So in order to reduce these negative outcomes, politicians are forced to stick to their party platforms and policies to maintain the credibility of the party. This of course means that politicians cannot honestly answer questions nor can politicians applaud opposing parties for fear of political suicide.

Is there a solution?

Like the Blues, the Orange interpretation of change is backwards thinking and undoing the progress the Reds have made with respect to changing the mentality and idealogies of society. I acknowledge on a right/wrong scale, we’re not heading true to the right. But if you consider a circular spectrum where heading up or down is equivalent to spending money but standing still, I’d say we’re headed somewhere in the vicinity of NNE or SSE with the Reds, but at least we’re heading in the right direction.

…

I’ve pretty much reached my political fill for awhile. Many politicians acknowledge that there is a negative connotation associated with the profession; however, although they may be genuine with their willingness to serve, the system corrupts all who enter. After watching the Agenda last night, Steve Paikin is incredibly clever in asking yes or no questions, but when they get diverted by irrelevant drivel, it tells me that politicians don’t know how/refuse to collarborate and they are horribly inefficient. This gets rather disappointing especially with history-related questions. So, does the political system really serve our best interests?

I do not support the Blue platform – they call it change, but it’s anything but. Really, I’d consider it totally backwards thinking. So, we as a province are faced with a challenge: will we put our money where our mouths are and start accepting responsibility for our growing environmental concern or would we prefer the short term relief offered through cancelling {HST on electricity, smart meters, …}. And don’t get me started on efficiencies – politicians have no idea what this means. Sure they exist, but unions so heavily protect these inefficiencies that to remove them requires privatization and competition – I don’t think the Blue are so bold as to start unloading public sectors for private enterprise. Blues definition of finding efficiencies is equivalent to cutting services – I can accept this but can you?

In terms of dollars and cents, Blue and Red seem to have the same numbers more-or-less, so it comes down to idealogies. I think we as a province acknowledge the needs of the GTA and most of us Ontarians are affected at least occasionally by its infra/inter-structure. As a collective unit, would we then support their demand for greater public transportation, or would we rather see those dollars go into highway expansions. Personally, I feel that although an automobile offers independence, it is horribly inefficient. I’d rather see it as a luxury than a necessity. That of course means that our public transportation needs significant improvement – does anyone else acknowledge that in order for Ontario to have a ghost of a chance in winning an Olympic bid, we first need to have subway access to Pearson Airport?

It really comes down to personal choices and living within our means. We need to accept responsibility for our actions so if you’re one of those individuals with a spouse, 2.2 kids, and a house with a white picket fence in urban sprawl, then you better accept all the luxuries that are attached to this lifestyle and be prepared to get taxed accordingly. So yes, it’s a question of whether you think you’re entitled to this lifestyle or if you are one of the privileged that can afford it.

Not that I fully support the Reds, but at least they seem to have more of a philisophical shift that will be necessary for future generations – our population is increasing after all so it’s inevitable that we can’t retain our isolation and independence.

So my recap: both Orange and Blue are committed to undoing everything that Red has been working towards and don’t have any big ideas or even ideas that could have any meaningful impact. Green supports an idealogy that I am in favour of; however, their lacking popularity and insufficient platform depth make them a wasted vote. So although I acknowledge that the Red leader has shamed himself numerous times in the public spotlight, the Red platform is the most believable, and more importantly, the most forward thinking.

My reasoning for this order is based on how well I thought the document was written as well as how closely it matched what I think a proposal should be. The NDP platform was concise and expressed solutions to problems in relevant sectors. The Conservatives targeted key issues (I remember seeing a huge emphasis on Aerospace – which is relevant to me) and did an over-the-top justification about how a Liberal government would screw us over. The Green’s was also concise and emphasized their willingness to work/form a collaborative and cooperative government and identified a need for significant spending in public transit. And well, the Liberal’s was an idealistic dialogue explaining how our great country needs improvement but when it came to offering solutions, all it did was say that incentives will be given or studies will be conducted.

Personally, my understanding for a proposal is that it should be a document outlining the tasks that will be undertaken and identify the results that are expected. The NDP did this very well, whereas the Liberal’s turned theirs – using a simile – into a wordy literature review that offered no substantive methods, results, or solutions.

Conclusions I have made from this exercise: I have no confidence in the Liberals forming a government for if they did, this platform provided no insight into what they would do – I could see them recklessly spending on irrelevant projects or doing busy work but not actually accomplishing anything. I admit that the strength of the NDP document was quite alluring as I was able to identify several items that are relevant to me; however, I am somewhat skeptical that they could accomplish everything that’s been promised. But mostly, I won’t vote NDP because there are numerous philosophies that I don’t agree with.

I do favour giving the Green’s a chance (Elizabeth May did an excellent interview on the Agenda yesterday), but all polls indicate that the likeliness of getting elected is slim. I however acknowledge the need for nuclear energy – perhaps it’s expensive, but Canada has the required resources and it’s efficient. So unless society figures out how to adapt to living with their lights off, we need it and must accept any consequences that are a result of this lifestyle.

So once again, if I feel that my vote may actually make a difference, I will be voting blue – it is my favourite colour after all.

So, I believe that all the NDP represent now are people’s apathy – giving privileges to those that don’t try to obtain them on their own. The modernization of telecommunications makes it possible for anyone to speak on their own behalf. Life is full of choices, so if someone wants additional privileges, they have the opportunity to obtain themon their own – it is ridiculous that those dressed in orange fight to give people something for nothing in return.

On the other hand, Conservative philosophy encourages people to do – they reward people for becoming successful and encouraging these people to gain further success. In doing so, productivity increases and more people are employed as a result.

Granted that we don’t want to become too capitalistic, so somehow a balance must be found. But in today’s politics of everyone agreeing to disagree, given the choice I would rather see our government reward the people that take initiative and achieve success on their own – this is the key for innovation after all.

So this time around, I am seriously thinking about making my vote count – it’s obvious that this is a race between the Liberals and Conservatives. Traditionally, my riding has been Liberal; however, the Convervatives were not that far behind in the previous election. So, who to vote for?

With respect to orientation, given my student status, I would tend to think that I align better with the liberals (even though the cbc survey said I was closer to conservatism).

My leadership preference would be for Harper – I’m fine with the fact that he seems more reserved and reluctant to be openly available for media scrutiny. I trust the the system ensures full disclosure so even if Harper does not appear to be, he satisfies his democratic duty. I would consider Ignatieff the least qualified individual for the job – he doesn’t have that commanding aura the automatically deserves respect, and his numerous absences in the house of commons is unacceptable, regardless of reason.

To date, I’ve read the conservative and green party platforms. In principal, I am in favour of the green’s notions for improving public transportation infrastructure and acknowledge that any attempts to get people out of their individual occupancy vehicles will be better for themselves (people will become more active and so less likely to have health issues). Society will also improve if communities were to become more sustainable (people could live, work, and shop in the same area). Unfortunately, society will not change (we our following the path of our friends to the south by converting our shopping experience to big boxes for example) and these idealistic notions would be impossible to implement unless there were some sort of global disaster – apparently an economic meltdown is not sufficient for people to reconsider their driving habits. I’d think that a world war III could do the trick where whatever is left afterwards would have to experience a re-birth.

I did have some issues with the Conservative platform – I was not all that impressed with the law enforcement proposals, but I do acknowledge that people have figured out how to abuse and manipulate the system, so the system must be clever enough to maintain equality. I’ve adopted a notion that the abusers have more rights in our country than the abused. I however, am in favour of the emphasis placed on the economy and further support the F-35 program. There was a rather substantial section on aerospace, and given my educational background, I hope that one day Canada could bring back the jobs that it once had in developing the Avro Arrow. Otherwise, to achieve my dream job, I would have to leave the country. Of course having said that, even though I am being educated in a specialized field, regardless of whether or not Canada has jobs to offer me, I have no sense of loyalty to actually stay in the country. I used to think that I valued my loyalty trait, but society has shown me that this trait has no value, so why should I reciprocate? For example, have you noticed that you’re better off constantly switching your telecommmuncations services than sticking with one company. Not that I’ve done anything yet, but the way that I’ve been rewarded by staying with the same provider is by seeing my rates increase three times in the past year-and-a-half.

Getting back to the question at hand, I am very much opposed to this upcoming federal election, I note that given the choices, the Conservatives seem to be most compatible to my beliefs – two more points: (1) given the economic recession I feel that the Conservatives being conservative were the most responsible in the stimulus spending. Although the other parties are angered by the apparent reckless spending habits, there is no way that they could have done any better – I fully believe that we’d have a larger debt (is there irony in the fact that the Liberals are claiming the Conservatives have spent too much?). And (2) if the Conservatives do end up returning to form the government, I think that the voice of the people should be strong enough to charge the other three parties with contempt.

If it were not for the fact that my local green candidate did not emphasize his over-the-top distate for nuclear energy, I may still be inclined to support him for I do feel that given our broken political system, the Green party can’t do any worse so they deserve a kick at the can – who knows, maybe they can actually do something good for our nation. I also am comfortable with the Green’s getting the $2.00 for my vote. But regardless, if I were to vote today, it would be blue. We’ll see what The Agenda has to offer to try to sway my opinion in the days to come.

Obviously nuclear energy needs to remain a significant contributing factor to the energy mix. It’s cheap, reliable (doesn’t matter if the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing), minimal emissions, and … Canada has lots of uranium. Most uranium is mined in either Saskatchewan or Australia. Furthermore, safety is a huge factor in the design and operation of reactors.

The disadvantage of nuclear energy is the inherent risk associated with a cataclysmic event – yes the designs are based on probability regarding how safe they are but we as a society must accept these infinitesimally small probabilities – aside from human error, it appears to take one of the greatest magnitude earthquakes followed by a significant tsunami to break one of the lines of defense… But that’s why there are redundancies in the safety measures. We do play in the big leagues after all. As a comparison – nuclear energy is to power generation as flying is to transportation. I hear about more plane incidents and yet we as a society continue to fly.

People who are afraid of nuclear energy are afraid because of their naivete or ignorance of attempting to better understand the technology. They place negative connotations on words like ‘nuclear’ and ‘radiation’ simply because of shallow thoughts that are taken out of context from the media.
Too bad these people don’t share the same concerns for cell phones.

Then maybe we could have a real conversation.

One other observation: their debate on women enrolment statistics in the past 10 years noted a decline. I would suggest that the absolute value has remained the same; however, foreign students that come into our system tend to be men.

And yes, I have read the Ender’s series by Orson Scott Card – I don’t pretend to be Demosthenes or John Locke, have no aspirations of becoming a hegemon, but perhaps I am willing to use this avenue to say what I believe to be the truth or spark controversy.

Stay tuned to find out?