William Matheson's Journal

10:55 pm - Thoughts on the Budget

This new budget is a piece of trash. As Chantal Hébert put it, it's like they decided to hit all the buttons at once. There's no strategy, and the vision is suspect. Do you really believe that this government is going to go back to balanced budgets within five years? I don't even want to give them that chance to prove themselves - governments shouldn't be allowed that kind of long leeway - and I hope Ignatieff does the right thing (for the country, if not his party) and pulls the plug on this government. I'm just sick of them. I've lost my objectivity.

You know, when you borrow money, not only do you have to sacrifice more later to pay that money back, but you also have to spend more and more to service that debt as you go along. Heck, Nova Scotia now spends nearly half its money every year on servicing its ancient debts! At the federal level, Martin brought us fiscal responsibility, and we've been reaping the rewards... until now. Now the cupboard is bare, and these charlatan "Conservatives" want to throw caution to the wind and spend like Trudeau. It makes me want to scream.

Let's say the good times come back again. Well, there's nothing unsexier, politically speaking, than using an entire surplus on debt repayment. You know as well as I that people are going to be coming with their hands out at the faintest whiff of found money, and scarce if any dollars will be put on the debt that we're incurring today.

I ask you, when does this end? When will we recognize government deficit, except in emergencies, as immoral? I could understand if we decided to run a deficit to shore up, say, unemployment benefits, and help people shoulder the blow. Fine. But permanent tax cuts? New programs? New infrastructure? (That infrastructure has to be maintained, by the way.)

No, this budget is a mirage - Flaherty has given us everything but the moon, but with no way to pay for it. Pull the plug.

By the way, don't listen to people who tell you to spend money. I hate that we're being told that saving money is bad and spending lots and lots of money is good. It's a bunch of baloney from people who want to keep the party going and see if the snake eating its own tail can circle around back to its head. Our economy was unsustainable, and it should be allowed to settle - we should consume smarter, and consume less.

See also:

la soubrette: Budget Time

Elizabeth May: Vision and the Commitment to a Green Economic Future (this title is used ironically)

Current Mood: infuriated

10:29 pm - Thoughts on the Inauguration

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

In contrast to W.’s election-focused “freedom agenda” (which handed Hamas the keys to Gaza when it won a free and open 2006 vote), [diplomat Richard] Haass and his co-author Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, argue for a “more sustainable balance between U.S. interests and U.S. values.” The right answer for the Middle East’s problems is not shock democracy, they say, but an “evolutionary process of liberalization,” focusing on game changers like judicial independence, freedom of the press and governmental transparency.

Imagine that on Sept. 12, 2001, [George W. Bush] had put the economy on a war footing, raised taxes, and asked everyone to sacrifice in order to catch Osama bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaida. The whole country would have rallied behind him. Instead he said: "Go shopping."

Current Mood: pensive

10:38 pm - The Harper Eighteen

Harper's appointing eighteen Senators.

What more can I say?

Well, I'll point you to Rex. Nothing like a sharp, gloriously pithy Newfie wit to cut to the heart of things.

Current Mood: enthralled

12:22 pm - Ignatieff on Politics

Michael Ignatieff on Politics

When asked if he'd break up his holidays to have a coffee with Stephen Harper, he says, "Well, there are other things I'd rather be doing." LOL! No, seriously, I thought Rae was the funny guy, but Ignatieff is no slouch on earnest one-liners either!

I really like how he says that it's not his job to restore confidence in Parliament. It's the prime minister's! Right on!

It's been only one day, but it's been a good one! I hope this holds up. Yeah, I still have my quibbles about how he got in, but they're kind of theoretical in light of the fact that 1) he's hilarious and 2) Rae actually nominated him, so there's obviously little if any bad blood within the party (the upper echelons at least).

Current Mood: amused

09:37 pm - Enter Ignatieff

I don't mind where we're going, but a few things about how we're getting there bug me.

First the good news. Michael Ignatieff will be the new leader of the Liberal party. Rae was a bit more naturally likable in my opinion, but Ignatieff will do, too. And the best news of all is that there seems to be, so far, some solidarity on this. Nobody's spoken out yet. (And I don't encourage them in muzzling people - I encourage people to fix problems so that muzzling is never necessary. I hope that the reason nobody's spoken out is that nobody had a compelling reason to.)

As I'm typing this I'm reflecting on the lunacy of the situation. As if we expect someone to cry foul at any minute.

And maybe they should. The thing that bugs me is that they really should have held at least an online one-member-one-vote plebiscite on this. It couldn't have been binding, but they could have at least taken the results to the party executive who would then presumably act according to the wishes of the party members. There is no compelling argument for not having done this.

I think we're also at the end of the line for delegated conventions. They're as obsolete as our parliamentary system - perhaps more egregiously so. One member, one vote. The technology is there, and the informed voters are there (I'm assuming people who buy federal party memberships are already well-informed enough to be trusted to make the best choices for themselves).

It doesn't matter that this was Rae's "hail Mary" play. It should have been done on principle. Yes, the formal ratification would have to have come later and separately - it goes ahead in any case. But with a real choice, even made beforehand, it would have been more meaningful than, say, the 2002 election in Iraq. (Oh, do participate in the upcoming Vancouver lovefest. They need the money! If there's another election, they could be nearly bankrupt.)

What we have instead is an uncontested backroom coronation. It's uncontested only because the other person doesn't have a shot since the pool of the franchised is so shallow. If I was inclined to be uncharitable, I'd compare this to a certain Zimbabwean election that Tsvangirai was forced to withdraw from.

And now our thoughts turn to the future of the Coalition. The latest episode of Politics is instructive on this point. The NDP is still quite keen on it, but Ignatieff would probably like to leapfrog out of the painted corner.

NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair, appearing on this brooahdcast, said that the NDP doesn't trust Harper anymore - even if he does come out in January with a raft of good ideas, they're not going to "be Charlie Brown" and hope that Lucy doesn't take away the football again next time. If they see something they like, they'll put it into the first Coalition budget.

I don't trust Harper, either. He's done nothing to earn or cultivate any trust. He's shrewd and canny and a great puppeteer. Practically all of the West is marching to his tune. He gets on TV, paints one-sided pictures of things, unfairly demonizes his political opponents, and the pleebs eat it up like it's gospel. Please. He's a sad commentary, too - proof that you don't need to be honest and pragmatic to get to the most powerful office in the country.

So I'm still pro-Coalition, although the odds of it going ahead are much smaller now. Ignatieff might prefer to take his chances with an election. They could also try working with the Conservatives, although there'd better be some major progressive policy concessions from the Cons, or the Liberals are just going to be irrelevant again, just as they were under Dion. (Those repeated abstentions from critical votes made the whole party a laughingstock. Towing the Conservative line for a year or two is equally stupid.)

I wonder when we'll just throw up our hands and cry, "Enough! Enough of politics!" I hope that day comes soon. In the meantime, I suppose this has been a fall to remember!

Current Mood: cynical

10:04 pm - To All Potential Convention Delegates

DON'T VOTE FOR BOB RAE HE IS A CYBORG

Current Mood: amused

07:50 pm - A Forced Becalment

Now I'm going to try to force myself to express my indignations using classier words that are more than four letters long. Style matters.

Here's a link I wanted to share in the previous post but couldn't, as it would have made it seem like the linkee might somehow condone or endorse my mini-explosion:

"Coward" - Garth Turner, garth.ca

Former Halton MP Garth Turner paints a scary picture of what's happening. I'll add this: Let's say he's right, and there's an election called right off the bat. The Conservatives would probably love to do this - their main opposition party will be leaderless. Boy, if you thought this past Liberal campaign was a disaster, this one would put them into Campbell territory - imagine Ignatieff, Rae, and LeBlanc campaigning simultaneously. People - to a fault, I often think - put so much stock into stability and certainty that they'll just shrug their shoulders and give Harper a majority.

I admit that I'm biased against Harper, but wouldn't you be biased against a Prime Minister who lies to us again and again and again? He just keeps broadcasting his lies and hoping that they stick. Usually they do, because a critical mass of people aren't as well-informed or as adept at critical thinking (yet!) as they ought to be.

fume groan grindteeth growl harumph et cetera

Current Mood: infuriated

07:18 pm - Fumigation

GAH! I'm just about ready to throw something heavy through something fragile! I'm just so... teed off!

It's sinking in to me that we have an incompetent bunch of clowns in Ottawa cowering under a narcissistic, lying son of a snake. This isn't a very nice thing to say. I'm not feeling very nice right now.

And right now some zarking ball players are thumping and pounding in an adjacent room - I have no clue why, and it wouldn't be a problem if the walls weren't so goddamned thin here. It's a good thing I'm on my self-imposed Japan and work-related blogging embargo, or I'd let rip like a... balloon that a pelican intercepted and collided with? The conflagration would burn mostly me.

I'm really ticked at Her Excellency and frankly disgusted that we now have a precedent that allows a sitting Prime Minister to just avoid Parliament whenever things aren't going his or her way. What the fuck IS that? As if we needed to concentrate even MORE power in the Prime Minister's office?! Man, I'm going to get a stomach ulcer from this if I don't chill out.

I just can't take any more of this hypocrisy. I'm knee-deep in it at work - I don't need flarging more of it in my home nargging country.

I'm teed at the Liberals, too - what in the name of [you pick this one] were they doing in 2006? They had no business waiting an entire year to "reinvent themselves." What a bunch of nonsense! It's the goddamn leader's job to do that! Elect a goddamn leader! DO IT TODAY! GET A NEW LEADER NOW!! Fuck waiting until May. That's like striking when the iron has been chucked out the airlock and been allowed to cool to nearly absolute zero.

Now we're going to be stuck with the Cons for years because of these morons! I'm just... frickin... SICK of this CRAP! You think YOU feel underrepresented? My party doesn't EXIST anymore! Well, I guess there are the Greens, if you can call them a party...

Sigh.

Current Mood: infuriated

06:38 am - and... ker-klunk

Parliament shut down till Jan. 26 - Steven Chase and Bill Curry, The Globe and Mail

Standing in the foyer of the House of Commons after Mr. Harper's announcement, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said: "We must realize the enormity of what has happened here today. For the first time in the history of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada is running away from the Parliament of Canada."

All three opposition leaders said they still intend to bring down the government. Mr. Dion said only a "monumental change" on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the coalition will not be abandoning its accord over the next seven weeks while the Commons is shuttered.

"I cannot have confidence in a Prime Minister who would throw the locks on the door of this place, knowing that he's about to lose a vote in the House of Commons," Mr. Layton said. "That's denying about as fundamental a right as one has in a democracy."

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe reacted similarly. "We don't believe him and we don't have confidence in him."

Current Mood: aggravated

05:58 pm - The Coalition Explained in 30 Seconds by an English Teacher in Japan

This is something that's easier to make sense of visually, so here goes:

The Coalition Explained in 30 Seconds by an English Teacher in Japan (hastily made at work; click to enlarge)

Thursday morning Harper will take his eight-vehicle motorcade about 300 feet across the road and ask you for permission to shut down Parliament until the end of January. This will be for the sole purpose of avoiding a confidence vote Monday night he knows he cannot win. In doing this, Harper – who inherited the mantle of the people-first, bottom-up Reform Party - will seek to silence every MP and every voter. He will be the first to ever do this, the ultimate failure of an elected leader. There is absolutely no reason for his request to be granted. If it is, your very office will have been infected with the Harper contagion.

Whether you agree the coalition is reasonable or not isn’t the issue now. Duceppe and the Blocheads aren’t either (the guy made it crystal on TV he will not be part of any government). Whether you think Layton is a leftie fruitloop or Dion is a dweeb, simply doesn’t matter. Our prime minister has turned this into a screaming crisis that now envelops everyone. Does one man – even a prime minister – have the right to shutter the House of Commons? Simply because he won’t get his way? To avoid doing his job? To duck a vote?

Current Mood: anxious

08:38 pm - Strange Bedfellows

The current political machinations in Canada are a gift for people like me who live for this stuff. Please excuse the jubilant ramble that I am about to embark upon.

Well, I said the Liberals were doomed, and perhaps they are already dead, but it seems that they’re going to rise up and walk the Earth anyway, much like the zombies in those movies some of my friends like so much. Les morts-vivants!

But the thing of it is, I didn’t count on things changing. Few people did. Fair enough, to expect what just happened would be like expecting Randy Johnson to balk in the winning run of a championship game. I mean, Charlie Brown might do that. But you’d have to wait a while to see it happen to a major-league all-star.

But not forever! Stephen Harper just performed the political equivalent. He has stepped in the proverbial it. He got too greedy and went for the jugular – imagine being a contestant on a show where you’re guaranteed a million dollars but you can risk it all to go for that extra thousand and in the process bankrupt your rival. This is about what happened.

The Harper government has since retreated. They’re dropping the proposal to cut the existing $1.95-per-vote subsidy that the major federal political parties (from the Greens on up) currently receive. Unfortunately, it’s too late. The cat’s out of the bag. This government, by forcing its entire opposition into high-adrenaline fight-or-flight mode, has basically shut off its own ability to govern.

Make no mistake – this one goes entirely back to Harper. Oh, of course the aftermath is a partisan power grab. But it’s so much more interesting given the present economic situation and the worldwide information-driven political shift that we are also in the midst of. And this present scramble will also go down in the history books. Was Harper arrogant, or just plain stupid? (Or is arrogance itself a form of stupidity?) Rex Murphy is at his finest exploring that question as he blithely yet deftly searches for the logic in a fundamentally absurd situation:

All Politics, No Government – Rex Murphy, The National

Harper may succeed in convincing the Governor General to prorogue close parliament for a time. But she could very well refuse. Usually you close parliament after you’re finished your governing business, not before you even begin it.

If Harper fails, Dion may succeed in convincing her to allow him to form an alternative government. They’ve already got their ducks in a row.

If Harper succeeds, this whole business may be put aside until well into January (or longer), but I think we can count on Jean or – god forbid it would come to it – Her Magesty Herself to not allow parliament to prorogue, prorogue, and prorogue forever.

If either Harper (for proroguing) or Dion (for the Progressive Coalition) push “too hard,” we’ll end up back at the polls. We’ll be giving the Italians a run for their money!

When it comes down to utter constitutionality, we vote for MPs, not political parties. (If I had my druthers, I’d take political party names off of the ballots.) It’s perfectly conceivable and perfectly constitutional that this Canadian coup d’état should happen. There’s nothing written down about political parties, switching sides, or even Prime Ministers. It’s barely even understood by the general public, much less codified.

I’m terribly excited about all this – not so much for the prospect of Coalition government, though I expect it will be an improvement, but for the constitutional and procedural questions that will be answered in the coming days. The political landscape of our country will be forever altered.

In the long term, expect to see a concentrated push for electoral reform – especially preferential voting (in the form of instant-runoff), as that’s a really hot idea right now. That would help the big parties; on the other end you could also have proportional representation via a separate party list vote, and that would help the smaller parties. If we go to a Coalition, these kinds of reforms stand a good chance of being further discussed. If we go to an election, it is guaranteed.

We may argue in hindsight that the Conservatives were screwed when they didn’t get a majority – even if they had gone and been the kinder, transparent, and more civil government they were ostensibly aspiring to be. Take the Bloc MPs, for instance. Their stated raison d’être in the election was to prevent Harper from getting a majority. If they start supporting Harper wholesale again, their careers are toast. A Coalition may have been their only graceful way forward. The Liberals were in a similar position. If they’d gone on even allowing Harper a free hand, as they did for most of the last parliament, they’d have ended up politically bankrupt. The NDP could have gone either way, but there is a clear short-term advantage (including seats at the cabinet table) in uniting with their distant ideological cousins.

Therefore, we had a situation of deadlock – the right-wing party with a plurality that couldn’t get a majority versus the left-wing parties with a majority that couldn’t get a plurality. You can make this work for one parliament. But when everyone else comes back after the subsequent election with a mandate for opposing you, well…

Incidentally, that’s why a second minority is commonly regarded as a death sentence. And this combined with the special, extraordinary circumstances that we are in now will probably lead us to an alternative government.

* * *

Wow. What a day this has been! Obama and Clinton! Dion and Duceppe! Strange bedfellows, indeed!

Current Mood: enthralled

10:09 pm - Switching Gears: Hey, a new Cabinet!

Boy, the future looks grim for the Liberals. I said the Liberals are doomed; Rex Murphy says that they face long years rebuilding before government is even a realistic prospect. Well, the Tories faced long years of rebuilding. You see what happened to them. Expect the same thing to happen again, only this time it'll be on the centre-left, and we can only hope that it will not be left to Jack Layton to dictate terms.

Of course you'll realize that I am implicitly speaking of the federal situation - Liberal parties at the provincial level are often thriving and they are in government in five provinces - although only two of those governing Liberal parties (in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) are actually officially affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada. Quebec's, Ontario's, and British Columbia's are organizationally separate. I think that makes a difference. On the Progressive Conservative side, they govern in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. They too are separate, and they keep the "Progressive" moniker. (In 2000, when I questioned a PCNS recruiter on campus about Joe Clark, then-federal leader, I got a blank stare and a mumble of, "Of course we support the federal party." No, they actually wanted to distance themselves as much as they could at that point.)

So the Liberals are doing OK in many places - although in Nova Scotia they have been relegated to third-party status, as the NDP has replaced them at centre and left and become a government-in-waiting. OK - I am going to make this point even if it kills me - they are doing OK in many places, but federally? Boy. Seventy-seven seats isn't much better than two seats in this situation. Now, to be fair, it's not like the underpinnings of Dion's party suddenly walked away, leaving him with a slate of green, no-name candidates and having to resort to ads targeting his opponent's facial paralysis. It's more of a gradual bleed. They currently have more potential parliamentary talent, and they certainly have more distinct voices than the Tor- [whoops, what am I typing?] Conservatives do, but how long will this last? Still, while the Liberals may not govern again (I hope I'm being quick to write them off), they might be around for a while yet. Maybe we'll end up with a Liberal-Democratic Party of Canada. We might as well - a zillion other countries have them.

Okay, Harper's new Cabinet. Considering the relative paucity of talent at his disposal, I'm surprised that he appointed thirty-seven members to it to spread the watery margarine even further. Besides, given the centralized, secretive way they operate, they could have gotten by with three.

CBC's At Issue panel has weighed in on the cabinet. Hébert says that they'll have so many limousines lined up that no one will know who is responsible for what. Coyne: "If you're a female Conservative MP with a pulse, you're in."

I'm all for women in cabinet, but I still feel uncomfortable with the idea of token, "representative" cabinet selections. Still, few will argue with Leona Aglukkaq's appointment to Health. She's now Canada's first Inuit in a federal cabinet, and she was Minister of Health in Nunavut. I don't know the first thing about her, but if she could cope with Nunavut's unique challenges, she should be a fine Health minister.

And the best news of all? John Baird is out of Environment. He was an embarrassment to Canada. Under his watch, we've lost our leadership and moral suasion on the global stage. His replacement, Jim Prentice, is one of the few bright bulbs in the bunch. (Funny thing - they said the same thing about Harper when he was in the Canadian Alliance. What's with this crowd?)

Of course, Baird was shuffled to another position, Diane Finley's still around, and most of the rest of the miscreants and ne'erdowells are still around (though mercifully not Bernier - Canadians would have had Harper's head for that). But I'm cautiously optimistic. Heck, even Turner-ouster Lisa Riatt got in front of a microphone and (gasp!) talked to reporters. That they put Jim Prentice into Environment shows that they are willing to take the steps necessary to begin to eventually perhaps someday maybe if things go well and it doesn't rain become a responsible government. There were no floor-crossers or surprise Senate appointees (though I am certainly not against appointing existing Senators to cabinet).

I promised that I would enumerate the things this government has done that I approve of. Here is my list so far:

- New Youth Mobility Agreement with Poland (If this gets ratified, I could very well be heading off to Poland again.)
- Talks with the EU about establishing a partnership
- National Parks expansion
- Tax-Free Savings Account (An RRSP is vastly superior in the long-term, but this is a handy short-term savings tool, and also a good option for those who have maxed-out their RRSP contributions.)
- Continuing Paul Martin's push for Arctic sovereignty - this should be non-negotiable. Ships of the world should be welcome to use our waters, but they are our waters. They lie among our islands, for crying out loud!

I'd like to see (and probably won't):

- Decriminalizing marijuana
- A commitment to do whatever has to be done to keep us out of deficit. (If Martin had been re-elected in 2006, I guarantee you it would not have come to this. But it's a moot point, as he was governing on borrowed time even then.) We either cut spending a little bit now, or a much bigger bit later - we've got to pay the piper eventually, and the piper charges compound interest. I admire Harper being able to coolly say, "I will not raise taxes," but in a sense I wish he didn't paint himself into a corner like that.
- Reducing barriers to post-secondary education
- A lament that Arctic sovereignty is even an issue - before the Passage started completely melting in the summers, no one gave a damn - let's take action now before the Antarctic starts to melt and we have to learn to swim to school and work
- Harper's hockey book that he keeps talking about writing (although I suppose he might be wise to keep his hockey opinions private until after he leaves politics!)

Current Mood: drained

12:25 pm - "Anti-Abortion Measures Can Hurt ALL Pregnant Women" - NAPW

I can't believe these hospital horror stories. The unmitigated audacity of the nutbars and how far they're willing to go to shore up their position in the culture war scares the living heck out of me. "These 'stories' you're hearing are just scare tactics," they say. Well, they're not. They're very, very real.

Imagine you're a woman in labour and a sheriff comes knocking on your door and forces you to go to a hospital where a hearing is being held to determine if you will be forced to have a c-section. The state appoints a lawyer for the fetus, but not one for you. Fuck. What the heck is this?

At least Stephen Harper is keeping the worst of our nuts placated for now. I don't want to live in a country where this kind of thing happens. Ever.

Current Mood: enraged

06:44 pm - Obama, Zima, Peanuts

I heard Zima was being yanked, so I bought some tonight. I hadn't tried it before. It's OK. It's got a cool name and was a part of popular culture for a while (the item on this list that gets my attention was its mention on Babylon 5). [The problem with Babylon 5 is that it's so good that it spoiled my appetite for just about anything else on TV. These days I only bother to watch sports and news, which are the only things that need to be watched live.]

Now I'm trying a Smirnoff Ice, which is quite different here (and in the US) - it's a malt beverage (like Zima), not a vodka mix. It's got a "thicker" taste, and it's kind of like a weak chu-hi.

I was eating some peanuts today, and I was eating them in their shells. Unfortunately, the last one I popped in my mouth was kind of dirty, and it kind of left a filthy taste. Anyway, the shells are a good source of salt and fiber I suppose. =)

Finally, Obama aired his 27-minute ad this morning on three of the four major broadcast networks. It's uplifting and inspiring, if melodramatic. I almost would have preferred a straight-up 30-minute speech, and that was what I was kind of expecting - something like a Presidential address. (They did cut the closing of a rally in Florida [play the second video on that page] at the end of it, though.) In other news, the Phillies won the World Series. That's too bad, because I was hoping for weekend morning baseball, but it actually is OK because I may be going camping with the gang instead. No writing for me I guess!

Diversions:

1. In The Know: Has Halloween Become Overcommercialized? (The Onion - Video)

2. McCain Pollster: "Too Close to Call" (CQ Politics) - Putting the poll numbers aside, it's amazing how much McCain's crew hold their own supporters in contempt:

The race has moved significantly over the past week, closing to essentially tied on the last two-day roll. These gains are coming from sub-groups it should be possible to sustain over the next week, including:

- Non-college men;

- Rural voters, both men and women;

- Right-to-life voters; and most encouragingly;

- We are beginning to once again get over a 20% chunk of the vote among soft Democrats.

Importantly as well, our long identified target of "Walmart women" - those women without a college degree in households under $60,000 a year in income are also swinging back solidly in our direction.

Wow, the poor and un/under-educated are turning out in record numbers for you. (Subtext: because they're not yet equipped with the intellectual resources to know that you're lying to them.) Way to go, McCain!

I expected better.

Current Mood: good

09:22 pm - Whassup? Not much... bloggin' on LJ, havin' a Kirin Season's Premium

It's busy busy busy time for me these days, so I'm not going to write a whole bunch - instead, here's something interesting to read and then something that actually is laugh out loud funny to watch (although the political message is slightly heavy-handed):

1. What a McCain Win Would Look Like - Newsweek's Johnathan Alter puts together a plausible scenario in which McCain wins, written in retrospective style. It's worth reading, as it lends credence to Democratic "nightmares that defeat will be snatched from the jaws of victory." Here's how it could happen, and it's not nearly as farfetched as one might imagine.

2. Change. That's wassup - Remember the "Whassup?" guys? They're back! The new piece pays excellent homage to the old commercial (it was made by and with the same people), but it's still as funny as all get out even if you haven't seen said old commercial (and I hadn't - only parodies of it, as I guess I was watching mostly Canadian or simsubbed USAmerican TV at the time). Fortunately, freshman political blogger Jerad Gallinger embeds both videos for our convenience.

Current Mood: hopeful

10:08 pm - Why the Liberals are Doomed (or, An Offhand Rant Thrashing Politics)

Dion’s failure to get out the progressive vote last week is, in my opinion, as much of a commentary on politics as it is on Dion.

The Liberals are doomed. Does anyone honestly think that Ignatieff or Rae or Tobin or (hey, we can hope) McKenna can just sweep in and lead the Liberals back to victories? Not a chance.

If you have to put me on a two-dimensional linear scale, I’m a “liberal,” but I don’t want to have to become a Liberal. I shouldn’t have to. Nobody should have to. Nobody wants the big tent anymore, except the neocons charlatans who are willing to sacrifice integrity for integration. Our very system rewards such integration and punishes individuality. Look how many independents just got elected to parliament. I count two. Out of 308. That’s, let’s see, 0.65% of the seats. Actually, it’s really more like 0.00%, as these mavericks will be rewarded for their independence by being shut out of parliamentary committees, and they will never have the chance to ask questions in Question Period. This is the real reason why Garth Turner joined the Liberals – of course, as soon as he did, the pro-Dion rhetoric came a-flowin’. (He was still, to his credit, open about their disagreements.)

I want to stress that I am extremely grateful that Garth Turner almost single-handedly changed the balance of information in this country. He informed countless common folk* (e.g.: me) about the ins-and-outs of Ottawa, and he had an admirable individualist integrity. Still, I can’t help but wonder if he really believed that the Liberals had a shot at winning, or that he even had a shot at his own riding. He demonized his opponent Lisa Raitt, perhaps rightly – maybe I should have taken that as a sign that he would go on to lose Halton by 7,800 votes. That’s eleven percentage points – I can’t call that close.

* - I’d originally written “ordinary Canadians,” but that’s a hackneyed, overused phrase. It’s also got a pandering quality that I don’t care for.

How many of you out there are happy with the outcome of this election? As a fellow CPA grad puts it, this election was a campaign of failure. And he said that before the polls opened. People are tired of the same old stuff.

Politics require too great a suspension of disbelief. No one wants to follow the puppeteer’s strings anymore. We have a new appreciation for individuality which stands at odds with the collective thinking that’s bred and protected by our political system.

The intelligent compassionates out there (to whom the Liberal party nominally caters) are sometimes smart enough not to bother with partisan politics and may be hard pressed to hammer down signs like sheep. “I’m blue!” “I’m red!” How inane is this?

Dion is presently noted for being only the second Liberal leader in history (and first since 1887) not to go on to become Prime Minister, but his successors will probably make him be merely the first of many. The Liberal leadership chronicle’s role as a list of Prime Ministers is over.

Let’s flip over to the United States of America, where they still have a mythos concerning the Presidency and presidential candidates. I have to admit that I’ve often bought into it too. Names like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Regan and Clinton are writ large across the pages of history. You experience emotion similar to a baseball fan rattling off the members of the 1939 New York Yankees.

Still, as this is the information age, I wonder if this could be the last hurrah in the US for cults of personality. I’m confident Obama will be a fair president, but I’m betting on incremental improvements, not sweeping changes. In fact, Obama is really promulgating a return – going back to things that work, like living within our means**, both personally and governmentally. He will take steps towards ensuring universal health care (coverage), though I suspect if he really wants that he may end up having to nationalize their whole health care system in order to get it. They might as well; they might spend less money at the end of the day: Canadians spend 10% of their GDP on health care while USAmericans spend 15.3%, so even if the government isn’t paying, somebody is. Why let all these insurance companies be middlemen? Universal health care is nothing new either; to say it is widely practised would be an understatement.

** - As early as 2004 I wondered what was going to happen in a climate where people weren’t paying their bills and borrowing more and more money. Now I know.

Rant: By the way, people should stop borrowing great gobs of money to buy homes. Due to demand driven by people who had banks willing to finance them, the prices went up and up and it got to the point where the only way to by a house was to borrow those great gobs of money. Things should be worth what they’re worth, and people should be able to buy a house outright after saving for, oh, fifteen years: $10,000 X 15 = $150,000, a sum of money that should be sufficient to buy a house! I’ve saved $4,500 so far from my crappy job, and those of you with half decent jobs and no dependents should be able to squirrel away $10K a year if you budget carefully. (Hint: Don’t buy the plasma TV.) Anyway, it’s being established that you can’t support both 1) universal home ownership and 2) reasonable entry prices. It might be best not to support universal home ownership – a full-blown house should be an estate, a privilege. The rest of us should camp out in nice apartments (or, more likely, in our parents’ basements) until we can afford the dang things, if we even want them. End rant.

Anyway, expect incremental improvements and a lot of pain (or, if McCain wins, even more palin). While it’s all well and good that the free world is getting a change in leadership, somehow I feel uneasy. To wit:

- Why do we still need leaders?

- Why do we blindly accept institutional control over our lives?

- Why do we proclaim voting as some sacred democratic panacea? Selecting “A” or “B” (or, in the case of Canada, “C,” or “D,” or “E”) while cloistered in a box doesn’t equate true democracy. It’s barely even a mandate for ‘representation’ – and this is besides the utterly arrogant presumption that we need people to make decisions for us, as if we are not informed or not intelligent enough. Maybe I don’t want this brand of ‘representation.’ And what kind of idiot must I be to expect that any politician will put my interests ahead of his own? Of course he won’t, and maybe he shouldn’t even be expected to.

- What we have is better than what many other countries have to deal with, but the fact that our ‘system’ isn’t universally implemented betrays its severe flaws and its lack of adaptability. Too much depends on human nature and who has the money. Look at Russia’s implementation of “democracy.” Or just look at ours.

I’m not offering much in the way of answers. I leave that to each of you – perhaps if we all take charge as individuals, in the far future, with any luck, some or all of the questions I am posing here will become moot.

Diversions:
1. How we confuse symbols and things: Government (Paul Lutus, arachnoid.com)

2. Homer attempts to vote for Obama (The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror XIX, youtube.com) This clip is a brilliant political commentary on its own. It’s also painfully close to reality in West Virginia, where machines are switching peoples’ votes in early voting.

3. Adieu, boss (Garth Turner, garth.ca) Garth comments on his history so far with Dion and the Liberals, and makes a few predictions about digital democracy and political parties.

4. Now inside stories can be told (Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, stcatherinesstandard.ca) Now we know why the television ads put out by the Liberals were negative and why there weren’t more positive, upbeat Dion ads - a large part of the party machine was in open revolt against him.

11:32 pm - Obama Defeats McCain

The morning after the Liberal victory in 1993, the Chronicle-Herald ran a headline that creatively combined the word "grit" (the singular form of the nickname for the Liberals) and "blitzkrieg" (a military doctrine popularized by the Germans). I've been searching for the exact headline, but it escapes both my efforts and recollection.

I wonder what the headline will be on November 5th. It's shaping up to be a Democratic rout. Playing with the map at this other site, I selected the states where Obama has a 10% or greater lead in polling, and that alone gets him 264 electoral votes to McCain's similarly-derived 171. It takes 270.

Assuming the candidates with 10% or greater leads go on to win, McCain must have the following states to win (in order of electoral votes):
Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, West Virginia
plus one of:
Montana, North Dakota
[10/21: The McCain camp is giving up on Colorado (as well as Iowa and New Mexico, where they're not close), and instead they are going all-out for Pennsylvania, where Obama currently enjoys a twelve-point lead. It's a long shot, but if they get it, it could change everything.]

Obama is leading, by a little or a fair bit, in seven of these states. Unless he is revealed to have eaten babies in Ayers' living room, or Biden is demonstrated to be an android sent from the Planet Xygglar to monitor us, expect to see Obama in the White House next year. And hooray for that.

The election is still two long weeks away, so let's be very careful. Also, people might be tempted not to vote, because of either the advance polls or what will have already transpired on election night before their own states' polls close. And we all remember how Dewey "defeated" Truman.

Not only is the Republican brand toxic (which I lament to some extent because Abraham Lincoln, generally acknowledged to be one of the finest leaders of men that ever lived, was a Republican), but there are implications that go beyond just the presidency: in some states, voters can vote a straight ticket and with one beep or ker-chunk just vote Democratic or Republican (or, in theory, Green or Libertarian or Constitution or Independence, etc..) all the way from President to Dog-Catcher. In some states, the candidates for President are included in the straight-ticket option, in others, the candidates for President must be voted for separately.

I've only been to the United States twice, and despite having one USAmerican coworker, I can hardly be said to have my finger on the pulse of their nation (or anything, for that matter). But from what I'm reading, it's shaping up to be a tragic night for Republicans. Maybe not Kim Campbell 1993 bad, but it'll be down there. OK, so Joe the Plumber is behind on his taxes. Whatever. But now former Secretary of State Colin Powell is endorsing Obama. (Joe Lieberman, eat your heart out.) Passengers on the good ship Republican had better stick close to the lifeboats.

Don't worry, they're keeping Palin from the media, in both the usual sense and the juror sense.

Halifax mayoral race:

Current Mood: awake

12:41 pm - McCain et Obama sans fromage

Attention internet time-shifters (including me, because I was at work at the time):

If you want to watch an unadulterated feed of the United States of America's second Presidential debate, fire up Windows Media Player and paste this into "Open URL...":

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/16493/canadavotes/2008/news-usa-presidential-debate-10-07-08.wmv

Apparently it's more of a town hall than an actual debate, but I'll watch it anyway...

Update: Worth watching. The candidates really bent the rules, so there was quite a bit more back-and-forth than the format was set up to allow. It would have been nice if there was more, but it's hard to see how there could have been, given the format.

This is just an off-the-cuff opinion, but on most matters I think Obama is better at Straight Talk™ than McCain. Obama is a politician, but he exhibits a greater willingness to tell the truth than most. He also does it in a palatable way, which is not easy to do - it's often much easier to lie, especially in the context of government and the political process, which many people don't understand well enough to be able to think independently about.

Even if Obama doesn't win, this election has been terrific for democracy, and its legacy will last a generation. People worldwide are tuned in to this 21st century drama played on an 18th century electoral system. (For example, some people in Canada, like me, are saying, "WTF? They have to register to vote in advance?") But this time, the stakes are so high that Americans are tuned in in spite of their system (and ours is different, but in many ways we've just traded one set of problems for another). People are talking cold turkey in these tough times. Hypocrites like Palin and Spitzer are reviled and ridiculed without mercy. All eyes are on the race. The Internet ensures dissemination of the minutiae that newspapers and television couldn't or wouldn't deliver in the past - knowledge is power, the people have knowledge, and the inescapable conclusion is that the people will have power.

The Washington Post has a terrific analysis page with a very important ingredient: fact-checking. I don't categorically trust or distrust politicians - I simply believe that their feet need to be kept to the fire. I eagerly await the future politicians of the Information Age - as the populace becomes better informed, the old tricks won't work (as effectively) anymore, and the results among the political "class" will be Darwinian.

Here's a gem right off the top, on McCain's admonition that the United States should stop sending $700 billion a year for oil to countries that don't like them:

According to the Energy Information Administration, which bills itself as offering the "official energy statistics from the U.S. government," the top producer of crude oil for import into the U.S. is Canada, not exactly a country that doesn't like us. The second largest is Saudi Arabia, another ally. And then Mexico, also a key ally.

Current Mood: curious

08:22 pm - Palling Around with Terrorists

Palin is saying that Obama is someone who pals around with terrorists. She cites the example of Bill Ayers. The two have served on boards together, and Ayers held a fundraising event for Obama at his house before Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate.

What Palin fails to mention is that:

1. Ayers' activities (including non-fatally bombing government buildings) occurred when Obama was the ripe old age of eight.

2. (Gee, I sound like Biden...) Ayers was protesting an unpopular, bloody war. Unlike Iraq, people were being drafted into this war. It was ... Vietnam.

Ayers avoided imprisonment because the charges had to be dropped because of the way the FBI collected evidence. His activism since the Vietnam War seems to have been non-violent. Based on the dubious moral ground the United States was on in fighting the war in the first place, I'd be willing to give Ayers the benefit of the doubt. I'm definitely not willing to label him a "terrorist" - perhaps I would in the past form. But extreme times call for extreme measures. To call him a terrorist without qualifying remarks is misleading and presupposes an attitude that governments are always the good guys. They're not. (Nor are the rebels.) There's a moral relativism here that needs to be recognized - Palin is justified in questioning the association, but she needs to give the American people credit for the gray matter between their ears and lay out the whole story, not just the shocking sound byte.

("Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists")

Current Mood: annoyed

07:01 pm - 138. Movies, Politics, Japan, Messages and MORE

I was going to go to Temple 88 this morning, but I wussed out. I wasn’t awake until 10am, which I think is too late to get a good run at it. I’ve set my alarm for 7 and I’ll try again tomorrow. [No, I'll leave it. It's too far away. I'll get it someday when I return. (And it also ended up raining.)] Next weekend, the long weekend, I hope to get to 20 and 21. Then there may be a road trip to Kochi on the second November long weekend (the first is taken up by an open lesson).

I’m embittered yet happy. It’s an odd feeling.

I just watched Casino Royale – the original Casino Royale, one of the two non-canonical 007 movies. It’s a funny film, and by that I mean ‘odd.’ It’s got a terrific score, high production values, a cornucopia of sexy eye candy, and it sometimes works as a satire, but much of the time it’s just ridiculousness for ridiculousness’ sake. That approach has worked exactly once (as far as I’ve seen, anyway), and even the Holy Grail of meaningless satire unravels towards the end. I laughed out loud a few times during Casino Royale, but it wasn’t compelling and I waited for it to be over.

(The other non-canon 007 movie, Never Say Never Again, is far more satisfying. It’s a worthy instalment – Connery looked old in the tedious Diamonds are Forever, released 12 years earlier, but he looked to be in his prime in this one. It can definitely be called Bond 13a and put on the shelf between Octopussy and A View to a Kill.)

On Wednesday night we saw Hancock. It was OK, but it left me wanting. I could have used at least another half-hour of Will Smith ‘Tude. The main plot was workable, but the subplots (if you can even call them that) were thin and utterly disposable. And the origin story is revealed way too early. It would have been better if Hancock just was. I didn’t even care about where he came from – I just wanted to see him smash stuff around and make wisecracks. Oh, and Charlize Theron is hot.

The best part of Hancock was seeing the trailer for Quantum of Solace. I jumped out of my seat and cheered, thinking I’d be seeing it soon. But a second glance at the release date informed me that it wouldn’t be here until early next year. I go home at Christmas – I hope it will still be playing somewhere. I missed the chance to see the modern Casino Royale on the big screen because my “girlfriend” at the time couldn’t stomach it because her father also liked 007 movies. I saw it at home and when I tried to go to sleep that night I instead sat up handwriting a three-page sycophantic, rapturous “review.” I didn’t type it up and post it, because I feared it would make me look silly – much like these obsessive capsule-reviews probably are. =)

Election stuff: You’ve seen the Harpernomics ads. Those are a start, I guess. Why can’t the Liberals put out something like this, though? It’s so catchy!

Here’s something cute:
Harper Ad Spoof: Room for Everyone

South of the border, the VP debate was reasonably compelling – Biden was a bit restrained, and Palin performed respectably. Good for her, really. I wasn’t satisfied with either of their positions on gay marriage. Palin spoke of “tolerating” same-sex couples and perhaps begrudgingly granting rights such as hospital visits. Biden would grant marriage-equivalent rights, but not under marriage – he proposes what boils down to “separate but equal.” Um, NO. I’m sorry; I don’t find that the slightest bit acceptable. It’s every bit as odious as racial segregation was. Look, nobody’s talking about forcing religious entities to perform or even sanction same-sex marriages. We’re talking about allowing the same kind of social and political recognition that straight spouses are entitled to. There’s a big perception difference between, say, “boyfriend/girlfriend” and “husband/wife,” and we should afford gay couples who want to be married the same perception and recognition – we should extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Oh, wait, we do. =)

People must like getting married – they do it so often and repeatedly! Allowing gay couples into marriage will hardly destabilize the storied, lifetime commitments made in the straight world. =)

School stuff: The pay discrepancy here is just retarded. I’ve talked about this before, but it’s getting more and more irritating by the day. Now, it’s one thing if novice teacher x gets a modest, liveable salary that’s only half or a third of what experienced teacher y is getting. I don’t categorically object to that. What drives me up the wall is that I’m going to have $5,500 saved for university at the end of this year of living off cup noodles and instant oatmeal. Not only is it a drop in the bucket, but if I were one of the local hires, who this term have one – one! – more class per week than I do, I would have been able to save $17,500 and not have to worry about tuition ever again. (I can thus safely say that the “intern” label is just a way to get people to do the same work for much less money.) Okay, if I were making more money, I’d probably be tempted to spend more, but I’d still make an effort.

When I was talking with one Western parent (which I suppose is a breach of the rules, but I’m almost daring these shysters to fire me), he said, “Oh, you guys can’t go anywhere, can you?” “Well, we have our mama-charis.” “Ha-ha, how quaint.” Stupid parents and their cars. =) Not that I need a car, but I can only dream about affording one, and I love to drive. When I take the children out in the afternoons to cross the street to the parking lot (God, that’s poor design, isn’t it?), I have to work hard to keep the resentment off my face when I see the Mercedes and Volvos and cavernous Toyotas come to pick them up. The whole setup here is a recipe for exploitation, and I am a target. If I could quit without severe consequences, I would. If I were fired, at least I could leave with my head held high. But surviving is not a bad option, either. There’s really not that much time left, and I’m still learning a lot of valuable lessons here.

One thing that sticks in my craw is the lack of congenial, relaxing space at school. Back in Canada, we actually have teacher’s lounges. Staff rooms have comfortable couches and are a place to eat, chat, or maybe do some lightweight work.

Here, if I’m feeling tired, I have to sneak up to the top of the East Building stairs (where the doors are to go out onto the roof) and have a quick nap there.

K. was telling me that some of the public schools here have lounges, and they sound like they could be better than Canada’s. They’re well appointed because they’re used to receive guests and have tea, but they’re also used by the teachers. The same cannot really be said of our well-appointed nook, because it’s the principal’s office. Generally speaking, you need permission to be in there (although right now that’s been relaxed because of the renovations that force us to use the room for utilitarian purposes).

I’m just, you know, getting tired of working under the eye of someone. I feel like I always have to look busy. It’s utterly stupid. Nobody can be effectively busy all the time. I feel like I’m expected to scurry about and look like I’m doing a million things at once. Gah, that’s no way to work!

OK, breathe. I’ve got a lot to be thankful for – yes, mostly in spite of the situation, but that’s still something valuable. And it’s not like the teachers or even the bosses are all bad, it’s mostly just the system that’s screwed up.

I wonder if the late Mr. M. knows how resentfully I eye his portrait that hangs in every room. If there’s clairvoyance in the Great Beyond, he’ll understand. (I say this knowing that I am in need of such clairvoyance myself. But… ( read on! )

You know something, though? Remember when you said "Yes, Will, run away from your problems, that's the answer." Or something like that. Of course you were being sarcastic. But in a way, I've found that it works! You can run away - to another country, another society. You bring your problems with you and discover new ones.

But when you're away from your home society, you get the advantage of looking on it from afar. I've given a lot of thought to where I was, what I'd done, and where I was going, and I'm learning a lot of things about myself and about other people and why they do and say the things they do.

I now see the opportunities I missed, the zigs I should have zagged, and why people have seen me the way they have. I can't correct everything, and I have decided to become unapologetic in pursuing my obsessive, odd interests, as that is the only way I'm going to accomplish anything with my wiring.

I can't wait to get back and apply my newfound knowledge. I had the same experience with Poland and Ukraine - after I returned, I found myself much more aware, and with Japan I think the same thing will happen again.

Sometimes it's good to sit out of things for a year, you know?

Current Mood: chipper