Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

That Gun Guy in New Hampshire

A fascinating interview with the guy who showed up at Obama's health care Town Hall meeting loaded for bear and carrying a sign with a truncated version of the Jefferson quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.



Of course, as a Canadian my very first question is WHY ISN'T THIS GUY IN JAIL?!? Seriously - how is it the Secret Service wasn't all over his ass the second he was spotted within a mile of Obama carrying a loaded firearm?

Plus, I love that the guy voted for Ron Paul :)

Saturday, August 1, 2009

When in Doubt, Play the Nativist Card

I've only been paying marginal attention to the whole 'Birther' thing going on in the U.S. just because... well, it's silly bordering on insane. Like flat-earthers, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

But then I read the recent poll by DailyKos showing that a staggering 58% of U.S. Republicans (and it's pretty much all Republicans, and pretty much all Southerners) either fully deny or aren't sure that President Obama is actually a real, legitimate American Citizen. And as much as I like to think nothing about Conservative America can surprise me anymore, I was completely floored. Seriously, are these people really, truly as stupid and delusional as we've always suspected?

Apparently so.

I'd love to believe that this is a purely American phenomenon. And yet, I can't help but compare this strategy (and have no doubt that it is a political strategy) to the Canadian Conservative Party's strategy of questioning the 'Canadian-ness' of Michael Ignatieff because of the amount of time he's spent off Canadian soil.

Ponder that for a moment.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Random Thoughts on The Layover of the Century*

(*stolen from the inimitable Kady O'Malley, who wins the Best Title of the Day Award)

1) Watching Obama talking with Michaelle Jean, I thought she looked classy and confident (as usual), and he looked absolutely enchanted with her.



2) There's been much speculation about what Obama and the GG talked about all that time. My guess it was divided between "What is it you do again?" and "So, tell me your version of what happened last fall".

3) Poor, poor Steve. He is no longer The Almighty Tallest.



4) Bafflegab sounds exactly the same in English AND American, no matter who the President is. Sorry, but CCS is still wishful thinking, especially when it comes to an operation like the tar sands. But hey, leave it to Harper to latch on to the one issue that most progressives disagree with Obama on and claiming it as his own.

5) Shorter Stephen Harper: "We are at war with greenhouse gases. We have always been at war with greenhouse gases."

6) Obama making an unscheduled stop at the Byward Market to buy souvenirs and a Beavertail is just about the coolest thing EVAH!

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Naomi Klein, and Agreeing to Disagree

Nice piece in The Star today on Naomi Klein, who is presented as typical of a Canadian who is "a celebrity abroad but is mostly ignored at home." I'm not sure how true that is (although her tour schedule lists three U.S. dates and no Canadian ones), but it's nice to see this sort of high profile recognition in Canada, especially now that so many of her 'crazy ideas' are proving to be prescient.

She is a once hopeful and skeptical about Barack Obama and his economic plan.

"Obama is an important change from Bush, and the reason why he is important is that he is susceptible to pressure from everyone. He is susceptible to pressure from Wall Street, to pressure from the weapons companies, from the Washington establishment. But unlike Bush and (Dick) Cheney, I don't think he'd ignore mass protest.

"The irony is that just at the very moment when that kind of grassroots organizing and mobilization could have an impact, we are demobilizing and waiting for the good acts to be handed down from on high, whether it is the withdrawal from Iraq or the perfect economic stimulus package."


I found it interesting that one of the first comments on this piece (9:57 AM) challenges the characterization of Klein as a "Star Left-Winger" and indeed the entire notion of left-vs-right as overly simplistic and dismissive in today's complex political and economic reality. Indeed, Klein's own concerns about Obama and her dismay at how Americans seem to have forgotten Bill Clinton's own pro-corporate policies seem to defy traditional notions of 'left' and 'right'.

I am finding more and more that words like these serve as an excellent excuse to stop listening to one another. We are so keen to label writers, pundits, ideas, and even whole media outlets as left or right, socialist or capitalist, conservative or liberal, that we end up separating into ideological camps made up of people who already agree with us and simply shutting the rest out.

Ironically, one of Klein's chief complaints against Obama is his choice of former Clinton advisor Larry Summers to his economic team - a man with whom she strenuously disagrees. And yet, Obama has said from day one that he wants to surround himself with people he disagrees with so they can challenge his ideas and assumptions to see how well they hold up.

It's an approach I'm learning to appreciate.

(crossposted from Canada's World)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

President Barack Obama

Man, that has a nice ring. Almost as nice as "Former President Bush".

I can't put this all into a coherent post, so bear with me as I share a few random thoughts.

I was surprised that I got through the entire day without crying. I'm usually a regular blubberfest, but I think I expended most of my raw emotion through the campaign and his acceptance speech. Today, I mostly felt relief that it all actually happened. Although I did well up a bit when he passed the Canadian Embassy and all those Mounties were standing on the steps saluting him. Maybe it was just the thought that this was the first time in my lifetime (except for maybe a few months in '93) when Canada has had a Prime Minister who is demonstrably more conservative than his U.S. counterpart.

Somehow, this makes it real.

I tried very hard to keep an open mind about Rick Warren, but I'm sorry - he was horrible. So was the poet, Elizabeth Alexander. Not just an uninspiring poem, but a really bad reading as well. Seriously - they should have brought Maya Angelou back. She made me cry.

Joseph Lowrey, on the other hand, was awesome.

And just for the record, you moron - it was Chief Justice Justice Roberts who screwed up the Oath of Office.

The speech was great, but not quite as moving as some others, like his "A More Perfect Union" speech. I think it was because his most inspirational speeches have always been very personal, and he couldn't really do that today. Still, the emphasis on public service and the hard break with the divisive policies of the past really struck home. That, and the idea that America has "chosen hope over fear". The last election was most certainly born out of fear - fear of terrorists, fear of 'the other'. Today, Americans are equally afraid of violence and their uncertain economic future, and yet they really have chosen hope.

The best part of watching Obama step out of the armoured limo and walk proudly up Pennsylvania Avenue with his wife to the deafening cheers of the crowds, was the knowledge that both of Bush's inaugural parades were lined by protesters. Some with eggs.

The Obama daughters were unbelievable. Beautiful, happy, smiling, completely unselfconscious. Here's hoping they stay that way.

I must admit, the whole "historic moment / first black U.S. President" thing was beginning to wear on me a bit. I'm neither black nor American, so my attitude towards the whole racial aspect has largely been, "Yeah, well, it's about time". Until I read this article in the Toronto Sun of all places.

'I look at him and I see myself'
West Hill students on pilgrimage to U.S. capital


All their lives, people have been telling friends Damian Patterson and Brian Woon-A-Tai what they cannot do.

Barriers and obstacles constantly strewn in their path because they are young black males and they aren't supposed to scale the walls of their Scarborough projects.

They may have been knocked down and roughed up along the way, but the naysayers have no power over them anymore. They've stopped buying into it, these two handsome young men. Now more than ever, these West Hill high school students have a dream.

And that's why, on this Martin Luther King Day, they are in Washington, D.C., counting down the hours until they can personally witness the inauguration of their inspiration -- Barack Obama, America's first black president.

A man whose stirring motto of "Yes We Can" has become their own guiding mantra, as well.

"I look at him and I see myself," explained an excited Patterson, just hours before boarding the bus taking him and 44 other African-Canadians to the American capital. "I see someone with similar features who I can emulate. He's probably the most positive role model for someone like me."

Like Obama, Patterson is of mixed parentage: His mom is white while his father comes from Jamaica. And like the incoming president, he's being raised by his mother alone.

Woon-A-Tai can also relate to Obama's racial background and laughed when asked about his heritage. "My parents are Guyanese, my mom is Indian-native and my dad is Chinese-black. I'm a pretty big mix."

... "Obama is a clear representation of what tenacity can achieve," said Scarlett, a TV and film consultant. "That's an important lesson, particularly for young black males."

A lesson that both these grateful 18-year-olds are taking to heart.

"He accomplished the impossible," Woon-A-Tai said passionately. "He gives me the sense that everything is within our reach. I can accomplish anything if I put my mind to it."

He was once told black kids don't play hockey, but went on to become a winning goaltender for the West Hill Warriors. Now he's set his sights on going to Ryerson University next year for film studies, the first in his family to ever get beyond high school, and he's been working 40 hours a week outside of school to pay for his tuition.

Patterson has lost friends to gun violence -- "more than there should be," he said when asked how many -- and few of his pals will get their high school diplomas, but he's determined to graduate and go on to study business at Seneca College. "I want to run my own film/entertainment business with my friend over here," he said with a nod to Woon-A-Tai.


I don't know why, but for some reason hearing that sort of thing from a couple of Canadian kids really brought home to me just what "Yes We Can" really means.

Oh, Happy Day.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Oh, Iggy

A study in contrasts, courtesy of National Newswatch. There's this:

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency's ostracising of the group.


And then there's this:

Israel must be allowed to defend itself, says Ignatieff

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says Israel is justified in taking military action to defend itself against attacks by Hamas from the Gaza Strip.

"Canada has to support the right of a democratic country to defend itself," he told reporters in Halifax on Thursday after speaking to a forum of business leaders on the economy.

"Israel has been attacked from Gaza, not just last year, but for almost 10 years. They evacuated from Gaza so there is no occupation in Gaza."

"Hamas is a terrorist organization and Canada can't touch Hamas with a 10-foot pole,"
he said. "Hamas is to blame for organizing and instigating these rocket attacks and then for sheltering among civilian populations."


[headdesk]

Just when I almost sort of start liking the guy, he opens his mouth about foreign policy. Again. Geh.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Another Perspective on the Rick Warren Controversy

I've been pretty ambivalent over the whole Rick Warren debacle down south. While I understand the objections being raised, I can't help but wonder - outside of the Unitarians, the Quakers, the left wing of the Methodist Church and Bishop John Spong, are there actually any mainstream Christian ministers in the United States of America who DON'T think that homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord?

Still, I haven't been real keen to wade in on the whole controversy because a) I'm not gay, b) I know almost nothing about Rick Warren, and c) frankly, I think placing that much importance on a prayer during a political event is stupid.

Happily, someone from the gay community in England has articulated a well thought-out response to all of this that saves me the trouble. He makes several excellent points:

...Warren is no James Dobson or Jerry Falwell.

He does not preach hate, even if some of his statements about gay marriage may be offensive, false, and frankly absurd.

He may not support same-sex marriage, but his position on equality for gay and lesbian people does not differ hugely from that of Obama - or indeed his opponents for the Democratic nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

He believes in providing equal protections for the LGBT community. He is also in favour of same-sex unions, just as we have in the United Kingdom.

...Let’s also remember that it was Billy Graham, who once said that all homosexuals should be castrated, who gave the invocation at President Clinton’s inauguration in 1993.

...It should also be noted that at the inauguration Rev Joseph Lowery will join Pastor Warren in offering prayers.

He is the 'dean of the Civil Rights movement', the man who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr and a Christian who supports same-sex marriage.


Ah! So there IS one!

I'm not saying the American gay community shouldn't continue to hold Obama's feet to the fire on this. But I do agree with the author of this essay that perhaps they should focus less on a single prayer on a single day, and more on the benefits the Obama presidency is likely to have for GLBT rights and other progressive goals if they decide to work with him instead of attacking him for every slight.

(gawd, I really do sound like a Liberal, don't I?)

Monday, December 15, 2008

Engaging the Grassroots: ur doin it wrong

I was very excited to hear that Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla had taken it upon herself to start a website called YourVoices.ca. In an obvious attempt to emulate the success of the Obama Nation down south (Hope! Dream! Inspire!), the website invites Liberals to "make your voices heard!"
Yourvoices.ca is about you. It's about having your voice heard. It's about making a difference.
Yourvoices.ca is a grassroots campaign to open the Liberal Party to new voices, to new visions, and a new future. This campaign is about building from the bottom up, about reaching into communities, about connecting with families, listening, and changing the way we do politics in our nation. With Yourvoices.ca you have the power to be apart of history for a cause that is greater than any one of us.

Yourvoices.ca has been created to hear your thoughts and suggestions of how we can better connect with Canadians, give them hope and inspire them to believe. As the Liberal Party goes through the journey of electing a new leader you have the opportunity to be apart of this change to make sure we get it right!

Unfortunately, when you go to the website, it turns out that the only way to have your voice heard, or indeed to access any real content, is to make a donation.

Now, the donation can be as little as $1.00, and I can sympathize with the rationale behind it (it keeps out the trolls, plus, well, we really need the cash). But I think that making dialogue, input and grassroots participation contingent upon a financial contribution sends entirely the wrong message.



People donated to Obama in the millions because they WANTED to. The participation and dialogue came first, and was open to everyone - even Canadians like me. I signed up early in Obama's campaign so I could contribute to their forums and receive email updates. Only THEN did they start hitting me up for money, and I'll tell you - I was sorely tempted to send them some, and it wasn't even my country!

A lot of the appeal in Obama's case was obviously the desire to be "part of history" and all that. But a lot of it was a simple desire to participate and interact, and feel that someone was listening. Oh, and the merchandise: buttons, posters, limited edition bumper stickers, and those coveted 'tickets to history'.

The point is, you need to get people engaged FIRST. Get them to register, sure - that way you can do troll control and build up your database at the same time. And yes, you could even have a special section for 'premium members' who have made a donation.

But to ask people to give you money - even if it's only a buck - without showing them what they can expect in return (but asking them to give their input anyway) is entirely the wrong way to engage people or to get them to donate. And on top of everything else, you are effectively excluding everyone who doesn't have a credit card, and double-dipping off of people like me who have already joined and/or donated to the party.

Oh, and in case you were wondering - yes, I hauled out my VISA card, donated $5 (just to make it worth the trouble), filled in my info, gave them my ideas, expressed my concerns about the format of the website, and hit 'SUBMIT'. Not because I really wanted to, but just so I could see what happened and tell you about it.

I'm not sure what I expected - a secret password emailed to me, an online forum, a look at what all the other "voices" had to say - something.

This is what I got.



Groan.

Dhalla gets an A for effort and for having the right idea, but a C- for execution. We've got a lot of work to do here folks.

UPDATE: John Laforet proves that great minds think alike, and also makes a connection (also mentioned in the comments) that I hadn't noticed: between the 90,000 'voices' that Dhalla wants to enlist, and the $90,000 it takes to enter the Liberal leadership race. Things that make you go hmmm...

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Tragic Irony of Prop 8



Many people in the U.S. and Canada had their hopes dashed and their elation deflated yesterday with the news that, in all likelihood, California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage had passed.

The blow was made worse not only by the closeness of the vote (a smaller margin than Obama won by), but by the tragic irony that it happened on the same night that America elected a man whose parents would have found their own marriage deemed illegal in many states before 1967.

Worse - it was apparently the black community who voted in favour of Prop 8 in the greatest numbers and are credited with pushing it over the top.

(UPDATE: I would like to amend that last statement in light of the arguments and numbers presented in this excellent DailyKos diary. Yes, African-Americans voted in favour of Prop 8 by a high percentage, but given the relatively low number of black voters in California, that was not nearly enough to account for the final result even with the higher turnout. I apologize for perpetuating this unsubstantiated conclusion.)

This business of state-by-state rulings must stop. The U.S. needs a federal Supreme Court ruling to decide this once and for all, and with a few more progressive appointments to the bench it could happen during this new administration. My hope is that, even though Barack Obama stopped short of publicly supporting same-sex marriage during the election, he will do what Paul Martin did - put aside his personal religious misgivings and support what is right and fair for all.

I cannot think of a more fitting legacy.

"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"

- Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery (D), 1912


"Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."

- Hannah Arendt, 1958


"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

- Mildred Loving, 2007




UPDATE: And one more...

"Slavery could not be compromised in the 19th century because slavery was finally understood as a moral issue. Homosexuality cannot be compromised in the 21st century because it too is a moral issue. To the threats of parts of the Christian Church to leave if homosexual people are welcomed fully without any distinction, the body of Christ must be prepared to say, "That is your choice but we do not compromise truth to comfort you in your prejudice. The Church's doors will be open when your consciousness is finally formed and you decide to return, but we will not reject homosexuals now to avoid offending you. If the essence of our Christ is summed up in words that John's Gospel attributes to him, "I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly," then the choice is clear. Homophobia diminishes life; it does not make it more abundant. It must be ended; it cannot be tolerated even by making it kinder and gentler."

- Bishop John Spong


(H/T to Montreal Simon for the photo and the outrage)

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

President Obama

I am not actively religious. I am not a Christian. I'm not even a monotheist. And all I can say is

THANK GOD!





Now, can we please do something about OUR government?!

Monday, November 3, 2008

The Real Story Tomorrow


When I was working at our campaign office on our election day, we heard complaints from a few people that they faced line-ups of half an hour to 45 minutes at their polling station. Most of those people got fed up and went home without casting a ballot.

I think of those people when I read stories coming out of the U.S. about people waiting in line for 3, 4, even six hours or more to vote in advance polls, and I am embarrassed. And humbled.



I have said it before: the most remarkable thing about the Obama campaign is not the man himself - it's the people and the movement he has inspired. In a country where voter turnout for the past forty years has averaged just under 53%, they are suddenly faced with the prospect of 60 or even 70 percent or more of eligible voters making their voices heard.

Those millions of dollars Obama has raised and spent don't come from business connections or corporate donors. They represent millions of individual people who have donated 5, 10, or 50 dollars, many of whom had never donated to a political campaign before. That high-tech website he's set up isn't just a political billboard - it is actually used by a significant percentage of voters to inform themselves about his policies, to discuss those policies with one another, to sign up to volunteer as door knockers or retrieve lists of phone numbers to call, and lately to report voter suppression tactics and advise voters of their rights.

All of this represents a level of political engagement that hasn't been seen in America since the 1960s.

And so, for me, the real story of the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign is not the election of the first African-American President. It is the re-awakening of the American electorate, and the potential rebirth of American democracy.

I am, of course, an optimist, and this all may well prove to be a passing fad. It remains to be seen whether or not this engagement will last beyond tomorrow's election, or beyond the inauguration of President Obama. But just imagine if it did! Imagine if all those millions of informed, aware, empowered voters really kept at it and demanded that their President and other representatives actually follow through on their promises, lest they be removed from power.

And what if these voters were to use their new found voice to demand even more? Like real, universal, publicly funded health care? Or the dismantling of the corporate/lobbyist machine that has run Washington for the past three decades or more? Or the end of America's reliance on all fossil fuels and not just those from unfriendly nations? Or an end to the use of America's military as a tool of conservative political and economic ideology? Or an end to child poverty?

Imagine.

____________________________


And now, on this election eve, a few words from Al Gore about democracy, from his book "The Assault on Reason":

“When the operations of a government are open to full examination by its citizens and subjected to vigorous discussion and debate, then the corrupt misuse of public power for private gain becomes more difficult to conceal. If the rule of reason is the standard by which every use of official power is evaluated, then even the most complex schemes to violate the public’s trust can be uncovered and policed by a well informed citizenry. Moreover, when ideas rise or fall according to merit, reason tends to drive us toward decisions that reflect the best available wisdom of the group as a whole.

But reason alone is not enough. There must be a public forum accessible to all within which individuals can communicate freely to illuminate unwise as well as illegitimate uses of power. Hannah Arendt, who wrote about totalitarianism in the twentieth century, emphasized the importance of the public realm to this process: "The only remedies against the misuse of public power by private individuals lie in the public realm itself, in the light which exhibits each deed enacted within its boundaries, in the very visibility to which it exposes all those who entered it".

If the forum is not fully open, then those who control access become gatekeepers. If they charge money in return for access, then those with more money have a greater ability to participate. Good ideas in the minds of men and women who cannot afford the price of admission to the public forum are then no longer available for consideration. When their opinions are blocked, the meritocracy of ideas that has always been the beating heart of democratic theory begins to suffer damage. The conversation of democracy then comes untethered from the rule of reason and can be manipulated.

That is exactly was has been happening in America. The replacement of an easily accessible, print-based marketplace of ideas with a restricted-access, television based realm has lead to a radical transformation of the nature and operation for the marketplace of ideas in the United States.

When only those who have wealth can afford to enter the principal forum in which the majority of the people receive their information, then those who can pay the price of admission automatically become more influential. Their opinions become more important then the opinions of others. The nation’s priorities then change".


And a few more from Cousin Teddy:

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

- Theodore Roosevelt, 1906

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Time to Talk About NAFTA

With Barack Obama and the Democrats looking more and more likely to sweep the U.S. election on Tuesday (knock on wood), we are faced with the real possibility that they will follow through on their promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. They will, of course, be looking to gain further advantage for the U.S., and particularly for U.S. workers.

But what about Canada?

The fatal flaw in NAFTA, as in most other free trade agreements, is that it tends to favour corporate interests above all other considerations. One result of this has been the string of lawsuits filed under NAFTA's Chapter 11 over the past 15 years by transnational corporations against governments who presume to implement policies or pass regulations that interfere with their 'investors rights' (i.e. profits). While many of these suits have been brought against the U.S. and Mexican governments (with several aimed specifically at California), Canada has always been a favourite target because of our more stringent regulatory regime and our fondness for keeping things like health care out of private hands.

Two cases which have made the news recently illustrate the danger:
NAFTA-based suit threatens Canada's medicare
Suit seeks to open Canadian health care to privatizers


... a group of 200 private investors led by Arizona businessman Melvin J. Howard is planning to use the NAFTA national treatment mechanism to pry open Canadian medicare — often described by neoconservatives as “the last great uncracked oyster in the North American marketplace.”

Howard and his partners want to open a private surgical centre in B.C. similar to the Cambie Clinic owned by Dr. Brian Day, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association, but are facing what they call anti-American roadblocks in several municipalities.

And even more recently:
Quebec herbicide ban violates NAFTA, pesticide maker alleges

A company that makes the commonly used herbicide ingredient 2,4-D is challenging the Quebec government under the North American Free Trade Agreement for banning its product.

The Canadian unit of Dow AgroSciences alleges the prohibition of the weed killer is without any scientific basis and in violation of the trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Other NAFTA-based corporate lawsuits and trade actions against Canada have involved the Wheat Board, Canada Post, a ban on a toxic gasoline additive, (we lost that one), and perhaps most disturbing - repeated demands for commercial bulk water exports.

If Obama really is serious about re-negotiating NAFTA, we must demand that our government use the opportunity to protect the public interest and remove Chapter 11.

It won't fix everything that is wrong with NAFTA, but it's a start.

(cross-posted from Canada's World)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

What Could These People Possibly Be Thinking?

Am I missing something?

I keep watching these Republican rallies - you know, the ones where McCain and/or Palin get those Joe the Plumbers and Cathy the Chiropractors all worked into a lather over the idea that Barack Obama wants to "spread the wealth"?

And I'm thinking... just who is it they think that wealth is going to be spread to, if not them? University professors? Community organizers?

I can only conclude that these people are all somehow convinced that, while they might be low or middle class NOW, someday they will all win the lottery or some reality TV show, and oh boy will they ever appreciate those capital gains tax deferments then!

You betcha.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Kingston II, Anyone?

Ok, my week of mourning is over. Time to move on.

Every Liberal in the country has spent the past week busily hatching schemes and drawing up blueprints for "How to Save the Liberal Party From Oblivion". Suggestions have included moving right, moving left, electoral reform, re-jigging pre-writ spending laws, finding a 'saviour', recruiting Elizabeth May, and cloning Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

All of these plans are sincerely and carefully contrived to help the Liberals win more seats next time and eventually win back the House, but none of them address a more fundamental question that, believe it or not, Stephen Taylor managed to bring into sharp relief:

What do the Liberals stand for?

The bulk of his thesis is bullshit, of course, although he did manage to choke out some back-handed and belated praise for Dion. But that one point stands out as the sort of profound truth that one occasionally hears from the mouths of four year-olds.

I sometimes despair that I am hopelessly naive to believe that things like policy and vision even matter anymore in our world of sound bites, media manipulation and celebrity politics. But when I take a close look at what is going on south of the border right now, I think that I might just be right after all.

The Obama phenomena has too often been written off to charisma and skilled oratory. But after seeing the crowds that have been turning out to vote in the advance polls and the predictions of over 70% voter turnout in a country that hasn't cracked 60% since... well, the sixties, I am more convinced than ever that there is more than star power driving this.

Americans are excited, and they are excited because they believe that their vote will make a real difference and bring them things like universal health care and an end to job outsourcing and serious action on the environment and an escape from the war in Iraq. They are excited because Obama is telling them that these things are possible and achievable instead of explaining why it can't be done and why they never really wanted that stuff in the first place.

We need to get Canadians excited. Just so.

I frequently hold up the Trudeau years as my idea of the Golden Age of Canadian Liberalism, but I was reminded yesterday that the real transformation of the Liberal Party from a private members club of stodgy, Amero-centric corporate yes-men to the briefly shining light of social democracy in North America happened under the watch of Lester B. Pearson.

Both The Star and The Globe & Mail ran editorials yesterday invoking the Kingston Conference of 1960 as a model for the potential rejuvenation of the Liberals. Peter C. Newman was there:

Especially now, with no election in sight and time to plan, the Liberals ought to pull a Ben Tre manoeuvre - the Vietnamese village that, in 1968 "had be destroyed in order to save it." When the Liberals were in a similar jam in 1960, facing the formidable political hypnotism of John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson organized a four-day meeting at Kingston, Ont., that brought activists and academics together in a rare free-form gathering. Three years later, that radical process - and enlightening contents of its presentations - breach-birthed a victorious Liberal Party, based on new paradigms, new energies and new recruits who would become the party's intellectual and animating agents provocateurs for the next three decades.

...The Pearson-sponsored Study Conference on National Problems, which convened at Queen's University in September of 1960, was billed as a non-partisan assembly of liberal-minded Canadians. Less than half of the 196 attendees were party members, though 48 of them were later named to senior appointments in Liberal administrations. The most influential was Tom Kent, an ex-Economist columnist who became editor-in-chief of the Winnipeg Free Press and later Mr. Pearson's chief policy adviser. His paper Towards a Philosophy of Social Security became the winning blueprint for the Pearson platforms in the three elections that followed. The distinguished Quebec academic Maurice Lamontagne's lecture was summed up in his opening sentence: "The ultimate objective of economic activity is the maximum common welfare."

Watching the proceedings, sensing the electricity in the air and assessing the presence of such newcomers to the political wars as Jean Marchand, Maurice Sauvé and Mitchell Sharp, I soon became aware of what was really happening. A new political generation was being born - the same style of transformation that the Liberal Party desperately requires now - as Jean Chrétien might put it, "the better the sooner."




Voter turnout during that period, in three rapid-fire elections in 1958, '62 and '63, was the highest in Canadian history at close to 80%. No 'election fatigue' there.

We are not likely to see another star like Obama or Trudeau rise from the ranks at the upcoming convention, but nor do we really need one. We just need to re-discover what we stand for, and find a way to enthusiastically communicate that vision with one voice. We should be developing bold new progressive policies that move the party out of its comfort zone and get people excited about the possibility for real, positive change in this country. The Green Shift was a policy like that, but it was presented in isolation by a hobbled leader without the support of his own caucus. Perhaps it can be rehabilitated, but that can only happen if the fat bastards of the party agree to either get lost or get the hell out of the way.

This, to me, is the best argument against Frank McKenna or John Manley taking the helm this spring. Many have argued that such Chretien/Martin era stalwarts will appeal to the Blue Grits and Red Tories and bring them back into the fold, but this approach ignores the glaring truth that we are bleeding far more profusely to the left than to the right.

More on that later.

Getting people excited about the party and the political process in general solves a plethora of problems for the Liberals. It will increase voter turnout, which will not only help financially but will likely favour the Liberals as they were the ones who disproportionately stayed home this time. It will get younger people interested and involved, not only as voters but as people with the means and know-how to upgrade the party's antiquated web presence, fundraising mechanisms, voter databases, etc. It will draw in volunteers and organizers and the kinds of human resources we were sorely lacking this time around.

Most importantly, it will generate the grassroots individual donations which are absolutely essential under the new donation rules. This is the real secret behind Obama's success - not the crowds at his speeches, but the millions of donors who have stuffed his campaign coffers to the point where he can afford to buy a solid half hour of prime time television without blinking.

The Liberal Party has survived and succeeded over the long years because it has always been willing to change and adapt, and even burn itself to the ground once in a while in order to build anew. If they refuse to radically transform themselves again this time and insist instead on cowering behind the policies and personalities of the past, maybe they really are destined to be replaced by the NDP as a dominant force in Canadian politics.

I guess we'll find out this spring.

Friday, August 29, 2008

The Speech, McCain's Veep, and... oh yeah, Canada

I had to work last night, so not only did I miss Garth's 'Volunteer Appreciation Pizza Party' (grr!), I missed The Big Speech in Denver and had to watch it online. Which was no easy task given that MSNBC's link was either broken or badly overwhelmed, and CNN's feed is choppy and just sucks. Thank you, CTV!

Here's one of my many favourite parts:

"I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.

And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It's worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me; it's about you."


I think I said that already...

_________________________

Ever since Obama picked an old white guy for his running mate, I've been joking that McCain will have to pick a young black guy now.

I almost got it right...



You've GOT to be kidding. Does McCain honestly believe that there are really that many disaffected Hillarites out there just waiting to cast their vote for anyone in a tangerine pants suit? Apparently so.

[oh, gods - some Republican pundit just implied that Big Joe Biden might be forced to tone it down and be less of a "bully" if you put him in a room with a woman. Borf.]

Of course it's not ALL about her gender. Perish the thought. She's not just fiscally conservative - she's rabidly pro-life, she's an avid member of the NRA, and she's strongly in favour of the death penalty. [Edit: Missed one - she's also a Creationist.]

Mmmm... red meat for the base...

Here are a few choice quotes from the woman who probably has a better than even chance of becoming president if McCain wins:
As for the prospect of her being vice president, Palin told Kudlow that she could not answer the question of whether she wanted the job “until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day. I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here….”

About the birth of her son with Down' syndrome when she was 44:
"When we first heard, it was kind of confusing,"

"Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome."

And on the death penalty:
During one debate before the primary, Palin said she was in favor of capital punishment in especially heinous cases such as the murder of a child. "My goodness, hang 'em up, yeah,” she said.


Oh, yes - and she has a degree in communications and journalism. I look forward to reading her blog.

______________________

Back in the REAL race, Harper is now trying to paint Dion as a lefty:

"He is certainly the Liberal leader who's taken his party furthest to the left, at least since [former prime minister] Pierre Trudeau"


I certainly hope so! In fact, I think the Liberals should be running that quote in big, bold letters in Toronto, Vancouver, and every riding where left-wing Liberals are tempted to vote NDP, thinking that Dion is just another Paul Martin.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Obama VP Watch

Today's the day Obama will announce his pick for Vice President. I'm on the email notification list. I'm rooting for Bill Richardson. Just because... I dunno. I like Bill.

That is all.

UPDATE: Stoopid media - they leaked it early! Hmph. Well, Biden's cool. He's old, he's got that foreign policy thing going for him, and he's the guy who said this.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Obama vs. McCain as Word Clouds

The Boston Globe ran a very cool thing a week or so ago. They ran Obama's campaign blog and McCain's campaign blog through Wordle (a nifty tool that makes very pretty word clouds from any blog) and compared the results.

The number one word on Obama's blog is, of course, Obama, followed by campaign, senator, change, hope, donate, etc.

The number one word on McCain's blog... is also Obama. And the one word I couldn't find in either word cloud? McCain.

How interesting.



Go try it on your favourite blog - it's fun! I ran Garth Turner's and came up with this:



I couldn't find any Conservative candidate blogs to compare it to, but I did run Stephen Taylor's and... oh, THERE'S McCain!

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Dear America: Congratulations on your Upcoming Divorce!

Dear America,

We, your friends and family, are all thrilled to bits that you're finally dumping that asshole you married seven and a half years ago.

I know, we probably should have said something before. Believe me, we wanted to because honestly - we always thought he was a moron. Some of us tried to drop some subtle hints, but by then you were so gaga over the guy that there was just no talking to you.

The trouble is, we've heard that your ex has been sniffing around again, and that part of you has actually been considering getting back together with that son of a bitch. I find that hard to believe, but I have to tell you that if it's true then there really is no hope for you at all.

I know, I know. He says he's changed. He says he's a different man. He tells you he loves you, and promises to shower you with gifts and make all your problems go away and to never, ever hurt you or your kids ever again.

You cannot possibly be that stupid. You know he's lying, right? You know that as soon as he's back in your house that it's just going to be the same old shit all over again, right? Just because he's comfortable and familiar, or reminds you of your dad, or whatever the hell the appeal is, is no excuse for you to keep going back for more abuse again and again.

Please. I know you're torn, but you just can't put us all through this again. Just dump the chump for good and try to put it all behind you.

With love and respect,

The World

(P.S. - We all really like that new guy you've been seeing. I think he'll be good for you.)

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Thursday Round-up: Tasers, Tasteless Comments, and the 10-Province Strategy

Again I've been busy busy with real life distractions, so in lieu of a real blog post, here's someone else's that struck me as making a great deal of sense:

Lessons the Canadian Left SHOULD be Learning from Barack Obama

In early 2006, nearly five years to the day after the inauguration of George W. Bush, Canada got Stephen Harper. Like Bush, Harper claims to hail from a western land of oil, cattle, and “cowboys”. Like Bush, Harper is effectively an Easterner (he was born and lived in Toronto for quite some time, not unlike Bush’s residencies in Connecticut and Maine) and, like Bush for America, Harper has little to no regard for the Canadian people. Time and again he’s pandered to demographics perceived as necessary for re-election (Quebec as a case in point) and eschewed useful policy in favor of popular strawmen (what have your GST savings done for you lately?). Like Bush, he took Canada’s multi-billion dollar surplus and whittled it away to nearly nothing on ineffective tax cuts and extravagant military expenditures, leaving the Canadian Arctic unprotected and subject to possible invasion in the meantime. He is dangerous for Canada and Canadian ideals alike, and he absolutely has to go.

But who else does Canada have to vote for? Stéphane Dion ignored the recent security breach, a perfect opportunity for a successful federal election, with the reasoning that ‘the plan for the election is in the fall.’ Besides which, he has failed to bring any pressing issues into the limelight, opting instead, like the Liberals he most recently succeeded, to attempt not to offend anybody. Jack Layton is rich in idealism but poor in strategy; he has a committed army of diehards in Toronto, but they can never seem to expand effectively beyond Toronto. Besides which, in Ontario, the NDP is still marred by the disaster of Bob Rae’s government, and has yet to make adequate strides to shed the image of the party from FIFTEEN YEARS AGO in favor of a renewed and able leadership, even though Bob Rae is not even a member of the NDP anymore.

These are similar to the issues which faced forlorn American liberals four years ago, which have now, to the shock and surprise of the world, seemingly been overcome. In a clean fell swoop, Barack Obama challenged popular perception and proved that with a winning combination, democracy can overwhelm corruption. His strategy has been multipronged and aggressive, qualities Canadian liberals desperately need.


There's more. Much more. Well worth a thorough read.

_____________________________

Pity poor petite Pierre Poilievre. Just when it looked like Steve could trust him to open his mouth and spout nothing but the most refined iteration of the Conservative Party Line, he goes and puts his foot in it:

Conservative MP says sorry for 'hurtful' remarks

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre has apologized for saying Canada's Aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need compensation for abuse suffered in residential schools.

Poilievre made the comments during a radio interview Wednesday, just hours before Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for abuse Aboriginal children endured in once-mandatory residential schools.

..."Now along with this apology comes another $4 billion in compensation for those who partook in the residential schools over those years,'' said Poilievre, in a clip circulated by the Liberal Opposition, of which members called for his resignation.

..."Now, you know, some of us are starting to ask: 'Are we really getting value for all of this money, and is more money really going to solve the problem?'

"My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance. That's the solution in the long run -- more money will not solve it."


Honestly, I think Steve is just going to have to start installing little speakers inside the mouths of his minions so he can just speak directly through them without any of them actually having to fire any neurons.

Screw you, Pierre. Not. Sorry. Enough.

_______________________

And speaking of the party line, it looks like yet another independent quasi-judicial body is getting a good talking to, this time from Stockwell Day.

Government delays Taser report

OTTAWA -- A final report on the RCMP's use of Tasers, scheduled to be released today, was cancelled at the last minute at the request of Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

Paul Kennedy, chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, was supposed to hold a noon news conference to release the report. However, he was asked to hold off until Mr. Day, who is currently in Japan, has a chance to discuss with him the findings of the report.


Discuss? Discuss what, exactly? Gee, Stock, you wouldn't be trying to... influence the wording of the report, would you? Hmm?