Tag: politics

Barack Obama on Monday Night Football

Post ImageI love American politics. With less than two years to go until the next President is elected, things are starting to get very interesting indeed. Last night democratic Senator Barack Obama, a potential candidate for the presidency, had some fun with a little announcement on ESPN’s Monday Night Football:

In a teasing news release, his office said Monday afternoon that Obama would make an “announcement” before the game “about an upcoming contest of great importance to the American people.”

You can see the video clip from last night’s broadcast at YouTube. Pretty darn funny!

Don’t be surprised if you hear more about America’s “revolutionary choice” for President – the black Senator or the female Senator (Hillary Clinton) – over the next few months. Both are expected to announce whether or not they are running early next year. Hillary is widely seen as the early front-runner, though the Daily Kos says If Obama runs, he wins.

Also from Kos – Obama can afford to wait on Hillary, and Gore can afford to wait on everyone. Wouldn’t that be something! If Al Gore eventually decides to run (he has usually left the door open for this) he’ll win hands down.

Assuming Gore doesn’t run, I’d like to see Hillary Clinton win.

All the fish gone by 2048?

Post ImageIn the last week we’ve heard a lot about recent research that suggests fish stocks will completely collapse by 2048. The research, led by Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, found essentially that marine biodiversity matters. An article at The Economist explains:

The findings suggest that governments should rethink the way they try to manage fisheries. Marine reserves are common in the tropics, but policymakers in temperate countries tend to focus on one species at a time to control numbers of that species caught. They might do better to spend more time thinking about ecosystems and less haggling over quotas.

I guess I’m what economists would call a “frontier” thinker. Now that we know about the issue, I think we’ll be able to apply our science and technology to solve any potential problems. I am pretty confident that by 2048, we won’t have to worry about disappearing fish stocks.

Read: The Economist

Canada to tax Income Trusts

Post ImageBy now you’ve probably heard that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced today a new tax on income trusts. The decision has drawn lots of criticism, especially since it comes just three weeks after BCE proposed the biggest trust conversion in our nation’s history. Telus was another major corporation looking to transform itself to an income trust.

So what the heck is an income trust? That’s been my question throughout all of this. According to Wikipedia:

An income trust is an investment trust that holds income-producing assets. The term also designates a legal entity, capital structure and ownership vehicle for certain assets or businesses. Its shares or “trust units” are traded on securities exchanges just like stocks. The income is passed on to the investors, called “unitholders”, through monthly or quarterly distributions.

Interestingly, the article also points out that they are most common here in Canada.

Anyway, that definition helps a little, but not a lot. When I heard that “BCE wants to turn itself into an income trust”, I thought, “but they are a company?” So if I understand things correctly, they just wanted to save some money on taxes, and becoming an income trust would allow them to do so. And indeed, as the CBC article points out, BCE would have saved itself $800 million in taxes by 2008. That’s some serious dough.

Actually, it turns out the CBC article is more helpful in understanding things:

Trust conversions are increasing in popularity because trusts do not pay corporate tax. Instead, they pay out most of their income in distributions to unitholders, who then pay tax on those distributions at a preferential rate.

Clearly, the government was not happy that it would be losing so much tax money. Existing trusts have a four year grace period until the new tax takes effect, while new trusts face the new rules immediately.

I don’t know if this is a good thing or not. I simply don’t understand things enough to say one way or the other. Certainly the markets don’t like the new rules. My feeling is that companies like BCE and Telus simply discovered a weakness in the laws and sought to exploit it. The government realized it had a problem, and took immediate action. Which one of them is correct? I don’t know. Tax avoidance probably isn’t a good thing for the country, but on the other hand, the companies were not breaking any rules. I can only hope that Mr. Flaherty’s rhetoric about income trusts hurting the economy is true, and not just a statement made up for his own purposes.

Read: CBC News

Does the Bush Veto matter?

Post ImageAs you have probably heard by now, US President Bush made the first veto of his presidency yesterday, rejecting legislation that would have expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell research. While I applaud his ability to make a decision and stick to it (something he has done throughout the last six years, for better or for worse) I think that his veto was a little short-sighted. The issue is a touchy one, no doubt, but there is lots of support for such research.

And if I understand things correctly, ignoring the political drama the veto has and will continue to create, it doesn’t really matter anyway. The result of Bush’s decision is that federal funding for such research will not happen any time soon, but that doesn’t prevent private research from taking place. Do some reading on the subject, and you’ll find that medical research is starting to undergo something of a revolution – from taking place only in huge labs and Universities to taking place almost everywhere thanks to recent technology advances, falling costs, and “open source” type methodologies. I think we’ll start to see more and more research happen in the unlikliest of places, without any need for federal funding.

That’s why I think the Bush veto doesn’t matter in the long run.

Read: NYTimes.com

Net Neutrality

Post ImageI haven’t said much about so-called “network neutrality” yet, but I do think it is a very important issue. I don’t pretend to know all about it, but I have read enough to form some opinions. First off, here’s how the term is defined at Wikipedia:

Network neutrality is a proposed principle of network regulation. It asserts that, in order to promote innovation, network service providers such as telephone and cable internet companies should not be permitted to dictate how those networks are used (ie. not permitted to ban certain types of programs, or to ban certain types of devices connecting to the network).

Currently, this is a big political issue in the United States, but I am not sure if it has received much attention elsewhere. A draft bill scheduled to be voted on tomorrow will be revised to ensure that the FCC has tools at its disposal to address violations. This is the main idea behind the bill, at least as I understand it:

The draft bill says broadband providers must provide connectivity speeds “at least equal to the speed and quality of service” that the operator offers for its own content or that of its affiliates, and “make available the same bandwidth” to everyone.

I encourage you to read the article linked to above (at CNET News.com) as it contains some background information in addition to the current happenings.

I was a little torn between whether or not network neutrality is a good idea or not. My gut feeling and initial reactions were that net neutrality is vital for the future of the Internet, and it must be protected. As I thought about it a little more, I turned to economics, and thus my secondary thoughts were that the market should decide how these services are charged for and offered. Upon still further consideration, I feel that net neutrality is important and we should all ensure the Internet remains neutral.

There are too many “ifs” associated with a network that might become tiered or fragmented in some way – who knows what the providers might do. The last thing I would want as a business consumer is to have different Internet access, whether in performance or throughput or bandwidth, than a larger company simply because the Internet providers can squeeze large sums of money out of them.

One of the great things about the Internet is that it is open and available to everyone (I realize there are people who cannot yet afford access, or areas for which access is unavailable, but as a blanket statement, the Internet is pretty open). I think it’s important we keep it that way, so I hope laws concerning network neutrality are ratified in the United States, and eventually, elsewhere.

Snow storm prompts plowing review

Post ImageAfter going most of the winter with very little snow, we received enough snow in the last week to break the record for March snowfall here in Edmonton. Actually, we didn’t just break the record, we completely shattered it:

The blizzard delivered up to 25 centimetres of snow in some spots, easily breaking a 1967 snowfall record for March. That record had been a meagre 9 cm.

And as usual when we get lots of snow, people complain that the city isn’t doing enough to plow residential streets. Forget the residential streets and plow the damn LRT parking lots, I say! Though I am biased – I got stuck in the Stadium LRT lot yesterday morning (floor mats are good for traction if you’re ever stuck). In any case, the city is looking at ways to improve the situation and have come up with a new plan:

But the new plan, which would involve paying contract snow crews to be on standby, could cost the city millions more, says Mayor Stephen Mandel. Mandel says he’s not sure the public would support paying crews to do nothing if the snow doesn’t fall.

Its definitely a possible solution. Apparently the problem this time is that so few of the contract plows responded to the city’s emergency call. Perhaps having them on retainer would make a difference. Depends how much it costs I guess. Either that, or we need someone to invent roads that eat the snow or clear themselves somehow!

Read: CBC News

An Evening with Bill Clinton

Post ImageLast night Megan and I went to “An Evening with Bill Clinton” at Rexall Place here in Edmonton. The former president was in town to talk about his life, his work, and to offer some advice and guidance on the future. Patrick LaForge of the Edmonton Oilers, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, and a representative from CIBC Wood Gundy (didn’t catch his name, sorry) were also on hand to make some opening remarks and do their part to introduce the man of the evening. Ralph screwed up though, or someone did at least, as he introduced Mr. Clinton to the stage when really he should have introduced the guy from CIBC! It was kind of funny.

The president talked a lot about security and terrorism actually, more than I thought he would. It was part of his “framework” for looking at the world. His main argument is that the world is interdependent, and we need to recognize that and move towards integrated communities. So whenever he reads a news article or sees a report on TV, he asks himself the same question – does this help us move closer to an integrated community or not? Based on that, he takes the proper course of action. Obviously he layed it out in much more detail.

He also spoke about the worldwide problem of obesity, other security threats like biological and chemical weapons, the spread of disease, and climate change. Seems he has done work in each of these areas since leaving office. The evening finished with a short Q&A, where we learned that the last movie he watched was Crash, and he doesn’t know whether or not his wife Hillary will run for office in 2008. He did say, however, that if she did run, she’d do a magnificent job. He said many great things about her. We also learned that the thing he misses most about being the president is the work.

The takeway, he told us, is that we can effect change without being rich or doing huge things. He talked about the opportunities provided by the Internet, and shared some really interesting stories of people he has met over the years who have made a big difference through small action. He also mentioned the rise of non-governmental organizations, and when he did so, he almost sounded proud. I got the feeling that he has special respect for NGOs.

Bill Clinton is actually a rather engaging speaker, much more so than I expected (his hair is also a lot whiter now than I thought it was). As is often the case with these kinds of events, it was his stories and experiences that were the most interesting to hear about, and he certainly has had lots of those. It was a really great event, I’m glad I was able to go.

You can learn more about the Clinton Foundation and the work Bill Clinton does at their website. The Wikipedia entry on him is quite extensive with lots of great information too.

Conservative Canada

By now you’re almost certainly aware that the Conservatives won a minority in last night’s federal election (just as I predicted). During his concession speech, Paul Martin announced he will not lead the Liberal party in the next election. There are three main things about the election I found interesting:

  1. The magic number of 155 is hard to find, which means things will be especially intriguing. All the parties realize we don’t want to vote again right away, so it makes it even more important that they try to work together.
  2. The Conservatives gained a fair number of seats in Quebec. One wonders what this means for the separatists!
  3. I didn’t expect a completely blue Alberta, but that’s what we ended up with.

I followed the results online last night, and watched some of the post-election commentary on CBC. I don’t have much to say really, except that I hope the minority government doesn’t collapse right away. Lots of other people have far more interesting things to say than me:

There’s lots more interesting commentary if you do a quick search on Technorati or IceRocket or one of those. Seems to me that many Americans are not happy with our new government!

Defending Canadian Democracy

Post ImageI signed the Green Party petition seeking to have that party included in the televised debates because I strongly feel they should be! I didn’t vote Green last time, and I may not this time either, but I still think that any party with a candidate in every riding should be allowed to take part. If the Bloc Québécois can take part, certainly the Green Party should be able to. Here’s part of an email I got today:

Thanks to the participation of people like you, we now have over 40,000 signatures on our online petition for Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris to be included in the televised leaders’ debates. The broadcasters are taking notice, but still have not reversed their decision.

Now we need to push that number to over 50,000 people before the final televised debates start on Monday evening. Only 10,000 people submitted questions for the other party leaders in the first debates, so this would mean that five times more Canadians are asking for all five leaders to be in the debate.

Can you help us achieve that goal by asking friends, family, and colleagues to sign on too? Remember, this is not necessarily about supporting the Green Party of Canada, its about defending Canadian democracy!

The easiest way for you to help is to use the new page we set up for this at: http://www.info-greenparty.ca/petition/forwardmsg.asp.

If you’re in Canada and you agree, please sign the petition. I am skeptical that the television executives will change their minds, but stranger things have happened.

Thoughts on the debate

Post ImageI watched the start and finish of the first English debate last night, and I listened to most of the rest on the radio. I think the format worked pretty well, except I felt at times that it would have been good to let the leaders get at each other’s throats! I was talking with some friends last night at Denny’s and we couldn’t figure out who Trina McQueen was. A quick Google search reveals that she is on the CBC’s Board of Directors. She did a good job of keeping everyone in line. Here are some thoughts on the debate:

  • Jack Layton was definitely passionate, but he was also the only one who repeatedly went over time. Ms. McQueen had to cut him off quite a few times.
  • Anyone else think it was funny that Gilles Duceppe kept saying that most of the issues were provincial and not national problems? That seemed to be his response to everything.
  • I think that both Stephen Harper and Paul Martin did quite well. They seemed to be very sure of their answers. I also like that Harper spent more time promoting his own platform than trying to bring down the Liberals (unlike Duceppe, and to a lesser extent Layton).
  • I still think the Green Party should have been part of the debate. I signed their petition.
  • One of the best moments for Harper was when the question turned to Belinda Stronach – I think Harper handled that issue better than any of the other leaders.
  • I don’t think any of them really answered questions about NAFTA very well. Seemed to me they all tried to skirt the issue. Same goes for the same sex marriage issue, there was nothing new presented, just the same old rhetoric from each.

I’m looking forward to the next debate – should be interesting. Not surprisingly, there are lots of news articles offering opinions on the debate if you missed it.