Are the feds really bigger than the provinces?

Despite provincial control of much of the social welfare structure and onshore natural resource development many people in Canada, including many political scientists, tend to think of provinces as relatively insignificant. Last night I was trying to come up with a way of demonstrating the importance of provincial politics in Canada.   Eventually I settled on conducting a quick comparison of the total spending as outlined in the 2012-2013 Newfoundland and Labrador and federal government estimates.  I was surprised that the comparison shows that while the per capita expenditure in the federal budget is approximately $7 242 the per capita expenditure in the Newfoundland and Labrador budget is almost twice as much at $12 684.


I realize this isn't a particularly rigorous comparison (in that I've only looked at one year and one province), but caveats aside, the size of the difference really amazed me.  Who would have guessed that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends almost twice as much as the Government of Canada on each resident.  Crazy.


If I get a bit more work done I may try to expand the comparison both in terms of the number of provinces examined and the number of years.

What happened to those memories?

For a while I've been thinking about what the types of books I tended to read at certain points in my life.  While I think I have a pretty good handle on the types of things I've been reading for the past five years, as I head backwards my ability to recall the types of things I was reading really falls of.  It gets particularly iffy when I think back to my late elementary school years.

I think the problem that I have with my elementary school years is that the few books that I do remember reading were likely a little abnormal.  By the end of grade six, for instance, I remember having read the Michael Crichton books Jurassic Park and Sphere.

But I don't think I was only reading mass market thrillers.  At some point after grade four and before junior high I read a number of Hardy Boys books, as well as some Farley Mowat (and for the American side of the spectrum Johnny Tremain).  And of course there also Lois Lowery's classic dystopian tale The Giver.

At some point, maybe around the time I was reading Jurassic Park, I recall a kid at a science camp being asked what he was reading.  I still remember feeling a little juvenile and inferior when he responded with "The new John Grisham."  It also seemed a somewhat pretentious response, but that mostly came from the delivery.

Not that I think it had anything to do with fellow camper's comment, but at some point around the end of elementary school and the beginning of junior high I started reading John Grisham novels.  But when was this and how does it fit into the timeline?  And why can't I fit this into my personal reading trajectory.

Maybe what shocks me the most is that I know that from late elementary school through to the end of high school I was doing quite a bit of recreational reading - unfortunately I can't seem remember pull too many of the titles on demand (though I do think I am pretty good at knowing whether or not I've read a book if it is presented to me).  Maybe the problem is that reading choices were really quite haphazard and that my development as a reader wasn't quite as linear as I might like to imagine it being.    It's probably this lack of linearity and coherence that makes it hard to recall.  Reading choices didn't flow from any particular prompt or necessarily lead to further reading in an area.

I should probably just accept that idiosyncratic choices were nothing more than that, and that it doesn't really matter that I didn't work my way though categories of works in any particular way.  Maybe I should just consider myself lucky that  was able to sample widely and didn't prematurely limit my tastes by labelling myself a fan or aficionado of a particular genre (an affliction I am still stuck with today).

I feel a little ashamed

It's a little embarrassing that until reading this Ottawa Citizen article I wasn't thinking about the impending 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the patriation of the Canadian constitution.  And without the Charter we wouldn't have the Oakes test, and where would be we be then?

Maybe on the night of the 17th I'll have to have a celebratory beer or something.

Anyway, I guess I have to agree with Jean Chretien that this is an anniversary worth noting, though I am not sure if such an event lends itself to easy celebration?

I can't wonder if the anniversary lacks a little of the oomph one might expect because some of the changes didn't take effect for a few years, somewhat diminishing the claim that this is really the 30th anniversary of the Charter.  This fragmented start date really throws a spanner in the works, so to speak, of anniversary celebrations.

Intentionally impenetrable?

My feeling is that the US presidential process must be intentionally impenetrable.  Otherwise why would it continue to be so complicated?  We  know that there are much more straightforward ways for parties to choose candidates.

Anyway, what I really find baffling about the presidential primary process is that it consistently favours the voters of certain states.  For instance, if you happen to live in New Hampshire or Iowa you always have a chance to have your vote/caucus participation counted.  Voters in other states will almost always find themselves voting, if they even choose to vote, in a primary process that is functionally meaningless.

I guess I'm curious why the parties and the voters in these states are seemingly Ok with this repeated disenfranchisement?  Do parties not care that many of their supporters may never be able to vote in a meaningful primary because of their state of residence?

Also, don't the media entities in those states want to get in on all of that primary based advertising money that their counterparts in early primary states are pulling in?

The whole thing is definitely kind of weird.

A Few Quick Notes 575

-We had another mostly nice day in Wolfville today.  At times, almost inexplicably, a few raindrops fell marring what would have been an almost perfect day.

-While visiting the grocery store I managed to snag a quick time-lapse vid of the clouds over the dykes.



[Embedded video]

I still find the apparent cloud ceiling that exists in the valley an amazing phenomenon.

-Last night I made myself a nice batch of mashed potatoes as a late night snack and then I completely ran out of interest in my mashed potato snack.  Hopefully I will have a little more interest in a left-over/day old mashed potato snack this evening.

-While running errands this afternoon I impulsively decided to stop in at a local barbershop in a neighbouring town to get a haircut.  Much to my surprise, the place was absolutely packed.  Apparently  missing four good haircutting days leads to something of a backlog among members of the barbershop visiting community.  I guess I know now that Easter Tuesday isn't the time to try to drop in for a haircut at a barbershop.

-It seems that my post on Florida's population was more popular than I expected.  Who knew you were all waiting for my thoughts on the implications of Florida's population boom?

Thinking about Florida's population

Earlier today, while doing some reading about population trends in major North American metropolitan areas I started poking around the web to find more up-to-date population numbers.  Not to far into my search for numbers I happened across the Google Public Data site and started playing around.

It didn't take me long to display Florida's population information.



[Embedded image]

And then it didn't take me long to observe that Florida's population has basically doubled in the past 30 years.  In 1980 the population was 9.7 million and as of mid 2011 it was 19 million.

My immediate thought was that this meant that at least 50% of Florida's population has been in the state for less than 30 years.  From there it didn't take me long to realize that to assume anywhere close to 50% was seriously overestimating the portion of the population that had been in Florida for 30 years.

First of all, mortality rates were something that I needed consider.  If we take the 1980 mortality numbers and assume a consistent mortality rate and apply this number the population for the 30 year period we find that 3 million of the starting 9.7 have since died.

Secondly, internal migration is something that we need to consider.  Some portion of the population living in Florida in 1980 are now living somewhere else.  It didn't take long to find some numbers on internal migration from the Census Bureau.  I was particularly surprised to learn that despite it's reputation as a hub for retirees "Florida experienced net outmigration of those aged 85 and over."  Anyway, though this is definitely a rough guess, I kind that suggesting about a 1% rate of outmigration a year would be fair.  Again this ends up being about 3 million of the starting 9.7 million.


And while I'm sure that I should think about more than just death and internal migration, if we take just these two factors and apply them or the 1980 population of 9.7 million we likely now have only about 3.7 million of those people still living in Florida. Another way of thinking about it is to say that only about 20% of those currently residing in Florida have been there for 30/32 or more years. 


Given that some Pew numbers I found suggest 70% of Florida's adult population wasn't born in the state I am inclined to think that my numbers aren't too far off the mark.


I guess the point I'm getting at is that whether we say that 70% of Florida's population wasn't born in state or that only 20% have been there for more than 30 years it does seem to be the case that most taxpayers and voters in Florida do not have a long history in the state and thus are not likely to have first-hand experience with the economic/social/political developments that have taken place over the past few decades.


Following from that point, to what extent does this reality undermine political socialization that is somewhat reflective of Florida's historical development?  Put another way, is Florida making Floridians of its new inhabitants or is Florida just full of north easterners (one of the areas from which many of Florida's internal migrants come)?  I can't help but wonder if jurisdictions with similar population trends have less predictable political outcomes because of the lack familiarity the incoming population has with the traditions of the area.


If nothing else, it's kind of amazing to think that less that only about 20% of Florida's population have lived there for more than 30 years.  

I'm dreaming of a white Easter

This Easter development was certainly unexpected.

Apparently 50 years does nothing to change youth culture in Montreal

[Embedded video]

Aside from the absence of longboards, I'm pretty sure this sums up the Montreal of today as much as it is a representation of Montreal in the 1960s.

Why is my sense of humour so off?

Why do I find this idea funny?

(And please forgive my crude mock-up of the concept.)

Maybe those of you who have been reading this blog for a while won't find this surprising, but it seems to be a pretty common occurrence that most people aren't the least bit amused by the non-jokes I find chuckle worthy.

Presumably the trend will continue in this instance?

Fun(ish) fact

A few days ago I was thinking that over the past 20 years in the Canadian House of Commons there have been quite a number of parties that have been the Official Opposition.  Turns out there have been six.  In chronological order, the parties were: the Bloc Quebecois, Reform, the Canadian Alliance, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberals, and the NDP.

If my calculations are correct, the only party to have had official party status at some point during this 20 year window but not to have been the Official Opposition was the PC party.

Wasn't I right about this being a fun fact?

Gmail Tap

Last night I noticed that Google released an April Fool's day app called Gmail Tap. The premise of the app was that you could compose messages on your phone using a combination of Morse code and predictive spelling.

What I find funny about this is that I really don't think the idea is all that crazy. Just imagine the benefits.

-The entire screen could function as a receiver as it only needs to records dots, dashes, and nothing.

-Only about 26 letter codes would required by users,  and I don't think that this is necessarily particularly onerous. With a good predictive spelling mechanism this could be pretty fast.

-Users would only need to know Morse code and would not have to worry about letter or character placement on their phone's keyboard.

Maybe the neatest possible outcome of such an app would be that if incoming messages could be translated back into Morse code through the phone's vibrate function one could communicate without relying on sight or sound, or even the ability to use a keyboard. And wouldn't that be neat?  And might such a functionality potentially be of use to individuals with visual or auditory impairments?

All of this to say that I hope Google actually considers developing an app along the lines of Gmail Tap, it might actually be more useful than it seems at first.