The Omnifarium

Beer And Popcorn

Category: Politics
Tue, 13 Dec 2005, 09:13

Conservative leader Stephen Harper made a campaign promise to give families with children under six $1200 a year to help pay for daycare. Since my family would be eligible, I feel compelled to comment. We're a more or less average middle class family living in a middle class neighborhood in suburban Toronto, and we have one child.

First, if we received this money, would it go towards daycare? Actually, no. Our child is being taken care of by a stay-at-home mom. We would have to find something else to spend the money on.

Okay, how about putting the $1200 into our child's RESP? No, we're already budgetting to max out our RESP contributions. Our child's future educational needs are important, and we'll find the money for that regardless.

Hmmm, now what would we spend that $1200 a year on? I know - we could spend it on beer and popcorn!

Seriously though, this demonstrates the problem with the Conservatives approach to spending our tax dollars - there is no guarantee that the money would actually be spent on daycare. True, many families would spend it responsibly. But for many others, they either have no need for the money, or they can't spend it on daycare anyways since affordable spaces are not available.

In a progressive society, the best way to spend our limited tax revenues is to direct the dollars to where the need is the greatest. In the case of early child care, the need is greatest among the working poor. While some middle class families may well put the $1200 towards daycare, the working poor have fewer alternatives. For most of them, the only reasonably affordable alternative is subsidized daycare. The problem is that there is too little of that, and the Conservatives are also planning on slashing funding that would create more subsidized daycare space.

The fact is that the $1200 is nothing more than a blatant tax cut disguised as a daycare benefit. Doing nothing to increase the number of affordable daycare spaces, it would benefit Canada's middle class at the expense of the working poor.

In general, Stephen Harper's promises seem directed at one very specific goal - to curry the support of middle class suburban neighborhoods, especially in the so-called "905 Region" in the greater Toronto area, in his not too subtle quest for national power.

In any election, voters have to base their vote on either of too choices: Do I vote for the party that will benefit me more? Or do I vote for the party that will benefit my country and community more? I'm still largely an undecided voter, but I think the Liberals are right in that the choice is about the kind of Canada we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country where the divide between the wealthy and the poor steadily increases? Where the working poor have fewer and fewer opportunities to advance and improve their lot in life? Or do we want to live in a progressive and caring society?

Hans

path: /Politics | permanent link to this entry

Scarborough-Guildwood: Past Results

Category: Politics
Sun, 11 Dec 2005, 09:22

When trying to predict the outcome in the riding of Scarborough-Guildwood, it may be useful to look at the history of previous elections in this area. Note that while Scarborough-Guildwood is a new riding created in 2003, the natural predecessor is the riding of Scarborough-East. Redistributed results for the 2000 election show a close match, with a slight advantage for the Liberals after the redistribution. As result of the redistribution, the riding lost the more conservative polls in West Hill, but gained more liberal working class polls to the west.

The following table shows the election results of Scarborough-East and Scarborough-Guildwood since 1968:

During the 1970's, the riding flip-flopped between the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, but during the 1980's, the riding belonged to the PC's. The rout of the Mulroney Conservatives in 1993 coincided with the introduction of the Reform Party, which came in a strong second place in this riding. But that election, and all others since, belonged to the Liberals.

Since 1993, there was always talk about the split among the right-wing in Canada. But it should be noted that in Scarborough-East, a combined PC plus Reform/Alliance result would still not beat the Liberals. The combined count is interesting in that it declined steadily through-out the 1990's.

The election of note is the 2004 election after the "merger" of the Alliance Party with the Progressive Conservatives. National public opinion polls in advance of the merger showed that for a majority of PC supporters, their second choice was not the Alliance party, but rather the Liberals. This is clearly reflected in the 2004 results, with the lowest conservative vote ever. Obviously, the conservative voters in this riding were of the progressive conservative variety, not sharing the more right-wing views of the Alliance party.

What does this mean for the 2006 election? The Conservative Party has some momentum coming into the election. While John McKay has been busy representing the riding in Ottawa, the Conservative candidate in this riding, Pauline Browes, has been campaigning ever since the summer. Her summer campaign brochure emphasized her parliamentary experience as a cabinet minister in the short-lived Kim Campbell government. But note that she represented the riding of Scarborough-Centre, not Scarborough-East. And if anyone in this riding remembers her, they may still remember the reasons why we turfed out the PC's in 1993. (She came in 3rd place in that election.)

Based on history, and John McKay's solid reputation in the riding, one would have to go out on a limb to predict anything other than another Liberal victory in this riding. But it's still early in the campaign, and most parties haven't come out swinging yet.

Hans

path: /Politics | permanent link to this entry

Dis ID in Kansas, Get Beaten Up

Category: Religion
Thu, 08 Dec 2005, 21:29

Professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of the Religious Studies department at the University of Kansas was beaten up along a rural road south of Lawrence. His attackers made reference to a graduate level course he was planning to teach called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Other Religious Mythologies".

Mirecki decided to offer the class after the Kansas Board of Education, loaded with fundamentalist Christians, decided to add criticism of evolution into the science curriculum for primary and secondary schools. This policy has turned the state of Kansas into a sort of educational laughing stock. According to one report, Mirecki stated: "The KU faculty has had enough. Creationism is mythology. Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It is clearly not."

The proponents of "intelligent design" want to make it appear that ID is a reasonable alternative to evolution. But some supporters clearly believe that reason is not the way to proceed. Rather than take the advice of science educators and researchers, the Kansas Board of Education has mandated that ID be introduced to science students. They have also gone so far as to rewrite the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations for natural phenomena! And now, it would seem that some are willing to back up their beliefs with their fists. Clearly, the message is that if you support evolution, you are not welcome in Kansas.

In a somewhat related story, Pat Robertson has stepped into the controversy and exposed ID as religion. This of course runs quite contrary to the aims of the main proponents of ID who try to portray it in strictly scientific terms. Their strategy is simple. Creationism has been branded as religion, and so can't be taught in public schools in the United States. But if it can be expressed in purely scientific terms, then there's no reason to keep it out of science classes. But Robertson made it quite clear in his comments that support for ID is the equivalent of support for God.

When the voters of Dover Pennsylvania turfed out a pro-ID school board and replaced it completely with people opposed to the teaching of ID in Dover science classes, Robertson threw a typical hissy fit: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a natural disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember you voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for help because he might not be there."

Now doesn't that just sound like a gangster pushing his protection racket? Fundamentalist Christians claim to be on the side of morality and righteousness. But clearly, some feel it necessary to resort to threats of intimidation or violence. In contrast, you'll never hear a scientist saying "accept evolution or something bad will happen to you". They don't have to.

Hans

path: /Religion | permanent link to this entry

Bowling: Individual or Team Sport?

Category: Bowling
Tue, 06 Dec 2005, 22:29

There are two ways to look at bowling. The first is as an individual game. Every week, we try to improve on our own personal average. As an indication of the importance of the individual game, the league gives eight awards to individual high single and high triple, flat and handicapped, men and women.

My own historical average has been about 172-174. But this season, I started out around 140. It's been my goal this season to bring my average back up to where I think it should be. Each week, I've tried to raise my standings by at least one position, and for the last few weeks, I've been succesful at that goal. My average for the past four weeks of bowling has been a terrific 203, raising my season average now to 162. The next step up the standings will be harder - the next higher bowler is at 168!

The other way to look at bowling is as a team sport. For each game, a handicap is added to players' scores, which are then summed to give a team score. Points are then awarded to the winning teams of each match: Two points per game, one point for a tie, and one point for total pins over the three games, up to a maximum of seven points per evening. Last week was the last evening of series one (out of three for the whole season), and my team came in first. We did so in an interesting manner, with a total of 42 points. Each week of the series, we either earned seven points or nothing!

Since scores are handicapped, it's often hard to pull ahead of the pack. Most bowlers consistently bowl near their average, and so most teams will have game scores hovering around 1000. The teams that do well are the ones with improving players. That is, players who can consistently bowl over their average. Having a crummy start to my season has been a benefit for my team. I certainly didn't want to start out with a low average. But now that I'm bowling better, better even than my historical average, my high handicap has helped my team.

Hans

path: /Bowling | permanent link to this entry

One Percent Solution?

Category: Politics
Fri, 02 Dec 2005, 20:38

I was looking at computers in a local store when a woman asked me some questions about computers. (For some reason, strangers seem to think I know something about computers!) After a short discussion, she commented that perhaps she should buy her computer after the election when the Conservatives will have eliminated the GST. When I pointed out what Stephen Harper really promised, she wasn't too impressed.

You've heard the old joke: How do you know when a politician is lying? When his lips move. I wouldn't necessarily accuse Harper of trying to mislead the voters of Canada. But when he talks about cutting the GST by 1%, a lot of people who aren't really paying attention will hear what they want to hear.

Others have done the math. Harper claims that the typical family of four earning $60,000 a year will save $400 with his cut to the GST. That means they must be spending $40,000 a year on taxable goods and services, leaving $20,000 for other things like housing and taxes. That just doesn't add up. But listen carefully to Harper, very carefully. Although a savings of $400 a year is unrealistic for a 1% tax cut, he's probably referring to the savings when (or if) his promised 2% cut comes into force. He's only promising a 1% cut initially.

According to a CBC report, Jim Davies, who teaches economics at the University of Western Ontario in London, referred to Harper's idea as "Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid". (Other economics quoted in the article were more diplomatic.)

Most economists agree that the better way to stimulate the economy would be to cut personal income taxes. The government could also cut income taxes in a way that would benefit the people who really need a break the most, the low income earners.

However, most voters are not economists, and most politicians know how unpopular the GST is. So it's not surprising that a political leader who so desperately wants to become prime minister would try to buy votes in this manner.

Hans

path: /Politics | permanent link to this entry