Election Day!!

Well the day has come! Time to get out and place that X beside the candidate/political party that you feel will best be able to represent you, your family, your community, and your province! It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
Today I am going to volunteer for the election; doing inside scrutineering & other tasks for the NDP. This will definitely be a different election day for me as this is the first time volunteering. I am interested to find out a bit more about the inner workings of an election & all that the political parties do to get their supporters out to vote!
Don't forget to vote!!!

"Change for the sake of change"

Today I was listening to CBC radio and they were talking about the election. They had 3 guests on the program who all had varying viewpoints on the election. One of the guests was talking about the saying that has often been heard this election, "change for the sake of change". This has bothered me and I identified with what the guest had to say. He made an analogy of the idea of making a change for the sake of change in Saskatchewan politics to football. He pointed out all the good things that the NDP government has done for Saskatchewan and how the economy and the province is going through a boom right now. He compared changing parties at this point to changing a coach of a football team right when they get to playoffs. He used the example of the Roughriders and how now that they have finally made it to the playoffs, it does not make sense to change their coaching staff now that they are experiencing success. I thought it was very wise of him to use an example that Saskatchewan people can identify with and see just how silly it is to make a change in political parties, just for the sake of change.

Volunteering

Today I went down to the NDP Elphinstone Central Campaign office to get a quick briefing for volunteering during election day. There were approximately 15 volunteers present and the majority were over 70! I was definitely the only volunteer under the age of 35. I often hear that the NDP has a large following of older people and wow did this reinforce that idea!!! Understandably, the election is held on a Wednesday, so the majority of people available to volunteer are the retired, but still I was rather surprised by the age discrepancy. Originally I was not overly excited about volunteering for the election, but now I am excited for it and feel like I will be contributing for a party I believe in. Hopefully more young people will be out to volunteer as well & participate in the provincial election!

Saskatchewan Leaders Debate

On Tuesday night, the 3 leaders of the main political parties running in the 2007 provincial election participated in a debate.
Typically I would not watch the debate, but this year I decided to, particularly because I am taking this political science class & volunteering my time to a political party - hence I should probably be aware of the main issues and the parties stance on these issues. Well I wish I could say I took a lot away from the debate - but mostly took the idea that I shouldn't waste another hour watching a debate again! I cannot stand listening to the leaders bicker amongst each other and try and talk all at once... am I supposed to understand when 3 people are all talking at the same time?!
To make things a little more exciting we tried to make a drinking game out of the debate. The rules were: 1) Drink when anyone accuses the NDP of over spending; 2) Drink when anyone accuses the Sask Party of privatizing corporations; 3) Drink when anyone alludes to the Liberals winning no seats; and 4) Drink when the mediator had to interject to get them to be quiet. However, once the leaders would begin debating (yelling at one another) these rules didn't even work out so well because we couldn't even tell what most of them were saying! Needless to say there were a lot of drinks had from the mediator saying "GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN" numerous times!
I did not know much about these leaders prior to watching the debate, and I must say none of them impressed me.
Because of my beliefs and dislike of the Saskatchewan Party platform; I disagreed with most things Brad Wall said - I particularly like when he would avoid answering yes or no questions with just spouting out accusations to the other parties. This occurred when Calvert asked Wall if he cared about university students.
After having Shaine Peters come into our class, who I was quite impressed with; I was interested to see what David Karwacki had to say. My impression of Karwacki was that he was a bit of a goof - I felt like he was trying not to break out into laughter and had a smirk on his face all the time. Like what was with him talking about his grandma in his closing remarks while smirking all the time?! How am I supposed to take you seriously? Karwacki also had some laughable comments during the debate - like when he was talking about the highway from Weyburn to the States as a "beer run". Also when he blatantly said to Calvert that the NDP was going to lose!
I support the NDP, but that doesn't mean I was overly impressed with Calvert either. I agreed with much of his arguments as they are close to my own and liked his closing remarks much better than the other two. Although he said some of the right things for me; it doesn't mean that I believe he and the NDP government is going to uphold those promises (or have in the past).
I see the debate as another means to turn voters even more apathetic. It puts the leaders in a poor light as bickering immature children. Even if someone agreed with what the other leader said they would have to disagree and argue about it. The majority of the debate was 3 men arguing with one another and telling each other that they are completely wrong.

Lofty Loonie

Heather Scoffield's article on the Canadian dollar in today's Globe and Mail, reports on the climb of the Canadian dollar. Today, the dollar was trading at $1.0459 (U.S.) which is a record high after the Bretton Woods agreement. However, it seems that the main reason for the record high is due to a weak U.S. dollar. “It's clear that a lot of this is U.S.-dollar related, and I can't see anything in the near term that's going to cease the pressure on the U.S. dollar,” Mark Chandler a fixed income strategist for Royal Bank said. Many feel that the dollar has risen too far too fast; but there appears to be minimal changes happening to halt the rise.
The rise in the Canadian dollar has had positive and negative effects to Canadians. A positive includes the increased positive self image it has had on the Canadian image of being inferior to the United States. As Canadians we constantly compare our country to the United States and in most cases (especially dealing with the economy) feel inferior. Having a stronger dollar can begin to dispel this incorrect image of our country. A negative effect it can have is the trend towards heading to the States to do our shopping. Many people do not understand the logic of "shopping locally"; and with an increase of our dollar it only increases this desire to take our money elsewhere. If we support our local economy, the money will stay in our community which will benefit us and our families.

Dion pledges to 'make parliament work'

This article from the Globe and Mail also discusses the throne speech, but from the perspective of the Liberals and the leader Stephane Dion. The Liberal's do not want an election so they are going to put forward amendments and if they are not accepted they will support the Throne speech in order for an election not to be called. They believe that Canadians do not want an election, but simply want the government to do their jobs.
Dion states that there were some good and bad things that came out of the throne speech. The good includes such things as: a pending apology to victims of the Indian residential schools, increased attention to Northern Canada, and extending the scope of the action plan on official languages. However Dion argues that all of these things were not detailed enough. The bad includes such things as: the Conservatives promises in regards to the environment and the war in Afghanistan. I definitely do not agree with the Conservatives ideas on these issues. Although they appear to be taking action with the environment, it is not enough and over too long of a period.
Jack Layton believes that the Liberals need to stand up against the Conservative government and its agenda by having an election called. Although I agree that the Liberals need to show leadership and challenge the Conservatives; I am worried of what results will come of a federal election - Conservatives as a majority government!!! However, regardless of when an election is called this fear will always be!

Conservative platform a blueprint with a centrist touch

In this article from the Globe and Mail, the journalist discusses what came about from the Throne speech that was held yesterday and what the Conservative platform entails.

While there is chance for a federal election to be called in the near future, the Conservatives feel that delaying the dropping of the election writ may be beneficial for them. A new Strategic Counsel poll suggests that the Conservative government does not have enough support for a majority government, which is obviously the Conservatives ultimate goal.

Based on the Conservative platform, the plan is to hug the moderate middle of the political spectrum. A political science professor states that this is a "long-term plan. The right would be reorganized as the centre-right, which displaces the Liberals. And the NDP, if the Liberals are weak enough, can move slightly more to the centre-left." Therefore it appears that Harper's ultimate objective is the annihilation of the Liberal Party.
I do not like this idea of the right becoming more central, and the left moving to be more central as well. I believe that the idea of having 3 different political parties, ranging from the right, to left - with a party in-between is beneficial for Canadian politics and for democracy. Although the parties can be seen to be quite similar, there is still some variance in policies and allows citizens to vote for the party/leader that best fits their own individual ideologies. If there is a convergence of political parties to become even more moderate, there is less choice for citizens to make on how they want the government to run the country.
After reading the summary of the Throne speech and the vows the Conservative government has made illustrates the fact that the right is moving more to the centre of the spectrum. One positive of this approach is that if the Conservative government gets re-elected when there is a federal election, left-leaning policies may have more of a chance at being recognized at the federal level.

Paranoid Much?!

OK this might be a little crazy, but I couldn't resist sharing this with others...

Today when going to blog, I decided to get all "fancy" and go to YouTube to find some entertaining videos to discuss rather than articles from newspapers. Not knowing much about YouTube I somehow I stumbled onto videos made by an individual in Regina which basically cut down the NDP government and endorsed the Saskatchewan Party. These videos were rather "interesting" to say the least, with all of them referencing SGI as "Socialist Government Ignorance" (SGI).
After having a good laugh at these videos I became intrigued and went to check out the creators website which he had listed after each video.
The website is: http://www.dental-spy-implants.blog.ca/
I write this out in order for you to see the name of the website... many many question marks are in your brain right now correct?!
The name of the guy who created the videos and the website is Don Muntean, and here my understanding of his story which is on his website (which may I add is not easy to follow!!!)
In 1998, Muntean got hit by a vehicle while riding his bike, and because of the No Fault Insurance policy of SGI, Muntean was not able to sue the driver to get financial compensation for his injuries. I assume after this Muntean began protesting SGI policy and tried unsuccessfully for compensation. Then in 2002, Muntean went to a dentist in Regina and claims that SGI conscripted the dentist into performing a procedure which involved placing an implant which is a tracking device. into his sinus cavity. Since this date, Muntean has been trying to find out what exactly was placed into his sinus cavity and for what purposes.
Muntean: "Now here we are over nine years later - and we have this insurance company - breaking the public trust without regard to morals and ethics - in connection to a spite they've seeded and cultivated - because I could not accept anything less than fair for my permanent impairments."
It's me today - with this implant - shall it soon be all SGI clients with their cars.

Well I am not sure what all of you are thinking, but I am wondering what really is going on here, and what this Don Muntean is actually all about! At this point in time I could assume several characteristics of Muntean, but I am not going to make any assumptions on his character.
However, I would have to think that SGI has much more to do rather than place some sort of "tracking" device into some guys sinuses!!!! I don't really feel comfortable cutting down Muntean online, so I will just say I question (and disbelieve) all the information he has described with this "SGI conspiracy" and what he has placed on his website. However, as Muntean states in response to someone questioning him: "I wonder if you think that such things are not possible - I would hope that you might use the internet and the puiblic library to become educated on current technologies. What has happened to me could happen to anyone."
..... (Scary music) ... next time you are at the dentist kids, careful what they place in your mouth!!

But seriously, you should check out his videos on YouTube. I am not sure how to place videos on my blog, but hope to figure that out soon. In the mean time click here for his videos...

Here is one of his videos...

Alberta Metis to defy provincial hunting restrictions this fall

On September 27th, the Globe and Mail published an article entitled, "Alberta Metis to defy provincial hunting restrictions this fall".
The article addresses Metis right to hunt in Alberta. In 2003, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that states Metis have the right to hunt and fish for food. However, earlier this year, the government implemented new rules which restrict Metis hunting and fishing to certain areas in the province. Prior to this, Metis could hunt and fish throughout the province without a licence; now they can only hunt near eight Metis settlements and 17 communities in northern Alberta. These restricted areas exclude Metis in southern and central Alberta from having legal hunting and fishing grounds.
The Metis have been trying to persuade Premier Ed Stelmach's government to change the new rules in regards to Metis hunting and fishing. However, they have been unsuccessful and are therefore going to have a traditional Metis hunt this fall on non-government designated areas. They hope this will draw attention to the issue and the government will make changes to the rules.

“Our people are going to go out and do what is traditional — hunt for their families for the winter and for the elders in the communities."

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2003 ruled that Metis have the right to hunt and fish for food. This has been a traditional practice of Metis and has been a way of survival for the people. How can the Alberta restrict this inherent right to certain areas in the province which all Metis do not have access to? If they have the right to hunt and fish for food, it should be in areas where they can access, and on traditional hunting grounds.
When First Nations and Europeans signed treaties, one of the many agreements was to allow for hunting and fishing for First Nation survival. The Metis claim the same constitutional rights as First Nations status Indians. Therefore, my understanding is that Metis should not be restricted to certain areas to hunt.

Free Knowledge Day

On Thursday, September 20, a Free Knowledge Day was held at the university. There were workshops throughout the day where anyone could stop by and listen to individuals speak on a variety of issues/organizations, etc. There were also booths set up around the room where you could get information and speak to the presenters.
I attended the workshop "Indy Media" which was presented by Patricia Elliott and the editor of the magazine, The Briarpatch, Dave Oswald Mitchell. The two spoke about the definition of indy media and the presence of it in Saskatchewan. They showed the website: Act up in Sask, which is a website that any individual can submit articles. The website is a place to provide the public with news that is not the typical right/pro business perspective of the province's daily newspapers.
It was interesting to hear that there is an outlet for indy media in Saskatchewan and that anyone is able to contribute to the website. It is great that individuals are able to get news and information that is not only from one perspective. The Free Knowledge Day was an effective way to spread the word of indy media to more individuals, in particular the Act up in Sask website & the Briarpatch magazine.
I will definitely be passing on the word about the website and the magazine to my friends and all of you! Check out the Act up in Sask website, and the Briarpatch magazine website.

"Ontario leaders spar over religious education"

The Globe and Mail article, "Ontario leaders spar over religious eduction" discusses each of the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP leaders of Ontario views on public funding for faith-based schools. As I tried to wrap my head around what stand point each politician had in regards to this issue, I found myself getting rather confused. (In comes my statement made in the "about me" section... I know little current events, and even less about Canadian politics.)
This is what I got from the article:
The Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, believes that the public should only have to fund the public schools, and this should be the focus of the provincial government. "I want to make publicly-funded education so excellent, so irresistible, that all those kids that find themselves in our private schools today will say, 'I want to go to a public school,"' he said. "My Catholicism, my private faith, does not determine my position."
The Conservative leader, John Tory, has a plan to increase funding for the school systems, which would include both public and faith-based schools.
The NDP leader, Howard Hampton, believes that both the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives don't want to address underfunding of the schooling system and have therefore focused on the issue of faith-based schools. Hampton states that giving all children "the education they deserve" is the fourth plank of the NDP platform.

Later in the article, a statement is made about bringing the 53,000 children who are taught at faith-based schools into the public system, and how this will ensure all Ontario children receive the same standard of education. I believe the person making this comment is John Tory; however this is what confuses me, my understanding from his previous statements in the article is that the increase in funding for public schools would be separate from any funding of faith-based schools. So are the Conservatives planning on combining the two school systems, or are they just giving more funding to both?

My opinion:
Politicians should be less worried about arguing over who is right or wrong, but about educating all children and giving everyone an equal opportunity to an education. Funding for schools should be a high priority for politicians as schools socialize our Canadian youth.
In regards to public funding to public and faith-based schools; I believe that a good education should be for all children regardless of any sort of religious differences they may have. I am not personally religious; therefore, I tend to lean to having a school system that is only public with no faith-based schools. However, if parents want their children to go to a certain school, they should have that right.

So in conclusion, someone should help me out with this article... what exactly is each political leaders standpoint in regards to funding for public and faith-based schools?
Maybe once I understand the issues and viewpoints better, I can form a stronger opinion on my own...