When I was in elementary school, we always had to answer written questions in complete sentences. If the question on the worksheet was "What is the capital of Canada?" we had to write "The capital of Canada is Ottawa." Just writing "Ottawa" was wrong.
It just occurred to me that this rule has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Brain usage profile
Quiz is here
Your Brain Usage Profile:
Auditory : 44%
Visual : 55%
Left : 55%
Right : 44%
You are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant and show a preference for visual learning, although not extreme in either characteristic. You probably tend to do most things in moderation, but not always.
Your left-hemisphere dominance implies that your learning style is organized and structured, detail oriented and logical. Your visual preference, though, has you seeking stimulation and multiple data. Such an outlook can overwhelm structure and logic and create an almost continuous state of uncertainty and agitation. You may well suffer a feeling of continually trying to "catch up" with yourself.
Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem.
Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions.
You remain predominantly functional in your orientation and practical. Abstraction and theory are secondary to application. In keeping with this, you focus on details until they manifest themselves in a unique pattern and only then work with the "larger whole."
With regards to your career choices, you have a mentality that would be good as a scientist, coach, athlete, design consultant, or an engineering technician. You can "see where you want to go" and even be able to "tell yourself," but find that you are "fighting yourself" at the darndest times.
***
That might explain why I'm never able to figure out if I'm left-brained or right-brained, or auditory or visual - I had no idea it could be so close.
Your Brain Usage Profile:
Auditory : 44%
Visual : 55%
Left : 55%
Right : 44%
You are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant and show a preference for visual learning, although not extreme in either characteristic. You probably tend to do most things in moderation, but not always.
Your left-hemisphere dominance implies that your learning style is organized and structured, detail oriented and logical. Your visual preference, though, has you seeking stimulation and multiple data. Such an outlook can overwhelm structure and logic and create an almost continuous state of uncertainty and agitation. You may well suffer a feeling of continually trying to "catch up" with yourself.
Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem.
Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions.
You remain predominantly functional in your orientation and practical. Abstraction and theory are secondary to application. In keeping with this, you focus on details until they manifest themselves in a unique pattern and only then work with the "larger whole."
With regards to your career choices, you have a mentality that would be good as a scientist, coach, athlete, design consultant, or an engineering technician. You can "see where you want to go" and even be able to "tell yourself," but find that you are "fighting yourself" at the darndest times.
***
That might explain why I'm never able to figure out if I'm left-brained or right-brained, or auditory or visual - I had no idea it could be so close.
Denervousization?
I'm nervous about something, and I've been carrying this nervousness around for a few days. Then about an hour ago I hit a point where I was all "I'm sick of being nervous! It's really consuming!" Then I stopped being nervous because it was so annoying. But then the nervousness came back.
I wish I knew how to leverage that.
I wish I knew how to leverage that.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Helpful hint to ebay sellers
If you somehow indicate in or on the packaging what your ebay name is, it's easier for me to give you your well-deserved five-star rating.
Six degrees of Wikipedia
New game! You say the idea that sent you to Google and the strange place you ended up, and people have to guess how you got there.
For example, I started thinking "It's cold out today" and ended up in the Wikipedia category "Fictional Tubers".
The tricky part is it isn't a matter of simply clicking links. You think of an idea, google something, start reading an interesting page, google an idea that stems from that etc.
Or you could just find the shortest route between two Wikipedia articles (c.f. xkcd)
For example, I started thinking "It's cold out today" and ended up in the Wikipedia category "Fictional Tubers".
The tricky part is it isn't a matter of simply clicking links. You think of an idea, google something, start reading an interesting page, google an idea that stems from that etc.
Or you could just find the shortest route between two Wikipedia articles (c.f. xkcd)
Would a trickle-up economic stimulus work?
Once upon a time I suggested that we should try to make up our government's foreign aid shortfall.
I wonder if doing the same for the economic stimulus would work? What would happen if we all spent 20% of our income on extra, ethical, green, targeted spending?
Obviously it's logistically unfeasible. Most people don't have 20% of their income just sitting around, and for the vast majority of those who do it's probably in retirement accounts or something you shouldn't be touching. And even if you did have that kind of money sitting around, what on earth would you spend it on? Do the math, 20% of your annual salary. That's a shitload of money to just spend on extras, isn't it? Especially since you'd have to spend it in a way that would boost our economy rather than shipping it off to China or somewhere, you couldn't just replace perfectly good existing stuff because that wouldn't be environmentally friendly, you couldn't spend it on necessities because that isn't extra spending...I suppose house people could spend it on green renovations, but the rest of us? I don't think I even have room in my apartment for an extra 20% of my income worth of anything! (Except perhaps diamonds or something, but that's a whole nother ethical issue.)
But suppose it was possible. Suppose every single citizen went and spent 20% of their income on ethical, green purchases that are targeted to boost our economy and that they wouldn't otherwise buy. Would that boost our economy the same as the 20% economic stimulus the government is supposed to do?
I wonder if doing the same for the economic stimulus would work? What would happen if we all spent 20% of our income on extra, ethical, green, targeted spending?
Obviously it's logistically unfeasible. Most people don't have 20% of their income just sitting around, and for the vast majority of those who do it's probably in retirement accounts or something you shouldn't be touching. And even if you did have that kind of money sitting around, what on earth would you spend it on? Do the math, 20% of your annual salary. That's a shitload of money to just spend on extras, isn't it? Especially since you'd have to spend it in a way that would boost our economy rather than shipping it off to China or somewhere, you couldn't just replace perfectly good existing stuff because that wouldn't be environmentally friendly, you couldn't spend it on necessities because that isn't extra spending...I suppose house people could spend it on green renovations, but the rest of us? I don't think I even have room in my apartment for an extra 20% of my income worth of anything! (Except perhaps diamonds or something, but that's a whole nother ethical issue.)
But suppose it was possible. Suppose every single citizen went and spent 20% of their income on ethical, green purchases that are targeted to boost our economy and that they wouldn't otherwise buy. Would that boost our economy the same as the 20% economic stimulus the government is supposed to do?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Why photoshopping shouldn't be allowed in fashion magazines
Antonia Zerbisias points out that Jessica Alba was photoshopped and, in accordance with the mandate of her blog, touches upon its effect on women's body image. But that topic bores me; I want to talk about the other problem with this practice.
The other problem is it makes the clothes look more flattering than they are, which, if this is the kind of magazine that lists clothing credits, is essentially false advertising for the designer and gives them a bye on actually doing their job well.
That is not a well-designed outfit. The shorts do nothing to help her hips, and the belt is too wide which makes her waist look thicker because it encompasses some thicker-than-waist areas and marks them as waist-thin. But by photoshopping the model and the clothes, it gives the impression that it's a more flattering outfit than it actually is.
It isn't that difficult to design a flattering outfit - well, I shouldn't say "It isn't that difficult" because I can't do it, but I have a closet full of clothes that are more flattering than that thing. I have a good 20-30 pounds on Jessica Alba, and my outfit right now makes my waist and hips look better than her pre-photoshopped photo - and my outfit was thrown together while running late based on what's clean and the fact that there was a wind chill of -15 when I left the house this morning, and cost less than $50. A professional photo shoot should be able to do even better.
Any designer who can't make Jessica Alba's figure look sufficiently attractive does not deserve to have their clothes featured in her photo shoot. Photoshopping non-flattering clothes so they look flattering is a disservice to everyone who has to wear clothes. We need to hold our designers accountable!
The other problem is it makes the clothes look more flattering than they are, which, if this is the kind of magazine that lists clothing credits, is essentially false advertising for the designer and gives them a bye on actually doing their job well.
That is not a well-designed outfit. The shorts do nothing to help her hips, and the belt is too wide which makes her waist look thicker because it encompasses some thicker-than-waist areas and marks them as waist-thin. But by photoshopping the model and the clothes, it gives the impression that it's a more flattering outfit than it actually is.
It isn't that difficult to design a flattering outfit - well, I shouldn't say "It isn't that difficult" because I can't do it, but I have a closet full of clothes that are more flattering than that thing. I have a good 20-30 pounds on Jessica Alba, and my outfit right now makes my waist and hips look better than her pre-photoshopped photo - and my outfit was thrown together while running late based on what's clean and the fact that there was a wind chill of -15 when I left the house this morning, and cost less than $50. A professional photo shoot should be able to do even better.
Any designer who can't make Jessica Alba's figure look sufficiently attractive does not deserve to have their clothes featured in her photo shoot. Photoshopping non-flattering clothes so they look flattering is a disservice to everyone who has to wear clothes. We need to hold our designers accountable!
Parents vs. dog people
I like to interact with dogs, and sometimes I feel moved to interact with children (damn ovaries!). I start the interactions the same way with both: by smiling and (if appropriate) saying hi, then I continue if the creature responds positively.
Somewhere between 50% and 75% of the time, the dog people try to temper the dog's interaction, by making it sit or scolding it about approaching me. I'm not sure whether this is intended to protect the dog from me or to proect me from the dog. (And I'm not sure what an appropriate response on my part is - I want to pet the dog and it seems to want me to pet it, but I don't want to mess up its training. But it doesn't seem fair that dogs with stricter training should never get to play with a willing passer-by.)
But I have never in my life had anyone try to temper my interaction with their child, not even total strangers. They let me say hi to their kid, they let me do finger-grabby with their baby, they let their kid tell me all about Dora the Explorer, they let me convince their kids to press elevator buttons for me, I've even had strangers stand by smiling while their toddler hugged my leg like I was her new best friend (I thought she had the wrong person, but even when I looked down and made eye contact she just kept hugging my leg and smiling back up at me).
I'm not sure what this means. If it had to be one or the other, I'd rather get to play with the dogs.
Somewhere between 50% and 75% of the time, the dog people try to temper the dog's interaction, by making it sit or scolding it about approaching me. I'm not sure whether this is intended to protect the dog from me or to proect me from the dog. (And I'm not sure what an appropriate response on my part is - I want to pet the dog and it seems to want me to pet it, but I don't want to mess up its training. But it doesn't seem fair that dogs with stricter training should never get to play with a willing passer-by.)
But I have never in my life had anyone try to temper my interaction with their child, not even total strangers. They let me say hi to their kid, they let me do finger-grabby with their baby, they let their kid tell me all about Dora the Explorer, they let me convince their kids to press elevator buttons for me, I've even had strangers stand by smiling while their toddler hugged my leg like I was her new best friend (I thought she had the wrong person, but even when I looked down and made eye contact she just kept hugging my leg and smiling back up at me).
I'm not sure what this means. If it had to be one or the other, I'd rather get to play with the dogs.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Things I want
1. Punk carols. Not that I particularly want xmas music, but if there has to be xmas music it should at least be punk.
2. Fierce boots! If only I could justify spending $500 on boots...
3. An Iggy mashup youtube. Michael Ignatieff vs. Iggy Pop. Not that the entertainment value would be particularly high, but it seems very much like the kind of thing that should exist on the internet.
4. Black roses! Except real live ones (which currently do not exist).
5. Everyone who thinks its appropriate to saunter two-abreast down the subway stairs when there are trains at BOTH platforms and dozens of rushed people on the stairs behind them to be banished from the realm.
2. Fierce boots! If only I could justify spending $500 on boots...
3. An Iggy mashup youtube. Michael Ignatieff vs. Iggy Pop. Not that the entertainment value would be particularly high, but it seems very much like the kind of thing that should exist on the internet.
4. Black roses! Except real live ones (which currently do not exist).
5. Everyone who thinks its appropriate to saunter two-abreast down the subway stairs when there are trains at BOTH platforms and dozens of rushed people on the stairs behind them to be banished from the realm.
Handles are an important part of the bag
From a larger article in Sunday's Star:
The point - the need for a bag - is not to protect the bread from dirt and elements. It isn't that I specifically want to wrap the bread in another layer of plastic. The reason I get the bread in a bag, even if that's the only thing I'm buying, is that the bag has handles.
If I were to carry a loaf of bread home without a bag, that would take up either a hand (if I held it by the end of its plastic bag) or an arm (if I cradled it). I'd have to be at least a little careful with it so as not to drop it or squish it. But if it's in a plastic bag, I hold the bag by its handles or hang it from my wrist - whichever's easier and usually switching between the two as I go about my business - so my hand and arm are almost entirely free and I don't have to make the effort to protect the bread.
"Big deal!" you're thinking, "How much trouble could that be? What harm could possibly befall a loaf of bread on the way home from the store?" Not much if all I did was buy the bread and take it home. But I do a number of errands on the way home from the office. Today when I arrived at the apartment door, I was carrying six full shopping bags from three different stores, two newspapers, two library books, a letter, a parcel, and my keys. The shopping bags were all hanging on my wrists by the handles - I couldn't have carried it off any other way. And even with the convenience of handles, I was still soaking wet because I didn't have a free-enough arm to hold up an umbrella.
This is why even if an individual item doesn't need a bag, the shopper still might. This is why those LCBO paper bags with no handles are downright insulting. And this is why people need to think of the logistics and choreography of the entire trip chain when trying to determine our bag needs.
When Irish officials resolved to charge a fee for plastic grocery bags, they didn't use detailed economic calculations to determine the optimal number. They went for simple shock value – what amount would make shoppers think twice before taking a disposable plastic bag to carry home, say, a loaf of bread already wrapped in plastic?
The point - the need for a bag - is not to protect the bread from dirt and elements. It isn't that I specifically want to wrap the bread in another layer of plastic. The reason I get the bread in a bag, even if that's the only thing I'm buying, is that the bag has handles.
If I were to carry a loaf of bread home without a bag, that would take up either a hand (if I held it by the end of its plastic bag) or an arm (if I cradled it). I'd have to be at least a little careful with it so as not to drop it or squish it. But if it's in a plastic bag, I hold the bag by its handles or hang it from my wrist - whichever's easier and usually switching between the two as I go about my business - so my hand and arm are almost entirely free and I don't have to make the effort to protect the bread.
"Big deal!" you're thinking, "How much trouble could that be? What harm could possibly befall a loaf of bread on the way home from the store?" Not much if all I did was buy the bread and take it home. But I do a number of errands on the way home from the office. Today when I arrived at the apartment door, I was carrying six full shopping bags from three different stores, two newspapers, two library books, a letter, a parcel, and my keys. The shopping bags were all hanging on my wrists by the handles - I couldn't have carried it off any other way. And even with the convenience of handles, I was still soaking wet because I didn't have a free-enough arm to hold up an umbrella.
This is why even if an individual item doesn't need a bag, the shopper still might. This is why those LCBO paper bags with no handles are downright insulting. And this is why people need to think of the logistics and choreography of the entire trip chain when trying to determine our bag needs.
Is it reasonable to assume that deaf people can read lips?
Written on the grocery store cashier's name tag just under her name is "I am deaf".
So does this mean I should assume she can read lips?
On one hand, it seems reasonable to assume the person behind the cash register is capable of handling the transaction in the usual way. I've been shopping at that store for eight years, every single cashier interaction I've had has been in verbal English assuming I can use verbal English wouldn't be out of line.
On the other hand, it seems really hearing-centric to barge in assuming she can read lips. Lipreading seems like the kind of thing that you'd find out isn't that common IRL and is only a TV plot device.
Fortunately it was a simple transaction (scan, bag, pay, thank you come again) so we didn't really need to communicate. And I don't know if she could read lips, but she could speak. I also found myself exaggerating my facial expressions just a tinch. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. On one hand, in my aborted attempt to learn ASL, the teacher said that facial expressions were especially important among the Deaf (at least I think that's what she said, she was signing at the time). On the other hand, it seems like of like going to Germany and speaking to the locals in loud slow English.
So does this mean I should assume she can read lips?
On one hand, it seems reasonable to assume the person behind the cash register is capable of handling the transaction in the usual way. I've been shopping at that store for eight years, every single cashier interaction I've had has been in verbal English assuming I can use verbal English wouldn't be out of line.
On the other hand, it seems really hearing-centric to barge in assuming she can read lips. Lipreading seems like the kind of thing that you'd find out isn't that common IRL and is only a TV plot device.
Fortunately it was a simple transaction (scan, bag, pay, thank you come again) so we didn't really need to communicate. And I don't know if she could read lips, but she could speak. I also found myself exaggerating my facial expressions just a tinch. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. On one hand, in my aborted attempt to learn ASL, the teacher said that facial expressions were especially important among the Deaf (at least I think that's what she said, she was signing at the time). On the other hand, it seems like of like going to Germany and speaking to the locals in loud slow English.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Whoa.
Ignatieff has been more ambivalent, describing his position Sunday as "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
Which is just what I said on Saturday.
If only I could make this trick work on Dalton McGuinty and Eddie Izzard.
Which is just what I said on Saturday.
If only I could make this trick work on Dalton McGuinty and Eddie Izzard.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
But if I shop, the marketers will have won
I don't like shopping at this time of year. Not just because of the crowds and inconvenience, but because I feel like I'm betraying some kind of principle.
Usually people who feel this way feel like xmas has become too commercial, too materialistic, and the true meaning is lost. But that isn't where I'm coming from. I'm not xian so I don't believe in any true meaning of xmas, and I am a materialistic person who has no problem with the materialism. When I was a kid, the materialistic part of xmas was actually the most important to me, because it was the only way I had of getting new toys and books and money and computer games and other fun stuff. Gifts obviously aren't as important now that I can buy my own toys whenever I damn well please, but I'm certainly not about to forget why they can be important to some people, so I should have no objection to the materialistic aspect. So why do I feel wrong about shopping?
I think I've figured out what it is. If I buy something now, the stores will assume I bought it for xmas. It will go under the xmas sales heading. They will assume that their strategy of putting up decorations in October and playing that maudite music has worked and led me to buy the item in question.
I wish there was some way to go on the record as saying "I didn't buy this for xmas!" I didn't buy the red shirt because it's an xmas colour, I bought it because I look hot in red! I didn't buy the fuzzy warm jammies for xmas despite the fact that they're all giftwrapped in a ribbon, I bought them because I was cold last night! I didn't buy the chocolate to put in a stocking, I bought it because I had a rough day! I don't celebrate xmas, I just have a bit of disposable income and like pretty things. But as long as my every purchase makes them think their xmas marketing strategy has succeeded, I'm going to be hesitant to shop.
Usually people who feel this way feel like xmas has become too commercial, too materialistic, and the true meaning is lost. But that isn't where I'm coming from. I'm not xian so I don't believe in any true meaning of xmas, and I am a materialistic person who has no problem with the materialism. When I was a kid, the materialistic part of xmas was actually the most important to me, because it was the only way I had of getting new toys and books and money and computer games and other fun stuff. Gifts obviously aren't as important now that I can buy my own toys whenever I damn well please, but I'm certainly not about to forget why they can be important to some people, so I should have no objection to the materialistic aspect. So why do I feel wrong about shopping?
I think I've figured out what it is. If I buy something now, the stores will assume I bought it for xmas. It will go under the xmas sales heading. They will assume that their strategy of putting up decorations in October and playing that maudite music has worked and led me to buy the item in question.
I wish there was some way to go on the record as saying "I didn't buy this for xmas!" I didn't buy the red shirt because it's an xmas colour, I bought it because I look hot in red! I didn't buy the fuzzy warm jammies for xmas despite the fact that they're all giftwrapped in a ribbon, I bought them because I was cold last night! I didn't buy the chocolate to put in a stocking, I bought it because I had a rough day! I don't celebrate xmas, I just have a bit of disposable income and like pretty things. But as long as my every purchase makes them think their xmas marketing strategy has succeeded, I'm going to be hesitant to shop.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Is the media reporting on the Liberal leadership situation objectively?
The media keeps mentioning that Michael Ignatieff is by far the frontrunner in the federal Liberal leadership race as though it's an unquestioned fact. However, I haven't seen anything to prove or even suggest this, nor have I seen a media mention that backs this allegation up in any way.
I freely admit I may have missed something. I don't read all the media coverage of everything at all ever, I can't. And I'm not a member of the Liberal party so there may well be stuff going on that I can't see.
But from where I'm sitting, I see the media having unofficially crowned a winner, and I see no particular basis for this idea.
This calls for skepticism.
I freely admit I may have missed something. I don't read all the media coverage of everything at all ever, I can't. And I'm not a member of the Liberal party so there may well be stuff going on that I can't see.
But from where I'm sitting, I see the media having unofficially crowned a winner, and I see no particular basis for this idea.
This calls for skepticism.
What all our politicians need to do now
Many many people are making the mistake of turning the entire Canadian political stage into a referendum on the Coalition. But it's not really about the Coalition. I know, I know, the Coalition is the most interesting thing to happen in my lifetime. We've never seen one before and it's nice to look at. It's somewhere between a breath of fresh air and a wave of Obama-like inspiration to people who are sick of the partisan-über-alles turn our politics have taken. It's he shoots he scores in the final seconds of the third period and suddenly the score's tied one all and we're into sudden death overtime.
But it's not the point.
The point is economic policy. The coalition came about because all the opposition parties agreed that the government's economic statement was inadequate. The first thing that is going to happen when Commons sits again is a budget vote. Those are the things that are getting voted on, so those are the things that our politicians need to focus on.
The Conservatives need to stop putting so much energy into dissing the Coalition. Even if every single Canadian decides the Coalition is pure evil, that isn't going to affect the outcome of the budget vote. What the Conservatives should be doing is a combination of preparing a budget that the other parties will find acceptable, and selling their budget to Canadians so Canadians will encourage their MPs to vote for the budget. (Aside: does anyone remember whether some time passes between when the budget is read in the House and when it's voted on? It seems like there should be, but I can't for the life of me remember.)
Meanwhile, what the opposition parties need to do is take a "Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition" approach. Not all Canadians like the idea of a coalition, and if they take a "Coalition über alles" approach that will drive anti-coalition voters to the Conservatives. The opposition parties need to have a plan in place for forming a coalition if the government should fall (they already have one, they just need to keep it.) Then they need to agree upon minimum standards of economic and social policy they will hold the government to, and inform the government and the public of these standards. If the government meets the minimum standards, the three opposition parties will continue working in accordance with their own party platforms. If the government fails to meet the standards, BOOM, instant coalition. This would be a much more effective way to keep the government in check and it would mitigate the impression that the opposition just want to be in power because they'd effectively be telling the government how to keep them out of power. If there should be an election, the opposition parties shouldn't campaign as a coalition. They should campaign as separate parties with separate platforms, but they should also publically and transparently inform us of the conditions under which they would create a coalition.
But it's not the point.
The point is economic policy. The coalition came about because all the opposition parties agreed that the government's economic statement was inadequate. The first thing that is going to happen when Commons sits again is a budget vote. Those are the things that are getting voted on, so those are the things that our politicians need to focus on.
The Conservatives need to stop putting so much energy into dissing the Coalition. Even if every single Canadian decides the Coalition is pure evil, that isn't going to affect the outcome of the budget vote. What the Conservatives should be doing is a combination of preparing a budget that the other parties will find acceptable, and selling their budget to Canadians so Canadians will encourage their MPs to vote for the budget. (Aside: does anyone remember whether some time passes between when the budget is read in the House and when it's voted on? It seems like there should be, but I can't for the life of me remember.)
Meanwhile, what the opposition parties need to do is take a "Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition" approach. Not all Canadians like the idea of a coalition, and if they take a "Coalition über alles" approach that will drive anti-coalition voters to the Conservatives. The opposition parties need to have a plan in place for forming a coalition if the government should fall (they already have one, they just need to keep it.) Then they need to agree upon minimum standards of economic and social policy they will hold the government to, and inform the government and the public of these standards. If the government meets the minimum standards, the three opposition parties will continue working in accordance with their own party platforms. If the government fails to meet the standards, BOOM, instant coalition. This would be a much more effective way to keep the government in check and it would mitigate the impression that the opposition just want to be in power because they'd effectively be telling the government how to keep them out of power. If there should be an election, the opposition parties shouldn't campaign as a coalition. They should campaign as separate parties with separate platforms, but they should also publically and transparently inform us of the conditions under which they would create a coalition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)