Goodbye Air Farce, we hardly knew ye

We were introduced to the Royal Canadian Air Farce , a comedy troupe specializing in political satire, shortly after landing in Canada in 2007. We feel like we've only just gotten to know and love this show, and as of tonight it's off the air after an amazing run of 35 years.

Just a few of the beloved favourites we will miss...

Craig Lauzon's robotic Stephen Harper impressions
Driving with Alan Park
Luba Goy's Hillary Clinton impressions
Jessica Holmes' impressions of Belinda Stronach and Britney Spears
The coffee shop scenes
Don Ferguson and the famous Chicken Cannon

For our American friends, the Chicken Cannon was a recurring year-end event. (Oh how it pains me to talk about all this in the past tense.) This was a cannon that fired rubber chickens, or other objects, at caricatures of whoever was considered the most annoying that year. Viewers would nominate targets and appropriate ammo for those targets, then vote on them. Then Don Ferguson did a countdown of the top 5 most deserving targets. The 4 runners-up were shot down with an "armed scud chicken." For the top target they loaded the cannon with all the suggested goopy ammo and fired the final disgusting mixture in an explosive splat. Pow! Great comic and stress relief in one satisfying gloppy shot. Simple but brilliant.

One of our favourite target/ammo combos, watched on Air Farce's website because we weren't here yet in 2003:

• TARGET(S): George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney
• AMMUNITION: Iraqi crude - oily just like our targets; cranberry sauce, candied yams, mashed potatoes and gravy (to go with the three turkeys); Freedom fries (don't forget the ketchup); fudge (for the fudged intelligence reports); head lice from Saddam Hussein, maraschino cherry.

Goodbye, Air Farce. We miss you already...

Tighten your belt, my cronies could use the $$$

Nice, Harper, just one more broken promise and show of hypocrisy. We are asked to tighten our belts and suck it up when we need programs and services, but hey there's lots of money to go around to pay Parliament to sit around doing nothing until 26 Jan, and to offer 7 new Cabinet spots ($500k plus support staff) and 18 cushy new jobs in Senate ($6M) to right-wing friends. They even manage to coincide the "tighten your belts" announcement with the announcement of new expensive staff. How the Cons ever manage to convince anyone they are about fiscal conservatism is beyond me. Once again we get to see that their brand of "fiscal conservatism" means "spend it like you stole it" for their cronies, and fiscal conservatism (aka cutting infrastructure and vital programs and services) for everybody else. You know... undeserving people like veterans, sick, elderly, poor, homeless, displaced workers, college students, at-risk youths, and children.

This is exactly the mindset of the U.S. Republicans. I should know, I lived there and watched them rob us all blind while giving money hand over fist to the oil companies, banks, big pharma, and the otherwise filthy rich.

This article, excerpted below, is a great read and spot-on from both a Canadian and an American perspective. As a Canadian-American Canadian, I am well-positioned to vouch for its accuracy. If you look at the record of Conservatives and Republicans alike, you see a trend of burning through surpluses, tax cuts to the rich, and cutting needed programs and services for those who need them most. Stéphane Dion may not have been very popular, but he was right on target about this:

Harper, he said, "suffers from the same fatal flaw as other right-wing politicians. he talks about shrinking government then he spends and spends building nothing with no coherent plan."

"History shows us that in tough economic times, it is progressive governments that put economies back on track. Clinton after Reagan and Bush. Blair after Thatcher and Major. Chretien and Martin after Mulroney. And, of course, McGuinty after Harris."

Shame on you, Harper. How dare you ask us to sacrifice while spending like it's going out of style. I can only hope Canadians are sitting up and taking notice of your Bush/Reagan/Dubya neo-con ideology, and throw you out in disgrace just like George W.... widely despised, with everyone onto you and your games and eager to undo all the damage you have done. You are a scourge and disgrace to our country just like W is to the U.S.

List of carpooling/ride sharing websites

People have started leaving notes posted in our apartment lobby begging for carpool partners, rides to classes, etc. due to the bus strike here in Ottawa. I feel so bad for them and wish I could help them all. Being winter and the Christmas season, it's a hard time of year for the elderly, sick, poor and disadvantaged to be stuck walking, biking, or stuck with extra expenses for taxi cabs. I have taken to printing out the following and leaving copies in the lobby for people to take. I checked out all the links and they do work. I figure at least I can do something. Maybe this will help someone online too.

As a side note, freecycle.org is an excellent place to exchange free stuff in your local area. Their goal is for people to save money by exchanging free items and reduce waste by keeping things out of the landfill - win-win. I haven't taken anything yet, so I haven't tried that end of it yet, but I've offered various things and it's worked out quite well as people come and pick them up. They're grateful to have them and I'm grateful to get rid of them with a minimum of effort and know they'll be put to good use.

LIST OF CARPOOLING AND RIDE SHARING WEBSITES

HELLO ALL, I FOUND THIS ONLINE AND THERE ARE COMPUTERS YOU CAN USE FOR FREE AT THE LIBRARY AND SERVICE CANADA,AND PROBABLY EMPLOYMENT ONTARIO IF YOU EXPLAIN YOU NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET TO WORK. HOPE THIS HELPS SOMEONE!


Subject: [OttawaON-Freecycle] ADMIN: sites for carpooling and ride sharing
From: "Sharon Stewart"
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:59:39 -0500
To: "Ottawa Freecycle Group"

[NOTE: I compiled this list in February 2008, but I do not have time today
to check whether the links still work]

Here are some local boards for posting ads about carpooling and ride sharing:
http://ottawa.craigslist.ca/rid/

http://ottawa.kijiji.ca/f-community-rideshare-W0QQCatIdZ5
or http://tinyurl.com/2o9uqx

http://www.erideshare.com/carpool.php?city=Ottawa

http://www.carpoolconnect.com/search/do_search?home_code=Ottawa,%20Ontario,%20Canada
or http://tinyurl.com/2vjlzx

http://www.punkottawa.com/board/viewforum.php?f=10

http://www.autotaxi.com/autotaxi.htm

http://welcome.pickuppal.com/alpha.php?camp=people&group=Car%20Pool%20Ottawa&root=Car%20Pool&place=%20in%20Ottawa
or http://tinyurl.com/2mub9h

This one is run by the City of Ottawa:
https://www.ottawaridematch.com/Public/UserSignIn.aspx

These ones are broader geographically:
http://www.carpoolworld.com/

http://www3.sympatico.ca/dataorb/

Sharon Stewart
Moderator
Ottawa Freecycle

Steve, the Sovereigntists, and the Scare Tactics

Well, Prime Minister Stephen Harper really done it now. He's continually ploughed through Parliament with his Napoleon complex turned up to maximum, running roughshod over the parties the other 62% of voters put in office, and insisting a minority is a mandate. And now that he has finally pushed them beyond their limits, they have united against him and promised that he will fail the upcoming confidence vote on Monday. Weren't expecting that, were ya Stevie? Apparently he thought he could rule like a spoiled child king without repercussion. He was wrong.

Rather than facing the music, however, he decided to take the most cowardly option imaginable: run to Governor General Michaëlle Jean and advise her to prorogue (temporarily suspend) Parliament, thus placing her in what a number of experts are calling an untenable position. One such expert is Errol Mendes, law professor at the University of Ottawa:

Mendes says Harper's request would put Jean in a jam, "drawing her into a potential abuse of executive authority," because his reason to suspend Parliament would be to avoid defeat of his minority Conservative government in a vote on Monday that he has already postponed once.

"She is now being faced with a really incredible, untenable situation by the prime minister, because, in effect, what he's trying to do is to hide from a vote of confidence and thereby essentially drawing her into a potential abuse of executive authority," Mendes said in an interview.

"I basically consider this, regardless of whether you think the coalition should or should not take place, a profound and gross abuse of power." (link)

Tradition dictates that she take his advice and prorogue Parliament, but the circumstances under which this request is being made are outrageous. And should she deny his request, she will be placed in the equally difficult position of either calling another election days after we just had one, or the controversial move of installing the Coalition leader as PM without a vote. What answer can she possibly give that won't roil the waters even more?

Harper may be (just barely) within legal limits to do what he is doing, but ethically it's despicable.

As if all this isn't enough, he has employed the U.S. Republicans' tried-and-true tactic of sounding the alarm bells while deliberately misinforming the public (also known as "lying") about the workings of the parliamentary system, utilizing already existent ignorance about this process to exacerbate the confusion in the hopes of increasing support for the Conservatives. The Republicans have shown this method to work time and time again. Who better to emulate when you want to pull a snow job on the Canadian people? If you don't mind stooping to filthy games and embarrassing your country amid a worldwide economic crisis, by golly this is the way to go.

(All quotations below: emphasis mine)

Scare tactic lie #1: The Coalition is a coup d'état.
Implied: This is a political crisis! This is unconstitutional and undemocratic! It smacks of violent takeovers in developing countries!

Example set 1 (link):

"We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power," Harper said.
...

"We're realizing that no matter what we had come out with in the economic statement, their game plan was set. It's a kind of coup d'etat," Blackburn said. (National Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn)

Example set 2 (link):

Bewildered Calgary Tory MPs girded Monday for the distinct possibility their party could be relegated back into opposition within days, and lamented how a newly elected government could fall victim to an unprecedented "coup."

"The biggest loser here is the Canadian public," Obhrai fumed. "It's like a coup." (Deepak Obhrai, Calgary East Conservative MP)

"The sabotage was in effect," Anders said. "Trying to pull a coup d'etat, in a sense, I don't think will bode well for them." (Calgary West Tory MP Rob Anders)

The Cons have employed the coup d'état term again and again, using everything that term implies in an attempt to elicit fear by simultaneously associating this with unconstitutionality and violent government takeovers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is this constitutional and in keeping with the Westminster System, it's been done before on both federal and provincial levels. Moreover, they tried to do it themselves in 2000 and 2004! This is not a "crisis" and for the most part the only ones getting "up in arms" about it are the Conservatives, who up until now thought they were entitled to ignore the wishes of 62% of the population.

Scare tactic lie #2: We need to go over the heads of the MP's and GG and take this to the people.
Implied: Forget all that confidence vote stuff! Forget the GG! That's all undemocratic stuff! The way it works is we have the people vote on it!

"I think what we want to do is basically take a time out and go over the heads of the members of Parliament, go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people," said Transport Minister John Baird. (link)

Um, no. There is a due process for the Westminster System and you are not following it. Being the ruling party does not mean you get to rewrite the system to suit your wishes. And those MP's whose heads you want to go over, are legitimate representatives for 62% of the voting population who voted against you.

Scare tactic lie #3: This is a separatist coalition. It's sedition!
Implied: The separatists will have veto power over the government! Those scoundrels will be running the country! They're going to break up Canada! We'll be powerless to stop them!

Example 1 (link):

"The message is that Canadians do not want to see a separatist coalition. It's a plain and simple message," said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day. "The coalition does not have the confidence of Canadians. Never in our history has anybody entertained the thought of a coalition that would be controlled by separatists."

Example 2 (link):

In Ottawa, Environment Minister Jim Prentice described Monday's events as a "serious situation" that could see separatists holding a veto card over the rest of the country, while Calgary West Tory MP Rob Anders argued the opposition parties were determined to bring down the government.

Example 3 (link):

The Conservatives turned up the rhetoric Wednesday, going so far as to talk of treason.

Ontario MP Bob Dechert accused the Liberals of trying to destroy the country by aligning with the separatist Bloc.

"They're getting into bed with the separatists," he said. "They've actually written a deal giving the separatists a veto over every decision of the Canadian government. That is as close to treason and sedition as I can imagine."

Example 4: Pretty much this entire article, liberally sprinkled with similar expressions - a few quick snippets:

Sedition Coalition... quick and dirty coup d'etat... ugly alliance with a separatist party who are salivating at the thought... coalition of sedition...

Another falsehood repeated ad nauseam. The Cons allege that the Bloc Québécois would have "veto power" over the coalition government, and therefore amounts to the sovereigntists running the country. That's just ridiculous. Any minority government has to work with other parties to the extent that it maintains enough support to pass a confidence vote (a concept which Harper obviously fails to understand). Thus, in effect, any opposing party(ies) with enough MP's to tip the scale has "veto power," on an ongoing basis. This agreement doesn't give the Bloc any power it doesn't already have. As a matter of fact, they have signed away their existing "veto power" for 18 months. They are not part of the coalition and have surrendered this power in the interest of stability of the coalition government.

Also disturbing about scare tactic #3 is the inflammatory divisiveness being perpetuated by the Cons in their ongoing demonizing of the sovereigntists. Literal demonizing... they describe the coalition as "a deal with the devil." The last thing we need in this country is more antagonism between its various regions. It's worth noting that these are the same Cons who were so recently courting the sovereigntists hard, calling Québec a "nation within a nation" and pulling out all the stops for the sovereigntist vote. Once it became apparent that the level of support they sought wasn't going to materialize, they were quick to throw them under the bus. That kind of duplicity should tell you something about their Machiavellian approach to getting what they want.

Even more hypocritical: The Cons insist that they have never and would never sign a deal like this one with the Bloc, whom they say want to destroy the country. Yet the Canadian Alliance and PC parties, who later merged to become the Conservative party, secretly tried to form a coalition government with the Bloc in 2000. In that one, the The Globe and Mail has documents to prove it and Bloc officials confirm it to be true. According to one Bloc official, this even included discussions on making it easier for Québec to separate by referendum in the future. The Cons deny it all, of course. Then in 2004 while in opposition, Harper (who back then apparently did understand the concept of minority governments) asked the GG to put him in power if the newly elected Liberal government was defeated in the Commons, saying, “We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation." (emphasis mine) The situation in 2004 was a mirror image of the one today, but apparently it's only okay when the Conservatives do it.

When it suits their needs, the Cons have no qualms about forming coalition governments or making agreements with the sovereigntists... but they've proven they're willing to go to any lengths to prevent anyone else from doing so. Including lying through their teeth at every turn.

This group so desperately needs to get thrown out on their collective ear. They have repeatedly demonstrated their contempt for the democratic process, the parliamentary system, and the Canadian people. I know by convention the GG will probably have to grant Harper's request, but I'm hoping against hope she says no and he has to face the confidence vote like a big boy.

To hell with everybody else, Harper - save your own job!

Well the GG granted prorogation to Harper, meaning he can (and did) dissolve Parliament until Jan. 26. Just what we need in the middle of a global economic crisis - to force Parliament to sit on its hands for 6 weeks instead of taking action now to avoid a recession. And yet, he claims their priority first and foremost is the economy! All this so he can avoid a confidence vote and try to save his own skin - but never mind anybody else's jobs! I hope Canadians, especially the 38% that voted Conservative, are watching and taking notes. That's right folks, the Cons threw you under the bus... still glad you voted for them??

Canadian police chase

I saw this and just about fell off my chair.



Having just bought my first winter tires this year, after slip-sliding away last winter on the few occasions we'd had to take the car, I watched this and breathed a heavy sigh of relief while having a good hearty belly laugh. There is a straightforwardness here, that permeates everything from the way Canadians talk to each other to the commercials they show on TV. This is no small adjustment for these California gals, but we like it!

Prop H8 - Separation of church and state?

The #1 contributor to California's Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage, by far, was the Knights of Columbus - part of the Catholic Church - who spent over $1.4 million to help it pass. Another was the Mormon Church, who spent big bucks on TV to campaign for it. Separation of church and state, bull-oney! (Here's the list of contributors so you can see the rest of the bigots and how much they chipped in.)

Apparently from the Catholic Church's perspective, it's not okay for us to be gay or want to get married in loving adult relationships, but it's a-okay for their priests to molest children... they'll even bend over backwards to cover for them and expose them to new victims. And it's so urgent to deny gays their rights, that $1.4 million is only the latest in $millions more used for the same purpose. Gee, wonder how many poor people they could have helped instead. Boy that pisses me right off. I was raised Roman Catholic, but I have lost so much respect for the Catholic Church over the years that I could never be Catholic again, ever.

Another issue that came up during this vote, according to various pundits, is that having a minority candidate gave new hope to the minorities, brought out the minority vote, and since minorities tend to be socially conservative it ironically helped push Prop H8 through while helping Obama win. I honestly don't know why people who ought to know something about struggling against discrimination and fighting for civil rights are often the worst hypocrites when it comes to someone else's civil rights. They say, "that's different." But I want to know how it's different to deny marriage to people of two different races because some people believe they shouldn't be allowed to, versus denying marriage to people of the same gender because some people believe they shouldn't be allowed to. Who is it hurting? And whose business is it anyway? More on this in a minute.

Now before you get up in arms thinking I'm stereotyping minorities, you should know some background. My life partner and I are what they call here in Canada "visible minorities" of mixed race. My best friend is also of mixed descent. And having lived in the greater Los Angeles area for much of my life, in all of its amazing diversity, I've always had friends of varying colours, religions and backgrounds. So when I speak of prevailing attitudes within minority groups, as I have in the previous paragraph, it is not because I've bought into stereotypes, but rather because I've known so many of them personally and rubbed elbows with them every day, including my own family members, that I know from experience what the prevailing attitudes are in many groups. And as much as I hate to admit it, in this case the pundits are right about the minority vote. In general, our cultures just aren't that tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. I only wish I was wrong.

Case in point: Until a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June 1967, inter-racial marriages were still illegal in 16 states. My parents were married (in Canada) only a year after that. My mother, as a visible minority and having been foreign trained, found herself continually unable to find work commensurate with her education and experience, despite having attained Canadian citizenship and putting forth the effort for several years before finally leaving for the States (sad, isn't it?). And yet, in no small part owing to the culture she comes from, she's one of the worst anti-gay bigots I know. Sadly, she, like so many others I've known, knows what it's like to be treated like a second-class citizen for no good reason... but can't make the stretch for other people's civil rights.

Here's another sad example. A disproportionate number of the coming-out horror stories you hear - you know, where their family, upon finding out they were gay, kicked them out and they were homeless and had to sleep in their car; or maybe the father beat them up first, then kicked them out; things like that - are from minorities... African, Mexican, Asian, Native, Middle Eastern, etc. in descent. "White" families (European roots) might refuse to ever talk to you again, but for some reason we minorities seem to have a greater propensity for outright abuse in these situations. I don't know yet if this holds true in Canada too, but in the States it really doesn't take much to bear this out.

Perhaps I have been long-winded on this point, but I felt it was important to establish why I agree with the pundits on something that, at first blush, sounds like someone is trying to make a scapegoat of the non-whites and blame them for Prop 8's passing... exchanging homophobia in favour of racism... but that is most assuredly not the case.

Now in order to even entertain the idea of voting on such a proposition, one has to ignore for a moment the fact that marriage is a civil rights issue and therefore according to the federal Constitution should never have been put up for a vote in the first place. That's right, lawyers will be challenging the validity of Prop 8 based on the premises of the very document it seeks to modify. (Anyone else see the irony in this?) I understand the formidable Gloria Allred was the first to file a lawsuit. I would not want to piss her off. The one consolation I take in all this is that the ensuing fight will be interesting to say the least. But we'll see if justice is actually served.

Now there are thousands of same-sex couples legally married in CA, now left wondering what their status is and waiting to see if their marriages will be dissolved against their will. And others who didn't manage to get married before the deadline, with their weddings already half-planned and their dream suddenly crushed. I hope at least some of the homophobes will look at this situation and finally realize just how ugly and mean-spirited this thing is.

Under U.S. law, Britney Spears can go get married and then get it annulled after 55 hours "just for fun," and it's all legal and binding. But my partner and I have been together for nearly 13 years now and it was only a few years ago that she was finally granted the right to visit me in the hospital. Mind you, if we'd been living in almost any state other than California, she *still* wouldn't have that right today. What kind of person looks at that and thinks, yeah, that sounds right? A lot more Americans than you'd think. Just one more of many reasons to be thankful we live in Canada.

Rick Mercer's "Photo Challenge"

Political satirist Rick Mercer regularly conducts a "photo challenge," in which he posts photos of politicians on his website and your challenge is to "doctor" them as you see fit for amusement value. My miserable 3-second attempt to resist taking on this challenge was thwarted by the fact that this one was a pic of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom I like even less these days given recent events. Here's the original:



I combined it with John McCain's "McTongue" grab-a$$ looking pic from when he walked off stage the wrong way after the third presidential debate:



The end result:

Congratulations, Obama!

Woohoo!!! Obama has won! Congratulations and good luck, Mr. President-Elect.

Despite projections that he would, I harboured a certain fear that it wouldn't happen in the end. I've read from numerous experts, especially those of African-American heritage, that there is a faction of voters who say they will vote for a black candidate but when it comes time to actually mark their ballot they can't quite bring themselves to do it. This could fudge the polls, they said, by several percentage points. They cited several examples where, according to the polls, a black candidate at city or state level was expected to win easily, yet when the ballots were counted they actually lost by up to 2-3%. I wish I could remember where I saw this, to share with you here, but alas I didn't take note. Suffice it to say that there were multiple sources with multiple experts, who sounded well-qualified and knowledgeable on the subject, and the consensus was pretty clear. Sad but true. So I decided rather than get all excited about an "expected" Obama win, I'd wait until the ballots were in. And anyway, to be perfectly frank, I shuddered to think what turmoil would follow if such a "mystery loss" was to happen in this election. So I put it out of my mind and hoped and prayed for the best.

It brought tears to my eyes to watch all those people, welcoming the first black president-elect with open arms, tears of joy, and scarcely able to believe it's really happening. Oprah was crying. Jesse Jackson was crying. It was incredible. And everybody was obviously so relieved that the end of the ironfisted neo-con rule is now in sight. Thank God!! It's a tough road ahead, but for a lot of people this restores hope that things can be put back on track.

So, what was the point of this again?

Well the Conservatives have won again. I'm disgusted, but at least they only managed to increase their minority and fell short of a majority. However, everyone is pretty frustrated...

The Conservatives failed to get their majority.
The Liberals had their biggest loss in history.
The New Democrats didn't get substantial gains.
The Bloc Québécois didn't get any gains.
The Greens still didn't win any seats at all.

And Canadian voters are irritated at Harper for wasting our time and $300 million we can ill afford on an election that turned out pretty much like the one 2 years ago... especially annoying because this was an obvious grab for more seats and yet he was the one railing against such opportunistic elections and passing laws for fixed date elections. This is also the 3rd election in 4 years. Worse, the Conservatives have "won" again even though they got less than 38% of the votes. A whole lot of people are now clamouring to get rid of first-past-the-post elections, since of course they're wondering why we now have a near-majority ruling party that almost 2/3 of the people voted against. (37.7% is hardly a "mandate," though Harper likes to think it is.) And a mere 1% increase in Conservative support translated into a 6% jump in seats. They also question a system that gives the Bloc Québécois 50 seats with 8% of the vote and the Greens get 0 seats with 6% of the vote.

Last October, Ontarians (to my great annoyance) overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have replaced first-past-the-post voting in Ontario with a mixed-member-proportional system. Humph, betcha they don't think it's such a stupid idea now.

The case against fixed terms

Stephen Harper, from the time he was the official opposition, has been pushing for a fixed term length to eliminate the ruling party (Liberals, at the time) practice of calling elections when their polls are up. Now that he is PM he has continued to promise it, yet he's gone against it and called an election when the Conservatives' polls went up. So much for his "integrity and transparency" platform.

I really love the fact that, under the parliamentary system, without fixed terms, the PM must at all times operate under the threat of a possible election if s/he starts getting out of hand. If the people have had enough, they can call on their representatives - the Members of Parliament - to topple the government and trigger an election. For this reason, I am very much against fixed term length as Harper is purportedly so fond of (in word if not in deed). Despite the opportunistic election-calling our system allows for, I'll take that any day over the problem fixed terms cause: that of a leader who can campaign for election, tell the people what they want to hear long enough to win the seat, then promptly turn up his/her nose at the people and run around like a little dictator until just before the next election. George W. Bush has been a prime example of this abuse, and frankly the gullibility of roughly half the American population has helped maximize such abuse and showcase the failings of a fixed-term system.

Moreover, I really do think the U.S. needs to come up with a more expedient process than impeachment for expunging a president. It needs to be much easier to initiate the process, and once started it needs to be fast-tracked with top priority. It's pathetic that it takes 2 years to get someone out of a 4-year seat, and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars to boot. In this situation, a sitting president knows that after the 2 year mark he can do pretty much anything he wants, because the people are powerless to put a stop to him before his term will be up anyway. This is exacerbated when a president is in his second term as Bush is, and as such doesn't have to worry about getting elected again either.

Even faster and cheaper than expediting the impeachment process, however, would be implementing confidence votes like they do here, and getting rid of fixed terms. There is no reason a president should be able to rule with an iron fist without facing some accountability. The government should live in constant fear that if they screw up bad enough the people will shove a boot up their a$$ posthaste. To me, that's a real democracy.

Canadians, you may feel that voting 3 times in just over 4 years is a little annoying. (I don't, because frankly I'm grateful for any opportunity to express my wishes about how I want the country to be run.) But you should think long and hard about what you are surrendering if you allow a move to fixed terms. One need only look south to see the kind of grief it can bring... this Canadian-American Canadian can tell you - it's not worth it.

Some thoughts on Conservatives and the MMP system

As bad as the Conservatives are, and as much of the tactics they copy from the Republicans, I have to give them at least some credit. They still do things like creating new national parks, building infrastructure, and stuff like that. Their inaction on global warming and lack of concern for the poor is still there, make no mistake, but at least they have to make some concessions or the Canadian public would most assuredly give them the boot. So while they model themselves after the Republicans, they can't get away with nearly as much. And yeah the Republicans win hands-down when it comes to whack-job policy and pushing for a theocratic oligarchy.

I really, really wish people would get rid of first-past-the-post voting though, both in Canada and the U.S. Even more here than there (since it's less 50-50) you can see the failures of a system where 60% of the people want liberal policy, but because there's only 1 conservative party and 4 liberal parties the person with only 40% support gets to rule. (It doesn't help that he considers this a "mandate" and refuses to work with the other parties voted in by the other 60%.) We can do better than that. Here in Ontario last November, they tried to get through a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system. But since they didn't do nearly enough to educate the public about what it is (I imagine they didn't have sufficient funding, for one thing), a lot of people just voted against it without even knowing what it is.

Case in point: I was in the polling station voting for it, and there was a lady in there asking the workers about it. They explained it in simple neutral terms, and she just said, "Ehhh I dunno what all that is, just keep it the same." And she proceeded to vote against it.

If there's one thing that really drags down a democracy, it's when people know nothing about a given issue and decide to go ahead and vote on it anyway. Ontario is a big province with lots of influence here due to its comparatively large population. If the MMP referendum would have passed it could have changed the direction of the whole country. Just goes to show - if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Maybe U.S. politics have made me an incurable cynic, but I have my sneaky suspicions that the anti-MMP campaign was secretly funded by the two parties who stand to lose the most from such an arrangement. This system would have handed a proportional number of seats to smaller parties such as the NDPs and Greens, which would otherwise have gone to the Conservatives and Liberals due to the failings of first-past-the-post. One of the alarmist arguments cited against MMP is that, !GASP! some of the MP's will be chosen by the parties and therefore not directly chosen by the people! Omigod it's undemocratic! Well hello, isn't that how the PM gets in? The party that wins the most seats chooses who the PM will be, no? I don't hear anyone sounding the alarm bells over that.

It really irks me when people use misinformation as the means to their desired political outcome. This is an old trick, a perennial favourite of Republicans and Conservatives, might I add. And it irks me even more when the public is sufficiently uninformed to fall for it. The anti-MMP campaign had the Conservatives' signature alarmist misinformation tactic written all over it, but don't be surprised if the Libs got into bed with them on this one.

Voting twice

Prime Minister Harper has called an election for Oct 14 (the day after Thanksgiving), trying to get his party a majority. We've sent for our U.S. absentee ballots and are waiting to hear back. It seems I will be voting once in October and once in November.

Yeah Harper, tell us another one

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he won't be breaking his promise to Canadians if he calls an election this fall, a year ahead of the fixed date set by his own government. (emphasis mine - full article)

Oh really?? Anybody remember this? After all, it was only 3 months ago:

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody." (full article)

Yet again, the rules only apply when it's convenient for Stephen Harper. The rest of the time, ehhhhhhh, never mind.

"That's what you get" department

I saw an article today titled Internet-savvy voters shake up U.S. presidential election. The gist of it is that Obama is on top of his game and using the internet to his advantage, while McCain and his base are struggling to get with the program.

I thought that was amusing as hell.

For quite some time, Republicans have pandered to 1) big business, and 2) those who are ignorant enough to be more concerned with legislating morality and sanctioning discrimination than with getting serious about solving problems like poverty, homelessness, and lack of universal healthcare. Thus, two of the biggest factions in the Republican base are now rich people and ignorant people. How fitting that they are now struggling to get the latter up to speed, a crisis of their own creation.

For once, the good ol' boys club of rich old white guys find themselves at a disadvantage. Now that's refreshing! Thanks, guys, for a good laugh.

Let the U.S. war deserters stay!

Posted in response to this article:

Yes, these people did voluntarily enlist, but it is incorrect and unfair to just assume they are all cowards who simply don't feel like doing the job they signed up for. Many of them, Glass included, faithfully went to Iraq as they were supposed to do and served honourably for at least one tour of duty... and it was only after seeing the crimes against humanity occurring there that they could not in good conscience continue with this mission.

It is both patriotic and honourable to stand up against one's government when it is committing atrocities. It is a mark of their integrity that they served in the first place, and that they came forward honestly about the problems at hand, despite knowing the severe consequences they knew they could likely face by doing so. Wouldn't it have been much easier to compromise their integrity and weasel out with false claims of being gay or post-traumatic? I see no reason whatsoever to deport such people.

After having lived in the USA for many years, I know many who have been suckered, or nearly so, by recruiters' wild promises about their assignments and placement once they enlist. Those in the know got those promises in writing. The rest were shocked by just how badly they were duped into situations and assignments to which they never would have agreed.

It's also worth noting that unlike George W. Bush, not everyone has a rich powerful father to pull strings and keep them out of harm's way during a war, and then cover their absence with 'lost paperwork.' Mere commoners must face a court-martial. It is the height of hypocrisy to dodge deployment yourself, then be so quick to send others into an illegal war and court-martial them if they fail to comply.