A concept lacking a name

In Canada, as well as a few other Commonwealth countries, the term 'Crown corporation' is used to describe a set of entities owned by the state but run somewhat independently.  Good examples of Crown corporation in Canada include things like CBC or Via Rail.

Not surprisingly given the inclusion of the word 'corporation' in the term, these entities are often means through which the state can participate in economic activities.  In some instances these corporations almost look like their private counterparts while in other instances it is clear that they are government own entities.

So even though Crown corporations may be of provincial or federal origin, the term provides a sense of clarity about their origins and relationship to government.

When discussing similar entities I immediately encounter two problems.  Firstly, if such entities can't be called 'Crown corporations' what can they be called?  'Government-own corporations' is an entirely unsatisfying name.  And, secondly, because there is no unifying descriptor they don't seem to discussed in the same way.  I know that I often forget how many government owned entities exist is the US because we almost never hear discussion of the entire class of entities in the way that we do in Canada.

I can't help but wonder how political discourse would change in the US if there was an easy and accessible way to talk about the class of entities which includes Amtrak, the USPS, and the FDIC, just to name a few.

(Maybe it doesn't matter, but I find it funny that Amtrak and the USPS use .com domains while the FDIC has a .gov domain.)

Revised blog-off counts

I'm pleased now to bring you a revised blog-off count, as shown at the bottom of this post. The method of counting was not checked closely and I may easily have overcounted*. However, as you can see the competition is very close at this point; 3 more posts is definitely within my ability.

*according to Jeopardy this evening "overfish" is what you do to tuna and cod (or at least that's how I prefer to remember it).

Score

Cameron 34

Neil 20

Is that what they really meant?

This morning I was checking my RSS feeds when I noticed that the Metro had a story about Darrell Dexter playing in an upcoming charity basketball game. The important sentence in the story is:

The Nova Scotia premier/longtime baller is playing in the Legends of Basketball game Saturday as part of the Premier Basketball League all-star weekend at the Halifax Metro Centre.

What is of note is their use of the word 'baller,' which also means something quite different than what they likely meant.

The Urban Dictionary definition, which is the first Google result for 'baller,' suggests that baller means

A thug that has "made it" to the big time. Originally refered ball players that made it out of the streets to make millions as a pro ball player, but now is used to describe any thug that is living large.

It seems to me that the Metro staff should consider being a little more careful the next time they think about dropping some slang in their articles (unless, of course, this was they effect they were going for).

What it meant to be conservative in pre-Confederation Canada

This evening I have been reading several documents relating to the origins of Confederation in Canada. One item I was reading was a speech by Antoine-Aimé Dorion, a Quebec politician who was opposed to the terms of confederation as they were eventually implemented. The following is a great passage from his 1865 speech outlining his position on Confederation

It is but natural that gentlemen with the views of the honourable gentlemen opposite want to keep as much power as possible in the hands of the Government - that is the doctrine of the Conservative party everywhere - that is the line which distinguishes the tories from the whigs - the tories always side with the Crown, and the Liberals always want to give more power and influence to the people.

If you are interested in reading the entire speech, which isn't too long, you can find it here.

What I think is so great about this passage is that it effectively demonstrates how meaningless 'conservative' is as a word without the context in which it was used. Generally, it is one of those words that I think is over-used and tends to lead to more confusion than clarification when introduced to a conversation.

Because it has been a bit of a theme recently, Montifax is coming out against the word 'conservative' (when used in reference to a political position or ideology). We encourage people to use more descriptive words that really get a what they are trying to say.