Numbers Game: 60,000,000 to 3

Here are a few random thoughts and facts that I have decided to distract myself with instead of writing one of my three essays due in the next week.

- Everyone thinks they could save the government a bunch of money if they got into office and eliminated bureaucracy and corruption. Both things exist in government and I have no doubt that a bit of it here and there could be eliminated. However, the amount would be inconsequential. Any platform which thinks they can drastically alter the budget based on these two planks is flat-out lying, unless they provide a detailed plan of exactly what they’ll eliminate and how this will not harm that department’s overall operations. Then again, when you read that the US spent $60 million on Ken Starr’s investigation of President Clinton, you begin to wonder. By the way, only $723,000 was spent investigating and indicting Tom DeLay.

- Next time someone tells you that the Iraqi War is going well, just quote them the statistic that 42% of Iraqis think it is justified to kill American troops. That’s basically half the nation. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I still love seeing the Dick Cheney clip where he says, “I honestly think we’ll be greeted as liberators.”

- Not only do 43 million Americans not have healthcare insurance, but medical costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with over 500,000 people a year going bankrupt from medical bills. I think the situation as it exists right now in is the US is unethical and I do not support adopting any sort of US-style system in Canada. That does not mean that the system completely without benefits, though, as it does have some advantages.

- Canada ranks among the top three leaders in aid (it didn’t specify, but I assume in total terms) in only three countries in the world: Turkey, Cameroon and Gabon. I know we are likely dealing with absolute figures, but it’s still surprising that it’s only three nations of over 100 that receive aid. This is further evidence of fundamental problems with Canadian aid, in my opinion.

- In looking nostalgically at Canada’s heyday of diplomacy in the 1950’s we’re going to consult The Economist. In 1953 it wrote, “If it permissible to generalize about the diplomatic service of any country, it is probably true to say that the representatives of Canada exercise an influence and enjoy a prestige out of all reasonable proportion to the size of their country or the power they wield…But, when all of this is said, a more important reason lies in the personal quality of the men themselves.” Furthermore, in 1967 The Economist wrote, “The community of nations has learned it needs an active Canada: as an intermediary in Commonwealth disputes, and in wider ones that range ex-imperial powers against former dependencies.”