six weeks after a federal election that resulted in nothing substantive, the parliament once again is on the brink of collapse.

the reason is one that was entirely crafted by harper is a clever political ploy on which the opposition is taking a firm ground to the point they're in formal talks to form a coalition and dispose harper's conservatives from power. quebec's bloc was support the measure but have no real interest in a coalition that governs canada.

in a cost-cutting effort harper proposed scrapping the $1.95 per vote each of the parties get in elections. in the case of the liberals, this amounts to about 60% of their funds, nearly 80% of bloc's funding comes from this subsidy. yes, canada subsidizes a party whose ultimate objective is to break away from the federation. here's a knife, stab me with it. but i digress..

largely, the cost cutting measure is symbolic with minimal savings for the government. in total, the conservatives, liberals, ndp, bloc and greens receive $30 million from the subsidy. with some economists projecting canada's deficit could reach onwards $10 billion; this cut is fractional in the ability to balance the books. however, with the liberals struggling raising donations these days; this could potentially choke with party into oblivion.

to shift the debate, the opposition are focusing on a supposed economic stimulus that is weak and fails to capture the severity of canada's economic situation.

other aspects of the economic plan are equally symbolic; suspending the right of public service workers to strike for the next year is almost comical as any economist or historian would say the likelihood of a strike in a recession is next to none. people are concerned with keeping their jobs, let alone securing a raise. with the expection of york university, this is flat out not going to happen. but that institutional subscribes to ideas that have no relevance to common sense. again, i digress...

harper's strategy was pure tactical and the political craftsman is attempting to frame the matter as necessary in a time of fiscal uncertainty. in this situation we are also learning the true nature of mr. harper as a calculating tactician bent on crippling his political opponents.

with canadians worried about their jobs, investments and the general economic climate, harper thought parties should tighten their belts as well. his calculation was that the parties could not afford to come out against his economic plan which would make them appear out of touch with the average canadian. the parties would swallow their pride and essentially vote in favour cutting the bulk of their own dollars.

however, the opposition called harper out of the blatant attempt to suffocate the opposition and formal talks are ongoing as whether the liberals, bloc and ndp can form a coalition. harper now finds himself on a weekend communication blitz arguing the opposition cannot take power from the government without another election. in his words, the coalition is about installing a government and PM who does not have a mandate or right to rule.

a time of economic instability is now matched with a period of political instability. for junkies as myself the situation is almost edge of the seat excitement. the liberal/ndp coalition may also witness the return of stephane dion to the national stage as the 'prime minister.' kind of ironic if the liberals decide to work with the ndp given that they can barely work together.

in the last parliament, harper pulled several similar measures only to have the opposition back down or the liberals abstain. however, this time the high stakes brinkmanship crossed the line. several weeks ago, i spoke with a former conservative pollster for mike harris who predicted this is exactly what harper should do; propose a plan that goes beyond anything the liberals can support based on their values. here, rather than values, their very existence is at stake.

the unsupportable plan would collapse the parliament, force an election and harper would get the majority he so desires. the pollster even suggested the plan should be initiated before the christmas parliament break with a potential election in january. lot of the pieces have come together; except the election part. constitutional experts suggest the coalition opposition is the likely alternative given the fact we just had an election less than 2 months ago.

behind the smoke and mirrors, harper is using the recession as a scapegoat to push through policies that are akin to the 'hidden agenda' and the reason why canadians hesitate to give him the majority he so lusts for. harper rolled out a plan that has little to do with the economy other than attack the opposition and the public service as a whole. even looking beyond the party funding cut, the opposition are right in attacking the fluff policies of the conservatives.

there is nothing in the announcement related as to what the governments plans to do to address the economic crisis. the opposition parties are in every right to dispose a government that has no direction and is out of touch with the degree the recent downturn is affecting every canadian family.

harper, the brilliant politician, may have met his match and potentially could be the end of his political career. a miscalculation as the collapse of his government just a few weeks after its re-election does not bode well for his future. his only hope now is somehow revamping his economic package in a matter that actually means something forcing the opposition parties to back down. potentially, if the original statements had more substance beyond the cutting of party funding, the government would have secured the vote. but the fact the government wants to wait until the budget in the spring to roll out the bulk of the economic plan is bad a move of which liberals were quick to jump on.

no doubt next week will be interesting

Student #1: So did you see the Bond movie?
Student #2: Yes
Student #1: So, what did you think?
Student #2: Pretty gay.

Evidently, according to to Queen's, these sort of conversations will warrant a visit from the PC police with powers to intervene in private conversations when they hear homophobic, racial, or sexist tinged remarks. akin to hilary duff's public service announcement

whether in the library, dining hall, and anywhere on campus, the university has hired six facilitators to monitor the campus and intervene where they fit. the aim of the program is to step and have students justify their words, and such tension is supposedly a beneficial tension.

now, students needed to be careful when referring to the assisgnment as gay, the T.A. as retarded or calling your russian friend, vodkalky.

the intent of engaging in dialogue to foster an inclusive environment is noble but confronting students in their private conversations opens up a whole different debate. is the aim to encourage dialogue or create a PC environment where students walk around anxiously that their conversations are being listened in on?

much like other strategies of cleaning up the public sphere, this program could fall to the same criticism; in reality, doing nothing other than brushing people's thoughts deeper into the private realm where the reprocussions are potentially worse. dorm rooms, parties, even less private settings like lecture halls where one assumes the facilitators cannot enter may become more toxic and more threatening.

creating the consciousness that the public's words are subject to ever more scrutiny undermines much of the 'openness' the university is supposed to be. not saying that insulting words and deragatory terms should be thrown about free of consequences because one is in a university. but the free idea of a 'conversation police' goes in the wrong direction of creating anxiety, uneasiness that someone one's own thoughts are not in line with the school administration's position.

Most of the time

I'm halfway content,

Most of the time

I know exactly where I went,

I don't cheat on myself, I don't run and hide,

Hide from the feelings, that are buried inside,

I don't compromised and I don't pretend,

I don't even care if I ever see her again........Most of the time.

As American policy-makers are hard at work finalizing a bailout of the big three automakers--mere weeks are bailing out the banking industry, when exactly did this paradigm shift occur in which it is okay for government to come to the rescue of poorly run companies? what happened to the free market?

Why aren't the economists of the 1980s screaming mad as their ideas are being ignored?

while japanese makers have been onto the right path for well over a decade, making small, efficient cars, the brains behind the American big three lobbied hard to have SUVs categorized as trucks to avoid stringent emission guidelines. last year's spike in the price oil pretty much made the monstrous SUVs a permanent fleet of unsellable junk.

a former co-worker boasted getting an amazing deal on a Ford truck only to find her fuel costs exceeding her monthly payments. why a single woman needs a truck is beyond me to begin with?

not to brag or anything; but the writing on the wall was years ago to anyone who has the rudimentary grasp of economics that oil prices were not sustainable at the levels of the 1990s with global demand exceeding the production capacity. now, whether stalls to improve refining capacity is a tactic to keep prices artificially high is subject to its investigation. regardless, the signs were there i dumped my 3.1 GM engine for a tiny 1.8 Honda engine when i purchased an Integra. With the expect ion of this summer's wild rise in prices, a full tank of gas normally does not exceed $40 dollars.

still, the companies do not get it; it boggles the mind Ford is dropping advertising dollars during telecast to promote its F150 series trucks.

the Ontario economy is particularly sensitive this debate as a large part of its economic activity is tied to the auto sector. directly and indirectly, the figure is something like 60% of Ontario dollars travels through the auto industry. for years now, the ontario government has been propping the industry up with subsidies and each year, the big three Canadian branches find itself on Queen's Park doorsteps lobbying for more dollars. it's "too big to fail" mentality makes their position more flexible given Ontario's dependence on the auto industry.

at what point is chasing good dollars after bad still justified? GM, Ford, Chrysler have done little in the ways of innovation other than churning out a product for which there is no longer a demand. with Ontario's deficit all but assured, what is the use of dumping tax payer dollars that will end up being a sunk cost a year from now?

is Ontario going to suffer is the government lets the auto sector fail? yes, towns like Oshawa and Windsor will virtually come to a stand still resulting in at least 100 000 jobs lost over night.

a bailout of the auto industry means cuts are likely to follow and biggest government expenditures are on education and health care. what factors into a sound and dynamic economic model is an educated and healthy pool of labour; by decreasing those in order to finance a fail business simply perpetuates the problem.

in the long run, letting the auto companies go under while investing in the future through human capital infrastructure is bound to attract winning businesses. investment seeks environments not where the costs are lowest, but where there is sound opportunity for returns, where the work force has the skills and innovative talents to build on. ontario is rich in its highly-educated labour pool, yet, the government fails to utilize such skills instead discussing how to throw money into a black hole to avoid short-term pains.

with each every day, it seems more and more evident, a provincial government really does not have the slightest vision than reactive poorly thoughout strategies that bankrupt the province's ability to prosper.

newfie jokes are going to be a thing of the past; ontario is the punchline of the confederation, if you ask me.

like dylan's first wife and the muse to some of his most achingly beautiful work, she too, spells her name sara--minus the h.

i've never accepted it, i just learned to turn it off.

then and now i think of times telling her i want to see her happy; which now leave me bitter and resentful.

like costanza, i need to start doing the exact opposite of everything i've ever done, only then may my true motives materialize.

when did i forget how to feel and only realizing it now?

i thought of her again tonight.

thinking of what could've been -- should've been.

instead, overwhelmed by a wave of regret.

that dream is over.

all i can do is hope to back to sleep again.

i tried to think of what the victory of barack means but i can think of is morrissey swallowing his own words:

In America, The land of the free, they said, And of opportunity, In a just and a truthful way
But where the president, Is never black, female or gay, And until that day
You've got nothing to say to me, To help me believe

the election did revive that mythic characterization of the united states is the place where anything is impossible. of course, once the historic dust settles, it is important obama is inheriting a cataclysmic of a mess. his victory symbolizes a potential at a new direction founded on hope and rhetoric of change. the realization of these goals did not end with election day and it'll be interesting what substantive changes are actually materialized--if any, at all. at the end of the day, barack obama is a skilled politician with a brilliant team of strategist that in a span of 21 months took the long-shot candidate to the highest political office in the world.

let there be no mistake that barack obama is one of the true agents of change and one of the most politically attractive figures of this generation. on november 5th, the world woke up with a breath of fresh air and no doubt we are already witnessing a change in style and tone. but real change will be demonstrated by substantive policy reconfigurations and reversals. on the iraq file, the world needs to pay careful scrutiny on whether his proposals of drawbacks and timetables are credible. equally important is the matter the executive branch approaches its own authorities and powers that were so heavily centralized over the past eight years.

the devil is in the detail and time will tell.