Joe the Delusional

Every now and then someone comes along that makes you slap your forehead in complete and utter disbelief. Joe the Plumber is one of those people. This man, after exposing himself as a liar and a tax cheat, has the gall to say “I don’t know if the American public deserves me”. If anyone is suffering from a delusion of grandeur, he is. That is all.

CUPE Local 3903 vs. York U and McGuinty

It is no secret that strike action is France’s national sport of choice. It seems that this sport is gaining in popularity. One particular strike that has especially caught my attention is the York University strike in Toronto.

Hubby and I have been following the York University strike since we have first heard of it from our dear friend Melissa. It sparked many memories for hubby, as he lived through an almost identical strike during his last year at York.

I normally try to stay neutral. Hubby is usually found leaning toward the opposing side of unions’ negotiators. Hubby’s recollections in regards to York’s labour relations have made me lean starkly toward CUPE. The recent actions of York, McGuinty, and the police have cemented my position.

Retrospectively, York’s conduct in this conflict has been strategic at its best, and appears as bad faith negotiations at its worst. Their presence at meetings appears to be nothing more than a guise of a supposed intent to negotiate, whilst they waited for McGuinty to step in. It seems they never wanted to collectively move forward, disregarding the cost to enrolled students and academic employees. (Historically, York was always more pugnacious than its GTA competition. With the ascent of Lorna Marsden to the office of the University Presidency, however, these inherent tendencies developed a new quality.)

McGuinty’s conduct has been counter-productive and seems to be driven by blatant populism instead of good policy sense. In my opinion, by introducing the back-to-work legislation he more than merely pushed on boundaries. He has obliterated them with implications that have set worrisome precedence.

BTW-legislation brands a workforce as an essential. However, it appears that what constitutes an essential service is virtually un-scrutinized by the public. As it stands, any striking workforce can suddenly become an ‘essential’ service if they annoy a large enough number of people.

Unlike elementary- and high school, attendance at a university is not required by law. The university has a set of paying customers (the student body) who can freely decide to take their business elsewhere if they find the labour relations eradicate the opportunity cost of not attending an alternate choice. Despite its grave impact on the quality of education (less bang for buck), I see no reason for the government take legislative action in this conflict.

The police’s conduct as ‘keeper of the peace’ during a recent street demonstration of striking CUPE members has been mind boggling. (Not to be misunderstood, I am in favour of the use of tasers and similar non-lethal tools when a situation dangerously spirals out of control.) I believe the police, in their handling of the striking individuals, did not maintain impartiality and acted on public displays of pre-supposed, private opinions. I can easily imagine that there were some disorganized attempts to antagonize traffic flow for the purpose to making a bigger impact but that does not justify open threats to use tasers and excessive police force against people exercising a constitutional right. I doubt that anyone in that crowd fit the profile of a potential violent trouble maker and that the described police action was warranted.

In short; the “negotiators” at York have been stubborn, antagonizing, stonewalling arses. The police have been bullies and thugs. McGuinty and his back-to-work legislation have blown the ideal of collective bargaining back to the stone age. My sympathies go out to the TAs, GAs and contracted faculty at York University. All this seems extraordinarily un-Canadian.

Obama turned me into an emotional chameleon

When Wolf Blitzer announced over the beautiful performance of Air and Simple Gifts that it was already past noon and Barack Obama officially became the 44th President of the United States, I sighed. It was a sigh of relief, hope, and happiness. Being the sap that I am, I also shed a couple of tears.

When President Obama stumbled on the oath, I laughed. I have no doubt that there are those ridiculing him on it, but I took it as an unintended gentle reminder that he is human, just like the rest of us. I found it quite endearing.

As President Obama gave his inaugural address, I was entranced. It was very well written and equally well delivered. I only spoke once during the speech. After Obama said "...we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist", I breathed the word wow. I think that is my favourite phrase from the speech. It is so picturesque.

At the end, I gave into the tide of emotion and cried. In the time frame of about half an hour, my children curiously watched their mother sigh, gently cry, laugh, watch the television zombie-like, returned to life to breathe a single word, turn back into a zombie and, finally, cry once again. They must think I am crazy!

How about you? How did you feel during the swearing-in and the address? Did it turn you into an emotional chameleon?

Bush's secret service detail

I am certain that everyone knows about the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at Bush. Jon Friedman posted these insightful questions for the secret service on 236.com:

1. Shouldn't you have jumped in front of that shoe?
2. Shouldn't you have jumped in front of that second shoe?
3. Second shoe = the one thrown after being removed from foot after first shoe was thrown.
4. Let's say people had three feet. Would you have allowed a third shoe to fly unimpeded?
5. While the shoe was in the air, were you like, "Oh, its just a shoe."
6. Same question about the second shoe.
7. Do you think this is funny, "Throw a shoe at me once, shame on--you. Throw a shoe--you throw a shoe, you can't throw a shoe again."
8. Is there not "protection training" for lunatics launching objects?
9. Let's say there isn't training for that--but do they tell you that if someone does throw (or shoot) something to be on the alert in case they want to repeat this behavior?
10. Where were you?

BONUS QUESTION: Do you think the Iraqis want us there? (Hint: their journalists are throwing their shoes at Bush)

My guess is that the secret service detail found the sight of shoes being hurled at Bush so funny that they forgot they were on duty. Then they had kind of an "Oh f*ck! I was supposed to stop that!" moment, and figured that an ambush overkill would compensate for their momentary absence.

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...

Word of the day

irony

• noun (pl. ironies) A state of affairs that appears perversely contrary to what one expects, as in 'Bush receives International Medal of Peace'.

'Nuff said.

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!

Tackling young and novice drivers, con't.

In light of the young and novice driver rules the Liberals in Ontario are pushing forward, here is a thought: instead of limiting the freedom of responsible drivers, take a page out of Germany’s book.

Raise the minimum age from 16 to 18.
Two years may not seem like a big difference to some, but the adult mind is much more capable of fully realising the responsibility that comes along with operating a vehicle. At 18, with the end of high school and beginning of university/work life, comes a sense of social responsibility. And the hormones are not quite on the rampage any longer.

Penalties for speeding and drunk driving.
From my understanding, there are already harsh fines and penalties in place for speeding and impaired driving in Ontario. More should be invested into the enforcement of these rules. As I mentioned here, I am in complete agreement with the alcohol ban for young and novice drivers – although two years is the requirement here. This rule should not be seen as an intrusion to one’s freedoms, but rather as a practical way to combat impaired driving habits.

Make the attendance of driving school mandatory.
In order to pass driving school and qualify for a driver’s exam in Germany, one must fulfill certain requirements such as x number of hours of successful nighttime driving, driving in rural areas (for those who live in the city), city driving (for those who live in rural areas), and driving on the speed-limit-free sections of the autobahn. All in all, there are around 14 theory classes and at least 12 driving sessions. Theory is taught alone at first and then parallel with the practical lessons, so that students learn the rules and how to apply them. This ensures drivers with a well-rounded experience.

What if the whole process of getting a license costs an arm and a leg (anywhere from 1000-2000 EUR)? Driving is a privilege, and there is no reason against making people work for the opportunity to do so. Paying that kind of money will result in people taking care to drive within the confines of the law. (And think of the jobs that will be created with the implementation of mandatory driving schools!)

In short, teach the population to treat their driver’s licenses like gold, and harshly punish those who do not. This is how, despite being the country of beer, Germany sees relatively small amounts of drunk driving.

Read more on the controversy here and here.

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.

Flip-flopping on Bush

Bush was apparently snubbed at the G20 summit. Or was he?

Nobody shook his hand.

BUT, he already greeted them personally at the White House. He made such a big show of it that it unsurprisingly became fodder to Jon Stewart and his brilliant comical wrath. Technically, nobody needed to shake Bush’s hand again.

BUT, is it not proper etiquette to acknowledge someone when they enter the room? This can be done with eye contact, a quick nod and a smile. Technically, Bush snubbed everyone except Gordon Brown, and everyone except Brown snubbed Bush.

BUT, everyone had their spot for the photo shoot marked on the floor. We all know that Bush is not the brightest of the bunch. How could we all have expected him to make eye contact with the other world leaders and look for his mark AT THE SAME TIME? Bush is not smart enough to realise that he was snubbing almost everyone. Technically, he was just avoiding bumping into the man in front of him.

BUT, he is known to procrastinate. Taking an extra second to acknowledge the other world leaders would not have killed anyone. It is highly unlikely that all the other leaders are equally as inconsiderate/dimwitted as Bush. Eventually, someone would have noticed that Bush was silently greeting them. Technically, Bush snubbed almost everyone.

So was there snubbery or not? If so, was it mutual? You be the judge:

On Bishops, Politicians and a tiny bit of bread

I recently came across this article about the aggressiveness coming from the Catholic Church in the Philippines (an overwhelmingly Catholic nation) against the proposed family planning bill, which would require the government to promote artificial contraception.

I could write about the irony. How the Church, who cares for all of the Lord’s people, would allow them to dig themselves into an even deeper hole, instead of allowing legislation to pass that might help provide desperately necessary population growth control. I could write about the families left in abject poverty due to the Catholic abstinence-only dogma. I could write about the deeper problems with the church’s insistence on over-stepping the constitutionally prescribed separation of church and state.

Instead, I would like to address the bishops’ threats of refusing the Eucharist to politicians who support the bill. It seems to be the common Modus Operandi for meddling clergymen.

In Catholicism, one cannot accept the Host whilst in a state of mortal sin. Doing so would compound the transgression, causing eternal damnation. The theological process of transubstantiation gives weight to the argument. In refusing to serve the Host, the clergy is saving souls. Hence, they believe it is their duty to refuse. If this were the full extent of the refusal, all would be well.

Unfortunately, more appears to be at stake. Taking my previous thought further: if said sinner were to go to confession before mass and receive absolution, theoretically he/she cannot be refused communion.

How can anyone then refuse the Eucharist if absolution is already granted? The Church already knows that if any of the involved politicians receive absolution, they are fully eligible for the Eucharist, making this threat unenforceable. So what is it about?

These bishops are entering dangerous ground. Are they spitefully inducing the wrath of God to prevent this bill from going through? Is the Catholic Church prepared to play for politics and influence on the backs of impoverished and malnourished individuals? I certainly hope not.

Oxymoron of the Year

For the past few months, it seemed that Bush, a.k.a. Procrastinating Destructor Supreme, was playing catch-up to actually accomplish something positive. According to Tina Brown, that is no longer the case. All that is on Bush’s mind is his library.

Bush? Library? Does something not sound off? Are those two terms not mutually exclusive? I think it should be called the “George W. Bush Presidential Lie-barry”. Yup, that sounds much better. Underneath the library name it should read a play on Brown’s description – House of Horrors and Half-Truths.

Tackling young and novice drivers

Young drivers (21 years of age and younger) and novice drivers in Ontario may soon face new laws in regards to alcohol consumption and the number of young passengers with them in the car. I have mixed feelings about them.

The new rules require young drivers to have a zero blood alcohol level whilst behind the steering wheel. This will also apply to novice drivers of all ages for their first year of driving. I am in agreement with this aspect of the proposed laws. Germany already has such laws in place, with the difference that novice drivers must adhere for two years instead of one.

What I disagree with in the limit set upon the number of youth in a car, which makes it illegal for young drivers to drive with more than one passenger 19 or younger with them in the vehicle. Don Forgeron, the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Ontario vice-president, rightly says that saving lives is of more importance than inconvenience. They are, however, essentially making it illegal for young people to carpool to work, or to drive their two younger cousins to their swim class. This also affects the responsible party-goers – the designated driver will no longer be able to chauffeur their friends home. This inconvenience is utterly unnecessary.

This limit comes as a result of a fatal crash that occurred on the south shore of Georgian Bay. Five teenagers died, three of which were not wearing seatbelts. According to police, alcohol did not play a role in the crash. Speed and road conditions likely did.

I do not understand how that crash would lead to the limit proposed. Instead, I believe that higher fines for speeding and failure to wear seatbelts are in order. Significant speeding should also warrant immediate license suspension.

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.)

"This is about the human heart"

**sigh**

He is still after my heart. There once was a time when given a choice between Colin Firth and anyone else, there was absolutely no question that I would have selected Firth. Now that I have started watching Olbermann's commentaries, I am not so sure.

Here is his response to the passage on Prop 8 in California - the banning of gay marriage. He is so eloquent and decisive... and that deep voice...

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.

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!