3.6.04 [ ] 0 comments 
I am going to make an admission: I have had some doubts. In its expression, I have a slight fear of the thought police. However, I know the readership of this page. And, I trust that you won't report me.
This morning, I went to a french-immersion high school to recruit volunteers during a federal debate among the local candidates. I employed strategies also employed by cults; these were successful in getting recruits and probably even scoring some votes from the teachers.
Regardless, the real meat was with the debate. This was my first time hearing any of the candidates speak on topic. Frankly, I was appauled by Malcolm's (New Democrat) performance. His presentation consisted mostly, of showboating and sensationalizing - and slandering. And yes, he got a reaction out of the students, there was hoots and hollering and cheers and excitement.
Profoundly, the students came back from their hysteria with some smart questions: "Mr. Malcom, if there were to be a minority government, which would your party side with?"
In paraphrase: "We make no bimutual agreements! We will make our support contingent upon a nation-wide referendum on proportional reprasentation." He then goes into a discussion on the merits of proportional representation and how it is "more democratic".
This is not what I want in a governing party; stratightforward, proportional representation means dick all if there is nothing to represent. I understand that it might be a suitable legacy to progressivly democracize the nation. But, what happened to the polution-credit system? What happend to consumption tax increases and income tax decreases? What happened to public-transit subsidies? What happend to the reasons I would want a Liberal-NDP coalition?
This was news to me. And then, "...and we will reduce the voting age to 16!" Cheers from the audience. Ok, on this one, I am in complete agreement with Debby Carlson (liberal): If you want to get your kids involved in the political process, it starts at home with a family dicussion of the merits of each party and candidate. Parents should involved their childeren in their political decision process while they are in social studies and excited about politics - not only to familiarize them with how to evaluate a candidate, but also to give them a voice for their interests. And then, when a child turns into an adult, s/he is equiped with a strong background in decision-making. The only reason the New Democrats would want younger people to vote is because, acording to some sophisticated demographic and statistical software known as "NDPVote", the NDP support between 16 and 18 would give the NDP a majority government.
And outrage: repeatedly skirted issues to talk about how a liberal government was like "living in the Matrix". This is not condusive to cultivating choice and critical understanding in young people, it is an effort to exploit them.
Rahim (conservative) responded to many questions in a very liquid and fluent french, the only seperation from his english presentation voice was the addition of "um" and "ah" which are not present in his everyday speech. Rahim is hard-lined: his Canada is one of intense opportunity with marked class difference - one in which a person defines their class by the amount of dedication and effort they are willing to sacrifice. Rahim spoke not to the students but to the cameras, and me: "...and those of you who are exploring the political system and how it works, even if your working with another party, are revered and respected - and welcome with the conservatives." Scary. it throws me off-guard sometimes, when I catch myself drawn in to rhetoric, thus needing contemplation and evaluation time (hence being here rather than at the office right now).
The liberals have put on a desperate campaign. I find it almost unbelievable; in the debate, Debby announced that the liberals (as of this morning) have made a dedication to nex-generation wind-powe; designed in quebec, manafactured in alberta, to be placed in alberta's wind corridor. And, dualie wind-hydros. The new design increases the output of wind turbines by 50% and cuts construction cost in half. Is this true? Do the liberals have a plan for alternative energy sources? Or is this more election time fabrication? They have already started preaching the gas-tax sharing policies that the NDP were running on; the question is, of course, will the liberals hold to their promises; in the past, they havn't; repeatedly. No, democratic message is essential.
The most impressive candidate in the debate was Cameron Greenfield (green). The Greens do not have a platform of governance, nor do they have a plan of implementation. Cameron admitted that his party was not familiar with the workings of government (and from his description, he was not familiar with the structure of north american economies either). The greens have a platform of ideology (which I have already evaluated as meritful) which kind of makes them a religious (read: cult) movement rather than a potential government.
However, cameron's french was flawless. His presentations were breif, to the point, soft-spoken. He engaged the students as I have only seen one other person do before. And, I start thinking: these people could never govern a nation. But, they won't. There is no chance of it. However, I could see cameron's as an imporant voice to have while the power-hungry govern our future. I will of course, re-evaluate later. And, for now, I am working for the NDP.
This morning, I went to a french-immersion high school to recruit volunteers during a federal debate among the local candidates. I employed strategies also employed by cults; these were successful in getting recruits and probably even scoring some votes from the teachers.
Regardless, the real meat was with the debate. This was my first time hearing any of the candidates speak on topic. Frankly, I was appauled by Malcolm's (New Democrat) performance. His presentation consisted mostly, of showboating and sensationalizing - and slandering. And yes, he got a reaction out of the students, there was hoots and hollering and cheers and excitement.
Profoundly, the students came back from their hysteria with some smart questions: "Mr. Malcom, if there were to be a minority government, which would your party side with?"
In paraphrase: "We make no bimutual agreements! We will make our support contingent upon a nation-wide referendum on proportional reprasentation." He then goes into a discussion on the merits of proportional representation and how it is "more democratic".
This is not what I want in a governing party; stratightforward, proportional representation means dick all if there is nothing to represent. I understand that it might be a suitable legacy to progressivly democracize the nation. But, what happened to the polution-credit system? What happend to consumption tax increases and income tax decreases? What happened to public-transit subsidies? What happend to the reasons I would want a Liberal-NDP coalition?
This was news to me. And then, "...and we will reduce the voting age to 16!" Cheers from the audience. Ok, on this one, I am in complete agreement with Debby Carlson (liberal): If you want to get your kids involved in the political process, it starts at home with a family dicussion of the merits of each party and candidate. Parents should involved their childeren in their political decision process while they are in social studies and excited about politics - not only to familiarize them with how to evaluate a candidate, but also to give them a voice for their interests. And then, when a child turns into an adult, s/he is equiped with a strong background in decision-making. The only reason the New Democrats would want younger people to vote is because, acording to some sophisticated demographic and statistical software known as "NDPVote", the NDP support between 16 and 18 would give the NDP a majority government.
And outrage: repeatedly skirted issues to talk about how a liberal government was like "living in the Matrix". This is not condusive to cultivating choice and critical understanding in young people, it is an effort to exploit them.
Rahim (conservative) responded to many questions in a very liquid and fluent french, the only seperation from his english presentation voice was the addition of "um" and "ah" which are not present in his everyday speech. Rahim is hard-lined: his Canada is one of intense opportunity with marked class difference - one in which a person defines their class by the amount of dedication and effort they are willing to sacrifice. Rahim spoke not to the students but to the cameras, and me: "...and those of you who are exploring the political system and how it works, even if your working with another party, are revered and respected - and welcome with the conservatives." Scary. it throws me off-guard sometimes, when I catch myself drawn in to rhetoric, thus needing contemplation and evaluation time (hence being here rather than at the office right now).
The liberals have put on a desperate campaign. I find it almost unbelievable; in the debate, Debby announced that the liberals (as of this morning) have made a dedication to nex-generation wind-powe; designed in quebec, manafactured in alberta, to be placed in alberta's wind corridor. And, dualie wind-hydros. The new design increases the output of wind turbines by 50% and cuts construction cost in half. Is this true? Do the liberals have a plan for alternative energy sources? Or is this more election time fabrication? They have already started preaching the gas-tax sharing policies that the NDP were running on; the question is, of course, will the liberals hold to their promises; in the past, they havn't; repeatedly. No, democratic message is essential.
The most impressive candidate in the debate was Cameron Greenfield (green). The Greens do not have a platform of governance, nor do they have a plan of implementation. Cameron admitted that his party was not familiar with the workings of government (and from his description, he was not familiar with the structure of north american economies either). The greens have a platform of ideology (which I have already evaluated as meritful) which kind of makes them a religious (read: cult) movement rather than a potential government.
However, cameron's french was flawless. His presentations were breif, to the point, soft-spoken. He engaged the students as I have only seen one other person do before. And, I start thinking: these people could never govern a nation. But, they won't. There is no chance of it. However, I could see cameron's as an imporant voice to have while the power-hungry govern our future. I will of course, re-evaluate later. And, for now, I am working for the NDP.
Post a Comment