If Canada only had a reset button...

So the last federal election was a humongous waste of time and money. Only about 60% of eligible Canadians showed up to wield their democratic right, the lowest in history if I'm not mistaken. It swamped the Canadian media for over a month and very little policy was discussed, but we did get to find out how each federal leader appreciates to arts. Yawn.

And after it was all said and done, what do we get? A slightly larger Harper minority; the expected land-second disappearance of the Greens; rambunctious Jack making up a bit of ground but still far from his unrealistic bid to actually run the country; and the downfall of the Liberal superpower at the hands of the outgoing (and not a minute too early) leader, Mr. Dion. 

So now what? The Liberals (still in debt) are in the midst of another unaffordable and overly dramatic leadership race, Elizabeth May has disappeared (perhaps abducted by eco-aliens), Jack is being Jack, Quebec is acting like the good ol' nation within a united Canada that it is and Steve, well, he's still leading this country into oblivion, sweater vest and all. 

Government finally got back into session and within a week or so there's talk of another election. The Conservative government released its economic update, stating that it has been forced to cut a number of programs including funding to the other political parties, all in the name of keeping the budget balanced. The big piece missing from all this: a nice big stimulus package for the economy.

Don't Flaherty and Harper keep up with the times? Big, fat stimulus packages are all the rage these days. And as much as we may like balanced budgets, this is one of those times where its OK for the conservative folks to roll down their socks and spend a little money. Otherwise there won't be much of a budget to balance next fiscal year after tax revenues have dwindled to nothing when the average Canadian Joe the Igloo Plumber doesn't have any money to be taxed of. 

So what's the other option? Obviously we can't let this go through, so now the opposition parties are considering a coalition. Oh, great. I'm sure this will be a very co-operative group. The drama that will unfold from that may be worse than holding another election. Who will be the new Prime Minister? We might all cry if its Dion. Duceppe isn't all that much of a national guy. Jack would be lousy because he'd have no one to complain about. And May doesn't have a seat, so scratch her off the list. Ignatieff or Rae might forego the leadership race and just step in, which could be alright, but I'd be a little bit worried about Rae after his time serving with a coalition government and then heading a majority for several very awkward years at the helm of Ontario.

So basically it's a huge mess. Election=bad. Even less people will show up and the last thing we need is an election at a time when politicians should be at work saving the country from economic collapse. Coalition=probably bad. Expect lots of infighting and hairpulling. 

I offer a simple solution. Perhaps we can grab a four year free-trial from the United States to join up and make up their giant 51st state. At least we'd have a decent guy at the helm who seems to know what he's doing, and we could sit back and enjoy the benefits of these massive stimulus packages. And by the time the taxpayers have to start paying back the $2 trillion or so of government debt, we kindly return to our status as an independent nation.  

 

Only at Trent...

Trent University has a fairly progressive reputation. It is often compared to UC Berkeley, the United States' uber-hippie school. Hacky sack, bongo drumming and Birkenstocks are essentially pre-requisites to get in.

But our President, Bonnie Patterson does not quite share those feelings about Trent. As a former professor of business, Patterson has brought a more corporate approach to running Trent, which as you can imagine, leaves many students less than impressed. She is often the main target in the student newspapers and is less than popular among the student body. She recently elected to sell (and threatened to tear down) Trent's famed downtown college, Traill College. As my witty roomate Travis pointed out, it was quite appropriate she was later named one of Canada's Top 100 Most Powerful Women by the Women's Executive Network. After all, she got the award as part of the Trend-Setters and Trail-Blazers category (zing!).

But it appears Trent has had a powerful effect on our 'corporate fat-cat' President. A rumour began floating around last March concerning her involvement with the school's chancellor, famed biologist, photographer, medical doctor and astronaut, Dr. Roberta Bondar. Apparently the two were now an item. Talk about a power couple. Rumours, right?

Not quite. The rumours have now evolved into near fact, as I have had confirming conversations about their relationship with members of the faculty, administration and senior employees of the provincial government.

I think Trent is one of the only places in the world where the right-wing university President can leave her husband and fall in love with a photograph-taking, nature-loving, doctor that happens to also be an astronaut and the chancellor of the school. Man, what a school.

An ever-so unexciting ceremony...

Last night I attended Trent's Academic All-Canadian Awards Ceremony. I was lucky enough to be awarded the title of an Academic All-Canadian, but I felt the ceremony to be quite disappointing.

The university prides itself on its Academic All-Canadians (which are members of a Varsity team that maintain a GPA of 80% or better). Considering it is a school of only 7000 students and has a rather limited athletic program, Trent still manages to more Academic All-Canadians than many of the large universities throughout Canada. It is the mark of having built an athletics program that not only works well in partnership with the academic setting of the school, but also improves that aspect of Trent, as it was remarked that more athletes graduate from Trent per capita than the average student. This is something that should surely be celebrated.

But alas, it was not to be. At least to the extent I think it should. The ceremony itself was held in the multi-purpose room of the Athletics Complex, rather than one of Trent's more comfortable and luxurious rooms where other small ceremonies take place. To the credit of the Athletics Department, the room was transformed quite well. But it was still lacking. White Christmas lights can only go so far. There was food and drinks provided, but it clearly came off the shelf within the past few days and the drinks were sadly without a touch of alcohol.

The ceremony itself was quick. Only half the recipients showed up to receive their awards, which happened after a brief speech by the Athletics Director and the President of the university, Bonnie Patterson. Getting the President to come and attend ceremonies is no easy feat, but when she does come, it means the ceremony means something. And the way the Athletics Director spoke of such an award also speaks to the importance of it. But it just didn't seem like it.

I've been told that in years past this event has been considerably better. Alcohol has been served and nearly everyone has shown up. Parents, coaches, friends; it's been a big deal. But quite frankly, last night's ceremony felt wimpy. I'm not surprised people no longer show up.

I know the university likes to pipe up any award given out and that I am slightly biased in this view, but if the school really feels that this is an important award (and I believe it really is), then put some work into it and make the students feel like they actually earned a nice ceremony.

Just a thought on bottled water...

Our school seems to be having a drive aimed at educating people towards the truth of bottled water. My intention is not to preach that sermon, but I do suggest looking into bottled water. There's a lot of mischief going on in that industry.

Something quickly came across my mind today concerning bottled water and its pricing. A 591 ml bottle of Dasani or Evian runs between $1.50 and $2.00 (probably higher if you're at some large event). Do the math and that's approximately $2.54/litre. Compare that with one of our most hated, but desired commodities: gasoline. Right now gas is cheap, hovering around $0.79/litre, but in the summer it was as high as $1.49/litre. Regardless, gasoline never even came close to the price of bottled water.

This will be a frighteningly interesting situation in the future. Considering our lives and economy seem to dwell so much on oil prices and gasoline prices, how amazing our lives will be when our water situation starts to look like oil's: falling rapidly. The price of water that we get essentially for free at this point could very well grow higher than the price of gasoline. We'll be kicking ourselves at that point. Or have inhabited the rest of the solar system (fingers crossed).

Bad outlook for next year's crop...

It seems tiresome that I write so often about the impacts of the financial crisis, but it speaks not to my nerdiness, but the truly incredible significance it has.

A recent article in the Globe & Mail detailed the impact that the crisis is having on the endowment funds of universities throughout Canada. The endowment funds, are far as I know, are the funds that a university has to spend outside of the income it generates from tuition and fees from students. This money largely comes from the government and private donors and is often invested in the money markets. October of 2007 saw the highest value of Canadian university endowment funds ever seen, with a total of nearly CAD$10 billion. My, things have changed.

With the collapse in the market, universities have seen their endowment funds crumble. Some have lost as much as $100m alone, nearly 1/3 of their endowment funds. And with the ever-increasing costs of running a school and the lack of adequate government funding, things are looking bleak. And it doesn't help that private donors are hesitant to dish out their now seriously important cash. This could have a massive impact on students in Canada and the quality of our education.

In light of their new financial situation, university leaders have been expressing concern over the parts of the universities that will be hit. The hiring of new faculty and the continued employment of some faculty will be ceased at some schools. This is already a problem at many schools, particularly Trent (which prides itself on its low student-to-faculty ratio) where instructors are being hired on a temporary and part-time basis at a significantly lower wage than their full-time counterparts. Believe me, you don't want the people in these positions teaching you.

Scholarships will also be hit. For many schools, scholarships are the best way to attract the best and brightest to your school. The main (and deciding) reason I am at Trent now is because they provide me with a more than healthy scholarship. My money won't be effected by the downturn, but it could prevent others who were in my situation from deciding to come here or to any other school, and that's a sad thought. Even more important may be the reduction in smaller scholarships, of which there are thousands. These scholarships (though sometimes not particularly huge) help to reduce the cost of university for many students, which is the largest barrier to education for many people.

Other programs on campus may get cut, though it is hard to tell which ones. Others may simple be reduced. But the whole combination of program cutting will reduce the overall quality of the education.

The biggest impact may be absorbed by the students themselves in the cost of tuition and fees, which may increase substantially from their already high levels.

It is important to note that the students planning to come to school for the first time next year may not be adversely affected because the schools have already budgeted most of their tuition and scholarship numbers for the next year, but the class entering in 2010 will certainly feel the pain.

If I were selfish about this I might think this is no biggie. But I have family who will be starting university in the next few years. They will certainly be hit. But I'll be gone after the next year, so no harm to me, right? Well, I plan on going on to professional school and I have many friends looking into graduate school. Undergraduate costs are nothing compared to those programs, so we might all get hit.

Santa's sleigh might be a little lighter this year...

No, jolly ol' St. Nick hasn't suddenly realized that he is at a massive risk of diabetes and heart disease and decided to sign up for Jenny Craig's attractive weight loss program. Although, who's to say he hasn't. It has been quite awhile since we've seen him last.

The lightness of his sleigh won't come from Santa himself, but from his bag of goodies. Something tells me Christmas won't be quite the same this year.

The economic crisis that has hit us is already starting to have significant effects on people's savings, values of their homes, their jobs and ultimately their spending practices. But here we are in mid-November. This is the time when our consumption-laden society starts to vamp up for the Christmas (holiday, to be politically correct) shopping season. This is when the wallets are supposed to open up so we can all buy those sweet, sweet goods we all know and love. I'm not quite sure that will happen this year.

The crisis is far from over and far from starting to recover. Many of the big box stores that thrive off the holiday season are preparing for the worst, as many of them have shut down numerous stores and the people who rely on them for temporary employment (students, stay-at-home parents, the elderly etc) during the season are being turned away in droves. And this crisis certainly won't be solved by people going out and spending money (circa 2001). Nobody has any.

So what will this mean for little Johnny and Sally Smith, who have been used to getting the latest iPod or XBox for the past decade of holiday seasons? Well, one can only hope the parents will be able to say no. And they better, because many will be financially forced to say no. I'm not sure how much good a new Wii will be if there's no electricity to run it after the hydro company shuts your power off for accruing bills that are far past due.

People may now be able to cherish those long-lost staples of the holiday season that are commonly gawked at: being with friends and family, non-materialistic generosity and being thankful for what we have. A little hokey, isn't it? But there's something to it.

I come from a relatively privileged household and grew up with my Christmas focus being all the great gifts I got. And rarely did my parents disappoint. This is not to say I was spoiled, but I put a higher value on materialistic gifts than on the other parts of the holiday. I didn't really realize it to its full extent until I moved away from home and was only able to see family every few months. I didn't care about the gifts or anything like that (although they still are nice to get); I was far happier to be home enjoying what I had.

I also had a terribly frustrating time during my first year of holiday shopping on my own. I figured that since I was away from home I could bring everyone cool, exotic gifts. The price tag was high (especially when I had become financially independent and much poorer than I had ever been), but I didn't care because I knew everyone would be happy with such things. I didn't quite get the reaction I was looking for, which was a little troubling. But I later realized everyone was just happy to see me and there was no materialistic value anyone can put on that.

So now I hesitate to spend ridiculous amounts on people. Not because they won't care about the gifts or be happy about them, but because they value the non-materialistic pieces more. And it is a far nicer way to enjoy the holidays.

There is a silver lining in this crisis. We've focused on consumerism and materialistic value for far too long. If people are able to shift away from this come the holidays, it could be one of the most valuable and humbling shifts we could ever take.

Student politics takes a step, but in which direction...

Seemingly from out of nowhere, Trent University's Student President is on the chopping block. A recent meeting held by the Student Union included several motions recommending the impeachment of Pres. Liam Mooney. As a result, he has been indefinitely suspended pending an investigation into the reasoning for the motion. A call for his resignation has also been proposed. 

Wow. That was quick. In all likelihood, Mooney's days are numbered as Student President, but it certainly seemed to come out of nowhere. I was aware that there was some discontent among the student body towards Mooney, but such discontent often exists with any Student President. I'm also adequately cynical to assume that nobody cares nearly enough about student politics at Trent to actually go as far as to recommend impeachment. But that's beside the point.

I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is a sign of a good student-political system. Sure, it's great that a President is being held accountable for his actions, but what were his actions? I'm a fairly well-informed student, but not to the degree that I would find anything so wrong with Mooney that would induce me to the point of recommending impeachment. This seems to be a common sentiment among the student body.

On a Facebook group that advertised the student meeting, nearly half the public comments pertained to students asking what exactly Mooney had done wrong. There was no mention on the site as to what this was all about. I've looked into it and I still don't know the full story. I believe some of it has to do with him wanting to audit the various student groups on campus, eventually weeding out the 'inefficient' ones. 

But when looking at this in context, I'm slightly confused. For the first time in my life, the student elections contained two distinct parties, one of which Mooney was the 'leader'. From what I remember last spring, the two parties were less than enthusiastic about each other. But a myriad of people from both parties were elected, giving rise to a Student Union that was hopelessly divided. I say I'm confused because I'm not sure whether having two parties govern the Student Union is a good thing or not.

Sure, one can keep the check on the other one, but party politics can be annoyingly, well, political. Does anyone else have any experience with student politics being run this way, or any feelings towards it? Because I'm at a standstill.