new world order (and canada, too!)

So.  The prime minister we all love to hate has increased his minority government.  The resounding chorus of facebook statuses collectively cried "at least it's not a majority!" after the results were in.  Many of us are sad, but not destroyed.  And the good news is there is a bright silver lining to all of this.

Martin Lawrence (my favourite Globe columnist) has a prediction that Dion will exit as Liberal leader before 2009, and that (God willing!) Harper will be out within two years.  His argument for the latter is that the PM has failed to achieve a majority after two tries, and that the next Liberal leader will be popular (unlike Mr. Sweatervest).

I tend to agree.  And, of course, we mustn't forget that Obama will very likely be President of the United States.  This is important because it's looking as though there is going to be major movement from western leaders to begin working together for the greater good.

See this Economist article, which reports the European Union's efforts to not only avoid an economic disaster, but to also reform "capitalism" so that it's based more on morals and people.  With Obama's career-defining commitment to helping people work together, this is a recipe for a major global shift in culture.

I really liked Dion, and he represented an approach to governance that could have lead to great things.  However, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that we live in a media-driven world and if you don't translate well, you won't be heard.  The next Liberal leader (my bet is on Ignatieff) will most certainly be popular and likely win the election - and s/he will be running on a platform influenced by 2 years of Dion environmentalism.

So.  Take heart!  We will suffer some further deconstruction of our social fabric for a little while longer, but once the time comes to decide again, our choice will be clear.  And this leader will be guiding us through a global climate where community and collaboration are the ideals on everyone's lips.

why i don't trust polling data

I'm not one to follow "polls" when it comes to elections, however difficult that might be for an obsessive news-reader.  I simply don't think they're accurate - and thank goodness for that.

My problem with constant polling data is that it can skew people's opinions about candidates when the only information it provides is "who is voting for whom."  I simply don't think that is good basis upon which to make a decision of who to vote for.

Even worse is shoddy record of accuracy.  Again and again during the US primaries, polls were at times radically at odds with actual results.  They seemed to get better as the election went on, but there were still noticeable discrepancies.

There are some possible reasons for this unreliability.  The one most discussed is the number of "cell-phone only" voters who are generally not polled.  This is because (so I've heard) some or many states have laws against unsolicited calls to mobile numbers.  As well, generally if you're receiving a call on a cell phone, you are on the move and probably don't want to spend a few minutes responding to a(nother) poll.

The thing is, this is a pretty specific demographic.  "Cell-phone only" (as opposed to "landline only," for example) voters are generally 35 or younger.  Not to mention they have a certain income brack and education level.

Now, polling companies have very complex systems for eliciting and analyzing data.  They likely consider factors such as the likelihood of certain demographics lying about their choice or not even voting come election day.  I would like to know how often they update these metrics.  For example, a few years ago "cell-phone only" voters probably likely to have a high income and good education, whereas now you're likely to see more low-income earners having only a cell phone because it's cheaper than a landline.

And the "cell-phone only" factor is only one of the issues with polling data.  What about people who screen their calls using caller ID?  What about people who are on the "do-not-call" lists? Perhaps the pollsters take this into account, but that would be a pretty complex algorithm just to elicit two percentages (red vs. blue).

So while I yearn to have up-to-the-minute status updates of the candidates' standings, I really don't think I can take this information seriously.  And that's great, because right now McCain has taken a slight lead over my man, Obama...

the official opposition

The provincial Liberals' complete disarray following the Progressive Conservative landslide victory is highlighting an important political point in Newfoundland and Labrador: we have a very powerful government on our hands.

While voters have overwhelmingly approved of the Williams Administration, the plain truth of the matter is that our current government has an increased ability to pursue its agenda whether we like it or not.

The government's successful and popular first term notwithstanding, there is absolutely no guarantee that Danny Williams will lead us in a direction that is best for the province. And although this administration has set precedence in several areas of accountability, it remains a glaring fact that there is little official opposition in the House of Assembly. This is a threatening reality.

Williams has decided, perhaps intelligently, not to call the House to session until next year, making the most recent session the shortest on record. The argument given is that it will give the new members of cabinet, and all MHAs for that matter, a chance to get used to their new jobs and co-workers. And although it is good practice to give newcomers time to adapt, we are presented with an extended period of relative silence in the political arena. Who knows what our representatives will be up to between now and Spring?

The hope is, of course, that the media will be our eyes, ears, and mouths in the realm of public policy during this time. Indeed, the media is in many ways our new 'official opposition.' They are the people on the ground who gather intelligence and report back to the public. They also, in theory, offer citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions. And as our economy grows and citizens become more savvy to the ever-growing encroachment of digital TV and Internet access, more people have louder voices and more views can be expressed.

But who are the people who run the media? We have our publication editors, at least one of whom appears to have targeted the small market niche of Williams-skeptics. Then, of course, we have our television and radio news coverage with intermittent commentary, as well as those mysterious bloggers - of which anyone can become.

All of these people have their own motives and values, and have the potential to influence the views and opinions of large numbers of people. But there are only so many of them to go around. They can only represent so many views, and well all know that mistakes can be made by even the most well-meaning folk.

What, then, are we lowly voters to do? We have taken on the heavy responsibility of holding to task both a government that has done well by us and media outlets that love to harass and question the powers-that-be. The government has a leader that gets into spats with these local news reporters and it can't be denied that this sells papers (and is thus potentially desirable). The real question is How do we mediate these two sides?

Well, what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are faced with right now is a good government with little official opposition and a good set of media who need money to stay afloat. Neither of these parties can be fully trusted to represent effectively the views of the people by themselves, nor together. Our responsibility, then, is to be good citizens and demand that these two opposing forces are influenced equally by our thoughts and desires.

Every grievance should have its place in the pages of a local newspaper. Open line shows should always be jammed with callers. While some opinions may be misguided and others extreme in their approach, they all contribute to the overall mood and zeitgeist of this place. The media's task is to compile these views into an overall picture of what the general population wants our province to achieve. The government must then pay attention and act on what it sees and hears.

Our job as the general population is to be honest with ourselves and with others. We must not be afraid to speak our minds. We should take others' opinions in stride and set an example for our government and media by listening to our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are all in this together and there has never been a better opportunity to make a difference.

buffered by oil

The Economist is reporting that the global economy has been holding up despite various perils like "investor panic and a credit crunch." However, this stability is tenuous and readers are advised to remain cautious, no matter where they live in the world.

As a conscientious media monitor, I am moved to consider what affect a potential recession would have on my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

The search for an answer starts with Canada, of which NL is a province. Canada's economy is historically influenced greatly by that of it's southern neighbour, the United States. Some major causes of panic on the market originated in the US, and as such their economy will likely show clear effects. Thus, Canada is poised to feel them as well.

However, Canada has been slowly wrenching itself free of America's economic grip and as such has become an attractive destination for foreign investors. Our economy is more secure as Canadians are traditionally less likely to take major risks. And an influx of production of our abundant natural resources is pumping dollars into our government coffers and potentially shielding us from (or hiding) various economic perils.

Along with the protection given to us as citizens of a wealthy nation, our provincial economy has been improving as well. Just in terms of revenue stream, our government has recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a consortium of oil companies. Once finalized, this project (Hebron-Ben Nevis) will pump about $16 billion into the province over 25 years.

This massive number ignores the other economic benefits, many of which are near-immediate, that the project will bring to the province. The number of jobs alone will surely increase the population and inject further millions into regional economies. Not to mention the family members who will be looking for and making their own work.

One expects that premier Danny Williams intends to avoid the types of problems that are still being faced in Alberta thanks to a booming oil and gas industry. Shortages in all areas of social services and infrastructure plague the province despite record budget surpluses and salaries.

The proof that Williams is planning for a major economic boom in our province can be found in the many initiatives his government has undertaken in the four years of his first term as premier.

Millions of dollars have been invested in infrastructure and education. Mandates to reduce poverty, violence, and crime have been reinforced by action plans and policy amendments. Immigration policy has become a priority for the current government. And within government itself major overhauls are occurring with respect to health care, governance, and bureaucracy (though stimulated by scandal).

So as the world goes through its rapid transformation into a truly global village, our province is preparing itself. And while the global economy takes a natural stumble, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will begin to enjoy a new era of prosperity.

competitive arts and culture

I've been trying to figure out what Prime Minister Stephen Harper's vision is for Canada. It's hard to tell with this guy.

My theory is that Harper is not so much concerned with governing the people of Canada, but rather with operating Canada on the world stage. It would appear that Harper wants to be in the big leagues with world leaders.

Our Prime Minister is diverting attention and social funding to explicit economic initiatives and, most importantly, to the army. In my opinion, his approach to bolstering the economy is severely flawed, but that is not the point. Harper is probably trying to strengthen our economy and army in an attempt to gain clout among the leaders of the developed world.

If this is indeed the case, then he's doing it all wrong. First of all, it would appear that the Harper government is adopting American-style policies. There is a lot of evidence that the Bush administration's approach to governing is not working very well at all.

More importantly, however, is the PM's low regard for social and cultural funding. Among many other programs cut by the Conservative government were ones that fund literacy programs and international promotion of Canadian culture.

An illiterate population is easier to control, so one can see why Harper would want to chop that. However even the slowest of us realize that an educated populace is more productive. And as for promoting Canadian culture abroad, cutting this program works against Harper's possible plan to gain clout among the other leaders of the world.

Harper seems to ignore that leaders in other parts of the world are influenced by their citizens (at least somewhat). Briefly put, a populace that knows and understands and likes Canada is more likely to have a leader that feels the same way.

Harper may be a good strategist, but as he enters the world stage his narrow-minded approach is becoming apparent.

politics and religion

Figured I'd use this post to kind of summarize a couple of my views. This can be used to give an idea of where my ideologies are and will hopefully provide some insight into my view of the world.

Broadly speaking, I try to take an objective approach to issues. I generally don't form opinions of much strength until I've at the very least had an opportunity to hear what the opposing arguments are. For example, I have absolutely no idea who I think is right in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, despite the fact that it is a commonly discussed global issue here in North America. I just haven't paid attention to it yet.

In contrast, I do maintain a strong opinion with respect to the Atlantic Accord issue, as I demonstrated in my last post. However, I try to remain as objective as possible and have done my best to digest opposing views. Unfortunately a lot of the commentary surrounding this particular issue comes from people who seem to miss / misreport facts and are not aware of the history. Or at least, that's the way it seems.

So. What are the views I hold today? Let's start with the doozies: Politics and Religion.

Politics

I am liberal-leaning. I base my choice in governing party at any level on how 'well-rounded' their approach to governance is. I am a strong believer that a healthy and happy society requires a solid foundation in many areas, and that these components are all inter-connected in some way. It is frustrating when a political party puts its primary focus on one major theme like social welfare or economic prosperity. Money does not breed happiness, but I'll tell ya, bein' poor sucks.

Right now I am a huge supporter of my current provincial Progressive Conservatives under Danny Williams, and have decided I will vote for Stephane Dion's Liberals in the next federal election. Williams has proven himself to be a convincing leader who can be trusted, and Dion is showing signs that he could do very good things for the country.

I do not support Stephen Harper's Conservatives, and while I am surely biased thanks to Danny Williams' vocal opposition to Harper, I have several other reasons to wish him out of power. First, Harper has shown strong indications that he functions only to win; his moves are clearly strategic and he is extremely vague with respect to his vision for Canada.

Second, he has blatently broken several high-profile election promises, has contradicted himself openly many times, and maintains tight control over the information that leaves the PMO. He simply cannot be trusted and has demonstrated this very, very clearly.

Vote Liberal!

Religion

This one is touchy. Not for me, but for many, many others. Religious views are so important to individuals, and I suppose part of the reason for this is that religion is such a strong identifier. For many people it is a source of moral and emotional guidance, and having their views challenged can be threatening.

I went to a Roman Catholic church and school in my formative years. However, my community is largely secular, and many, if not most of my friends either don't believe in God or have serious doubts. Most of these same people are extremely kind and intelligent and are highly involved in the community. Now, does this mean that you don't need religion to be moral? I personally believe this is true, however most of the people I know are still involved in the church in one way or another. Perhaps, then, religion is still an important communicator of moral values. This has yet to be seen.

So what do I believe? I have sometimes considered myself an agnostic, which basically means I "don't know" if there's a God or not. But I'm re-evaluating that position. It is definitely true that I don't know if there's a god or gods, however based on the evidence I think it's highly unlikely that there is some supreme ruler of the universe.

One might say 'Ah ha! So you admit there could be a God!' And they'd be right. But that does not mean it's equally likely that there is a god as no god. I think the odds are stacked heavily against the God hypothesis.

I have many, many reasons why I don't believe in God. I am quite willing to debate someone on the topic. However I'm more interested in focusing my newly energized fascination with the universe on learning more about what we know for sure. Why spend weeks, months, and years worshiping someone who threatens to damn me to eternal suffering if i don't play by His rules, especially if He's probably not even there?

Going Forward

So where am I without God? I'm in the real world. I'm prepared to accept all beliefs as important to our global culture. I'm excited about the rapid progress we're making despite bickering over who's God is real. I see secularism as an important movement in human evolution because it will be those who do not subscribe to a discriminatory religion that will help to bring all of humanity together to tackle very real global threats.

To vote based on religious beliefs is to vote as a naval-gazer.

My next blog post will probably be about animal welfare and global climate change.