A musical you don't want to miss!

Love it!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Rick's Rant

One of the lovely things about living with kids is the certainty that once once person gets sick, it is only a matter of time until everyone else at home is sick as well. Having said that, I have been busy taking care of my sick hubby and kids, awaiting my turn to share in the "fun".

Of course, all this happens during a very interesting week for Canadian politics. Oh yes, those Canadian politicians have worked themselves in such a frenzy that CNNI actually dedicated some air time during their hourly world news report to the mess, and when CNNI reports on it, you know it's got to be interesting.

I am a little too preoccupied at the moment with my sick family to dedicate any significant depth to this post, so invite you to watch this clip, where Rick Mercer sums up what I think many Canadians are thinking...

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!

Obama planning world's biggest harem

If there is a positive that comes out of all the nonsensical fear-mongering from the GOP, it is that they have provided a goldmine for satirists worldwide. Here is a clip ridiculing some of the claims made about Obama during the election campaign.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

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.)

OCW a.k.a. POCC

This is a public health announcement. There is currently a condition quickly spreading through America: OCW - Obama Campaign Withdrawal, also known as POCC - Post Obama Campaign Confusion.

The Onion has released the following report identifying the symptoms. If you know anyone experiencing them, please bring them to the doctor yourself. They will not go of their own accord as they believe they still need to campaign!

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)

Yes we can!

Congratulations America!

History is made!

Practically every news network is now projecting an Obama victory, and I cannot help but get all emotional over this. I have the same happy feeling that I had when Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany. The election would have been ground-breaking regardless of the result as Palin would have made history by becoming the first elected female VP, but I would have received those news with angst rather than joy.

Now I do not need to resort to my "The West Wing" DVD collection for my Democrat-President fix! Woo-hoo!

I really should be getting back into bed, but I am dying to see if Obama snatches Florida for the landslide win!

Poking fun at the GOP's campaign one last time

Just a quick thought before I go to sleep...

The Redskins (by way of their game against the Steelers) predicted that Obama will win tonight's election. If they turn out to be correct, does that make them anti-American?

**lol**

UPDATE:
LeftLeaningLady: "Nah, it makes them the Blueskins."

Ha! Brilliant!

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:

How the world almost came to an end for Hubby

Hubby found out earlier today that he’s flying out the morning the election results are revealed, which sent him into an almost panic attack. He’s pulling out all stops to make sure he gets his election fix…


Honey?
Yes?

You bought me Burger King.
Yes, honey.

You never buy me Burger King.
Yes, honey.

You also bought me maple-glazed doughnuts.
Yes, honey.

You know I’m on a diet, right?
Yes, honey.

You’re not supposed to give in to my cravings.
I know, honey.

I’m trying to get back into my pre-pregnancy pants.
I know, honey.

And why did you buy a Colin Firth DVD?
I know you love him, dear.

And why did you get a foot-cooling lotion?
Because you’re always complaining how tired your feet are, and I think you deserve a nice massage.

Honey?
Yes?

Are you trying to bribe me?
Is it working?

What do you need?
Could you wake up and watch CNN early on the 5th, so you could tell me on my way to the airport what the election results are?

Ah…. A foot massage, eh?
Yes, dear.

Will you add a nice neck and shoulder massage?
Yes, dear.

Can we go out shopping for a new coat for me when you’re back?
Of course, dear.

Will you let me buy you and our boys matching outfits for this year’s Christmas photo?
**cringing** Yes, dear.

You’ve got yourself a live updater election morning.
I love you.

Love you too, dear.

(image from newsin3d.com)

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)

Biden got owned by Barbara West?!?!?

Any sane person who watches the video in my previous post would conclude that West was very droll (in the I'm-going-to-make-a-fool-out-of-myself-by-spewing-out-a-mix-of-McCain's-stump-speech-points-and-an-inaccurate-reference-to-Marxism kind of way) and that Biden came out on top.

It is, however, no surprise that things are not the same in bible-thumping Republicanland. Here are some of the comments from those nutheads regarding the West-Biden interview:

Go Barbara West!! Please keep asking the tough questions! Don't back down. It's about time. - dudehead08 (dudehead? What kind of alias is that?!?)

The backlash against the radical left elite media has started! Looking forward to the McCain/PALIN landslide! - AtlasObjectivist

This lady should run for congress and take over as John McCain's Campaign leader. - sah0620

And the absurdity goes on and on. You can read more of that delusion here.

Barbara West happened to interview McCain earlier this month. Her bias was already apparent in the way she lovingly mirrored his stump speech. What a brown-nosing groupie. Watch this video for a comparison:

Neiman's + Saks vs. Gap + H&M

The current buzz surrounding Sarah Palin is her designer wardrobe and the amount of money spent on it. Quite honestly, I am not bothered by this at all.

When Palin entered the scene, very few people knew who she was. We all know that a good first impression can do wonders and a bad first impression can be equally detrimental. There was a lot of pressure on the GOP to present her as someone substantial and established; someone worthy of a chance at becoming VP. What better way to do so than splurge on her appearance? She certainly needed that boost to cover up her stumbling ineloquence, which she revealed after the RNC.

On the flip-side, you have the Obamas who spend much, much less on their wardrobe and yet always manage to present themselves as substantial and established. This has been character revealing for all parties involved, no?

This works against the hockey mom image Palin has been trying to push forward lately. Despite that, I do not think it would be helpful to adjust her wardrobe now. Picture this: Palin dressed accordingly beside Obama. Now listen to them speak. Ouch for Palin!

As far as McCain goes; it is funny that he spent $5500 on a makeup artist when his party criticised John Edwards for spending $400 on a haircut.

The Good Guy and The Mad Guy

I am a proud mama.

I was in a bookstore with our younger daughter and baby today when we came across a selection of books written by or about Obama. (For those of you who do not know us personally, we have four children: a nine-year-old daughter, a five-year-old daughter, a four-year-old son and an almost five-month-old son.) Our younger daughter picked up one of the books, walked over to the pram and showed the book to baby proclaiming:

This is Barack Obama. He's the good guy on tv!

A salesclerk and several other shoppers smiled. Out of curiosity, I picked up a book with a picture of McCain on the cover and asked what she thought about him...

**frowns** He's mad on tv.

...to which she received some free candy from the salesclerk.

I am a proud mama. =)
(photos from senate.gov and washingtontimes.com respectively)

A Man after my Heart

I just read that Michele Bachmann is trying to back away from what she said during her Hardball interview. Huh. After a little more research at this nifty blog, I found out this isn't the first time she has tried to back out of controversy.

But this post isn't going to be about her. I don't need to say much, because Keith Olbermann said what I think most Americans (and most of the world, for that matter) are thinking. Le sigh. Right now, he is a man after my heart.

If I had a top five list of men, like Lainey's list, Olbermann would definitely be on top. Yes, even beating my dear Colin Firth, for now. Watch this oh-so-eloquent rant and enjoy =)

Is Michele Bachmann the new Joseph McCarthy?

I have never heard of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) before today, and already I am deeply disturbed by her. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball, she essentially equated the terms liberal, leftist and anti-American. Therefore, in her eyes, if you have a left-leaning opinion, you are anti-American. Period. She also called for a probe of Congress for "anti-American views".

She wants to bring back the McCarthy witch-hunts! I swear to God, this woman is McCarthy reincarnate, and I hope that Americans are as equally disturbed by this as I am. Once it starts, where does it stop? In America's super-Orwellian surveillance state there is already easy access to all phone calls, emails, chats, etc. And perhaps more importantly: why is a slightly left-leaning idealism inherently anti-American? Isn't an individual's critical nature a sign that they care? The thought of suppressing critical voices has a bitter aftertaste reminiscent of Stalinism - and who wants to go there?

There are others who have probed their government and populace for anti-nationalistic views and opposing ideologies: the Communists. I highly recommend those in favour of Bachmann's probe to watch The Majestic and, even better, The Lives of Others, and decide if they want their lives scrutinised in the same way.

I suppose the silver lining in all this is that it seems the Republicans are desperate enough to continue this "Obama is anti-American" campaign route. It is absolutely mind-boggling how someone with such outlandish thoughts, such as Bachmann, can even become a voter's choice. Where is the America that held dear the universal ideal of freedom?