Via an article by Gwynne Dyer there's an interesting article by Gregory Paul. The article, which has the ponderous title of Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies - A First Look, looks briefly at correlations between religion and and various societal indicators. It is a fascinating work. Briefly, it shows that countries that have high religiosity, are also high in things that western society considers bad while those countries that are more secular, tend to less nastiness. So for example, the United States scores the highest in absolute belief in God, also scores highest in areas such as teen pregnancy and infant mortality, where as countries such as Sweden who have lower rates of absolute belief in God have lower rates of teen pregnancy and infant mortality. Most of the axis studied show a correlation between something undesirable in society and religiosity.

It would seem that the opposition parties have basically re-written the Conservatives' so-called "Clean Air Act" in such a way that it's now a completely new piece of legislation. The question is what will Stephen Harper, who opposes most of what the opposition has put in the reworked bill, do? Harper could make the Clean Air Act a confidence motion, in which case the passing of the massively rewritten bill would force an election. This is a possibility, as Harper is currently enjoying the benefits of the budget bounce in the polls. Or Harper could let it pass, but then he and his government would be forced to do things for the environment that the Tories just don't want to do. The Conservatives could also simply withdraw the bill, preventing it from coming to a vote in the first place and avoiding what could be a big mess.

In January my trusty Dell notebook died. Specifically, the power connector to the mother board stopped working so that I had no way to plug the computer in or recharge the battery. This, of course, rendered the machine unusable. So I have been reduced to sneaking blog entries on my computer at work during down times or on my desktop at home. Well no more! As of yesterday I'm the proud owner of a new MacBook.

So we have the new federal Conservative budget. I've looked at it and am generally unimpressed. Though there's lots of spending, which wasn't a surprise with Harper throwing money around like it's going out of style, none of the spending has any real vision to it. It just gives the impression that Harper's trying to buy our votes because he's desperate to stay in power. The budget has provided me with some amusement though, but more on that later.

Given that federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will simply re-use the shoes he bought last year does this mean, like everything else the Harper government has come up with since January he's going to re-use a previous Liberal budget? I think that is unlikely, give that Harper's been breaking the bank with pre-budget spending announcements there's not much left to surprise people with the budget. What seems to be certain is that the budget that is being proposed (or what at least has been announced/leaked) is not likely to match up with what Canadians want from the budget.

For a party that campaigns on law and order, they sure have problems following even the rules they set out for themselves. Rob Anders has had his nomination overturned by a Calgary court. The court cited the fact that the Conservative Party didn't follow it's own rules when it set up the nomination "meeting" nor when it disqualified candidates. These guys are looking less and less trustworthy every day.

Perusing the blogosphere I came across a piece from Cathie From Canada. Now the gist of her post is that with the Tories eliminating the climate change group of Environment Canada and focusing more power in the PMO. What I'm writing about is something that got me thinking at the end of her post where she writes:
"Maybe the opposition parties should just pass next week's budget - and let Harper start explaining why he isn't actually capable of fulfilling all of the promises he has made."
This got me thinking that all this spending might just be bluster in the hopes that the opposition forces an election on the budget.

Over that past couple of weeks, Stephen Harper has been on a spree of spending announcements. Now this isn't unusual for federal politicians anticipating an election after all nothing garners votes faster than bribing voters with their own money. What make this spending spree notable is that Harper was elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. At the rate he's going with handing out cash and tax cuts, the federal government will head back into deficit territory.

In a move universally rejected by veterans groups, it would appear that the Harper government wants to give the unknown soldier our country's highest award for valour, the Victoria Cross. Specifically he wants to give the CVC (Canadian Victoria Cross) that was re-instituted into our honours system back in 1993. Canada's "New" Government (TM, Pat. Pend.) says its to honour all veterans. Given that veterans groups are not on side with this, it starts to look more and more like political grandstanding on Harper's part. Not that he'd ever do that.

So the Harper government had decided to court the senior vote by brining in a Seniors' Advisory Council that is tasked to provide the government advice about senior's issues. On the face of it this is a good idea as the voice of seniors is often drowned out in the background noise that is politics. I have some concerns though, which only time will allay. Sadly, these concerns are only in place because of the governing party and their lack of transparency and little to do with the mandate of the council.