Steven Harper and the recession

Steven Harper says that his stimulus package is working...I say, what stimulus package?


He claims that they have spent 90% of the earmarked stimulus money...that would represent 90% of 22.742 billion dollars planned to stimulate our economy (from the 2009 budget) or 20.4678 billion dollars spent so far...From the Telegraph Journal, "After question period, Baird said the 90 per cent figure was accurate, not just for the infrastructure funding, but for the entire economic stimulus." The entire economic stimulus package, for the record, is supposed to be 29.298 billion dollars including tax breaks and give backs...


Consider that of over 7500 infrastructure and housing projects are expected and only 4000 or roughly 53 percent have happened so far, with 11.589 billion dollars expected to be committed to these projects total and a further 5.257 billion in leverage...unless those remaining 3500 or so jobs have a combined value of less than 1.1589 billion, this number is a figment of Mr. Harper's imagination.


Also, Steven Harper has promised to create or maintain 220,000 jobs...now, I may not be an expert with numbers, but create or maintain means that if a job is created, removed, then recreated with a fancy new name, for example, it would count double, since Mr. Harper is not promising that 220, 000 more people will have jobs (due to his selective language)...


And throughout Steven Harper's claims about what a great job he is doing with the recession, the conservatives continue to posture for an election, keeping the fear in the people of Canada. From the Telegraph Journal, "In question period, Transport Minister John Baird was taking the point in Harper's absence. He said the Liberals were not focused on the economy but "on an unnecessary election.""

One thing should be noted is that the conservatives are making it next to impossible to follow the money trail...according to the Telegraph Journal, "Last Thursday, the Liberals released a research report they said was based on more than half the announced projects. They found only 12 per cent of the money has flowed to projects that have begun construction. That funding created only 4,800 jobs - a fraction of the 40,000 the government projected", suggesting that the Conservative Party is planning on announcing the full amount's worth of stimulus monies, but is actually canceling the promised funding as soon as the media turns their backs. In response, "The Conservatives counter not only that 4,000 projects have begun, but many more will be underway this fiscal year." and "Baird also argued that it can be misleading to focus on how much federal funding has flowed. He cited the example of the home renovation tax credit.
Canadians won't get the benefit of it until their tax returns are processed next spring, but the incentive has already stimulated consumer spending and the home renovation sector, he said." The first argument should be problematic to anyone that understands even a shred of the English language. The Conservatives say that they've spent almost all the money, but that they still have plenty of projects up their sleeves (arguing that they've done so much and that they have so much to do yet also trying to say that they've spent almost all their money by throwing out 90% and then suggesting that the number came from thin air). The second argument isn't as clearly egregious, but is nonetheless offensive...the argument is that the benefits will be delayed until next year, and therefore they can claim the money as spent without any idea of how much (basically allowing themselves to take credit for any amount they feel like)...the other problem with this argument is that they are only planning on giving out 1.475 billion between this year and next for this bonus, which is a measly 16% of the housing plan...

One question we should be asking is why are we trusting a man whose last budget said that we our deficit rate was at 29.8 percent last year (debt to our total gross domestic product)...the proposed ways of turning this into a surplus are changing the Equalization formula again (read: giving less money in transfer payments for the services the federal government is supposed to be paying for, and passing the buck onto lower levels of government), reviews of departmental spending and corporate assets (read: anything that contains social or development is gone), and last but not least, they are taking a "use it or lose it approach" (read: don't be surprised if some of the promised money magically doesn't find its way to its intended recipients)...

Quick note: I am a liberal and do not support Mr. Harper because he conceals everything he does, and impedes the democratic process by refusing access to essential financial details (namely, pretty much everything)...that being said, I do not support Michael Ignatieff or Jack Layton's NDP either...

Democracy vs America

Today, Marc Emery, aka the Prince of Pot, was taken into custody in British Columbia at the request of the US Department of Justice. He faces a minimum of 10 years in jail for his actions...but this is not a problem...the problem is that Marc Emery is a Canadian citizen who operated a Canadian business on Canadian soil, on which he paid taxes to the Canadian government...now the US wants to charge him for conspiracy to make marijuana (even though he freely sells seeds and nothing more), selling marijuana seeds over the internet to Americans, and he was also charged with money laundering, even though he has paid income taxes on the money, and even filed his source of income as "marijuana seed vendor".

But now, he is facing extradition to the United States, to face their tougher laws...from DEA leader Karen Tandy, "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." and "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." (taken from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer)...these two statements clearly indicate that Marc Emery is not being sought as a drug peddler, but rather as a political activist, that he is being persecuted for his political beliefs...and according to Article 4 of the Canada-US extradition treaty (posted below), it is illegal to extradite someone for political purposes...and in fact, it is a violation of his democratic rights to punish him as a political figure (though punishing him for the crime he has committed is fine)...

The fact of the matter here is that Marc Emery is a criminal...he sells marijuana seeds which is illegal, and has mailed his catalog to MPs (he stopped upon his arrest in 2005, which also shut his business down)...he deserves to be punished for these crimes, by OUR government...but he also deserves to be free from persecution for his political ideals, including his championing for the decriminalization of marijuana...

Like him or hate him, if Marc Emery is convicted by an American court, it will set a dangerous precedent, one where you could face large penalties for what we consider small crimes, penalties against your political beliefs and not against your actions...

Roman Polanski

Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland today on a 30 year old charge for having sex with a 13 year-old...The US government is working on the papers to get him extradited to America, so he can serve jail-time for this 30 year-old crime. The French government is working to try to get Polanski back to France to protect him from this sentence, saying that he has had a hard life and that he should be allowed to live in peace.

No one can question that Roman Polanski has had a hard life...he survived Krakow and he had his wife murdered at the hands of Charlie Manson's followers...but to protect a convicted felon, to say that he has suffered enough when he ran from the country after the judge decided that 42 days wasn't a tough enough sentence for someone who gave alcohol and Quaalude to a 13 year-old in order to have sex with her, is downright wrong...

There are people who are put in jail for reasons that are cruel and irrational every day, but Roman Polanski was not one of them...he should be put behind bars for this heinous act...and he should face additional jail time for fleeing the country to avoid having to serve the sentence...

When protesting goes too far

Hotel Courtenay Bay has received some press recently over a terrible incident that should serve notice to the "pack mentality" that union workers seem to have in this city...a group of out-of-province workers booked reservations at this hotel (on Irving's dime) and were awakened each morning at 4 am to fog horns, blockades and a large ruckus...while Hotel Courtenay Bay estimates their costs at 1 million dollars (there is no way that figure is accurate given that they charge $144 a night (that would be the equivalent to 6944 reserved nights...sure, there would be food debts as well, but you still wouldn't get near this figure)), there is an even greater damage that this could serve to the city of Saint John...

Ask anyone what the overwhelming theme in this city is, and they will tell you that Irving controls the city...but here were Irving employees, brought in special for the project being deterred by the union, with little to no help offered to the Irvings to protect their interests...

And this is why the city's real reputation should be broadcast high and low...while the Irvings control a lot of the businesses, the unions control the city, if only because the police intentionally look the other way whenever they want to do something...

The protesters gained a sense of righteousness because some of them were stupid enough to stand in front of a Hotel Courtenay Bay bus and almost got hit, while they were trespassing...this city has laws against trespassing, against disturbing the peace, and against unlawful gathering, but apparently, this wasn't a cause the police were willing to uphold the law for...

From the Telegraph Journal, "Mike Duncan, a protester, said the group is sorry for the inconveniences the demonstrators caused the homes located in a residential neighbourhood next to the hotel. He said the group planned to visit each home Friday night and offer an apology and a grocery store gift certificate."...he goes on to say that isn't sorry for disturbing Hotel Courtenay Bay's right to conduct business...

The fact that someone can claim responsibility for actions which are illegal in this land and have it published in the paper without the police even considering laying charges has to leave even the calmest of individuals a little unnerved...what if when they demonstrate next (whenever that happens to be), they attack and hurt some innocent person who was curious what the fuss was about? Sure, they'll claim that they didn't mean to, but they were allowed to form a mob, without any legal ramifications for their actions...


Once again we see a situation where people have buddies in the right places, so justice is blindfolded...and once again, the guilty parties are dumb enough to credit for it...only to not face any sort of punishment...

The city of destruction

Imagine if you would for a moment that there is a city which was once the crown jewel of Canada...the oldest city, and the most vibrant port...now, in a perfect world, this city would harvest this great advantage and continue to prosper by adapting...

Unfortunately, in reality, this city has made bad decision after bad decision...they enacted a law saying that no new buildings could be over 25 stories (preventing skyscrapers and the accompanying big business)...they added parishes on each side, but allowed them to continue to be separate, a division that still exists today with major roads in each part, and arguably the most confusing street layout in the country...and then every summer, the worst of all possible decisions happened, with the city starting construction (if you can call it constructive) on every major route into the city, making it easier to not support the city.

The reason I question whether the construction is constructive are the terrible practices which the city employs...for one, the city allows construction companies to take on jobs, cut the pavement and leave it for months at a time. The causes significant risks to anyone who happens to use these routes (and at times, there can be construction on three of the four paths from east to the centre of the city, and both paths from the west side)...another problem is that the city's standard for pavement quality is terrible, making so that certain roads are paved once a year or once every two years, which is both incredibly inconvenient and a terrible waste of money...and the city does a terrible job of planning, with one road built on a swamp, and several built below sea level, with poor traffic control on nearly all of them...


But the worst thing about this city and their destruction ways is stupid decision after stupid decision...the city's pension plan is 151 million dollars short, so what do they do? They commit roughly 130 million dollars to build a new police station when the old one is perfectly fine...also, they built a new transit headquarters for 23.5 million, when they had a working facility and worked on a proposal to "gift" the old land to a big box store which would kill all the businesses in the area...and the kicker is that it doesn't seem to matter who gets elected, because there are always enough people on council who have no vision towards the future at all...

Making the environment a little better one steak at a time

Let me preface this blog by saying that I am not a vegetarian, and don't think I could/would give up meat entirely by choice...

Now, today I decided to write about the role agriculture is having on society and our future...I'll start with a couple of quotes from Wikipedia:

According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to deforestation^[2], air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change^[3], the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

and:

Some argue that the adoption of a lacto-ovo vegetarian or entirely plant-based vegan diet is best, but may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialised societies would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources. "One personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing meat consumption. To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources."

Basically, the gist of these quotes is that we as a society consume WAY too much meat and that the US alone could feed 800 million people with the grain eaten by the livestock they produce...we have become overly dependent on meat, and as a result have put ourselves in a bit of a quandary...according to Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues, "The world must create five billion vegans in the next several decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land." Simply put, we as a society are using 2-3 times the resources we need to just to quench our thirst for tasty meat...

According to goveg.com, eating one pound of meat is the equivalent of driving an SUV 40 miles...also, "A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined." and "Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO₂). But global warming is caused by more than just CO₂. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming" which is increasingly alarming given that CO2 is less dangerous for the environment than nitrous oxide and methane...

Now, what is it that I'm suggesting? Am I saying that 5 billion of us need to go vegan or we'll all die? No, the fact of the matter is that if you want to have a steak, you should have a steak...but at the same time, you should know the impact that that one steak has on the environment and consider changing a meal that would otherwise be meat-included away from meat... We can argue and bicker as a society about how much action has to happen, but until people start doing something, they are putting my future and yours in jeopardy...we can make the environment better by simply knowing the implications of our actions and adjusting accordingly (it is like a diet...if you cheat on your diet, normally cutting back a slight bit the next meal will help offset the cheating...only in this case, you aren't cheating, simply enjoying the foods you love)

The sea dogs

In honour of tonight's home opener for the Saint John Sea Dogs, I thought I would dedicate tonight's blog to sea dogs...Sea dog is a nickname given to seals, such as the ones that live in Saint John harbour.

The greatest threat to seals is a barbaric ritual known as the great seal hunt...this is an annual event where "sealers" kill seals usually aged between 25 days and 3 months old...the government's rationalization for this is that the areas don't have any work for the workers to sustain a living, and that they therefore need to kill seals.

The other arguments for this senseless slaughter are that it is tradition and that it is profitable to tax payers...the problems with this are that tradition has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong (for example, British law used to allow for men to have their way with their wives whenever they wanted and with whatever force they chose) and that the profitability of the hunt is questionable at best...

The seal hunt is condemned by Greenpeace, because "the quotas are "scientifically indefensible" because they don't take into account the actual number of seals killed in the hunt — including those that are "struck and lost," or discarded because of pelt damage" and by the International Fund for Animal Welfare who argue that the hunt in general is inhumane, and that some sealers make it worse by engaging in such activities as skinning seals alive, hunting seals that are 14 days or less old, and that seals are clubbed or shot and left to suffer only to be killed later...

200 people have been charged since 1996 so it is nearly impossible to argue that these behaviors do not happen, though the government argues that this is only an indication that they are enforcing regulations...

In 2006, the seal hunt was supposedly one of the most profitable in history, but since then the quota (number of seals the government decides the sealers can kill) and the value of the pelts (from $105 in 2006 to an estimated $15 in 2009) have deteriorated significantly...

Another argument against the hunt is that the arbitrary manner in which it is run makes it unsustainable (the quotas aren't based on anything concrete, so unless the value of the pelts is high, there is a good chance that any economic goal could be missed)...

All in all, there is no logical reason that we as a society should support such an event, but the kicker in this is that the government subsidizes parts of the hunt, meaning that we as taxpayers are actually paying to support this travesty...

The Media

From, Wikipedia, "

One of the leading voices in the U.S. on the subject of Journalistic Standards and Ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists. The Preamble to its Code of Ethics states:

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. "

One of the challenges we face in modern times is a media that is becoming more and more biased with each passing year. For example, I mentioned that if Harper tried to push a bill with the intention of having his opposition crush it, we'd never know that our Prime Minister tried to pull a fast one unless one or more of the opposition devoted their campaign proving it...and why is this, you ask? Simply put, we live in a society where every political journalist has a leaning, and where democratic journalism is when a conservative and a liberal both speak to the same issue to offer both points of view...a quick shows a very large flaw in this, in that you have to have two people tackle every political issue, or you only get either a conservative viewpoint or a liberal viewpoint...the case in point to this is watching the news on television...CTV has liberal journalists that they bring in for elections, but they have their conservative journalists all on staff, meaning that any time outside of an election (or special occasion that they feel requires a liberal viewpoint), the only viewpoints they offer are conservative...

This problem can extend beyond politics though, because certain companies of influence can effect what appears in the news and what doesn't...now, I'm not saying that everything that happens should appear in the news (for example, if the local refinery has a fire and no one can see it, I'd rather not have to worry about), but there are some things that don't make the news that should.

An example of this can be found in Saint John where nearly every major street in the city has natural gas pipes underneath them. Keep in mind that the pipes have a guaranteed kill radius of 10 metres if they explode and a danger radius of 300 metres (danger radius was actually on a letter I received because my apartment is within 300 metres of the pipeline)...it would seem like it would be the responsible thing to print these numbers in the newspaper (or air them on the news), but that hasn't happened (and almost certainly won't)...the problem lies in the fact that the purpose of the pipes is to heat some of the entities owned by the company that owns the paper (meaning that their private interest and the public's interest are in direct conflict). Now, I'm not saying that this company is wrong to have the pipes (in fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that it probably was a great decision), but I think that it is wrong to own a media outlet (in their case, all the newspapers in New Brunswick) when the size of your companies creates a very real possibility that one of them should be in the news (even if it isn't in the company's best interest)...

And herein lies a massive problem...I'm not suggesting that this company is censoring our news intentionally to prevent us from finding things out, but it is scary to have the final say on all our newspapers go to someone who has a vested interest in our refineries, pulp and paper mills, lube plant, some hardware stores, softwood lumber deals, our oil prices (and gasoline by extension), and even themselves. Can you imagine if someone goes on strike, and opens the paper the next day to read a scathing article about how petty they are? Now granted, it would likely be true, if they were on strike from the company, but still, what would be the incentive to not highlight how greedy the workers are being?

Another subject that gets shoddy coverage is sports...anyone who watches a large amount of hockey has surely watched Don Cherry rant about "good-ole Canadian boys"...or if you watch Sportsnet, every second word when they are talking about hockey seems to be Leafs...it doesn't matter that Toronto is a longshot to make the playoffs, and that a large number of non-Toronto fans get stuck watching this, they still drone on...the problem I have isn't even the subject, though...it is the fact that some media outlets pay people who are less informed than a large subsection of the fanbase to be "reporters"...For guys like Eklund, a rumor reporter who charges for his rumors, there is no punishment for the fact that he steals a large amount of his rumors from internet message boards and makes up virtually all of the rest...his success rate with his rumors is so low that a random fan making everything up would have a 50/50 shot of being right just as often...

Bias in the sports media becomes a problem when the announcers tell you that the team looks like a playoff team when they haven't got a shot (hello, Pittsburgh Pirates)...because teams employ a large number of these sports journalists, they have to start from a biased position.

One last bias the media shows is a bias of reaction...media outlets (newspapers, radio stations, and television stations) are run as businesses, meaning that they choose to convey the news that is going to attract people more...this is why local government approving menial bills is something you have to really dig to find, but if one of them calls another something like "pompous" (which would likely be true, but would still somehow merit an apology in their ridiculous world), it would be front page news...this is also why groups like Greenpeace, the Canadian Cancer Society and PETA are often relegated to lesser sections or left out completely, even if their message is as important or more important...

People often look at America in jest (especially CNN)...but one thing you have to appreciate about their system is that even when they are trying to scare the crap out of everyone, they keep their priorities straight...that is, the local issue comes first, unless it is major...yes, they still have the same biases against issues that they don't think will sell, but they tend to argue everything down the middle, more or less (except hot button issues), because in reality, the only point of view that matters is the truth...

Service

Today, I was driving through a Tim Horton's parking lot (which happens to be adjacent to a service station), when I started pondering how little service we actually get. For starters, I can only think of two service stations (including gas) in all of Saint John. It seems that the Irvings and the Petro-Cans that were built on offering gasoline, convenience, and service are starting to rely more on the first two and quietly removing the latter option from the equation...it is sad when you drive by a service station and wonder when the gas or service option will disappear off it...weirder still will be when one day we have to explain to a new generation what a service station is when 99% of all gas pumps are gas stations (and not service stations).

Service extends to the grocery store...We have two major grocers in town, who have entirely different approaches to the grocery experience....one hires the bare minimum, closes their speedy checkout early, expects people to be their own cashiers for no benefit whatsoever, charges a fee for bags, and never has anyone around when you have a question you want to ask...the other stays open 24 hours (at some locations), keeps their speedy checkout open until at least 10, has a customer service that is actually intended to serve people (instead of being bogged down by being a returns/water bottle area), and has more staff working at virtually all times of the day, including people in the aisles who while they are merchandising can assist with any questions one might have. The weird thing is that the prior company has been outselling the latter company despite their contempt for their own customers, or at least they were until they started charging 5 cents per bag.

And then as the person came over the speaker at the drive-thru, I thought about service at restaurants...for the most part, people who answer drive-thru's are about as good customer service-wise as you can be, yet a simple "thank you" or "have a good day" brightens their day up. Thinking about that, it seems that we expect little to no service and take the service we do get for granted, never stopping to thank the person who is actually offering the service. I make it a point to say thank you to every person who renders me a service of any kind, no matter how big or small...the fact of the matter is that they don't have to offer you their help (most businesses tolerate a lot of crap), and could be having a terrible day...the least a person can do is acknowledge the effort.

My take on the Phoenix Coyotes' saga

Today, I'd like to post on the Phoenix Coyotes. Now everyone that knows me knows that I like sports a lot (too much according to the love of my life)...the Phoenix saga is one that should be addressed in parts...

First off, there is Jerry Moyes. He signed a contract to let the NHL take the team (in exchange for him not having to continue to lose money), then put the team he didn't own anymore into bankruptcy...on top of that, his company guaranteed their lease with the City of Glendale (or Glendale would get 750 million dollars). As part of his bankruptcy, he signed an intent to sell to Jim Balsille under the condition that Balsille can move the team (a clause that Moyes did not have the authority to agree to, and which would automatically violate the lease, making the City of Glendale an even bigger debtor than Moyes)...Moyes put a team he didn't own into bankruptcy and orchestrated an agreement of sale which would de-fraud the NHL and the City of Glendale out of close to 1 billion dollars combined...he should go to jail!

Then, there is Balsille. He has never put in a legitimate bid for an expansion. He wants to buy a team for next to nothing with a condition that he be able to move it without ever having to compensate the league for them losing their biggest potential bargaining chip. If the court were ever to award the team to Jim, the NHL would appeal and the Supreme Court would likely reverse the decision.

Doug MacLean joined the Balsille bid to give it credit...how does having the man who ruined Columbus' cap situation (and spent years keeping Columbus at the bottom of the standings with poor decision after poor decision. Sure, the guy can coach...but he can't hire coaches, and he signs players to ridiculous contracts, cough...Rick Nash at 5.4 million after 2 seasons, Huselius at 4.75 million and Umberger at 3.75 million...cough

The NHL also wants to buy the team; to be able to privately sell the team at a later date...Bruckheimer was interested at two different points in the selling process, but has twice had Moyes reveal aspects of his bid that were supposed to be sealed. If the NHL buys the team, they can take the time to see if Phoenix is a viable market or if the team should be moved...keep in mind that the fans of Phoenix only had a good team at the very beginning, but the team has been terrible for a decade...in contrast, Winnipeg was starting to get better every year as their attendance dwindled.

And last but not least are the Toronto Maple Leafs...they have been saying over and over again that they will block any attempts to add a team to Southern Ontario, despite Anti-trust courts having determined that no team can hold rights to a territory, but that a league as a whole can...the funny thing is that if Toronto really upsets the NHL, the NHL can force a sale, in effect forcing the Maple Leafs to sell (perhaps to Balsille, allowing him to own a team in Southern Ontario)...either way, this is a classless move by an organization that has constantly been run by elitist snobs...

The social event that is becoming a social problem

For smokers, one of the hardest parts of giving up smoking is giving up the social aspect of smoking...for those who work for a company that provides a smoking area, not smoking can make an employee feel like they are out of the loop.

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that tobacco is responsible for roughly 30% of all cancer, including 85% of the lung cancer cases. It is also responsible for roughly 47,500 deaths every year in Canada. 18% of our population smokes, but most employers make exceptions for such a minority.

Though the numbers are outdated, CBC figures that we as Canadians lost approximately 8 billion dollars in 1993 alone (approximately 3 billion in Medicare to directly treat this group and 8 million in lost taxes versus 2.7 billion in revenues). Even without adjusting these numbers for an increasing population (which has had a fairly static smoking rate), this would have our entire national debt incurred in 4 years (we are at approximately 29.8 billion dollars). Some would argue that excise taxes on tobacco could even this out, but keep in mind some alarming statistics :
1. Smokers 15-19 has been consistently in the 17-18% range
2. Our government is expecting to lose large amounts of money over the next few years, with questions about whether or not we'll be able to transition from the baby boomers to the next generation.
and 3. The baby boomers are now the ones who are about to need care for their smoking...is the money even there for them?

There has been some hope towards survival, though...the government of British Columbia has successful sued tobacco companies to recover Medicare costs on behalf of the people...and Phillip Morris had a very large defeat in '97 in which they were blamed for the medical problems they caused...

Needless to say, there are a lot of smokers who won't quit until tobacco sales are banned in Canada...maybe we should make it a social event to save our country...

The 300 million dollar elephant in the room

Over the past four elections (2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008), Canadians have been on the hook for expenses of 200.6, 277, 270, and 288.2 million dollars respectively. Also, the 2008 election had an additional expense of 3.5 million for canceling scheduled by-elections.
Now, we stand at the brink of another election only one year after the last, due to the House's inability to work together. At some point, we, the people, need to start objecting to the needless wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars. By calling a snap election to try to steal a majority, Steven Harper's conservatives could end up costing Canadians $600 million between this year and last, or roughly 1/2 the amount of their economic stimulus package (estimated at 1.237 billion dollars).
It is easy to blame Harper on this one...he has run both Dion and Ignatieff's names through the mud over the past year...he plagiarized a speech about Armed Forces from Australia's former Prime Minister (and said that it wasn't a big deal)...he has constantly terrorized the Canadian public into fearing his opposition...
And yet, despite all these negatives, the other side has a monster of a negative against them...they've held the house hostage since Christmas using the Canadian populace as collateral. The weird thing about this, is that it has been a brilliant idea (forcing the Conservatives to be accountable for their actions for the first time since they've taken power). The problem arose late last week, when Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton both announced that they were done co-operating with the Conservatives...Steven Harper has co-operated with everything they have forced him to do, but suddenly they can't work with him? How does this make sense?
And suddenly that elephant is starting to stir...if the Liberals and NDP are going to make public comments about not supporting Harper, he may attempt something stupid to intentionally have parliament broken...with the control he has over the media, we might not even find out what the vote that topples the government is for...and even if we do, it probably won't matter because Harper has been the one trying to carry on, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been trying to manipulate their way into every inch of spotlight they can get...
Which leads to the point...a government is supposed to lead the nation. But what happens when all the people at the top act with the same amount of maturity as kindergarteners...this is the dilemna that we as a nation face, as we roll towards another farce of an election...there is no leader worthy of our vote, yet no one could run against the big 3 and win, due to our political system...last election (2008), 59.1 percent of the population voted, the lowest total in the history of the nation...if we have a new election, expect that number to be eclipsed since Ignatieff is as immature as Dion was, and Harper and Layton are both still at the top of the totem pole...