Right now, people are being killed in Iran for protesting the fact that their voices aren't being heard. In Canada, we whine and stomp our feet because making our voices heard might bite into our vacation time. I have also heard Canadians whine about not having an election in winter because, horror of horrors, we might have to put our boots and coats on to go vote.
So, if not winter or summer, exactly when is the right time to fight for what's right?
Most of the people who don't qualify for EI are going to have trouble keeping their mortgages and bills paid. Helping them avoid foreclosure and/or welfare would be one of the most effective ways to combat this economic slump. But the Conservatives won't have it and the Liberals obviously don't have the balls to call an election over it, so these unemployed will twist in the wind while a "committee" argues over the same points that have already been argued in Question Period for weeks on end.
So why the hell aren't we helping people? Why aren't we demanding that help, bad election timing be damned? Is it because those who are employed don't want to give up their precious vacations so we can vote out the guy who won't help the less fortunate?
I want a leader who will stand up and ask these questions, and is willing to demand answers to those questions and immediate solutions. But apparently that's not going to happen anytime soon. Given the events in the last couple of days, I doubt Iggy's going to grow a pair by tomorrow.
And Parliament can sit all summer, as far as I'm concerned. They were paid by us the public for a full session, and only sat for a fraction of it, so I have no qualms about demanding that they continue to sit until an EI solution is put in place for the summer. All the more motivation for the Conservatives to stop putting obstacles in the way and take action now - they wouldn't want to miss their cushy summer vacations, after all.
Which brings me to the second point I touched on earlier. Is that shrinking group of Canadians who still hold jobs, so incredibly selfish, that they simply cannot bear to spend a little of their vacation time to vote out the guy who won't help those less fortunate than themselves? On they go, whining about how rough the winter was and about not wanting to cancel their reservations, and on and on. What the hell is wrong with people?
As a long-time American resident and citizen, I got to vote for the leader of the country once every 4 years, no matter how urgently we needed to kick out the current one. George W. Bush was only one especially obvious example. I treasured the opportunity to make my voice heard as often as possible because it wasn't heard nearly often enough. I've learned to value that opportunity and I'm eager to take advantage of it whenever it is offered. (I voted in every general election since I turned 18.) And let's face it: we already know what each party's platform is, and those platforms shape their policies in mostly predictable ways - so is it really that arduous a process to decide whom to vote for?
Canadians who think they have it so hard should try American voting, where you vote for several political candidates at federal, state, county, and municipal levels; plus judges, school district, water and other special districts; plus 10 or 15 state propositions and local measures, written in legalese, to read through and vote on at the same time. Take a look at the 2008 directory of contests and ballot for my former riding if you don't believe me. The 2008 Voter Information Guide was 144 pages plus a 16-page supplemental guide, just for the federal and state levels - the county and municipal stuff comes in another booklet. They also send you a sample ballot so you can mark it with your choices, since there's too much for most people to remember. Then when you're done with all that, you bring your sample ballot and go vote with a ballot card that slides into a slot behind the ballot pages, and then you go through each page and copy from your sample ballot using a special marker or stylus to mark or poke a hole in the card to indicate all your choices. Here in Canada, we get to concentrate on voting for just one seat - our Member of Parliament. We get to do some research and mull it over, then walk into the polling station, make one "X" and we're done. What's the big deal?
Weather is the last reason I'd expect for delaying an election. I lived in Los Angeles for many years so I am not accustomed to these Canadian winters; but I have now been here through 2 of the longest, harshest winters in recent memory and still would not hesitate to take the time and effort to do my research and brave the weather to go vote. I did it last October and I'd do it again in January, July, or anytime. Canadians' apparent aversion to voting, and for such petty and selfish reasons, is something I find both astonishing and disheartening - especially since voting is so simple and easy here. I love Canada and my fellow Canadians, and that is precisely why I think we can do better than attitudes like this.
Showing posts with label U.S. politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. politics. Show all posts
18 June 2009
16 June 2009
No to C-15 and a U.S.-style 'war on drugs!'
Prime Minister Harper is pushing a bill for mandatory sentences for drug crime. It has unfortunately passed in the House of Commons and is currently in the Senate. More here and here.
I lived in Los Angeles, the gang capital of the world, for many years and can personally attest that the largest single contributor to the gang problems is the illicit drug trade. They make big money from the sales of illicit drugs and use it to fund their other illegal endeavours. Mandatory minimum sentences and the "war on drugs" have not abated the gang problems in L.A. - instead, these problems have worsened dramatically over recent years, as anyone who follows L.A. news can plainly see. These are failed, expensive policies that Canadians can ill afford to adopt. I would love to put an end to drug-related crime, but I assure you C-15 will only exacerbate the problem. Please write your senator and ask him or her not to subject Canadians to this legislation, which experience tells us is doomed to fail.
I lived in Los Angeles, the gang capital of the world, for many years and can personally attest that the largest single contributor to the gang problems is the illicit drug trade. They make big money from the sales of illicit drugs and use it to fund their other illegal endeavours. Mandatory minimum sentences and the "war on drugs" have not abated the gang problems in L.A. - instead, these problems have worsened dramatically over recent years, as anyone who follows L.A. news can plainly see. These are failed, expensive policies that Canadians can ill afford to adopt. I would love to put an end to drug-related crime, but I assure you C-15 will only exacerbate the problem. Please write your senator and ask him or her not to subject Canadians to this legislation, which experience tells us is doomed to fail.
05 June 2009
We are not the U.S.' clean-up crew
Canada refuses U.S. request to accept Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo
Once in a great while, Harper actually does the right thing.
These Guantanamo Bay prisoners, who have been found innocent, cannot go home (for reasons I will expound on in a moment) but the U.S. doesn't want them either. So, Obama requested that Canada take them... but Harper refused to help the U.S. dump its self-created Gitmo problem on someone else, and for this I have to applaud him.
Some Canadians have a "send 'em back!" attitude toward these prisoners. But this problem is not as not that simple for a number of reasons... not the least of which is that many of these prisoners would be wrongfully persecuted a second time if they were sent back to their country of origin. In addition, many of them weren't in their home country at the time of arrest precisely because they were trying to escape wrongful persecution there.
This is a problem of the U.S.' own creation so the solution needs to come from them too. If these prisoners have been found innocent, then the U.S. needs to take them in, compensate them for the atrocities committed against them, give them counselling to help them overcome the trauma they endured, and provide full services to help them integrate into American society. Expensive? Yes! Messy? Yes! But it is the right thing to do for anyone who is wrongly convicted and brutalized. And it will teach American politicians and voters to think twice about this idea that it's okay to flout U.S. and international laws and run roughshod over human rights as long as you feel justified in doing so. This lesson is long overdue. I lived in the U.S. for many years - so I know from whence I speak. I have many American loved ones, don't get me wrong... but a lot of Americans need to smarten up.
You don't create a disaster of this magnitude and then dump it on someone else's doorstep. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
And don't think we missed the irony that a mere 2 weeks ago the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security was wrongfully accusing Canada of letting the 9/11 terrorists into America, and now here's the U.S. President asking us to take people they deem unfit to stay on their soil. Unbelievable.
Good on ya Harper, for telling them where to stick it.
Once in a great while, Harper actually does the right thing.
These Guantanamo Bay prisoners, who have been found innocent, cannot go home (for reasons I will expound on in a moment) but the U.S. doesn't want them either. So, Obama requested that Canada take them... but Harper refused to help the U.S. dump its self-created Gitmo problem on someone else, and for this I have to applaud him.
Some Canadians have a "send 'em back!" attitude toward these prisoners. But this problem is not as not that simple for a number of reasons... not the least of which is that many of these prisoners would be wrongfully persecuted a second time if they were sent back to their country of origin. In addition, many of them weren't in their home country at the time of arrest precisely because they were trying to escape wrongful persecution there.
This is a problem of the U.S.' own creation so the solution needs to come from them too. If these prisoners have been found innocent, then the U.S. needs to take them in, compensate them for the atrocities committed against them, give them counselling to help them overcome the trauma they endured, and provide full services to help them integrate into American society. Expensive? Yes! Messy? Yes! But it is the right thing to do for anyone who is wrongly convicted and brutalized. And it will teach American politicians and voters to think twice about this idea that it's okay to flout U.S. and international laws and run roughshod over human rights as long as you feel justified in doing so. This lesson is long overdue. I lived in the U.S. for many years - so I know from whence I speak. I have many American loved ones, don't get me wrong... but a lot of Americans need to smarten up.
You don't create a disaster of this magnitude and then dump it on someone else's doorstep. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
And don't think we missed the irony that a mere 2 weeks ago the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security was wrongfully accusing Canada of letting the 9/11 terrorists into America, and now here's the U.S. President asking us to take people they deem unfit to stay on their soil. Unbelievable.
Good on ya Harper, for telling them where to stick it.
12 May 2009
Watch out, Cheerios are a "drug"!!
Popular cereal is a drug, US food watchdog says
Gee... Maybe instead of wasting time on insipid crap like this, the FDA should concern itself with why drugs like Phen-Fen and Vioxx get expedited through their approval system, despite evidence of their dangerous side effects and permanent organ damage... while drugs that have been used safely in Europe for many years are still awaiting approval. But it won't, because the pharmaceutical companies have plenty of $$$ to keep the FDA in their back pockets for years to come. Expect to hear about more "drugs" in your groceries as the FDA tries to look like it's actually doing its job.
I know Obama has his hands full with the many disasters at hand, but I sincerely hope he gets his hands on the FDA sometime during his tenure. The whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, with full transparency and independent review of their decision-making process.
Gee... Maybe instead of wasting time on insipid crap like this, the FDA should concern itself with why drugs like Phen-Fen and Vioxx get expedited through their approval system, despite evidence of their dangerous side effects and permanent organ damage... while drugs that have been used safely in Europe for many years are still awaiting approval. But it won't, because the pharmaceutical companies have plenty of $$$ to keep the FDA in their back pockets for years to come. Expect to hear about more "drugs" in your groceries as the FDA tries to look like it's actually doing its job.
I know Obama has his hands full with the many disasters at hand, but I sincerely hope he gets his hands on the FDA sometime during his tenure. The whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, with full transparency and independent review of their decision-making process.
09 April 2009
Republicans becoming a 'regional party'
Apparently, the Republicans are petering out in all but the Deep South. This is fantastic news! And we have Rush Limbaugh - and other loudmouthed right-wing asshats like him - to thank for accelerating the demise of their party.
After all, Rush Limbaugh et al are doing us all a favour. They are coming out and showing the ugly undercurrents so often thinly veiled by the Republican party - contempt for non-whites, women, non-Christians, environmentalists, and the poor, for starters. It's always been covert, of course, almost never being spoken but seen very clearly in the policies it implements. For once, with Rush and his ilk at the helm, the Republican party's actions actually match its words.
It's my fondest hope that, faced with the threat of extinction, the Republican party will be dragged - kicking and screaming, no doubt - into the 21st century. And with it, the Reform Alliance -- oops I mean Conservative Party of Canada. It's time to dump racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic notions and get with the program.
After all, Rush Limbaugh et al are doing us all a favour. They are coming out and showing the ugly undercurrents so often thinly veiled by the Republican party - contempt for non-whites, women, non-Christians, environmentalists, and the poor, for starters. It's always been covert, of course, almost never being spoken but seen very clearly in the policies it implements. For once, with Rush and his ilk at the helm, the Republican party's actions actually match its words.
It's my fondest hope that, faced with the threat of extinction, the Republican party will be dragged - kicking and screaming, no doubt - into the 21st century. And with it, the Reform Alliance -- oops I mean Conservative Party of Canada. It's time to dump racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic notions and get with the program.
08 April 2009
Same-sex marriage and ignoring Canada, in America
Gay marriage supporters watch historic vote in Vt
Great! Now the Republicans won't have to bitch about "activist judges" any more. It's been through the legislature. One long-time tactic by the social conservatives when things don't go their way is to say judges shouldn't have a say in such matters (never mind that the courts are precisely where civil rights matters should be decided, both in principle and by precedent). Then they fight to have the legislature decide. If that doesn't go their way either, they say that was never the right way to begin with and it should be voted on by the people. Or they will skip the legislature and take it to the voters (such as has been done in California), and if that doesn't go their way, they'll say it should have gone to the legislature. It seems they're running out of excuses and options, which is good news because their legal shell games are getting downright boring.
It's very disappointing, however, that the writers of the AP article mentioned above left something out of their list of countries allowing same-sex marriage. Hell-l-ooo-oo-o.... Canada?? No wonder most Americans don't know anything about Canada! Once again, Canada has been ignored in American media.
No, I'm not an American-hater. See this post - I spent most of my life in the States so I know what I'm talking about. Americans routinely ignore Canada in the media and this is just the latest blatant example. It's become even more readily apparent to me upon moving to Canada, just how consistent and thorough this ignorance really is. One needn't wonder why American media pisses Canadians off.
I've written a sternly worded message to the writers of the article, both for their lack of research integrity and for the systematic ignorance of Canada in U.S. media. I'll report back with the results, but to be honest I'm not getting my hopes up.
Great! Now the Republicans won't have to bitch about "activist judges" any more. It's been through the legislature. One long-time tactic by the social conservatives when things don't go their way is to say judges shouldn't have a say in such matters (never mind that the courts are precisely where civil rights matters should be decided, both in principle and by precedent). Then they fight to have the legislature decide. If that doesn't go their way either, they say that was never the right way to begin with and it should be voted on by the people. Or they will skip the legislature and take it to the voters (such as has been done in California), and if that doesn't go their way, they'll say it should have gone to the legislature. It seems they're running out of excuses and options, which is good news because their legal shell games are getting downright boring.
No, I'm not an American-hater. See this post - I spent most of my life in the States so I know what I'm talking about. Americans routinely ignore Canada in the media and this is just the latest blatant example. It's become even more readily apparent to me upon moving to Canada, just how consistent and thorough this ignorance really is. One needn't wonder why American media pisses Canadians off.
I've written a sternly worded message to the writers of the article, both for their lack of research integrity and for the systematic ignorance of Canada in U.S. media. I'll report back with the results, but to be honest I'm not getting my hopes up.
28 January 2009
And another voice of reason
Russia halts missile plans in nod to Obama: report
How about that? Amazing what less combativeness and warmongering, and a little more goodwill can do.
It all depends where your priorities lie, doesn't it? If you are more interested in lining the pockets of your buddies in oil, military equipment, contracting, pharmaceuticals, etc., you end up with the mess we have now. If you actually care about the country and are willing to exercise some prudence, smarts, and tact, you get developments like the one today.
Congratulations, Obama! Keep up the good work.
How about that? Amazing what less combativeness and warmongering, and a little more goodwill can do.
It all depends where your priorities lie, doesn't it? If you are more interested in lining the pockets of your buddies in oil, military equipment, contracting, pharmaceuticals, etc., you end up with the mess we have now. If you actually care about the country and are willing to exercise some prudence, smarts, and tact, you get developments like the one today.
Congratulations, Obama! Keep up the good work.
26 January 2009
25 January 2009
Ottawans take to the streets, Baird crawls in a hole
There will be three rallies tomorrow calling on the City and ATU to restore service while they hammer out a workable agreement:
City, Transit Union head back to the table
Ottawans are sick and tired enough to take to the streets. I think it's fantastic because the media blackout has helped to cover up and minimize just how deep and profound the suffering is from this thing. Maybe, just maybe, seeing the faces and hearing the stories from the most downtrodden of Ottawans as they endure these hardships will prick the consciences of City and ATU alike and cause them to realize what jerks they're being. Here's hoping. I only wish I could be there tomorrow, but I've been suffering with a nasty flu for several weeks now and can't seem to shake it. So I just don't have the energy to go, but I will be there in spirit, rooting for these people and praying that they get heard.
Ironically - the loudmouthed, yelling, pointing, shrieking John Baird has suddenly clammed up tight and is strangely silent during all of this. I'd normally be rejoicing that we finally found a way to get this guy to shut up... but this is the worst possible time for him to do so. Meh, what does he care? He, Rona Ambrose, and Stephen Harper have one single-minded mission right now, and that is blowing enough smoke up everyone's butt on Tuesday to avoid being kicked out on their collective ear. They couldn't care less about this strike, but will do the bare minimum required to make it appear like they do (such as force a vote they knew was going to fail, then wash their hands of the whole thing - see, there, we did something about it, now leave us alone).
For one thing, even if the federal Cons had time for us right now (which they don't), they still don't have the inclination. Conservatives are about big business, and as such, they tend to prefer union-busting to negotiation... arguably a major reason behind this ridiculous 48-day showdown between Conservative Mayor O'Brien and the ATU in the first place. Not even mentioned yet, but just as pertinent, is the fact that parties - and conservative parties in particular - are loathe to break ranks by questioning the decisions of one of their own. All this means don't go getting your hopes up for any of these clowns to swoop in and save the day. They'd starve out every union in existence if they could, and more importantly, they've got bigger fish to fry right now. If there's one thing you can say for the Tories, they're at least consistent... they will happily flip-flop 180 degrees on any policy, throw anybody under the bus, lie through their teeth no matter how preposterous, or ignore any issue no matter how pressing, as long as it's self-serving in some way.
One thing this means for me, as a recent export from the States, is I can pretty much predict the Tories' every move. The Republicans have turned deception into an art form, fuelled by the neo-con agenda that has permeated their ranks. Apparently inspired by this, The Tories copy all the old tricks, unaltered, from the Republicans' playbook. So it's child's play to know what the Cons are up to... I've seen this all before. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Wake up Canadians! Or we'll have a mess just like the States. I have no interest whatsoever in watching another country I love go down the tubes.
City, Transit Union head back to the table
Ottawans are sick and tired enough to take to the streets. I think it's fantastic because the media blackout has helped to cover up and minimize just how deep and profound the suffering is from this thing. Maybe, just maybe, seeing the faces and hearing the stories from the most downtrodden of Ottawans as they endure these hardships will prick the consciences of City and ATU alike and cause them to realize what jerks they're being. Here's hoping. I only wish I could be there tomorrow, but I've been suffering with a nasty flu for several weeks now and can't seem to shake it. So I just don't have the energy to go, but I will be there in spirit, rooting for these people and praying that they get heard.
Ironically - the loudmouthed, yelling, pointing, shrieking John Baird has suddenly clammed up tight and is strangely silent during all of this. I'd normally be rejoicing that we finally found a way to get this guy to shut up... but this is the worst possible time for him to do so. Meh, what does he care? He, Rona Ambrose, and Stephen Harper have one single-minded mission right now, and that is blowing enough smoke up everyone's butt on Tuesday to avoid being kicked out on their collective ear. They couldn't care less about this strike, but will do the bare minimum required to make it appear like they do (such as force a vote they knew was going to fail, then wash their hands of the whole thing - see, there, we did something about it, now leave us alone).
For one thing, even if the federal Cons had time for us right now (which they don't), they still don't have the inclination. Conservatives are about big business, and as such, they tend to prefer union-busting to negotiation... arguably a major reason behind this ridiculous 48-day showdown between Conservative Mayor O'Brien and the ATU in the first place. Not even mentioned yet, but just as pertinent, is the fact that parties - and conservative parties in particular - are loathe to break ranks by questioning the decisions of one of their own. All this means don't go getting your hopes up for any of these clowns to swoop in and save the day. They'd starve out every union in existence if they could, and more importantly, they've got bigger fish to fry right now. If there's one thing you can say for the Tories, they're at least consistent... they will happily flip-flop 180 degrees on any policy, throw anybody under the bus, lie through their teeth no matter how preposterous, or ignore any issue no matter how pressing, as long as it's self-serving in some way.
One thing this means for me, as a recent export from the States, is I can pretty much predict the Tories' every move. The Republicans have turned deception into an art form, fuelled by the neo-con agenda that has permeated their ranks. Apparently inspired by this, The Tories copy all the old tricks, unaltered, from the Republicans' playbook. So it's child's play to know what the Cons are up to... I've seen this all before. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Wake up Canadians! Or we'll have a mess just like the States. I have no interest whatsoever in watching another country I love go down the tubes.
22 January 2009
Obama brings transparency, we get... ?
U.S. news:
Reading the news today made me just a liiiittle envious of Americans in the States. Mind you, there's so much to love here I'd never dream of moving back... but I find myself earnestly wishing for an Obama-style revolution over here. Harper's much-needed personality transplant could come from someone with so much to spare. I sincerely hope that Obama raises such a high level of transparency and integrity that Canadians will be outraged and demand the same from our own government. Here, as there, it's long overdue.
Obama administration to swear by "transparency"vs. Canadian news:
On day one, Obama demands open government
Judge asked to unseal documents tied to election spending controversyApparently there is no end to the Cons' lies and treachery. Steel your stomach, much much more to come next week.
Elections Canada investigators "stymied" by Tory privilege claim
Reading the news today made me just a liiiittle envious of Americans in the States. Mind you, there's so much to love here I'd never dream of moving back... but I find myself earnestly wishing for an Obama-style revolution over here. Harper's much-needed personality transplant could come from someone with so much to spare. I sincerely hope that Obama raises such a high level of transparency and integrity that Canadians will be outraged and demand the same from our own government. Here, as there, it's long overdue.
Paper clips, rubber bands and scotch tape for the economy
Despite warnings, PM touts fixes for short term
So typical of the Cons. Try to look busy, like you're actually doing something useful - while rushing into wasteful harebrained schemes, benefiting the rich and big business, and leaving the poor twisting in the wind. Oh, and ignoring the environment while missing the opportunity to create green jobs and develop alternative energy. And do it all against all better judgement.
You know, the exact opposite of all the stuff Obama is going to be doing.
Please, Canadians, get rid of Harper and his ilk. They're an embarrassment and liability to this country.
So typical of the Cons. Try to look busy, like you're actually doing something useful - while rushing into wasteful harebrained schemes, benefiting the rich and big business, and leaving the poor twisting in the wind. Oh, and ignoring the environment while missing the opportunity to create green jobs and develop alternative energy. And do it all against all better judgement.
You know, the exact opposite of all the stuff Obama is going to be doing.
Please, Canadians, get rid of Harper and his ilk. They're an embarrassment and liability to this country.
20 January 2009
Obama - issues and great expectations
Don't get me wrong - I am thrilled that Obama is the new president, for a wide variety of reasons. I watched the inauguration ceremony with hope and pride. But I have a couple of nagging concerns.
Now, trust me when I say I understand the enormity of his election. He is the first African-American to be elected president, something I thought would never, ever happen in my lifetime. It's huge! I'm a biracial person with a biracial partner and a lifetime full of friends of varied heritage... so I get race issues, I do. And I still can scarcely believe it's happened. Some part of me keeps thinking I'll wake up and it was all a dream, just wishful thinking of my subconscious mind for a more egalitarian world. That said, what bothers me the most is that his race seems to be the main aspect people are focused on. No news coverage and no commentary anywhere gets by without stressing the fact that he's black, he's black, he's black. Or at least, half so.
But that's only one aspect of this. What about the fact that he ran a positive campaign, even despite a sickening amount of negative attacks and mudslinging on the part of his opponent? The fact that he has mobilized the country's youth and gotten them engaged for the first time since... gee, I dunno, the sixties? His unprecedented efforts to reach out to everyday Americans to get their input on a continuing basis? His call for transparency and ethics in government? His emphasis on peaceful relations with other countries, discussing and negotiating through problems with military action reserved as a last resort? What about his focus on the poor and disadvantaged? Or his heavy emphasis on respect for diversity? His sensitivity to women's issues, non-Christian religions and atheism, and rights and accommodations for the disabled? His promise to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell" and further the rights of gays and lesbians? His promise to look at getting rid of Guantanamo Bay? His being tech-savvy and the tech developments he's vowed to bring to the country? His understanding of the importance of education and scientific research, and pledge of proper financial support? His bipartisan approach to try to eradicate the divisiveness that runs so deep between Democrats and Republicans, and the culture wars existing between various groups? And on and on. The election of a black president is historic and groundbreaking and long overdue, no doubt about it, but there's such a thing as focusing too much on his race, while glossing over his ideas. It's as if the main important fact is that he is black and everything else is falling by the wayside.
The second disquieting fact is that, over the last several months but especially between the campaign win and now, people's hopes for him have been spiralling higher and higher. They are increasingly idolizing him as the best thing that's ever happened to the U.S., and he hasn't even "happened" until today. I fear the expectations are so high that they are expecting Christlike miracles from this guy. Yes, he's an eloquent, fresh, intelligent, groundbreaking, inspiring, remarkable man, full of great innovative ideas. But he is still just a man. There is a lot of vague Obama worshipping, and Obama commemorative coins and pins and posters and so on, all in anticipation of what a great president he is going to be since, until today, he hadn't even started yet. And there is one hell of a massive bloody mess to clean up, which is going to take some difficult and unpopular decisions no matter how you slice it. This mess is unlikely to be cleaned up in two presidential terms, much less one. Yet people seem to be pinning their hopes on Obama for nothing short of world peace, eradication of racism, end of the culture wars, full-fledged infrastructure overhaul, a national health care program, and so on, despite the deplorable state of the economy and country to which he has now been handed the reins.
We haven't even seen the start of this, and for all we know, at the end of 4 years you may want to chuck that commemorative coin right at his commemorative head. Granted, given his modus operandi thus far, that's not likely. But living with American politics most of my life has perhaps made me a cynic. I'm hopeful, yes, but I'm also a "wait and see" kind of gal. As joyous an occasion as this is in so many regards, especially given the progressive changes we expect in contrast to Bush policy, we would be wise to remain realistic in our expectations. God knows we all need something to hope for, but this is not the Second Coming.
Now, trust me when I say I understand the enormity of his election. He is the first African-American to be elected president, something I thought would never, ever happen in my lifetime. It's huge! I'm a biracial person with a biracial partner and a lifetime full of friends of varied heritage... so I get race issues, I do. And I still can scarcely believe it's happened. Some part of me keeps thinking I'll wake up and it was all a dream, just wishful thinking of my subconscious mind for a more egalitarian world. That said, what bothers me the most is that his race seems to be the main aspect people are focused on. No news coverage and no commentary anywhere gets by without stressing the fact that he's black, he's black, he's black. Or at least, half so.
But that's only one aspect of this. What about the fact that he ran a positive campaign, even despite a sickening amount of negative attacks and mudslinging on the part of his opponent? The fact that he has mobilized the country's youth and gotten them engaged for the first time since... gee, I dunno, the sixties? His unprecedented efforts to reach out to everyday Americans to get their input on a continuing basis? His call for transparency and ethics in government? His emphasis on peaceful relations with other countries, discussing and negotiating through problems with military action reserved as a last resort? What about his focus on the poor and disadvantaged? Or his heavy emphasis on respect for diversity? His sensitivity to women's issues, non-Christian religions and atheism, and rights and accommodations for the disabled? His promise to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell" and further the rights of gays and lesbians? His promise to look at getting rid of Guantanamo Bay? His being tech-savvy and the tech developments he's vowed to bring to the country? His understanding of the importance of education and scientific research, and pledge of proper financial support? His bipartisan approach to try to eradicate the divisiveness that runs so deep between Democrats and Republicans, and the culture wars existing between various groups? And on and on. The election of a black president is historic and groundbreaking and long overdue, no doubt about it, but there's such a thing as focusing too much on his race, while glossing over his ideas. It's as if the main important fact is that he is black and everything else is falling by the wayside.
The second disquieting fact is that, over the last several months but especially between the campaign win and now, people's hopes for him have been spiralling higher and higher. They are increasingly idolizing him as the best thing that's ever happened to the U.S., and he hasn't even "happened" until today. I fear the expectations are so high that they are expecting Christlike miracles from this guy. Yes, he's an eloquent, fresh, intelligent, groundbreaking, inspiring, remarkable man, full of great innovative ideas. But he is still just a man. There is a lot of vague Obama worshipping, and Obama commemorative coins and pins and posters and so on, all in anticipation of what a great president he is going to be since, until today, he hadn't even started yet. And there is one hell of a massive bloody mess to clean up, which is going to take some difficult and unpopular decisions no matter how you slice it. This mess is unlikely to be cleaned up in two presidential terms, much less one. Yet people seem to be pinning their hopes on Obama for nothing short of world peace, eradication of racism, end of the culture wars, full-fledged infrastructure overhaul, a national health care program, and so on, despite the deplorable state of the economy and country to which he has now been handed the reins.
We haven't even seen the start of this, and for all we know, at the end of 4 years you may want to chuck that commemorative coin right at his commemorative head. Granted, given his modus operandi thus far, that's not likely. But living with American politics most of my life has perhaps made me a cynic. I'm hopeful, yes, but I'm also a "wait and see" kind of gal. As joyous an occasion as this is in so many regards, especially given the progressive changes we expect in contrast to Bush policy, we would be wise to remain realistic in our expectations. God knows we all need something to hope for, but this is not the Second Coming.
08 January 2009
As Bush Exits, Expats Staying Put
This article is about Americans who made good on their threats to move to Canada during George W. Bush's tenure.
Before I begin discussing this, let me just say that there are a whole lot of non-political reasons why we moved here. I suspect it's the same for most American expatriates. If you moved every time politics didn't go your way, you'd never stay in any country for very long. That said, U.S. politics and the extent to which the U.S. government neglects the needs of the people have rubbed us the wrong way for a long time.
I can really relate with the gal who said it's not just Bush. A contributing factor is the fact that literally ½ of Americans knew what Bush was about, had watched him in action since 2000, knew what he was going to do, and still voted for him again. Now, despite a truly abysmal presidency full of lies and illegal conduct, fraught with scandals, wrongful deaths, enshrining torture, ignoring habeas corpus and basic human rights, flouting of Constitutional rights and the system of checks and balances, blatantly taking from the poor to give to the rich, gutting the educational system, and so much more... the Republicans still garnered 45.7% of the vote last November. I'll never understand this. Are people taking crazy pills?? This speaks volumes about American society in general and in my mind is just one more symptom of how backward things are over there. (See my discussion of the U.S. South below.)
I can also relate to the lesbian couple, who quite enjoy having the right to marry and full protection under the law. When I've met people here, and they inquire upon introduction who my partner is to me so they'll know how to refer to her, it doesn't even faze them when I tell them. They don't freak out or hesitate or anything. It's amazing! I've always dreaded that moment whenever meeting anyone new in the States, because so many times they'd start right in on us like it's any of their damn concern. I say, don't ask if you might not like the answer! I finally gave up and just started lying and saying she's my roommate, which I really hate doing, because I really don't like lying for any reason and I don't like denying our relationship. But it got so we started doing it habitually, because we couldn't even go out and have a good time at mixed social events because some closed-minded jerk always had to take it upon him/herself to ask the question and then ruin our good time. We had to either go to gay events or face the homophobes.
Mind you, it's not like we were in the Deep South either... this was California, one of the most socially liberal states in the U.S., a leader that has had domestic partnership in place since 1999. So draw your conclusions from there. I lived for a brief time in the U.S. South, incidentally, so I know what I'm talking about, and I can vouch for the fact that the widespread racism, homophobia, condemnation of anyone who is not a fundamentalist Christian, and general closedmindedness were shocking and dismaying enough to convince me to avoid any future visits.
So coming here to Canada, it's mind-blowing and really refreshing when the question comes up about my same-sex partner, who also happens to be of a different race than myself, and nobody even bats an eye. What a difference!
Returning to Canada as an adult has made for some serious culture shock, in so many very positive ways. We love it here! And as we get to know it better, we love it even more. We have a lot of dear loved ones in the States, but we wouldn't dream of moving back.
Before I begin discussing this, let me just say that there are a whole lot of non-political reasons why we moved here. I suspect it's the same for most American expatriates. If you moved every time politics didn't go your way, you'd never stay in any country for very long. That said, U.S. politics and the extent to which the U.S. government neglects the needs of the people have rubbed us the wrong way for a long time.
I can really relate with the gal who said it's not just Bush. A contributing factor is the fact that literally ½ of Americans knew what Bush was about, had watched him in action since 2000, knew what he was going to do, and still voted for him again. Now, despite a truly abysmal presidency full of lies and illegal conduct, fraught with scandals, wrongful deaths, enshrining torture, ignoring habeas corpus and basic human rights, flouting of Constitutional rights and the system of checks and balances, blatantly taking from the poor to give to the rich, gutting the educational system, and so much more... the Republicans still garnered 45.7% of the vote last November. I'll never understand this. Are people taking crazy pills?? This speaks volumes about American society in general and in my mind is just one more symptom of how backward things are over there. (See my discussion of the U.S. South below.)
I can also relate to the lesbian couple, who quite enjoy having the right to marry and full protection under the law. When I've met people here, and they inquire upon introduction who my partner is to me so they'll know how to refer to her, it doesn't even faze them when I tell them. They don't freak out or hesitate or anything. It's amazing! I've always dreaded that moment whenever meeting anyone new in the States, because so many times they'd start right in on us like it's any of their damn concern. I say, don't ask if you might not like the answer! I finally gave up and just started lying and saying she's my roommate, which I really hate doing, because I really don't like lying for any reason and I don't like denying our relationship. But it got so we started doing it habitually, because we couldn't even go out and have a good time at mixed social events because some closed-minded jerk always had to take it upon him/herself to ask the question and then ruin our good time. We had to either go to gay events or face the homophobes.
Mind you, it's not like we were in the Deep South either... this was California, one of the most socially liberal states in the U.S., a leader that has had domestic partnership in place since 1999. So draw your conclusions from there. I lived for a brief time in the U.S. South, incidentally, so I know what I'm talking about, and I can vouch for the fact that the widespread racism, homophobia, condemnation of anyone who is not a fundamentalist Christian, and general closedmindedness were shocking and dismaying enough to convince me to avoid any future visits.
So coming here to Canada, it's mind-blowing and really refreshing when the question comes up about my same-sex partner, who also happens to be of a different race than myself, and nobody even bats an eye. What a difference!
Returning to Canada as an adult has made for some serious culture shock, in so many very positive ways. We love it here! And as we get to know it better, we love it even more. We have a lot of dear loved ones in the States, but we wouldn't dream of moving back.
31 December 2008
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:
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.
23 December 2008
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:
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."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."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."
13 November 2008
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.
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.
08 November 2008
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:
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:
05 November 2008
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.
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.
20 September 2008
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.
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.
18 September 2008
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.
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,
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
