The Authoritative Allocation of a Scare Resource, or Hope Can Still Get Me Choked Up.

Heads up all - I'm about to talk politics here. But I promise to keep it short, if not simple*.

Here's the thing. I was watching President Obama's visit to Canada last week. There was a moment when he arrived on Parliament Hill, greeted PM Harper, and then went back outside and waved at the two thousand or so people who were waiting to see him. I'd been watching the coverage of 'This is where President Obama will land' and 'This is President Obama's motorcade' and 'This is the building where there's a room where President Obama will be meeting with so-and-so,' and was thinking "Geez, we are like 12-year-old girls with a crush on this guy." And then, just for a moment, when he made a point of greeting the people there to see him, I got a little choked up. I, the political cynic, got choked up at an American president waving at people. What is up with that??!!

I've been thinking about it, and I think I have an answer, or at least the beginning of one. Hold on, here comes the theory. One of the first things I learned in pol-sci (political science) class is that politics is all about the allocation of scarce resources - who gets what, and when, and how. It is also about power - who gets to make these decisions about allocation of resources. Now, we usually understand this in a formal way, ie. we vote someone into office, they make up the government, they makes the decisions on our behalf.

But this also happens in a much less formal way, through ideas and influence. For example, people start talking about the how the West kept getting screwed, and the West wanted in, and suddenly the Reform Party had decimated the Progressive Conservative party in Western Canada, the two merged into the Conservative Party, and now the Prime Minister is from Calgary. Trust me on this, ideas matter. But despite all this, people are more cynical than ever about politics and politicians, because whether the West is or is not 'in', things haven't really changed in Ottawa. In fact, there is less cooperation and more bickering and infighting than ever in our capital.

To go back to the idea of allocating resources, we all know that the more scarce a resource, the ore valuable it is. That's why gold is more valuable than say, steel. If you look at that in a political context, one of the most scarce, and therefore valuable resources is hope. We are all so cynical about politics and politicians that we don't even think about it anymore. We don't really expect politicians to keep their election promises, we don't even flinch when they talk about accountability, and we don't even bother watching Question Period, because watching all the posing and posturing just gets tiring. We don't even think anything else is possible anymore.

But Obama has changed this, not only for Americans, but for the rest of the world. His speeches about the audacity of hope made people believe that change in politics is actually possible. And what struck me in watching all the hoopla around his Canadian visit was the respect with which
he treated other people. Not just other politicians, but the press, and the general public. There was none of the usual attitude of 'I'm too important for this shit,' and man, was it refreshing.

Now, I'm not expecting Obama to be perfect. There will be changes and adjustments as he takes office. I would actually be worried if there were no revisions to policies, because, as former PM Mulroney said on The Hour the other night, being in office ain't the same as campaigning for it. Obama and his staff are in the midst of a monumental learning curve, and they have to have room to move. But it really heartened me to see the basic respect with which Obama treated the people around him, and I really think we could use a dose of that in Canadian politics. Respect, hope, and change have been in short supply, but that only makes them more valuable, not less. Here's hoping we can find someone on the Canadian political scene that can harness these scarce resources as well as Obama has, and give us a chance to say it - Yes, We Can. That, my friends, is something to get choked up about.

(*Apparently it's not short either. What can I say, I'm trying to wring every bit out of that mountain of student debt.)

I have a boyfriend. His name is George.

First, I need to apologize. I'm trying to post to my blog regularly, and I've been gone for way too long. Things have been crazy with the holidays approaching, and finding the time to compose my thoughts into something comprehensible is tough with BabyA. But I'm going to keep working on it, so please stay tuned.

So I was watching The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos last week, and I have to say, I heart George. George is my rockin', late night, news-boyfriend. For those of you in the dark, The Hour is a current-events show on CBC, hosted by the aforementioned George Stroumboulopoulos, a former MuchMusic VJ. If you are somewhat interested in news and current events, but don't necessarily have the time or inclination to watch a nightly news show, YOU SHOULD WATCH THE HOUR. The Hour is both funny and entertaining, and incredibly informative. George does interviews with an incredible variety of politicians, authors, artists, athletes and other newsmakers. Everyone from NATO spokesperson James Appathurai, to NHL player Sean Avery to Tom Cruise (yes, THAT Tom Cruise).

The interview with Cruise was a a really great example of George's work. You know how you see interviews with famous people, and hear them laugh, and joke, and tell stories, and think, 'I could be friends with that person'? I think what we actually mean is, that we'd like to be friends with them, because they tend to be funny, or interesting, or seem to share a point of view. Cruise, however, wasn't particularly funny, or interesting. He was just really normal. Normal as in not particularly eloquent or well spoken or funny, but all the same, passionate about his work and his family, and eager to share those things. George asked a number of interesting questions, about whether you can ever prepare a person for the kind of media frenzy that a star like Cruise incites, and whether Cruise's religious beliefs would be treated similarly if he were a Muslim or a Christian. And Cruise answered his questions, but not with the kind of canned, pre-prepared answers that you often hear from stars, especially of Cruise's caliber. Instead, he sounded like I do when I get asked a question by a reporter, and answer it in about 10 seconds and then continue to babble for another 30. I have to say, it was really refreshing to hear intelligent, well though out questions, and interested and interesting answers, not the usual show business shlock. If you're interested in watching the interview, here's the link.

Cruise is probably George's most high-profile guest to date, but I would be shocked if he didn't continue to snag big interviews like this one, because George is GREAT interviewer. Interviewing people is a skill, and interviewing people who get interviewed all the time is tough. These people hear the same questions all the time, and while they are pros and do their best, we often hear the same canned, preplanned answers to the same canned, preplanned questions. In addition, George doesn't play at trying to be neutral - he puts his own opinions out there, and skewers everybody pretty much equally. He doesn't shy away from asking the tough questions, but he also offers a different, original perspective. Guests on the show seem to be genuinely enjoying themselves, as does George, and its obvious that viewers are enjoying the results.

In short, you should totally check out The Hour. It's worth your time.

Hate to Break It to You, but a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is NOT Undemocratic

So, a quick post on current Canadian political events. At least I'll try to keep it quick and not pontificate endlessly...

I have something to say to all these Facebook people who are all in an uproar, creating a gazillion 'Stop the Undemocractic Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition' groups. Um, people? More Canadians voted for the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP than voted for the Conservatives. So a coalition involving these three parties would actually represent more Canadians than the current Conservative government, making it MORE democratic, not less. Sorry to break it to you.

Also, Harper has failed to come up with a budget (he can call it an 'economic update', but its still a mini-budget at least) that all the parties can agree on, and therefore failed to lead. When you have a minority government, you basically HAVE to form some kind of coalition, because without it, you can't get anything passed. The entire last session of Parliament was a series of shifting coalitions voting on everything that got passed. In this case, Harper has introduced a bill that the other parties cannot agree with, and a non-confidence vote is a logical outcome of that. But here's the funny thing about non-confidence votes - they mean that the House, i.e. the representatives that ALL Canadians elected, no longer have confidence in the government. So, if the remaining representatives can agree to cooperate, they have every right to form a new government. That's how the system works under a minority government.

And I have to say, I'm enjoying this minority business. I like the fact that no one party can push their agenda through, and that all of the parties have to work a little harder on compromising. I think this state of affairs means that the beliefs of more Canadians are represented. Now, I really don't want another election. As a campaign manager, I'm still recovering from the last one, so I certainly don't want to go back to the polls. But a coalition government, I'm OK with that. If the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP can show of their cooperation skills, more power to them.

And Facebook people? You might not like the idea, but you've gotta come up with something better than 'undemocratic' to fight it, 'cause baby, this is what democracy's all about.

My Mood is Following the World Markets; Down, Down, Down

I don't know about you, but I've become somewhat news-adverse lately. All the DOOM, GLOOM, WORLD MARKETS REACH A NEW LOW is starting to really get me down. It sucks. We here in Alberta have been somewhat cushioned, but with oil now under $50 a barrel, I'm not sure how much longer that state of affairs will go on. The thing I find most alarming is the volatility of it all. Record lows! Record recovery! Things are OK! They're crashing! We'll be OK! No we won't! We're schizophrenic and need some new meds!! Seriously, I hope things start calming down a little. And preferably not at the bottom part of the roller coaster.


Anyway, all of this is a segue to an interesting post on the Sweet Juniper blog about why the automakers deserve a bailout. I'm not sure that I follow all of Jim's reasoning - especially the argument that this industry should get the money because they are more deserving than Wall Street. They may be more deserving in some ways, but one undeserved bailout doesn't justify another. I did, however, very much like Jim's point about the importance of an economy that actually makes something.


"They say a sustainable model for future economies will trend away from globalization and be based more on localization... perhaps this could be an opportunity to start transforming manufacturing in the United States to a sustainable model that strengthens our economy and provides jobs here rather than just strengthening the portfolios of a privileged few at the expense of so many. But calling for the death of this American industry is callous and shortsighted, and I would add that slowly turning into a nation where no one knows how to make anything but hamburgers and silkscreened t-shirts can't be good for national security."


This is an excellent point. One of the things which made the United States, and the rest of the first world, for that matter, economic powerhouses, is that they paid their workers a high enough wage that they could purchase what they produced (i.e. if you work in a clothing manufacturing plant, you should be able to purchase the clothing you produce). The whole outsourcing to the developing world and paying people so little they can't afford a crappy t-shirt never made sense to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to pay your producers enough that they can buy your stuff, thereby exponentially expanding your market? I'm not an economist, but this seems pretty basic to me, as does Jim's argument that we should be producing stuff for and buying stuff from the people who live close to us, at least on a national level. It means paying more for some of these things, but it may also mean we are supporting each other, and an economy that can support itself.

I have to say, I hope Jim is right when he says that this is an opportunity for change for the better, if both the American government and ours are smart enough to take advantage of it. Because change is going to happen, whether we want it or not, and this is our chance to make the most of it.