Steve Hannah: This week

I decided to take a look at the local candidates for my riding in the provincial election. Their websites are:
(Harry Bloy - Liberal)
(Jaynie Clark - NDP)
(Helen Chang - Green)

First impressions:
Harry Bloy needs a better website (notice that I pasted his webpage from the BC legislature site - because HarryBloy.com has no information about who Harry Bloy is). Jaynie Clark looks pretty qualified with her committee and legal experience. Helen Chang apparently only stands for one issue: ESL/immigration.

Right off the bat I won’t be voting for Ms. Chang as it doesn’t look like she would be interested in representing me. She appears to only want to represent ESL people. I think ESL is important, but it is not in my top 3 issues, so it wouldn’t make too much sense to vote for someone where ESL is their one and only issue.

Between Harry Bloy and Jaynie Clark, it really comes down to whether I want the government run like a business or a bureaucracy. These two candidates seem to be quite accurate personifications of the parties that they represent. Bloy has lots of business experience (and 2 terms MLA experience); Clark has experience with the labour movement (BCGEU, Labour Relationships Board, Industrial Relations Association).

So really it comes down to the party. Liberal or NDP. Numbers get thrown around everywhere arguing under which government we had a stronger economy. I’m not sure even if the provincial government can have that much effect over an economy that is so dependent upon the ups and downs of the world’s economy. I will say that under the liberals there have been lots of visible signs of positive progress (Canada Line, Golden Ears Bridge, Port Mann Bridge, the Olympics), and it seems like the NDP has been opposing this progress at every turn. The NDP portrays the attitude that we shouldn’t be embarking on any major projects while there are still homeless people in the down-town east side. They have been critical of nearly every major project, with part of the reason being that “we shouldn’t be spending XXX dollars on YYY when we should be spending that money on the homeless”.

I am personally of the mind that we should treat homelessness seriously, however, the simplistic solutions offered by advocates of the homeless (throw money at the homeless) is naive and would likely result in more homelessness. I don’t want to get the homelessness issue here because it is too complex say anything meaningful in this short space. I just have the feeling that had the NDP been in power for the past eight years we wouldn’t have the olympics, or the port mann, or the canada line - and we would still have homeless littering the streets, but the NDP would be boasting about the amount of money they have added to fight homelessness and would be happy that despite a dramatic increase in the number of homeless, there are two or three times as many homeless now housed and off the streets on the government’s dime.

I watched the news reports yesterday covering Carole James’ visit to some of the struggling logging towns in the interior. She was ranting and raving about how the logging industry has been ravaged while Gordon Campbell has been in power. She grand-stands there to draw attention to the grief that “Gordon Campbell’s arrogance” has caused.

… BUT I didn’t see her offer any solutions to the problem. She pretends like there is something that the provincial government could magically do to increase global demand for wood. I think that the Green party leader Jane Sturk had it right when, in the leaders’ radio debate, she dismissed James’ use of the lumber woes as disingenuous as it’s unrealistic to think that Gordon Campbell (or any provincial government) could have any control over the soft-wood industry because it is subject to global market forces that are beyond the control of our tiny province.

Since James has not proposed any solutions to the Lumber industry, I assume she is promising these communities moral support. Either that or she will be surprising the rest of us by putting up big money to subsidize these industries.

All that said, I think that Gordon Campbell should join toastmasters to help him overcome is anxiety about public speaking. He looked terribly nervous during the TV debate and I would wager that George W. Bush would have bested him on that night. At least W has a little swagger and charisma to help connect to the audience. Campbell just looked nervous and dim-witted.

So I guess I’ll vote liberal because I’d rather have the olympics and the port mann than not. If I believed that NOT spending money on those projects could solve homelessness and help us socially, I would obviously prefer to spend money on those social goods, but I just have little faith in the well-intentioned left’s ability to convert money into results. No, if we DIDN’t spend the money on these infrastructure projects (and the olympics) I’m sure that it would have just been poured into the black hole of good intentions and dubious results.

Hopefully at the end of the next term, there will be a bonified scandal with the liberal’s finger prints on it that will leave us no choice but to change. Hopefully during the next term, the NDP will provide a more constructive opposition voice - one that doesn’t take their position as the “opposition” to mean that they should oppose every idea and every project to get the province moving. Hopefully next time we will be using the proposed Single Transferable Vote and we have a few more good options to vote for on the ballot.

Until then….

We just had a video created for Web Lite Translation service and the results are stunning. The video was produced by Go2Video Productions. I was absolutely amazed at both the speed and quality of their work. We gave them a whole slough of information about our service and in only a couple of days they came up with a nice, succinct message that was appropriate for a one minute video. If I ever need a video created again I won’t hesitate to call Go2Video Productions.

You can see the video on the Web Lite Translation Corp. website.

I have just released a new tool for managing publications lists and embedding them in web pages. It manages publications in BibTeX format so it is especially useful for researchers already using bibtex to manage their publications.

You can see a sample of a publications list here.

Link: BibTeX Publications Management System.

I have used my PHPBB Usenet Bridge to set up an Automobile Forums Site that syndicates all of the main automobile forums on usenet.

This is only a test for translation.

This is only a test. How does it work?

I have been watching Hunter Season 1 over the past few days. I had forgotten just how corny that show was. Good quality 80’s corn.

It’s not the Republicans calling Obama a socialist that has my blood boiling. It is the fact that they believe that this is serious accusation that, if proven true, would be damning of Obama. If Obama were a socialist, it would mean he was an enemy of the state deserving prison time.

At least that’s what it sounds like when you listen to Fox News and other Republicans fear mongering about Obama’s supposed “socialism”. Listening to interviews with Republican supporters, I have heard the following misconception preached over and over again:

“They are worried that Barrack Obama will turn the United States into a socialist republic like Sweden, rather than the democracy that they have and currently cherish.”

Where do I begin?

1. Socialism is not the opposite of democracy. It isn’t even concerned with the same subject. Socialism refers to a collection of economic theories that advocate shared ownership and administration of resources, and the creation of an egalitarian regime (i.e. all men equal). Democracy is a form of government where the people hold the power, and there is a free electoral system. There exist socialist democracies. There also exist capitalist dictatorships. There is no connection between socialism and democracy.

2. If you read Obama’s policies, there is no way you can mistake them for socialism. I think that socialists would be quite insulted to be grouped together with a capitalist like Obama.

3. Sweden has a higher standard of living than the US.

I could probably go further.

But it is important for Americans to know how little they know about these topics. All this socialist talk boils down to Republicans trying to scare people with a word that they have been brainwashed to fear their entire lives.

I hope that the next generation of republicans will grow out of these ignorant beliefs.

Focus on the Family distributes bulletins that are handed out in many Churches across Canada and the United States. It contains small pieces of wisdom on Christian and family living. I was quite angered to find that they are abusing their trusted position in the minds of Christians to spread blatantly republican propaganda. The following story appeared in this week’s bulletin:

Before You Vote by Tom Minnery

You know you should vote, but how can you tell whether you’re voting for the best candidates? Here are some thoughts and questions to consider:

Separate principles from policies. Achieving noble goals like world peace or affordable housing requires how-to policies. Would the candidate’s policies likely increase the size of government? New programs usually mean higher taxes and more waste.

Does the candidate have a Christian world-view? Is he pro-life? Does she firmly support God’s definition of marriage? Does he believe that parents have ultimate say over what a child learns in school? A candidate’s positions on such issues are important.

Political parties matter but may not define a candidate. Sometimes a candidate takes a stand that his party does not. Some conservative Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 by pledging to stop the wasteful practice of earmarks in the budget. But neither major party had the will to stop this.

…

It goes on, but I want to focus on these first three points to start.

Their first “thought to consider” (Separate principles from policies) is an underhanded way of scaring people away from the Democratic party.

New programs usually mean higher taxes and more waste

In plain English, this statement says that the Democratic party, if elected, will bankrupt the United States. This is a common form of fear mongering that Republicans have been using for years to scare the public away from Democrats.

So what does this recommendation have to do with Christianity? In fact it seems to fly in the face of teachings that we take care of the poor. Hence their first “thought to consider” is unrelated to Christianity, at best - at worst it is opposed to Christian doctrine.

The next thought speaks to the issues that should be important to a Christian (Does the candidate have a Christian world-view?). A good question to ask. But then they proceed to outline the important issues:

1. Gay marriage
2. Abortion
3. Teaching religion in school

Hmm… If this list were comprehensive, then it would be clear that a Christian should vote Republican. But it is not. What about issues such as caring for the poor, ending bloodshed abroad, health care, education, etc… . These issues are not mentioned because the Democrats are (at least arguably) stronger on these issues.

The last “thought” (Political parties matter but may not define a candidate) is meant to demonize Democrats who profess to be Christian. In plain English it reads: “Don’t be fooled by Democrats who claim to be Christian. They are just as evil as their Democratic contemporaries.”

At the end of the article, they have the gall to refer you to their website that is purportedly “non-partisan”, to help you make your voting decision.

This article is deceitful (claiming to be non-partisan), and shameful from an organization such as Focus on the Family. If its views truly represent the issues that are important to Christians, then Christianity is in trouble and in danger of becoming irrelevant. The heartfelt concern that a Christian has over the definition of marriage would be a little more credible if he shows the same concern over the horrors of poverty and inequity in society.

Based on this article, I conclude that Focus on the Family is a partisan political organization that caters to upper middle-class white people and uses its trusted position to disseminate its right-wing propaganda.