Playboy apologises

Are you offended by this magazine cover?
I am not. All I see is the typical Playboy cover; a suggestively clad woman with enough exposed skin to be scandalous, yet enough covered skin to be permissibly printed on the cover.

I do not see the need for Playboy Enterprises Inc. to apologise. Is not every single Playboy cover offensive to a group of people? Why single out Mexican Catholics as worthy of an apology?

A musical you don't want to miss!

Love it!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Democracy: US vs. Canada vs. Germany

But our perfect democracy, which neither needs nor particularly wants voters, is a rarity. It is important to remember there still exist many other forms of government in the world today, and that dozens of foreign governments still long for a democracy such as ours to be imposed on them. – Jon Stewart

With Obama’s overwhelming success in America’s recent election, Jon Stewart echoes an inspiring point. But is the American “democracy” really that enviable? How about other democratically elected governments in the western world, such as Canada’s directly representative House of Commons and Germany’s proportionally representative Bundestag?

The American Electoral College system has a few drawbacks. Primarily, criticism centres on the possibility of electing a minority president, one without the absolute majority of the popular vote. This system also has an inherent tendency to suppress voter turnout due to its indirect nature. You do not vote for the presidential candidate you want to be in power; you vote to show a third person, the elector, how you want them to vote for you. This, in turn, leads to another potential problem: the faithless elector. There is no guarantee that the elector will follow the democratic majority of his electoral district whilst casting his/her vote in the Electoral College. Sounds confusing? I certainly think so.

Furthermore, the American system gives way to a bipolarisation of the political landscape. The winner of any state will take all electoral votes of that state. This prevents any significant showing of a third or independent party candidate. On the other hand, the system gives way to a strong, limited term presidency, wherein a democratically elected president is free to implement politics as he/she sees fit, provided congress plays along. That strength allows for major political shifts with the election of a new President.

The Canadian direct representation offers a bit more accountability. Each member in the House of Commons is elected by a plurality of popular votes in separate constituencies (ridings). The party that gains most seats in the House (parliament) fills the position of prime minister. The advantage of this system is that members of parliament (MPs) needing to vote on any bill can be subjected to direct scrutiny and influence by voters in each riding. If voters pressure their MP to take a specific stance there is a good chance that this MP may vote faithless to party lines – there is a long standing history of voter influence in ridings in Canada.

The disadvantage is, however, the possibility of a minority government such as the current conservative government. This article details very nicely some of the perils of a minority government. Also, similar to the American system, there is a good chance of over- or under-representation in the Canadian parliament. As an extreme example: if in every riding a member of the Conservative Party won a marginal majority, they would fill 100% of the seats in parliament (one of my worst nightmares), thus starkly skewing the make-up of popular political preferences.

Finally, looking at the German version of proportional representation in parliament, the plurality of political representation in the Bundestag makes a seductive first argument in favour of such a system. Similar to Canada, the party gaining an absolute majority or majority coalition may fill the Chancellor’s seat. Any party gaining five percent of the popular vote (barring minor electoral adjustments) will gain the same proportion of seats in parliament. This system, installed by the allies post WWII, has proven immensely stable and truthfully reflective of the popular political fabric.

There can, however, be made an argument that a voter will quickly feel disenfranchised as the impact of his or her vote is not immediately apparent. The plurality of political platforms and virtual impossibility of a majority government by a single party forces the government to negotiate for virtually every aspect of daily business, leading to perpetual compromises. This prevents the occurrence of bold moves and frequently bogs governmental business down in trench wars.

Which system is best? The short answer is very political: it depends. It depends on your set of priorities and political affinities. For me personally, the Canadian one suits best. It allows bold moves within reason. It limits US-like bipolarisation without the paralyzing effects the Bundestag frequently endures. Either way I look at it, any of these systems, no matter how skewed or imperfect they are, supply the best answer to our current political challenges. It is the plurality of ideas – allowing for more than just one idea to be right - that will win the struggle against tyranny and totalitarianism that some people unfortunately have to endure.

As Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried”.

Comebacks to use this Thanksgiving

For those of you not looking forward to conversing with the "Righteous Right" during Thanksgiving, 236.com has taken it upon themselves to make sure you enter Thanksgiving equipped with a list of comebacks sure to put Obama haters back in their place. For example:

• The "socialist" takeover of America's banks happened on Bush's watch.
• The "Democratic" Senate has been working with a one vote majority, and that vote is Joe Lieberman. If they get to the "Magic 60," that sixtieth vote is still Joe Lieberman.
• The majority of rich Americans voted to have their wealth spread.

Click here for the complete list. Happy Thanksgiving America!

Open to anything but sex

The Catholic Church is not always behind the times. In fact, it has a history of reversing aspects of its doctrine to keep up with the zeitgeist. It renounced usury in the 16th century, slavery in the 19th century and capital punishment in 1995.

When it comes to matters concerning sex, however, the Church shows no indication of budging. Be it marriage of members of the clergy (after having been ordained), homosexual marriage and intercourse or artificial contraception, the Church says NO.

Mandatory celibacy was not always a must for those wishing to dedicate their lives to the Church – it was made universal Church law only by the Second Consilium of Lateran in 1139. Despite that, there are exceptions. Men who are married before entering priesthood can do so and maintain their marriage. Is the devotion of an unmarried, celibate priest worth more than that of a married one? With fewer men entering into priesthood whilst the global Catholic population grows, will allowing young priests to marry not help to stop this shortfall? The Church says NO.

I am sure that there are those who will quote scripture forbidding homosexual marriage and intercourse. To them I say – I am sure many scripture-quoting individuals have coveted a neighbour’s wife. Amongst all the adultery, murder, lying and stealing, why pick the homosexuality guideline to stick to so closely? Is it not more Christian to grant everybody a legal relationship of mutual love, care and affection? The Church says NO.

Even more pressing is the rejection of artificial contraception. The Church cannot ignore the physical suffering from the AIDS epidemic in Africa, or the uncontrolled population increase in the Philippines, where it still has an overwhelming influence on daily politics. The means to limit the effects of either dilemma giving rise to a more hopeful generation are so simple. And yet, the Church says NO.

And the fear-mongering continues...

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) fears a possible implementation of a “Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship” by President-elect Obama. It never ceases to amaze me how dominant the ultra-right’s obsessive-compulsiveness lets them visualise the big red dog digging in their backyards.


Obviously Clifford is not the dog that they fear - but their fear is just as infantile as the toddlers who love those books. A small amount of political education and open-mindedness would allow anyone to see how Obama is NOT even remotely tending towards Marxism. It is an entirely different cup of tea. The only Western world leader to invoke near-Gestapo-like security and surveillance is the only unelected President in American history - George W. Bush - by means of the Patriot Act.

Is the radical right genuinely this unenlightened, or are they indirectly trying to elevate the fear-mongering to mobilise mentally unstable individuals like Lee Harvey Oswald or these two skinheads? Do they not realise that the irresponsibility and the divisive consequences of their actions are inherently anti-American? (Sorry Michele Bachmann, but you opened a Pandora's box.)

Gay Gay Gay

Gay TV
All I seem to be running into today is news linked to homosexuality. A new gay television channel called Timm was launched last Saturday here in Germany. It struck me as odd that Germany, a country seemingly more accommodating towards it homosexual population than countries such as the US, launched a channel created specifically for them later than the US. What particularly piqued my interest is the channel’s slogan – “Wir lieben männer”, which translates to “We love men”. Whatever happened to lesbians? Are they not gay as well? If the induction of such a channel was done in the interest of general inclusion in the world of television, I believe that should have been reflected in their slogan.

Gay on TV
My enthusiasm for Grey’s Anatomy has been wavering this past season, but I was happy when the show introduced homosexual relationships into its storylines. Portraying normal, ordinary people in homosexual relationships on screen is a wonderful way to counter the obtuse belief some have that homosexuality is an aberration. For that reason, I am annoyed that Brooke Smith has been written off the show. (Her character, Dr. Hahn, was exploring her homosexuality with Dr. Torres, played by Sara Ramirez.)

The official reason behind her dismissal is that the character was not received well by the majority of the viewership. Many people believe this to be a prevarication and feel the producers have submitted to the will of homophobic America. Whatever the rationale, I mourn the exit of a storyline that finally entered territory that is, for the most part, woefully unexplored on mainstream television.

Gay in Real Life
Arizona, California and Florida have taken a big step forward with America in the election of Barack Obama for President. They, however, have taken a big step back when they became part of thirty states that ban same-sex marriage. Arkansas has also passed a measure banning parents in homosexual relationships from adopting children.

This has been called a victory for religious conservatives. That very description exemplifies why such bans should not even be pursued at all - the propositions were put forth by religious conservatives, who appear to enjoy scorning the principle of the separation of church and state.

I do not agree that issues surrounding homosexuality should be left to be dealt with separately in each state. I believe politicians take this stance with the sole purpose of avoiding disapproval in certain states. There should be a country-wide acceptance, not intolerance, of homosexuals, and because the rejection claims it roots in religious belief, there should be no place in the law for such discrimination.

Obama won. Now what?

Now that I have had a couple of days to let the words “Obama is the President-elect” sink in, my feelings of elation have given way to those of concern and worry.

Yes, Obama is the first African-American President of the US. I do not mean to detract from the significance of that. What worries me is the high expectation that America, and the world, now have of him. His predecessor has done an absurdly effective job destroying America. The damage incurred is of such colossal magnitude that the road to recovery will likely be painstakingly long. Obama inherits an America that has lost a fair share of its friends and most of its respect internationally.

It is imperative that we remember Obama is also human. He cannot work miracles, which is what people seem to expect of him. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made. One can be certain that these mistakes will be magnified to ridiculous proportion by the opposition (and Fox News) – you only need to look back at McCain’s election campaign to see that.

In fact, the radical conservative revolt has already begun. They are composing “Obama Administration Survival Guides". They are advising people to transfer money offshore for fear of being robbed by the government. They are calling for the impeachment of Obama, and this man has not even been sworn into office, yet! One statement in particular affronted any sensible political awareness:

“There are a lot of Americans out there that do not fully understand the concept of Socialism or Communism which is why they’ve elected Obama as president.”

Obviously the authors of the ignorant statement do not fully understand the concept themselves. (If you follow my blog, you know how much the misuse of the “S” and “C” words infuriates me.) They continue to call for Obama’s impeachment because of his support for “various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution”. Obama wants to elevate American society and Americans’ social responsibility to the 21st century! Oh no! Run for your lives! Candidly speaking, we are no longer in the Wild Wild West, where everyone needs guns to protect themselves from the unpredictable, potentially around the corner, savages.

I am veering off point. In this post I am trying caution Americans of the danger in raising their hopes too high. The groundbreaking, history-making outcome of this year’s US elections must not overshadow the reality-based possibilities in policy-making. It is easy to become exuberant and maintain exuberance about someone’s accomplishments when there were low expectations. Disillusionment can set in very quickly, and unjustly, when expectations are as high as they are of President-elect Obama.

Will the real John McCain please stand up?

I think he finally did last night, when he gave his concession speech. It is a shame we lost him when he accepted the Republican nomination. I highly doubt he expected to get pulled into a campaign as filthy as his turned out to be.

I remember breathing out a sigh of relief, along with hubby, when it became apparent that McCain would be the GOP’s presidential nominee. He had, in my opinion, the most substantial and well-rounded ticket of the pack. Barring the entry of Sarah Palin into the scene, I would not have minded a McCain administration - even though I was an Obama hopeful.

His true failure was not having been the “maverick” he claimed to be. Had he fought against the negativity that his advisors essentially forced him to embrace – positively stand apart from his colleagues as a maverick does – he would have truly earned the title.

It was a nice surprise to see him bow down with that long absent touch of class. I hope that he will practice what he preached in regards to unity with the new administration. I hope he will put Country First.

(photo from nytimes.com)

ACORN and the perils of the uninformed vote

Kaffeetrinken with my in-laws always comes with the guarantee of a fun-filled discussion about politics, religion, the economy and/or ethics. (Well, perhaps not always fun-filled, but definitely interesting and passionate.) Today’s get-together did not disappoint.

My step-father-in-law, like most Germans, used to be crazy for everything American – the food, the buildings, the culture and, yes, the politics. Blinded by this love, he zealously shot down hubby’s doom-filled predictions for US economy and foreign policy after “Dubya’s” reelection. “Bush may not be the smartest, but the GOP would never allow for the decline of their country,” he said confidently.

He is now so turned off by recent American political events, that he followed this past election campaign without his usual level of interest. Among other things we had to explain all about “that ACORN business” – which solicited this question: Why would anyone court the vote from the uneducated, uninformed and uninterested?

ACORN’s aim to “get-out-the-vote” is fundamentally a noble one. Theoretically, the more people vote, the more democratic the outcome. The alleged “potential election fraud” by false vote registration cards was nothing more than a political manoeuvre. I would pay to see Mickey Mouse to show up at the polling station with valid identification in order to make use of that “fraudulent” registration. Hence, there is no way these false registrations will have any effect on the outcome.

With some of the recent, outlandish remarks by likely voters, my step-father-in-law raises an interesting aspect. Why is it beneficial to a democracy for people to cast a vote, and therewith influence the course of politics potentially substantially, based on utterly uninformed opinions and/or currently less central or irrelevant issues such as:

• Obama is a one-man terror cell.
• Obama is a Muslim.
• Obama is anti-American.
• Obama is a Marxist.

(I tried to find equally bizarre rumors about McCain, for balance. I was unsuccessful. I am not surprised.
UPDATE: LeftLeaningLady supplied me with a few; they are listed in the comments section.)

• Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
• The fact that Obama would be the first African-American President
• The fact that Palin would be the first elected female VP
• The fact that one candidate fought in a war and the other did not
• How many homes a candidate owns
• A non-American middle name

It disconcerts me that in the current economic climate some voters, such as Kevin Sheen, are solely centering their vote on abortion. I respect that to some people this is a very important issue, but I find it difficult to understand why this issue is so heavily weighted against the economy and foreign policy. Such debates find their roots in religious belief, and should stay there. For that very reason did the Founding Fathers of the US insist on the separation of church and state.

An uninformed vote adds no value to a democracy; in fact it subtracts, regardless of the political affiliation of said vote. But who would get to choose which vote is informed and which is not? The aim must be to educate, as comprehensively as possible, eligible voters of the political platforms out there. Desisting from perpetual attack ads one way or the other would be a first step. Instead, entering into an in-depth, respectful debate is far healthier and democratic than fear mongering.

The message should be: Get-out, get-informed, then vote.

Favourite Election '08 Videos

Here are a few funny Election '08 clips to help calm down the election day jitters:

More from the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express

During my midday news headline check I came across this headline from MSNBC that made me laugh: "McCain: Racism will barely affect election."

Of course racism will not affect the election very much **end of sarcasm** - which is why it was made into such a big deal. For those Republicans out there who will shout at me otherwise: watch videos of the mobs screaming that there is no difference between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden. Notice how half-heartedly the McCain camp counters these cries. Now try to convince the rest of us that the candidates themselves did not contribute to the racist frenzy in this election and that it will not affect the outcome. You can't.

Perhaps McCain should have been more specific. Racism against blacks did not play a large role in his election campaign. That kind of racism is sadly reliant with a small percentage of Americans. The GOP did not need to play on that racist aspect, as that small percentage will categorically not vote for somebody black.

Aside from that, "classic" racism against blacks has become something of a political taboo and, if mentioned out loud, is most likely a political suicide mission. The majority of Americans are no longer afraid of black people, per se. This fear has been replaced with an irrational fear of anything Arabic by association. Note how important it is to McCain's campaign to link Obama to terrorism - unfortunately viewed as an Arabic prerogative in the current, collective American conscience. Hence racism, in that sense, plays a central role in the GOP's campaign.

It is apparent that McCain's statement is really the GOP stepping back from the milk they helped to spill, so that it does not question the legitimacy of their potential election victory.

What I think Americans need to ask themselves as election day nears is whether they want a President who has platitudinal experience but has been divisive from the start, or a President who has very atypical qualifications but fought as inclusively as possible.

(bottom image from perrspectives.com)

Lions and tigers and...

...pot smoking, gay loving Canadians! Oh my!
























(cartoon from mapleleafweb.com)

Gay Nader Fans for Peace

Mr. Murphy and his law strike again. My mother-in-law took our older kids for the day to take some stress off of our shoulders, and what happens? I get sick. Ick. I did not get that nice (calm) stroll in the woods with Hubby and baby as we planned, but on the up-side we could catch up on tv shows we like without worrying that one of the kids sneak up behind us and ask why that "ugly man is naked on a table with his tummy open". I also found that I can watch whole episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report in high quality. No more spike.com with their low-quality clips for me!

Last week I stated that the US Democrats are not left-wing on the world scale. I, unfortunately, was not able to find a chart shown to me ages ago that conveyed my point well. Turns out I did not need it. Here is Jon's take on Harper and the Tories:

Stephen Harper, of course, the leader of Canada's Conservative Party. Now, Canada's a relatively liberal nation. Their Conservative Party is the equivalent of our Gay Nader Fans for Peace.

A little exaggerated? Of course! He does, however, display my point from last week - erm - très magnifique! You can watch the clip below, or the whole episode here. I find his choice of clip at the end curious. It is obvious that he refers to Dion's accent, but is he perhaps also slipping in a comment on the Canadian notion of good government? What do you think?

From the Canadian to the US Election (nur auf englisch)

I'm not happy with the result of the Canadian election. The first words to come to mind are "waste of time". All that money spent on an election that pretty much resulted in maintaining the status quo. It's a shame the Green Party did not win a seat in Parliament - I was really rooting for May.

I'm sure that there are Conservatives celebrating the win. They now have more seats in the House of Commons. They believe that Canada is becoming ever more conservative. What do they have to say about the all-time low voter turn-out? It speaks to me of the population having lost its confidence in government and none of the major parties having the right answers for the problems at hand. It is possible that the same number of people voted Tory this year as in 2006.

Let's put everything into perspective: The Tories won 37% of the votes of 59% of registered voters which are 69% of the population. That means that 15% of the population supports Harper and 85% does not. (I hope the math makes sense!) Neither do the majorities of the three major urban centres. That is Harper's "mandate".

Oh well. What's done is done. Time to move on to the US!

I'm glad that CNNI runs repeats of the presidential debates. This third one is going to be interesting. The two candidates are going to be sitting down at a table with the moderator - similar to the Canadian Federal Leaders Debate earlier this month. As I said in this post, knowledge of key issues and communication skills will be much more in the spotlight. This might work against McCain, especially with all the name-calling ridiculousness that has defined his campaign as of late. It is much more difficult to insult your opponent whilst you are sitting down with him/her at the table than not facing him on a stage.

McCain needs this win against Obama. What can he do? Hubby suspects that he is going to try to pull off what Reagan did in his 1984 debate against Mondale. He was also trailing in the polls going in. In his closing statement, he did not summarise his plans should he be re-elected. Instead he went on talking a letter he wrote several years before, fondly remembering the beautiful California surroundings whilst he wrote it. He emphasised that the actions of the present will form the world that the people who open the capsule live in. He spoke of destructive powers, preserving freedom, and the "blessed planet called Earth". He used sentences like "...what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny", which mean nothing whilst sounding like something. It was sappy. It painted a beautiful picture. It spoke to the populace. And even though he was cut off, it was perfect. He was re-elected.

Reagan was the perfect candidate to deliver such a speech. He had all the training he needed from acting. He knew how and when to control his voice and mannerisms. McCain does not strike me as someone who can pull a similar stunt off. Take a look at this clip, watch McCain saying "Enh? Enh?", and I think you'll be inclined to agree. In either case, if this turns out to be his strategy, it will be interesting to see it unfold.

Now I'm off to bed, so that I can catch the debate re-run tomorrow morning.

Conservatives Win and Colin Mochrie Apologises (nur auf englisch)

No, Mochrie doesn't apologise for the election outcome. This day is just full of bad news and silly comparisons for me (and to top that off I think I caught the bug going around from my hubby) that I needed some cheering up.

So for all of those mourning over Mr. Creepy-Eyes Harper's victory (and for those cheering it, because in the end we're all Canadian), here is Colin doing what he does best - bringing us joy and laughter.