Blogging and Setting the News Agenda

This weekend, the New York Times ran a piece on political blogs, their evolution, and profiled many prominent bloggers. More interestingly though, it discusses the growing influence of these political blogs on setting the news agenda in the US. It's a long article, but a very interesting read if you're interested in blog culture and the state of the news media.

It see that we may have our own little agenda-driving blog in Steve Smith and Co.'s Defeat Jung-Suk Ryu!. Hot off a recent interview with CBC's Canada Now!, DJSR's recent questioning of the existance of Bob Bradley on the Jung-Suk Ryu campaign has made its way into the Edmonton SUN. See this article.

The State of the News Media

A great article in the New York Times about the current state of the news media and how it has ceased to report news unbiasedly.

Ticket Stubs

Thank you, Mr. Speaker - I see much wringing of hands amongst the news media on the question of John Edwards' failure to be a factor in the American Presidential election thus far, while the less popular Dick Cheney is making his presence felt. My question, for whatever Member is able to answer it, is as follows: has there ever been an election where it seems reasonable to believe that either the victorious candidate would not have won with a different running mate or that the runner up would have won with a different running mate? Or are Vice Presidential candidates as irrelevant as, say, Vice Presidents?

Making Meetings Sexy

The "made-for-TV" First Ministers' Conference on Health Care did not meet TV's expectations, and was full of dry speeches and bored bureaucrats. In fact, the true output of the summit, the $41-billion federal funding package, was negotiated behind closed doors, in non-public meetings. This raises the following question:

Why should we have even bothered to televise the bloody thing?

Apparently, the First Ministers' Meeting was important enough to warrant live coverage on all major news networks (from NewsNet to CPAC). Indeed, health care is a major issue for Canadians (as countless opinion polls have told us), and it was a significant election issue last June. And, I agree that there is merit in televising discussions about Issues of National Importance. Personally, I can't wait for the October "First Ministers' Meeting on Equalization Payments"! Yay!

Anyway, why was the First Ministers' telecast so darned boring?

Youth Voting in the USA

We've discussed the low turnout of youths during elections a few times on this blog. Apparently interest in voting by youths is up this year in the US.

Billions are not Trillions

As discussed earlier, Alberta spends $9.1 billion on health care each year. Since Alberta is about 10% of Canada's populations, nation-wide health care spending is probably on the order of $80-90 billion this year.

Currently health care costs rise by about 7% each year. Being generous to Mr. Martin and using the $80 billion dollar figure, over the next five years, the provinces will spend on the order of $1.2 trillion on health care. Paul Martin feels that a contribution of $12.2 over this period will be enough to drastically increase quality. That's about a 1% increase.

Mr. Martin, you're at least an order of magnitude away from even making a relevant contribution.

Proportional Representation's Failings, Once Again

In this article we are treated to a discussion of Vladamir Putin's recently-announced reforms to the government of Russia. The discussion on proportional representation is particularly illustrative of the failings of such a system.

At the same time, the State Duma, or lower house of parliament, would consist only of members elected from party lists, meaning that political parties such as Putin's United Russia would exercise exclusive control over everyone who runs for election.

Simply put, the party—and Mr. Putin as head of a party—would have even more control over Parliamentarians who are supposed to hold the President to account and to govern the Executive branch through laws.

Some parties almost openly sell places on their party lists for Duma elections. A place on a national party list went for about $1 million in the December campaign, according to one party official involved in the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. In the case of Putin's United Russia, the party last year put popular governors at the top of its party lists, then after the election assigned the seats to other candidates.

Notice how candidates need to curry favour from the party? If they don't use money, surely they'll use something else. Perhaps loyalty to the leader.

Either way, democracy will suffer.

Fix Health Care for 10 Days or Less

As discussed earlier, Martin's plan for health care will not fix health care for a generation or the 10 years Martin claims. Rather, it will give enough money to run the health care system for less than 10 days (about 9.6 days).

Of course, this calculation doesn't include any improvement in quality of care. So Martin's plan is giving Provinces enough money to run the health care system for 10 days at current levels. Hardly the increase in quality needed for "fixing" the problems of waiting times, etc.

Martin's plan is not even fixing health care for 10 days, much less 10 years or a generation.

Kos on Comments; disappointed in Kevin

Hello everyone! Still mostly rather busy, or I'd be really commie-ing this place up! So many scurrilous misrepresentations of the oppressors of the working people, so little time...

But I couldn't help but notice that Kos has discovered that people exist who don't like comments on blogs as a matter of principle. I too am, of course, flabbergasted in one sense about this very fact, but on the other hand, given what I know about the pathetic arrogant snob-wannabes who infest the Internet, I am not surprised at all.

To say that blogs are a publication, and should merely run "letters to the editor" befits a luddite, not a former web pioneer. Tragic.

Not Fixing Health Care

Paul Martin promised to fix health care for "a generation." This week he announced his plan: $12 billion over five years. Let's take a look at what this would mean in Alberta.

Alberta has about 10% of the country's population (3 million out of 30 million). That means that Alberta should be entitled to about $1.2 of that $12 billion. Since this is spread over five years, that comes to about $240 million. But the idea is that the funding will have an "escalator" clause so it will increase each year. That is, in the first year the province will get less than $240 million and in the last year, it will get more. For the sake of argument, let's assume it's $240 million every year.

Alberta's current health care expenditures are $9.1 billion dollars a year. That means that with Martin's "fix for a generation" we can now spend $9.35 billion on health care. This is barely an increase. If that's all that's needed to fix health care, how broke can it be?

Martin's proposal seems pretty pitiful to me. With our surplus we can easily come up with much more than $240 million if we wanted to. And of course, what we get initially will be less than $240 million, so my numbers are being generous.

Not much of a fix, Mr. Martin.

It's a wonderful Oz

Ah, Mr. Speaker, I'll miss Australia.

• I'll miss the entire state of South Australia, although most of my time there was spent in cramped University office spaces. Still, Adelaide was a wonderfully quaint "big-city", and the Australian winter was nice.
  
  
• I'll miss the Sydney Monorail, which only manages to go in one fairly useless circle. I can't help but humming the monorail song from The Simpsons while observing it.
  
  
• I'll miss the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly Humour Australia's takes on political press conferences and Fahrenheit 9/11 - The Musical (note -- these are both RealAudio files).
  
  
• And, I'll miss the Australian Election. Some web-sites will help appease my fix, but it just won't be the same. I mean, it's not every day when you get a rock star from the '80's now running for a major political party.
  Now, what we need is Kylie Minogue running for the Australian Labour Party. That would spice things up.

A breathtakingly eloquent response to Mandos's question

Nothing.

New embassy; Psychopath Report

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will forgive my absense from this House for this extended period. I was in the process of setting up an embassy in a foreign land. And, indeed, I am pleased to accept the honour of the position of Ambassador from this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the Opposition benches may ask, "How is it that you can be Ambassador for PoI and Minister for Mandos Affairs at the same time?" But I answer that it is through the miracle of convergence! It is similar to the miracle of transubstantiation, except it is not religious and does not convert materials into other materials.

Right Said Ed

Mr. Speaker, whilst reading the Hansard of debate on the 3rd Session, 30th Parliament's Bill C-60 (the Constitutional Amendment Act 1978) (it's not for nothing that the prestigious weblog What is the Point of this Story? has rated me the Sexiest Man Alive), I came across the following nugget from then-NDP leader Ed Broadbent on the relative merits of assemblies elected by first past the post and those elected using proportional representation:

[Representation by constituency is] something which I believe to be very desirable in a democracy since...the men and women who are elected have direct contact with the people and a direct opportunity to respond to the needs of given groups of electors.

Thanks Ed - couldn't have said it better myself. Well, maybe I could have, but I'm far too lazy to try.

Let the (Aussie) Games Begin

In other news, Prime Minister John Howard has called a national election for Australia.

While this six-week campaign may not be relevant to many Points-o-Info readers, there are several comparisons that can be made between this election and the recent Canadian General Election:

• The incumbent PM is "experienced", in his sixties, and is facing a new forty-something challenger (Mark Latham).
• For some reason that I can't fathom, the government is conducting a campaign of "trust" -- which party do you trust more?
• Health Care will be a major issue in this campaign.
• Neither political party has much for policy vision.

Internationally, eyes will be on the Australian election because it serves as another litmus test for the "coalition of the willing" -- as former Spanish PM Jose Maria Azar found out last March. Howard is portraying Latham as a national security novice who is against or indifferent to the alliance and George W. Bush. Conversely, Latham portrays Howard as America's "deputy sheriff", cozying up to the States at the expense of Australia's regional partnerships.

But, as in most national elections, regional concerns will be at the forefront -- from health care, to education, to the environment. So, will Howard be able to hang on with his Coalition? Will Latham be able to take over Parliament and become Australia's third-youngest prime minister?

Does any Point-o-Info reader care?

So, What Would Shakespeare Think of Bush

This opinion piece tries to provide the answer.