My family and I just returned home last night after a few days of skiing in Banff, and I must say that it’s so nice to be back. A few of my friends are constantly traveling to Europe and Asia in the summer or doing a semester in another country, and they love trying to convince me to take up a similar nomadic lifestyle, but I quite enjoy my little niche in Edmonton. I know that this city is certainly not one of the best places to live in the world, let alone Canada, but I’ve grown up with it and I was really made to live in Edmonton, at least for a few more years. When I went to Europe for five weeks after grade 12, the architecture of the cities there were a strong contrast to the uninspiring buildings here and the distinctive countries have had time to mature into culturally rich and beautiful cultures. While I enjoy the beauty and adventure of traveling, I’m really most contented at home. I’ve got my area of the city with campus, the river valley, and Whyte Ave. all in close proximity, and Edmonton’s got a decent theatre scene and pretty good shops. There’s a few new exhibitions coming to the art gallery this winter that I’m super excited about, and the renovations that are about to take place will no doubt be a huge improvement.
As soon as I leave the university area though, there’s a plethora of hideous big box stores and plastic-siding houses that look identical to each other. Especially now with the bizarre lack of snow the unsightliness of the dead grass and muddy roads is exacerbated. Even in Banff there was very little snow, although Sunshine had loads, which made for excellent skiing. We’ve gone to Marmot and Lake Louise for the past few years, so it was fun to try some different hills for a change, although it was freezing cold going down the runs. There was even some good snow on the cross-country trail at Moraine Lake, although I was pretty tuckered out with all of the undulating hills.
I just got back from the dentist, and I’m waiting to eat, but I’m supposed to wait half an hour before having anything solid, so I’m starving right now! I could probably make some soup, but I really feel like a tuna sandwich, so I’ll just be patient. I had some really great meals in the mountains at this little café in Canmore and this Cajun joint close to our hotel in Banff. We even checked out the Second Cup there, and it was über cute! It’s so weird to see the same cups and furniture and drinks as my café in the mountains. I suppose it’s the upside of working for a sometimes-greedy franchise. At least Second Cup is Canadian!
My sister’s going to get some new glasses today, and I’m ecstatic. I think I’ve mostly convinced her to get some bold frames, although my mom highly disapproves of my attempts to influence Jess’ fashion sense. Paul Frank has these wicked “Transatlanticism” frames that are pretty much identical to Ben Gibbard’s, but Jess is a bit too conservative for those. I’ve always wanted glasses, but I’ve got 20/40 (or is it 40/20?) vision, and won’t need them until I’m 50. I could get frames with plain lenses, but I think that would signal my entrance into a new level of vanity. Alas, I’m left trying on my friends’ glasses once in a while for fun and taking part in the fun of wearing them vicariously.
The Conservatives have taken a ginormous leap in the polls as of late, and I think the stats they reported last night on The National put them six points ahead of the Liberals. Obviously this concerns me a little bit. Harper has made his opposition to national day care more than evident, and his concentration on increased sentences for gun-related crimes shows a complete lack of knowledge or thought on the subject. Although Martin’s proposed hand-gun ban is unlikely to make a difference, more severe sentences for criminals have been shown by study after study to have no impact on the crime rate. Our laws require us to give a second chance to citizens, whether we like it or not, and the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation is so narrow minded. Programs in other countries that strive to work with violent criminals are far more effective in making communities safer than employing a solely punitive philosophy. While punishment does discourage people from engaging in certain behaviours, operant conditioning really only works when all offences are caught and punished, and when punishment occurs almost immediately after the behaviour. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Most people do not consider what the consequences will be before they commit a crime; the sentences are not a significant deterrent. And, contrary to what many Conservatives might argue, guns do kill people. In fact, the mere presence of a gun in a room will cause a subject in a psych experiment to deliver more shocks to a confederate, and places where guns regulations are less restrictive have greatly higher crime rates.
Perhaps change after twelve years is inevitable, and it will shake Ottawa up a bit. It will certainly delight all of my right-wing Christian buddies, and make for some interesting politics. Presumably, Layton would cooperate with Harper on mainly politically neutral legislation, while the optics of a Conservative government working with the Bloc would be pretty bad. Mark Kelley was in Alberta a few weeks ago doing a story on our alienation and came to my café a couple of times, and said the overall sentiment that he had experienced was that Albertan votes didn’t matter at all. Perhaps if the Conservatives are elected, that feeling will be diminished. After all, it’s unlikely that the new government will last long anyways. I’ll just be a little bit less proud to be Canadian when Harper becomes our PM.
A deliveryman just brought me my sweater from Delias, and it’s supersweet! It’s this black number with a frilly neck; it’s kind of Victorian, and really fuzzy. Yay! I think I’m gonna check out American Apparel and Decadence tonight too, so I’ll be well stocked up for school (in only three days). I’m so excited for this upcoming term, although I think I’ll have to study pretty hard for Anatomy 200. Well, it’s almost been half an hour, so I should go cook myself some perogies in early acknowledgment of Ukrainian Christmas tomorrow.
Have a fabulous weekend!
5 comments:
Harper wants to do a lot of good for Canada. Martin and the Liberals have been screwing up the government for 13 years (I know Mulroney screwed it up before that).
I've heard Harper talk about a EEE senate. The last time I heard about that was the reform party trying to improve canada. Harper wants to improve canada in new and creative ways.
Most people have the idea that the federal government is a bottomless pit of money and can afford to spend here there and everywhere. The bottom of the federal government money is the bottom of our pockets. So it does matter what happens to federal funding.
Canada does not need more social programs. Maybe it needs to have a pot of 100 social programs and anytime someone comes up with a new way to spend tax payers dollars in a social program, find an existing social program which is no longer as important as it was, then cut it. The government cannot afford to keep spend all of our money on everything.
The more we spend, the more taxes the government makes. The lower the percentage of tax, the more money we have in our pockets to spend more. Result: government takes in the same tax value as a whole, and we take home more money so we can choose how to spend our money.
Liberal plan-> the government chooses how to spend our money.
Conservative plan-> we choose how we spend our money.
Due to the inefficiencies in government, it is always better for people to be in charge of their own money. The scandals are proof of that.
Banff must be nice this time of year though.
Banff is lovely at this time of year! We were lucky to have awesome snow and near-perfect temperatures. While I respect what you believe, and I'm sure you have reasons for valuing what you do, I obviously wholeheartedly disagree. I doubt that you’ll read all of my response, but there are some really good reasons why left-wing governments work! The fact is that the more educated one becomes about the issues and the affect of social spending and policies on the nation state, the more “liberal” they become (this isn’t my biased view; it’s been shown in numerous scientific studies). Hopefully you’ll read a bit of my reasoning, and not be offended! I really do appreciate your opinions, and the fact that you’re willing to disagree with me.
Harper wants to do a lot of good for Canada? He wants to do a lot of good for the wealthier half of Canada! How have the Liberals screwed up Canada? Unemployment is at the lowest rate that it's been in decades, crime is down, Canada has come into a new position of power in groups like the G8, and we've had eight successive surpluses. What's gone wrong exactly? Canada has only improved since the Liberal tenure began.
The idea of an elected senate is ridiculous to me. What decision has the senate ever made that you objected to? The senate exists to suggest amendments, question the government, and put the final stamp on legislation. How is that not being effectively done right now? What senator do you wish wasn't in the senate, and would be there if elections had been held? Our senate is a place to recognize the achievements and innovation of truly great Canadians, and allows these distinguished people to continue to contribute to their country. And while the senators are appointed, PMs have never chosen only senators of their own party to join. How is destroying this noble tradition creative?
If most people believe that the feds are a bottomless pit of money, they are highly uneducated. Aside from the tiny fraction (and I mean tiny!) of money that was wasted by the sponsorship scandal and gun control fiasco, the government has done everything but waste! Canada has a wonderful education system, globally recognized health care, programs to care for the suffering poor, and an excellent justice system. The conception that government wastes because it does not compete in a market is sooo flawed! The base-rate costs of American surgical procedures, which are supposed be hugely cost-efficient in the laissez-faire market, are more than double those of identical Canadian procedures. What’s the waste in that?
Is it just for anyone who is uninsured, like the 40 million in the U.S., to die of cancer just because they don’t have money for treatment while the wealthy spend their health money on breast augmentations and teeth whitening? When a country has the resources to prevent the death of any of its citizens, how are greed and “efficiency” justified reasons to allow this death? If the Canadian government has been so economically unwise by helping its most needy people and not cooperating with the American invasion of Iraq, why is our economy booming while theirs is sputtering? Trickle-down economics was proven to be a complete joke decades ago by Thatcher and Reagan. Who benefits from inequity and deficits?
And what social program is clearly in need of being cut? The Liberals have no motivation to continue to fund useless programs at the expense of voters; these programs have been proven to help both the people directly involved and the nation as a whole. Why do the nations that have the most social programs in the world continually rank at the top of the world’s best places to live (as rated by nonaligned NGOs like the UN)? It’s because each citizen is cared for, and no one loses out on a happy, fulfilling life. Do the people who already have plenty of money in their pockets need money to spend on more vehicles, bigger TV screens, or more expensive clothing? These things have been proven to not make a person any more contented. However, an ailing Alzheimer’s patient, monolingual immigrant, or struggling university student can absolutely benefit from social programs!
And while it’s true that the more we spend, the more taxes the government makes, what is the use of spending money when there are so many pleasures in life that cost nothing, and so many people need money for food, health, and education. What’s wrong with the government choosing how to spend my money? Do I know more than expert teachers, researchers, and government officials about how to spend money on education? Certainly not! Would it be better for the government to spend my money on improving hospitals and wait times, or for an insurance company to make profits off of my money and try their hardest not to fund my health costs? Clearly the former! Beyond meeting basic needs, pending money does not ultimately make people happier, more intelligent, or better human beings.
Why is the government inefficient? What profit motive does the Prime Minister have, when he could be making far, far more money owning his shipping business? The plague of corporate scandals like ENRON in recent years only confirms the reality that private delivery of services is less efficient. The sponsorship scandal is nothing compared to the wasteful behaviour of people like Conrad Black, and the less than $100 M that was horribly squandered by a few Chrètien followers is a miniscule proportion of the billions of dollars spent in the federal government. The scandals are over, Gomery found that Martin wasn’t involved, and the Liberals have absolutely not hurt our country. While I won’t be voting for my Liberal candidate this election, I fail to understand right-wingers’ beliefs about government. Why do they want to form a government if they hate government?
What I really miss is the Banff to Canmore cross-country ski trail during a chinook.
I think that in order to represent an entire people a new government should be voted in from time to time to keep the politicians in check. I think we've been too left-wing, and it is about time for a shift. But there are times when we are too right-wing and need to shift back to a left-wing government.
I'm sure you have met plenty of people who were considered 'educated' but you still thought they were idiots. Education may make one more liberal, but education does not make one 'better' nor smarter. There is a point where people can be over-educated so that they are too much 'theory' and not enough 'reality'.
I don't know about you but I grew up in alberta and have always felt like a minority with respect to representation in federal government. I think Harper will better represent the west and the views of the west.
An appointed senate is merely a leftover piece of government from the british constitutional monarchy. An elected senate allows the senate to actually represent the views of the people, you and me. People's actions can be kept in check. Instead of someone having a home and jamaica and showing up to one senate meeting a year to collect his free money, an elected senate would be accountable.
Liberals screwing up Canada, go to http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/defic3.htm
you will see that when the liberals took power in 1992, the finance minister made no effort to balance the budget though this was a campaign promise. In recent years it has improved http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt49b.htm
but the debt is still huge. When we have a budget surplus, the first thought liberals have is lets spend more. The net debt in 2004 was $523 billion. If we had a budget surplus of 1 billion/year it would take us 523 years to pay it off. So why not start?
Alberta has no debt, but even if it hadn't made bank off of these last few years, they still set in motion a plan to pay the debt off in 25 years. They made it illegal to run a provincial deficit. They could only run even or have a surplus. The federal government needs to do something like this.
You are in school right? Maybe you pay taxes maybe not, but those who do are usually very concerned about where their tax dollar goes. I get angry when my tax dollars go to INTEREST on the federal debt. That is money being wasted.
As for the scandals, I can understand if the liberals had only been responsible for 1 scandal, these things happen you can't control everyone underneath you, but come on. Multiple scandals that reached up to the even the Prime Minister's office. Government corruption are for the Phillipines government, the Mexican Government other governments but not my government of Canada.
I thought we were a 'first-world' country. The fact that the millions of dollars that were stolen from the canadian people are dwarfed by the actual amount spent in the federal budget means nothing. First of all this kind of thing ought never to happen again. Our government needs to be accountable. If I pulled a stunt like that I ought to locked up in a prison for decades. Politicians should not be given special treatment.
The real problem is that I don't want the kind of people that would do that sort of thing managing a country I love.
As for "If most people believe that the feds are a bottomless pit of money, they are highly uneducated." Maybe so. But this is the ideology held by people who live on welfare. By saying this, they feel comfortable taking free money. They don't remember that nothing is free. The money comes from somewhere. When I work for what I get, I feel better about myself. When I am given handouts, I have no motivation to be a productive member of society. I am being destroyed. While I agree there are legitimate needs for a welfare program or Employment Insurance etc, these progams should all be temporary. People should not be able to be on these programs permanently.
Did you know in atlantic canada, people don't get married anymore? People live together, because then they can get 2 cheques from the government. If you are married you only get 1. That is not cool at all.
The reason why governments are inefficient by definition is that they are organized into groups and committees which are assigned budgets. When an organization is assigned a budget and they have emergency needs, they go under-budget, when they use less than assigned to them they don't go overbudget. No. December is a big spending month. They go and spend the extra money so that they are up to budget. When you have an oversized government this problem is multiplied.
Conservatives do not say 'no government' they are just saying 'smaller government', more efficient government. They are saying 'better government'. Obviously you would never cut essential services and essential social programs, but these need to be re-evaluated at regular intervals. When I said a limit of 100 social programs, all I was suggesting is a period of re-evaluation of the necessity of any social program.
Just so you don't think I am contradicting everything you say, I do agree that "Canada has a wonderful education system, globally recognized health care, programs to care for the suffering poor, and an excellent justice system."
I agree that the American Health Care System is flawed, but so is the Canadian. Changes need to be made in both.
"However, an ailing Alzheimer’s patient, monolingual immigrant, or struggling university student can absolutely benefit from social programs!" - sure, but I went to school for a while in the USA, and for a while in Canada. In the USA, I was able to find a job to pay for my entire education. Students, immigrants and the sick also all benefit from a stronger economy. I also value my education more, knowing that I worked my way through it.
Scholarships and grants are far easier to get in the USA, but they are not all at the expense of the government.
"Do the people who already have plenty of money in their pockets need money to spend on more vehicles, bigger TV screens, or more expensive clothing?" This sounds like a beer and popcorn remark. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121405.html
I don't know about you but growing up in canada my family could not afford expensive clothing, a big tv screen, or nice vehicles. Each of the children had to work from 8 years old on with paper routes or minimum wage jobs or whatever they could. We never had to live off the government. I am proud of that.
"What’s wrong with the government choosing how to spend my money? Do I know more than expert teachers, researchers, and government officials about how to spend money on education?"
People have needs and are individuals. Right now you wouldn't mind government assistance getting through school. But other people have other needs. When you put people's money back into everybody's pockets everyone benefits. The alzheimer's patient, the janitor, and the people you didn't remember to include in some new social program with its eligibility requirements all benefit.
You have a lot of good points, and I am not opposed to social programs. I am not opposed to taxes. I am not opposed to government. I merely feel it is time for a change.
I am curious. Who will you be voting for and why? What are the issues that are important to you?
Just so you know, I am finishing up university in the USA with plans to return to Canada. I think your profile said you were 20? I am 24. Are you at U of A? I hear it is a good school. I did U of C for a year before going the USA. I had some friends at the U of A.
Thanks for the reply, and I'm impressed that you read through all of my comments! You definitely raise some significant concerns, although I'll always be left-wing! Yeah, I am at U of A, and really loving it. I've grown up around the campus, and I love the great profs, diverse student body, and school events. I'll be voting NDP this election, because of issues surrounding health care, international aid, and social programs in general. Will you be doing or have you done a mail-in-ballot? I'm quite excited for the election, but I do get the feeling that my "side" of the political spectrum won't be doing so well, which I'm dreading. Can I take it that you'll be voting Conservative, or would be if you could? It looks like you'll be getting the change of government that you're looking for at least!
Oh well, all of my arguments against the liberals were #1 issues during the elections in the 90s, but I haven't lived in canada since 2000, so I haven't been up on the current hot issues, except via web.
Anyway, these arguments are still held true, but most of the arguments you had had to do with relevent current issues to canadians. This was my first election I voted in, I missed the last one for mail-in ballot, because the deadline is much earlier than the voting deadline.
I'm happy Harper made it in, but I just hope he will live up to his promises. I think he can do a lot of good for canada if he only lives up to his promises. I think most canadians have lost trust in politicians due to Mulroney and Chretien.
Post a Comment