Free speech and political correctness

 A few scattered thoughts on free speech, political correctness, and censorship:

• Learning about people different from ourselves is lifelong learning. We never get to a point where we can be quick to judge a group of people we just learned about.
• Lifelong learning also means we need to show each other grace about actions and words that harm or offend people. (This doesn't mean staying silent when someone says or does something inappropriate, but it does mean giving people time to learn and not expecting them to reach exactly the same conclusions as us.)
• Free speech is a bedrock principle of free and democratic societies and it must be protected.
• Free speech has never meant entitlement to a platform. Newspapers publish a variety of opinions in the Letters to the Editor, but they have always had the right not to publish everything they receive. Public venues have never been required to rent their stages to absolutely everyone who wants it.
• When social media allows misinformation to spread unchecked, it leads people to make dangerous decisions, and deepens divisions in society.
• When social media flags or censors misinformation, people complain about censorship and move to platforms that allow misinformation, deepening divisions in society.
  
• We do not have a fundamental right not to be offended.
• Words can cause deep offense, intended or not. When we find out someone is offended by our words, we should not be quick to criticize them; we should listen and carefully consider their experiences and feelings. There are times when offensive things must be said anyway.
• A few of the most vocal free speech defenders don't appear to care if their words cause deep offense to some.
• A few of the most vocal defenders of minorities are very quick to judge anyone who disagrees with them on even the smallest details, and will try to ruin careers over the smallest offense.
• There will never be a complete set of hard and fast rules about which ideas get a platform and which don't. The debate over which ideas should get debated publicly will never end. This is good.
  

Overall, I appreciate the voices that value free speech and greater understanding of people different from ourselves. These are the voices that can build unity between very different people. Personally, I want to be a good listener and to articulate clearly what I think. This takes lifelong learning.

Alberta fighting division with division

Since the federal election in October 2019, there has been a clear increase in separatist sentiment in Alberta and other parts of western Canada. I recently blocked Wexit ads on Facebook because I was getting sick of them.

Many feel like we're under attack by the federal government and other provinces. Across our country, our health and quality of life are quite dependent on fossil fuels, and a significant chunk of that comes from Alberta. Yet in 2017 Justin Trudeau said, "We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out." Even though he backpedaled on that comment, it gave many Albertans the impression that he doesn't care about our jobs and prosperity. The federal government passed laws that many in the resource industry think will make it harder to get resource projects done. And they created a national carbon tax.

So Albertans get the impression that Trudeau is against us, he has numerous scandals involving questionable ethics and competence, and then much of the rest of the country re-elects him. Yes, his party is reduced to a minority, but the balance of power is held by other parties that want more restrictions on fossil fuels, and the Bloc Quebecois that appears openly hostile to Alberta.

Justin Trudeau says he's been trying to build unity nationwide, but we've become more divided.

But as Albertans, we should not fight division with division.

First of all, let's acknowledge that human-caused climate change is serious and we need to work toward net-zero global carbon emissions in the coming decades. If you read through my Facebook feed, it's no secret that I support major action on this.

When people predict bad things in the future, the worst predictions are rarely right. In this case the worst predictions are human extinction or even the extinction of all life of earth, and I (with my limited understanding of the subject) consider these extremely unlikely. But predictions of 100 million premature deaths this century, even more in coming centuries, and accelerating extinction of other species are not the worst predictions; they represent mainstream science.

If you or someone you love works in the fossil fuel industry, it is certainly hard to support government policies that would eliminate these jobs in the coming decades. I get it. Renewable energy development, retrofitting of buildings, and transportation infrastructure construction will create many jobs, but I understand the fear of forced change. People don't know if change will help them get ahead or leave them behind.

For all of Justin Trudeau's faults, he actually brought in the most pro-Alberta climate policy of all the parties that support a carbon tax. The rebates all go to the province that the money came from; since Alberta has the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions and hence the highest costs, we get the biggest rebates. If everyone in Canada simply got the same rebate, that would be another net flow of money out of Alberta. The Liberals are also the only party to support both a carbon tax and a new oil export pipeline so that we can get a better price for our oil while we can still sell it.

As for the economic effects of a carbon tax, I challenge you to find a jurisdiction that has had a carbon tax for several years where the economy has done badly. I'll mention Sweden as a success story--it has the highest carbon tax on earth, and its economy has done just fine in that time.

When we get criticized for pipeline building, oil sands mining, and stuff like that, let's not pretend that cutting the emissions from our oil production or converting our coal power plants to natural gas is enough. Yes, let's talk about the progress we've made, but let's be just as vocal about our commitment to achieving net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

As a province and as individuals, let's:

• Invest in much more renewable energy, grid energy storage systems (pumped storage hydroelectricity is just one option that doesn't need a single new invention), and maybe nuclear power.
• Finish converting our coal power plants to natural gas.
• Invest in carbon capture, both from industrial stacks and from the atmosphere. (Carbon Engineering has a promising technology to convert atmospheric CO2 to hydrocarbon fuels. If it can run on 100% renewable energy, then it would produce carbon-neutral hydrocarbons.)
• Produce oil as cleanly as we can, to sell to the world for as long as they use oil.
• Actively work toward net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 (with a possible exception for industries exporting to countries that haven't achieved net-zero emissions by then).
• Diversify our economy so that when the world won't buy our oil--or anyone else's--we still have a strong economy.
• Support political candidates who show strong integrity and leadership skill, and support the kinds of policies (in many areas, not just climate change) that you think are a good idea. Speak out against hypocrisy, abuse of power, and neglect for our future.
• Don't insult people we disagree with especially if they're motivated by love and compassion; respond intelligently and respectfully. (I'm getting tired of the insults directed at Greta Thunberg on Facebook.)

The coming decades will bring an unprecedented level of change to the world. Much of it can be positive. Do we want to isolate ourselves and become an economic also-ran, or do we want to work with the rest of Canada and the world to meet this challenge head-on?

Robocalls and mass texts

It's election season here in Alberta. So here's a thought: what if robocalls, mass text messages, and similar forms of automated campaigning were banned? Would anyone be disadvantaged from this?

If political candidates have to rely on volunteers, paid staff, and paid advertising to get their message out, then the number of people they can reach is roughly proportional to how well they engage everyday people in the political process, whether as volunteers or donors. If they can write a computer program to mass text or mass call a huge list of randomly generated phone numbers, they really don't need to actively engage the rest of us; they can annoy get their message out to massive amounts of people without a lot of money or help.

So would banning robocalls and mass texts get more people engaged in the political process? And maybe reduce people's cynicism and distrust in the whole political process?

Making a difference in Alberta

For everyone reading this in Alberta, I want to encourage you to get out and vote today. Remember: your vote probably won't make a difference, but when a whole bunch of people do something that doesn't make a difference, it makes a difference.

A couple of points about the election

Recently I've said some things that are critical of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, and a bit against Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party.  I haven't really talked about the other parties either, but I have my issues with them too.  But today I'm not going to be critical of any politician in particular; I just want to make a couple of points.

First of all, I don't believe politics can really solve the problems in our society.  It can do a lot of good and a lot of bad, but it can't truly fix things.  If violence, oppression, other crime, and inequality are going to go away, better laws and government programs can help, but ultimately it takes an attitude change on everyone's part.  If we all just put our own interests first, no amount of rules or government programs can fix these problems.  Do you really want police and politicians who only care about their own interests?  That's a recipe for corruption.

Mentioning corruption brings me to my second point.  When I was in China with my wife recently, I heard a few stories about corruption.  High-up officials will routinely "negotiate" discounts in restaurants after eating and getting the bill, and if the restaurant staff refuse, government officials could find "health violations" in the restaurant and shut it down.  A beautiful tree in a park, covered in flowers, disappeared one day.  One of my wife's relatives commented that only a government official could get away with stealing like that.  I'm sure there are far worse examples than these.  These stories of corruption make me appreciate democracy more.  Democracy doesn't make government corruption impossible, and as I said in my first point, it can't really solve our problems.  But it gives everyday people like you and me the ability to do something about government corruption.  You may debate whether it gives us enough of a way to eliminate corruption, but at least it's something.  So if you're a Canadian citizen, please vote tomorrow.

It's not just about policy

I've finally started looking at the party platforms for Canada's big political parties.  I wouldn't really consider myself conservative or liberal; I'm kind of middle of the road, and maybe totally out there on a few issues.  (For example, I think I'd like to shrink the economy.  Without sacrificing jobs or significantly reducing economic freedom, of course.  But that's a topic for another day.)  I don't know about you, but I find it hard to know which policies are good ideas.  For example, both the Conservatives and Liberals are proposing improved benefits for people caring for sick family members.  The Liberal plan seems to provide more, but then that could make it harder to eliminate the deficit.  So which approach is better?

Some policy ideas could be good if they're implemented right, bad if they're implemented badly.  And the party platforms go into very little detail.

So when I'm judging parties' policies, I think I should base my opinion more on the few issues that I'm more familiar with than the ones I'm not so familiar with.  But beyond that, there are some pretty important other factors.  So here are some things I'm thinking about, including some criteria I'm using to judge policies:

• Leadership skill - Can the leader get the team working together effectively?  Do they make smart decisions when faced with unforeseen issues like recessions, wars, disasters, or smaller day-to-day issues?
• Integrity - How much corruption goes on under their leadership?  Do they keep their promises?  (I think I'm actually more concerned with corruption than with keeping campaign promises.  For one thing, unforeseen circumstances can make keeping a promise a harmful course of action.)
• How much of a history of fear-mongering do they have? It's hard to know if the stuff they're afraid of now is legitimate or not, but we can look back at their past records.  For example, when those boats from Sri Lanka arrived in Canada full of refugees a while back, did they find evidence that any of them were terrorists as the government suspected?
• Are their policy priorities in line with my values?  It's hard to evaluate how they plan to act on their values, but its nice to know if their principles are similar to mine.
• Are the policies that I understand best based on evidence of what works, rather than just ideology or impressing voters?

I'd like to give a couple of examples on that last one.  The Liberals want to cancel the planned corporate tax reduction.  They think the tax reduction would reduce revenue by $5-6 billion per year.  The Conservatives claim that some experts say canceling the tax reduction would cost many jobs.  (I'm not sure if there are experts speaking out in favour of the Liberals' plan.)  Overall, I'm not sure where I stand on the tax reduction, but I do believe the loss of revenue would be less than the Liberals predict.

On the other side, many critics think the Conservatives' "get tough on crime" plan will actually make Canada more dangerous.  Here's an article from February critical of the idea, and here's an article that cites some statistics from the US suggesting that this is a bad idea.  Even if some of the Conservatives' other plans actually do something to address the root issues behind crime, their plan to build more jails and toughen sentences could undo some or all of those improvements.  Maybe a few of their "tough on crime" measures are good ideas, but by and large, I'm not optimistic.  And sometimes the opposition has supported these measures.

So do I vote for the devil I know or one of the devils I don't know?  Or do I vote for a party with no realistic chance of forming a government in the hope that voices outside the political establishment will gain a stronger voice?

I'm pretty sure I won't be voting for the devil I know.  But which alternative will I pick?

How I sometimes feel about politics

Corrupt, you're corrupt,
and Bring corruption to all that you touch.

Hold, you’ll behold,
And beholden for all that you’ve done.

And Spell, cast a spell,
Cast a spell on the country you run.

And risk, you will risk,
You will risk all their lives and their souls.

And burn, you will burn,
You will burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell.
You’ll burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell for your sins.

And our freedom's consuming itself,
What we've become is contrary to what we want
Take a bow.

Death, you bring death and destruction to all that you touch.

Pay, you must pay
You must pay for your crimes against the earth.

Hex, feed the hex
Feed the hex on the country you love

And Beg, you will beg
You will beg for their lives and their souls.

Yeah,
Burn, you will burn,
You will burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell,
You’ll burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell,
Burn in hell, yeah you'll burn in hell for your sins.

 --Muse, Take a Bow

I'm not aiming this song at one particular person, but here's just one example of why I sometimes feel this way.  Canada's government (which could get defeated in the upcoming election, but probably won't be) has proposed detaining many desperate refugees without evidence of crimes.  (There's a good critique of it here.)  I wonder what our evangelical Christian prime minister thinks about the Bible verse that says "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner" (Exodus 22:21) and other similar verses.  Maybe he picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to apply.  But wait, evangelicals don't simply pick and choose.  They have legitimate reasons for saying certain parts of the Bible don't apply now.  I wonder why that verse doesn't apply.

I'm being tough on the Conservatives right now, but I've got issues with the other parties too.  Hopefully I'll write about a bit of that before the election.

China and the Republic of China

We recently returned from a trip to Taiwan and China.  Or as the governments of those countries might prefer us to say: we recently returned from a trip to China.  (The Chinese government claims Taiwan is part of China.  Officially, the Taiwan government--also known as the Republic of China--seems to claim this too, but claims that the Taiwan government is the legitimate government of all of China.  But the Republic of China doesn't seem to pursue this claim anymore.)

We had a wide variety of experiences.  We helped out on an organic farm in southern Taiwan.  We visited the beaches of Hainan, an island in southern China.  We visited my wife's relatives in a few different cities.  We biked in Chinese traffic (a bit scary).  We saw the mini terra cotta army in Xuzhou (not to be confused with the full-size terra cotta army in Xi'an, which we didn't see).  And near the end, we saw a few of the Beijing area's big attractions like the Great Wall and the Forbidden City.

I'll try to write more about a couple of specific parts of the trip another time, but this is all for now.

Concerns to do with Wikileaks

I guess we haven't been hearing as much about Wikileaks in the news lately, but I'd like to comment. My overall opinion of that organization is mixed, but I am concerned about some of the response to their activities. Before I get to my main point, I'd like to briefly summarize some points that I've heard on different sides of the issue:

• Whistleblowers are doing society a favour when they expose government or corporate wrongdoing, not when they're revealing other confidential information. (For example, if my employer covered up an environmental incident, I would be protected if I blew the whistle. But if I revealed confidential financial data or details of their proprietary technology, I could be fired and maybe even sued.) These diplomatic cables that Wikileaks revealed are mostly confidential conversations between officials, not evidence of wrongdoing.
  
• In the past, Wikileaks has exposed some evidence of government wrongdoing, such as a video of American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians and journalists.
• When the media publishes confidential information, it's normally the source that gets punished (if the source can be found), not the media outlet.

My big concern about how authorities are treating Wikileaks is this: their simplest means of raising money are being cut off without proof in court that their activities are illegal. Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal all cut off Wikileaks from accepting donations by credit card, supposedly because the money was being used for illegal activities. While I agree that these companies shouldn't be facilitating illegal activities, the legal status of Wikileaks is murky. Their guilt has not been proven in court. What would you think if you got fired from your job and your bank account got suspended because someone from the government told your employer and your bank that you were doing something illegal, but you never had a chance to defend yourself in court? What's happening to Wikileaks seems similar to me.

Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal are for-profit corporations that collectively control a very large portion of the world's electronic financial transactions. I am concerned about the level of control that Mastercard and Visa in particular have over the world's financial transactions, but that's a topic for another day. But when most of your communication is online and your potential income comes from donations from around the world, you're crippled if these three companies refuse to deal with you. These companies shouldn't be allowed to cut organizations off like this without due process.

(Sources: I got some information here from Wikipedia.)

Putting a price on life

I wanted to write this before Edmonton's municipal election, which happened this week, but night shifts and overtime made it difficult. Now that my schedule is more normal, I'm going to comment on one of the big issues in that election: the Edmonton City Centre Airport.

In case you're not all that familiar with Edmonton, we have two airports. The City Centre Airport (ECCA) is near downtown, and it only serves small planes including charters and air ambulances. The International Airport is outside of the city limits, about 26 km from downtown, and it serves the vast majority of people flying in and out of the Edmonton area. Last year, Edmonton's city council decided to close the ECCA, eventually. This became an issue in this year's election campaign.

Since most Edmontonians don't actually use that airport, one of the biggest arguments for keeping it open was for air ambulances. Edmonton has the closest major hospitals to many northern communities. Moving the air ambulance flights (which are typically in airplanes, not helicopters) to the International Airport would make it take longer to get to a major hospital, typically about 8 minutes longer (more in bad weather), a fairly short time compared to the hours it would take to stabilize the patient in the northern community, get them on a plane, and fly to Edmonton. Even so, 8 minutes could mean the difference between life and death for a very small number of patients.

The airport needs some upgrades to keep it open (I don't think airport revenue is enough to cover this), and if it's redeveloped into something else, the city stands to collect more taxes from that land. So is it worth the money to keep it open to save a few lives? I heard one candidate in this election say, "You can't put a price on life." I'd like to agree with that, but in practice, we put a price on life all the time. If we really don't put a price on life, why don't we build a major hospital in every northern community, so that people don't have to fly to Edmonton in emergencies? That would save far more lives than keeping the ECCA open.

Although there's not much chance of the government funding all those hospitals, maybe the money saved by shutting the ECCA down could be put toward other health care improvements, like reducing wait times in emergency rooms. Maybe that would save more lives. (Yes, I'm aware that closing the ECCA mainly affects the municipal government's revenue and expenses, and it's the provincial and federal governments that pay for health care. But their revenue all comes from the same place--us. Maybe the municipal government will be able to cut taxes a bit and the provincial government can raise taxes a bit to pay for the improvements.)

So in conclusion, instead of protesting against the government "putting a price on life," let's ask instead how the government can use our money to save the most lives and improve people's health the most.

Life imitating art, Part 2

My last post was about life imitating art, specifically The Simpsons. Now there's another example.

Back in 2000, there was an episode that looked into the future, when Lisa Simpson is President of the United States. In it, they make reference to Donald Trump's disastrous term as President.

Now Donald Trump is considering running for President.

My theory that we live in a world secretly ruled by Matt Groening is gaining traction.

Life imitating art

So Fidel Castro is admitting that communism isn't working in Cuba. Didn't this happen on The Simpsons once? If a rich American and his doofus employee hand Castro a trillion-dollar bill, saving the communist system, then I'll know we're all living in The Matrix. Or a world that's secretly ruled by Matt Groening.

Not quite everything I believed in has lied to me

This post is inspired by the song "Where Are You?" by Our Lady Peace. They didn't sing this song at the concert I was at in July, but thinking about this song back then inspired this post. It just took me a while to get around to writing it. Anyway, here are the lyrics:

Hey you
Have you felt like this before?
You got style but ain't got soul
Are you happy now?
Are you happy, tonight?
Or did Punk Rock get it right?
Is there no future in sight?
Oh is it different now? Is it different?

Come up
Come up come on, come on
Where are you? Where are you?
I'm kicking and screaming
You're not listening
Where are you? Where are you?
Everything I've believed in, has lied to me
But this could be the best day, of my life
The best day of my life

eh you
Have you got everything you want?
Or do you want more than you got?
Is it different now? Is it different, tonight?
Or did Jesus get it right?
Or is the devil behind the light?
Are you happy now? Are you happy?

Come on
Come on, come on, come on
Where are you? Where are you?
I'm kicking and screaming,
You're not listening
Where are you? And where are you?
Everything I've believed in, has lied to me
But this could be the best day of my life

Ohhh sons and daughters,
Mothers and fathers,
Everyone's waiting for our luck to change
Sons and daughters,
Mothers and fathers,
Everyone's waiting, waiting

Cause this could be the best day
And this could be the best day
And this could be the best day, best day, best day

Come on
Come on, come on, come on
Where are you? Where are you?
I'm kicking and screaming
You're not listening
Where are you? And where are you?
Everything I believed in has lied to me
And this could be the best day
And this could be the best day,
And this could be the best day best day, best day
And this could be the best day
And this could be the best day,
And this could be the best day best day, best day of my life

For me, this song gets me thinking about my faith in God. I don't believe that everything I believed in has lied to me, but I've rejected some things that I used to believe. And maybe the times that I rejected those ideas weren't the best days of my life, but they were good. It feels freeing, and it makes it harder for people to control me by telling me what to think. A few ideas that I've rejected:

I've rejected the idea that the universe around us gives scientific evidence for God's existence.

I've rejected the idea that the Bible is infallible.

I've rejected the idea that God created each species separately, not from a common ancestor, or that God had to intervene in evolution to create the diversity of life that we see.

I've rejected the idea that the Bible has to be totally historically or scientifically accurate, or even infallible, to deliver a divine message.

I've rejected the idea that conservative politics reflects God's values better than liberal politics does.

I've rejected the idea that more church involvement, more prayer, or more Bible reading will automatically make a person happier and closer to God. (Or did I ever believe this one?)

Maybe sometime I'll list some ideas that I wasn't raised with that I have also rejected. What ideas that you were raised with (religious or not) have you rejected?

Maybe we are a threat

For several years, I've subscribed to the Persecution and Prayer Alert from Voice of the Martyrs. Every week, they send news about persecuted Christians, and sometimes they urge their readers to write letters or emails to governments in defense of these persecuted Christians. Once in a while, I've written letters (but I guess it's been a while).

The Voice of the Martyrs website has some letter writing tips and I think they used to have some examples to follow, but I can't find any right now. In an email to a foreign government, I seem to remember saying something like, "The Bible teaches us to submit to our governments and obey the law, so Christians in your country are not a threat to your government," based on a sample letter I'd read. While it's true that as Christians, we are supposed to obey the law when it doesn't mean disobeying God, something about what I said didn't sit right with me, even as I wrote it. Maybe I'd already heard about how the church had been involved in bringing down communism, mostly peacefully, in Poland. Or maybe I realized that when people have a higher loyalty than their own government, that can non-violently undermine a government.

The more time that passes, the less I believe that Christianity is not a threat to oppressive governments. Sometimes I'm not even sure how it works, but when we serve a God who "opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6), oppressive people and institutions can't stand forever. And if God can conquer death by dying, maybe Christians can conquer oppressors by submitting to them while being loyal to God above all. (But that's easy for me to say, sitting here, experiencing relatively little persecution.)

Ironically, I'm probably less sure of God's existence than I was when I wrote the letter I mentioned.

Sex changes

Several years ago, I volunteered with The Mustard Seed, an organization that helps poor people in inner-city Edmonton in various ways, including serving meals and giving away donated clothing.

One day when I was there during a meal, one of the staff asked me to go to the clothing storage area and find a skirt for a man who had just come in. Yes, you read that right. This man was dressed as a woman, but not very convincingly. It was pretty clear he was a man. I went to the clothing storage and found a skirt and whatever else this person had asked for.

Later, I was watching the entrance with a new volunteer. This volunteer looked over at the cross-dresser and said, "People like that don't even deserve to live."

I was surprised to hear him say something so hateful, yet I wasn't willing to speak up.

I don't think I ever saw that volunteer again. Maybe he made a similar remark to someone on staff and they told him he shouldn't come back. Or maybe he decided on his own that he couldn't handle being in the same room as a transvestite or transgendered person.

I don't know if the man in the skirt was a transvestite (someone who likes dressing like the opposite sex) or transgendered (someone who thinks they should be the opposite sex). But either way, he clearly faced hatred. Now the Alberta government is planning to stop funding sex change surgeries for transgendered Albertans. Based on what I've learned about transgendered people, they feel like they were born the wrong gender, even from a young age. As far as I know, most of them were born with the body parts of a single gender, not both. This seems to be a much deeper feeling than simply not liking the way they look. Feeling this way can lead to severe depression and even suicide.

I don't know how much of the depression comes from the transgendered feeling itself and how much comes from the social stigma. I suspect some of both. So whether you support or oppose government funding for sex change operations, please oppose hatred toward transgendered people. Treat them like normal people. (And if you ever want tips on how not to treat minorities like they're normal, watch any episode of "The Office" where Michael deals with black people or gay people.) I'm sorry for not standing up for that guy at The Mustard Seed, and the next time I encounter hatred like that, I intend to say something.

Meanwhile, an article about this issue also mentioned that they're cutting back funding for youth suicide prevention. So now some teens could die because the government wants to save a few bucks? Does our government really care about our mental health?

Becoming less conservative

I've heard that Winston Churchill said, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." It turns out this isn't true, but I'm going to talk about that quote today anyway.

By these standards, my brain has been atrophying over the last several years. My parents have generally supported right-wing political parties for as long as I can remember, so I was raised with a conservative bias. I let myself be influenced by other conservative people too, so by the end of high school, I might have been more conservative than my parents. Come to think of it, they might have been more moderate than I thought.

Conservatives tend to favour smaller government and lower taxes. This made sense to me. If people pay lower taxes, they can buy more, stimulating the economy. If companies sell more stuff and pay less taxes, they can hire more people, stimulating the economy. I cared about poverty too, but the old "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime" made me think conservative poverty-fighting programs were just as good as liberal ones.

More recently the media has talked about how the American economy did so much better under Bill Clinton than under George W. Bush. I know the president isn't the only factor, but here was a big example of economic success under a liberal leader. Last year, Scott Adams (the writer of Dilbert) commissioned a survey of economists to find out which presidential candidate they thought would be best for the economy. Overall, they favoured Obama over McCain. It also turned out that more economists are registered as Democrats than Republicans. (To anyone who thinks political affiliation biased the results: in general the Independents favoured Obama. Also, the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the survey shows that economists tend to favour liberal policies in general.) So there's more evidence that liberal policies could be good for the economy.

Changes in my faith in God (yes, I'm still an evangelical Christian in case you're wondering) have made me less inclined to support socially conservative causes too, but I'm not going to get into the reasons for that today.

I've still never voted for the Liberal party. I'd generally consider myself moderate, not so much liberal or conservative. But my recent votes against the Liberals have had more to do with integrity and leadership than with policies.

The coalition

It's finally time for me to weigh in on that coalition that almost replaced our minority government here in Canada. Here are a few of my thoughts:

• In Canada, we technically elect our Members of Parliament (MPs), not our Prime Minister. Parliament has the right and the responsibility to hold the Prime Minister and cabinet accountable. Forming a coalition to defeat the government was within the rights of the parties involved. We don't have rules to distinguish between legitimately holding the Prime Minister accountable and making a shameless power grab. Nor should we. Bad policies and lack of leadership skill are legitimate reasons to defeat a Prime Minister, and I don't think we can make a rule to define these situations. If the opposition parties really do make a shameless power grab, hopefully the public will see through it and punish them for it in the next election.
• In Canada, we technically elect our MPs, not our Prime Minister. But when we vote for our MP, we know which party each candidate is in, and we know who their leaders are. I'm sure many people in my riding voted for Tim Uppal because he's in Stephen Harper's party, not because he's Tim Uppal. Likewise, I'm sure many votes across Canada were influenced by the party leaders more than the local candidates.
• More people voted for the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc Quebecois than for the Conservatives. This gives the coalition some democratic legitimacy.
• More people voted for the Conservatives than any other individual party. This should count for something. While I believe most NDP and Bloc Quebecois supporters would rather have Stephane Dion as Prime Minister than Stephen Harper, there are many exceptions. They voted against the Liberals for a reason.
• When Stephen Harper threatened to take away government funding of political parties, I think that gave the opposition parties a legitimate reason to defeat the government. To do that on such short notice would cripple the opposition. But Harper changed his mind, taking away a major justification for the coalition.
  
• When I saw Stephane Dion on TV during the election campaign, it sounded like he thought Canadians were morally obligated to defeat Harper and make Dion our Prime Minister, because of Harper's lies. (I'm not even going to touch the issue of whether Harper was lying or not.) When he announced his resignation after the election, it looked like he would be only the second Liberal leader in Canadian history not to become Prime Minister. Did he decide to bring down the government because of some post-election bitterness? I suspect a shameless power grab.
• While I don't like the idea of suspending parliament to prevent a non-confidence vote, that's apparently within the rights of the Governor General. And based on opinion polls showing a strong Conservative lead, suspending parliament was probably the only way to keep the government that the most people wanted.
• Without the threatened loss of party funding, the coalition used the government's lack of action on the economy as its justification. I have no idea what would be best for our economy. I would lean toward a small bailout, but I'm no expert. Since I'm not very sure which path to take, I would favour keeping the Conservatives in power because they won the last election.

While I think Harper should remain Prime Minister for now, he hasn't been very cooperative and he seems to take pleasure in hurting the opposition. He needs to watch himself. Meanwhile, I'm glad to see that the new Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is sounding more cooperative than Stephane Dion. Maybe our government can accomplish something this winter, and if not, maybe it will be defeated for a more legitimate reason.

Making fun of Stephane Dion

"I didn't know Celine Dion had a sister."
--John Stewart talking about Stephane Dion

Why it's great not having cable

I haven't seen a single American election commercial on TV, but I still get to watch them make fun of the candidates on Saturday Night Live.

The four most romantic words

"It's a minority government."
--Helena Guergis, a Member of Parliament from Ontario

With those four words, Helena Guergis convinced her fiance, recently defeated MP Rahim Jaffer, to get married that day. They went out, got rings, found a marriage commissioner, and got married. They had planned to get married on October 18, but called it off when the Prime Minister called an election. Although the election was over before the 18th, I bet it would've been hard to campaign and plan a wedding at the same time.

So they found a way to guarantee that an unexpected election (which can easily happen when there's a minority government) wouldn't interfere with their wedding. Congratulations!

Here's an article about it if you want more of the story.