Elizabeth May, the green party candidate for prime minister in Canada in 2008 has a long and storied past of speaking out candidly and forthrightly about matters which are important to her. Here, she attempts to teach the policy makers in eastern Canada about how forest ecology works.

I've been following the Canadian election process this autumn primarily by listening to CBC radio's internet offerings. And there seems to be a big disconnect in how the coverage is being done. The news reporters seem to view the election as a sporting event, and not as a series of job interviews. The people are hiring those who will perform government services for them. Making the whole thing into a horse race is not constructive. The media should be asking probing questions - and seeking to ascertain the quality of each individual candidate's judgement in regards to certain issues. When the candidates are interviewed they should be required to talk about not only the pros of what their proposed policies will do, but also the cons. If a candidate is trying to snow the voters with shallow promises and one sided rhetoric, rather than sober and thorough discussion, it does not speak well of her or his judgement in my opinion.

The Green party has gotten far further in Canada than it has in the usa. She is an inspiration to hear. She's has thoroughly thought the issues through... and presents herself as very logical rather than a romantic idealist.

• Listen to the interview (mp3)

For all of you out there who wished that Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel could have won the democratic nomination... you might be interested in watching the Canadian election which is also taking place this autumn. Here is an interview with Stéphane Dion who is the leader of Canada's liberal party, and is in a position to ascend to the office of Prime Minister up there if his party wins enough seats in the legislature this autumn. Oddly enough Canadians seem to not understand the gem of a person who they have in Dion. The polls currently seem to favor the conservative party, led by a gentleman by the name of Stephen Harper, who is a classic mild mannered conservative who you might otherwise meet in the hardware store down the street.

• Listen to the cbc interview with Stéphane Dion (big mp3 file)

It's quite odd in our usa political culture that foolish people will blindly attribute these words and ideas to Ronald Reagan. These are wonderful thoughts - and powerful ones. I always remember being in awe of these speeches that Ronald Reagan gave when I was a teenager.

But, Reagan was acting as a parasite. That's my feeling, as a person who is also a writer - and sees that really is our place in the world - to be fodder for other people's fame, political success, or fortune. Indeed, Peter Robinson and Peggy Noonan were the real authors of these speeches which he gave.

This is a reposted comment which I placed earlier today over here at the blog of a Canadian broadcasting corporation podcast called "Search Engine." The radio host had asked for suggestions from his viewership before he went onto another CBC program and talked about how he wished that young people would be more active in being involved with politics in Canada. So I chimed in.

Congratulations on a new season for Search Engine.

You asked for suggestions about Canadian politics. Hmmm... the first thing I would suggest, is that you don't copy what we have done, across the border in the usa. Looking at Canadian politics to me, is like stepping back in time to a gentler year in the usa. Because the usa has moved on to quite a different political atmosphere - with a lot of rancour - the could've would've and should've ideas start kicking in when I look at what's happening up in Canada. I'm half tempted to move to Canada; here's an opportunity for those who will work diligently to effectively start down a different road and achieve a very different result than the mess in which we have found ourselves, south of the border in the usa.

A lot of an election campaign is a battle of perception. How a political party and its adherents portray themselves really makes a difference in whether they get votes. It's not necessarily true that the person with the best judgement will win, but it's the person who is perceived to have the best judgement (or if the election is in the usa - it's the person who has the most charisma).

What I see in Stephen Harper's conservative party in Canada, is that it seems to be the party of big business. Big business has the resources and the interest in grooming candidates to go into office to serve its interests. Why does Stephen Harper talk about "the economy" and "jobs" and all these kinds of concepts? It's because the conservative party is, to use a colloquial expression, "in bed" with big business. Now there are certainly benefits for a community if politicians cater to the needs of big business. The right kind of economic growth is great for a community. Cities should always be looking to encourage desirable kinds of companies to come and set up shop in their neighborhood. But, we in the usa have seen that the money and swag and opportunities which go to politicians from big business can eventually become a serious problem.

Now, the other thing that I see, is that conservatives have such an impressive and detailed set of models about how the economy works, that voters start to think that they are the party of logic and reason.

The left-leaning political parties in Canada also follow a pattern I remember well. They talk primarily about lofty ideals. They are very principled groups, and they want to specifically make Canada a better place for everybody. But they don't seem to talk in a very logical or pragmatic way.

Years ago, there was a political party which formed for a brief time in the usa which brought up the idea of "natural law" (think the historic philosopher John Locke) - the idea that there are certain ways in which social patterns, and economic patterns, and other patterns in the world can be mapped out. These are "natural laws" which govern how these things happen. People who agree on cause and effect here, can then reason things out together, and have some basis for offering policy proposals, and for comparing notes. Too often, there's no foundation when politicians toss ideas back and forth between eachother. Stephane Dion might say that the green shift will do x y and z... but then Stephen Harper will say it will produce a very different set of effects. If they cannot agree on a set of paradigms to use to weigh the known outcomes of such policy, that's not good.

This notion of "natural law" is a really powerful one (although the party which grew up in the usa years ago was really not very wise, and actually got distracted with some other foolish ideas). My wistful hope is that there would be a political party which grows up in a sensible way around this idea. This kind of philosophical dialogue would impress voters, I think; it would also shine a harsh light on the conservatives' models - and show them up as being pretty flimsy, and focused unfairly around the interests and needs of business owners, rather than on the broader good of the general public.

Touch the title text to see the film.

This is an interview with the comptroller general of the usa. He is in charge of the analyzing the way that the usa spends it's money.

• Watch the narrated slide presentation at perotcharts.com

This is a fascinating narrated slide presentation which very candidly and clearly explains the system of spending which the national government has here, in the usa.

It was developed at the behest of a presidential candidate who ran against Bill Clinton in 1992 - Ross Perot.

My opinion follows:

The first thing that strikes me as I look at this presentation is how obvious the answers to the problem seem to be. The workings of the national budget have not been a matter of public discourse, and so only a few die hard economists have thought about this topic and have had input into the discussion. The solution to this little dilemma requires thinkers who think beyond the nuts and bolts of money in and money out. The solution will only be found by thinkers who can look at this crossection of government agendas and weigh the worth of each one... these thinkers need to be able to understand not only how money flows, but how people get motivated, and what the rhythm of people's lives is like.

A couple things that jump out at me as I look at these charts.

1) "Gross Domestic Product" I can see is an important thing to factor into the whole picture because more monetary wealth in the nation means it is easier for people to provide the government with revenue. However, I don't see how such a thing could ever be measured. It seems like a figure that could be estimated, or maybe only guesstimated. The writers of the wikipedia explanation for GDP have totally neglected to explain how the data is collected.

2) The main problem facing the economic future of the usa is the projected rise in costs involved in the medicare and medicaid programs. But why do we have to spend so much money, anyway? It would seem that the only pathway that's been trod before that will be guaranteed to reduce medical costs would be the nationalized health insurance programs of countries like Canada. Canada spends far less for procedures and treatment, per person, than the usa does... because those in power have a vested interest in keeping costs down.

As I see it, the perspective we ethnic europeans have on personal health and the field of medicine is pretty skewed. Personal health is not maintained with the aid of doctors and pharmaceuticals. Robust health is only maintained through good life habits, including proper eating patterns, good posture technique, and a healthy measure of physical activity. No doctor can help a person who is ill, and who will not change these life habits around. And it's pretty surprising how a sick person can get healthy without any intervention of doctors, if she or he changes around these habits; naturopathic medicine practitioners disingenuously take advantage of this effect - falsely attributing a person's newfound health to their treatment plans. Now, I understand that exactly because the usa spends such a mountain of money each year on medical research, there are a lot of exciting new medical technologies developed (such as regrowing organs and limbs). In fact, I would wager, that because of the proportion of money spent by the usa on doctors, as compared to citizens of other countries, we could say that the usa is one of the most important powerhouses of medical research today. A drop in spending on the field of medicine would mean that the usa would have to sit back and relax and let that research be done in other parts of the world. But, in my opinion we would benefit as a society very much from shutting down a few of our medical research centers. In this first decade, us USAers have an unhealthy obsession with doctors and medicine. People need to learn how to take care of their own health, and not languish in the arms of the doctor, simply because they have never understood how to form and maintain good life habits.

3) Another thing that I believe ought to be brought up here, is the fact that usa's income tax code is a really convoluted and complex thing. I think that it would be better for all of us if we simplified it. And I'm excited about the proposal of Mike Gravel, during the 2008 presidential campaign where he called for a change to a national sales tax. Myself, I'm not sure of how sound that would be as a form of revenue for government. But it would certainly be more transparent - and would be more palatable to people than having a chunk of their income deducted from their paychecks. A lot of rancor in politics could be dispelled if we made the tax system simpler.

4) If the amount of money paid to social security recipients is a problem - there is another broader answer here... A substantial chunk of the money given to pensioners goes to pay for housing costs - whether that be rent or a mortgage. People in the house of representatives in Washington DC who make $169,000 per year would be totally out of touch with the hardship which housing costs cause low income people. What is the answer? There ought to be a system put in place which encourages houses to lose their monetary value over time. Why should a used house cost the same as a new house? It is absurd that the construction costs of a house which was built in the 1890s have not been paid off by the year 2008. Every time the house is sold, it appreciates in monetary value and this effect is largely, I think, due to the banks having their fingers in the pot of gold. A bank can siphon of the value of each house in a town every thirty years, provided it changes hands at least once over that timeframe. And in return, the bank has added absolutely nothing of value to the community which wasn't there to begin with.

The latest jib jab video has come out - this one satirizing the Obama - McCain contest for the presidency.