navigation
good reads
internet stuff
- evolt is the best web community out there.
- listen to joel. he knows.
- Cluetrain Manifesto
- A List Apart
- Ask Tog
- Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
Okay so let's see... what topics did I not cover last time around?
The left has been criticised for years as "tax-and-spend" crazies that leave the country bankrupt, but over the last 25 years or so, it's actually been the right that has pushed up deficits. Why is this? Well tax-and-spend is really the right way to go. You have to tax in order to spend. What the Tories and other right-wing parties tend to suggest is cutting taxes, which always has benefitted the rich more than the poor, and to cut spending (oh sorry... my mistake I meant "find inefficiencies" yah right. that's a euphemism if I ever heard one), which again is bad for the poor and all right for the rich. Oh yah. I forgot. The one exception to the programs that need to be cut is always the military. Which, gets massive spending increases. Unfortunately for the Tories, cutting social spending (health, education, etc) deeply enough to pay for their tax cuts means cutting services that the great voting swath of the middle class uses. And so they don't do it to the level that they need to because they know it won't get them re-elected. And what do we end up with? Decimated programs that have barely managed to limp along and are ineffective, and humungous deficits, massive increases in military spending and more debt. What examples are there in real life of this happening? Well Reagan, Harris, Bush II... need I go on? What a great recipe for good fiscal management in government. I think I'll vote for them. Not.
The Tories don't like minority rights. They especially don't like the Charter of Rights. So they figure that they'll erode minority rights by making Parliament supreme over the Supreme Court. After all, Parliament is elected and we want a democracy don't we? We don't want nasty APPOINTED judges to have sway over us, do we? We want to be able to make our OWN laws, and not let nine people in funny dresses stop us, right?
Sounds good. Except that's exactly what the Supreme Court is there to prevent. Not a democracy, but the tyranny of the majority. Essentially, the Charter of Rights protects minority rights. It's there to say, "No, a law forcing the small number of Blue People to be slaves to the majority Green People is against the Charter of Rights and will be struck down." It's a much better idea than "democracy" without limits and there's lots of lessons in history for that tell us its a necessary idea for a fair, decent and peaceful country.
Now Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are saying the judges should be suggested by the provinces and then vetted before a Parliamentary Committee. They are looking at the US and its Senate Judiciary Committee for this idea. But just ask Anita Hall or Clarence Thomas what they think about the three-ring-circus that is the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the past, even Tories made decisions about who they would appoint based on the merit of the judges - as judges. But Harper does seem to think that Supreme Court Judges should be appointed based on their political leanings rather than their abilities to make good rulings. So what difference does that make?
There are two open spaces on the Supreme Court, and another opening this summer when one of the judges retires. That means that the next Prime Minister will have the authority to appoint one third of the Supreme Court. If Stephen Harper appoints three ultra-right-wing judges that are hostile to the Charter, it could seriously affect Canadian law for the next quarter century. It would be a travesty.
Our constitution says that we can't discriminate against people, that all laws must be applied equally, that all people should be treated equally. So two men, who have essentially the same relationship as a married man and woman, should also be able to get married legally. It's as simple as that.
Okay, not quite. What about religious freedom? Will churches and mosques and synagogues be forced, against their will, to perform gay marriages? The answer is no. The Charter also protects religion. So no, they won't. It's just not going to happen.
But what does Stephen Harper say about this? He says that “sexual orientation is not included in the Charter.” Well. He's wrong. That part of the Charter does, in fact, name certain groups:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[emphasis added]
but it names them IN PARTICULAR. It's open ended. It means if the X-Men were all real, then mutant super-heros would also be protected under our Charter. Which is really the whole point with the X-Men - civil rights and all... but I digress. It also means that sexual orientation is, despite what Mr. Harper says, included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So what would Harper do if the Supreme Court disagrees with him? Why, he'd use the Notwithstanding clause. A semi-obscure part of the Consitution that allows the government to circumvent the Charter by an Act of Parliament for up to 5 years - at which time it would have to renew the Act. It's a dangerous little piece of the constitution if abused. It's never been used by the federal government before, and with good reason.
Essentially, Harper is saying he would take away the rights of gay people and he's willing to go to extraordinary lengths to do so.
This, again, has to do with the Supreme Court. The the court has struck down abortion laws, laws that limit a woman's right to choose, based on a right of "life, liberty, and security of the person". But the Tories don't like that ruling.
So, they can't campaign on a platform that is anti-abortion, the laws have been struck down... what can they do? Weaken the Supreme Court and allow a private member's bill that outlaws abortion. And that's what will happen. Hey girls, if the Tories win, looks like we'll have to be fighting to get our rights back again.
Last year, before the war in Iraq started, Harper and his team were adament that we should be supporting our neighbours (oh puke, yah the way you support them is by going into an ill-advised and illegal war with them, without questioning anything about it. yah. good thinking). Harper actually wrote a an article in the Wall Street Journal arguing Canada should have joined the war.
Do you hear any of this now? No. Now the war is unpopular. It seems to have turned out that all those anti-war hippie commie peaceniks were right about the lack of weapons of mass destruction and the paucity of reasons for war. So now Harper is trying to hide and ignore (no. no. don't look behind *that* curtain) his former position supporting the war and the US. But you can bet that if he were PM in 2003 we'd be stuck over there with the 'mericans fighting pressures and costs at home, fighting to keep our friendly allies in other countries and fighting the insurgents in Iraq. Boy. That would be fun.
In fact, Harper wants to increase military spending. And while I know that Canada actually spends a lot on it's military (6th biggest spender in real dollars of NATO countries) and it's heresy for someone on the left to say that we aren't spending enough, I also think that we don't pay many of our soldiers well enough, that they don't get enough support from an equipment and logistics angle. BUT and this is a HUGE BUT, it all depends on how you are going to decide to spend the cash. What focus will the Canadian military have?
Stephen Harper wants a Canadian military that goes along when the US picks fights around the world. He wants an invasion force that complements the US forces. He sees the military as a way to fight wars, not as a way to solve conflicts. And that's what I think the military should focus on. We actually do much less peacekeeping than most people think we do. Would you believe that the top contributors of military and civilian personnel to current peacekeeping missions are Pakistan, Bangledesh and India? Although it is true that Canada has a good record on peacekeeping, we should be putting money and effort into keeping it that way. A strong peacekeeping force is not the kind of military that Stephen Harper wants.
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party want Canada's role in the world to be that of sidekick to the US. Canada as Tonto to the American Lone Ranger. Unlike the TV stories though, the American Lone Ranger in real life will actually kill people. I don't want Canada to be the trusty sidekick to some whacked out loner with a persecution complex and the biggest guns in town. I want Canada to develop it's own identity in the world as a strong defender of human rights, a peacekeeping nation that works towards unity, fairness, environmental security, social justice and global peace. And, while I know those are incredibly idealistic ideas, I also think it's important that we head towards them not - where Harper would lead us - away from them.
So, those are my thoughts on the incredibly scary and depressing Canadian elections. Despite how scary they are, I actually think they are pretty exciting and interesting for us political junkies who are interested in examining all the ideas that are emerging. Unfortunately, I think that many people who will be voting for the Conservative Party in this election haven't actually looked at these issues or thought about them. They'll be voting against the Liberals not for the Tories. Even though I'm sick of the Liberals too, the Tories are just so so so scary. I think if the Tories win, people will wake up with a huge and never-ending political hangover after the wild party of the election. So please. Don't vote Tory. Unless you are a Tory, in which case, you can just move along... these aren't the droids you're looking for.
Posted by Me @ 12:29PM [Link]
You may have noticed that I haven't been writing in here very often. It's partially because I've been really really busy, but also because I'm so freaked out by the Canadian elections (don't forget to vote on June 28!). I knew that I would go off on a diatribe about the new Conservative Party's policies because to me they are just so incredibly scary and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would vote for them. I'm not calling people who are voting Tory crazy - I'm just saying I just can't believe they really know what the Tories stand for.
Now a few pieces of background info - if you hadn't already noticed I'm a lefty-ish person. I recently joined the NDP Party. So you can take everything I say with a grain of salt if you want, but I'll try not to be totally knee-jerk and freaked out - even though I am.
So, a little about the Conservative Party...
What history do the Tories have? Well none really. The party is brand new - created only late last year. They have no record as the Conservative Party of Canada - they don't even have party policies - the have a very thin election platform (I know 'cause I've read it) Notice Harper saying "I have no plans, or no position on that at this time" when asked by journos about specific issues. It's because he doesn't have anything written in the platform document 'cause it's only a few pages long. But they do have their record as previous members of parliament and the Canadian Alliance (which, I mean, come on, it really is the Canadian Alliance with a few righter-wing Progressive Conservatives - as many have already said - there is a real reason why they got rid of the Progressive part of their name). And frankly Canadians found the Alliance a scary, too-right-wing party, so I don't know why they think that the new Conservative Party has changed all that much. Think about who is backing the new party. One name comes to mind. The much reviled and well-hated ex-PM, you guessed it... Brian Mulroney!!!! Yah. Let's all vote for the new party that has his hands all over it. That's what we want. Sorry... the diatribe part is coming out - I just can't help it sometimes.
Okay so let's take a look at some of their policies...
Yah right! Like they are really going to do that. Remember the corruption scandals that plagued Brian and his cronies? You think that's going to end? Corruption will happen in government and in business every time there is a large amount of money involved. The key is to root it out and make it unacceptable. I haven't seen either the Liberals or the Conservatives (well their old members and their backers) ever end corruption.
Ending waste, as we saw with Mike Harris, is a catchphrase that really means cut departments and ministries across the board. Forcing them to quickly "find savings" which, in the case of the Harris government, often resulted in cutting programs to the point where they were ineffective (can you say Walkerton?). Without actually planning out the impact that cuts will have, "ending waste" can actually mean wasting money on programs that are so savaged they don't work anymore.
And really, all parties say they are against this. The Liberals said it 13 years ago, now the Tories are saying it. Why should we believe either of them?
Um... excuse me. There already *is* an independent ethics commissioner (he's relatively new) that - like Harper is promising - is appointed by parliament and reports to parliament instead of the PMO. So why are the Tories promising something that already exists? Do they think we're stupid and we're not going to notice? Doh!
Um... excuse me again. Bill C-24 enacted in June last year and in force January 1, 2004 already banned corporate and union donations to political parties. Now I'm really thinking they think we're stupid. Double doh!
Here again, Harper seems misguidedly enamoured with US-style politics. You think elections are long-drawn out, boring affairs? Well, imagine that political parties knew ahead of time when elections would be? Well, we'd have the never-ending election cycle that they have in the US. It seems to me as if not much gets done in the last year and a half of any President's term because of the elections. Tough decisions get put off - for years in some cases - not because that makes sense, but because it ensures political survival for the incumbent.
The Tories' rhetoric around child care choice is infuriating to me. They are proposing a $2000 per child tax deduction. They say that this gives choice to parents as opposed to a universal national child care program (like Quebec) that is apparently forcing parents to put their kids into day care. This universal, national child care policy is being promised by the NDP and the Liberals. Child care choice through big tax credits sounds good, but it's not a real choice for many parents. If you make $50,000 a year, that only reduces your taxable income to $48,000 a year. Which means you are actually only saving a small portion of that $2000 in real terms - about $440 given a 22% tax rate on that $2000. It will also disproportionately benefit higher income people because they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes and therefore will save a higher percentage of the $2000 deduction. For instance if your income is $20,000 you pay 16% tax rate on that $2000, so you'd only be saving $320.
All of this is assuming that the average Canadian can truly afford good-quality childcare and that this is a real choice for them. If you are a single mom who would have to pay $6000 per year for child care (a good deal - apparently it costs about $8,500/year for good quality child care) and you only make $25,000 a year and you have two kids, then it's not really a viable choice for you to put your kids in good-quality child care. Now, if there was a national child care program that cost $7 a day like in Quebec, then it would be more than viable. So really, it is entirely misleading to say that a tax deduction is a "choice" and universal, national child care is not. For lower-income Canadians there is no choice.
The tax system already favours 2-parent single-income families (ie one parent staying at home). This child care tax deduction would add to the advantage that these families already have. For more information about this you can read my Dad's paper "Tax Fairness for One-Earner and Two-Earner Families: An Examination of the Issues"
"Aha!", you say? Yes, I admit it. My dad is an economist that specializes in child care economics. So what?
The Tories are crowing about their promise to put 3 of the gas tax towards infrastructure programs. Of course, instead of giving the money to the cities directly to help with their overwhelming infrastructure needs and lack of taxation options, they'd actually give the money to provinces, who would be able to distribute it however they wanted. They've said they "will negotiate a transfer"... "through a national infrastructure agreement". They don't exactly say who they are negotiating with, but if it's the provinces, we all know how fraught with chaos federal-provincial negotiations are. So now the gas tax money for the is going to be contingent upon making agreements with provinces. Yah. That's great.
On top of that they are going to eliminate a whack of infrastructure funding that would benefit cities. And really, it's a zero sum game of cutting one to give to the other. And overall for cities, it would be less than zero, because some of that money will be going to other (rural) communities instead of directly to cities.
I'm also not sure why they'd be so proud of the 3 they are devoting to this, when the Liberals are promising 5 (ramping up to 5 by 2005) and the NDP is promising to share half of the gas tax immediately with municipalities.
Well that's it for today. If I have time tomorrow, I'll write about how the Tories are going to shred human rights, stack the Supreme Court, turn us into a defacto 51st state, and have us spiralling into huge deficits, if given a chance...
So stay tuned
Posted by Me @ 01:04PM [Link]
I was reading all of the entries to Dan Cederholm's Book Contest - the entries together form an amazing list of great standards, css and similar resources (great idea Dan!) - and I stumbled upon a really fascinating article. The article, entitled "The real reason you should care about web standards" is a well written (well up until the last paragraph or so) look at other, more philosophical or theoretical reasons (some might call them conspiracy theories) why web standards should be important to everyone.
Go check it out.
PS. I'd like to recommend Dan Cederholm's new book... but I can't because I haven't WON read it yet. ;-P
Posted by Me @ 10:32AM [Link]