Views from the Basement

Fear and politics

2010-11-03T16:48:00.000-07:00

Time to get back in the swing of blogging. This one admittedly needs some refinement.

Since when has politics been so polarizing, so scary, so uninviting? Partisan rhetoric has been upped in just about every avenue, from municipal politics, provincial, federal, and the recent events of the American midterm elections yesterday.

I'll start by admitting that the recession has been very tough on everyone. I was one of the lucky ones - after less than 2 months of unemployment (and one of those, I spent studying full-time for the LSATs), I was able to find a great job with a national charity, in the field I was looking for (not-for-profit), relatively close to home.

But back to my point. Fear is everywhere. Voters are scared and angry, it appears that nobody knows which way is up and which way is down, and nobody seems to have any solution out of it. A Toronto Sun article cites a poll that states 52% of Canadians and 51% of Americans think the next generation will be worse off than this one is. In the same poll, 55% of Canadians agreed with the statement, "It doesn’t matter what I think or do about politics in Canada, nothing will change."

US Midterm election exit polling shows that 62% of voters think the country is on the wrong track. And with vicious attack ads everywhere, fear of the Tea Party, and fear of socialism, there's one poll I wish I could find the link to. While watching last night's CNN election coverage, they featured an exit poll that showed the majority of voters in 48 of the 50 states cast their ballot against someone (whether it be a candidate, Obama, Pelosi, etc) instead of for someone.

If this sounds shocking, it shouldn't. The Toronto election was a mere 9 days ago. George Smitherman tried to unite voters against the fear of Rob Ford. Many Ford voters backed him due to the (not 100% correct) fear of Smitherman's $1 billion track record, and all candidates trumpeted the fear of Toronto's debt without mentioning that this fiscal year, Toronto is running a surplus.

And yet, though I can't take my experiences as an expressive sign of the economy, I'll give you this. I have approximately 1km of outdoor walk to work each day, plus the subway. On that 1km walk, the number of 'help wanted' signs I see in businesses has risen, from 0 to 1, 2, 3 and now 4 I see daily. Some have been up for 3 months. Understand that I'm not trying to trivialize the plight of many people who can't find jobs, but someone desperate for a job could be filling that position right now. And slowly but surely, my friends who are also recent graduates are finding full-time employment. Isn't this a sign of some improvement? It might be. The start of the Toronto election was alright, with some inspired talk over different transit plans for the city. But the election slowly turned into a war. Between bike-riders and car drivers. Between suburbs and downtown. Between the "gravy-train" and the "anti-immigrant". Between "voting your heart" and "stopping the other". It may have been time for a right-wing swing, but surely someone could have come up with a positive right-wing idea to support it, instead of hyping the fear of the left, the fear of immigration, and the fear of streetcars.

What's driving this fear? Is it the overtly partisan nature of all government? The Canadian federal government is running a minority as if they had a majority, cutting the census for fear of "statistics", and (I'll admit unsuccessfully) trying to play to Russian fears as a justification for buying jets. Where they are successful, is continuing to effectively demonize the Liberal party, where Ignatieff can't gain any ground.

In Ontario, McGuinty is being slammed from left and right (literally), on the same talking points, for every decision. Introduce an eco-tax? Get slammed. Repeal the eco-tax - get slammed for being a flip flopper. Propose a power plant in Oakville? Get slammed. Cancel plans for the power plant in response to local opposition - he must be doing it for partisan purposes, of course. Introduce the HST? Up in arms but without the public outrage as in BC. But the federal partner in the HST gets off scot-free. A multi-billion dollar wind farm deal. Not creating jobs, helping hospitals or students. Spending into a deficit. What government can win in this situation? If a government gets attacked for every decision, and then attacked again for reversing the "quotation-mark-wrong" ones, why not just govern and "do the right thing" in isolation for the next year until they get trounced?

And then the US. Obama rides a 2008 wave of "change" and multipartisan cooperation. The Republicans use every tactic refusing to budge one inch on any issue, while right-wing Democrats seize the occasion to drive their own wedges. Operating in this toxic environment, trying to meet in the middle but being rebuffed at every turn, Obama arguably saved capitalism while ushering in healthcare reform, one of the biggest game-changers in American history. And how do the voters respond? Half the Democrats think he didn't go far enough. Most Republicants ignore the facts (including the one that Bush began the bailout process) and hurl the "socialism" label at the bailouts (which will turn a hefty profit for the administration) and the healthcare reform (which will save billions of dollars).

Left, right, middle, blue, red, orange or green. How can anyone survive politics in this toxic environment? Obama was the voice of change who was successfully elected. And the status quo defenders dug in their heels to make every inch as hard as possible. The Tea Party have openly declared their unwillingless to work on any issues that aren't their own. Harper is openly mortgaging Canada's future decision-making power without being punished at the polls. Voters are mad at Liberals for reacting to public opinion, and Toronto is divided into downtown vs not downtown.

North America is getting older. Parties and individuals with a Conservative bent are getting stronger as the baby boomers are set to retire. But nobody is happy with what they're doing; they're just mad at anybody who is an incumbant right now. But the left has been unable to galvalnize their base: the parties of the poor and working class are losing elections and support. French workers mobilize in the streets, and North America yawns. The young aren't rebelling against the institution here as they would have in past generations; they're knowingly or unknowingly slowly shifting to the existing "only alternatives" without supporting the NDP, Green Party, or Joe Pantalone.

What can be done? How can people start trusting politics again?

Here's the depressing climax of this blog post. I have absolutely no idea. Which parties will get the credit when the economy finally rebounds? Will voters continue swinging wildly left-to-right-to-left-to-right-to-left at every election? Where are the new, charismatic leaders to give people hope? Where is the spirit of cooperation present in some (though certainly not all - definitely not all) European countries?

Can't anybody debate civily, speak about their ideas and not their opponent's supposed record, and inspire people?

I have the shirt from '08. I don't see it happening in '12. Regardless of whether Obama wins or loses the next presidential election, did anyone see the underpinnings of the impending, legitimate presidential run for 2016 happen last weekend?

Surpassing that mental barrier

2010-08-15T17:14:00.000-07:00

So as part of my new job, I have a 5km coming up at the end of September. Unlike some of the national charities out there, the Asthma Society of Canada doesn't host our own major fundraising events and runs; the financial risk is too large based on our size. So the ASC relies on one ASC-branded run (Seja's Run, in the spring), and a few other runs that allow donations directly to the charity of the runner's choice. One of these is the Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront Marathon, and Team Asthma hopes to be out there with over 100 runners this year.

I've also jumped on this as an opportunity to get back in shape. When I left BUSU at the end of April, I was the heaviest I have ever been, a whopping 50 pounds more than when I started at Brock 6 years ago. Moving back home this summer temporarily unemployed, I started riding the exercise bike about 5 times a week (the hockey playoffs are an ideal time for that). But after I lost about 15 pounds, I stalled out, and I've been at that weight since. I thought that moving into Toronto, living a decent distance from the subway line might help me out. My one-way trip to work is 1800 steps, about a 2.5km round trip. But that hasn't helped me drop any more pounds yet.

This 5km race has given me a rewnewed focus on fitness again. I started jogging 2 weeks ago to start training, but I was all over the place, inconsistent, and wasnt pacing myself or tracking my distances. This week, our ASC elite amateur runner John Healy started the first of a five-part video series on 'how to train for your first 5km race'. I decided to fall back to his recommended paces, but increase the distance based on my comfort and the fact that I had already been running for a week.

(find that video in a blog post by clicking here. FYI, I also manage this blog as part of my job, and if you have asthma or want asthma news, keep checking this for updates from me!

Today, I went out and I felt great. The pace I've stuck with this week is 2 min run - 2min walk - 2 min run - 2 min walk - repeat. I'm definitely not setting any land speed records, but I can feel my stamina improving, and I'm feeling so much better. I started out with 3km of distance, and that's steadily been lengthening.

Today, I decided to stretch it out to a 6km run. 3250m out, hit a highway wall, double back, and a shortcut home. Something right off the bat felt great though, it was smooth, breathing was great, and I was actually able to lengthen some strides without a lot of discomfort. I hit my turnaround point at 27 minutes and started to double back. And then something hit me, some mental barrier fell, and I knew I could keep going. I passed my shortcut home, and doubled-back on the entire course. Not only was it an extra 500m, but it has an intense uphill near the end that I just knew I could overcome. I finished it all in 56 minutes square, the second half taking only 2 minutes longer than the first half! (granted, that's not an exact science, I had to stop and wait for traffic more in the first half of the run).

A mental barrier is down. I was out for almost an hour, and though I was tired at the end, I was not exhausted and could have gone longer. My goal is a 5km race, but it's also personal fitness, and I'm placing equal emphasis on time, distance, and stamina. I'll start focusing more on speed closer to race day, but for now, a nice long exercise session is just fine with me. I think today's mental barrier is huge for keeping me on this kick, and provides a great continuance to help me kick the next 35 pounds. It's not going to happen overnight, but I'm here to stay.

P.S., I did also just pick up an excercise bike/elliptical combination for about the cost of one month's gym membership, so this isn't something that's doing to die off once I can't go outside anymore. I'm excited, and if anyone in Toronto is out there, I could use a running buddy! Can't wait to hear what step-up John Healy has for me this week.

As an aside, if you would like to donate to my efforts in the 5km race, please visit http://my.e2rm.com/personalPage.aspx?SID=2671431. 100% of your donation goes to the Asthma Society of Canada (I've already paid the race entry fee, processing fees are covered by sponsors). Thanks for your help!

The Debacle of the New Hamilton Stadium

2010-08-09T17:18:00.000-07:00

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm a sports nerd. Saying fan is a little bit of a misnomer; I don't actually care about the stats and the standings as much as most people do. What I love is the sports experience. The stadium, the announcer, the concessions, souvenirs, crowd chants, and gameday activities. I'm probably one of the few people on the planet that actually looks for the sponsors, and enjoys the creative promotions.

One of the biggest parts of sports is the stadiums. I've been fortunate enough to travel to nearly 40 different arenas and stadiums, between baseball, basketball, football and hockey. Which is one of the reasons I'm closely following what can only be described as a debacle in Hamilton, over the new Pan-Am stadium, and the future of the Hamilton Tiger Cats.

First thing first: when Toronto won the right to host the 2015 Pan Am Games, it just seemed a little fishy that Hamilton would be awarded the track and field stadium. Not disbelief by any means, a completely plausible plan, however to build the crown jewel of most multi-sport competitions outside of the host city is virtually unheard of. The main stadium is also often used for the opening and closing ceremonies, why would Toronto "give away" this stadium and this legacy to a different city?

The reason: the Hamilton Tiger-Cats also needed a new stadium. You might as well kill two birds with one stone and build some nice, shiny new stadium that supports their needs as well. But again, nearly from the beginning, was fishy situation #2. In order for a stadium to be viable for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, they need to actually rip out the track and expand the stadium for football, after the track and field events are complete. Why should Canadian/Ontario taxpayers pay for a track and field stadium (which I would normally 300% agree with), when the physical playing surface is ripped out and can no longer provide a legacy for the community? As much of a fan of professional sport I am, the fitness, health and sustainability of our country will be based on an active population, with expanded grassroots participation.

Then the fighting begins. Hamilton city council supports a West Harbour stadium site. Something downtown, nearly 2 dozen properties have been expropriated so far, I believe, and what could be the cornerstone of revitalization on the water that Hamilton so badly needs. The Ti-Cats, led by Bob Young, have dug in their heels and refused to accept something in the city core. They want a suburban stadium, near major highways to draw a "regional population", and ample parking. Not to mention high visibility which will provide greater revenues with stadium naming rights. This is a classic stadium dilemma, and it should come as no shock that the city wants to revitalize the core, while business interests want to take to the suburbs.

Months of fighting goes by, and, surprise surprise, the Pan Am Games committee pulls the track and field portion of the stadium, moves it back to Toronto, and gives Hamilton soccer instead. The proposal still works (minus the international visibility for Hamilton), but the initial stadium can now be build to football specifications initially, instead of upgraded after the Games are over. Yet the two sides are farther apart than ever.

The population is split; it's nearly 50/50 for location support, and also nearly 50/50 in the "who's to blame" game. Then today, with another deadline on the stadium looming, the TiCats play their trump card, ace in the hole. They say they will refuse to play in a West Harbour stadium, play through their lease at Ivor Wynne Stadium (expires in 2011), and then find another city to move into if they do not get the East Mountain stadium location. (Possibly Quebec City, maybe Burlington. I personally also think Halifax and Moncton are long overdue for a CFL team).

So we're at the ultimatum now. The TiCats will accept nothing less than suburbia or else the team will move, the city and most levels of government are favouring the downtown option.

Rob says: Try option 3. Spend a year and a few million dollars, and renovate Ivor Wynne properly. It's already built for soccer and football specifications, and would be significantly cheaper than building a new stadium. There's a practice field next door that could be eliminated, the field re-oriented for extra space, but the character and history maintained. It's the most tradition-rich stadium in professional football today, and it would be a shame to see it go. And from my lowly basement perspective, without the need to install a running track, there's no reason why Ivor Wynne shouldn't be back in consideraton as both a Pan-Am soccer stadium, and a long-term solution to keep my favourite football team on their hallowed ground.

Failing that, the Tiger-Cats need to simply capitulate in this situation. Having travelled to the number of stadiums that I have, my favourite ones, bar none, are the ones located in the city centres. Close to bars and restaurants, out of town transit options, pre-game shopping and post-game revelry. Something that provides a magnet and a landmark for the downtown (especially from the water, in cities with a waterfront). The parking issue solves itself when people ride buses in from suburban shopping malls (as they do now), or Go-Train in from the farther destinations, in addition to the parking spaces available after-hours in the downtown areas. Especially for a city like Hamilton, with the reputation of the downtown and the waterfront in general, a downtown site is a no-brainer.

The power play of the Tiger Cats shouldn't work. I love the team, but they are wrong in this situation. If they claim they will lose money out of the gate, I'm sure there are a few options that will allow for extra revenue streams which can be negotiated. The threat to move the team may not be an idle one (Q.C., Ottawa, Halifax and Moncton are all viable football markets), and the Hamilton fans do deserve better. Through good years and bad (and lately, it's been much more of the latter), Hamilton fans have been among the most loyal, die-hard fans in the league. The team provides the city with its charm, its history, and its eternal optimism.

But in the end, if the Tiger-Cats were to make good on their threat, Hamilton is only losing a tenant that takes the stadium 9-10 days per year. Football is a short season, it's not a 80-game traffic cycle like the Blue Jays pull in. 80+ games that a hockey/basketball arena share. It costs a lot, rejuvenates an area, but doesn't actually draw multiple nights per year (add a MLS franchise and a few other annual events though, it becomes a different story). The city needs the stadium downtown more than the city needs the Tiger-Cats. If the city and team part ways over this dispute, it pains me to say this, but good riddance to the team. Hamilton may or may not get one back in the future, but they only have one shot at a brand new stadium for the Pan-Am games. Keep the stadium downtown, hold firm, and make Bob Young and the Ti-Cats make their own move.

I'll call the bluff. I don't think the black and gold will actually skip town. And it's time for Hamilton Council to stick to their guns instead of being intimidated. Keep the stadium plans for West Harbour and build something that can be the pride of Hamilton.

Climate Change - why are we still debating this, do something!

2010-07-29T19:58:00.000-07:00

So I went into work this morning, checked my RSS feeds as I do everyday, and noticed the top story in today's Globe and Mail. They ran the 'unequivocal proof' story about global warning, showing conclusively that 10 key indicators are showing abnormal warming trends through the 1990s - everything from surface and ocean temperatures to rising sea levels and shrinking glaciers. Every indicator was showing evidence of global warming.

And as I usually do, I scanned the online comments in response to the article. And what I saw brought some shock. There are still a large number of climate change deniers out there (or at least, out in full force on the internet tubes). Out of nearly 500 comments at the time, approximately 1/3 of them criticized the results of this survey. The 'thumbs up/thumbs down' feature actually tipped the balance in favour of climate change denial! What is going on here?

Let's look at the 3 main arguments:

First, a number of the posts referred to some recent data showing that some cooling may have happened in the past decade. This data "doesn't fit" with the trend, so global warming must not be happening.

Second, the earth has gone through some natural heating and cooling cycles in the past. We've had ice ages and hot spells, the earth must do this naturally.

Third, the scientists propegate and fake this data, in order to keep their own funding coming and self-perpetuate their own profession.

My response: open your eyes to the world around you! I don't care if the earth naturally warms and cools itself over time, the human race doesn't survive ice ages nicely! The world's population will explode over the next 30 years, and we're already beyond sustainable, ripping out forests (one of earth's natural atmospheric cleansing and temperature stabilizing methods), expending fossil fuels (and pumping them back into the air), and maximizing our agricultural outputs while billons of people starve. Can we continue on this trend without decimating our own population? No we can't.

Maybe the last decade has cooled. We have had some cool winters. However, if ice sheets keep breaking off Antarctica and Greenland, that ice melts into water, raising sea levels and threatening coastal cities all across the planet. Glaciers all around the world are disappearing so rapidly that cities are not able to cope with the loss of the drinking water-spring runoff they have relied upon for centuries. I don't care if the temperatures are going up or not, if those are the current symptoms, we're in trouble well before the end of my natural lifetime.

But secondly, how can some people not want to do anything? If the world is already warming, they say, why do we need to act? Maybe this is Rob the Asthmatic speaking, but does anyone realize what pollutants we are pumping into the atmosphere daily? Have you seen the smog in our cities, the oil spills in our oceans and rivers, and the wastewater/sewage destroying downstream wildlife? We are causing suffering to our own population, because we haven't placed penalties on environmental pollution, and haven't expended our efforts into natural energy sources. I have trouble breathing some days due to air pollution, and now the world is running out of its previous nonrenwable resources with no backup plan.

Regardless of whether you actually believe the science behind global warming, or accurately, "climate change", how can someone look at this and not see a problem? How can half of the Globe and Mail's online commenters deny a problem exists, and deny the need for ANY solution or further look into it? Why can we allow the continous burning of coal and oil (which we know kills thousands of people each year), yet we must delay wind turbine construction for studies into dizziness and people having trouble sleeping? Wind power does not create byproducts that kill people, the status quo isn't working!

I wouldn't consider myself an environmental "activist", or a "nut". I don't always buy the greenest products, and I sometimes forget to turn off my lights. But I realize that we need our politicians and our experts to present the options which will provide a change to the status quo. And as of yet, I haven't seen that from the mainstream parties.

We have municipal elections coming up this year, a possible federal election at anytime, and a provincial election next year. I'm in a new city, I don't have "Toronto issues" from the past that have lead me towards any particular candidate. What I am looking for out of this year's October elections: a plan to deal with our energy needs and green Toronto. If you can deliver on this, you're getting my vote.

Why we need to save the long-form census

2010-07-21T20:14:00.000-07:00

I always knew something would drive me back into the blogging world. After a few months off, and no longer a student executive with the Brock University Students' Union, there's no obligation to share my work life with constituents anymore. But my personal thoughts and views need an outlet, no matter how few people actually read them.

And who would have guessed that the topic that takes me back to the blog is something as mundane as the census. Something so fundamental to how our country operates, yet something the overwhelming majority of Canadians never knew they could even have a political opinion on. Yet here we are, after the current federal Conservative government has tried to quietly make ideological changes over the summer, without consultation, the issue has blown up into a media firestorm for the past few weeks.

To recap, for anyone who has not heard about the issue yet: The census is a mandatory obligation for Canadians. Conducted once every five years (on the 1's and 6's), it provides a snapshot of our country, and data that is relied upon by academics, social scientists, government bureaucrats, businesses, and other organizations. Every Canadian household receives a census, but not every census is the same. 80% are known as the "short form", a basic list of seven questions asking the age, gender, marital status, mother language, and relationship of people living within a household. 20% of households receive the "long form" census, an extra set of over 50 questions asking about education, employment, income, ethnicity, mobility, migration patterns, and more. Both types are mandatory, (on average, each household will only receive the long form every 25 years), punishable with the threat of fines or jail time.

This summer, the government quietly announced that the long-form census would be eliminated for 2011, replaced with a voluntary long-form survey that will be sent to 33% of households. The provided rationale, is that many people felt a mandatory long-form is an invasion of personal privacy (one of the most frequently-cited examples is a question that asks how many bedrooms are in the home). The theory provided by the government is that by distributing voluntary surveys to more households, Statistics Canada can still gain an accurate snapshot of the country without threatening jail time for people who don't fill out the long form.

This announcement was picked up by the media (thankfully), and has been a hot topic for over three weeks. The government mouthpiece on this issue is Industry Minister Tony Clement, who has repeatedly gone on the record defending this decision. Across the internet, there has been widespread speculation that Mr. Clement actually advised AGAINST this change, yet Prime Minister Harper is determined to make this change for an ideologically-grounded political advantage (Conservative voters tend to prefer less government intrusion into the lives of Canadians).

What we know for sure is that Statistics Canada advised against the elimination of the long-form census. Clement admits that Statistics Canada was told the long-form was going to be eliminated, and was asked to give advice on how to mitigate the risk to data. He further asserts an assumption that if the Chief Statistician "gives me a set of options, he is comfortable with this options." Well Tony, it appears not. Today, chief statistician Munir Sheikh, resigned from his position with a public letter. He states,

This relates to a question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census.

It can not.

So the Chief Statistician is against the change. Apparently much of StatsCan is as well, and a broad collection of academic and social groups spanning nearly every sector, most media editorials, and even the Canadian provinces have weighed in.

Why is this such an important issue?

Quite simply, data is the fundamental tool for planning and policy. Without public census information, the government, academia, public policy organizations, and even businesses lose one of their most valuable sources of information. Census data is used to track social changes, plan transit routes, provide social services, and determine language needs. See here and here for some of the ways the elimination of the long-form could affect you directly.

This has a personal effect on me, as someone who has now held 2 jobs dealing with public advocacy roles. In both education and healthcare, the organizations I have represented present grounded policy options to government based on data. In education specifically, Canada already has the least amount of accessible data compared to every other OECD country in the world, and this move will cut even further. The health of Canadians is in jeopardy if hospitals, doctors and pharmacies cannot determine the prevalence rates of certain conditions, or make incorrect population estimates that result in overcrowded waiting rooms.

The basic problem is this: certain groups are much less likely to respond to a voluntary survey. To name just two, Aboriginal populations and the poor will see their response rates drop drastically. Yet, it is often precisely these populations who are often "at risk", that census data is used to help. One of the above links mentioned specifically how Calgary used census data to identify neighbourhoods on the verge of increased youth crime rates, and has developed preventative programming to avert this crisis.

But what about the business and not-for-profit community, how do they really use census data? Critics suggest, we should simply do our own polling at our own expense if we wanted to find out these results. And there is a little bit of merit to this argument, we will always be polling our members and customers for various reasons. However, every single piece of data must be standardized before it is useful. I was part of a survey about 8 months ago that collected the opinions of thousands of students across Canada at 21 schools. Over 70% of voluntary responses came from women, and Brock had the 2nd highest number of responses in the country. We could use simple raw data, but Brock and women would have been grossly overrepresented. We had to weight our sample responses to correct for these imbalances. We also had to weight the sample to correct for the proportion of students receiving government loans. How do we know that students without loans were overrepresented in our sample? Because we had a valid set of population statistics to work from. I'm in the middle of a survey in my new job, and at the moment, over 60% of people who have responded have incomes higher than $70,000 per year. Is this reflective of the general population? Of course not. How do I know this? Because Statistics Canada data reports on income levels. When our survey is closed, I will need to weight our responses to reflect the realities that we know exists in the national (and provincial) populations.

The ONLY way to do this is to have a reliable set of global data. If the vital long-form information is reduced to a voluntary sample, there is far less statistical reliability. We won't know for sure how many French speakers there are in a community, and school programming will suffer. We won't know for sure where the exploding population in Milton is coming from, we will only have voluntary samples to rely on. How many people in Kitchener commute to a job in Toronto, Guelph, or even Waterloo? Good luck finding out if expanded bus or train service is viable for commuters without expensive trial-and-error.

Census information is so fundamental to so many aspects of our life, even the ones that appear marginally-related. Get ready for more junk mail at your door, if businesses are unable to filter your neighbourhood for products they know your demographic doesn't purchase.

The census is one of the few civic duties that is expected of us as Canadians. We must pay taxes. We are expected to vote. And the government aggregates our information to help make decisions that affect all of us.

The great irony in this decision is that the voluntary survey will actually cost MORE money, yet give us LESS reliable data, costing us MORE in misdirected (wasted) spending, leading either to an INCREASE in your taxes or the national debt. There's no other course of action. Our neighbours to the south tried this voluntary idea, and quickly got rid of it. We don't need to make the same mistakes. Remember, the only personal burden to you is filling out a few extra questions once every 25 years. And guess what, the short census is still mandatory! And also punishible by the same jail time that proponents of this idea strongly criticize. If jail is the real problem, then change the penalty, but don't change the program.

Is this decision even politically valuable? That may be another blog post, if this issue doesn't get resolved soon. But the basic premise is, the decision to eliminate the long form is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was rolled out quickly, secretly, without consultation, and against the advice of the experts. It has angered Canadians from coast to coast, especially math nerds. If you're angering pacifist math nerds in a greater proportion than the general population, something is going wrong.

I will say one final thought in conclusion. It's not too late for the decision to be reversed. And if the mandatory long-form census is reinstated, the Conservative government should be commended. Any government that listens to citizen feedback, evaluates the response, and listens to the people, should be commended for doing the right thing. Too many people demand something of their government, achieve the result they hoped for, and continue criticizing the government.

If I'm the government in power and I do something in response to your concern, I want to be thanked for listening to you. On the other hand, if I'm going to be criticized no matter whether I appease you or not, I'm going to do what I want anyway, because at least it achieves my objectives. If you won't thank me, what is the benefit of listening to you? So that said, if (and hopefully when) this poorly-thought decision gets reversed, look for me to lead the charge thanking the government. Until then, keep the census issue in the media, and in your letters to your MP.

Your basement dweller,

Rob Lanteigne

**edit. I've found a new online list showing which groups support this census change, and which groups oppose it. Find that list here