If it seems like I don't have much to say lately besides commenting on movies I've seen, it's largely because I am buried a lot of the time in reading two large books and thus don't pay much attention to the world around me. First, there's "Girls Lean back Everywhere", which is about obscenity law in the U.S. and Britain over the past hundred years, and, second, "A Short History of the Movies", which isn't that short, for my film class. Let's not even discuss my increasingly irregular Britannica project, which got back on the rails last week and resulted in not a single thing I felt like commenting on. Sometimes it seems to me as if there just isn't anything worth ranting about. As usual, I underestimated the ability of the NDP to rouse me.

My wife belongs to a union, and I will stop right there for now. Suffice it to say I'm not a fan of unions, the rationale for which can wait until another day. This week, she received a mailing from her local executive. The letter started by pointing out that an election was forthcoming. It went on to indicate that the union was not aligned with any particular political party, but that they looked at where the different parties stood on the issues and did an analysis of who would benefit from implementation of their policies, while also noting that they would expose any party whose policies would cause grief for union members and their families. Shockingly, after following this scientific approach to voting, the union had elected to support - gasp! - the NDP.

Maxine is new to union life, and was in fact a bit put off by this. When we were first together over a dozen years ago, she supported the Liberals because that's who her parents supported. Before long, it seemed as if she was aping my allegiances. In recent years, she has formed her own political identity, mainly relating to issues surrounding family and security, and has taken her votes (and actions) in that direction. Although we don't see eye-to-eye on many important issues, I am proud that she has evolved in this way. In this particular situation, she was quite annoyed that the union would attempt to tell her how to vote, especially tossing around phrases like "brothers and sisters" and suggesting that they knew best which party would fight for the things that mattered to working people. Part of the problem with that approach is that Maxine doesn't have the same concerns as other working people, and I suspect those "working people" referred to in the letter don't have the same concerns as each other. It is foolhardy to assume that similar jobs and salaries will unite people in their interests and needs. Maxine works because she loves what she does, likes having her own money and so that we can get ahead a little faster. I don't make a fortune by any stretch of that word, but if she lost her job tomorrow we'd be fine, belts a little tighter, but in no danger at all. If I lost my job, we'd be in trouble. As a result, she can afford to take a bigger worldview than myself, with my tendency to assess the economics of every situation.

The part of this mailing that got me was the inclusion of a letter from our local NDP candidate to her sisters and brothers in the union. The letter in question included the statement that the NDP accomplished more for Canadians in 2005 than the Liberals had in the last 12 years in power. These "accomplishments" include reducing tuition fees. This really ticks me off, because, frankly, I am not a big supporter of reduced tuition fees. I certainly want school to be affordable, and there has to be a way to accomplish this. But reducing tuition fees doesn't reduce the cost of education, it simply shifts the burden to the nation's taxpayers. But a lot of people can't or don't want to go to college or university. Why should they be forced to subsidize someone else's pursuit of brains and glory? If a guy who can't get into college ends up working in a convenience store or fast food joint for the rest of his life, should the taxes he pays on his low wage be put towards reducing the cost of his customers' children getting more education than he could ever dream of, thus allowing them to earn more money than he does? And once they earn that salary that superior education grants them entry to, they will likely take advantage of every opportunity to pay as little tax as possible, thus leaving our guy with the same burden of funding their children's education. Nope, it just doesn't make any sense. The beneficiaries of higher education should bear the cost of it. Try floating that idea to a group of college students some time, and let me know how you manage to escape their wrath. If you do.

So, thank you, NDP. Keep it coming.