Reflection on the Blogging Assignment

As a refresher, this blog was created as an assignment for a class on Ontario Politics. The objective was to create an active blog looking at current events and issues in Canadian politics, detailing personal opinion.
Overall, I enjoyed the assignment. I enjoyed having a little extra motivation to read the newspaper and keep up with current events in an otherwise busy time when that might get pushed aside for other things. The same issues were reported on by other members of the class in their blogs, which opened up a ton of different opinions and viewpoints on the same subject. Blog posts didn't take much suffering to produce due to their length. It was fairly easy to write small commentaries on different subjects.
At first I was a little apprehensive to posting my opinion where other people could read them, especially other politics students that might have a better idea of what they're talking about, but logical arguments got logical replies, and even if they didn't agree I could stand by my opinion.
The thing I didn't appreciate the most was the extention of the due date twice. I feel I made an effort to be prepared for the original due date, and having it move back several weeks made me have to readjust my plan. Notice about the second pushback in due date wasn't passed around very clearly, and I had even brought the assignment with me to hand in.
It would have been nice to have a bit more freedom with the overall topics as well. Obviously this is a class in Ontario politics, so it makes sense if the blogs should focus around that topic as well, but there was more than one occasion where I would've liked to post on a topic at either the federal or the local level.
Overall it was an assignment that I enjoyed much more than a literary review type paper. It allowed for the best type of learning about Ontario politics...what's actually going on!

Oink Cough Oink

The swine flu has been one of this year's biggest issues, and there are so many different issues that have come up surronding it. We got the slightest hint of fear at the end of last winter, when news of the swine flu first hit the fan, but it all but vanished as flu season ended for the year. It's return was anticipated, so the government had the majority of the year to prepare for it. Yet here we find ourselves with shortages. Apparently the vaccine has a shelf life of only 24 hours, but that is only after it has been initially drawn from the vials. Therefore large quantities of the vaccine should have been pre-made ahead of time in anticipation of the demand. I'm fairly shocked that private clinics have been able to get their hands on some vaccine as well. Normally I actually have sympathy towards a mixed system of private and public health care in Canada, but when we don't even have enough vaccine to fill up our public stores, then I don't appreciate 'money' being a priority group.
Is getting the shot safe? Apparently so. Apparently there's been alot of research done with it so far, but it's not enough in my opinion. Take the 24 hour shelf life for example. That's not because we know something bad will happen if we administer the vaccine after 24 hours. It's because we don't know if something bad will happen if the vaccine is exposed for more than 24 hours. There hasn't been enough research with it yet to know.
Not too mention the whole cheerleader incident. Of course, I believe them when they say it was a 1 in a million chance, but the problem is is they don't know what sort of things might trigger such a reaction, so people have no warning to avoid the shot if they have a certain type of disorder or condition.
Plus, with the allergic reactions that have been occuring, it just continues to point out that we don't know enough yet.
Personally, I have never taken a flu shot, and I don't plan on taking this one either. However, certain factors like those mentioned above deter me from it. I don't think I would want to take one this year even if that was my sort of thing to begin with. Dealing with the flu seems like a smaller risk than getting the shot.
Although there is just as much propaganda in the other direction saying the H1N1 shot is perfectly safe, maybe even more than the regular flu shot, there's just too much on both sides of the fence to feel completely secure.

Gimme a HST break!

Coffee, newspapers and value meals get HST break



I don’t know how much I agree with this move. The whole point of HST is to lower administrative costs to businesses by having only one single tax, yet many things are exempted anyways. Why are these things exempted? The spot where the consumer if going to feel the impact of this new form of taxation the most is in things that are quite costly as it is, such as gasoline, a necessary commodity for many people. The fact that your morning Mcmuffin will now be $4.52 instead of $4.20…prices of products change worse than this all the time. It’s not like the money that gets collected by this sales tax is getting dumped into a bottomless hole. The idea is to help pull the government out of its deficit and deliver us with better services. How can people complain about the wait-lines of universal heath care, and at the same time try and deny the government the funds to do something about it? What about newspapers? Apparently the removal of the HST from newspapers was a well applauded move that would save jobs and money in that industry. Are people not aware that all they have to do is jump on a computer and read their daily newspaper for free? What about heading down to McDonalds, Chapters or Tim Horton’s and reading their complementary newspapers? That offsets the cost of your slightly more expensive breakfast or coffee right there. Tax on newspapers might create more of a noticeable shift of people choosing to read their paper online instead of purchasing a hard copy, but as the Internet becomes more and more mainstream, that is a shift we should expect to see now anyways.
I think all this concession has done is show a crack in the Liberals defense. As much as they say they aren’t going to budge anymore…well didn’t they already say that before this? This is just going to result in more vigorous lobbying and complaint.

Who Wants to Be Green?

Ontario would issue green licence plates



So a provincial plan to reward drivers of eco-friendly vehicles with ‘green’ license plates would offer them several rewards. The details of the program are in their initial stages and have yet to be finalized. One current gray area is which vehicles will be the recipients of this reward. Some push towards existing models like the Toyota Prius and SmartCar have been pointed out, but there is also some mention that these might not be good enough and actually be ineligible. Instead the program may be looking towards vehicles that are even friendlier than before. This is all quite noble, but with the high, above average expense of these vehicles, it certainly only reaches out to a small sector of the public. In the same strain though, demand for these vehicles whose main price hike is due to the cost of technology will help funding to both improve and cheapen the technology in the future.
The other gray area of the program is the rewards it offers. Access to the carpool lane with only a single passenger seems to be the key one. This reward would probably be more stimulating if there were more carpool lanes to begin with. It also seems fairly nearsighted. If the goal is to switch people from using gas-guzzlers to environmental friendly vehicles, eventually the carpool lanes will become congested with many single passenger vehicles, taking away the purpose of them.
Another reward frequently mentioned is free parking in designated areas. This sounds like it could be fairly Toronto, or city-centered, possibly not inferring any benefits onto more rurally based supporters of the plan. If large box stores like Wal-Mart offer up premium parking for the green-license plate club, will law enforce it? Handi-capped works well, but there are an awful lot of pregnant middle-aged men out there.
Some criticize the plan as being too little, too late. It’s true that the majority of the focus for environmental change should be on industries instead of people, who are collectively responsible for more than 70% of pollution. However, vehicle use is a large proponent of individual wear and tear on the environment. There is no such thing as too little. There could be better, but a little is better than nothing.

Enough? Not Likely.

So the handheld devices law is finally here. Too bad it’s not really that useful. If you read back to my previous blog entry on the cell phone ban, you’ll see that I illustrated the true danger of cell phones; driving becomes to automatic when your focus is on the conversation, and abnormal events on the road can’t be responded to fast enough. Well, since this new law only bans ‘hand held devices’, and does nothing to curb or control hands-free devices, the problem certainly doesn’t get solved.
It is beneficial in a few ways though. Putting a ban on texting, Internet surfing, and fiddling with I-pods and GPS should help keep eyes on the road instead of in the lap. Texting while driving just sounds ridiculous, but apparently it done almost as frequently as actually talking on a cell phone.
Therefore, the new law sound be beneficial and reduce the numbers of accidents based on texting and other related functions of these devices, but probably won’t affect the rate of accidents from actual conversations.
Some people would argue that you can talk to passengers without increased risk, but that could probably be linked to the passenger being aware of your situation as well as you, providing and extra set of eyes.
The problem with increasing the ban to include all phone usage is practicality. It’s typically too hard to tell whether someone is using a hands-free device for it to be feasible to fine someone. Sure, there are ride checks and things like that, but it’s fairly easy to discreetly shove the earpiece into your center console before you get to it. However, a full-out ban might decrease usage by people afraid to be caught, or the odd one that doesn’t try to hide it.
The current status of the cell phone ban leaves something to be desired, but it is a step in the right direction.

Barbies and Hot Wheels.

I debated over whether or not this was something to be posted here, but I wanted to briefly touch upon a little off-topic subject from the provincial government theme, but still a political issue in my mind. Technically the provincial government should still have some influence in this area anyways, at least in funding. Boy’s only schools. It's been a topic of major interest and focus in the Toronto Star over the past few weeks. In my opinion, just about the worst, stupidest idea I have ever heard of…especially in today’s times. Yes, I’m one of those feminist people, but I think my view is a little different than typical. When I say I believe in equality, I mean it, I think males and females should be treated in exactly the same fashion, in every situation. Society teaches kids from the time they wrap baby girls in pink and baby boys in blue at the hospital how to fill in the roles of a boy or of a girl. That’s only the beginning. Think hard about how attitudes towards children are governed. If a child hurts themselves, how likely are you to cuddle and gush and put bandaids on scratchs for a boy boy or tell a girl to suck it up?
I don’t know how many times I’ve been in some mixed gender setting where another person calls out for physical help and automatically signals the males out to do the ones to do it. Give me a pillow and him a 46’ screen TV? Give me a break!
Anyways, as you can see it’s very easy to get on an extremely long and never ending discussion of stupid so-called ‘differences’ between genders that are nothing but learned, however, it just brings us further off-topic.
It’s these types of issues that make a segregation of genders in school a horrible idea. Even if gender co-mixing is causing a problem, it’s one that needs to be overcome by changing attitudes of what it means to be a girl or a boy. Think of how girls and boys would be treated differently if they were kept separate. Anyone remember that Simpsons episode as an extreme, but scary reminder? How would this be different than separating schools by race or SES, I’m sure they all have ‘needs’ to.
What happens when children get no socialization with the opposite gender throughout their childhood, then have to deal with them for the first time in the workforce, or university? Segregation would cause a lot more of these long term social problems….but at least we’d all have PhDs.
On the other hand, I have a better suggestion. REDUCE segregation in schools. Amalgamate gyms classes and sex ed. Amalgamate sports teams. Don’t put ideas in girl’s heads that they’re not capable as being as strong and fast as boys. They are.
And for gods sake, stop buying your girls Barbies and your boys Hot Wheels.

Rant of an Environmentalist/Farmer

I took an interesting position for my local government seminar this week, where I’m supposed to present briefly in support of the greenbelt.
It’s a conflicting issue for me, to say the least. My environmentalist tendencies come head to head with my heritage as a farmer.
Although I don’t live in the greenbelt, currently I live on 225 acres of apple orchard, zoned special agriculture. This means no development can occur unless it’s agriculturally related. This causes yearly frustrations with the town as we attempt to build upon our businesses. As the owner of a piece of property, should it not be their right to do whatever they wish with their land, so long as it doesn’t impact the lives of other people negatively?
Though in the same strain, to hear a farmer complaining that he can’t sell his farm when he retires to a developer who has plans to build housing on it rails me with anger. Yet isn’t that the same right I’m complaining about? I’m a hypocrite, I know.
So what about the environment? This type of legislation protects forests and other wilderness areas from development as well as farms. Complaints about this aspect of the greenbelt are just classic. Everyone and their grandma supports the environment…until it inconveniences them that is. People all feel like they do their part by throwing their can into the recycling bin, but would they do it if they knew that dirty cans cause that entire bag of recycling to go straight to the dump? Cleaning that can out isn’t very convenient for them. Same with the green belt. The second profit is lost because of this legislation, you can say bye to public support. So in truth, do I support the greenbelt or not? I don’t know. Should make for an interesting presentation.

HST = GST + PST

HST FAQ
Public Opinion Poll

Harmonized Sales Tax, proposed by Dalton Mguinty's Liberals, and planned to be implemented next July, is the amalgamation of provincial sales tax with the GST. This would end up saving businesses a great amount of money normally spent on administration fees of paying two separate taxes. The idea is to strengthen economy for the future.
However, there's a visible downside for the consumer. Goods that used to be void of PST and contain only GST will now be subjected to both taxes under this new harmonization. The provincial government counters this by saying there are going to deal out large amounts of tax relief over the next three years that will actually save people more money then they lose. Yet the public consensus so far seems to be that this is a bad thing.
I find this example of public opinion is not surprising. When do people ever support increased taxes? People look out for themselves as individuals first, and they don't want to spend more money on a daily basis as they purchase their goods. Even though they might actually save money, the increased cost of day to day purchases of goods may feel more substantial than that quarterly tax refund.
Already their is talk of boycotting spending, which is the opposite of what the government wants to encourage in this time of economic recession. The opposite strategy is to spend a lot, just spend it now. Pre-Pay Before May as they're terming it.
Individually, no one wants taxes to increase, but the constant balance has to always be realized. The more taxes the government collects, the more they can give us in social programs and services. It's a classic problem, but people always seem to have the conception that the lower the taxes, the better. It just makes you wonder how conscious they are of what their taxes do for them?

Billion With a 'B'

Today's discussion in class makes me want to follow up on the initial post I made regarding the lawsuit by Ontario against tobacco companies. The class brought up some good points.
It became apparent that a small number of US states have successfully run lawsuits against the tobacco companies, which shines a ray of hope to Ontario. Although the lawsuit will certainly take years of legal acrobatics before any final word comes out on it, the fact that it has been done with success before leads to the hope that Ontario might also be successful.
One might notice the number figure Ontario has named. $50 billion with a 'B' is a lot of money. Much more than the lawsuits in the US ran for. Why the difference? Ontario claims that this is the value of all the health care resources spent on smoking related illness over the last 50 years. The Canadian public health system means that the money used to fund the aid towards smoking related illness was provided by the tax payers as a whole, instead of the mostly private related costs as would be seen in the US.
Is the government being hypocritical? These do receive large amounts of money from taxation on tobacco products, which could arguably set off the costs tobacco related illness cause to the health care system. The taxation is also supposed to discourage people from smoking because of the high cost of buying the product. Yet, the large bracket of people we see with cigarettes poking out of the corner of their mouths are low income people, who are more likely to buy a carton of cigarettes instead of paying for their kids soccer class. The best way to discourage people from smoking is to make the product unavailable. Of course this opens up the whole other problem of illegal cigarettes.
If the lawsuit does turn out to be a success, it will be very interesting to see what sort of number figure Ontario walks away with. Anything that takes tobacco out of use is great in my eyes, but I’m not sure this is the most appropriate means of doing so.

Attention Deficit

The article Talk 'n' drive fines coming in 4 months was featured in the Toronto Star today.
The problem of people using hand held devices such as cell phones, IPods and GPS is not entirely new, but has risen in frequency in recent years as these types of technologies increase in popularity and availability.
It has been found that the use of such devices while driving increases the chance of being involved in a traffic accident. The reason that can probably be pinned down to this is automaticity. Driving is a learned skill that people get better at over time. When people good at a skill, they don’t need to pay as much attention to the fine details of performing it, they do most of it automatically without having to think about it. However, when something out of the ordinary occurs, perhaps an animal crosses the road or a car brakes hard in front of you, the motions performed aren’t automatic anymore, and need conscious thought to make a decision and react appropriately.
This becomes a problem when someone is multitasking. If a person is talking on a cell phone they are perfectly able to drive appropriately while talking at the same time. However, the conversation becomes the primary focus, and the driving takes the backseat; it becomes automated. Thousands of people drive perfectly fine while talking on cell phones all the time, because nothing out of the ordinary occurs as they drive. However, it’s when that sudden event occurs that demands the driver’s full attention, that the cell phone user is distracted and misses the making the correct decision to avoid the situation.
Using cell phones while driving is highly convenient and valuable. It’s nice to be able to tell a family member or colleague that you’re on your way or where you’re going. In the work setting, it may allow for efficiently using time that is otherwise wasted in commuting time. However, it is a simple fact of how our brain’s work that compromises our attention when driving.
Therefore I agree with the law they are putting in place. It will be inconvenient for sure, but maybe it’s not that big of a deal to call right before you get in the car, or to make a pit stop somewhere if one is that necessary. It just might save your life.