Jesse Jackson hopes Obama doesn't 'blink' in debt limit talks;

The GOP is showing its lack of a vertebrate yet again. While liberals like Jesse Jackson are quite confident that Obama won't blink...:

There's this on our side of the isle: Rep. McDermott (D): "Mitch McConnell Blinked Today"

UPDATE: Rep. Chaffetz On McConnell's Debt Plan: "Wow! Stupid Idea."

Plus: 

Ain't that the truth...

"Oikophobia -- fear and hatred of one's own culture and people"

Why do liberals hate America (in case you have a question on that:Harvard Study: 4th of July Events ONLY Help Republicans)? Finally we have a one-word answer: Oikophobia

Embarrassing Video: College Democrats Voice Reasons for Being Democrats

Via BreitbartTV: "College Democrats of America may have unwittingly created a video that actually makes the best case for NOT being a Democrat. Watch these deep-thinking college students explain the important and well-reasoned positions that draw them to the Democratic Party."

 

Anthony Weiner Takes Leave of Absence from Congress, Seeks Professional Help

Anthony Weiner should really just resign already.
Under mounting pressure from fellow politicians, and with police getting involved in his recent spat of Twitter exchanges, the embattled Congressman has announced a leave of absence from his post.

Can one seek professional help for being a horny moron?

A statement from Weiner's camp reads:
"[Congressman Weiner] will request a short leave of absence from the House of Representatives so that he can get evaluated and map out a course of treatment to make himself well. Congressman Weiner takes the views of his colleagues very seriously and has determined that he needs this time to get healthy and make the best decision possible for himself, his family and his constituents."

Read more via thehollywoodgossip.com by Hilton Hater

not everybody loves a winner

there has been a small change

i have to say, it felt fairly surreal last monday watching seat after seat in quebec get swept up in the orange tide. the rise wasn't as out-of -the-blue as some think; in the last federal election, the ndp finished a solid second, or at least made a decent showing, in a number of seats on the island of montreal. with the failure of michael ignatieff to capture the hearts or minds of quebeckers, there had to be some in the party who knew that there were a number of seats, either traditionally held by liberals [e.g., ndg-lachine] or where there was a solid liberal vote [e.g., jeanne le ber] that had large demographics with whom the ndp's message has traditionally resonated. that said, the absolute implosion of the bloc quebecois, predicted when lucien bouchard left the party to become quebec's premier, caught everyone by surprise. which is why, in a number of ridings thought to be bq strongholds, the ndp chose to field candidates more in the interests of having a name on the ballot than because they believed they had a serious shot at winning. things can sneak up on you that way.

in point of fact, virtually every time a part makes substantial gains in the course of one election, this happens. a lot of progressive conservative candidates in the 1984 general election, particularly those in quebec, proved that they were well short of ready to take hold of the reins of power. of course, the difference in this case is that the ndp aren't taking the reins of power. they'll be providing her majesty's loyal opposition for the next 4-5 years. however, there will also be a large onus on them to justify quebec's love, which means that their work on parliamentary committees and their interaction with members of their ridings will be crucial. don't forget, on the provincial landscape, quebeckers reacted to an unpopular leader by turfing out the parti-quebecois in large numbers and handing over the official opposition to upstarts action democratique de quebec. in the following election, the adq was obliterated and the pq now seems poised to regain power the next time we go to the polls. [could we please have a bloody moratorium on elections for a while, though? i moved back to quebec two and a half years ago and have voted four times. i'm done. i need a break. try governing for a while and get back to me in a couple of years' time.]

getting back to the subject at hand [yes, there is one], it's true that the ndp now have a caucus that includes a unilingual anglophone in rural quebec who lives three hours away [who's also a single mom and active in animal causes, helping find foster homes and shelters] and a 19 year old student from mcgill. this has the potential to go horribly, horribly awry. on the other hand, you could argue that the people who are there not exactly candidates for sainthood and having a diversity of ages, genders, economic backgrounds and cultural backgrounds would actually make parliament, well, representative.
 


the problem for jack layton is that no one is saying that, or at least if they are saying it, they're not being heard by the country's english print media. immediately prior to the election, montreal newspaper la presse showed riding-by-riding polls that indicated that the ndp stood to make major gainsin virtually every part of quebec. nationally, however, the globe and mail stuck their nose up at the prevailing wins and confidently predicted that the ndp would make, at best, modest gains. their predictions for the province were correct in only about a quarter of cases, mostly bolstered by the fact that they were correct in guessing seats won by the liberals, bq and conservatives. i'll repeat: information on the groundswell of ndp support was widely available in the days coming up to the election, but the newspaper that claims to represent the nation chose to underestimate it in almost every case. not to beleaguer the point, but here are a few instances [keep in mind that stephen harper became prime minister with less than 40% of the popular vote, which is not abnormal] ::

compton- stanstead
globe prediction :: strong bloc quebecois
result :: ndp victory with 47.6% of the vote, over 10,000 more votes than the bq [26%]

gatineau
globe prediction :: slight edge to the ndp
result :: ndp win with 61.9% of the vote, compared to 15.1% and 14% for the liberals, a difference of more than 25,000 votes

hull- aylmer
globe prediction :: strong liberal riding
result :: ndp win with 59.2% of the vote, compared to 20.3% for the liberals

lotbiniere- chutes-de-la-chaudiere
globe prediction :: strong conservative
result :: the conservative encumbent edged out the ndp candidate by less than 1,000 votes

louis saint-laurent
globe prediction :: strong conservative
result :: the ndp edged out a victory against conservative encumbent josee verner by about 1,200 votes

these are just a few examples. in fact, the globe was wildly wrong in their predictions for the ndp everywhere outside of a few ridings that haven't voted any other way in my lifetime. and that's not just in quebec, although, of course, it's most obvious in quebec given the numbers involved.

it's reality. admit it.

and you could even laugh it off as being the usual sort of media stupidity and joke about the uselessness of polls, if the globe could simply claim that the information was unavailable. but the information was available. la presse had it. global news had it. the globe and mail haven't deigned to explain how they got it so wrong with the facts at their disposal. they have explained other errors in their predictions, but as far as underestimating the ndp, there is a mysterious silence. if these were people and not organisations involved, one might say that grossly underestimating someone's potential was a sign that you were prejudiced against them to begin with. and i'd argue that there's no reason to think that different rules apply in this case. the globe didn't predict the ndp's victories because they didn't want them to happen and chose instead to cling to the hope that the old parties and the status quo [even involving the separatist bq] would somehow prevail.

nor is this attitude limited to the globe and mail. jack layton, at a press conference the day after the election, had to answer questions far harsher than any directed at the prime minister as to how he was going to cope with having young people in his caucus. the montreal gazette ran a stream of articles on the disastrous choices made by voters by voting for the ndp, culminating in a hysterical editorial about how the ndp's electoral victories pointed to serious flaws in the canadian democratic process. their logic was that the ndp would just throw anyone into elections for the sake of having a name on the ballot [and in some cases, that's probably true], whereas the established parties, the liberals and the conservatives had careful vetting processes in place that would ensure that their candidates would be of high caliber. i'm serious. they said that.

those of us who've seen a few elections know that that vetting process hasn't been 100% effective. after all, the conservatives and liberals have let in a few people who you probably wouldn't want to add to your facebook friends. conservative mp rahim jaffer once got an aide to impersonate him for a radio interview because he was busy, was named "canada's laziest member of parliament" and since his electoral defeat in 2008, has distinguished himself by getting caught doing 93km/hr in a 50 zone while drunk, with $500 worth of cocaine on his person after returning from a meeting with a banker for the hell's angels. stephen harper made him chair of the conservative caucus. liberal alfonso gagliano occupied several key positions in cabinet from 1996-2003 and was later appointed ambassador to denmark, until the gomery commission pointed the finger at him being the highest-ranking official responsible for the sponsorship scandal relating to a long-running program that saw misappropriation of public funds in the millions of dollars. [gagliano has since sued former liberal prime minister paul martin, who fired him and banned him from the liberal party for life, for defamation of character.] former saskatchewan cabinet minister colin thatcher, who was first elected as a liberal but quickly switched to the conservatives, was convicted of murdering his former wife.

those are examples of what a careful vetting process gets you. but the montreal gazette wants you to know that it's the ndp selection process that's flawed.

parties with a large number of new mp's always face a struggle. the consequences of making mistakes can be considerable. but most of the time, unless someone really steps out of line, those stories are reported offhandedly and then forgotten. the challenge that jack layton and the ndp face is that they have a very powerful group with a very large public bullhorn who already want them to fail. it's like finding out the person giving you your driver's test is the guy who walked in on you making out with his daughter.

mr. layton, mr. mulcair et al, i wish you good luck. i've a strong suspicion that you're going to need it.

the case for casting

shouldn't we all?

an acquaintance of mine who likes to think that he knows more than anybody about everything chastised me before the last election when i pressured him to get out and vote by saying that it was "nice" that i still persisted in my naive exhortations to vote, despite the fact that democracy was obviously a "failed system".  at the time, i gritted my teeth and hoped that my friendly cuteness had been enough to encourage him to vote anyway, but the fact is that i've spent the last two and a half years kicking myself for what i should have said, what i've said to others when they've made the same sort of comments.

first of all, let's get the big issue out of the way: is there a federal party that represents the way that you think a nation, a community or a society should be run on a long-term scale? if the answer s yes, i trust you've figured out which party that is and i encourage you to vote for them. you're very lucky.

now, let's deal with the rest of us.




many people, myself very much included, have paid enough attention to the political system to have learned what options are out there and to have become severely disillusioned. still more know very little about the political system, but are disillusioned anyway because things seem to be going constantly wrong. i consider myself lucky to have been raised in a home where politics came with milk and cereal in the morning. at least that means i've figured out the ways in which things go wrong. i understand that others are prone to simply shrugging their shoulders and ejaculating a profound "wtf?!?!?"

for those who have become disillusioned, it may seem that there is no political option, that since no party represents our most deeply held values, that there is no purpose to voting because there is no meaningful difference between our political options. and, if you insist on voting only when you agree with the broad social view of a party, or their grand vision of society and community, then chances are there is no point in you voting. but i would submit that if these are your criteria, you're voting for the wrong reasons to begin with.

the fact is that visions of utopia are highly individual and finding a person, let alone an entire political party, whose views accord with yours is a likely impossibility. but if you think that's a reason not to vote, then i think maybe it's time you came in from your village in the clouds. elections are not about ideals. elections are about practical realities and the fact that, like it or not, you are implicated in the activities of your government in the most basic ways imaginable. your ideals are your own and you should fight for them with all your spirit and strength. you aren't going to vote [or not vote] for your ideals on monday. get over it.

whether you vote or not on monday, a new government will be elected and you will feel the effects of that whether you vote or not. when was the last time you bought something? anything at all. a couple of hours ago? yesterday? i'd be surprised if many of you could go further than a few days back without thinking of something that you've purchased. that purchase had tax applied. there was a provincial tax, but also a federal one. in fact, the federal tax would have been less than it was when stephen harper was first elected, because, true [for once] to a promise, his conservative government has lowered the level of the gst. that tax and that change affects you every single time you make a purchase. has the lowering of that tax been beneficial for you personally? do you know what the money you pay [5% on every purchase to the federal government] has funded? the government isn't in the business of collecting money only- that money is supposed to be redirected into things from which we all benefit. are you feeling those benefits?

dontcha wish your vote could save a cute like me? it could

if you're working regularly, take a moment to look at your paycheque. they clearly identify the amount of money going to the federal government. does it strike you that you're giving a lot of your pay to the federal government? what are you getting in return? do you have an opinion on where you'd like that money spent? would you prefer to have that money go into improved highways and road transport? or would you rather see it pushed towards improved public transport and housing? these are not overarching questions of worldview. these are questions of what is to be done with the money that you're handing over whether you like it or not.

well, maybe you think that you shouldn't be paying money to some distant sovereign body, you certainly wouldn't be alone in that view. in fact, there are politicians and at least one major political party who agree that you should be in control of as much of your money as possible and they express that belief by promising [and occasionally delivering] lower taxes.

but the fact remains that you are going to end up handing over some money, if only temporarily, to the government. would you rather they spent your money on education or defense? on health care or domestic energy resources? even if you don't believe that any of the major parties reflect your personal world view, you might have opinions on these issues. if someone gave you a thousand dollars to spend on projects for the public good, where would you spend it? is there are party that would make similar choices? perhaps, if you want your money to mean something, you should consider voting for them.

we all have our ideal views of the world. the fact is that 99% of us will never attain them. but that doesn't mean that we should be disinterested in government. far from it. in fact, it means that we should be all the more critical about who we entrust with our money and what we authorise them to do with it. trust me: we're all going to end up paying whether we vote or not. the question isn't one of world view, the question is one of endorsement on the most basic of issues. don't worry about the grand picture- that is something to be negotiated on an ongoing basis through all strata of society. this election is about basics: do you want your road paved? or do you want to be able to take that money and do with it as you see fit? which would benefit you? which would benefit your community? which is more important to you? these are the questions you should be asking yourself when questioning if and how you'll vote on monday. one thing is for certain: those questions will be answered, whether you speak up or not.

ça vaut pas cher la livre

duceppe, layton, ignatieff and harper at a pre-debate photo-op

for the first time in many canadian elections, i did not watch the english language debate last night. a conversion-related duty kept me out of the house. from what i understand, i didn't miss much. despite the tepid reviews, i did decide to tune into this evening's french language debate. if nothing else, it gives me a certain perverse sense of pride knowing that people who are seeking to lead a country more than one quarter francophone speak worse french than i do. besides, there is usually at least one moment of unintentional hilarity as someone realises that they have no idea how to express what they're going to say.

my reaction overall? kind of a mixed bag. at one point fairly early on, it looked like gilles duceppe had harper on the ropes, almost causing that quaalude-like veil of enforced calm to slip. seriously, stephen, everyone knows you have a bad temper and are not patient with people who disagree with you. how much is it going to hurt if you just really let yourself flip out once? although i was having visions of him lunging at one of his opponents screaming "silence! i kill you!", the debate plodded on. even for canadian politics, this one was slow getting started. (and speaking of slow getting started, did you notice that we're half way through the election campaign? are we going to talk about issues, ever? hello?)
 



harper did manage to keep his composure, although i found that despite the structure that in theory allowed each man equal time, he seemed to get sidelined in this debate. it's not that he didn't speak, but that his handlers had him so sedated that he just took the hits from the others and repeated his party line with little vigour or variation. he did get a good line in when the other three leaders' discussion devolved into a mass of clucking and squabbling, addressing himself to canadians and asking them to envision a country lead by a coalition of his rivals. judging his performance in other respects gets tricky. harper's spin doctors will say he looked reserved and statesman-like. his detractors will say that he varied between awkward and catatonic.

i'd personally rate it as a failure on harper's part. i never really expected that he'd turn red and start throwing furniture [although reaction on the web leads me to believe that most viewers would have seen this as an improvement to the retro-67 set] the facts of the election are that if harper wants to form a majority government, he has to make unprecedented gains in other parts of the country, or moderate gains in quebec. by hanging back and letting the others take their shots at him and each other, he won't have convinced any quebeckers to vote for him. his performance was even, but he actually needed to be dominant and persuasive. there were moments i was wondering where he'd gone. i guess his people are really confident that he made those unprecedented gains in the rest of canada after last night's english debate.

being the only francophone on the floor, it was pretty much a given that gilles duceppe was going to outperform everyone. since his regional separatist party has no aspirations to government, it would seem that he had a pretty easy ride, but, for once, that wasn't completely the case. his job tonight was simply to hold the other leaders in check. the bloc quebecois already holds the majority of quebec's seats in parliament and in order to maintain that, he had to make harper look like a villain, michael ignatieff look out of touch and jack layton look ineffectual. that's actually a fair amount of work for someone who's supposed to be able to sit on his laurels until such time as he decides he wants to come back to quebec and take over the leadership of the parti-quebecois.

for the first of his goals, i'll give him a half point. in both the english and french debates of the last decades, duceppe has repeatedly distinguished himself as being the only leader whose debate preparation involved reading up on issues beyond that morning's globe and mail. while i've certainly seen him turn in better performances in both languages, he did have moments where he was able to undercut harper's weighty calm through careful contradiction [and, as i mentioned, he came the closest to rattling his composure]. with the other leaders also intent on attacking harper, duceppe didn't have to work as hard for this one.

goal #2 was making michael ignatieff look out of touch with quebec, like a recently returned ex-pat who'd missed the last few decades of canadian history while sitting in the harvard library. on this, i award him a full point. he was devastating, repeatedly luring ignatieff into traps that made him [ignatieff] look not evil, but slightly deluded, slightly naive. more on that later.

goal #3 was one that duceppe probably wouldn't have thought of until fairly recently. under normal circumstances, duceppe and ndp leader jack layton don't really ever have to debate each other, since the bq runs candidates only in quebec and the ndp can't ever seem to make any headway in quebec. even tonight, both of them acknowledged that their policies [other than that whole separation dealie] are fairly similar. there were even times when it looked like the two of them were enjoying a joint giggle at the expense of the other two. but now, the ndp, having established a small beachhead in quebec, seems poised to make some progress. and that progress is coming at the expense of the bq.

so for the first time, canadians got to see the party leaders with the greatest experience [look it up] go head to head. that section of the debate was the easiest to listen to, since layton's french is very good, and it was also the meatiest portion in terms of discussing actual plans for implementing policies [i'm sure that it was also mind-numbingly boring to people who are committed to either the conservatives or the liberals]. it was also just weird in terms of debate, because, for a while, it seemed like the two men were trying to force an argument where none existed. layton finally acknowledged their similarities, but countered that the ndp, as a federal party, are the only ones who can actually implement those policies. duceppe countered with what everyone must secretly have been thinking "we both know that neither of us is going to be the prime minister, but i'm the only one willing to admit it". zing.

i don't think he dealt layton a death blow, but the implication that "neither of us will win, so you might as well stick with the team who's only there to serve quebec" is one that's likely to resonate now that it's out there. and worse for layton, it's going to be one of the few sound bites that gets circulated. so give duceppe another half point on that one. 2 points out of 3 total, with some efficacy on each of his goals. pretty good showing, really.

layton, despite being on the receiving end of that one-liner from duceppe, was typically pugnacious and happily a little less rigid about repeating the party line than he has been in previous debates. i still find that he hammers a little hard on his talking points, but he was able to express his party's platforms in concrete ways, something with which other ndp leaders have struggled. i personally like the fact that he's a bit scrappy, but i know that what i find scrappy some people find shrill. i will say that i think scrappy sells better in quebec than in other parts of the country, so emphasising that aspect of his character was also a smart move.

he was able to use points from his opponents to illustrate how his policies could be put into practice and he found time to get out the names of two candidates in the gatineau area where the ndp is showing some signs of life. the question with layton is always whether or not people are really listening. the first media commentator i heard when the debate ended commented on all the performances and forgot to mention him. such is life when you're trying to make inroads.


despite the fact that his party holds fewer seats in quebec than any of the other parties, layton consistently remains the second most popular leader in quebec, behind gilles duceppe. i don't expect that that will change based on the debate tonight. as far as whether or not he was able to add some depth to that wide support, it's a little harder to tell.

which brings us to michael ignatieff. from the beginning, things did not look great for him. his french, while not really any worse than harper's, seemed to hobble him terribly and resulted in a cadence that was so slow you wanted to shake him. indeed, i wanted to shake him because as things started off, he was positively soporific, repeating certain words and phrases so often one wondered if he were stuck. then he decided to show his connection to quebec culture by referencing conversations he had had with the widow of filmmaker gilles carle, chloe ste-marie. too bad he called her chloe st-pierre. not what he needed to portray, especially since reactions to him were lukewarm in the english debate.

as things progressed, though, he did start to come alive. in fact, he started to land some serious blows on his opponents, particularly on harper. the one point in the debate where harper seemed to really twist uncomfortably in the wind was in the debate over the government's planned purchase of military helicopters. while harper reassured the audience that the decision to purchase was made with due financial prudence, ignatieff pointed out that the helicopters are in development and that even the american manufacturer couldn't confirm the final costs.

once awoken, ignatieff, while struggling more than the others to communicate his ideas en francais, stayed pretty lively, exactly what his handlers have wanted from him. unfortunately, he retained that energy when it came time for his head-to-head debate with gilles duceppe. his performance was one of those things where you really need to be pretty familiar with the quebec political landscape to realise what made it such a face-palm moment. to begin with, ignatieff undoubtedly drew the short straw getting to be the one to debate duceppe on questions of the constitution in french. that is just never going to be a winning proposition.

but in barreled ignatieff with fools' courage, stressing what to most people seems like a winning argument: that identifying oneself as a quebecker and as a canadian are not mutually exclusive. unfortunately, that argument becomes very problematic in quebec, where french speakers often feel that their principal identity is with quebec and that that identity is threatened by the fact that they live in a country and a continent where they are a minority. however ignatieff just kept going, apparently unaware that he was being beckoned into a minefield.

ignatieff countered duceppe's nationalist rhetoric by indicating that no one he had met with in quebec had even raised the issue of sovereignty or the constitution. his clear implication was that it was duceppe who was out of touch, clinging to political ideas that have long since ceased to matter to people in their daily lives. and he's absolutely right, which is why duceppe doesn't spend a lot of time talking about separatism and has been criticised by some for being soft on nationalism. in fact, during provincial elections, nothing makes smoke fly out my ears faster and harder than someone who votes for a particular party because they cower in fear of the separatist threat. no one is separating. calm the hell down and look at each party's policies on getting sh*t done.

the problem in national politics is that even when you know the constitution is a non-issue and that no one under the age of 50 or over the age of 15 rates separatism as a priority, you can't ever say that. because as soon as you say it, you've made it an issue. as soon as you say that quebeckers don't want to separate, you have a whole bunch of people angry that you've presumed too much. it's a very strange quirk of canadian politics and the fact that michael ignatieff doesn't know enough to steer well clear of saying anything like that unfortunately acts as confirmation for some people's worst fears: he was away too long in his ivory tower. he just doesn't get it.

his next statement was to draw a parallel between his own sense of identity as an ontarian [from toronto, because he wasn't unsympathetic enough already] and a canadian with having a dual identity as a quebecker and a canadian. note to all prospective canadian politicians: never compare a quebecker's sense of belonging to his province with that of someone from any other province in canada. but if for some reason, you absolutely must, if lives depend on it, do not ever use as your example the province of ontario. this isn't something that can be explained, but it sets off the sort of reaction that burning an american flag will in the bible belt.

now, to put things in perspective. michael ignatieff could have gone to the debate in his pyjamas, smoked crack on stage, vomited on the podium and passed out while trying to sing 'gens du pays' and his party would still win a majority of the seats on the island of montreal by the largest margins in the country. but in order to justify his continued presence on the national scene, ignatieff needs to get traction somewhere. he apparently didn't do it in the english debate and his constitutional gaffes ensured he didn't do it in the french debate. while it's unlikely to rob him of any seats he already has, his performance made him look, to use one of those wonderful french terms that never translates perfectly, gauche.

i'm probably making that all sound more dramatic than it was. the bottom line is that two leaders- harper and ignatieff- certainly did themselves no favours but probably no catastrophic harm, while two- duceppe and layton- played to their strengths and potentially won some votes they didn't have going in. ultimately, the evening belonged to duceppe more than the others, which is likely what everyone expected.

as far as the evening's biggest loser, i don't think any of the leaders did as poorly as the debate's organisers. in a national debate with questions posed by voters, there was not one question from a francophone outside quebec [new brunswick, ontario and manitoba all have significant francophone populations]. every face shown asking a question was white, spiting proudly multicultural montreal. and there was not one of the questioners who was younger than me and i'm more than double the minimum voting age. so much for trying to engage younger voters. thanks, media consortium, for promoting the image that french canada is utterly homogenous. well done.

that's it.

...off and running?

the crowd goes wild

i messed up my neck today through a vigourous afternoon of sitting in an office chair (i'm not joking) and had to take a wee time out upon returning home to stay flat on my back and hope that the discomfort passed once i had laid supine upon the magical tempur-like material of my living room sofa. unable to hold a book at that angle, i opted to turn on the television to the first all-news channel i could find, only to be assaulted by an image of michael ignatieff bouncing up and down, announcing his platform and waving his version of the little red book.

as sad as it looks to see the liberal leader going back to the sort of blandishments that got his party elected in 1993 and that continued to work until they were crow-barred from office in 2006 by stephen harper's conservatives, i at least had some glimmer of hope that, finally, someone was going to start talking about issues. as far as i can tell, ignatieff's red book is a pastiche of educational funding, support for seniors and closing tax loopholes, but it really doesn't matter, because at least it's something.

it beggars belief that in a modern country with decisions to make about its wealth of natural resources, an aging population, an entire territory beset by poverty, and a serious problem when it comes to affordable and equitable access to telecommunications that the main issue that has emerged in the first week of a national election campaign is whether or not the leaders of the liberal and conservative parties should debate each other mano-a-mano in addition to debating with all the other national party leaders (except the green party leader, who wasn't invited again).

personally, i don't see why the two of them need to meet to debate things without the other leaders around, but if it'll make people stop talking about the debate as if it's important to the future of the country, the two of them can jello wrestle in my lobby for all i care.

politicians, please note:: everyone would be a lot more engaged and more likely to vote if you stopped talking about yourselves as being the issue. get over yourselves, you're not all that.

and they're off...

i'll admit it. my first instinct to the official announcement that the government had fallen and that we are headed for a spring election was to curl into the fetal position and howl. we all knew this was coming. the polls indicated that it would be advantageous for prime minister stephen harper to call an election, the ad nauseum minority governments we've had generally reach their expiry date around this time. the opposition have been clamouring to defeat the government in the belief that their poll numbers are soft... there were lots of warning signals.

poll numbers? or my ekg when i heard about the election?

none of which change the fact that nobody wants the damn election. i don't like stephen harper, i don't agree with his policies, i don't think he should be prime minister of the country. on one level, my opinions count for diddly, because i live in quebec and harper has managed to hold onto power through two elections without making serious inroads here. on the other hand, my opinions count for a lot, because i'm just one more reason that stephen harper isn't going to win a majority and things are going to stay exactly the f**king same whether we have an election or not.

HOW TO COPE WITH AN ELECTION: READ ON...



after the last election, i set my facebook status as "dear rest of canada: you're welcome". why? because if it weren't for the fact that harper is completely unable to convince quebeckers that they can in any way trust him to represent their interests. what does that mean? after this election, unless harper is seriously able to steamroll over some ridings in ontario that have heretofore proved completely elusive, the results of this election are going to be more or less the same as the last one and the one before that. which means that, on may 3rd, we're likely to be looking at another minority conservative government. readers in the u.k. note: endless conservative minority governments are sort of like sartre's "no exit": you pace and stress and bide your time wondering how bad things can possibly get and then you realise you're in hell.

so what to do? well, if you're like most people, you'll drag yourself to the voting booth and vote for whatever party agrees with you on the one issue you remembered you thought was important the moment you realised that the election was coming soon. or, like many canadians, you'll vote for the party whose leader has pissed you off the least during the campaign. or there will be some huge distraction over the course of the campaign and you'll vote based on the sense of outrage you feel over that. (i'd actually be ok with that, because at least a sense of outrage would mean that people were interested, which would in itself be a move forward.) or, you'll act like an increasing number of canadians, shrug your shoulders with hip cynicism, say it doesn't matter anyway and stay home. i can understand the urge.

i'd like to propose that there's another way to approach this election. think of it as your opportunity to discover your political self. rather than paying attention to what makes the news (not that that's always a bad idea), find out where you agree or disagree with major parties on issues. find out of there is any party that even addresses issues you care about. and don't get locked into thinking that issues are just the big things that you are told to care about on the news. are you having trouble finding a place in day care for your child? that's an electoral issue. have you had problems collecting employment insurance? that's an electoral issue. are you having trouble getting medical care for an ongoing problem? that is definitely an electoral issue. there are lots of examples like that and, whether you think your vote counts or not, it's worth the effort to figure out if there's anyone who is actually going to stand up for something you believe in.

a lot of people decline to vote because they don't agree with any major party on a greater philosophical basis. i understand that, but i also think it's irrelevant and old-fashioned. it's predicated on the idea that you are electing people to lead you and therefore you must buy into their greater vision of the country (or the province, or the city) in a larger world. poppycock. surely we've all passed the stage where we think that politicians should be the executors of our ideals, no? let's get this straight: you should not approach any election, ever, as if you are choosing people to represent your philosophical ideal. you should be representing your own ideal. you are electing politicians because  you don't personally have the time to work, raise a family, pursue your interests and be involved in every decision about what is don't with public resources. instead, you are choosing someone on the basis of whether or not they agree with you on mundane issues, not greater cultural or societal ones.

you are not choosing leaders; you are choosing proxies. i'm going to keep repeating that until i convince everyone i know that it's correct.

well great, but what does that mean about the fact that there's an impending election on may 2nd? well, for starters, it means that you have about six weeks to figure out who you do agree with about what policies, so let's start with something very general.

the cbc has this ingenious little widget they post at election time that asks you your opinions on a number of "typical" election issues and plots your position on a graph based on how canada's major political parties answer the same questions. they take care to caution that this is not an indication of how you should vote, but it's still an interesting tool and not a bad starting point if you're not too familiar with what all the parties stand for. you might even be surprised at what your results are. i was:

so, according to this, i should be looking at voting for the bloc quebecois candidate in my riding. of course, there's also a feature on the widget that allows you to refine your answer by responding to a few other questions:

as you can see there, i'm pretty far off any of the major political parties once i start to answer some in depth questions, although i think you could say i'm about equidistant from the green party and the ndp. and if i were to stop there, it would be clear that i'd have every excuse not to vote.

but more on that later. why not try out the little widget for yourself (non-canadians are also welcome to try it for fun). you have the option of entering personal information, but you don't need to bother. once you've seen what party positions are on issues that are likely to be brought up by the media, you can start to look more closely on what their views are on issues that are important to you.

follow the widget here.

None of the Above

Today, the elephant is angry, fat and listless.
Today, the jackass is aimless, selfish and works for no one.
The lesser of two evils?
Is that really "choice"?
One nation under God?
Enter Jesus:
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes',
and your 'No,' 'No';
anything beyond this
comes from the evil one."
Now pull the lever.

"Right" and "Left" are Just Directions

Is God interested in politics? Is he liberal or conservative? Just in case you haven't noticed, we are right in the middle of an election year. If you haven't been inundated by political views and election rhetoric, you either live in seclusion, or you may just not care. I must admit, I am finding myself falling into the second category. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't realize the importance of our political system. I believe that we have the best system of electing government leaders in the world, and for the most part, it works. However, I've find myself to be just a tad disenchanted as of late, and growing more apathetic as we speed toward November.

So as I sipped on my third cup of coffee this morning, I asked myself: "Why?" Why is this Presidential campaign beginning to raise more frustration than excitement? And then I heard three little words from my youngest son that revealed the missing piece of the puzzle: "Daddy, right or left?" No, he wasn't asking me to expound on my political views. He was asking which cabinet his favorite cereal was in. We are visiting Paw Paw's house, and he was busy investigating the kitchen layout. But for some reason, those words found the little file in my brain marked "POLITICS" and decided that's where they belonged. Right words. Wrong file. But the puzzle piece fit.

It's funny, but when you look at our political structure through God's point of view, it doesn't seem to make as much of a difference as we tend to make it out to be. I imagine God looking down upon His creation and thinking to Himself, "What in the world are these guys trying to do? Can't they see the path that I have clearly carved out for them?" And yes, I believe that there is a "path". Not the path to Heaven (that's an entire other blog), but a path of how we should function as humans. How we should live in this world and live with one another. Within God's sovereign plan, there is no "right" or "left"; and to be honest, I'm sick of the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that most of us are preceding in the "wrong" direction.

You see, the Bible flat out tells us that we usually screw things up. In Proverbs 14:12, it tells us "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Just when we think we have it ALL figured out, BAM! We fall on our proverbial butts. And I'm afraid that's where our country finds itself today: within our culture and the Church.

As humans, we find it difficult to find the "middle ground", don't we? We don't like the hiking trails in the park as much as we like the swing. We seem to find the straight and narrow path that God has specifically designed for man to follow, but our selfishness gets in the way and we drift. We cut off the nose to spite the face and try and get our swings as high as we can. One extreme to the other. We react rather than interact.

When I think about it, I'm not really conservative and I'm not really liberal. I try not to classify myself as either, just because a particular leader, teacher or pastor tells me which I should lean. And I surely don't think God leans one way or the other. I don't think God endorses a particular presidential candidate. I don't think God is a member of any particular church and I don't think any one pastor or teacher is His favorite. God is neither "right" nor "left". He just is.

God tells Israel through the prophet Isaiah, "Whether you turn to the right or the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, "This is the way; walk in it." Pretty simple. Pretty straight forward. So at least for today, I'm going to walk His path for a while. I'm not going left and and not going right. I'm just going to sit on the swing and rest. Sounds pretty good when you think about it.

Mid Term Erection Hopes

The dems won-- gubernatorial majority, house and maybe senate!? Did the Cosmic Trigger Event really do something, afterall? Ortega in power, Palestinian kids slaughtered …what else topsy-turvy happening in the world?

For the record, I am so glad that Santorum is gone! His politics and beliefs, especially over sexuality and life issues, so grossly arrogant.Though the disgust many liberals stated over his and his wife's decision to bring their dead baby home to their children, was wrong. It was their private, family choice to bring comfort to each other in the way they felt best. That should have been honored, and not for any of us to judge. His and his wife's later politizational use of that family decision, to prop his stance against abortion however, was another example of his arrogance.

The night before the election, I wanted so much to post another HufPo entry . Getting off the plane, sitting on the train, it just came to me— Mid-Term Erection Eve—what a fun header, right? It would have meandered – citing the need for pre-voting night levity over this year’s political ad posturing ( the dueling, politically Napoleonic penises on the sexual hypocrisy theme) artificially brought to you by Levitra, a little non PC Japanese pronunciation of “l” to “r’, with the orgasmic face of “I’m turning Japanese, errrr the Republican hara-kiri self-torture” side bar, closing with the feminine Eve of the night ( not the douche –or maybe that would’ve been good) -- a vote for Matriotism-- if only we all would cuddle and make love with whomever we choose right before we vote—to instill the love for our fellow American, unlike athletes who are supposed to hold back until after the big game to crush their opponents—make love, not war theme. I know it was funnier in my head than in writing. But sometimes crazier thoughts pull together. My first HufPo posting last week got 5 responses. Yeahhh! Encouraging enough to try another, maybe next week.

Personally, the middle class homelessness in my life, still has left me feeling like a spider on drugs (remember that commercial years back of the fried egg ilk?). I worry that my projects for National Renters Rights Advocacy, New Years’ Day Volunteerism recognition and Sexual Free Speech projects including Ladies for Liberty will never see the light of day, because of the difficulty in surmounting my own obstacles of re-organizing and moving my possessions every few months-- and the technical bit of getting website help, my lack of money, energy and even, after so many efforts, an extinguishing hope.

Even renting a place is proving a little hard. I was already told my application for an LA apartment manager position was not appropriate since I believed in renters rights ( my professed concern for rights and responsibilities for both landlord and tenants fell on closed ears). And the liberal leaders I’ve approached for my campaigns haven’t even returned e-mails or phone calls. And the book is still not selling—I’m thinking of a new promotion—the sex book that tastes better than the notorious holiday fruit cake. What do you think?

My sex life is nil again, my good friend letting me know, as gently as he could, that his ex and he are getting back together. Maybe he should have waited to tell me after one last hot visit? He was right, and he's a good man, who was there for me in many ways the past few months. I wish him the good love he deserves.

For me, the next 4 weeks are pivotal for everything. Oh yeah, I still need a job, if anyone knows someone who will hire a sexual rights non fiction, renters rights, volunteerism civic advocate who can clean houses and almost anything else --on her hands and knees, of course!!! And please, Santa, some advance asking, find me a new Erector Se(x)t Man to pleasure with before any High Noon cock-fighting commences for the new Congressional 110th.

3 Hundred Million, a Cosmic Trigger, Donald’s Casino Makes Somewhat Good on a Promotional Offer, but Does He Trump a Man Who Bedded Me 6 Months Ago?

A national milestone, a new age celestial planetary convergence, good gambling customer service-- all loosely and linearly segued into why a personal gripe of mine, about a certain man’s intentionally ignorant post-bedside service, actually, really, really does matter. And YOU think THAT was a mouthful?

Today—

Statisticians magically marked 7:46 a.m. EDT as the welcoming moment for the unknown 300 millionth US resident (born or immigrated-- legal or illegal). Unlike, Bobby Woo, the 200th million on November 20,1967, no one (not even a reality show) is attempting to find out who the lucky # 300,000,000th could be. (What do you want to bet, it’s like most lotteries with a thousand people sharing the winning ticket at the same time?)

Holy karmic synchronicity, today’s date is also all the rage among the tribes.org/new age social network types with something called a Cosmic Trigger Event. An email and many web links are being circulated that Mission 1017, said to last from 10:17 a.m. - 1:17 a.m, (a purported but mis-totalled 17 hours) effecting all 6.55 billion earthlings, believers or not, is peaking at 17:10 p.m. (get the 1s,10s and 17’s theme?) no matter what time zone in the world you’re at. (Time is, of course, an earth-bound perception, but best harmonized for new US resident # 300,005,008 ‘s arrival, give or take.)
Vibrations, good or bad, are apparently intensified a million-fold among all of us, from a non-detectable bluish UV light emanating from universe 2 to our own universe 1. One forum commenter asked: “doesn’t 0 good thoughts (x) 1million=0?” And come to think of it, shouldn’t it be 3-fold in honor of the aforementioned ego-centric US milestone, not to mention in salute of my book? ( As my birthday this year converged with the estimated 6.5 billion people mark, I can’t weasel out of this symbolism, especially with a new age, stone name like crystal…)

This first trigger is supposedly the first of many triggers and events to happen by 2013… the Mayan’s, by the way, ended their calendar at 2012…as every host knows, there are always those revelers that linger along way past the end of the party…

The “Sex Manners DO Matter” Segue

While cosmic triggering and terrestrial demographical power-playing wreak the unknown future, Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki’s new joint treatise, Why We Want You to be Rich, reaches out god-like to evangelize the astute half of us onto the Noah’s Ark of prosperity. The other half of us will be at their mercy, it seems, as the middle-class dissolves into the economically un-disciplined masses. And in true capitalistic charity, Trump previewed this Noblesse Oblige on me. That’s right, he gave me $50 of my own money back just last night, from a poorly executed Free Slot Day promotion a few months back. And that his staff made some-what good, is why the Donald is my winner’s choice for today’s counterpoint to the poor sex etiqutte servicing from a man I had sex with 6 months ago.

Let the comparisons begin:

The Promotions: Gambling Refund vs Post Sex-Bedside Manners

Trump Marina Casino, on a billboard I passed daily, Free Slot Day, August 26
Interpretation—Play Slots, get money back, if you lose
Reality before Playing— Only up to $50 was guaranteed, and only between noon and midnight
The Event— I got there at 11:00 pm, was up $70, decided to play more, since it was guaranteed, then lost it all with my original $50, before the pumpkin turned (hey, I’ve only played slots maybe 4 times in my life)
Reality after Playing— you had to come back to the casino after Sept 5th to get your maximum $50 losses back
Reality, one month later, by mail— oh yeah, you also have to return before October 4th
My gripe— I didn’t get the mail on time, but shouldn’t they have posted all this BEFORE people played the promotion that day, anyway? Not everyone, can just hop on over to Atlantic City each month.
The Resolution— I called them on Oct 16th, got one lame customer service person, who told me “tough patooties, in casino speak. I told him to get me a supervisor, who went to the promotions department, who said they had extended the deadline to the 15th, because of other people’s concerns… see I was not the only one, who saw the unfairness… and they would extend it just to ‘lil ‘ol me for one more day, since I was in town.
The Bonus—the valet let me park for free, when I told him I’d be parked for 5 minutes (yes, I tipped him $2).
Final Cost— 10 minutes time/gas back and forth, plus the $2

VS

A man I knew and really liked, by phone when I called him, sushi dinner, W. Hollywood, April 24
Interpretation— he would pay for dinner (he had much more money than I, and I drove ½ hour/gas cost), maybe we’d have first-time sex afterward, if we mutually agreed, though he had been hesitant the previous time when I had suggested it, and I was not expecting it that night
Reality Before Playing — the shared bottle of wine at his house, would postpone the planned saki outing, as a first kiss and lots of very sensual touch guided our very connected bodies to the bedroom
The Event—He pumped me hard, flailed me around, rocked the bed about 6 inches away from it’s origin. I had fun, but mostly was trying to show him how flexible I was to his creativity, and was disappointed in the lack of tenderness;
Reality After Playing— he knew all along, but failed to inform me beforehand, that he had to stop at 10:00 pm for an international conference call; and had no plans of having me stay; he didn’t even walk me to the car, but he did hug me, and warned me of a bump in the driveway
Reality the Next Day-three Months Later— I got a chafed chin and a misaligned lower back, along with some other personal concerns, which he handled well; I called and emailed him once a month, with little more than courteous response from him
My Gripe— at myself, for demurring, that night. I didn’t let him know I wanted gentler sex while the sex was happening; I didn’t tell him that I wanted to spend the night, when he was implying I needed to leave. My gripe at him—hey, he was 52 years old (a very sexy, young 52, nonetheless) and he controlled the whole night, without letting me know his rules for the night.
The Resolution—I wrote him a funny quirky, good bye card mid-August about his ungentle- manliness after a particularly disappointing phone conversation. He didn’t respond. Then just last week, I decided I needed to press the sex manners question to him. He basically recommended that I should tell men before I have sex that I expected to spend the night. That it was no fault of his to not think about my needs. No apologies. It seemed spontaneity from him meant he called the shots, unless otherwise intervened.
The Bonus— I learned I didn’t like him very much, after all.
Final Cost— my trust and a slightly damaged psyche/heart

So, who was better? A Trump who had an unclear promotion, with many people never getting their money back, except the few like me who complained, OR a man who didn’t think enough of his sexual partner for the night to apologize to her, if he had not been thoughtful to her, when she brought it to his attention that she was hurt?

For my own preferences, sex trumps gambling, anytime. But lucky be a kind love for this lady, and for the rest of the shared humanity of 6.55 billion and growing, way before 2013, me hopes.