Isn't this what conservatism is all about?

More election speculation via CTV:

Ignatieff attacked the government on its economic track record and said that the Tories have done little to rebuild the economy.

"If things are getting better, it's not because of this government, it's because the people of Canada have put their shoulder to the wheel," Ignatieff said.

That right there is the essence of conservatism: the people make the difference and not the government. I don't think that the government should be doing too much to get the ball rolling and to have Iggy say that that's what happening is fine by me.

While I'm not the first to say so, I am really getting tired of the constant threat of yet another election. I don't know who does strategy for the Liberal Party but the tactic really does get old after a while. Offer some options instead and show that you're about principle like you say you are.

It's Wednesday night and I'm bored...

Ah, to be at that point of time where you know you should go to sleep but you just can't bring yourself to do it. It's during times like these that I tend to come across some of the more interesting things I read online.

I'll go ahead and do a preemptive note that this article doesn't come from the most definitive of sources. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting, though.

The Five Ways Environmental Friendliness is Screwing Up the Planet.

Where are the new ideas?

One of the biggest problems I see with the current version of the LPC is its continuing failure to highlight what it would do differently than the Conservatives. I've often heard it said that those in opposition have a duty to oppose the government's agenda. That isn't enough, though; they should be articulating their vision to the public and providing suggestions to make improvements. It makes me wonder what they're waiting for, which is very likely just the opportunity to implement their own agenda on their own terms.

Take this recent press release from their website in regards to unemployment.

Failed Conservative infrastructure plan to blame for job losses: Liberals

OTTAWA - The bad fruits of an overly partisan and ineffective approach to infrastructure stimulus spending by the Harper Conservatives are clear in the latest unemployment numbers from Statistics Canada, Liberal Infrastructure Critic Gerard Kennedy said today.

Job losses in construction would be much less severe if Conservatives were handling infrastructure spending properly, Kennedy charged. Construction sector employment decreased by 18,000 in July, bringing total construction job losses since October to 120,000. Over 80,000 construction jobs have been lost since the budget promised help.

“Sadly, the Conservatives are making the recession much worse than it needs to be,” said Mr. Kennedy. "Mr. Harper has the gall to tell unemployed workers and their families that new jobs are ’underway’, knowing full well they aren't."

Parliament authorized $11 billion in new infrastructure spending to create 100,000 jobs but the Conservatives have failed to produce anything but negative numbers. The Conservatives rejected the direction of Parliament and the consensus of municipalities and the construction industry alike and instead chose a delay ridden, partisan approach.

As a result, only 55 percent of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund has been pledged to date, and a very small amount has created jobs. The construction season has been lost in many parts of the country with no funds flowing in Quebec, 63 percent of Nova Scotia’s funding has yet to be announced and 75 percent of the funding isn’t even promised yet in BC.

In the Township of North Glengarry, Ontario the Alexandria Water System Upgrade won’t be able to go to tender until January with construction starting next spring. A similar situation exists for the Archives expansion in the County of Simcoe, Ontario where no tenders have been released and construction isn’t expected to start until spring 2010. For the Fire Hall Construction project in Gander, Newfoundland, the municipality has released a tender which has not yet closed and construction isn’t expected to begin until September.

"Families are feeling pain and hardship simply because Mr. Harper and his government are in a bubble and just don't get it,” Mr. Kennedy added. "People need jobs and a government that cares, not photo ops."

Naturally, there is to be expected a certain degree of partisan rhetoric this being politics and all. The trouble for the LPC, especially coming from someone that I would think they are trying to convince to vote for them, is that they propose no solutions. When I look at these kinds of press releases I don't see anything but whining and complaining. You know what, Liberals? I get that you don't like these policies, I really do. So why the hell aren't you telling me what you'd do differently? Why do your keen minds at party HQ think that you need to wait for an election writ to start letting Canadians know how you would run the country? Isn't this about how best to serve Canadians in general?

To be fair, all politicians do this far too much and therein lies the problem with so much of our current political discourse. We don't talk about ideas, we only tear the other side down. And as in the case with most arguments, each side generally become further entrenched in their own perspective. Is it any wonder why increasing numbers of Canadians are simply tuning out of the political process?

I won't pretend to have all the answers because I know that I don't. What I can do is try to make a meaningful contribution to the health of the democracy that I believe in. I, for example, try to teach my students how to look at multiple sides of an issue so that they can make an informed decision about what they believe. I try to foster discussion and debate that doesn't simply result in name-calling and slander, which admittedly is tough to do. I try to highlight how the rising generation can actually contribute to the form of government and make it work for them. All lofty goals but very worthwhile.

I think that all of our politicians would do well to tone down the rhetoric just a tad. I'll be the first to admit that I don't like enough of the policies of the LPC, let alone the NDP or Greens, to justify my voting for them. However, if they want to earn my vote, they need to start talking about real ideas and how they would take advantage of them instead of just pointing fingers and saying how wrong the other side is.

Am I a racist?

I have been working on a move from a 2-bedroom apartment into a much bigger townhouse. As fun as that is, I've also spent a fair amount of time on the phone with various companies updating contact information, etc.

Is it really wrong of me, though, to wish that I could speak to people who actually speak English? I'm all for inclusion and acceptance... I teach it on a daily basis. However, I am tired of asking people to repeat their questions. I am tired of having to repeat my questions at least three or four times. Is it really such a crime to want to be able to speak to someone that I can actually communicate with?

Let me be clear that I am not trying to characterize the entire industry of telephone customer-service representatives. I'm sure that most of them, if not all, are wonderful people doing wonderful things with their lives and families. I just want to know that after waiting on hold for 10 or 15 minutes will eventually lead to a real person that I can actually talk to.

Is this really so wrong?

Three cheers for this principal

This headline grabbed my attention today as our school went through the exact same scenario a few months ago. A number of staff at my school had purchased the devices as a means to eliminate the excessive cell phone use in the class. While the jammers worked like a charm, it was only a matter of time before someone called the division and complained. Hence, no more jammers.

I'd like to ask an open question: what would be an effective means to eliminating cell phone use in the classroom? We can't search students and can only take them away temporarily when we observe students using them. Students know we can't do anything, too, so long-term threats are an already-called bluff rather than a deterrent. How else should a teacher and school community approach the problem?

Raising awareness... one step at a time

With Earth Hour approaching once again, I openly ask supporters of this exercise in feel-goodery just what it is you are hoping to do? Try as I might (and I really don't, admittedly) I fail to understand the whole movement to 'raise awareness' about a particular issue. What exactly does this achieve? How do you know when said awareness has actually been raised? Why settle with mere awareness when it would be far better to advocate for real, lasting change?

The logic appears the follow this general trend:

-note an important or so-called global issue
-claim we have too much (or too little) of something
-do without that something for a designated period of time
-move on with life feeling better about yourself and the belief in your cause

Using this same logic, I am proposing the following international campaigns.

White Hour. Canadians have too much winter in this country. On February 15th, simply close your blinds, throw on your Hawaiian duds, and refuse to acknowledge the very idea of the season in general.

Calorie Hour. Yet another in a long line of diet fads. I can raise awareness about excessive calorie intake by not eating anything for the space of 60 minutes. The goal is not too necessarily lose weight, but to let people know that there's a problem.

OxyHour. One could argue that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be depleting the overall oxygen in the atmosphere. People around the world can choose a designated hour and collectively hold their breath for about a minute. Alternatively, we could breathe helium mixtures instead which would be way more fun.

Any takers?

A new Rennaisance?

You'd be surprised how often I see reactions like this in my classroom. Funny at times, but sad.



h/t Penny Arcade

The Sky is Falling!!

I can not for the life of me understand how this kind of arrangement is a problem.

"Canada wants the international community to reach a deal by 2009 so that it can be implemented by the time Kyoto expires.

However, Canada is refusing to apply its own binding targets until the big emitters such as the U.S., China and India do so first. "

If Climate Change is such a huge problem that requires this immediate response, why is it such a bad thing to demand that everyone contribute to the solution? If we are really dealing with a global catastrophe, why would we in our right minds allow these kinds of emissions to continue?

We're constantly bombarded with the idea that we're killing our planet, and ourselves, faster than we realize. A problem on this kind of scale would require a global response, period. What's with the wiggle room?

I, for one, am glad to have a government in power that isn't going to sign off on the latest in a series of feel-good-while-doing-nothing accords. It's refreshing to hear the recognition that everyone, and not just the wealthy nations of the world, do its part. No one is arguing that anyone needs to do more than their fair share. But demanding drastic action from one party, while excusing inaction in other more problematic areas of the world, is about one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in my life. That is, next to the whole idea of catastrophic man-made climate change.