When I started this blog, I vowed that I would not comment on the highly entertaining US elections or the extraordinarily worrisome global financial crises until I commented on the Canadian elections. Attempting to develop an informed opinion proved rather difficult. My exposure to Canadian politics was limited to what was reported on BBC World and CNNI which, to put it plainly, was a minute blip when compared to US election coverage (living in Germany, and without access to the internet for most of September did not help). I had a lot of catching up to do.
I am ecstatic that I found the English-language federal leaders debate posted on You-Tube. I quite like the round-table concept. The traditional debate platform somehow reminds me of a battleground, with the party leaders entering their battle stations at their podiums. The intimate setting of the round-table is inherently more egalitarian and reduces unfair advantages/disadvantages in physical appearance: i.e. if a candidate has a particularly impressive build, height, etc., the candidate can compensate lack of knowledge to some extent with an overpowering posture, large hand movements and a loud voice. This is not possible as much at the round-table setting. If someone positively stands out in the round-table format, it speaks of their being knowledgeable about the key issues and their ability to communicate said knowledge well.
It was nice to see Harper looking like a child who got into trouble when May called him out on his lack of economic platform. Was it really surprising that he asked for more debate time dedicated to economics? It was traditional divide-and-conquer tactics. The economic situation is on everyone’s mind, so naturally he wanted extra time to attack the other parties’ platforms. If he wins, it’s not going to be because he got everyone to vote for him; it will be because he stopped everyone from voting strategically against him.
Sadly, I missed the deadline to register for special ballot. If I didn’t, I would probably vote for the Green Party (to the chagrin of my staunchly 
hubby, with whom I can look forward to some animated debates). I am all for returning the GST to six percent – that is one form of taxation that I have no problem with a slight increase in, especially if income taxes are decreased or cut altogether. In my opinion, taxes should not be deducted whilst you earn it, but rather whilst you spend it. Yes, there is still an intrinsic unfairness in GST taxing, as low income households will spend proportionally more on consumption than the affluent. However, this form of taxation is more efficient than being heavy on income tax. In an ideal world, I believe that an income tax should only be imposed on reasonably high incomes (i.e. over $100,000, $150,000, or $200,000 p.a.) and that GST should be refunded in part or full for those living under the poverty line. But I don’t think that will happen anytime soon.
One thing I noticed from living in Germany is that taxes do not have as bad a stigma attached to them as they do in North America (particularly the US). When people talk about taxes here, they are not saying this tax should be cut and that tax should be reduced. They are saying that they want the tax revenues spent here instead of there. I would like to hear more of that attitude in North America instead of the “I’m overtaxed” mantra that has been chanted for way too many years. As such, taxes are not a bad thing. They make your governmental health insurance possible. They fix the roads you drive on. They pay for the education for our children. They allow the government to be a stabilizing force in our current market woes. Hence taxes are not the problem but the policies governing them and the inefficiencies in how the tax revenue is leveraged.
In the interest of stopping myself from a long-winded rampage, I think I’ll stop here. Besides, I am sure there will be more to say after the fourteenth.
In Georgia there is currently a marriage contest in progress. An engaged couple can win $10,000 provided they open their wedding ceremony to the public, live separately before getting married and undergo premarital counselling. Oh, and they have to abstain - as in no premarital sex. Supposedly the goal of the contest is to promote marriages which will "really last a lifetime". That some people actually think preventing premarital sex is preventing divorce is beyond reason. 
A Louisiana legislator has suggested paying $1000 to women on welfare and food stamps if they have themselves sterilised. This is just WRONG. Never mind the fact that this is a lawsuit of discrimination against the poor waiting to happen. Dangling money in front of the poverty-stricken is not the way to go. They will make the decision based on the fact that they need the money, not thinking of possible future consequences. 
