The first reactionary comments were on the voter turnout (~18%), which sounds low, but in reality is higher than average. Frankly, I was surprised that it made quorum in the first place, and even more at this large of turnout. Of course they point out that the difference was 455 votes, as if increasing voter turnout would close the gap for them (it wouldn’t). This was an unquestionable defeat for CKMS.

Next came the attacks on their opponents. First the CKMS Pres says their opponents “don’t care about culture”. Then the anonymous commentary. Several of them complain that it was only $2.50 and was refundable. They are missing the point; here were the concerns I raised during the campaign. Despite what Davenport expected, I did not, nor did I ever have the intention of bringing money into this. Money wasn’t the issue, as demonstrated by the approval of millions of dollars for a Health Services expansion compared to the $100K a year for CKMS.

CKMS continued to hide behind the concept of campus radio and ignored the specific criticism. I made it clear that it was a problem with them and not the idea of campus radio. You may slap on a new name, but the underlying problems continued to exist. I believe this was in large part due to not swapping out the old CKMS guard from their government. The reality was that it was still controlled by a few community members and a couple of dedicated, but stuck in the old mindset, students. This was clear by their low student membership numbers.

Take for example the Treasurer who presided over the largest loss of revenue in the station’s history; they elevated her to Vice-President and put her as Chair of their Policy Committee. Having the most ardent supporter of the last station manager in such a position does not lead to real change. Her hard line stance to refuse to accept that it might just be a problem with the station is clear in her commentary. If you look at the comments in the same article, we have another CKMS board member expressing how opponents are “delusional” and he clings again to the claim that this was about campus radio and not CKMS.

Next we can look at another board member who expresses the same fallacy. Clearly it can’t be opposition to them because they are campus radio – this is an attack on independent media! This sense of entitlement unfortunately wasn’t shaken after the last referendum. The commentary extends to other media who, in my opinion, didn’t even look into the issue and just supported them because they were media. Of course the NCRA doesn’t deviate from this position either.

In light of all this, it is clear that they still would have failed if I had run no campaign at all, which wouldn’t have have been much of a change from what I actually did. I was sick for most of the campaign, which limited me to only one late campaign debate that I believe really didn’t sway anyone. It was just CKMS fanboys asking irrelevant questions. I had no website, no posters, no buttons, no class talks. I spent $0; a reduction from my last campaign. I’m flattered if they believe my opening comments in the debate (later posted on the Feds website) changed the course of the referendum, but it’s much more likely that I did not change the inevitable course to failure they set themselves on.

Not all of this can be placed on them though. Feds Executive and Council are the ones that allowed this to happen at this time, which had campaigning during midterms. If Council was going to call it, they should have done it 2 terms ago when the failed petition was submitted. Their feet dragging pushed CKMS into the current corner and imminent eviction, where if it was done in the Winter and it failed they’d have the Fall to have tried again. Instead it was left to Feds’s board to dictate what they wanted and Council rubber stamped it with no debate on a crappy referendum question.

If I was CKMS, right after the last referendum I would have laid off the staff immediately, not spent a fortune on legal battles, put in an entirely new board, put in motion reforms, and last Fall began collecting 3000 signatures for a petition to hold a referendum during the Feds February election. That would have ensured a buffer and allowed them to run the referendum on their own terms, not on Feds’s misguided agreement and wording. CKMS themselves admitted in the debate that they hated the agreement yet they signed it because Feds forced it upon them. Some independent media they were agreeing to.

There has been a little side debate about criticism, with Davenport and a columnist discussing their thoughts on some of my actions. The columnist is a stalwart CKMS supporter who wasted my time at the debate by not asking questions during the question period about any of my actual stances. Oddly, he claims that my criticism is not pragmatic, which is an interesting notion as usually I’m the one criticizing a normative position for lack of pragmatism. I presented what I continue to believe is a feasible alternative and just because no actions are taking place right now doesn’t make it is infeasible.

My roommate asked why CKMS doesn’t host a panel on the hot engineering topic of PDEng and invite the PDEng Director and opponents to an on-air discussion. Before such an event they could advertise “PDEng Debate Sunday on CKMS”. This is an example of campus engagement that doesn’t exist. Their biggest asset is their original programming, yet they don’t make use of it. They needed to be unconventional. They needed to take risks. Instead they were submissive and unimaginative, like their name: Sound-FM. If campus radio is to succeed at UW in the future then it needs to reform, not rebrand.

I’m glad that it looks like we won’t be having an election this Fall. My reason is not the common one being thrown around, that we are in a recession. I’d like to note that it appears that the recession ended in June. I don’t want an election because I want the Liberal party to spend more time developing policy. Furthermore, I would like to see the House reorganized as is being proposed, as it will be more reflective of demographics and fairer representation.

This doesn’t mean that I support the current government. I am outraged at the $56+ billion deficit (caused partly by the stupid populist move to lower the GST – BTW, I’m pro HST). I’m not against deficits in bad times, but this is due to mismanagement. I’m upset that the government has ruled out introducing carbon taxes. I’m upset at Harper’s attacks on our judicial system. Ignatieff had a great speech in the House that I think everyone should watch.

The other topic that I want to talk on is about hate speech. I have in the past been supportive of laws against speech that advocates violence. I now am opposed to it. First, I’d like to note that just because a law is constitutional, doesn’t mean that we should have it. I note that as Hate Speech laws are constitutional as a result of R. v. Keegstra. I personally side with Chief Justice McLachlin’s dissent (a Justice that Canadians should be proud to have), but the reality is that the law is constitutional now.

To me it comes down to the idea that your actions and not your thoughts/speech are which should be punished. The reality is that the current laws are not used for cases where an individual is advocating violence, but when they say things which people are offended. The Human Rights Tribunals/Commissions are being used to silence thoughts people don’t like. An example was the Mark Steyn case, while ultimately dismissed, demonstrates the problems with the law. I read Steyn’s book, and while I found it to be garbage, it was not hate speech.

There are numerous other examples of cases resulting from section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It should be abolished. Similarly, I disagree with hate crime legislation. It effectively also punishes beliefs such as racism and homonegativity, which are not – and should not – be illegal. There are statutes to deal with the crimes, including assault and organizing violence. While I find attacks like the one last month in TBay abhorrent, their beliefs are not what matters, only their actions and intent to harm.

Currently Listening to: I Gotta Feeling – Black Eyed Peas

Random Wikipedia Link: Panopticism

Some topics: 1) Follow up from the Indian Act in my last post – the Government is not challenging the court ruling, but the plantiff is. Looks like this issue is going to continue to drag on. 2) Ontario opened their adoption records – I find the event interesting but didn’t know of it until a friend mentioned it. 3) Here’s a link to Balsille’s website supporting the move of the Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton. I hope this works out in Balsille’s favour – the matter is being worked out in court.

I was quite pleased to see the Governor General participate in a Inuit ceremony that involved gutting and eating part of a raw seal heart. It both aids to promote a part of Canadian culture and also acknowledges the importance the seal hunt plays in Eastern Canada. Of course many ‘animal rights’ groups were upset – maybe instead they can focus on their own scandals instead.

GM’s Oshawa truck plant, where I worked on my last co-op, has closed. GM went into bankrupcy protection and an arrangement has been made for the CAW, and US and Canadian governments to hold part ownership. I was opposed to the bailouts and supported bankruptcy proceedings last year. With the expectation that the new money the government provides not to be paid back, along with the previous bailout money, one needs to ask if the government cost per auto and auto related job saved is worth that amount. I heard an estimate that it is $1.5 million per job. I don’t think it’s worth it.

There is also new estimates that the Federal deficit will rise to $50 billion this year. I expected, as well as accepted, a deficit this year but I was willing to accept maybe half that amount. The deficit wouldn’t have been so high if the government didn’t stupidly reduce GST. On a side note, I don’t understand the provincial Progressive Conservative’s stance against PST/GST harmonization. Everything I’ve read on the topic supports it economically.

Somehow I was thinking last week and an old court case came to mind about a printer opposing printing material for a LGBT group. I believe I had a discussion a few years ago with Mike about it where I supported the LGBT group. I just wanted to tell people (mainly Mike) that I have changed my position. I support the printer’s choice to discriminate. If people want to act stupidly and lose business, that’s their choice. I also support the public’s ability to call them out on their discrimination even if the negative press harms them. It’s a risk they have if they make that choice.

Though not really related, that case came to mind when I read about a case of child custody by white-supremacists. Well it may sound impersonal, I consider young children to essentially be chattel of their parents – they are responsible for them and also hold rights to teach them their beliefs. While I find the material these children are subjected to to be appalling, there are many things taught to children that I disagree with (e.g. religion) yet don’t think should be banned. Considering the situation, I think I would draw the line at teaching them material that makes them want to harm other people, in this case teaching them that they should harm black people.

Now there is a continuing debate about what exactly ‘hate speech’ is. I tend to side more on the side of free speech until the extreme of speech that specifically calls for harm to a group of people. If people want to be racist and teach their children to be racist, I believe that is their right, but what these parents have done is incited belief to harm racial minorities, and that is over the line. By this reasoning, the parents are guilty of hate speech, and given the goal to both punish people for their crime and prevent it in the future, removing the children from custody does seem like a fitting solution. One of my core beliefs is in tolerance (thought not acceptance), and instilling a belief to harm black people in children, of course, is not at all tolerant.

Currently Listening to: Loud sound from X-Men 3 playing upstairs

Random Wikipedia Article: Blood libel

Another story that came to my attention today is that I missed a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling issued 3 weeks ago on the topic of Indian Status (Indian of course used in the legal definition under the Indian Act). I had been tipped off about the McIvor case when it was in the B.C. Supreme Court 2 years ago. The new ruling limits the first one and gives the federal government a year to amend the Indian Act or appeal to the Supreme Court. I see no mention of it on the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada site, so I assume the government is preparing its response. The Globe speculates as to the result (stupid Globe makes you pay after 2 weeks so I am linking to blog spam).

Take for example a status native women who’s parents were both status native, who married a non-native man, who’s status native daughter married a non-native man. As a result of this legislation, it appears that their children, who currently could only register as Metis, could be status native. (This is my reading from the ruling and the Indian Act on eligibility for status – feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) I would presume that there are thousands of cases of Canadians who would now be eligible to be status native.

It is not particularly hard to grant status to these people, but status comes along with numerous social, political, cultural, and economic benefits. Membership in bands would increase and services provided by them would have to receive funding. There would be an impact on reserves. The federal government would be impacted by the numerous economic benefits and services it provides to status natives.

One of the more interesting things would be to address past compensation by the discrimination in the Indian Act. The Act was modified in 1985 and in the 24 years since, an individual could have benefited significantly from native status. For example, if the child of the above situation I mentioned was born in 1986, in the last 23 years that individual did not receive the tax breaks, additional healthcare benefits, hunting and fishing rights, support for post secondary education, and membership in a band (which may have during that time received treaty settlements which they did not share in), to name a few.

I’ve been of the opinion for a long time that the Indian Act and the reserve system is flawed. Maybe over the next year some of these issues can be reviewed and the Indian Act can be amended or superceded.

Since I’ve been minoring in Political Science (my actual interest and focus has been Political Economy), I figured I’d throw out some thoughts on the big topic of the day: economic stimulus.

While it seems that the US rushed through a $787 Billion stimulus bill, there is no reason Canada can’t be a little more thoughtful. I realize that there are some bills working their way through Parliament right now, but I’ll lay out some of my thoughts regardless of them. I realize that politically many of these ideas would never fly but I’m going to present them either way so you can consider them.

My economic thought of late can be characterized as New Keynesian – meaning that I am most interested in microfoundations for Keynesian macroeconomics. I have been highly influenced by the Chicago School, in particular Milton Friedman (I highly recommend reading his Capitalism and Freedom). This generally leads to me being in favour of stimulus activities but wary of too much government involvement.

While Canada can remain committed to free trade (we need to avoid a Buy Canadian provision at all costs and resist countering the US), many positive actions are out of our hands, like completing the Doha Round (US, China, and India are holding it up) or floating the Chinese currency. Parliament needs to stand up against protectionist lobbying (an example would be the CAW pushing for Buy Canadian). History has shown that protectionism can only do more harm in a recession.

Previously I’ve talked about not bailing out the Auto companies and having them go through court supervised restructuring. I still continue to support this, though with the US bailing their companies out it looks likely that Canada will follow. Another idea that I like but think might be a little too extreme for Canada, especially right now, would be abolishing our current income tax structure and social assistance programs and replacing it with a Negative Income Tax. It would make things much more efficient but I really can’t see Canada taking such massive reforms.

I’ll split my thoughts into two sections: one for stimulus activities and one for paying for it. I have no problem with running a deficit through a recession but we need to ensure that it doesn’t spiral out of control and that eventually we return to paying down our public debt.

Stimulus:

1) Cut income tax. This will provide more money to working Canadians and help to increase consumer spending. It should be the cornerstone of any government stimulus action.

2) Invest in public infrastructure. A good place always to pump public dollars. An example would be public transit where new buses/trains could be bought and routes expanded to aid low income workers.

3) Provide a tax credit to companies for new equipment. This will encourage efficiency improvements while also hopefully aiding in creating new jobs.

4) Invest in the Canadian Forces. Likely one of the more controversial ideas but I think that for some stimulus activity the military is a good place. There are lots of possibilities for orders for planes, vehicles, and boats as well as other equipment since the military desperately needs them.

5) Cut capital gains tax. This should help to spur investment and kick some life into the struggling markets.

Revenue:

1) Increase the gasoline tax. I’m a fan of consumption and pigovian taxes (including carbon taxes – I’m fine with implementing them too; but not cap and trade), and with gasoline prices falling as well as inflation under control it is a tax where we can see an increase. It also should have a positive effect on climate change as well as secondary effects such as improving congestion. (As a side note, we should never have cut the GST, and if we really need the revenue I’d be open to raising it back to its previous level.)

2) Legalize and tax marijuana. There is no reason that we should continue to push money into fighting this drug use. I’m not encouraging people to use it, but I don’t believe that it is any worse than tobacco. We’ll get some more tax revenue, save on enforcement costs, and maybe even get some added tourism.

3) Cut agricultural subsidies. This is one of those measures that needs to be done selectively and, along with any consumption tax increases, needs to be phased in over time. An example of where to cut would be ethanol corn subsidies. Encouraging ethanol production for fuel use is absurd as there is no environmental benefit when you factor “well-to-wheel” and it drives up food costs.

Well I hope at least this has been a little thought provoking. That’s the best I can hope for. (Oh, and for the penny to be eliminated.)

Currently Listening to: A Dustland Fairytale – The Killers

Random Wikipedia Link: Erd?s?Bacon number

1) Gates looks like he will remain as Secretary of Defense.

2) More calls for prescription privileges to Pharmascists.

3) An interesting graph comparing the American Big Three with the Japanese Big Three.

4) Bush made a few pardons.

New comments:

1) I have favourable views of the Clinton, Holder, Axelrod, Geithner, Romer, Summers, and Volcker for their respective proposed positions. I feel much better now that Obama won’t do anything drastically protectionist given his team of economic advisers.

2) I like Obama’s civil rights agenda. Please note his approval of the repealing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It’s a silly policy that loses money and skilled members of the military.

3) I oppose the proposed new Ontario driving laws. At their core, they are blatantly ageist, and at the least should have been based on years of experience than age. Other issues are the negative impacts on car-pooling, and designated drivers. Again, it’s just MADD imposing their neo-prohibitionist and anti-civil liberties agenda on the public through lobbying. Shame on McGuinty. I’ve made known it long ago that I despise MADD, and I discourage anyone from donating to them given their policies and 81% overhead.

4) I oppose the cut to federal party public financing. I have mixed feelings about this though. Generally I despise public campaign funding. It’s absurd to just give out money to just anyone to campaign; you have to be able to produce some level of support, including monetary support. On the other hand, this is an after the election result tied to actual votes. It’s not a blind handout to any wannabee politician out there. It’s been highly advertised and people have factored it into their voting. It’s played a factor in getting people to vote for their party over compromising, and I can appreciate that goal.

The money is actually very little and for a program that I somewhat like. Of course, it will effectively kill the Green Party, who, having made significant gains in popular vote and running candidates in every riding should now be considered a notable federal party. I guess I sort of felt that the incentive helped to fight the paradox of voting. I tend to think this will have a negative effect on voter turn out, which is quickly becoming an issue we need to address.

Chrétien introduced the changes (to which, if I remember correctly, Martin has bashed for crippling the Liberal party) to end corporate and union donations, which I highly favour. I’ll note that I’m a Liberal Party member and supporter and, yes, my party does benefit from this financing. All parties do. Seems to me though like a political power move over relatively no money that disproportionately affects the opposition parties during a time when personal donations will be lower due to the recession.

I’ll defend Harper until my throat is sore over the responsible act of running a federal deficit, but this is a program that shouldn’t be cut. It’s not really pork, but allows for parties to develop new policy, well worth the money in a time when we need to think outside the box to fight this recession. To tie it to a confidence vote would be a political move that I think is petty when the parties should be working together on more inportant topics. Instead of eliminting this spending (be wary of reducing spending at all during recessions), eliminate the penny; that will save some money.

Currently Listening to: Lyin’ Eyes – Eagles

Random Wikipedia Article: Puntland

All this time in bed has me making random notes on things that I’ve been meaning to mention. I have a constantly increasing bookmark folder of articles that I just haven’t been up to commenting on. So here’s a few things for me to cross of my list:

Congratulations to President-Elect Barack Obama and to the U.S.A.

Ohio is now off notice (For “going blue”). California is on notice (For passing “Prop 8″).

Levi gets the award for correctly predicting Obama due to his razor sharp reasoning that “Star Trek had a Black Captain before a Female one”.

Things I hope Obama does:

1) Keeps Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.

2) Closes Guantanamo Bay.

3) Appoints Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court (Face it: in the likely 8 years of Obama there is the possibility of having to replace Stevens, Ginsburg, and maybe even Scalia).

I bet Grover that she’ll be appointed while she’s still his Dean. I also made the note that after 8 years of executive experience (as President), 12 years of legislative experience (Illinois/US Senate), and 12 years lecturing in constitutional law, in 2017 when he’d turn 58, maybe he’d pull a Taft and serve on the Supreme Court!

Other than Obama, I look forward to seeing Bush’s list of pardons.

Now four minor rants:

1) The Big Three automakers need to suck it up (have you seen their worthless stock?). They’ve got billions of handouts over decades. Both the companies and the CAW/UAW hold responsibility and maybe Chapter 11 and court supervised restructuring is what needs to be done. I’ve worked for two of the Big Three: they have ineffective management, inefficient manufacturing, and poor innovation. Things need to change and it is going to hurt for a while before it gets better.

2) Will the NHL just give Balsillie a franchise? It is clear that he’d be able to run a much more profitable and popular one up here, say in Hamilton.

3) While Nurse Practitioners are a great move in alleviating the burden on our strained health system and its Doctors, hurry up and give Pharmacists reasonable prescription privileges. My Pharmacist knows me and my drug history much better than the Doctors I end up seeing (my family doctor retired) and even on just routine refills I’d rather have my Pharmacist deal with it.

4) Lastly, I am still unsure where I stand on competition law. A Facebook note I wrote only resulted with Grover’s suggestion to buy a textbook, which is a little overboard for me. I’ve read Friedman’s views, and I know I have a Greenspan essay on the topic somewhere in a book on my shelf in Waterloo, but it is recent events that make me seem to lean against the current antitrust law. The classic case being the Microsoft/Internet Explorer one to which I personally side with Microsoft. It seems silly to me to demand a company to provide exactly what you want (e.g. OS w/o Browser).

Earlier this year, Amazon got slapped by French competition law (My impression is the EU’s Antitrust laws are way overboard, but I’m still learning about them), and now Google pulled out of a deal with Yahoo over concerns of antitrust challenges. In these two cases how are customers and shareholders benefiting by the laws? Yahoo’s stock is tanking and there are renewed talks of Microsoft acquiring them. For consumers, isn’t an advertising deal better than having an entire firm acquired by a competitor? Is it really that bad that Amazon offers free shipping on a minimum purchase (as an avid Amazon customer I can say it’s the kind of service I want)?

Okay; enough ranting. I do appreciate discussion. I have nothing better to do than hack out my lungs.

Currently Listening to: Landslide – Smashing Pumpkins

Random Wikipedia Article: – Portuguese Man o’ War

I’d like to list a few requests for change that I’d like to see occur over the next few administrations. Some are more provocative than others and I’d love to hear your thoughts on them.

Eliminate the Penny: The penny costs almost as much to produce as its fiat value. Rising commodity prices mean we are just throwing away capital. We should head the way Australia did and leave the nickel as the smallest currency denomination.

Legalize Marijuana: The costs of enforcing the currently criminalized drug use is absurd and creates a black market. Legalize, regulate, and tax like tobacco. We’ll be better off and people won’t have overbearing criminal records for a relatively harmless activity.

Suffrage for 16+ Years of Age: Current suffrage ages are arbitrary, as is the selection of 16, but I see no disadvantage in extending it. We allow consensual sexual relations and driver’s licenses at that age, why not the vote?

Eliminate the Tiered Minimum Wage: I’m pragmatic enough to know we can’t eliminate the minimum wage all together, but there should not be tiers as there are for youth and liquor servers. I do hope that the laws remain under the provincial governments. A national minimum wage is absurd and does not factor the differential cost of living in different regions.

Legalize Prostitution: A current black market exists resulting from a law trying to impose one view of morality. I would like to see, along with legalization, a form of brothel system similar to Nevada where workers can be safe, tested regularly, and properly taxed on their income.

Tax shift from Income to Consumption Taxes: Gradually phased in, hopefully with any income, capital gains/corporate taxes and estate taxes eliminated. I think it is misguided to cut gas taxes and the GST (as Harper has proposed and done, respectfully) and I do believe a “Green shift” to Carbon taxes over income taxes is needed.

A Two-Tier Health Care System: I’m not saying that people opting to be part of the private services should pay reduced taxes, but it should be their freedom to spend their money on private in Canada service. Too many situations exist where people just head to the US for services where it could be done here. Hopefully it will result in a reduction of the public system’s burden.

Elimination of Tariffs: We need to embrace free trade and stop squabbling over little clauses in NAFTA. The only use for tariffs should be for economic sanctions or national defense as determined by the Government.

Senate Term Limits: I believe 8-year term limits is a good suggestion. I haven’t made up my mind if the Senate should be appointed, elected or abolished, but I do believe in term limits. When a government wins consecutive governments, there should be a shift of power in the Senate. I will emphasize my support for regional representation in the Upper House.

Eliminate Agricultural Subsidies: It causes too much distortions in the market and doesn’t encourage free trade. Protectionalist policies need to end. Subsidies for any field are misguided distortions.

Those are a few items that come to mind. I also am not a fan of Employment Equity/Affirmative Action (believing it to be based on racism). I don’t see it likely that it will change soon. I would love to see us try to implement Education Vouchers, but I feel that that may be a little radical. I strongly feel that any of these actions is a step in the right direction; incremental steps may be all we need.

Currently Listening to: What a Catch, Donnie – Fall Out Boy

Random Wikipedia Article: Fingerstyle Guitar

Above you can see the collected ingredients and supplies. Between the lard, butter, maple syrup, and brown sugar you can get the impression that these aren’t the healtiest thing to eat.

Here’s the pastry dough. Off to the fridge to cool!

Now to roll out thin and cut out circles for the shell. Remember to flour the surfaces to keep from sticking!

Fit the dough circles into the baking tray. Once again off to the fridge to cool!

Whisk the filling ingredients…almost all butter and sugar (Brown and Maple Syrup).

Fill the tarts and into the oven they go. (Okay, I screwed up a little. 5 mins after I put them in and as I was putting away ingrediants I noticed I forgot the golden raisins and pecans. I threw them in quickly and I think they turned out fine.)

And there it is. Tastes great. I think that if I were to make them again I would make more dough and have a higher tart with crimped walls.

Currently Listening to: A Clockwork Orange – Anthony Burgess

Random Wikipedia Article – Ride of the Valkyries

The Economy is the top issue for me. Flat out: I’m a fan of the Liberal’s Green Shift. Shifting the tax burden from income to consumption taxes is a great idea. The environmental benefit is secondary for me as it is solid economics. There are provisions in it for corporate tax incentives to improve manufacturing efficiency, and items that address rural issues. Read the whole thing. The only thing that I dislike is the little cap-and-trade measures that I believe are useless. My views have been influenced by Prof. Mankiw, who advocates Pigovian taxes, and discussed the Green Shift with the Ottawa Citizen. To note, I believe that the option of a federal deficit should be open to address the economic crisis.

Now, as the Globe and Mail notes, the Conservative Platform document is “a slim, glossy, 41-page booklet printed in huge blue font and includes 22 colour photos of Mr. Harper.” The things that stick out in the platform for the economy is reducing excise taxes on diesel and aviation fuel. As seen above, I prefer income tax cuts over cutting excise taxes. Other than that, I see nothing bad on the economic policy. I think the Liberal policy, along with Dion’s announced action plan, is better than the Conservative plan. The NDP come in third with policies that will crush industry with raising corporate tax is a possible recession, and a federal minimum wage, despite my objections with minimum wages, also ignores regional differences.

Now, I would love to have seen some more interesting topics. Harper raises the senate issue, though with one week left there isn’t really time to debate. I support an appointed, term limited (e.g. 8 year senate terms, one reappointment?), and regional representation senate. Parliamentary reform would have been a good issue to discuss, but it’s too late now. Legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana and prostitution could have been great domestic issues. Lower age of majority (e.g. 16) would have been great to see, and I always love the elimination of the penny like Australia.

Finally, a shoot-out to FiveThirtyEight.com, which is my favourite site on the US Election. Go Obama/Biden! Oh, and apparently it is impossible to get a copy of the Economist in TBay.

Currently Listening to: 2nd US Presidential Debate.

Random Wikipedia Link: Franklin Gothic