Canadian police chase

I saw this and just about fell off my chair.



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

Prop H8 - Separation of church and state?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Mercer's "Photo Challenge"

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



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



The end result:

Congratulations, Obama!

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

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

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

So, what was the point of this again?

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

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

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

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

The case against fixed terms

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts on Conservatives and the MMP system

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

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

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

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

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

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