Macro- and Micro-

Economists, bless their ever-loving hearts, in moments of rare insight, have told us that there is a disconnect between micro- and macro-economics. Which means to say that if an individual prudently manages his/her economic affairs, it is bad for the community as a whole. In these days when stimulus is the byword, it is almost patriotic to go out and spend recklessly so as to rescue the national economy, nay, the world economy, from the dire straights which it has gotten itself into by reckless spending and risk-taking. Have I lost you here? Are we confusing illness and cure in our shuffling of the cards? We hear "isn't that what got us into this in the first place?" being cried out loudly across the land. Well, if our trained economist of a Prime Minister can't spread light on all this, neither can I.

Ah so, as the Japanese would say. What's good for the individual is bad for the country and vice versa. Sad conundrum indeed! So what should I do? Go out and patriotically stimulate the economy by spending on things I don't really need, or selfishly stay in my counting-house and gather my pennies for a rainy day? I've made up my mind.

Holding with Samuel Johnson and his famous dictum that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I propose a me-first policy. Me and my family. As for the dire peril of the country and the world, I'll just have to depend on the trained economists and hang on for dear life.

Today, 1500 people in Calgary paid $400 each to listen to George W. Bush.

Calgary, huh?

It figures.

A couple of very kind souls have urged me to continue this blog, so I guess I will, as a sort of diary. I'm not really doing any harm, eh?
Note I've posted my photo. This was snapped during one of my creative moments.

Question Period

Yesterday I watched the parliamentary Question Period and as usual I found it disgusting. The protocol seems to be that the Leader of the Opposition leads off with an insulting or denigrating question, then the Prime Minister replies in kind. So it goes, back and forth. Seeking answers doesn't seem to be the motive behind the questions, but rather to score cheap political points. School boy behavior. It's no wonder that folks are fed up.

Does it have to be this way? I'm old enough to remember when it was more civil, many years ago. A government minister would preface his answer with "Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Honourable Member for having given me notice of this question." Then would follow the straightforward answer. When was the last time we heard of anything like that? Of course, there were no cameras in the House then. It has since become a circus.

In the same way that many people watch a hockey game in order to see the fights, and NASCAR fans watch for the fiery crashes, so people watch Question Period for the insults, sneers, jeers and smears. What's wrong with us? What's wrong with the media for bringing this to us? Ancient Romans were given bread and circuses to take their minds off substantial things. It doesn't change much, does it?

Other than Question Period, the House is as quiet as a church mid-week. This is when debates are supposed to take place. I've sat in the gallery and watched this farce. Normally there are ten or twelve Members present, some reading a newspaper or their mail, some writing memos or letters, some sleeping, anything but listening to the drone of whomever is speaking. I remember John Diefenbaker, sitting on the Opposition side, rising very slowly, expecting a drum roll, and then following with innocuous blather. Anti-climax. It was funny.

So nothing close to governing takes place in this hallowed forum. The actual governing takes place in the cabinet room, in camera. No one is allowed to divulge what takes place in this inner sanctum. The main everyday work takes place in the parliamentary committees, which the media occasionally allows us to see. These committees actually do useful work. So all is not lost.

I really don't know how we could better govern our democracy. Maybe the best thing is to leave it alone and smile tolerantly.

For some time now I've considered discontinuing this blog. There are only a couple of people, to the best of my knowledge, who log on regularly, and you will notice that no-one leaves a comment. I had hoped that someone would add to, or disagree with, my opinions, thus making for a discussion. Hasn't happened.

So for now I'll keep it open. I always like to look back and see what I was thinking last year and the year before.

It seems that the tabling of Stephen Harper's anti-crime legislation (stiffer sentencing) hasn't quite caught on with certain people, witness another rash of shootings in Vancouver yesterday. However, the legislation will succeed in getting more votes from an uninformed public, which was the goal in the first place.

If you check my listings for July '08, you'll find a posting critical of compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). So this week I found this article. Check it out.