The View from Elsewhere

A pointless monological coversation

2009-03-06T00:54:00.001-05:00

A Seinfeld conversation broke out in my head tonight; one of those conversations whose topic is the super-ordinary, wherein discussed are matters that swarm around us like bacteria, going unnoticed in spite of their ubiquity.

The participants were two rather rudimentary characters that were synthesized by my lazy imagination. They had no names or distinguishable attributes of any kind, except that they were of the opposite sex. They spoke to each other with a comic indifference rarely encountered in real life. They could have been out together for a cigarette or perhaps sitting in a cinema waiting for the movie to start; in one of those situations where for some reason, conversation simply must be had.

As was often the case on the show, the conversation was about relationships. "So," asks the man, "How have things been since you moved in with (let's call him) Barrack?"

"Oh," replies the woman, "Not too bad."

"Hmm, you don't sound too convincing."

"To be honest... No, never mind, it's really nothing."

"Come on, what is it?"

"Well, I love being with him, but he has this really annoying habit."

"Yeah..."

"He likes to, um, get high once in a while."

"Oh, I didn't know that bothered you."

"Well it doesn't really, except that he likes to smoke before showering, and because of his, uh, state, he's a little careless and ends up getting water all over the bathroom floor."

"Really, he gets that careless?"

"Well, we also don't have the best shower curtain. But I'm careful and get much less water on the floor."

"So, ask him to be more careful."

"I did, but he denies there is a problem; he says I'm being neurotic. Anyway, we had a big fight about it last night and we haven't made up yet"

"Are you sure it's because he gets high?"

'Yes I'm sure, he's so neat in every other situation. I'm right on this one, aren't I?"

"Well..."

"Oh come on..."

"Look, intermittent slovenliness is part of the bargain when you live with someone who gets high. It comes with the territory and you should have known that going in."

"Really?"

"Sure. If you were living with an alcoholic, and you were okay with his drinking, could you justifiably be intolerant of the way he talks too loud, or thinks he's a much better singer than he actually is?"

The conversation just trailed off from there. Sure, it was completely pointless, and not pointless in a funny way. In fact, I cannot come up with a single reason why I should be sharing this with you. No, you cannot have the last five minutes of your life back.

The Hockeyfight Manifesto

2009-02-03T17:24:00.000-05:00

A new crusade has been unleashed upon the game of hockey, a game that has had needless change and disastrous decision-making thrust upon it for nearly 20 years. From the implementation of the instigator rule in 1992, through the profuse expansion of the 1990s and early 2000s, and culminating with the post-lockout rule changes and crackdown upon obstruction of today, the National Hockey League, more than any other sports league in North America and probably the entire world, has almost completely turned its back on those who have loved the game for more than 100 years. The new crusade, which aims to remove fighting from hockey, is part of this shameful and saddening pattern of disrespect for the fans of this wonderful sport.

Everyone who follows the game of hockey is aware of the fierce debate that is currently raging over the role of fisticuffs in the sport, and the tragic events that brought the debate to pass. In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having this discussion; in fact, with some of the serious injuries that have been suffered in recent years during fights and the tragic death of Don Sanderson, there would be something wrong if we were not talking about it. But given the aforementioned tradition of disregard for the viewpoints of those who follow the game religiously and prop up the incompetent NHL, we cannot help feeling a sense of doom, a premonition that no matter how articulately we defend the role of fighting in hockey, no matter how passionately we plead to be allowed to keep this unique element of the sport, that sooner or later, like the game itself, it will be taken from us; it is only a matter of time.

Nevertheless, I feel a sense of purpose in trying to confront the crusaders by revealing how there is no conceivable way by which a ban on fighting in hockey could be justified or defended; and I aim to do this not just for the sake of fighting itself, but because this is a symbolic struggle for the fate of the game, a fate that has for too perilously long been in the hands of those who have absolutely no idea what to do with it. If this battle can be won, then maybe, just maybe the true fans of the game will be reinvigorated and spurred to reclaim hockey for the people who play it, follow it, and love it.

Now I understand that not every true fan of the sport is in favour of fighting; that there are those who have been watching and playing hockey for decades who would rather not have to endure watching a fight when all they want to see is a good game of hockey. And while I respect this opinion, it does not change the fact that the majority of the game’s fans and probably an even greater majority of the game’s current and former players, coaches, and managers not only love this aspect of hockey, but see it as integral to the way it is played here in North America. Moreover, I am confident that when the arguments made against fighting by the crusaders are exposed as unequivocally invalid, many of those in opposition will at least realize that the game as we have known it could be irretrievably lost if we allow the crusade to succeed. So let’s take a look at the concerns that motivate this crusade, and show that there is nothing to them:

Fighting is violent and dangerous – sooner or later, someone is going to be killed

Taken on its own, this statement is completely true. In fact, as we all know, someone already has been killed. But as unfortunate and regrettable as Don Sanderson’s death has been, his death was, after all, an accident, and a fluke accident at that. While this does not diminish the tragedy, it should be noted that in the countless fights that have occurred at the various levels at which hockey is played in North America, this is the first time a player is known to have died as a direct result of a hockey fight. I do not resent those who would try and turn Don Sanderson into a martyr, for misguided though they may be, their concern for those who play the game is genuine.

Still, the fact remains that whether with fighting or without, hockey is an incredibly violent and dangerous sport. Scores of serious injuries have been incurred as a result of so-called clean hits; the ambiguity over what constitutes a clean hit is an ongoing debate in its own right. And contrary to assertions made by some, hockey, in North America at least, has always, since the very beginning of the sport, been incredibly violent. Fighting as we know it actually became a part of the game in 1922, when it was decided that participants in a fight would receive offsetting five-minute major penalties, rather than being ejected completely. This was done, believe it or not, so that violence in hockey could be regulated; so that ruthless acts of violence could be deterred by a relatively benign fistfight. Obviously this did not entirely eliminate those ruthless acts of violence, but it did curtail them.

But regardless of the history of fighting in hockey and its effectiveness as a deterrent of even worse violence, one must wonder why those who abhor the violence of fighting do not equally abhor the violence of bodychecking. Is it because bodychecking is more legitimately considered ‘part of the game’? Well what of it? If it were concern for the players that motivates opposition to fighting, certainly that concern would extend into a realm that is substantially more dangerous. Moreover, hockey could be played as a non-contact sport and remain fairly entertaining. Yet for a reason that escapes me, it is considered barbaric to enjoy a hockey fight, but completely acceptable to enjoy watching a player get slammed with full force and reckless abandon into the ice or the boards, and to enjoy it even more if the offended player has trouble getting back onto his feet; the harder the hit, the better the hit - but please, no fighting, it’s barbaric.

Rather than barring fighting for being too violent, it would be wiser for us to come to terms with the fact that hockey is a violent, physical sport in which players will from time to time get seriously injured. Unless we resolve to completely eliminate contact from the game, which I would suggest might not be too far behind a ban on fighting, we would all be a lot happier if we just accepted it for what it was, despite the shame some of us might feel for being a fan of a barbaric sport. And if fighting actually does deter violence in hockey, a suggestion made by many who have played the game (and you would think they might know a thing or two), consider it an added bonus.

Fighting in hockey is a bad influence on my kids

While you cannot fault parents for expressing concern over what their kids watch and do, do we really want to censor our game? It is one thing to have a debate over the role of fighting in hockey, but to ban fighting because kids might be watching would either set a disturbing precedent or else be a blatant double standard. For if fighting is across the line, the crusaders would then have to target mixed martial arts and boxing. Given the growing popularity of the former and the unquestioned legitimacy of the latter, I highly doubt that that crusade would be successful. So rather than open up a Pandora’s Box of censorship, parents who do not want their kids exposed to something should simply forbid them from watching it.

Besides, there is no evidence to suggest our society would be less violent without fighting in hockey. In fact, it seems that despite having a violent sport as our national game, we Canadians are actually relatively nonviolent; and the violence we are plagued with can hardly be attributed to hockey. Conversely, some of the most violent societies are absolutely nuts about sports in which violence is very heavily regulated. So clearly, we cannot expect any direct societal benefit from a ban on fighting.

As for the argument that because of fighting, fewer kids are getting into hockey, such claims are never accompanied by reliable evidence. Some crusaders would point to the recent decline in minor hockey registration in Toronto, but what they fail to point out is that the demographics of the city have changed quite a bit over the years; that more than ever, the city is populated by people from countries where hockey is played in a field or not at all. Besides, young kids playing hockey are never allowed to fight and up until a certain age, bodychecking is not even allowed. In fact, it is the prospect of their kids playing contact hockey that makes parents nervous; not fighting, which is something they would only have to worry about if their kids made it to the junior ranks. So clearly, as far as kids are concerned, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Fighting is not part of the game and adds nothing to it

Whether or not fighting is ‘part’ of the game is a semantic issue that gets talked about too much. Is eye-gouging a ‘part’ of rugby? Well no, but by all accounts it is rampant in those violent scrums. What about trash-talking in basketball or end zone dancing in football? While the rules may frown upon or not mention these things, they definitely impact the game or else the players would not bother with them. Fighting in hockey is a lot about intimidation and vigilante justice, two things that are completely wrong and out of place in society, yet completely appropriate in sports. At the best of times it is a byproduct of intense hatred between two teams, and in this manner it has contributed to all of the most memorable rivalries in the history of the sport. Fighting lends hockey an intensity that most sports can only dream of and significantly raises the excitement level. So in this sense, fighting undeniably adds to the game.

There is hardly any fighting in playoff games, and those are the most exciting

This is indeed a compelling argument, but again, a bit of scrutiny exposes that it is actually quite misleading. In a given campaign, the playoffs are necessarily going to be more exciting than the regular season simply because there is so much more on the line and because the best teams are involved. So sure, the playoffs are great in spite of very little fighting, but what the crusaders fail to point out is that the playoffs are also exciting in spite of lower scoring and more clutching and grabbing. So when the league is doing everything in their power to artificially increase scoring so as to make it more exciting for the Americans who love the game but just don’t know it yet, why do the crusaders not point out that based on the playoffs, this is the wrong strategy? Because in reality, comparing the postseason to the regular season simply makes no sense.

What would make sense is a comparison between the modern game and an era in which playoff fighting was common. In the ‘70s, ‘80s and early ‘90s, before the instigator penalty, fighting was rampant in the playoffs. Not coincidentally, they were decidedly more fun to watch. In fact, scoring was much higher back then in both the regular season and postseason, and while the crusaders would love the opposite to be true so that they could point out how fighting suffocates offensive play (astonishingly, some of them do!), they would never acknowledge that fighting might actually create room for the stars of the game; that it might not be mere coincidence that hockey’s most offensive era and most violent era occurred at pretty well the same time. So enjoy the playoffs, but as you watch them, think about how much better they would be if the players were allowed to go at each other all out.

There is no fighting in other sports

When critics say ‘other sports’, what they usually mean is baseball, basketball, and football (not lacrosse, for instance). And yes, those three sports do not have fighting, but they also do not have pucks or sticks, and while it is likely Gary Bettman would get rid of those things if he thought it would win him a few fans in Mobile, Alabama, I do not see the point in making that comparison. Hockey is vastly different in so many ways from the other major American sports and it is nothing short of foolish to suggest that because they do things a certain way, we should be following their lead.

Most fighters are goons that cannot even take a regular shift

This may be true today, but during the aforementioned violent era of hockey, it was not at all the case. Fighters, guys like Marty McSorley and Bob Probert, were valuable members of their teams who in addition to fighting regularly, put in valuable minutes in both defensive and offensive roles. Nowadays, at a time when there is significantly less fighting, most of it is done by behemoths who are not good players and rarely get any ice-time in the playoffs. This is hardly an indictment of fighting. If anything, it suggests that there are simply too many roster spots in the league. Should the NHL ever contract to say, 24 teams, there would be more good players to go around and teams would be weary of carrying a player who logs less than five minutes of ice-time per game. But with 30 franchises, why not have a tough guy in the lineup when there are already three or four players on the roster who do not belong in the league? At least the tough guy comes in handy if the team is being bullied. Like many of the game’s problems, the ‘goon’ phenomenon is but a symptom of a bloated league and all the more reason that we who love the game should be clamouring to take it back.

Fighting is not an effective mechanism for ‘policing’ the game

While there is no way to definitively settle this one, history suggests that more fighting, along with other factors, does paradoxically raise the respect level on the ice. For example, one of the games biggest challenges these days is the rise of so-called ‘headshots’, or bodychecks delivered to the head. While the idea of somehow legislating headshots out of the game has been floated and will probably, sooner or later, be adopted, you have to wonder why such a problem did not exist when fighting was more rampant. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense:

Imagine you are a hockey player. You’re skating up the ice and you spot a defender not too far from you making an outlet pass and spending a bit too much time admiring it afterwards. The voice of your coach urging you to play more physically echoes in your head as you line him up and absolutely flatten him with a seemingly clean hit. However, the hit actually may have been a bit late and as it turns out, your rock-hard shoulder pad went right into his chin, knocking him instantly unconscious and leaving him in a pool of his own blood. The arena falls silent and the offended player’s teammates, angry though they may be, skate helplessly around in circles for fear of penalization and suspension. However, if, while you were lining up the helpless defender, you knew in the back of your mind that if you completely lay this guy out you might end up with a broken nose and some missing teeth, do you think you might ease up just enough that you do not knock him into the infirmary? Sure, there is more than just this to the headshot issue, including the hardness of today’s shoulder pads and the size of today’s players. But a relationship between the two is undeniable. The crusaders would suggest that rather than vigilante justice, what we need is tougher rules and longer suspensions. But the game is too fast and there is too much ambiguity over what constitutes a ‘clean’ hit for such a measure to work without an outright ban on bodychecking.

Banning fighting would make the game more physical as players wouldn’t be afraid to bodycheck

It is amazing how the same faction that denies the effectiveness of fighting as a policing mechanism could make such a claim. Perhaps fighting does discourage certain players from hitting more, but then again, there was no shortage of good physical play back when there was a lot more fighting going on. The difference is that fewer players got injured as a result of big bodychecks back then, and if fighting makes a player think twice about hitting everything in sight, the game will not suffer too much because of it.

And so, these are the charges made by the crusade against fighting in hockey, all of them flawed and misleading, and yet almost certain to eventually succeed in robbing us of another little piece of our game lest we say “No, this is our game, this is how we enjoy it and shall continue to enjoy it, for we do not need your approval.” This is not just about fighting; this is about having three teams in California and only six in all of Canada; this is about Winnipeg and Quebec City; this is about two referees; this is about three point games and shootouts; in short, this is about the latest in a series of slaps to the faces of those who make this game great, and who have for too long been turning the other cheek. Should this crusade succeed, the game will be irretrievably lost. Now is the time to take the game back for it belongs to us, and only we can restore it to its former glory.

Obama-mania both inspiring and nauseating

2009-01-20T19:51:00.000-05:00

Another day for the ages. Another one, you ask? Well yes, for you see, we recently had one when Barack Obama defeated Hilary Clinton and so became the first ever African American to lead one of the major parties in a bid for the White House. Then we had another one when he inevitably defeated the hapless John McCain back on the first Tuesday of November. At long last, the trilogy was concluded today with Mr. Obama's inauguration as President of the United States, and it is finally time to get on with the business of existing in this dreadful old world.

But oh what an exciting and inspiring few months it has been. In the midst of anemic economic times, various wars abroad, and trying to deal with a planet that seems to be on the verge of rejecting us like a bad kidney, something happened to awaken our comatose optimism and faith in social progress. How long it will be before we lapse back into the nihilistic gluttony that is our nature is another story, but for now, there is no shame in surrendering ourselves to the moment, in being joyful and reflective, and in trying to absorb all that we can from this momentous occasion - no, there is no shame at all, though if media coverage is any indication, there is quite a bit of stupidity and bombastic sentimentality about the whole thing.

If it wasn't at all predictable, I'd be tempted to give the media a mulligan on their treatment of Obama-mania (I'm resisting the temptation to go with 'Obahmadan'; too early for bad taste, I guess). But from a mile away, anyone could see that on this day, the media was going to douse the proceedings with distilled schmaltz and open up an all out assault on our intelligence by unleashing their 'correspondents', whose sole mandate is to at all times be saying something - anything - lest the public start forming their own thoughts and cultivating their own emotions. It was strangely reminiscent of the coverage of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when sombre music played in the background to make sure nobody got confused or forgot to feel sad (or worse, just didn't care).

It would be an overly ambitious task to go through all of the ridiculous things that were spouted on TV and radio throughout the day, but I will cite a couple of examples. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer (or some other of their talking haircuts) tried to earn his salary by offering his thoughts on the apparently unprecedented phenomenon of the new President escorting the old President to the helicopter that was to take him away from Washington for good. To paraphrase, he said, with a tone of nauseating importance, that while Obama disagrees with a lot of George Bush's principles and policies, he nevertheless has a lot of respect for his predecessor. Is CNN's audience really that naive? Does anyone believe that Obama has any respect or admiration for Bush whatsoever? Like almost everyone else in the world, Obama probably thinks Bush is halfwit who, much like a boy pushed into the girls bathroom, was coerced into the oval office by his friends for their own benefit. In fact, he was probably walking him to the helicopter to make sure he didn't get lost and also to slip the pilot an extra hundred so that he would got him out of their in a hurry.

Earlier, on a radio call-in show, the host was asking his loyal listeners to share any personal stories they might have that relate to this historic occasion. One of the callers passively spouted something about how wonderfully multicultural and tolerant we Canadians are. Rather than provide his listeners with a reality check, the host seized upon this bit of ignorance and said, and again I'm paraphrasing, "Isn't it nice that the Americans are following our lead for a change?" Following our lead? So every Canadian Prime Minister ever elected hasn't been a white male? I am not suggesting that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, and that we wouldn't elect a minority Prime Minister, but technically, if we were to elect one in the coming years, wouldn't we be following their lead? Furthermore, do we not have our own demons? Is our inferiority complex so prevalent that we can overlook our own history of racism towards Natives, the Japanese, and yes, even Blacks? Apparently so (who am I kidding, we do it all the time).

But in spite of the excessive inanity, this truly has been a special day. For once, an encouraging precedent has been set. But on top of that, Barack Obama actually seems like a politician with an inclination to do something good. He could prove us all wrong, but a lot of us have a really good feeling about this guy, and it is not just because he's black. So remember this day fondly; I only hope that the media coverage didn't ruin it for you.

*******************************************************************

Some interesting trivia to pass your way. Watching Barack Obama signing his name with his left hand piqued my own left-handed curiosity. In fact, I couldn't wait to get home and find out if Obama is, on top of being the first ever Black President of the United States, also the first ever left-handed President of the United States. And after about three seconds of intrepid googling, I discovered something even more astounding: Barack Obama is not the first southpawed President, but the eighth. Interestingly, 'the button' was pushed by a finger on Harry Truman's left hand, who was the third lefty Commander in Chief after James A. Garfield and Herbert Hoover. But what is astounding is the fact that of the last six Presidents from Gerald Ford up to Barack Obama, only George W. Bush was right handed. You can draw your own conclusions about that. Oh, and in case you're wondering if any overly proud lefties out there voted for Obama merely as an expression of sinister solidarity, worry not, for John McCain is also left-handed.

Israel should avoid a premature ceasefire

2009-01-13T19:52:00.001-05:00

Nobody likes war. Actually, that's not true. Many people love war, and they especially love watching it from the safety of their glass houses. It allows them to hop onto their soapboxes and express sympathy for the romantic underdogs while wagging manicured fingers at Goliath. Except, of course, if those underdogs are black; for some reason, when hundreds of thousands of Africans are being slaughtered, the self-righteous, with the odd exception, are nowhere to be found or heard from. Don't worry all ye who suffer in Darfur, I'm sure your cause will become trendy soon enough. But I digress.

I am unsure, and frankly not sufficiently informed, to know whether invading Gaza was the right thing for Israel to do in the first place. Yes, Hamas provoked it by launching missiles at Israel after a flimsy ceasefire had expired, but perhaps there were other options available to the Jewish State that would have been less devastating on a humanitarian level to both sides, particularly the Palestinians. But they're in there, and as an aside, while Israel has taken its share of criticism over this mess, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that in and of itself, is there a country on this planet that would have reacted differently? Many nations that have offered token condemnation of Israel have themselves set precedents of reacting far more viciously to conflicts thousands of kilometers from their own borders; France and England spring to mind. But again, I digress.

So whether or not it was the right thing to do, they are in there, and it would be foolish to leave now for the sake of another flimsy ceasefire. Let's face it; as much as the international community hums and haws about this latest round of Jew vs. Arab, it is in pretty well the entire world's best interest, particularly for Israel and the Palestinians, that Hamas be annihilated. Though they won't admit it publicly, don't for a second think that many heads of state are not happy that Israel is taking on the task. So if Israel's goal here is to get rid of Hamas, and if it is not then this whole exercise is indeed pointless, they should get the job done and be done with it.

I understand that there is a humanitarian toll being paid for these Machiavellian measures, but what is the alternative? To withdraw, enjoy another short spurt of quiet, and then go through the whole thing all over again? Over time, this has proven and will continue to prove much more devastating. And on the subject of that humanitarian toll, while I am not, like too many of Israel's supporters, naive enough to be offended by criticism of Israel's responsibility for this crisis, and in fact I sympathize a great deal with the ordinary Palestinians that are caught in the crossfire, I still believe that in the long run, staying in Gaza until the job is done is the best thing for both sides. Furthermore, even these criticisms are drenched in hypocrisy. For instance, many are all too eager to cry foul over the limited amount of aid that Israel is allowing into Gaza. Fair enough, but in the interest of maintaining a semblance of objectivity, shouldn't these critiques also raise questions about why Egypt, the supposed ally of the Palestinian people, hasn't allowed a morsel of aid into Gaza from its border? I guess it's just not fashionable to criticize Egypt. But again, I digress.

All I want for Hannukah is a Jew 'Fro

2008-12-24T14:25:00.002-05:00

Ah, the holidays, a time for joy, revelry, massive credit card debt, and the predictable exchange of gifts among friends and families. And while I have never sat around a Christmas tree opening present after present, leaving a mountain of red and green paper in my wake as I ravage each carefully wrapped treasure, I am lucky enough to celebrate Hannukah, a holiday that may not be the saving grace of capitalism, but is still good for the odd trinket or gift certificate. But alas, not even Jesus and Ted Rogers rolled into one could give me what I hopelessly wish for every year: those glorious, rust-brown, frizzlocks known the world over as the Jew 'Fro.

Historians disagree over the exact origin of the now-stylish coiffe, though there is general consensus that Jews in Germany during the restoration used their natural frizziness to blend into the shrubbery of the Black Forest as a means of evading rampaging Lutherans looking for converts. The earliest written reference to the Jew 'Fro appears in an obscure 17th century treatise by a Dutch rabbi, who interpreted the erectness of the hairstyle as reaching out to God, thus confirming that the Jews are indeed the chosen people. Though this theory never gained traction, by the late 19th century diaspora Jews throughout Europe looked upon the 'Fro with a measure of quiet reverence.

The first half of the 20th century saw a decrease in popularity for the intriguing hairdo, caused mainly by ubiquitous military conscription and the popularity of the fedora and bowler hat. However, this trend was reversed with the establishment of the State of Israel and a boom in the Kibbutz movement therein. Members of these agricultural-socialist communities displayed their Jew 'Fros with pride, and it quickly became a symbol of hope within the young nation.

It was not until the 1960s, and the release of Bob Dylan's 1966 album 'Blonde on Blonde', that the Jew 'Fro became popular among gentiles. The album cover, a portrait of Dylan defiantly brandishing his gloriously mangled locks, unleashed the hairstyle onto the world in a torrent of curly brown hair. Before long, prominent musicians and artists on both sides of the pond were proudly sporting their 'Dylan curls', including Tim Buckley, Syd Barrett, and even Jimi Hendrix, who was not, as many believe, wearing an afro, but a distinct Jew 'Fro.

Today, the Jew 'Fro is worn proudly by those who are blessed to carry on its wonderful tradition. Sadly, it is my lot in life that I have not been chosen; my hair is wavy, and merely dangles at my shoulders in unspectacular mockery of my lamentation. And while I know it is not meant to be, am I to be blamed for hoping that maybe, just maybe, I will wake up on Hannukah morning (whichever one, it doesn't matter), and discover that I have grown two inches of lustrous, chaotic entanglement? But I can no longer hope, for year after year of disappointment has chased away what little faith I ever had. Nevertheless, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and a wonderful whatever else.

The tragic painlessness of the digital age, Part 2

2008-12-22T15:39:00.002-05:00

Please read Part 1 of this article.

After some time, when digital technology's numbing of our emotions becomes more obvious through the lens of historical analysis, our pain may be seen as too high a price to pay for our precious convenience. But right now, we are collectively incapable of acknowledging this, for convenience is a narcotic, and we have all become junkies. Sure, technology has always been making life more convenient; this has historically been one of its three main driving forces (the other two, paradoxically, are warfare and survival). But until fairly recently, technology has not been sophisticated enough for us to become so spiritually dependent upon it, and for us to be able to manufacture our worldview to such an astonishing degree. As such, the substance of our lives has become less important than the way our lives are represented, a symptom of our unwillingness to deal with the pain of being accountable for who we are. A good illustration of this is the digital camera, which allows us an unprecedented measure of control over the way we remember events and experiences while those events and experiences are taking place. At a party, a photograph of a group of friends is taken, examined, and if deemed an acceptable representation of the time, it is allowed to be preserved as a keepsake. If the photograph is rejected, another one is taken, and so it goes until everyone is satisfied.

This is just one example of the constant editing and re-editing of our lives that human beings have always striven for, but that is now made so effortless by technology. This effortlessness, coupled with our inevitable obsession with the control we can exercise over how we are represented - to the outside world and to ourselves - has made human beings more self-aware than at any time in history. The implications of this self-consciousness are astonishing. On a cultural level, it has effectively converted art from the representation of beauty and the expression of human emotions and ideas, to a happy-go-lucky exercise in pointless self-mockery, glorification of kitsch, and the processing of archetypes into caricatures. Sure, there is an abundance, perhaps even an overabundance of creativity, but virtually none of it aspires to be significant. A movement, if any even exist (when is the last time you read a good manifesto), could never thrive in this day and age; we are far too consumed by the pursuit of painlessness.

The painlessness and self-consciousness of our generation has also had a profound cultural effect. Essentially, it has eradicated almost all genre, which is too purposeful and stylistically faithful for our time. Not coincidentally, this has been accompanied by the ascendancy of a super genre, arriving just in time to fill the vacuum left by pain and purpose. As a strange twist, since our capacity to experience it has been substantially muted, nostalgia has ceased being an emotion and has become the dominant style of our time. Anything retro or vintage, be it in film, music, or sports, is an instant hit with the painless generation, who are enabled to enjoy consistency of style and sacredness of tradition without struggling for these things themselves. An instructive illustration of this can be found in the world of sports. There is currently a trend of releasing and marketing vintage uniforms and logos, a phenomenon that is particularly popular in the National Hockey League. Aside from the obvious merchandising boon that these replicas create, their aim is to essentially borrow legitimacy and importance from a bygone era of the sport, unwilling to wait and allow it to legitimize itself, and not confident in our own era's importance. This year, Wendel Clark's number was raised to the rafters of the Air Canada Centre, and interestingly, his likeness on the banner shows him wearing a vintage uniform, not the one he wore game in and game out throughout his career. I doubt that it would be taken any less seriously had he been shown wearing his actual sweater, but clearly that was their concern.

What all this means is that the incredible convenience of the modern western world has got us hooked on instant gratification, and while this may seem exciting for the moment, our lives will inevitably become dull. Ultimately, we are an overstimulated society that is sheltered from deprivation, and as such we will soon be unsatisfiable and morbidly unhappy. But when we reach that point, will there be any turning back? Will it be possible to reclaim the relative innocence and unsophistication of pre-digital society? Most likely not, for though we may become unsatisfiable, we will still be junkies, and there will always be pushers to keep us that way.

The tragic painlessness of the digital age, Part 1

2008-12-21T16:36:00.002-05:00

People love the internet. I am not being hyperbolic; many of us are genuinely infatuated with the world wide web. Just read Dave Silverberg's only slightly satirical love letter to and personification of a popular website to get a sense of the typical obsessiveness almost every wired individual has for at least some corner of the great digital expanse. And while I don't presume to suggest that there might be something immoral about this uniquely postmodern form of affection, please allow me to lament the degradation of our emotional experience that inevitably accompanies this peculiar phenomenon.

Perhaps the most noticeable of our disappearing (or at least diminishing) emotions is nostalgia. The primary vehicle of this disappearance would have to be the ease of virtually limitless interaction via online avenues like Facebook, that megalomaniacal monopoly of digital communication that is so easily detestable, but at the same time so irresistibly convenient; the Wal Mart of the digital world. And while I have so far managed to elude the grasp of the aforementioned retail giant, I fear that Facebook has got me in its clutches, with its hooks penetrating deep enough under the surface of my skin that I cannot reasonably hope to escape. But I've come to terms with it; for while there is no indication that I am better off as a citizen of this monolithic digital nation, it can safely be said that my life is more convenient.

And yet, I cannot help but yearn for the days when even the most tangential of reminders of some happier time would fling my heart into a melancholic craving for a return to those precious moments, perhaps even driving me to quixotically try and recreate them. So what are sites like Facebook and Youtube doing to our precious nostalgia? It is quite simple really; what they are doing is making the past too accessible. For example, I once spent three months of my life far away from home, living in a communal setting with strangers from around the world. Over the course of those three months, those strangers became some of the dearest friends I ever had or ever will have. Leaving them was devastating, and for a few years after my departure, I longed, sometimes painfully, for my companions and the great times we had. But all of this started to change when I joined Facebook, and I discovered that I can be instantly and always be in contact with these people. While this was initially incredibly exciting, I eventually realized that because I could speak to them so easily, I no longer missed them very much anymore, and now the memories almost seem farther away and less significant because of it.

Youtube operates in much the same way, albeit on a more cultural than interpersonal level. If not for this amazing forum, all of those obscure television shows (and themes), music videos, performances, film strips, sports moments, and whatever else would be but half-successful memories that would nonetheless invoke a powerful emotional response whenever they would randomly pop up. Many of us have television shows that we adored as children that we once sadly thought we'd never see again, and that we have long since found on Youtube, grown tired of, and now no longer look back upon with fondness the way we once did. As the digital age progresses and technology becomes more and more sophisticated, our stock of precious memories will continue to deplete, until our past will be but a succession of insignificant and indiscriminate footnotes.

How is all this affecting our culture, and what does it mean for the future? Part 2 will be published tomorrow.

Dion to step down, party to choose new leader before parliament resumes

2008-12-08T14:55:00.002-05:00

It is likely that when parliament is back in session, Michael Ignatieff will be the leader of the Liberal Party. A report in the Toronto Star indicates that Dion, in a statement issued today, has accepted that a new leader needs to be in place to deal with the ongoing political turmoil. Many Liberals have been calling for Dion to step down since the House of Commons was prorogued last week.

It appears that this development will expedite Ignatieff's ascendancy to the head of the party. The Liberals will be holding a caucus meeting on Wednesday, where the Toronto MP could be chosen by party delegates. Bob Rae, another leadership hopeful, has expressed his opposition to such a process, arguing that the party's general membership should elect the new leader. Dominic Leblanc, the third leadership candidate, has decided to support Ignatieff.

Given that the party will be under new leadership by the time the House resumes and Conservatives have tabled their budget on January 27, it is unclear if the Liberals will follow through on their plan to defeat the Conservatives and attempt to set up their own coalition government with the NDP and support from the Bloc. The latter two parties have remained committed to this course of action.

Canadians don't care for democracy

2008-12-05T13:42:00.002-05:00

The idea that Canada is a democracy has finally been exposed as an illusion. This was done when Stephen Harper was granted a seven week holiday from accountability, which should give him enough time to grow a square mustache. That may seem harsh, but then again, the guy did shut down this country's government for no other reason than to cling to power, and so kindness is the last thing he deserves.

What amazes me is how many people, be they political experts or just ordinary citizens, are fully relieved that this assault has been committed against our supposed democracy. Their rationale ranges from a moronic idea that the government, like some horny teenager, needs time to cool off, to the blatantly wrong assertion that we must at all costs be delivered from the clutches of a coalition that is beholden to the evil separatists. In between is the equally wrong notion that Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister, and so shall he remain, despite his lethal combination of arrogance and incompetence, not to mention the fact that we do not elect a Prime Minister; we elect Members of Parliament who then in turn choose a leader.

In the face of such dire circumstances, Canadians don't mind if the will of the majority of this country's highest elected body be circumvented. They don't mind because Canadians by in large don't understand and don't care about democracy. This isn't a partisan issue; it doesn't matter that the Bloc is a separatist party, or that the NDP are perceived to be incapable of making tough economic decisions, or that Stephane Dion would lose to a shadow puppet in a charisma competition, or that Stephen Harper would rather bankrupt his political rivals than even pretend that he puts Canada's interests first. None of that matters. What matters is that the Prime Minister of a democratic country was allowed to get away with shutting down its political process to avoid being legitimately stripped of his power, while so many around the country applaud his ruthlessness.

Equally disconcerting is the fact that nobody is asking why it is that such an important political decision was made by the Governor General, someone appointed by the Prime Minister as a representative of the Queen (one wonders if she consulted the Her Royal Highness). Everyone is just taking this for granted; both Bob Rae and Ed Broadbent, speaking on CBC Radio after her ruling had been announced, said they respected her decision. Why? What, aside from our complacency, gives her the right to make such a decision without any accountability or even an explanation? Nothing, but everyone is all too willing to accept the way this has all unfolded, rather than using it as an opportunity to re-examine our democratic institutions. After all, it's much easier to just accept it and move on; we Canadians don't like change, and when a society resists change the way we always do, it cannot really be considered democratic, and so we are not.

Latest political drama shows why minority governments work

2008-12-01T16:08:00.001-05:00

Someone must have told the Conservatives they were getting a majority government for Christmas. How else to explain their recent ineptitude and skulduggery on Parliament Hill? Clearly, Stephen Harper is feeling like he can get away with anything, be it an economic statement that pretends everything is rosy, an obvious attempt to financially cripple the Liberal Party, or a covert operation to spy on an NDP conference call. Just an aside on Laytongate; someone should explain to the Tories that it is not strategically beneficial to spy on a conversation, unearth nothing of value, and then hand it over to the press as if eavesdropping raises no ethical questions whatsoever. I guess arrogance and stupidity don't cancel each other out.

Clearly, we should be thanking our lucky stars that the Conservatives didn't walk away from the last election with a majority in parliament. Canadians should take notice; having a minority government, no matter who is in power, is the absolute best thing we can hope for. As we can plainly see, it is preventing a gaggle of incredibly overrated politicians from pushing through their agenda without even acknowledging all that is going on in the world, not to mention their limited mandate. Every developed country is embracing Keynesian measures - using public funds to invest in infrastructure and thus stimulate the economy - to deal with the economic crisis. Rather than using the crisis as an opportunity (crisitunity anyone?) to make needed investments in, say, public transit or regional development, the Conservatives unleashed a steady as she blows strategy of keeping taxes and government expenditures low. The constant failure of such a strategy has been demonstrated many times, and while Harper should be applauded for being rigorous, he should be derided for putting his ideological ambitions ahead of the nation's wellbeing.

So let's embrace a coalition government. We always complain that our politicians are too antagonistic and always putting their own ambitions and vendettas in front of the public good. And while there are certainly strategic considerations informing the latest maneuverings of the Grits and the NDP, the prospect of having two parties work together that have fresh ideas and, on the surface, a hell of a lot more integrity, has some serious upside. What are the alternatives? The Liberals are showing that finally, they are not willing to let the Tories govern freely, and to have another election would be asinine. Don't forget that the Liberals and NDP were elected in significant numbers to the House, and it is their right, if they can cajole the support of the Bloc, to form the next government if the current one proves to be dysfunctional. And don't feel bad for Harper; he's had plenty of opportunities to reach across the aisle, and he has proven that he would much rather be sitting there.

Mixed feelings about hate crimes trial

2008-11-24T16:40:00.005-05:00

Former aboriginal leader David Ahenakew was on trial today, his second after an initial hate crimes conviction was overturned upon appeal. Ahenakew infamously told a newspaper reporter that Jews caused the second world war, and that they are a disease. Any sensible person would find such words deplorable, but I find it particularly troubling that the leader of a subjugated ethnic group could show a complete lack of sympathy for another such group, and that he could be taken in by the kind of simpleminded scapegoating designed to win the complicity of the masses for such subjugation. Of all people, Ahenakew should know that ignorance does not bode well for the underdog. I am curious as to how many times in his career he has publicly expressed his outrage over offensive comments someone may have made about natives. It is good to know that such bigotry and hypocrisy were not in this case rewarded, and that Mr. Ahenakew is now a powerless hasbeen.

That being said, I am not sure what to make of this trial, and his previous conviction. While what he said is obviously indefensible, I wonder if it advisable to make any kind of speech illegal and punishable in any way. On the one hand, there is the argument that hateful speech has the potential to inflame and incite violence. While there is certainly evidence of this in the history books, I do not think that speech alone has ever been a catalyst for violence and oppression. Hitler was certainly an effective communicator when spreading his gospel of hatred, but he did not create anti-semitic and xenophobic sentiments in Germany out of nothing; they had already long been a part of German society. If Hitler went around making such speeches in 21st century Canada (or even Germany), he probably wouldn't accomplish very much.

On the other hand, while freedom of speech is an integral component of a free and democratic society (which we claim to be), many would argue that words are powerful weapons that can do untold damage if not used responsibly. Regardless of the historical and socio-economic conditions that Hitler manipulated in order to impose his demonic will upon German society, perhaps had he been prevented from spreading his message in the first place, untold millions of tragedies might have been avoided. Freedom and democracy are great, but in extreme cases, so the argument goes, people might need to be protected from themselves (a similar argument might be made about climate change).

So I am torn. Truly, there are no easy answers.

MADD flexes their muscle and displays their stupidity

2008-11-18T13:32:00.004-05:00

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, as they are appropriately referred to, have once again shown that they wield considerable influence in this province, and more importantly, that they know nothing about the demographic they aim to protect. What today's news also makes strikingly evident about our provincial leaders is just how weak they are. I know the opposition parties have criticized some of the proposed legislation, but make no mistake about it; any of the other two parties would just as easily try and push this through. MADD's intimidation of the government is akin to those incredibly awkward couples where the man is so afraid of his kommandant of a wife or girlfriend that he does whatever she tells him to do like a trained puppy, lest he arouse the ire of his master.

In case you haven't heard, the McGuinty government tabled some extreme new legislation today that aims to weaken the scourge that is impaired driving. When talking about the legislation, McGuinty said that "We owe it to our kids to take the kinds of measure that ensure that they will grow up safe and sound and secure, and if that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until they reach the age of 22, then as a dad, I'm more than prepared to do that." As fluffy as that sounds, I think someone needs to explain his job description to him again; he's supposed to make laws as a democratically elected politician, not as a dad (or a big brother). Another thing MADD McGuinty said is this: "Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children." Can someone explain to these paternalists that people between the ages of 16 and 19 are considered young adults, and those that are 19-22 are fully formed adults, and that it is patronizing to describe either group as older children?

There are several measures in the legislation that really make you think. For instance, anyone that is aged 21 or younger will not be allowed to have any alcohol in their blood whatsoever. On the surface, this may seem very sensible, but I would argue that it is at best a benign measure. Now I am all for drinking responsibly and knowing your limits, and I certainly think it is unwise to drive while intoxicated. However, there is hardly a soul on this planet who could not operate a vehicle just as capably after one beer as they could after sucking back a sprite through a silly straw; and if they can't, then it is their responsibility to know their own limit, just as it would be any individual's responsibility to know that they should not drive after more than two cups of coffee if it makes them too jittery. The only thing taking a zero-tolerance approach accomplishes is to suck the credibility out of these laws, which are already not at all taken seriously by anyone who doesn't live on planet MADD.

I am not against drunk-driving laws and mechanisms such as the RIDE program that are designed to enforce them, but shouldn't these laws be grounded in reality? Another example of the senselessness of this new initiative is the proposed prohibition of drivers with a G2 license from carrying more than one passenger under the age of 19. So let me get this straight; the organization (and the government in whose anus they are elbow deep) spend an untold fortune trying to convince all them young whippersnappers to (a) conserve gas; (b) carpool; and (c) always have a designated driver are now saying that if someone between the ages of 16 and 19 is at a party, and all of his cohorts are drunk and need a safe ride home, they can only legally take one of them? So which law should they break? Should the drunk kids take their own cars home, or should they risk getting caught sitting safely in the backseat of a sober friend's car? No offense, but just because you lost a kid to drunk driving, as many members of MADD proudly remind us every chance they get, doesn't mean you should be able to guilt us into adopting completely senseless and meaningless rules. Seriously, the person who came up with this must be the type of person that gets confused at a crosswalk.

Clearly the authors of this legislation have no understanding whatsoever of young people. For the most part, they do not want to drink and drive, and in fact put fourth great effort to avoid it; many times I remember as a teenager packing four or five people into the backseat of a car to avoid having to take a second vehicle. So let's call this legislation what it is, and then hopefully MADD will come clean with their true intentions; to me, this seems like nothing more than one step closer to raising the legal drinking age to 21, and eventually lobbying for either outright prohibition, or a state of affairs where alcohol becomes so exclusive because of taxation and age regulations that only the wealthy will be able to enjoy it. The best way to discourage drunk driving is to stop demonizing alcohol, reduce the legal age to 18, and to start actually talking to young people, who hopefully won't stand for the imposition of more thoughtless rules.

Alternatives to bailing out the auto giants

2008-11-17T17:06:00.004-05:00

So, poor old GM, Ford and Chrysler need uncle sucker to drop a few more coins into their outstretched manicured hands. It always amazes me that through good times and bad, these massive companies, supposedly at the forefront of a multi-billion dollar industry, whose senior executives get paid untold hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars, can have their lips constantly puckering for the public tit, while (for instance) penniless students across this great country have to rack up thousands of dollars in debt for the privilege of not being able to find a job once they reach their mid-twenties. Perhaps if students could study without having to always be worrying about the day their creditors will come calling, we wouldn't have complete morons running these companies, or this country for that matter.

As you might have guessed by now, I don't quite support the idea of bailing out these failures. Sure, I've got a soft spot for the workers, but then again, where was their union while the companies they worked for invested their future wages in cars that guzzle gas as if it were the elixir of life? Probably guzzling champagne, or fine cognac, or whatever it is they spend all those union dues on. But if the government, which has been musing about running a deficit, can muster up the funds that are being demanded, perhaps they should think about using that money for something more effective. As it happens, I have a couple of suggestions.

The first suggestion is to pour that money into a fund for research and development. One of the reasons our economy is so stagnant and completely incapable of broadening our trade horizons beyond the United States is that we really aren't at the forefront of anything. Instead of just relying on our proximity to the world's largest (in more ways than one) consumers as a crutch, why not invest in developing products that the entire world will want? This would certainly be a long-term investment and would require patience, but it is better than investing in long-term incompetence.

My second suggestion is unlikely to ever happen, though it is no less intriguing. What if, instead of giving money to the automakers, we nationalize those companies and use that money to start producing the kind of machinery people actually need in the 21st century? Sure, some would say that that would lead to a dramatic increase in the use of the word 'comrade', but if these companies are using public funds, they might as well be public enterprises. Either way, something aside from a bailout needs to be done. As someone much smarter than myself once quipped, right now we have socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for everyone else. Let's put an end to the double standard, and show these corporations that just like the family that struggles to make their mortgage payments and faithfully pays their taxes month after month and year after year lest they face real consequences, they will be held accountable.

Remembrance day is nice, but also a sham

2008-11-11T14:18:00.003-05:00

Every year when Remembrance Day rolls around, I find it sincerely moving the way veterans of Canada's various wars are honoured. There are no words to describe the sacrifice that anyone who is sent off to war is forced to make for the sake of their country and whatever values that nation holds dear. However, it seems to me that there are always an entire segment of war veterans that are either forgotten or simply ignored on November 11, and whenever we talk about fallen and wounded soldiers.

When you watch Remembrance Day ceremonies, whether in person or on television, there are invariably several veterans present, often wearing military garb and all of their various medals and badges, who are there to represent their fallen brethren. These ceremonies are always dedicated to those that died in battle, and those who survived and went on to live productive lives as normal members of society. But what about those veterans whose lives were ruined by their military experience? I speak of those crippled both physically and emotionally by war, those who came back and could not function, and wound up living sad, lonely lives. Why do we never talk about them?

What about those who are not at all proud of their exploits, who went into battle unwillingly and who feel resentment towards a society that sent them off to die or to be mutilated, most often needlessly, on foreign soil away from their loved ones and in the prime of their lives? Why, on Remembrance Day, do we focus on the bittersweet, when war in reality is by all accounts pure hell? And why do we not talk about how many lives were ruined by war? It is nice that our veterans are honoured, and they deserve that honour, but I wonder how it is that this sad day was turned into a vehicle for military propaganda, where, for example, the first World War is portrayed as a battle for our freedom, when in reality it was a completely pointless slaughter of millions of young men prompted by the bruised egos of European heads of state. And finally, what of the most forgotten veterans of war, and perhaps the most brutally treated, the horses? Anyone who has read some of the finest war literature of the twentieth century knows that many soldiers were driven to insanity by having to witness the endless slaughter of horses in the cavalry. It is perhaps not as great a tragedy as the human one, but it deserves remembrance nonetheless.

Remembrance Day ought not to be so much about glory and honour; it should be more about shame. For to remember those who died or were wounded in battle and ignore or willfully forget the fact that many of these tragedies were entirely avoidable, if not for the ruthlessness and carelessness of those in charge, is to do a disservice to our veterans. To remember wars and not lament over the fact that as intelligent as we are, we are the only species that pathologically engages in the systematic slaughter of our own kind is to doom us to never break out of this dreadful routine. Remembrance Day should be akin to what Yom Kippur is to Jews; a day to atone for our sins, for war is indeed as terrible a sin as there ever could be.

Did Obama rig the election?

2008-11-10T17:58:00.003-05:00

No, but as I learned from blog Far and Wide in one of Steve V's recent entries, having a compelling title is important in this business. So no, the election was not rigged, as far as any of us knows, though it is certainly worth mentioning that while Obama's victory was resounding in terms of electoral votes, his margin of victory in the popular vote was thinner than Sarah Palin's resume. What this says about the American population is that aside from being ignorant, their partisan allegiances run so deep that they'd likely vote for a man with a Hitler moustache and the words 'thug life' tatooed on his forehead if he was heading up their party. How else to explain McCain's impressive showing at the polls in the shadow of the most dismal and unpopular presidency that anyone alive could remember?

What this also means is that so-called swing voters in swing states are an incredibly small and powerful minority. As such, just as politicians here in Canada focus all of their attention sucking up to voters in key ridings, south of the border it is these swingers that are targeted and pandered to. This isn't really news to anyone, but I just thought I'd remind everyone that while Obama's victory is impressive, inspiring, and important, we should not forget that the U.S.'s electoral system is every bit as undemocratic as ours.

********************************************************************

I am going to see Bob Dylan tomorrow night in London. It will be my second time seeing him, and while he is far from the most engaging and dynamic of performers out there, and clearly but a shadow of his former self, I'm still pretty jazzed. Furthermore, his most recent material is surprisingly good. So here's hoping he doesn't limit himself to his sixties standards, the way he did the first time I saw him a couple of years ago.

In general, I couldn't care less about seeing bygone rock stars, even those that I adore, perform live. I wouldn't go see Paul McCartney live unless the tickets were handed to me with a bow wrapped around them (usually they have a $200-$400 price tag wrapped around each one). McCartney still performs well, his shows are completely undignified. If I ever was at his show, and the audience started doing that sway-wave during 'Hey Jude' that is typical of nostalgia shows, I think I would vomit just to give myself something else to look at.

Dylan's shows are different. While he scarcely says more than a sentence to his audience, he and his band always perform with so much class, and with respect (perhaps undeserved) for the intelligence of the audience. And Dylan himself is different. A the worst of times, he will never lose that soulfulness that is so much a part of the music that he himself loves and understands so well. Anyone who's heard 'Theme Time Radio Hour', his XM Radio show, would know this.

Congratulations Barack, though you still have much to overcome

2008-11-05T00:47:00.004-05:00

Something amazing was accomplished tonight. It is not just that a black man was elected President, which in itself is truly incredible. But more than that, the citizens of the world's lone superpower (for now) have finally removed a proud ignoramus and his cast of diabolically selfish puppeteers from the most powerful office in the world. What's more, they have replaced this murder of crows with a man who is truly inspiring; a man who gives the sense, even to one as horribly cynical as I, that there is indeed a light at the end of this long, dark tunnel in which we find ourselves.

And Americans deserve this long overdue breath of fresh air. Sure, they were foolish enough to elect a ruthlessly incompetent regime in '04, and to sort of elect them in 2000. But illustration of American ignorance as those experiences were, I am glad to be seeing them finally turn over this dark page in their history.

I mean not to suggest that things were great in America before Bush; Many of the nation's biggest issues existed long before he took office. But he undoubtedly created many new problems, and the ones he inherited, he only managed to make worse. But perhaps the worst thing you could say about his presidency is that anyone would be hard-pressed to think of a single redeeming quality; a single thing that this man did to either improve the lot of the people he led, or to even give the impression that he cared and desired better for them. When these eight years are looked back upon by the American people, they will be remembered with great shame.

But tonight is about optimism, and celebration of the fact that as bad as things seem to be, the people of the most powerful country on Earth have suddenly infused some excitement and inspiration into a world that has been numbed by our post-modern consciousness. But when the celebrations are over, forget not that this election victory is not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but only the first step in a journey whose successful completion is by no means guaranteed. Obama has got a tough row to hoe, and as excited as we are by the prospect of his success, his failure to live up to even the most modest of our expectations will be even more devastating. So here's to you, Mr. Obama, and Here's hoping you become the first of history's great leaders to make the world into something we can be proud of; despite how stacked against you the odds may be.

Ontario's have-not status not surprising

2008-11-03T17:57:00.006-05:00

That Ontario's manufacturing industry has not been able to weather these tough economic times is certainly no surprise. Sure, everyone is feeling it, but we seem to be particularly vulnerable. The problem, and I have written about it before, is that while we have a rather large manufacturing industry, it is almost entirely foreign owned. The obvious example is the automobile industry. There are numerous manufacturing plants in Ontario, but they are all owned by foreign, mainly American companies.

Why does Ontario, where more cars are manufactured than anywhere in the States, not have it's own domestic automaker? The answer is that Ontario, and Canada in general, has forever been beholden to foreign powers. During the nation's infancy, Canada was essentially nothing more than a large stock of timber for the British navy; the powers that were would never have dreamed of taking proper ownership of their own resource, lest they upset their colonial masters. The legacy of those bygone days is that now, most of our timber processing capacity is foreign owned. So if a Swedish timber company that owns mills in Canada feels the need to start tightening it's built to cope with the economic slowdown, which mills do you think will be closed down first? Certainly not the Swedish ones.

And just as we were beholden to the Brits way back when, today we are beholden to the Americans. Thanks to NAFTA, we here in Canada do not have the option of reducing our oil export to the United States, which is something we might want to do in order to make more available for the Canadian market, thereby bringing down the price of energy in these tough economic times. But no, the rules (to which we were so eager to agree) stipulate that if we reduce our export to our southern neighbours, we must equally reduce our own consumption.

Another major problem is the lack of innovation here in Canada. Studies show that we constantly rank near the bottom of the list of industrialized nations when it comes to research and development. This is a real shame, because, to use the car example again, with the amount of manufacturing that is going on here, we should be at the forefront of developing the fuel-efficient cars of the twenty-first century. But because our economic allegiances have us making cars primarily for the American market, we are now way behind the times.

So do not be surprised that Ontario is now poor; it would likely be the case even without the economic slowdown. What our leaders now need to do is create the conditions for us to become leaders in the various industries in which we participate. We need to be more proactive and stop just waiting around for some foreign company to employ us and tell us what to do with our vast stock of natural resources. It is time to take ownership and responsibility, and to throw away the crutch that is the American market, a crutch that is on the brink of collapsing under us anyway.

On Paul Martin, election aftermath, and the weather

2008-10-29T17:54:00.007-04:00

So, Paul Martin has written a book. Is anyone out there actually eager to read this thing? Off the top of my head I could probably name 100 things I'd rather read. Seriously, I am about as excited about this thing as I would be for a tour of the croquet hall of fame. I mean come on, are we really to believe that there is a compelling story here? A lawyer/businessman following in the political footsteps of his father who would eventually become an incredibly successful Finance Minister and an incredibly disappointing Prime Minister is not exactly the stuff dreams are made of. Whatever the guy has to say could have been successfully communicated through one of those slow-moving interviews with Peter Mansbridge. Anyone who gets this book as a Christmas present will be justifiably pissed off. As for me, I'm going to wait for the movie.

*************************************************

The three or four weeks after an election are always incredibly dull. Why does it take these stiffs so long to get back to work? Are we expected to believe that they are recuperating or decompressing or whatever you want to call it? I call it a waste of mine and your money. What a cushy job these jokers have. They get a nice six-figure salary, loads of vacation time and other perks, and it can reasonably be assumed that about 90 percent of them do absolutely nothing except vote the way their preachers tell them. I, who am currently unemployed, should have become an MP just to pass the time until I find a real job.

So thank god for the American election, without which we'd really have nothing to talk about. American campaigns are more interesting anyway. Down there, it is so much more about style and character, which inevitably makes the whole thing so much juicier. Over here, we occasionally get a little too bogged down by substance (not too often, luckily). Also, having only two candidates really heightens the drama and competitiveness. As far as entertainment value goes, comparing their elections to ours would be like comparing the Superbowl to a short story contest.

**********************************************************
I am sick and tired of talking about the fucking weather. Whenever two strangers find themselves in each others company and desperately need something to talk about lest the silence become excruciating, one of them will inevitably start jawing about how the snow has come earlier than usual, or how interesting it is that this July was dry, whereas last year's was relatively moist. How did this become the default topic of conversation? Actually, I have a theory.

You see, people these days (and perhaps in the past as well; I'm young, so I don't know) are typically petrified of offending others, particularly strangers. However, we are also petrified of awkwardness and any kind of silence. How else to explain the popularity of shows like South Park and Family Guy? The former has always used being offensive as one of their primary comedic devices (and in fact have been using this device as a crutch in recent seasons), while the latter has always used it as a crutch while also relying heavily upon long, drawn-out scenes in which awkwardness between two or more characters steadily increases until it either reaches a boiling point or just ends abruptly. Offensiveness appeals to people because it allows them to hear the things they often think but do not have the courage to say, while the awkward scenes are popular because almost everyone can relate to them.

So because of these two hangups, we always reach for one of the only topics of conversation (another one is traffic) that simply cannot offend when something simply must be said. I am as guilty of this as anyone, but enough is enough. From now on, I will endeavour to refrain from indulging in these monotonous conversations. If anyone who's reading this that knows me ever hears me wandering down this inane path, please smack me on the back of the head. Unless there is a hurricane, tsunami, or tornado bearing down upon me, I am officially no longer interested.

Photo Credit: Dr. Meier, via Flickr Creative Commons

If Obama is in danger, it's not just a black thing

2008-10-27T14:48:00.007-04:00

Not very many people are talking about the fact that Barack Obama is black. In fact, the race card has been so infrequently played that there could be blind people out there who are convinced he's just some white guy with a funny name. While it is encouraging that the colour of Obama's skin has not become a major issue during the campaign, I still worry for the man. Perhaps if the United States did not have such a long and ongoing history of racial inequality and a long list of politicians who have been the target of assassination attempts, I might be less concerned. But history is not on his side.

Obama's emergence in American politics has been meteoric. Before I'd ever heard of him, I was convinced that the only way a black president could be elected is if he or she was a republican. My reasoning was that it would be incredibly difficult for a black democrat to win over people who tend to vote republican, but a black republican would very easily be able to lure staunch democrats. But when I saw Obama's speech at the '04 democratic convention, I knew that one day he would take a serious run at the presidency.

Why? Simply because the party has been for so many years completely starved of charisma. Clinton was certainly a tough act to follow, and Al Gore and John Kerry, while certainly very intelligent and capable men, were about as inspiring as a dollar-store get well soon card. Obama's speech that night was loaded with energy, and made me think that if he was white, he'd be a shoo-in.

The fact that he has come this far and is poised to be steering the country through some difficult times is a testament to just how compelling a politician he is. And while he may be able to overcome the most significant hurdle to ever face any presidential candidate in American history (no, I'm not talking about McCain and Palin, formidable as they are), I still have a bad feeling Obama is putting his life on the line.

Perhaps I am being paranoid, but I would not at all be shocked if at some point over the next four years, someone takes a shot at the guy. It's not just the black thing; he's also pro-choice, and if a relatively moderate McCain is accusing him of planning to redistribute wealth (a sensitive issue in the States), who knows what kinds of things those on the fringe of the American right are saying about him. combine all this with the fact that his middle name is Hussein, and you've got yourself a contentious character.

But even if Obama were white, pro-life, and as vexed by taxation as Howard Hughes, there would still be one thing left that would make him a target, and that is his stance on the war in Iraq. Do not forget that by many accounts, JFK was poised to end any prospect of a long, drawn-out war in Viet Nam before he was gunned down under notoriously suspicious circumstances. While much has changed in the United States over the past 45 years, the military-industrial complex has only become a more entrenched kingmaker in American politics. If Obama decides to take on this institution, he could find himself in the cross-hairs, with some white-supremacist kook acting as the perfect patsy. I am not saying that Obama is doomed, but if something were to happen to him and the suspect is some angry white guy with a shady past, I will be the last person to take it at face value.

Photo Credit: radiospike photography, via Flickr Creative Commons

American election also an I.Q. test

2008-10-23T16:34:00.003-04:00

One of our favourite pastimes here in Canada is to talk about how dumb Americans are. This is something I generally try and refrain from doing, as I truly do not think we are that much better up here. For one thing, American society is way too complex and diverse to be painted with the stroke of just one brush. Furthermore, I feel that our tendency to constantly compare ourselves favourably to our only neighbour is nothing more than a reflection of our own weakness as a nation. It is a distraction from our own problems. For example, I often hear people making fun of Americans for being so bloody fat. Yet these same people either don't know or don't want to know that obesity, particularly among children, is almost as big a problem here as it is there.

However, if John McCain, with Sarah Palin as his running mate, gets elected President, then I will be forced to admit that Americans are actually much dumber than anyone could ever give them credit for. I'm sorry, but Sarah Palin is so incredibly stupid to the point that I would not believe she knows how to tie her own shoes unless I saw her do it. If Americans elect a ticket with her name on it, then all hope is lost. The fact that the race is as close as it is almost makes me lose hope.

It is bad enough that the dimwitted George Bush was legitimately chosen as President back in 2004. But at least you could say that his victory was based on a despicable campaign strategy and the fact that it is hard to defeat an incumbent during a war. But this time, after the lesson that should have been learned from eight years under Bush, there is no excuse for electing a moron Vice-President under a President that is old and could conceivably die while in office. If all that isn't enough, McCain himself does not inspire much confidence, but I'll leave that for another rant. If the Republicans win, then I am renouncing my already tenuous faith in Democracy for Americans.

Stephane Dion bad for the environment?

2008-10-20T20:00:00.004-04:00

I watched some of Dion's news conference today, where he announced that he has effectively abandoned all hope of ever becoming Prime Minister. I'm sure many Liberals are wishing he had done so about three weeks ago, but hey, better late than never. Now the Liberals can start getting down to business, which to them means running the country. You've got to figure the Conservatives are a little worried; after all, they could only muster a minority government against the least successful Liberal leader in the party's history; how are they going to do against someone who can actually defend himself in both languages?

Either way, I am kind of worried that the whole Green Shift fiasco will end up having a negative effect on the environment in Canada. Why? Well for the first time in Canadian history, environmental issues, particularly climate change, had a major party leader as their champion. While on the surface such a phenomenon would be encouraging, it is rather unfortunate that this leader turned out to be a man who could be out charismaed by an asthmatic anteater. It could turn out that this will lead people to take environmental issues less seriously. Maybe I am wrong, but I was even finding myself caring less about carbon emissions while listening to Dion speak about them.

The right kind of politician for the environment is the one that is savvy enough to not talk too much about it during a campaign, and then once in power, institutes the reforms that are needed. Perhaps this is an undemocratic or Machiavellian approach, but I am not sure if democracy is the right venue for achieving the lofty environmental goals that are necessary to rescue us from our own gluttony and wastefulness. For if things continue to get more and more urgent and dire, as so many credible scientists are apparently telling us, and the general public (the people in charge in a democracy) absolutely refuses to heed their warnings, would it not be in our best interest to abandon democracy for our own good, at least temporarily? Just a little food for thought.

Photo Credit: themackenzie, via Flickr's Creative Commons

Late Election Recap

2008-10-17T11:19:00.005-04:00

I apologize for being so late in offering my thoughts on the now concluded federal election, but hey, it's not as if now that it's over, none of it matters anymore. The first thing that I would like to say is that while I was right about several things, I am most proud of how my decision to unvote proved to be the best thing to do.

Voter turnout, despite a relatively tight race and an uncertain economy apparently at stake, was at an all time low. I love how after every election, this one being no exception, all of these holier than thou citizens come out and decry all those who would dare not vote, yet never offer any practical defenses of the system; they just trot out all those really lame plattitudes about our sacred right to vote, and how North Koreans and Mongolians are most certainly shaking their head in disgust at our apathy. But I digress.

Yes, the voter turnout was happily quite low (just under 60 percent), but I think we can do better next time. I was also right that despite running an excellent campaign and increasing their popular support to record numbers, the Greens would have been lucky to win one or two seats (it turns out they weren't luky; they won none). Anyone remember all those naive bloggers who were giving them as many as ten seats? You know who you are. Either Elizabeth May is regretting her decision to urge people in certain ridings not to vote for her, or she herself has become so disenfranchised that she will be unvoting in the next election. Is it not appalling that the Greens had more than six percent of the vote, yet didn't win a single seat, particularly in light of the fact that several years ago, the German Green Party was part of a coalition government after only having won about five percent? But then again, if Germany had our electoral system, you can bet they would boycott it without blinking an eye. I guess that's the difference.

I even accurately predicted that the Liberals would take a beating, which was about as hard to see coming as New Years from Christmas. Still, there were those out there who were sure the race would be so tight that the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens (with all their seats) would be able to form a coalition. I don't know why these people kept forgetting about the Bloc. We were lucky that the Conservatives ran such a brutal campaign; they had one of the most politically inept leaders in Liberal Party history to compete against, and they just couldn't take advantage.

You could say the same for the New Democrats. Sure, they increased their seat count by seven, which is nothing to sneeze at, but they only increased their popular vote by less than one percent. They could have done much better with a smarter, more dynamic campaign. It started out well; their juxtaposition of 'kitchen table' and 'boardroom table' issues really seemed to resonate, but it ended up being repeated way way too often. They needed to change things up more, but in the end, perhaps out of laziness, they just kept coming back to the same well, which inevitably dried up. By the time it was all said and done, I could not stand hearing Jack Layton talk anymore, because he was so damn repetative. While the man is a compelling and passionate speaker, he is doomed by an apparent inability to think and react quickly, and to improvise when necessary. Still, it is a travesty that while they out polled the Bloc by about eight percent nationally, they now stand with 13 fewer seats. Any informed person who would call that democracy is either crazy, or just plain stupid.

The only thing left to say is that while the Conservatives consolidated their minority government, the results of this election are essentially the same as what we had before. Even more astounding is the fact that this is exactly the result that Stephen Harper himself predicted when he first got the ball rolling. So somebody should ask him, if you thought things would turn out more or less the same, why did you call a costly election that not only broke your own law, but also put the government in neutral during a terrible financial crisis? But nobody is going to ask; people are too tired from having to think for six weeks straight, and clearly need a vacation.

May Camapaigning Against her Own Party

2008-10-12T17:19:00.004-04:00

How do you know your electoral system is broken? Well if the shameless begging for strategic votes that inevitably occurs during the home stretch of an election campaign isn't enough to convince you, nor the fact that probably more than half of the votes cast on Tuesday will not have an effect on the makeup of the House of Commons, then what about if a party leader encourages voters to support other parties?

This is precisely what Elizabeth May is doing, telling voters in ridings where her party doesn't stand a chance to support either the Liberals or the NDP, if it means defeating the Conservatives. This is really sad. I cannot say I don't admire her moxy and selflessness, but this is truly ridiculous, and makes me hope even more that the turnout will be staggeringly low.

If things need to get worse before they get better, which is what I truly believe in this situation, then this could be a positive development. Hopefully all those ardent supporters of the Green Party who live in those ridings will stay home on election day. To go out and vote, even if it means electing a Liberal or NDP candidate over a Conservative, would be to assent to one's own subjugation. The established order is telling us we have a right to vote, but if we do not choose one of the two or three prescribed parties, our vote will not be counted. How anyone can participate in such a system and even call it democratic is beyond me.

I've also got to say that I feel bad for the candidates in those ridings where May is encouraging strategic voting. These people have been working incredibly hard to get the message out and convince people to vote for a party with a fresh approach to politics, only to have their leader come out and urge the public to vote against them. that's got to be disheartening. Is she telling the candidates themselves to vote Liberal or NDP? Now that would be awkward.

Photo Credit: ItzaFineDay, via Flickr Creative Commons

What's Going Wrong for Old Harpie?

2008-10-09T16:49:00.003-04:00

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It was not so long ago that many Canadians were trying to find places to hibernate for four years to ride out an impending Conservative majority government. The morsels of Canada's natural environment, all those lakes and trees and moose and muskrats, were wondering if it was at all feasible to seek refuge in a more accommodating political climate (probably Sweden or Germany). The baby boomers, whom over the past 40 years have digested and excreted so much of this country's wealth, were becoming worried that their government wouldn't take care of them in their old age the way it had when they were younger. And the creative class began exploring the idea of having themselves reclassified as part of the manufacturing industry, an area at which the government seems to have no problem throwing money without expecting anything in return.

But now the tide is turning. If the polls are to be believed (19 times out of 20), the progressive parties are altogether resurging, a phenomenon that is eerily coinciding with much, much nicer and sunnier weather. The Liberals, led by the suddenly geek-chic Stephane Dion, are actually within striking distance of the Tories, and the NDP and Greens are maintaining their relatively strong numbers (don't hold out much hope for the latter two, for any day now the Liberals will kick their sickening groveling for strategic votes into high gear). And the Bloc is certainly holding up its end of the bargain in Quebec, boosted by a surprise endorsement from Maggie Atwood.

So what happened, you ask? After all, Old Harpie was riding a wave. People were buying into his anti-Dion propaganda, and his self-assuredness over the economy was enough to obscure the facts that his party was offering nothing and that his own record was certainly less than stellar. The guy did look pretty trustworthy in his adorable little sweater vest; hell, even I wanted to jump into his lap and have him rock me back and forth, telling me everything was going to be alright.

Then came two major blunders that served to alienate les Quebecois, and the rest of Canada to a lesser extent; there was the release of their 'tough on crime' agenda, which seemed to come out of nowhere, given how nobody had pegged that as a major election issue; and then there was the controversy over arts funding. While these blunders were by no means devastating for the Conservatives, they certainly hung over Old Harpie's head rather ominously going into the debates, which is when things really started to go wrong.

It did not help the Tories that the economic situation really started going sour at such a crucial part of the campaign. After all, they had broken their own law and called an early election precisely to avoid such a scenario. Old Harpie's economic policy, which amounts to putting your car in cruise control during gridlock, has not gone over well with the public, and was far too easy for the opposition parties to tear to shreds, particularly during the debates. And just when you thought this cake would be even tastier with a little icing, Old Harpie thought it would be wise to tell Canadians, most of whom are worried about how a slowing economy and tumbling stock market might affect them, that now would be a good time to go and play the stock market, reinforcing the image of his party as a collection of self-interested tycoons.

There are still a few days left in the campaign, but you've got to figure that once this circus has packed up and left town, a few heads are going to be rolling on the floor of Conservative Party headquarters. If there was ever a perfect time not to run a terrible campaign, what with a weak and divided Liberal Party being their only significant hurdle (aside from themselves, it seems), it was now. They easily could have had a majority, but they messed it up, and just in the nick of time. If they continue to tumble, and end up losing the election, Stephane Dion will become Prime Minister by default. Nobody will have seen that coming back in September.

Photo Credit: Su Bee Buzz!, via Flickr's Creative Commons

Voting in Canada is Little More than a Ritual

2008-10-07T18:17:00.003-04:00

I saw the movie 'Religulous' last night. That Bill Maher is a funny, intelligent guy, and he's got a lot of chutzpah as well. I'm not going to review the movie, but I will say that while I enjoyed it immensely, I thought he should have talked about Hinduism, which he completely ignores. I just don't see how you can make a film about how ridiculous religion is and ignore one of the largest ones, especially when it happens to be the engine of horrible classism. Also, I think he missed out on an opportunity to discuss the contention that religion plays a large role in keeping blacks marginalized in the United States. You scarcely hear anyone talk about that.

Watching the movie, particularly the parts where religious people try and defend their faith against Maher's devastating cynicism, was very reminiscent of the response I got from some when I unleashed my 'Unvote for Change' campaign. If you read some of the comments from my previous post, you will see that a couple of people really took offense to my rejection of the voting system. However, they really did not have anything substantive to say in its defense. This makes me think that in this country, where your vote only matters if it is for a party that has a really good shot at winning in your riding, voting is really little more than a ritual.

An interesting analogy would be the Jewish holidays. Thursday is Yom Kippur, a day during which we Jews are supposed to fast to atone for the sins of the previous year. Some of my family and friends will be fasting, despite the fact that none of them are religious. so why do they do it? Because it is tradition; it is a rite that we feel ought to mean something, even though to most of us, it doesn't; it is a way for us to feel closer to a culture and a way of life from which assimilation is pulling us further and further away. Even though we do not for the most part believe that fasting will protect our soul or do anything at all for us in the metaphysical sense, we enjoy its familiarity, and fear not having it as part of our year to year routine.

For many people, voting is quite similar. To many of us, it stands for something, namely democracy and freedom. But to what extent does it actually embody those traits? Is someone who votes more free than someone who does not? More importantly, is someone who votes necessarily more informed or democratically involved than someone who chooses not to? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO! In many ways, voting is completely undemocratic. There are thousands (probably millions) of voters out there who are completely ignorant, but feel they have done their democratic duty (yes, democracy is a duty) simply because they mark an X on a piece of paper every couple of years, probably because they vaguely feel like it would be somehow wrong not to. Democracy is much, much more than that, as all of you in the blogosphere should know.

I am not saying that voting is unimportant, nor that it should be abolished. I am simply saying that we have to start seeing it as part of a much larger framework of awareness, discussion and participation. So when the electoral system is broken, boycotting it and refusing to vote until it changes is actually the more democratic thing to do, providing it is accompanied by other kinds of democratic action, like speaking your mind and challenging people's institutionalized beliefs (like the idea that voting is sacred). So please, unvote. It may sound paradoxical, but it is an inherently democratic way to change our undemocratic electoral system, just like boycotting South Africa was a democratic way to end Apartheid. And if you're going to criticize my 'Unvote for Change' campaign, please put a little thought into it first.

Photo Credit: .damien, via Flickr Creative Commons

Why you should Unvote

2008-10-04T19:58:00.004-04:00

Throughout this election campaign, I have been trying to decide whether I should vote for the New Democrats, or for the Greens. Sure, I entertained the idea of voting for the Liberals, mainly because I think the carbon tax is a good idea, but the thing about them is when they're likeable, they're weak, and when they're strong, they're scary. So I was left to agonizingly choose between two parties that have absolutely no chance of winning in my riding. After weeks of thinking about and closely observing the campaign, I have finally decided to stay home on election day and unvote.

Many who would criticize my decision might say that I am squandering my democratic right, and that if I don't vote, I have no right to criticize the government. These are the typical, thoughtless things people say when they can think of no real reason why someone in my situation should actually go out and vote. For there is no denying that to vote for either of the parties that I like would be a complete waste, and to vote strategically - which many 'progressives' are suggesting - means to vote for a party you do not support just so that a party you like even less does not win. How is that democratic?

Some might suggest I go and cast a spoiled or blank ballot. It sends a message, they say, that you are disenfranchised. That may be so, but after every election, nobody talks about how many spoiled ballots were cast; they talk about voter turnout, and that is why unvoting can be a very powerful tool, and one I am urging everyone that is sick and tired of the First Past the Post electoral system to use.

This is not just about some guy who's disgruntled because the party he supports is not as popular as he would like it to be. What people need to realize is that the majority of you have been systematically rejected by the 'democratic' process. For unless a candidate wins their riding with more than fifty percent of the vote, the majority of votes in that riding will have been cast in futility. As such, it is not so far fetched to suggest that more than half the votes that will be cast in the coming election will not have an effect on the makeup of the government when all is said and done. This quite amazingly means that more than half of the people that will vote could stay home and it wouldn't make the smallest difference.

So I implore you; on election day, do the country a favour by staying home and unvoting. If voter turnout continues to plummet, our overlords will finally realize that we've had enough of being silenced by what is supposed to be the most fundamental institution of our democracy. If you vote strategically, you are sanctioning your own marginalization, and putting the brakes on any momentum that might build towards meaningful change. By unvoting, you will be helping to expose the farce that is our electoral system. If you are interested, please join the Facebook group 'Unvote for Change'.

Photo Credit: Jordan and Stephen, via Flickr Creative Commons

Boycotting the Democratic Process

2008-10-04T13:29:00.005-04:00

Elizabeth May was right - this country needs electoral reform and we need it bad. I have been legally entitled to vote for more than seven years, and in that time I have not cast a single ballot that was not wasted. Why? Simply because the party I tend to support is not particularly popular in my riding. Is that democracy? Perhaps I should move to another riding. Is that how it is supposed to work?

The fact is that we have an embarrassingly undemocratic way of electing our leaders, and it needs to change. As such, I am refusing to vote until there is a meaningful national discussion on the issue of electoral reform. I invite anyone and everyone to join in my crusade by joining my facebook group entitled 'UNVOTE FOR CHANGE'. I am convinced that this is the only way we will ever get the electoral system we deserve, and I urge you to join me in boycotting the 'democratic' process.

Photo Credit: groovyholly, via Flickr Creative Commons

Harper and Hip Hop - It Works!

2008-10-03T19:14:00.003-04:00

I found this video pretty interesting. Not sure why at the end it asks people to vote on March 17th. Anybody know what that's referring to? Also, doesn't the rapper sound like Eminem? Anyways, Enjoy. I will be posting my thoughts on the debate some time this weekend. What's the rush?

Debates Don't Mean Much, Unless Someone Really Bombs

2008-10-01T12:42:00.007-04:00

Tonight is the French-language leaders debate, and I am tempted to watch it in spite of my weak grasp of Francais, just so that I am free to watch Sarah Palin get a headache tomorrow night. Debates are always great to watch. I love them because you do not often get to see a politician squirm. Everything they ever say is so meticulously scripted, and while the candidates are very well-trained for these showdowns, there is always the potential for a few candid, awkward moments.

It is very important to know what to look for. These debates are not so much about content; after all, we already know what each candidate stands for, and we could always consult their platform to fill in the blanks (except for the Conservatives, who suspiciously haven't released a platform yet). As such, it is important for a candidate to avoid getting bogged down in details and lose him or herself in a forest of facts and figures. The point here is for them to promote themselves on a philosophical level; to convince the electorate that they have good intentions and can be trusted.

It is also important that a debater appear confident and intelligent (sorry Sarah Palin, but it's true; luckily, Bush lowered the bar for you). The discriminating viewer should be looking to see if a candidate is actually critiquing and attacking what their opponent is saying, cleverly deconstructing their arguments and exposing their contradictions and inconsistencies for all to plainly see, or if they are simply responding with scripted one-liners that are not entirely relevant to the particular discussion. If the candidates are allowed to have notes, check to see who looks down at them the most, and who speaks more candidly.

Style is also important. Candidates that talk too loud and too much do not come off well. If Canadians see Elizabeth May looking Stephen Harper directly in the eye and challenging him on his poor environmental or economic record in a concise, firm manner, many more people will immediately take her seriously as a politician. On the other hand, if she talks too fast (something she tends to do) and frantically attacks him on this issue or that, she will be dismissed by many as a fringe element. It is important to appear tough, but also very much in control.

So these are the kinds of things I look for when watching a debate. I am also, like spectators at a car race, always on the lookout for disaster, for there is a lot more potential for outright failure during a debate than for outright success. I would love to see one of the candidates completely break down and lose it all on live television. Obviously I would prefer that person to be Stephen Harper, but that's not going to happen. We all know that if it happens to anyone, particularly during the English debate, it will happen to Dion. In fact, watch for one of Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff to run on stage yelling 'this man does not represent us!'

Photo Credit: Su Bee Buzz! via Flickr Creative Commons

Something Interesting about the NDP Platform...

2008-09-29T15:32:00.004-04:00

Something struck me as rather interesting about the NDP's platform, which was just released yesterday. No, it wasn't their overzealous attempt to present themselves as a family values party. Nor was it the fact that the war in Afghanistan isn't mentioned until page 43. What struck me is that it appears that the New Democrats are promising a national pharmacare program.

So what's the big deal? It's not as if socialized pharmacare is anything new; it is standard in many European countries. And it is certainly not outlandish to suggest that for a country with socialized medicine, the logical next step would be to make sure everyone has access to prescription drugs. What strikes me about this is that the New Democrats aren't making this a central part of their campaign.

How can they not? No other party offers anything quite so ambitious, and it is certainly something that the vast majority of Canadians would wholly embrace, especially if it is promoted as an extension of our current health care system. Sure, critics would scream that it would be far too expensive, would cause Canadians to pay higher taxes, and thus would have a detrimental effect upon the economy. But that's what they said about healthcare almost 50 years ago and we have certainly been much better off with it than we would be without it.

But no, the NDP has taken perhaps their most interesting and ambitious policy (and certainly one of the most urgently needed), and buried it in one sentence on page 23 of their platform where it is unlikely to call much attention to itself. But the sentence is there, and it is now official that the NDP vows to "Establish a Canada-wide prescription drug program, phasing in drug coverage for all citizens...". Make no mistake; this is something that is urgently needed in this country, particularly with a whole army of baby boomers on the cusp of retirement.

But aside from being a very important policy, it is also an extremely useful strategic tool that the New Democrats are letting rust away in their cobweb-ridden shed. By unleashing something that would be instantly popular on to the Canadian political scene, the NDP would be putting every other party on the defensive for themselves not offering anything similar. Again, there will be critics, particularly from the ranks of the Conservative government and its associated lobbyists, but in general, this is something with which an aging Canadian population would fall in love. Such a plan would be particularly popular in Quebec, perhaps the most key political battleground in the country.

So why is this plan not being screamed from the rooftops by party insiders? One can only guess. Perhaps Jack Layton isn't paying his consultants enough, and so they are withholding good advice as ransom. Or perhaps this is another example of how Canadian politics is so characterized by fear; fear of saying something politically incorrect; fear of alienating one faction by appealing to another; and most disconcertingly, fear of scaring away voters with sincerity and ambition. Such fear could keep Canadians from having the national pharmacare program that we deserve, and from daring to dream of a national dental program, or fully subsidized post-secondary education.

Photo Credit: Topupthetea, via Flickr Creative Commons

The NDP should Change their Name

2008-09-25T18:38:00.005-04:00

Have you ever wondered exactly what it is that's new about the New Democratic Party? After all, they have been around since 1961. There is also nothing new about social democracy, which is the best way to describe the party's ideology. And there certainly is nothing new about the colour orange, which must have been around at least as long as the fruit, or even the sun. So what is it? Jack Layton's moustache? Obsession with kitchen tables?

The answer, my friends, is nothing (or blowing in the wind, if you prefer). There is absolutely nothing new about this party. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does mean that the NDP should finally and at long last change their bloody name. Having to call them 'new' has become more irritating than those fully grown human beings who refer to their younger siblings as 'baby brother' or 'baby sister'. And it's not doing them any favours either.

What the NDP seems determined not to realize is just how important branding is in politics, and that 'NDP' is a bad brand. First, acronyms or abbreviations as names of organizations are asinine. I may be alone on this one (though I doubt it), but it's true; deal with it. It is excusable when referring to something with an unavoidably long or awkward name, like UNESCO or BIPM, but it sounds ridiculous for a political party; particularly when the word 'party' is part of the abbreviation, causing many well-meaning dullards to refer to them as the 'NDP Party' (don't you feel stupid just hearing people say that?).

Then, when we open up the abbreviation, we find that the full name means absolutely nothing. As I mentioned above, there is nothing new about the party. Perhaps they think the word 'new' gives people hope, or the impression that this party is different from all of the others. But the party is far too old and mainstream to suffer such illusions (you'd think). The lack of actual meaning in the party's name obscures their identity and makes them the subject of suspicion, or at best, confusion.

The name must be particularly confusing to people that are new to this country and who in short order will be casting their own ballots. Liberal? Conservative? Green? Everyone in the world knows in general what to expect from parties with such names. New Democratic Party? Well, let's see; there was a New Democratic Party in Albania that is described as conservative and nationalistic; there was a minor party in New Zealand in the 1970s with that name that subscribed to the economic principle of social credit, which could loosely be described as being related to libertarianism (itself a political doctrine espousing individual liberty and an almost complete absence of taxation and social services); and finally, there is an NDP in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines that is also on the right of the political spectrum.

So clearly, New Democrat means nothing, and a change is needed if the NDP ever hopes to leap from the margins and on to the main stage of Canadian politics. If they had the foresight, they would have changed their name ten years ago and adopted a green logo, thereby depriving their eventual rivals of crucial identifiability. But enough reverse clairvoyance; it is not too late for them to give themselves a fresh, simple moniker. Off the top of my head, I would suggest they call themselves the Social Democrats. Sure, not so original, but it is short, accurate, and the absence of the word 'party' gives it a progressive feel. Let me know if you've got any ideas. Either way, the party that espouses change needs to change itself, at least on a superficial level; for in politics, superficiality is the secret to success.

Photo Credit: Markwellsphoto, via Flickr's Creative Commons

Fascism is Killing Canadian Culture

2008-09-23T17:49:00.006-04:00

Kudos to Jack Layton for vowing to restore the funding to the arts that the Conservatives have withdrawn. Protecting and enhancing cultural vibrancy is money well spent. However, I was a little bit dismayed by comments from the NDP leader that I read in a Globe and Mail article.

At first glance, many would be encouraged to hear Layton speak of "reforming" the CRTC to "ensure that prime time television in French and English is written, directed, stars, and is about Canada and Canadians." However, there is something in what he said that smacks of fascism; specifically, it is the word 'about'. Including that word suggests that the CRTC should have the power (not that it doesn't already) to dictate content.

It is one thing, though still entirely debatable, to say that a certain amount of content should be created by Canadians. After all, there is certainly a wealth of talented individuals in this country that could easily, given the right encouragement and incentive, keep up with or even exceed the quality of imported work. To place limitations upon what they create, lest the content not adhere to the state's definition of 'Canadian', is not only counter-productive, it is downright authoritarian.

For instance, if there was a Canadian program whose main premise was to satirize the CRTC and expose the fact that it sterilizes Canadian culture, how could we be sure they would not be refused sanctification because of their subject matter? After all, the CRTC's website provides no actual definition or strict guidelines for what constitutes 'Canadian content'. Furthermore, if the government can pass laws like Bill C-10, which gives the Heritage Department the power to deny funding to projects it deems 'offensive', what is stopping them from using the CRTC and their vague concept of 'Canadian content' to weed out undesirable artistic material?

There is also the aforementioned issue of the sterilizing effect the CRTC has upon our culture. It is no accident that almost everything on television that is Canadian is completely and utterly mediocre and, for lack of a better word, lame. This is probably a symptom of producers being too mindful of the need to be "about Canada and Canadians" that they ignore more organic and creative impulses in favour of tired Canadian cliches.

A prime example of the current cultural regime's stifling of Canadian creativity is the recent phenomenon of taking an American reality program or game show, throwing in the word 'Canadian' and a few predictable Canadian references and allusions, and having only Canadian contestants on the show. Some examples include Canadian Idol, Are You Smarter than a Canadian Fifth Grader, and Deal or No Deal Canada. If we really did have a 'uniquely Canadian culture' (one of those empty expressions people use to generate a patriotic response), we would come up with our own quiz and reality shows without having to artificially superimpose Canadiana upon them. But if Colin Mochrie and Howie Mandel reminding us that contestants' winnings aren't taxed in this country qualifies as Canadian Content, then we truly are culturally bankrupt.

Photo Credit: Zain Meghji, via Flickr's Creative Commons

No Colouring Outside the Party LInes

2008-09-21T17:55:00.004-04:00

Chris Reid, an openly gay conservative environmental engineer (now that's a mouthful), has withdrawn his bid for parliament. While the official story is that he would not be able to handle four years in parliament (although if you consider all the vacation time they get, it probably only amounts to about three weeks worth of work), many suspect his sudden departure has to do with controversial ideas he has expressed on his blog. At least, we think it's his blog; nobody has actually owned up to it yet.

Some of the controversial ideas include getting rid of the CBC, allowing people to carry handguns, and outlawing abortion. They will not admit it, but you've got to believe that the Conservatives are thrilled this guy is gone. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Reid's rear end is displaying the imprint of Stephen Harper's immaculately polished wingtip today. For while the Conservative campaign has been ridden with gaffes, none, until this most recent incident, has threatened to give the impression that all those things that many Canadians fear in the backs of their minds about the Conservatives might actually be true.

This incident is also a pristine example of how partisan politics completely dumbs down political discourse. Like many people, I profoundly disagree with probably everything Mr. Reid would have to say about anything. However, there is nothing at all wrong with having those opinions, and certainly nothing wrong with expressing them. But the Tories are so afraid that these viewpoints might (perhaps accurately) come to be associated with their party line, that they no doubt prompted his resignation. This is something that all parties have been guilty of at one time or another. If we had a properly functioning democratic process, we would right now be debating these issues, instead of collectively breathing a sigh of relief that one of the very few politicians willing to stray from the party line has been silenced.

Photo Credit: Orrin, via Flickr's Creative Commons

Liberals Should Kill the Messenger, Not the Message

2008-09-19T17:54:00.008-04:00

According to an article in the Toronto Star, the Liberals are starting to distance themselves from their Green Shift plan, now claiming that it is but a minor element of their policy platform. This is a clear indication that the Grits are starting to worry that their ambitious plan to put a tax on carbon is scaring away voters.

But the problem with the Liberal campaign is not their plan to modernize the way we pay taxes. Instead, voters are being repelled by Stephane Dion. The man has almost no charisma whatsoever, and because of this he has more chance of being named sexiest man alive than becoming our next prime minister. This is a shame, as he is clearly very intelligent, good-natured, and possibly even completely scrupulous.

Nevertheless, there are too many ways that Dion goes completely against the grain of what it takes to lead a major political party, particularly a national one. As I mentioned above, the man has about as much charisma as a boiled egg. Another problem is his ability to express himself in English. He may be fluent in the language, but you wouldn't know it to hear him talk, for his accent is way too thick and he clearly struggles with pronunciation. Also, good politicians have an uncanny ability, sometimes without saying anything, to deflect criticism; Dion, on the other hand, absorbs everything.

These are not negative character traits in themselves, but together they are conspiring to make his campaign an inevitable failure. Furthermore,the fact that the Liberal Party has almost no confidence in Dion just amplifies all of his personal shortcomings. Distancing themselves from the Green Shift is an act of desperation, and is symbolic of the party distancing themselves from Dion himself. If the Liberals had a more politically savvy leader, like Bob Rae for instance, explaining and promoting the Green Shift would not be such a challenge, for the plan could really be good for Canada. Tragically, the message is right, but it is being delivered by the wrong messenger.

Photo Credit: William Self, via Flickr's Creative Commons

On Human Beings and the Environment, Part 2

2008-09-17T11:32:00.004-04:00

In Part 1 of "On Human Beings and the Environment", I introduced the divide within the environmentalist community between realists and fundamentalists. It is an issue that arises more and more frequently, particularly during the process of setting environmental and resource management policy. However, given the huge challenges faced by all environmentalists in forwarding their agenda, the rift is often scarcely or not at all detectable, lurking below the veneer of a unified green movement.

At issue is the way human beings relate to and conceive of the environment. Since the dawn of civilization, and particularly with the advent of towns and cities, humankind has seen itself as detached and separate from the natural world, which existed in spite of ourselves; It was something 'out there', beyond the cluttered horizon; It was a wild place where we had no business, save for the extraction of useful material, and occasionally, for the recreation of vaguely primal emotions and experiences. But mostly, nature was seen as an ungodly, unruly and dangerous place that was just waiting to be tamed and colonized.

The romantic movement, which started in the 18th century and flourished as the antithesis to industrialism in the 19th century, provoked a major environmental paradigm shift that has in many ways lasted up to the present day. Early romantics like Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley expressed a longing to return to nature, and revered it as a sanctuary from the gray, grime, and misery of industrialized Europe. This lead to a growing awareness of the destructive effect human beings have on the environment, which in the twentieth century, became the subject of extensive scientific analysis. These are the roots of the current environmental movement.

It is not as easy as it might seem to trace the strains of fundamentalist and realist environmentalism. For instance, it would be tempting, and not wholly illogical, to trace fundamentalism back to the romantic movement. Both, it could be said, see in nature something that is worth protecting in and of itself, and perhaps many fundamentalists revere and long for nature the way the romantics did. Likewise, there are discernible links between the emergence of scientific environmentalism and the realists of today. But such reasoning is inaccurate, over simplistic, and is undercut by the fact that many realists have a deep and profound reverence of nature, and that many fundamentalists have a scientific approach and world view.

Regardless of their roots, the two factions do exist, albeit informally. Furthermore, they do not stand in direct opposition to each other, but rather they both lie on a gradient, one a little farther to one side, the other off to the another. When debating, they would likely make the same points and accusations that realists and fundamentalists typically raise in every other arena; the realists might claim that their rivals are out of touch, that their plans are unfeasible, and that they are stubbornly overestimating people's capacity and desire for such dramatic change; conversely, fundamentalists might claim that their counterparts are compromising, too willing to sell out their values and principles, and not ambitious enough to achieve the kind of change that is necessary.

Ultimately, this is a philosophical debate over our relationship and interaction with nature, and thus will never yield any definite conclusions (is there even such a thing as a definite philosophical conclusion?). Nevertheless it is fundamentally important that the debate continue on, and that it engage all of society, for it will keep us constantly re-examining our relationship with the environment, and always looking for ways to mitigate our destructiveness. It might even bring about that long overdue paradigm whereupon we recognize ourselves as an integrated element of natural complexity.

Photo credit: Ivan Makarov via Flickr Creative Commons

On Human Beings and the Environment, Part 1

2008-09-15T12:37:00.007-04:00

One of the more encouraging trends of the past little while has been the growing concern throughout the world for the state of the natural environment. It seems that everywhere, in the developing and developed worlds alike, there are people willing to make the point that blatant disregard for the health of the planet and its various ecological, hydrological, and climatic systems should not be tolerated.

However, there is a growing divide within the ranks of environmentalists. Some believe that one of the main reasons we should strive to protect the natural world is its potential to benefit human beings, and that to destroy it would be to destroy a valuable resource. Others, on the other hand, believe that the environment ought to be protected for its own sake, regardless of whether or not human beings stand to gain from it; in fact, some would even argue in favour of environmental preservation in spite of any decidedly negative effect it might have on human populations. For the sake of this discussion, we can call the former group realists, and the latter fundamentalists.

It should be pointed out that these two factions do not in general have an adversarial relationship, and in fact often work together to advocate for environmental conservation and preservation, and to raise awareness of important issues. Furthermore, most, if not all realists would agree that the environment has intrinsic value, and that to a certain extent, it ought to be protected regardless of the absence or presence of potential or real human benefit. Likewise, most fundamentalists would agree that human beings do stand to benefit in a multitude of ways from preservation of the environment, and that to a certain extent, there is nothing wrong with redeeming that benefit.

While this sentimental overlap may make the whole debate seem merely academic, it is actually very important on at least two levels. First, the way human beings approach environmental management hinges upon how we value the environment. This is currently manifesting itself in debates over how Canadian forests ought to be managed, particularly in Ontario's Algonquin Park. Second, humankind has for a long time had a detached, sometimes adversarial relationship with the natural world. This debate could help in bringing about a necessary paradigm shift, wherein we finally see ourselves as a part of nature, not a separate entity operating alongside it. In Part 2, I will delve deeper into this debate.

Photo Credit: Walt Bistline, via Flickr's Creative Commons

Another Issue All Parties will Ignore...

2008-09-13T13:05:00.006-04:00

Some of the questions that have arisen during this election campaign - Over whether the Greens should be allowed into the debate, or if the New Democrats actually have a shot at forming the next government or even its official opposition - raise an issue that nobody, including all of the party leaders, seems interested in addressing. It is an issue that to many people in this country is of the utmost urgency, but one that is almost completely ignored by the mainstream media and politicians alike. And that issue is electoral reform.

Canada's current electoral system, that which divides the country up into ridings and assigns each one a member of parliament to be elected by its residents, is archaic. It is a relic from a time when democracy was feared by the elite, and when regional issues were more politically pertinent. Today, with telecommunication shrinking the distances between us and the emergence of issues that affect all Canadians equally, such as the environment and health care, it is counterproductive to still have a system that accentuates regionalism.

This is not to say that a system should be adopted that completely disregards regional nuances and only looks at popular vote throughout the country. It would be ridiculous for, say, the NDP to not have to pay a certain price for having sparse, though not insignificant support in Alberta or, thus far, Quebec. But right now, the price is way too high. Furthermore, under the current system, anyone in Alberta who does support them is completely ignored.

The Greens could also argue that the amount of support they have in terms of popular vote would in many countries in the world, such as Germany, Italy, or New Zealand, make them a significant political force. The fact that that support is spread out throughout the country and not concentrated in but a few areas, ruins their chances of being elected. This is a shame, as issues that transcend regionalism need to be better articulated in federal politics.

An example of regionalism dumbing down our political discourse is the way politicians try and woo voters in strategically important ridings. For instance, Stephen Harper is offering to subsidize auto plants in Windsor and St. Catherines, as these are two places they are hoping to hold on to seats. The effect is that instead of articulating a vision for Canada's manufacturing industry as a whole, they are simply applying band aids to strategically important wounds.

It is astounding that neither the NDP nor the Greens, the two parties that have the most to gain from electoral reform, are not trying to make it into an election issue. Sure, it has its opponents, but those are mainly politicians and lobbyists who benefit from the current system. And yes, Ontario voters already rejected electoral reform in a referendum, but that is because it was set up to fail. We need to give it a fair chance, for it will only serve to enrich political discourse in Canada, and bring us closer to being an actual democracy.

Layton Campaigning for the Next Election

2008-09-11T12:11:00.006-04:00

Jack Layton appeared on Steve Paikin's show "The Agenda", on TVO last night. he spoke passionately, and you could tell he had done his homework. However, the interview did start out a little bit awkward. Layton seemed to be struggling to choose his words, as he often does when he tries to convince us that he actually has a chance of being the next Prime Minister.

And this raises a very interesting question. Is it at all possible that the New Democrats will form the next government? Paikin aptly pointed out that their strategy this time around is to portray themselves as just as likely to win as the Grits or the Tories. Usually, they approach an election campaign by offering themselves up as the sensible, unambitious option that will keep whomever is in power in check. Now, what they are telling us is that the training wheels have come off.

While there is virtually no chance that Jack Layton will be handing out candy from 24 Sussex Drive this Halloween, the New Democrats have chosen the right strategy for this campaign. It shows that they are thinking long term. It looks like Stephen Harper will be re-elected, either with a minority or with a majority in the House of Commons, and with the Liberals running a barely visible campaign so far, the NDP have been presented with a golden opportunity to usurp the role of viable alternative once the tide of public opinion inevitably turns against the Conservatives.

Running a strong, ambitious, and offensive campaign will leave a lasting impression in the minds of voters that will serve the New Democrats very well the next time around, when the Tories will be running under the shadow of a hugely unpopular government. John Tory has run twice for Premier of Ontario under such conditions, and both times he was helpless (the proposal to fund faith based schools only made things worse). Another Harper government may seem inevitable, but if the NDP sticks to their strategy of strength and ambition, and the Liberals continue to run a phantom campaign, Jack Layton could make an enormous splash - next election.

Everybody's Talking About Puffin Poo

2008-09-09T18:31:00.006-04:00

It is amazing how the attention of an entire nation can be hijacked by something so incredibly idiotic. If you turn on the radio or television, or go to any political blog, all you will see, hear, or read about is a Conservative ad that depicts a puffin crapping on Stephane Dion's shoulder. Of course, the ad has long since been pulled, and Stephen Harper has distanced himself from it, agreeing that it was in poor taste.

Now the topic of discussion is whether or not the ad is offensive enough to hurt Harper's campaign. For the most part, it is not, or should not be, the least bit offensive: not to Stephane Dion, or the Liberal Party in general, or even to puffins. However, what it does offend is the intelligence of every individual that was targeted by the ad. The entire concept is pure lowest common denominator, and since it was posted on the Conservative Party's website, you can guess what the Tories think of the collective I.Q. of their legion of loyal followers. Have you actually read what it says on the chalk board behind Dion? It is completely senseless!

Then there is the suggestion that the ad might hurt Harper's campaign. Sure, it makes him look arrogant, a quality nobody finds endearing, particularly in a politician. Furthermore, a puffin crapping on a man's shoulder isn't exactly an image that means something, which could help voters realize that the Conservatives relentless attack on the Liberals is completely devoid of substance. Still, a whole day discussing puffin poo is one less day discussing important issues and the record of the previous government. We all know who that helps.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Greens?

2008-09-08T20:42:00.004-04:00

Elizabeth May was officially shut out of the leadership debate today. The New Democrats, Conservatives, and the Bloc all opposed her participation, while the Liberals have offered their tacit support. The NDP's excuse for stifling democracy was that the Greens are a 'one issue party.' I can understand their fear. After all, if anyone is likely to switch over to the Greens, it would be those supporters of the NDP who are on the brink of realizing just how uninspiring and assimilated their party has become. But to claim that they are a one issue party is a fallacy on two levels. First, the Greens have an extensive policy platform which covers everything from health care to foreign policy. Second, if being a one issue party is grounds for rejection from the debate, then why will Gilles Duceppe be allowed to participate?

The Conservatives rationale for not wanting the Greens around is that apparently, because they support the Liberal Party's green shift plan, the two parties are too much alike and it would be unfair for them both to be there. What are they really afraid of? Perhaps Stephen Harper doesn't want to have to defend himself publicly against a party he's got nothing on. The Greens are too, well, green, to be an easy target the way Stephane Dion and the Liberals are. I'm sure that during the debate Harper's handlers will have filled his head with factoids from when the Liberals were in power, just so that he can throw anything Dion says right back in his face without actually addressing the critique. That could not so easily be done to Elizabeth May.

As for the argument that the Greens and the Grits are too much alike, let me raise a hypothetical scenario. If, during the last session of parliament, the NDP and the Conservatives had formed a coalition based on mutual support for a major initiative, and an election had been called with neither party withdrawing support for it, would the two parties both be allowed to participate in the debate? Absolutely. After all, agreement on one issue should not obscure the fact that the two parties are different in almost every other way. The green shift is not the only issue in this campaign, and so the Liberals and Greens should not be lumped together for both supporting it.

An Issue All Parties will Ignore...

2008-09-07T13:10:00.003-04:00

Well, it looks like about 60 percent of us will be going to the polls in October. Perhaps the Conservatives thought that in Bill C-16, they were committing to fixed elections, not fixed election dates. Regardless, the campaign for our votes has officially begun, and one can only wonder what the main issue will be this time around. Usually it is health care, but now that the Tories are in power, there is no reason for them to try and convince us with their shrewd propaganda that the system is broken. Could be the environment or the economy, except that Harper's record on both is abysmal, and the Liberals are currently lacking the political savvy to effectively use that against him. Could be the war in Afghanistan, though as I mentioned in a previous entry, patriotism has already stifled that debate. My guess is that the Conservatives will turn this campaign into one that is more about characters, i.e. leadership, than actual issues. I am not saying that health care, the environment, the economy and the war will be completely disregarded; but they will not dominate the campaign.

There is, however, one very important issue that will be completely ignored by all parties, and that issue is the foreign ownership of the Canadian economy. Canada has one of the most foreign owned economies in the developed world. Foreign interests, mainly but not only from the United States, dominate both the resource extraction and manufacturing sectors of our economy. This leaves us incredibly vulnerable, for when times get tough, a company will scale down or cease its foreign operations first. Furthermore, Canada's economy is characterized by conservatism and a lack of innovativeness and ingenuity. For instance, our forestry sector is one of the largest in the world, but the foreign companies that dominate it are unlikely to invest in the research and development necessary to make us industry leaders. Such investments are almost always made at home.

The problem is that the Canadian government has for decades been whoring out Canada's natural resources and manufacturing capacity to foreign concerns. The forestry example has its roots in the burgeoning American demand for newsprint at the start of the twentieth century. Another example is the automobile industry. For years this has been the cornerstone of Ontario's manufacturing economy, yet we've only ever made cars for American and, more recently, Japanese firms. How is it that a country which makes so many cars (more are now made in Ontario than in Michigan, the hub of the U.S. auto industry) never had its own, domestic car manufacturer? Similar questions can be asked about pretty well every major industry in Canada. We need to have a national discussion about the foreign ownership of our economy. The sooner this occurs, the better off we all shall be.

Why is the NDP So Uninspiring?

2008-09-05T12:47:00.005-04:00

In his blog entitled "NDP Pathetic on Afghan War", John Waugh astutely predicts that Canada's lone social democratic choice will do all they can to avoid making an issue of the war during the next election campaign. This, says Waugh, is because Jack Layton and the NDP are afraid of marginalizing themselves by appearing not to support our troops. Whether you are for the war or against it, you must agree that to force a debate on such an issue, especially when you have an empty patriotic slogan like "Support our Troops" antagonizing you, takes a lot of courage. It is the same reason that scores of social programs were scuttled during the 1950s in the United States, lest their supporters appear soft on communism. And it is exactly this kind of courage that we no longer expect from today's NDP.

Without a doubt, Jack Layton has done a lot of good for the New Democrats. After all, they have more seats in the House of Commons since the 1980s. It has also seemed, at least during the last two election campaigns, that more and more young people are supporting the party, which has adopted a more youthful, energetic image. But their increasing popularity seems to have made the party more timid: Rather than putting forth bold, original policy initiatives, they have assumed the role of elected Conservative critics; rather than pledging to radically change politics in Canada, they pledge nothing but money for this program or that. And that is why many will eventually switch their progressive vote from the NDP to the Greens, who are at least willing to challenge voters from both the left and the right to look at things differently. As for the NDP, they are all too willing to do and to say exactly what is expected of them; to remain in neutral for fear of sliding into reverse.

Thoughts on the Film "Into the Wild" (spoiler)

2008-09-04T16:55:00.006-04:00

Given that "Into the Wild" was released last year, it is a little bit late to be reflecting upon it. Nevertheless, I just watched it last night for the first time, and it raised a few interesting questions. For those who haven't seen it, the movie is about a young man who abandons his upper-middle class life and promising future for the pursuit of a romantic existence both on the road and in the wild, where he ends up dying of starvation. On a purely aesthetic level, the film is a real treat. This is especially true if you are enchanted by the sights and sounds of nature. The movie offers some truly stunning scenes in the wilderness, and for that reason alone, it is worth watching.

But what should we make of the main character, Christopher McCandless (or Alex Supertramp, as he calls himself)? Is he a folk hero, like Jack Kerouac and Woody Guthrie before him, or a naive anti-social extremist who could just as easily have been found passed out in his garage with the engine running? I am sure that there are scores of people who could defend either theory. However, my interpretation, based solely on the movie (forgive me for not having read the book) and the wikipedia article about him, is that he is a tragic hero.

Christopher McCandless roamed the United States befriending anyone and everyone who crossed his path. They all loved him dearly, and he loved them. In short, he was that incredibly rare and therefore exceedingly precious embodiment of both charisma and compassion; the kind of person who effortlessly makes people vulnerable, but would never dare use it to his advantage. What's tragic is that he is exactly the kind of person that the world needs most. McCandless did eventually realize that the human being is a pack animal, and that he had strayed too far; but by then it was too late, and it is the rest of us who are worse off for it.

Canada Needs a Carbon Tax

2008-09-03T16:03:00.006-04:00

Here in Canada, with a federal election looming, everyone will soon be talking about carbon taxes. This is because the Liberal Party's "Green Shift" plan is the first time a major Canadian political party has called for the controversial measure; the New Democratic Party is calling for a cap and trade system, and while the Greens have been calling for a carbon tax for quite some time, they can hardly be considered a major party (yet).

Based on the horrible job the Liberals have done marketing their "Green Shift" plan, it seems unlikely that it will actually come to fruition this time around. The Conservatives have been assaulting the Liberals on the carbon tax issue for weeks, and the Grits appear incapable of defending themselves effectively and addressing the legitimate concerns of Canadians. Unless they start confidently and aggressively promoting this thing, the Conservatives will eat them alive. Right now, they almost seem ashamed of their own platform.

Nevertheless, carbon taxes are exactly what this country needs to reduce its consumption of harmful, non-renewable fuels while giving a much needed shot in the arm to what could and should be the most vibrant renewable energy market in the world. Moreover, when Canadians realize that a revenue neutral carbon tax can actually enable them to reduce their tax burden, they will wholly embrace it. When carbon taxes are accompanied by an equivalent decrease in income tax, as they would have to be in order for it to be successful both politically and economically, taxpayers have the ability to determine their own tax burden. This is especially true in Canada, a country that has some of the best renewable energy potential in the world. If Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party can overcome the Conservative onslaught and make Canadians aware of this, they should be successful. Still, I remain pessimistic.

Introduction

2008-09-02T21:42:00.002-04:00

Welcome to The View from Elsewhere. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the mind is often consumed by thoughts, opinions, and ideas that ought to be shared with the world; sometimes to offer fresh insight into a matter; sometimes to inform, advocate and educate; and always to expose our unique worldviews to the harshness of public scrutiny, so that our biases and errors in judgment are not left unexamined. Such is the promise of open communication between human beings, as well as the so far unrealized potential of the internet.

The growing concern about the impact human beings are having upon the environment is arguably the defining issue of our time. As such, my goal is that The View from Elsewhere eventually become an open forum for discussion about the various ways we interact with the natural world. I will also post regularly on other matters that attract my attention and occupy my mind. Often these matters will be of particular relevance to Torontonians and Canadians in general. It is also my hope that, should I be lucky enough to develop a modest audience, my readers will feel free to submit any and all kind of response to anything I post. This is meant to be a learning experience for everyone involved, so let us all keep an open mind and hold nothing back; hopefully we will be better off for it.