Friday Afternoon Links

- Dan Gardner's column offers a useful reminder of the role of luck in sports and political outcomes alike. But there are a couple of points worth some additional discussion.

First off, it's worth keeping in mind that while actual results will indeed vary based in large part on random events, actors in both spheres do have opportunities available to help turn the odds in their favour. And considering the real-world ramifications of political success or failure, it's remarkable that it may be in sports that more of that analysis has taken place.

At the same time, it's also worth noting that the political sphere lends itself far more readily to spin.

While there's no denying the score at the end of a sporting event (even if the means of getting there may be in controversy), political events short of election results leave room for all parties to claim victories for themselves and defeat for their opponents - and indeed there's a strong incentive for parties to claim all events as evidence of their own merit and their opponents' weakness. So political actors have reason not to publicly acknowledge that luck is at play even when it does have a major impact on events.

- In light of the Harper Cons' unfortunate success in limiting the amount of reporting on climate change issues, I won't let this story pass without a link:

The Department of Finance recommended over the spring that Harper lead by example and get rid of tax incentives that encourage oil and gas production.

But documents obtained by The Canadian Press, to be released in conjunction with the final G20 communique on Sunday, show the prime minister opted instead to reiterate actions taken in the past rather than volunteer any additional gestures.
...
"If Canada undertakes no reforms, it would eliminate the need to co-ordinate action internationally, though justifying inaction could be challenging if others are taking action," says the March memo to Flaherty.

Sadly, the Cons managed to avoid that need for justification by ensuring that climate change wouldn't form a meaningful part of the G8/G20 discussion as long as they had control of the agenda. But the more important question is whether Canadians want a government so devoted to inaction in the first place.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' commitment to evidence-free policy-making shouldn't come as much surprise - even if the latest steps to restrict the collection of useful information are worth pointing out.

- Finally, A Tiny Revolution highlights John Ralston Saul's insights into the actual meaning of money and debt. But it's truly sad that in the time since Saul wrote the quoted passage, we've seen more and more public policy dictated by exactly the same arbitrary forces that form the target of Saul's critique.