I combined it with John McCain's "McTongue" grab-a$$ looking pic from when he walked off stage the wrong way after the third presidential debate:
The end result:
08 November 2008
Rick Mercer's "Photo Challenge"
Political satirist Rick Mercer regularly conducts a "photo challenge," in which he posts photos of politicians on his website and your challenge is to "doctor" them as you see fit for amusement value. My miserable 3-second attempt to resist taking on this challenge was thwarted by the fact that this one was a pic of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom I like even less these days given recent events. Here's the original:
I combined it with John McCain's "McTongue" grab-a$$ 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.
15 October 2008
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 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.
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.
07 September 2008
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.
26 August 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
