shame, for shame

Original: “Our system as it is is broke as fuck.”

Refined: “We can’t keep waging battles for national security with a broken system. If we don’t start asking the hard questions—who benefits, who profits—we’ll find ourselves outflanked, not by foreign powers, but by our own failure to protect what truly matters.”

You ever get the feeling that some things aren’t just bad—they’re comically, outrageously, cartoonishly bad? Like if you wrote it into a movie, people would laugh at how unrealistic it was? “Calling all data experts to predict the next global threat!” It’s the kind of modern, tech-forward initiative that gives the impression of an open, transparent government tapping into the brightest minds for national defense. However, when we examine these programs through the lens of recent history and government policy, a more nuanced picture starts to form.

Just like any war strategist knows, quick wins mean nothing without long-term strategy.

Yet here we are, handing over the reins to companies whose only strategy is next quarter’s profits.

What’s the cost to national security when the real motive is corporate dominance? National defense is no joke.

But when defender of policy becomes just another corporate battlefield, where contracts are awarded based on who whispers loudest in Ottawa, it’s time to clean house.

Forget the backroom deals and slick PowerPoints—what we need is a full-scale strategic retreat from corporate influence.

Like any stronghold left unguarded, our defense contracts are under siege—not by foreign powers but by the defense contractors who’ve turned lobbying into a fine art.

Programs like IDEaS are their Trojan horse, a clever distraction wrapped in a bow, while the real spoils of war—lucrative contracts—slip into their hands.”

If my grandma were still around—God rest her—she wouldn’t need much time to spot the con. She’d be the first one at the door, shotgun cocked and ready, to chase these silver-tongued corporate folks out of town. And honestly, I can’t blame her. There’s something gritty and primal about spotting a rotten deal from a mile away, and this forecasting challenge smells like a week-old fish wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper.

This isn't about discrediting the value of innovation or the importance of leveraging emerging technologies to bolster national defense. But when we peel back the layers of influence behind these types of initiatives, we begin to see the impact of corporate lobbying and private interests—forces that have been known to shape policy in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. To understand this, it’s worth looking at the broader framework in which government contracts, particularly in defense, operate in Canada.

Just like in war, this is all about positioning. The IDEaS program looks like an open competition for bright ideas, but in reality, it's like Sun Tzu’s classic false front. On the surface, it’s an inclusive initiative for public good, but behind it lurks corporate interests waiting to pounce. These lobbyists have been embedded for years, whispering in the right ears, making sure they’re first in line when the government opens its wallet. Hell, Jomini himself would be impressed with how they've mastered the art of securing the “decisive point”—not on a battlefield, but in the bidding room.

This isn't speculation—it’s practically tradition at this point. Canada’s defense sector is no stranger to lobbyist overreach, and programs like IDEaS have plenty of fingerprints from defense contractors, AI companies, and cybersecurity firms all over them. They’re not just showing up to win these contracts—they’ve been quietly laying the groundwork for years. You think a clever startup with a shiny new algorithm stands a chance? Please. Sun Tzu would laugh at the naiveté. The true warriors—those lobbyists—are already ahead, armed with insider influence and connections.

Sun Tzu said, “All warfare is based on deception.” The more I look at this, the more I see those corporate players following the general's playbook. They’ve infiltrated the ranks of government programs, disguised as ‘partners in innovation,’ when really, they’re more like the guys camping behind enemy lines, ready to pick off any small startup that wanders into the fray with a clever algorithm. This isn't innovation. This is subterfuge.

You think these cybersecurity firms and AI companies are standing by, waiting for the government to hand over contracts to some upstart with a fancy idea? Please. These lobbyists have been laying siege to Ottawa for years. They’re entrenched, embedded in the system like an occupying force—setting up shop in the halls of power and pulling the strings.

Let’s zoom out for a moment. Canada’s Lobbying Act, which was supposed to curb this kind of thing, looks more like a leaky dam than a solid wall. Take the infamous WE Charity scandal or Democracy Watch v. Conflict of Interest Commissioner (2019)—both perfect examples of how these regulations are more guidelines than hard laws. The “20% lobbying rule,” which exempts organizations from registering their lobbying if it doesn’t take up a fifth of their work, is basically an engraved invitation for these firms to keep playing their games, unchecked​ Global Business Outlook KPMG Assets.

And look, I’m not saying national defense shouldn’t evolve with the times. Of course, it should. But when lobbyists are two steps ahead, writing the playbook, you gotta wonder—who’s really being defended here? The Canadian public or some board of directors looking to boost their Q4 profits? This whole scenario is like watching the Ottoman Empire slowly erode—not from outside threats, but from the rot within. If grandma were here, she wouldn’t need AI to predict where this is headed.

The Military Parallel to Canada’s Complacency is starting to feel like Rome in its later years: more focused on maintaining appearances than addressing the rot within. Like Jomini warned, you lose sight of the decisive points, and soon, you're reacting rather than leading. In the case of IDEaS, this so-called innovation competition is less about finding the best ideas and more about who’s already in the room when the contracts are handed out.

These modern “innovators” aren't selling solutions; they’re selling access, and they’ve perfected the art of whispering sweet nothings into the right ears. Lobbyists are as much ‘warriors’ in this battle as anyone, except their battleground is cushy offices and government corridors.

Te Influence of Lobbying in Canadian Defense Policy

Lobbying is legal in Canada, but it is heavily regulated through the Lobbying Act (1989, amended). According to this law, any individual or organization seeking to influence federal public office holders must register their lobbying activities. However, numerous cases have shown that corporate lobbying—especially in defense and security—often blurs ethical lines.

Take the case of Democracy Watch v. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (2019), for instance. This case highlighted the need for stricter oversight when it comes to lobbying activities, especially when donations and political relationships play a role. Similarly, the 2020 WE Charity scandal exposed further gaps in Canada’s lobbying regulations, specifically the so-called “20% lobbying rule”—a loophole that exempts organizations from registering if their lobbying activities do not exceed 20% of their total work. These cases emphasize that while Canada’s lobbying framework aims for transparency, enforcement and accountability remain challenges.

Programs like IDEaS, while ostensibly neutral, can be shaped by the interests of defense contractors, tech firms, and cybersecurity companies that stand to gain from government contracts. Historically, these entities have been significant players in lobbying efforts, seeking to ensure that the technologies they develop are prioritized by the government.

This IDEaS program is, let’s face it, probably crawling with lobbyists. You think these high-tech companies, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors are standing idly by while the government opens up a "data wizard" contest? Please. These guys have been greasing the wheels in Ottawa for years, and they didn’t come this far to lose a juicy contract to some plucky startup with a clever algorithm. If history has taught us anything, it's that lobbyists are always two steps ahead, and they’ve probably got their fingers in this slutty little pie, too.

This isn’t just speculation. When programs like IDEaS pop up, you better believe there are lobbyists working overtime behind the scenes, sissy types love this game, very p diddy esk, making sure their clients—the ones selling AI systems, cybersecurity tools, and “emerging threat” solutions—are the ones landing those sweet, sweet government contracts.

Grandma had it right. You don’t need million-dollar marketing campaigns or AI-driven “solutions” to tell you what’s going on here. This is trench warfare, and the public—us—is getting caught in the crossfire. While the government parades around these initiatives as transparent, forward-thinking defenses, the ones really controlling the game are the lobbyists in their shiny suits, grinning likefoxes in a henhouse. Its pathetic and obvious decisive point, pointing to why Canada sucks so bad now days. Politicians might not care, citizens do.

It’s time to treat this like the battlefield it is, with a clear understanding of the enemy’s tactics.

The IDEaS program and its ilk might as well be war zones, and we, the public, are sitting ducks unless we start demanding real accountability.

This isn't about leveraging innovation; it’s about who controls the purse strings and how slick they can be in bending the rules to win contracts.

Where’s the Accountability?

Let’s not forget about Nigel Wright and the Senate Expenses Scandal (2013). Here was a man communicating with senators about expenses while managing political finances. Was it lobbying? Was it just good ol’ political maneuvering? Depends who you ask. But the whole situation underlined the very real need for clearer definitions and stricter rules when it comes to these interactions. We’re at a point where these lines are so blurry that anyone caught in the act just shrugs and says, “What? That’s just politics.”

And this is where Grandma’s shotgun comes into play—figuratively speaking, of course (or maybe not, depending on the day). The simple, gritty truth is that if someone was trying to pull this kind of stunt in her day, there wouldn’t be any ambiguity about what was happening. You were a snake oil salesman, plain and simple, and you got run out of town before you could pitch your next scam. What the fuck happened to our bastion’s balls? Shrivelled in the cold? Went right back up inside to hide?

Grandma would see this as the betrayal it is. In her day, you didn’t need fancy words or million-dollar marketing teams to explain right from wrong. You certainly didn’t need lobbyists telling you how to run your defense strategy.

But today? It’s all about how slick you are, how well you play the game, and how many backroom deals (you naughty little scamps) can make without getting caught.

The Bottom Line

It’s time to stop pretending like these initiatives are purely about public interest. As long as we’ve got lobbyists whispering in Ottawa, steering contracts and policy toward their clients, the public’s best interest will always take a back seat to corporate profits.

in Ottawa? These people aren’t just sticking around; they’re thriving. The Lobbying Act (1989, amended) was supposed to regulate this stuff. Sure, it requires lobbyists to register their activities, but when loopholes like the “20% rule” exist—where you can avoid registering if lobbying doesn’t make up a certain portion of your workload—it makes you wonder if anyone’s actually watching the shop.

That’s where we’re at with government programs like this IDEaS forecasting challenge.

Picture it: the Canadian government, wide-eyed and hopeful, asks a bunch of data nerds to figure out what the next global crisis will be.

It’s almost cute if you didn’t realize it’s more likely driven by corporate interests and lobbyists than any real concern for security.

If I had a grandma—hell, if any of us had a grandma with a lick of sense—she’d see right through this.

Imagine her with her shotgun, ready to chase down these corporate bums trying to make a quick buck by “advising” the government on how to handle global threats. They wouldn’t stand a chance. They’d be halfway up the nearest tree before they could say "AI-driven predictive analytics."

Government programs meant to spur innovation in defense are undeniably important in an era of rapidly evolving global threats. However, they can also create opportunities for private companies to influence policy through lobbying and political donations. The defense industry—particularly firms specializing in AI, cybersecurity, and data analytics—has strong financial incentives to ensure that their products and services are front and center in government programs like IDEaS.

This leads to the question: Is the primary purpose of these initiatives to enhance national security, or to create opportunities for well-positioned corporations to secure government contracts? While it may be both, the transparency of how these decisions are made is crucial. Without proper safeguards, the risk is that national defense becomes yet another area where corporate interests shape public policy to their advantage.

Accountability and the Need for Reform

Canada has made strides in regulating lobbying through its Lobbying Act, but recent controversies suggest that more needs to be done. The Senate Expenses Scandal (2013) involving Nigel Wright, former Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, demonstrated the complex intersections of money, politics, and influence in Ottawa. Although this case wasn’t specifically about defense, it showed how political finances and lobbying efforts can influence policymaking in ways that aren’t always transparent to the public.

When it comes to defense, such influences can have significant long-term consequences. If national security policy is shaped by those with the deepest pockets rather than those with the best ideas, we risk compromising not just the effectiveness of these programs but also public trust in the government’s ability to safeguard the country.

Programs like the IDEaS forecasting challenge are undoubtedly important, but their value hinges on the integrity of the process behind them.

Transparency, oversight, and a commitment to public interest must guide these initiatives if they are to serve their true purpose.

Lobbying (the real whores) the sell outs, those who hate and disrespect us the most, will always play a role in shaping policy, but it is critical that this influence is managed in a way that prioritizes the well-being of Canadians over corporate profits. Our system as it is is broke as fuck.

As citizens, it’s our responsibility to ask hard questions: Who stands to gain from these programs? Are the processes that govern them truly transparent? Only by demanding accountability can we ensure that these initiatives serve the public good rather than the interests of the few.

Because at the end of the day, national defense shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder.

Here’s the thing: when you dig into what’s behind these challenges, you see the fingerprints of lobbying groups all over it. These aren’t just well-intentioned contests to inspire the brightest minds in Canada to predict the next big cybersecurity threat. These are opportunities for defense contractors, AI firms, and cybersecurity companies to push their tech into government contracts. They’re selling fear and “solutions” as fast as the government can hand over the cash.

Look at the case law. You don’t have to dig far to find stories like the WE Charity scandal or Democracy Watch v. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (2019), where decisions were shaped by lobbying dollars. In these cases, political donations, corporate influence, and insider relationships blurred the lines between legal lobbying and flat-out influence peddling. This isn’t isolated—it’s a trend. Lobbyists and corporations have been steering the ship for a while now, and programs like IDEaS are just the latest distraction that makes it look like the public has a say.

On the surface, this whole thing seems progressive: “Let’s crowdsource the next great idea for national defense!” But who’s really coming up with these solutions? Is it genuinely about national security or more about who’s already in the room with the decision-makers, holding the strings? My guess: this isn’t about protecting the average Canadian; it’s about protecting bottom lines.

I mean, you’ve got cyber defense companies probably salivating at the idea of locking down a contract to predict the next big global disaster. Why else would they be so cozy with the government, pushing for initiatives that just so happen to align with the very services they provide?

Grandma’s Verdict: Time to Clean House

If grandma could take one look at these suits cozying up to government officials and see the smooth way they twist “innovation” to mean lining their own pockets, I know what she’d do. She’d show them to the nearest exit with a few well-chosen words and a shotgun aimed at their designer shoes for good measure.

This isn’t just bad governance; this is laughably blatant. The idea that this kind of program is being passed off as some grand defense initiative is an insult to the intelligence of any Canadian paying attention. It’s time to call it what it is: a sell-out. Our national security policies shouldn’t be crafted in boardrooms by people who are more interested in quarterly profits than in actual threats to our country.

So let’s take a page from grandma’s book. Next time a slick lobbyist tries to tell us why their shiny new AI tech is exactly what the country needs, we might want to consider whether that same AI is predicting our next scandal.

Because if you listen closely, you can almost hear them counting the money already. This IDEaS program is sold like a new weapon in the war on global threats: 'Calling all data experts to predict the next crisis!' But let’s be real here—this battlefield isn’t about finding the best tech; it’s about positioning. Who’s already in the room, steering the battle plans? Not the clever kid with the algorithm, but the corporate lobbyists who've greased the gears for years.

Sources for Further Reading:

1. Lobbying Act, Canada: Understanding the rules and loopholes in lobbying regulation.

2. Democracy Watch v. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (2019): A key case that highlighted the need for stricter lobbying oversight.

3. WE Charity Scandal (2020): An example of lobbying loopholes influencing government decisions.