and say "in my view this is the right argument. It accords with my ethics, so you should find it legal, or illegal, as the case may be." Arguments must be based on evidence (and, in some cases, reasonable probability, which is way of projecting evidence into the future). </p><p>This may be why the Ontario police officers and retired officers use an elevated rhetoric to try to make their point, alleging that public health measures are ineffective and amount to martial law. Both contentions, however, are not matters of opinion but empirical points subject to analysis and research. If you believe public health measures are ineffective, I actually think that there is little that I can say to change your mind. But, the issue is not your mind, nor for that matter mine. The issue is what can be empirically demonstrated in a court of law where personal opinions are not what is taken into account. Here, the issue will not be one of finding a single "authority" who disputes public measures, but finding a qualified individual who can interpret a mountain of evidence that all points one way. As anyone who watches TV can tell you, most medical officials believe that public health measures in Canada did not go far enough or fast enough. To the best of my knowledge, there is no credible recognized authority or scholarly study that contends anything different. </p><p>I might make a similar point about freedom of conscience. To what degree have religious freedoms been limited by public health measures? My church went "online" early on and my church's local governing body has urged us to not simply follow restrictions but to be one step behind the government. They believe that this fulfills the Christian requirement to love your neighbour and that this is more important than an individual's ability to go to a building. In fact, if you think the building you go to is your church ... you and I have very different understandings of the word "church." We found that our "attendance" increased with the move to online services. Far from limiting our ability to communicate, the response to the pandemic naturalized the use of technologies that we were otherwise slow in adopting and drew in a different audience. My point is not that this is for everyone, my point is that if you look at freedom of conscience as an empirical question, it is difficult to content that public health restrictions limited it. </p><p>Likewise, if you believe that being asked to wear a mask is the same as martial law ... I'd recommend you ask someone who has lived in a country that has been under martial law. Habeas corpus, I will note, has not been suspended, military courts have not been created, and legislative assemblies have not been suspended. As I write this, in fact, I have just returned from voting in a municipal election. The hallmarks of martial law are simply not evident. In place of them, what we have is a confusion. Some people seem to feel temporary health measures which they dislike are the same as the subversion of democracy. And, they just aren't. </p><p>A final note: my point is not that all has gone well in the Canadian response to Covid-19. It hasn't and this is well documented as well. A court challenge, however, is not about things that have not gone well. It is not about trial and error in public policy in response to a rapidly changing situation. Instead, it is about whether or not specific laws are unconstitutional and unconstitutionality is something other than disliking a law. What these challenges do is try to make that equation. Whether intentional or not they are built on confusion, a failure to understand basic features of the law, and empirical errors. For a constitutional challenge, this is not a good mix. </p><p><br /></p><p></p><p></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-46186176795862342512021-02-24T13:37:00.002-04:002021-02-24T13:37:16.276-04:00Bromance? Canada-US Relations in the Post-Trump Age<p>I suspect Don Martin is right: Canada-US relations will be plagued with problems for years go come. Canadians should have no illusions about Biden and his commitment to addressing American domestic concerns. I also suspect he is right a second time. Better Biden than Trump. You can find his argument <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-the-canada-u-s-partnership-roadmap-ignores-many-potholes-ahead-1.5321672" target="_blank">here</a>. There is a great deal about which to be skeptical following the first Biden/Trudeau summit but also a great deal about which to be happy. While there are voices (see previous posts) that have tried to cast Biden as somehow anti-Canadian because of his opposition to Keystone XL, we need to recognize that those voices are intensely politicized and don't really reflect a solid and serious basis upon which Canadian/American relations can go forward. I think this first meeting was a good start and, if I were Trudeau, I'd be reticent to start arguing about Keystone XL not because I was abandoning Alberta, but for a host of other reasons that I've already tried to explain. </p><p>What are the positive signs? What are the potential bumps in the road and how are they to be addressed? And, what are the implications of this meeting for Alberta? </p><p>The may be a long list of positive signs but some of the key ones I noticed from news coverage are as follows: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Canada and the US seem to have agreed upon a loose framework to work together on a range of matters.</li><li>The US government is clearly signalling the importance with which it views Can/Am relations and its desire to be a good "friend" of Canada.</li><li>There are issues on which Canada and the US need to work together, if for no other reasons than our shared geography.</li><li>The US is flagging places where it believes Canada can be helpful. For instance, the Biden administration's desire to return to some sort of positive international role for the US guided, at least in part, by a re-engagement with multilateral institutions. Here, the Biden administration is looking for Canada's support to help it re-establish itself on the international stage. </li><li>Twitter diplomacy seems to be at an end. Twitter diplomacy is not just about social media. It is actually a calculated political strategy that works on a number of fronts. In some measure, it worked through threat and uncertainty and looked to inculcate a measure of anxiety over potential consequences in order to push its agenda forward. In my view, Twitter diplomacy took the Canadian state aback because it was unexpected. </li><li>Keystone XL to one side, reading between the lines, the current Biden administration is not going to "give away the farm" but it appears willing to make compromises and it sees compromises as a natural part of a positive international relationship. </li></ul><div><br /></div><div>What are the bumps in the road? From what I can see, there are a number but I also think we (as Canadians) need to have a good perspective on them. I'll highlight a few key issues and then qualify them. </div><div><br /></div><div>First, this summit will not solve all problems. The loose framework upon which the leaders agreed is simply that: a framework. This needs to be remembered. Canada and the US are in the process of re-establishing a higher level of civility to their relations at the executive level. <i>This in itself is a positive accomplishment</i> but it does not mean that problems, conflicts, disagreements, and policy differences go away. In fact, it would be naive to believe that that could be the case. (Mark my words, someone -- an opposition politician, a journalist, a public commentator, etc. -- will in the near future note some sort of problem with Can/Am relations and declare that this means that the framework is a failure <i>as if</i> international relations were that simple.) Canada and the US have always have disagreements and always will. That is the character and nature of being different countries with different identities and different (albeit often shared) problems and different populations and histories. The issue is not that there are problems. The issue is how they are addressed. Recognizing that a single summit will not solve all problems -- including ones that we don't know about because they have not yet occurred -- will be, on the part of Canadians, their own good first step. </div><div><br /></div><div>What do we do about the problems, then? Here, Canadians might take a page from history or at least be familiar with some of the key works on the history of Canadian/American relations. I'd recommend the late Greg Donaghy's fascinating book <i>Tolerant Allies: Canada and the United States, 1963-1968</i>. History is not an inherent guide to the future, but <i>Tolerant Allies</i> reminds us that this is not the first tumultuous period through which Canadian/American relations have passed. The period of Donaghy's study involves a particularly potentially disruptive time as both Canada and the US were moving through a significant number of deeply divisive internal conflicts. Moreover, the countries were moving in different directions. There were conflicts over matters of trade (particularly in durable consumer goods), investment and "financial relations," military matters, and foreign policy, among other things. Finding ways through these differences required on-going and intense diplomacy. Said differently, the issue is not does this one summit solve problems. The issue is this: does it establish the basis for a more regularized civil diplomacy that can address problems in the future? Donaghy's work shows how effective that regularized diplomacy can be in addressing issues and establishing a new and better framework for relations. </div><div><br /></div><div>Second, the problems in front of us are significant. I'll address Keystone and energy policy separately, but we should have no illusions that Canada and the US (along with other countries) have a series of serious issues that need to be addressed. These include Covid-19 economic recovery, re-opening the international border in as safe a way as possible, and addressing climate change and its implications. In my view, the scope and character of these problems likely will need to be addressed on an international level. What is more, there are serious and important humanitarian and equality considerations that need to be born in mind. The US, Canada, and other western nations need to consider exactly how they can effectively work with poorer countries to promote Covid safety, economic recovery and mitigate climate change in ways that don't offload this problem onto those people least able to afford it. Said differently, the price of Covid safety in Canada cannot be health uncertainty in poorer countries, a matter that is already the subject of controversy in Canada. Put in other words, the key problems that emerge out of our current context are difficult to address not necessarily because Canada and the US will disagree on them but because of their size, scope, and international ethical and democratic implications. My own view is that Canada and the US have a better chance of effectively addressing these problems working together than they did under the previous administration because any solution must necessarily involve the US. This is not to exonerate Canada or say Canada is not important. It is simply to recognize that inequalities (in power, capacity, economics, etc.) between Canada and the US. </div><div><br /></div><div>It might even be possible to add in some other nagging issues. Could Canada and the US use optimism generated by this first summit (the "bromance" as Martin called it) to address other issues. I'd put Arctic drilling and the Northwest Passage on my list of problems that could be effectively addressed through good will and good, creative diplomacy. Human trafficking is another. </div><div><br /></div><div>The third potential problem is that the regeneration of Canadian/American relations will take place in a particular and politicized context. What is that context? It involves a number of considerations: Canada's minority government, Canada's deep federal/provincial divisions, Biden's tenuous support in the American Senate and fragile support in the House of Representatives, and deep political divisions in the US. Each of these issues can be subject for discussion but I'll conclude by consider the ways in which Canada/US relations effect regionalism in Canada as a potential issue and more specifically, the importance of Keystone XL to the current government of Alberta. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is easy to say that the Prime Minister has to address "the national good" in the conduct of international relations. Indeed, there is a whole school of thought that argues precisely that. In this regard, one could, then, say, "look, we know that there can be negative implications for Alberta in the refashioning of Canada/US relations but that is the way it is because it is the fed's job to look after the national interest and not specific regional interests. The US is not interested in Keystone XL so we are not going to bring it up." </div><div><br /></div><div>I think this approach would be wrong but I also don't think that making Keystone XL the test of Canada/US relations serves any good either. I'd urge Canada to avoid public diplomacy and I'd urge Canada and Canadians to respect decisions made by the US government. For a range of reasons, Keystone XL is not a hill on which Canada should want Canadian/American relations to die. I am sure, behind the scenes, significant diplomacy is going on. I am sure the government of Canada is trying to find out what could be done not to resuscitate the Keystone (because that is likely not possible) but what are the alternatives to it. After all Keystone is only one way in which energy could be moved from Canada to the US. </div><div><br /></div><div>But, I don't think the Canadian government should leave the matter there. I think removing Keystone as a problem in Canadian/American relations is complex but one way to do it might be to develop economic alternatives for Alberta. To be sure, I believe Alberta will benefit from addressing Canadian/American common agenda issues (say, border transit and Covid). And, I am not convinced Albertans (any more than other Canadians) are opposed to addressing the problems of climate change. What I think is that we have a particularly committed provincial government that has (for one reason or another) linked its own fate and sense of the province to the oil industry. What we need to do is provide alternatives to that sense of identity and link. We need a go-forward strategy that must begin from the assumption that a resumption of Keystone is unlikely but that should not be reason to do nothing. I am not sold on the idea that the current Premier of Alberta would accept this. In fact, I expect the exact opposite and I expect that to come out in opposition to Biden and demands that the federal government alter its approach to Canada/US relations. I'm also not sold, however, on the idea that this is what the people of Alberta want. I think provided with alternatives, they would take them and that, in itself, would be good for Canada/American relations. </div><p></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-32987064413665552352021-02-11T11:18:00.000-04:002021-02-11T11:18:03.302-04:00Is American Conservatism Possible, or can there be a post Trump Republican Party<p>I suspect not. American conservatism has long been problematic. Trumpism represents its most extreme form and it is a form that millions of American find alluring, if for no other reason that in its utter simplicity. Perhaps in recognition of this, a range of former (and some current) Republicans from previous administrations (and some from Trump's own government) are meeting to see if a new party is a viable alternative. I suspect it isn't, but you can find some information on this <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7633929/republicans-new-party-trump/" target="_blank">here</a>. There are several points to consider.</p><p>First, we should not have any nostalgia for the old pre-Trump Republican party. That party was more than willing to make veiled allusions and play off the racist fears of white suburbanites and cosy up to homophobic Evangelical Christians in order to win elections. The coalition that Buchanan and Nixon began to forge in the 1960s (the "southern strategy") constitutes a significant part of the Republican Party today and they show no signs of going anywhere. Biden's tactics, as <a href="https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii126/articles/mike-davis-trench-warfare?" rel="nofollow">Mike Davis has noted</a>, were predicated on imperfectly winning back sections of the Democratic vote that had abandoned Clinton. The Democrats did take steps to broaden their own coalition and draw in new voters, but it did little to shake the Republican base of support, which one could argue is stronger than ever before. </p><p>In this regard, the nostalgia that we hear about American conservatism (particularly on MSNBC) really is looking at the past through rose coloured glasses. Before anyone embraces the idea that there is a real, genuine American conservatism to which the Republicans can return they should pause and think about the corruption of the Nixon administration, the race-baiting assaults on "welfare moms" and women's rights of the Reagan years, the foreign policy adventurism of Bush, Jr., that shrugged off multilaterialist alternatives and engineered wars that led of the rise of ISIS. One should recall that tax cuts to large corporations have long been part of the Republican play book as has opposition to Roe V Wade and rejection of policies designed to promote equity, and opposition to equality for the LGBTQ community. This is not to explain where Trumpism came from but it is to ask a question: if you reject Trump and you can't go back to a conservative innocent age, what will American conservatism look like and who will actually support it? </p><p>This is a problem for conservatism which, by definition, looks to the past. There can be good reasons for that and I'll try to spell some of those out in another post. But, the problem is that that past -- as it is constituted as part of a Republican political history -- carries with it a heavy burden in the sense that it leads to Trumpism. At the least it is marred by its willingness to encourage intolerance and play on racist fears as part of its political strategies. </p><p>Second, even if a new conservatism were possible, it would be seriously held back by their inability to get their message to voters. One of the things that has changed in the US with regard to politics is the politicization of the media. This is not new but it is odd. The new media environment in which we live was supposed to encourage debate and discussion through diversity. It has not done that. Instead, what has happened is that a modest number of platforms dominant public discussion. Some are better than others, to be sure. No one watches FOX News thinking that they will get an unbiased perspective. The problem for a new conservatism is that it is (1) shut out of this media market, (2) that the platforms and networks that would give them air time (say MSNBC) are not connected to their potential voters, and (3) they will be subjected to on-going regular attacks from both media outlets like FOX and from evangelical churches. </p><p>Third, a new conservative party will need to find a way to finance itself and while it might, initially, attract some media attention with some big donors, it would need to build a party infrastructure from scratch and that is both expensive and not easy to do. One of the advantages Trumpism has is that it can count on a dedicated body of workers who will volunteer their time. The people who encourage their neighbours to vote Republican, go door to door, donate to local campaigns, etc., will be lacking for this new party. What the new party has, right now, is a series of top level activists. This attracts news coverage (seasoned important Republicans leaving party!), but that has been going on since Trump took over the Republican Party. It makes news but it does not make a new political party. Canada is an example: Reform and the BQ initially succeeded not because they had high profile figures (although the BQ did, and Reform, too, but perhaps less so) but because they tapped into grassroots discontent (whether one agrees or disagrees with the discontent) and mobilize volunteers and enthusiastic supporters who joined those parties for their own reasons. </p><p>Is there an enthusiastic body of supporters for a new conservative political party in the US? There might be but, to be honest, I don't see it. In fact, I see a lot of people who are (for a range of reason that have been aptly and seriously discussed by others) who are happy with the Republican Party the way it is. I was watching a group of Republicans condemn Liz Cheney. They seemed fully and deeply committed to the Trumpist direction and had little interest in Cheney, a name brand conservative figure who might, for instance, be a poster person for a new conservative party. I doubt she would win her seat running for a new conservative party. </p><p>I don't know what the future holds for the Republican Party. But, I don't really see it being successfully challenged by a moderate conservatism for control of the right-wing of the American political spectrum. At the very least, I don't think Democrats should hold their breathe on vote splitting as an electoral strategy. If Trumpism is to be driven back, it will have to be driven back by the Democratic Party. In fact, there might actually be a danger for the Democrats in a moderate conservative party. Its most likely voters are moderate centrist independents and Democrats. If enough of those people deserted the Democratic party (and it would not take many in a small number of states), Trumpism is back in power.</p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-41360429273826808652021-01-28T08:55:00.002-04:002021-01-28T08:55:26.848-04:00Keystone Redux: Biden, Environmentalism, and Energy PolicyWhy did Biden cancel US commitments to Keystone XL? In Canada, Jason Kenney tried to brand this as an attack on Canada that deserved the a swift and extreme response. It wasn't an attack on Canada and, as I will explain, even if there were a swift and extreme response, the chances that the decision can be overturned are slim. Why? There are a large number of reasons and these reasons are worth considering as we think about the character and nature of the Canadian response. Here are what I see as some of the key factors that weighed on Biden's mind before he took office. <div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Biden is committed to establishing better American environmental policies. There is a scientific consensus on the problems of carbon-based energy for the environment, particularly but not exclusively with regard to climate change. </li><li>I don't think we should see this as a shallow commitment, but if we did -- even if you argued that Biden's commitment to the environment is cynical politics -- you'd still have to ask why his made this decision. The answer is that his voters at best lukewarm to Keystone XL and at most in opposition to it. Said differently, a different government if it were behaving cynically, might talk the talk but ignore Keystone. Biden can't because his supporters won't. They want him to take action and so he will take it. </li><li>Taking action is made easier because the US is awash in energy. Back in the 1980s, when Canada and the US were negotiating free trade, a key goal of the American negotiators was to secure access to Canadian energy. There could be all sorts of reasons for this but the key reason is that the American government was concerned about the state of American energy reserves and with the "oil shock" and the Iranian revolution still fresh on American minds, making sure that the US had easy access to Canadian energy was particularly important. Hence, the proportionality clause which, in effect, forces Canada to sell oil to the US. How different things now are. A series of changes means that the US has less need of Canadian energy than at any time since, say, the 1980s. The factors include: </li><ul><li>Green energy will continue to develop as a viable alternative to carbon energy.</li><li>The US reversed policy under Trump and brought back older forms of carbon-based energy production (coal) that are in competition with oil.</li><li>Other countries have pushed production of oil to new levels. Increased political stability in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Libya will likely see continued advances in production. Despite cut production cut backs by some countries in order to try to maintain higher energy prices, there will likely continue to be increases in energy supply.</li><li>The US has increased its own supply thanks to widespread fracking in Montana, the Dakotas, and Oklahoma. </li></ul><li>There are some short term measure that can be included as well. Covid-19 has depressed all sorts of travel lessening the demand for oil and thus lowering prices and need. </li><li>A wild card is the American commitment to cleaner energy. I don't know how significant this factor is, although I suspect it much more significant among Democrats who voted for Biden than Republicans. If American are taking steps to use less energy as part of their personal commitment to the environment, that will have an effect as well. </li><li>I suspect American oil companies are not sad to have less competition from Canadian oil. While the oil (bitumen) moved through Keystone may never have been for American domestic consumption (which raises another issue), why would American energy producers elect to negatively effect their own bottom lines by encouraging the US government to facilitate the shipment of Canadian oil to the US? Does it not make more sense that they would, at the least, say nothing and at most actually encourage Keystone's cancelation? </li><li>There are shockingly limited spinoff effects in the US for Keystone. The jobs that were to be created by it were largely in construction. Once the pipeline is up and running, the number of permanent jobs it creates in the US is limited. There is, thus, no groundswell of "Keystone will get us jobs" in the US because ... people know it is not true. </li><li>There are other issues that the Biden administration also wants to address that are tied up with Keystone, not the least of which is relate to the Standing Rock protests and the opposition of American Indigenous peoples to the pipeline. Going forward with Keystone would have forced the Biden government into on-going confrontations with Indigenous peoples and their allies and likely ended costing millions of dollars in legal fees as battles waged in the courts. </li></ul><div>When one puts this all together and what is evident is that Keystone was dead anyway. It was only the Trump administration's ideological commitment that kept it alive. Canadian oil is also expensive, compared to its alternatives. The Canadian oil patch had begun to experience series problems several years ago that date back to the time of the previous NDP government in Alberta and stand at the root of Alberta's pipeline conflicts with BC and Canadian First Nations. What is interesting, of course, is that Kenney's response to the concerns in BC were basically similar to what he is suggesting now. BC, the UPC and even members of the NDP argued, should be forced to let Alberta transport oil over its territory. Now what we have is the Premier of Alberta saying that Canada should find a way to force the US to accept Canadian oil that it does not want, does not need, creates internal conflicts in the US, and stands in the way of other domestic policy initiatives. What would we, as Canadians, think if the US adopted this approach to Canada? </div></div><div><br /></div><div>This is the point where I say "I get it" and ... I do. I understand and sympathize with people wanting jobs and good jobs. The problem with the approach taken by Kenney is that it can't provide precisely the thing he is promising. The carbon economy is past its best before date. That does not mean that there will not be energy production and that Canadians won't drill for oil. What it means is that we need to think about what the next stage for the Alberta economy is and begin to work on that. Biden's rejection of Keystone XL was not an attack on Canada. It was a policy decision overdetermined by a broad range of factors and it is unlikely that that broad range of factors will change in even the medium term. Rather than trying to find a way to revive a dead project and a flagging economic sector, we need to find ways to promote alternative economies. </div>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-20368855591149136642021-01-27T13:21:00.000-04:002021-01-27T13:21:00.630-04:00Pluralism, Caution and Canadian-American Relations<p>Have you noticed that those leaders who are the least cautious (say, Jason Kenney) are the ones who actually never have to deal with international relations? It is easy, in other words, be extremist when you never have to live with the implications of your own suggestions. Kenney's demand for trade sanctions against the US is a case in point. By any stretch, suggesting trade sanctions -- in effect, suggesting that Canada begin a trade war with the US -- on the first day of a new administration is an extreme suggestion. Kenney can suggest an extreme response because he does not have to implement that response or live with it. He doesn't have to worry about fallout or the effects of, say, supply chain disruption during a pandemic. He can hand that ball off the federal government while urging them to do his bidding. </p><p>There is something about extreme responses that grab public attention. The media love them. "The Premier of Alberta is urging ...X" what do you say Mr. Prime Minister? It the kind of controversial sound bite on which modern journalism thrives because they believe it somehow attracts viewers or listeners. It also fits well with a certain type of conservatism that sees "tough" responses as the way to get what one wants in international relations. The difference between success and failure in IR, the point seems to be, is the PM's toughness and determination. </p><p>Is it? Is, in this case, starting a trade war with the US on the first day of a new administration a good approach to Canadian American relations? Does it allow help Canada advance its agenda? I will argue "no." Canada's position in international affairs is determined by a range of criteria (its geography, economics, alliances, etc.) but the toughness or determination of the PM or the willingness to resort to extreme measures as a first step, "go to" move is not one of them. In fact, I'll argue that the discourse which presents extreme options as a first step is more for domestic political consumption than a reasoned assessment of an effective foreign policy. </p><p>Canadian Foreign Policy</p><p>There are a number of considerations to bear in mind and an assumption I am making as part of this discussion. The assumption is this: the aim of foreign policy is to accomplish things. This can, should, and does include a range of things. Economic issues often grab the headlines but there are other objectives that range from education to scientific to environmental policy to the arts and athletics, the military, and much more. It includes things like border transport, cross-border production and media. The assumption I am making is that a key aim of Canadian foreign policy is to advance Canada's agenda. (To be clear about my own perspective: I hope this is not the only goal. I hope that considerations of international fairness, equity in health and welfare, shared global concerns like ecological change, among others also weigh into the development of Canadian foreign policy.)</p><p>What are these goals? We can get back to them later, but one of them, at least, will be economic. Let's use this as an example because it is the issue Kenney is, in large measure, raising and the way he has chosen to frame the controversy over Keystone XL. In terms of economics, Canada's objectives are to maintain access to the American market for its (Canada's) products, expand that market, maintain border transit and cross-border production, share productivity improvements, protect Canadian intellectual property, ensure that a market for Canadian cultural products exists, maintain border security, and likely a range of other things. Said differently, our aim is to improve the Canadian economy. Taking actions that negatively affect the Canadian economy would be something to avoid. </p><p>The other key thing to note about Canadian foreign policy -- a thing that affects it -- is that Canada is what used to be called a "middle power." People still use this term. To be honest, I'd need to look up the precise definition so let's just use it as a general place holder right now. What I mean is that Canada is a fully sovereign state (it has internationally recognized legal autonomy over its own affairs and relations with other countries) but it is not a great power. It is not one of the leading international powers in the globe. Nor, however, is Canada insignificant. Canada has -- or, can have -- characteristics that make its voice important on the international stage. A full list would take too long but Canada has advanced scientific capacity, a well trained and effective military, a high standard of living, a basically sound economy, a willingness to play a positive role in refugee re-settlement, few international enemies, a reputation for playing a positive and thoughtful role on the world stage, among other things. All of these things have, in my view, suffered in recent years and this suffering has occurred under a range of different PMs. I also don't want to look at Canada with rose coloured glasses and so I am not saying Canada (domestically and internationally) is not without serious problems. </p><p>Because Canada is a middle power, a certain amount of caution is always in order in international relations. That is what it means to be a middle power and this is something that the key diplomats of Canadian history understood. Canadian foreign policy works most effectively when it involves discussion, the international rule of law, diplomacy, pluralism, and multilateralism precisely because Canada does not have the international scope and power to stomp its feet and get its way. Very few countries, in fact, do. China, for instance, spends its time using economic leverage as opposed to raw power and it would be considered a "great power." Likewise, for all that the previous US administration talked the talk of power, that talk did not accomplish a great deal. In fact, one could argue that US international authority has not been this weak since the interwar era. Before we jump to the conclusion that extreme measure are the way to go, we need to look at their success rate. Is there any reason to believe that they will be successful? If there is not, then implementing them is something that really does need a second thought. </p><p>Extreme Measures and Foreign Policy</p><p>The point I am trying to make is not that extreme (or, more extreme) measures might not be needed. It is that it should not be the "go to" move and that its success rate might be far less than one imagines. It gambles a lot and it makes that gamble on an unequal playing field. In terms of Canadian/American relations, Canada plays on an unequal field. US power -- economically, culturally, scientifically, etc. -- is simply greater than Canada's and by a wide margin. Again, I am not saying that Canada is insignificant. But I am saying that the US is a great power with a broad and deep economic capacity that Canada lacks. Economically, the US is Canada's most important market by far. It is not even close. Canada's trade with the US is greater than Canada's trade with the rest of the world combined, twice over. Canada is an important US trading partner but no longer the most important and the importance of the Canadian market to the US economy is in the low single digits. What this means is that if Canada tries to go toe-to-toe with the US, we have a serious uphill battle. To use a military metaphor, we will run out of bullets before the US does and long before. The US might like to have the Canadian market. I am sure it does. It doesn't need it. Canada's need of the US market and US trade is ... well ... a need. </p><p>I mention this to ask a different question: does Jason Kenney think the US is in the business of letting other countries take either (a) free shots at it without retaliation or (b) in the business of indicating to the world that it will quickly back down if confronted with middle power trade sanctions. If you were running the US (regardless of which party you might represent), would you be interested in establishing either precedent? Even if we leave aside the problematic contention that Canada's trade sanctions against the US would be powerful enough to force a reversal of policy, would the US be interested in letting the world know that it will ditch its policies and principles that easily? And, if not, what will be the response? </p><p>We might get -- and have, in the past, gotten -- to the place where trade sanctions are needed but, to the best of my knowledge, Canada has imposed sanctions in the US only in a set number of circumstances:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Canadian sanctions have been proportional. That is, they have not tried to escalate trade disputes but indicate to the US government that we will not be pushed around. That is, they were not intended to "win" the dispute but to establish the idea that discussion is the way to resolve the dispute. </li><li>They have been in response to US sanctions on Canada. The sanctions Canada imposed on the US under the Trump administration were not a first strike. They were a response to what Canada contended were illegal American sanctions. </li><li>They were not intended to affect American domestic policy but to address Canada/US trade issues. </li><li>They were part of an overall strategy designed to advance Canada's trade agenda with the US.</li></ul><div>To be clear, what Kenney is suggesting is the exact opposite. He is suggesting that Canada undertake trade sanctions against the US without any idea of proportionality. How can you calculated supposedly lost future revenue from Keystone XL? Who would even make this calculation? How would it be assessed by independent dispute settlement mechanisms? I don't think any of these points were considered. Moreover, the sanctions Kenney suggests applying would be a first strike. There is no comparable sanction against Canada. They would be aimed at influencing American domestic policy. And, they would be taken without regard to the other foreign policy tools Canada will use to try to address Keystone XL. Before anyone too easily says "I still think we need to try to do something" (a point I will address below) imagine that the situation were reversed? Imagine, for instance, that the US used sanctions to try to get Canadians to change a matter of Canadian domestic policy. How would Canadians feel about that? </div><div><br /></div><div>Canada will try to reverse the US decision on Keystone XL. I will leave it up to others to determine what they think about that. We will use a range of policy tools that include direct communications with the US leadership, lobbying, finding allies in the US to carry the argument forward. Canadian interaction with the US is not limited to trade sanctions. These are all strategies Canada has used before. They don't tend to bring instant results but over time they have, I would argue, succeeded in creating generally win-win situations. Before jumping to an extreme measure, I'd argue that we should at least try strategies that have been proven successful in the past. If we wanted, then, to introduce sanctions as some part of that strategy, I'd suggest that we find out whether or not those sanctions would be legal under Canada's current trade agreement with the US and I'd urge people to consider the precedent we are establishing. After all, what is good for the goose .... And, while I don't expect the Biden administration to try to use sanctions to coerce changes in Canadian domestic policy, are we really so confident that a less friendly government might not jump on the opening we would have given them in the future? After all, that is what we would be saying: sanctions are a legitimate way for other. countries to force Canada to change its domestic policy. </div><div><br /></div><div>What About Alberta</div><div><br /></div><div>There is, I am arguing, good reason to be cautious in Canada's response to the Biden administration's decision with regard to Keystone XL. I am trying to argue that those views hold regardless of one's political perspective if one is interested in having a foreign policy that advances Canada's interests. Kenney's argument is that regional equity in Canada demands that Canada act because it would have if US decisions affected Ontario or Quebec or Atlantic Canada. I don't know the issue to which Kenney was referring with regard to Atlantic Canada and so I'll leave off consideration of that. The issues to which he referred with regard to Ontario and Quebec were completely different. There, the federal government acted proportionally as part of an overall strategy against US (and others) decisions with regard to trade, the legality of which (on the US side) was questionable. To repeat: the federal government did not use sanctions as a first strike weapon to alter a decision made by a US administration on a matter that falls within the sphere of American domestic policy. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, the fact that the situation is different does not mean that the federal government should ignore Alberta. It should not. Not ignoring Alberta, however, does not mean transforming trade policy into a shill for big oil. It means finding ways to help Alberta transition away from the carbon economy. We will continue drill for oil. That is going to happen, but the idea that the economy of Alberta should be based on oil to the detriment of other options is far from clear to me. Oil is affected by a broad range of other factors. The US took the decision with regard to Keystone XL not just for environmental reasons. Environmental considerations are, in my view, a legitimate consideration for state policy. But, in this case, a range of other factors (including alternative energy supplies) weighed into the consideration. What this means is that even if the Keystone decision were reversed, the days of massive carbon energy exports to the US are ending. The federal government cannot and morally should not abandon Alberta. The best way to do this however -- to *not* abandon Alberta -- does not lie in sanctions in what will be a losing effort to force the US to buy Canadian oil against its wishes. </div><p></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192755.post-79899212026387713082021-01-06T10:56:00.000-04:002021-01-06T10:56:03.573-04:00The Blue Jays and Player Development <p>I have been trying to argue that player and team development in MLB is more complicated than most people make it seem. If that is the case, how should one develop a team? A lot depends on your resources and goals, which are linked to where you are in a multi-year process of team development (building a sustainable contending team, that is a team that is in the hunt year after year). If you are, say, the New York Yankees, these questions are not as significant as if you are the Tampa Bay Rays or the Cleveland baseball team. To be clear, the Yankees do and have developed some impressive baseball players (Judge, Torres, Andujar). Other have been brought in through savvy trades (Voit) and still others almost by fluke (Urshela). What Yankee resources allow them to do is to buy key pieces of the puzzle and prevent the normal cycle of ups and downs through which teams go by infusing, when needed, more talent into the team via free agency (Cole, Stanton, Britton). To be clear, these are not complementary pieces of the Yankee puzzle but fundamental elements of their team. Spending money is no guarantee of winning. In 2019, the Red Sox spent a lot of money on their starting rotation and didn't make the playoffs. Today, we are seeing the Padres spending a lot of money. They are increasingly turning to free agency as their primary method of player and team development. Should the Jays be involved in something like this? </p><p><br /></p><p>The question is rhetorical but I ask the question because we often get a bit of a knock on effect among sports commentators. We saw this a couple of years ago with regard to Manny Machado and Bryce Harper: other teams are spending. Why not the Jays? The Phillies might better fit the kind of organizational position in which the Jays find themselves. They spent a tonne of money on Bryce Harper and it has not produced the results for which they were obviously hoping. The signing might not be the cause of the persistent financial woe rumours we hear about the Phillies (you can find information <a href="https://phillysportsnetwork.com/2020/10/05/phillies-realmuto/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30463780/philadelphia-phillies-executive-says-no-trade-talks-happening-zack-wheeler" target="_blank">here</a>, including a denial of said rumours) but you can see the issue: if a high priced free agent did not create a winning team, what is the next step? For San Diego (in the same situation as Phillie), it is to double down and spend more and more money. And, that is the commitment you need to make or you start to look bad as a front office. You start to look, in fact, like you don't know what you are doing. You make commitments and then the costs of those commitments weigh down your organization and impede further steps toward your goal. </p><p><br /></p><p>One of the other problems that the Jays have had over the years -- particularly but not exclusively with pitchers -- is sending players up and down to AAA or changing their positions. I could be wrong about this and I know modern baseball teams make a great deal more in-season changes than in the past. The changing ways in which bullpens are used means that there seems to be a never ending need for "fresh arms." But, I am not at all convinced that this is good for player development. The fact that it supposedly "worked" in one instance (say, Encarnacion ... and I would debate that) does not mean that it will work in others. The Jays have, over the years, hired managers who had a difficult time working with younger players (Gibbons appears to have been well liked but he was not a player development kind of guy, nor was Cito Gatson, their longest running manager). I want to be fair, managers like Gaston and Gibbons were not asked to develop players. They were asked to manage teams put together for them. Gaston succeeded in the early 1990s. Gibbons did not. Both had two kicks at the can. Gibbons overall record was .501; Gaston's .516. I am not slagging these managers, but neither of them liked to work with young players who needed development and this has been a Jays tendency over the years. They preferred players who know what they were doing already. Montoyo is the first player development manager the Jays have had since, oh, maybe Bobby Cox. </p><p><br /></p><p>The result is that young players languished and were not given a chance to develop their abilities. I don't know if Gio Urshella or Adam Lind or Eric Thames would have ever developed, for the Jays, into really good players (I really don't) but I would have liked to find out. Likewise, I don't know if any of the spate of pitching prospect that the Jays have are any good but I'd like to know. The standard answer that we hear when teams don't focus on player development runs something like this "our goal is to put the best team on the field that we can." But, what happens if that best team still sucks? What if that best team lost? What was the cost to that team of not engaging in player development (as opposed to finding veterans who can be the "best" team that the organization can put on the field)?</p><p><br /></p><p>The key point I am trying to make is that player development needs to be assessed against what economists call "opportunity cost." Opportunity cost is a concept that attempts to measure the actual cost of choices we make in terms of their alternatives. For instance, the opportunity cost of buying, say, a pizza for supper is that I have spent the money I had on pizza and now cannot spend <b>that same money</b> on a hamburger. The opportunity cost of playing a veteran in order to "win now" (or, "put the best team on the field we can") is that you cannot play younger player and help them develop <b>at the same time</b>. Only one player is playing second base at a time if it is an aging vet who is not part of your future, it is not the prospect you have who is still playing in the minors and who needs major league experience. Costs, in other words, can and need to be, measured in things other than money. </p><p><br /></p><p>This is important because a smart team will be looking for ways of lowering opportunity costs. Flip the question around and look at it in reverse: what is the opportunity cost of playing the prospect verse the veteran? The cost is actually fairly low, if you were the Jays, because playing the veteran was not meeting your goals to begin with <b>if your goal is to actually win</b> (as opposed to having a slightly better term on the field than you otherwise would have). I look at it like this: if your team is not going to win this year, then not winning is already a foregone conclusion. If you are going to lose, say 88 games (just as an example), what differences does it make if you lose 91? You are still no where near winning. Imagine a better scenario. Say you won 81 games. Hey .500 close to Gibby's career mark as manager. How many .500 teams make the playoffs? The cost in terms of victories, then, is small but it is large in terms of player development. In effect, by playing veterans instead of prospects one can stall out player development: think of how fast, for instance, the Jays gave up on John Olerud (how much distrust of his D for instance they had), how many times they trotted Brian Tallet to the mound or sent Kevin Miller into a game or how many role changes they have for Kelvim Escobar. Whether or not prospects pan out might even be beside the point: you discover whether or not they can play.</p><p><br /></p><p>The other advantage of playing prospects is stability. Players -- particularly younger players -- get a chance to develop their skills. We live in a day and age of "flexibility" where players who can play more than one position are highly prized. I would prize them if I were a manager. Flexibility is a supposed sign of the Tampa Bay model and it is. But, to a point. Look at TB's stats for last year (mine come from Baseball-Reference). There was flexibility in the sense of players playing a lot of different positions, but Willie Adames played only shortstop. Ji-Man Choi played only 1B. Kevin Kiermaier played only CF. The difference is that the Rays flexibility is not flexibility for the sake of flexibility. </p><p><br /></p><p>If I were the Jays (and I am not, I know that), I'd ask some basic questions: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Is Caven Biggio my 2B of the future. If he is, let's play him at second. </li><li>Is Biggio a top of the order kind of player. If he is, let's keep him there (perhaps batting second)</li><li>Is Bichette my SS of the future? If so, let's play him there.</li><li>And ... on down the line. </li></ul><div>Guerrero might be a tougher decision because he really does seem to have some defensive problems at 3B, but if that is the case, the Jays need to decide where he plays. </div><div><br /></div><div>By sticking with players, letting them learn their roles on the team, letting them learn how to play good defence at a particular position. If I were the Jays, I'd be tempted to *not* try to jump the cue and sign a big name free agent (with a possible exception) or make a big-splash trade. I'd tempted to go into this year looking to further develop the talent I had and see how -- particularly among pitchers -- will be able to take the next step. </div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Andrew Nursehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09012072560091351361noreply@blogger.com0