Jack Layton and Mr. Lahey

This year I have really gotten into the show Trailer Park Boys. Oddly enough, this has coincided with the beginning of the a new Canadian election cycle. One thing struck me the other day. Jack Layton, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, bears an uncanny resemblance to Jim Lahey, the supervisor of Sunnyvale Trailer Park. You be the judge.
Here are a couple of pictures of Jack Layton:

And here are a couple of pictures of Jim Lahey:

So there you have it. Would you elect a Lahey look-alike for prime minister? I know I wouldn't. Actually, my main beefs with the NDP is that they cling to economic ideals that have been discredited, they are out to restrict consumer choices, they would probably pick a destructive fight with the US (not that don't deserve it sometimes) and their idea of improving healthcare is to ignore the existing problems and throw money at it. They rail against private healthcare when it is already partly a reality in many provinces.

Frankly, I don't see what's so wrong with private hospitals and clinics. The health insurance system should remain universal though; because we don't want a situation like they have in the US where the poor and sick can't get coverage.

Canadian Politics: A world of topsey turvey

Today the Conservative party unveiled their plan for tax reform in Canada (if elected of course): a 2% cut in the GST, a value-added tax levied on goods and services. I don't know whether this is a great strategy for the conservatives, but it is an interesting proposal. What is most interesting is that it could be an attempt to beat the NDP in terms of progressiveness. What is also surprising is that the NDP has said that they oppose cutting the GST and would rather cut income taxes.

Do the NDP have any economists working for them at all? In general, value added sales taxes like the GST are very regressive. Since the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on consumables instead of saving, they spend a larger proportion of their income in sales taxes. The rich by comparison save more and pay more sales tax in future (assuming that they spend it in Canada). So really, the proposal to cut the GST is actually quite progressive. By comparison, tinkering with marginal income tax rates is easy for politicians (and hard on the Canada Revenue Agency) but it does not actually change the progressiveness of the system. While the rich pay high marginal tax rates, they can also avoid part of the bill by taking advantage of numerous loopholes; for example, by donating large sums to poltical parties. So, attempts to make the rich pay more taxes usually fail to do so. This all suggests that we should probably actually be moving to a flat tax system and eliminate all the loopholes and tax credits. The progressiveness of the system (which is practically non-existant) would be preserved and Canadians would all benefit from simple income tax returns and save money by spending less on bureaucracy and audits.

R

Grow Up Canada!

So with energy prices super high, many Canadians are going to be feeling the pinch of high heating bills this winter. What are provincial governments (and possibly the federal government) doing though? They are going to dish out millions of dollars in subsidies to help shield hapless Canadians from reality. Here's reality: high energy prices are here to stay. What will happen next year? And the year after that? Are subsidies going to be permanent? I'm not saying that the government should do nothing. I don't think that people who now cannot pay for their energy should be forced to freeze to death. Fortunately, so far, the subsidies that have been adopted have been reserved for people with low incomes. Some people are hurting more than others though because the cost of living is higher in many cities. Irregardless, conservation should not be forced on the wealthy only. Everybody benefits people take steps to increase energy efficiency. The poor may well be the most inefficient users of energy given that they may have cheaper, less efficient appliances and housing. If there's a role for the government in all this, it is in promoting more efficient energy usage. Some are already doing this.

There is an even better, longer term solution though: Deregulate energy markets. In some provinces, consumers can sign fixed rate contracts for electricity and natural gas. Smart consumers wary of the risk of balooning energy prices fixed theirs earlier. By fixing their tariffs, consumers can protect themselves from volatile spot prices for up to 5 years (depending on who is providing the contract). Provinces that have not deregulated their markets usually don't have fixed rate contract available.

The moral of the story is this: consumers woudln't need the government to intervene if the government would only permit them to protect themselves. High energy prices naturally encourage consumers to reduce their consumption anyways. Deregulation would also encourage more private involvement and investment in the energy industry. So, it's time to grow up Canada. High energy prices are here to stay. The old ways of dealing with them (subsidies) just aren't going to work.

R

Exams - no comment

It's exam period right now. But I don't want to talk about that.

Death in the News
After seeing the news in the past four months for Indonesia and Bagladesh, I must say human tragedy, unlike (or like) lightning has the horrible tendency of striking in the same place. Both these countries would be in the running for the title "The Land of Tears." Though really, Indonesia would win hands down because of December's tsunami and the subsequent aftershocks. Bangladesh though, despite the comparably small death toll, would get an honourable mention for the horrible frequency of man-made disasters. It seems like every month that country has some kind of building collapse, sinking ferry or deadly fire.

Okay, that was just crass on my part. Now for something completely different:

The Case for the Caliph: Why Islam needs their equivalent of the Pope
Given the current state of sectarian relations, and the rising nationalism of middle-eastern nations, why, you may ask, should Islam need the return of the Caliphate? This is rather puzzling given that one of the goals of those nefarious international terrorist networks is the Caliphate's restoration. Frankly, Islam needs a the Caliph to discipline the religion. If one man had the spiritual authority to castigate the terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of Allah, the world would be a safer place. Of course, another possibility is that such a man would declare jihad against the west (though he would be absolutely nuts to do so).

Historically, the Caliphate spiritual power has been intertwined with the political power of the dominant middle-eastern empire. The present day situation does not seem condusive to such an arrangement since there is no dominant empire in the middle east these days. I think a purely spiritual leader could lead the faithful though. Islam, well, Sunni Islam as I understand it anyway, is not terribly condusive to this arrangement though. Since there is no real clergy in the religion, compared to the Catholic Church at least, it would be very difficult to determine who should lead. Arab political leaders would probably bicker over the choice. Also, what would happen if there were pretender Caliphs vying for control?

This is all hypthetical though. The point is that no one person in the region or in the religion, other than maybe Osama Bin Laden himself, has the far-reaching fame influence to fill the Caliph's vacant boots. Technically, the Caliph's powers were conferred on the Turkish parliament after the passing of the last Caliph in the 1920's. Irregardless, it's all wishful thinking, that a spiritual leader could emerge and bring peace and order to a chaotic Islamic world.

Pre-Birthday Blues?

So, I'm turning 23 soon. This leads me to one thought... damn, I'm getting old! On an un-age-related note, all sorts of disasters have been happening to me lately. Today, I found out that the sink is leaking and overflowing onto the floor. Last week, I failed to even get an interview for a job because the other candidates were more qualified. Also last week, I was arranging to send two teams to a debating tournament in Calgary and then found out that the people from the university across town who offered to let our debaters travel with them on the bus, aren't going by bus at all, thus leaving me in a lurch.

So what did I do? Well, for starters I got drunk on Thursday night. Then on Saturday I did absoltely nothing of value. Well, that's not totally true. I did figure out why my computer was crashing whenever I played a game. Apparently, the computer is overheating. I don't know how that causes crashes, or why it only happened when I was playing games. So I figured out a novel solution: shove my three hole punch underneath to let more air flow in and cool it off more. It hasn't crashed since.

On a related note, I hate Windows XP SP2. I decided to uninstall the update recently because it made my system far too slow. Besides, I'm more skilled than the average computer-using fool and am unlikely to get caught offguard by viruses, spyware, etc. In any case, my computer needs servicing to deal with the overheating.

Okay, I'm off track. Back to my birthday... So invited lots of people. I invited them to simply chill with me at the bar across the street. I prefer conversation to dancing like a fool (though that changes with enough alcohol). I've had a few of my good friends get back to me right away. So, I'm looking forward to it. Well, I would be much more eager if the girls (each of which I fancy) I invited weren't too busy to come. Well, I guess it could be worse. At least they e-mailed me back.

Fox News Comes to Canada

I thought I wasn't going to give commentary on the news anymore, but I can't help myself. Fox News is being offered as a subscription channel on digital cable in Canada. Normally, I wouldn't comment on something as banal as this. In this case though, Fox News has been drawing some fire lately from media critics regarding it's apparent (and actual) bias. Whether you think it is biased depends on your point of view. I'm very much inclined to believe that it is (from my narrow exposure to it). They claim to report the news as they see it and to not be biased (a charge, by saying so, they level at the competition). This wouldn't normally be alarming (just business as usual) except that Fox News has captured a large market share in America. From what I've seen, many of their commentators have made big names for themselves by telling off people of other political views. I've also seen anecdotal evidence that some commentators are not beyond using lies (or self-delusions) if it serves their political interest.

Is there such thing as unbiased media? I don't think so. The issue is where each individual places the centre of the their political spectrum. Really, left and right are not a good model for explaining one's politics, but they are used widely. Personally, and as a Canadian, I would put CTV News probably in the middle. CBC would be a bit left of centre, but quite close. Network American News and CNN would probably be in the centre or a bit to the right. That would put Fox News much further on the right. On the left I could put various "independent, unbiased" sources as the campus newspaper, the Indymedia Centre, and websites like rabble.ca. On the far right (possibly further than Fox News) would be right wing online rags like worldnetdaily.com. The Economist, which I read, is difficult to place because it advodates social and economic liberalism. Some people think it is really right wing. At least The Economist doesn't try to hide its bias.

So, if we equate "unbiasedness" with one's political centre, if you think Fox News is "unbiased," what is a right wing source? Likewise, if you think zmag or IMC are "unbiased" give me an example of a left wing news source. What is reality? Is there one true interpretation of the news? Personally, I think that sources on far left and right have blinders on. They cannot understand anyone else's viewpoint and attack it as fascist/corporate/communist drivvel. Absorbing the same sources over and over again reaffirms the same old beliefs. I don't know who's reading this, but I challenge you to get your news from various sources if you can. Don't just get it from the same place all the time. Question what you believe from time to time. This is a apolitical request (if you can believe that).