During the federal election campaign, I contributed several piece to Rabble under my user id AppalledBC, all of which but one are reproduced here on my blog. (I also wrote a piece under my own name on invitation from a Rabble editor.) Some disturbing responses to the one that I chose not to republish prompted me to to abandon writing for the site.
I wrote a piece innocently defending Elizabeth May's choice of ridings in which to run in 2008 and 2011. Naively taking her at her word in public interviews, I argued that she ran in these ridings because she lived there. I was severely criticized for the error of my ways when respondents KenS and Northern Shoveler pointed out in no uncertain terms that I was dead wrong: she and the Green Party brain trust chose the ridings first, and she then moved to them in order to run. I was suitably chasten, though I did quibble about the accusation of obfuscation on May's exclusion from mainline national media discourse once she was out of the debates for good, arguing that it was still a form of political exclusion by Big Media. Those contributors were harsh but respectful for the most part and not really unfair, and for that I am grateful. I was dead wrong because of my ignorance about the matter. Many lessons learned.
But then along came two respondents who chose to make ad hominem attacks against Elizabeth May and, in particular, her physical attributes. That kind of discursive abuse is profoundly disturbing. It shuts down meaningful discussion and leaves a bitter taste about the site that would include among its contributors people with such textual assault weapons – not that I expect Rabble to exercise any sort of censorship nor should they. People should be free to express themselves, and people should likewise be free to react to those expressions. One can write passionately and forcefully but still be respectful. That was pretty clearly not the case with these two respondents, who I'm sure thought they were being merely clever and witty.
I thought briefly of writing the Rabble administration, but I had written to them twice before on other matters and never received a response. So I had little reason to travel that route. Besides, that would have been a little bit like telling the teacher on Johnny. I suppose I could have answered back, challenging them about their abuse, but that would have merely extended an already awkward and fundamentally useless discussion already going nowhere.
There are many intelligent, insightful, and worthy contributors on Rabble, most of whom are civil and respectful in their discourse. I wish them all well. But I simply cannot contribute to a site where I would be looking over my shoulder in fear of another such vitriolic assault and probably, as a result, pulling my punches because of that implicit intimidation. I feel the chill. I have not been to the site since then.
Note: I am not a member of any federal or provincial party. I've said good things about the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens, and I've taken shots at all of them too. I have of course taken multiple whacks at the Harperites over the years, but now that they have some Red Tories from Ontario in the caucus, who may modified the destructive ideology of the far right elements in the party, I might be able to say something good about them too. I'm not holding my breath.
Showing posts with label Federal Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Campaign. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Our So-called Concern for Democracy
This election was driven, as so many have been, by excessive media concentration and financial resources on the leaders of the parties, not by broad reporting on constituencies, selective or otherwise, across the country or by even significant discussions, with very few exceptions, of party policies. Most stories began with “what are the leaders up to today” leads. Both the contempt issue and the environment disappeared off the radar quickly, for example, except when Iggy brought up the former, and not even Elizabeth May, focused as she was on winning her riding, brought up the latter except incidentally. And it isn't just the media who should be blamed: the parties themselves are responsible for this distortion in our public discourse, for they have all concentrated both air and ground resources on their leaders, and those leaders have incrementally over forty years or so undermined democracy both subtlely and overtly both inside Parliament, as Peter Miliken has implied, and structurally in their Party organizations by creating power hierarchies whereby you do what the leader's brain trust says or you're out. Add to that the well-established illusion that the grassroots has real input power, for most policy conventions are like carnival day for the workers in the field: give them a day of fun and games and they'll go back to work content. And, apparently, even ordinary MPs have little input. An ordinary MP, according to Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, can't just walk in and have a chat with his or her leader; an appointment has to be made, and of course backbenchers have really never had any significant power.
There is much transformational work that needs to happen for genuine parliamentary democracy to be reinstated and even more to shift the public discourse to broad-based constituency considerations across the county. How likely is change? Given Harper's majority, and the powerlessness all opposition parties in Parliament, not much, and the media, of necessity, will still concentrate coverage on the leaders with the odd side-road story now and them. Enjoy the next four years.
There is much transformational work that needs to happen for genuine parliamentary democracy to be reinstated and even more to shift the public discourse to broad-based constituency considerations across the county. How likely is change? Given Harper's majority, and the powerlessness all opposition parties in Parliament, not much, and the media, of necessity, will still concentrate coverage on the leaders with the odd side-road story now and them. Enjoy the next four years.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Do attack ads really work?
Many pundits, scribes, and scriveners alike continue to say attack ads work, and several have today suggested that Iggy went down because of the attack ads. Show me some hard evidence, please. I simply don't buy it: you have to be dumber than the proverbial door knob or Big Bobby Clobber not to see through these and any other attack ads. The Harperite base obviously enjoys them, but they're not aimed at that base. They're aimed at the undecided and opposition party voters. Who really watches these except for amusement and maybe to exclaim in mock indignation, "how naughty of them" or, from the base, how "dead on"? Or am I overestimating the average intelligence of Canadians? Perhaps.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Polling ain't what it used to be
For one thing, dwindling numbers of people, given our abhorrence of telemarketers, answer their home phones, much less agree to take the time and energy to complete an interview, says Scott Mathews, co-director of the Canadian Opinion Research Archive at Queen's University. And pollsters rarely report response rates, he says, but the reality is that the 75 and 80 per cent rates of a generation ago have slipped to as low as 15 to 20 per cent today. And it's not a random 15 or 20 per cent of that random sample; instead, " it's the people who are easily contacted and these tend to be people who are unrepresentative in various ways, maybe older, maybe unemployed, just something that makes it more likely that they'll be home to pick up the phone and complete a survey."
Add to Mathews and the Citizen reporter's observations here is the fact that cell phone users, many of whom are the 18-24 demographic, seldom get calls or pick up if they do, and we have a very suspect process in all the current polling. The votemob crowd has not been participating significantly if at all in this polling, in other words, and they appear to be a serious factor in this election. Will we be surprised on Monday night if the numbers are radically different from what the pollsters have been hyping all week? They could be higher; they could be lower. In any case, nothing will surprise me.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca
Since day one of the campaign, Harper and his gang have been consistently spining the message that a majority goverment for his party is good for us because it will provide stability. Let’s take a closer look at that highly dubious proposition.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are some suggestions for gearing up:
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.
Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?
I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are some suggestions for gearing up:
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.
Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?
I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Earth Day is April 22. Will its Celebration Change Anything? | rabble.ca
A recent Ipsos Reid poll for Postmedia News reveals that only 5% of Canadians think of the environment as a key issue that our federal parties should be discussing, and even poll figures from Day 22 of the campaign from Nik Nanos rank it well below heathcare and jobs/economy at 4.3%, a drop from 5.1% on April 16. These are shocking numbers for a variety of reasons, among them that respondents to the polls are apparently unable to see a connection between health and the economy, on the one hand, and the “health" and “the economy" of the planet, on the other. So who can blame the four federal parties for ignoring this issue? To them, obsessed with trying to win as many seats as possible, it’s just one of many issues in a long list. Political expediency, as is so often the case, trumps both principle and, in this context, reality. The absence, in varying degrees, of a meaningful strategic policy initiative in three of the four federal parties and in all four the recessing of serious discussion on the most pressing issue our world has ever faced during this federal campaign is a direct result of such ordinary Canadians’ apparent indifference to it.
I write of course about the crisis in our biosphere — the rapid and now, it would seem, inevitable movement towards the total destruction of our planet and everything in it through the unconscionable industrialization of the planet over the past century and a half that manifests itself in countless ways, not just in the global warming phenomenon. Unfettered industrialization and indiscriminate economic development have led to global warming and, in turn, the climate change phenomenon. But the environment is not just some “natural” realm external to ourselves, as David Suzuki continues to remind us with greater urgency every day. It’s everything, and we –plants, animals, humans, water, land, air — are in this together.
To name only a few disturbing trends in which we now find ourselves in 2011:
What continues to astound and appall me is the total absence of a focused discussion about the erosion of our biosphere from any of the federal parties. Even the Green Party, which does indeed have a comprehensive and meaningful policy on a sustainable planet, is not talking about it much, though it does form the ground of its platform. Hard to fault the Greens given the politics of exclusion exercised against them by Big TV’s federal debates consortium. They have a good excuse. But it would seem that, in general, politics takes precedence over the destruction of the world during this federal election. Everyone wants political power -- some because they think they may accomplished policy with it; others, alas, for its own sake. Who can blame them?
Well I, my children, and my grandchildren can. This is the pre-eminent issue of our day. For job growth, health care, pensions, education, tax credits, the ethical behaviour of politicians — these mean nothing as issues of concern if we are on the way to self-extinction. Many scientists have been arguing with increasing frequency that we may already be beyond the tipping point, that the process of self-destruction cannot be reversed but only inhibited.
We are currently spewing 388ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the biosphere, a disturbing notch on an escalating trending pattern of 2ppm a year, way past the tipping point of 350ppm that scientists maintain is the real tipping point. This is what James Hansen of America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the first scientist to warn about global warming over two decades ago, wrote recently: ”If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.” In other words, this is our last chance: if we don’t reverse that trend in the next ten years, we’re done.
via Earth Day is April 22. Will its Celebration Change Anything? | rabble.ca.
P.S.World Environment Day, June 5: http://bit.ly/iiu0pu http://bit.ly/jqz9VY
CO2 emissions reach a record high in 2010; 80% of projected 2020 emissions from the power sector are already locked in: these bleak findings from the International Energy Agency in a recent report suggests the crisis is even more intense than we have imagined.
I write of course about the crisis in our biosphere — the rapid and now, it would seem, inevitable movement towards the total destruction of our planet and everything in it through the unconscionable industrialization of the planet over the past century and a half that manifests itself in countless ways, not just in the global warming phenomenon. Unfettered industrialization and indiscriminate economic development have led to global warming and, in turn, the climate change phenomenon. But the environment is not just some “natural” realm external to ourselves, as David Suzuki continues to remind us with greater urgency every day. It’s everything, and we –plants, animals, humans, water, land, air — are in this together.
To name only a few disturbing trends in which we now find ourselves in 2011:
- Unsustainable population growth throughout the world from roughly 3 billion in 1960 to approximately 7 billion in 2010 (Malthus haunts us: while the rate of growth is declining, the absolute numbers are increasing unsustainably)
- Corporate and other forms of industrialized farming with the widespread use of toxic chemicals (Where have all the bees gone?) and, as so many economists have been telling us for months now, a massive food shortage looming throughout the world and, as a result, rising food prices
- The commoditization of water ( Jean Chrétien had the audacity to talk about that possibility two weeks ago.)
- The massive destruction of wildlife habitats and the extinction of countless species
- The irresponsible clear-cutting and destruction of forests that still happens through the world
- Our very own Canadian embarrassment: the tars sands operation and its out-of-control carbon emissions and now scientifically proven toxic waste leaching into the land and water around it (Despite aggressive Canadian lobbying, we learned very recently the EU is about to slap a “dirty fuel” label on the tar sands.)
What continues to astound and appall me is the total absence of a focused discussion about the erosion of our biosphere from any of the federal parties. Even the Green Party, which does indeed have a comprehensive and meaningful policy on a sustainable planet, is not talking about it much, though it does form the ground of its platform. Hard to fault the Greens given the politics of exclusion exercised against them by Big TV’s federal debates consortium. They have a good excuse. But it would seem that, in general, politics takes precedence over the destruction of the world during this federal election. Everyone wants political power -- some because they think they may accomplished policy with it; others, alas, for its own sake. Who can blame them?
Well I, my children, and my grandchildren can. This is the pre-eminent issue of our day. For job growth, health care, pensions, education, tax credits, the ethical behaviour of politicians — these mean nothing as issues of concern if we are on the way to self-extinction. Many scientists have been arguing with increasing frequency that we may already be beyond the tipping point, that the process of self-destruction cannot be reversed but only inhibited.
We are currently spewing 388ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the biosphere, a disturbing notch on an escalating trending pattern of 2ppm a year, way past the tipping point of 350ppm that scientists maintain is the real tipping point. This is what James Hansen of America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the first scientist to warn about global warming over two decades ago, wrote recently: ”If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.” In other words, this is our last chance: if we don’t reverse that trend in the next ten years, we’re done.
via Earth Day is April 22. Will its Celebration Change Anything? | rabble.ca.
P.S.World Environment Day, June 5: http://bit.ly/iiu0pu http://bit.ly/jqz9VY
CO2 emissions reach a record high in 2010; 80% of projected 2020 emissions from the power sector are already locked in: these bleak findings from the International Energy Agency in a recent report suggests the crisis is even more intense than we have imagined.
Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca
Last week we once again witnessed politics trumping principle in the swift, complete co-operation of the four main political parties in agreeing to shift the french debates up a day to allow Canadian viewers to watch the Habs game. What does this say about the parties' underlying attitudes towards and trust of the Canadian public? Something sadly cynical, I'm afraid: that Canadians can't be trusted to choose the potential good of their country over a mere hockey game, that "sports" means more than the fate of our country, that the parties fear viewers might just not tune in because most would prefer hockey to the debate? Alas, they're probably right.
But who else benefited from this particular shift? RDS and Mother Corporation, of course, both of whom are now probably overjoyed at this opportunity to have recovered potential lost revenue. Had the game and the debate taken place on the same night, potentially splitting the viewing audience, the already reduced revenue because of the ad-free debate would have been further eroded, though one could argue that the bulk of that audience for the debate would be Quebec, not necessarily an increased across-Canada viewer-ship, who could still watch the game in comfort if they're not bilingual or interested in the debate. But since it's the Habs, that viewer-ship in Quebec had the potential to be very large.
The financial relationship between the CBC and the other hockey corporate broadcasters and the NHL, itself a large corporation, is also foregrounded here in this decision, and the story in theglobandmail today about the NHL inking a new contract with NBC TV - a contract, by the way, that might prevent the move by the Coyotes back toWinnipeg - reveals just how insidious that relationship is. Hockey of course is a big ad revenue generator for Canadian broadcasters, but the larger U.S. markets generate much more revenue for both the U.S. broadcasters and the NHL in absolute numbers. And this corporate driven thinking is the main reason the NHL is resisting any move to the tiny TV market of Winnipeg.
On a personal note, I have relatives who work in profession hockey operations (who, as Jack Webb would say, shall be nameless to protect the innocent), and I myself once played in the Leaf organization for a few years when I was a teenager until I got sick of playing what I now see as propaganda, recruiting games in North Ontario in addition to regular games and practices -- seven days a week. I wasn't very good, so no big loss for the Leafs. But we all know - that is, my relatives who are still working in professional hockey and I - that the illusion of professional hockey as a “sport” dissipated years ago. I mark the original expansion from six teams as the day the music stopped.
And aren't most such expansions quite obviously driven by corporate agendas to expand the market and therefore make more money? Isn't it always about money? We all know, my relatives and I - especially because of the massive expansion into the U.S. - that professional hockey, like most professional sport, is positioned for marketing purposes as undignified entertainment, not sport, and that corporations and their bottom line agendas are what really matters. Plain and simple, hockey is deeply inscribed in capitalism: NHL teams are designed to make money - sometimes they’re successful and sometimes they’re not -- and the players with their outrageous salaries are, as in all professional sport, bought and sold commodities.
I haven't watched a game since that original expansion. And I'm just as proud of that political gesture as the fact I never shop at Wal-mart, for, as I learned a long time ago, all shopping is political, and so too, one might argue, is all television watching.
via Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca.
But who else benefited from this particular shift? RDS and Mother Corporation, of course, both of whom are now probably overjoyed at this opportunity to have recovered potential lost revenue. Had the game and the debate taken place on the same night, potentially splitting the viewing audience, the already reduced revenue because of the ad-free debate would have been further eroded, though one could argue that the bulk of that audience for the debate would be Quebec, not necessarily an increased across-Canada viewer-ship, who could still watch the game in comfort if they're not bilingual or interested in the debate. But since it's the Habs, that viewer-ship in Quebec had the potential to be very large.
The financial relationship between the CBC and the other hockey corporate broadcasters and the NHL, itself a large corporation, is also foregrounded here in this decision, and the story in theglobandmail today about the NHL inking a new contract with NBC TV - a contract, by the way, that might prevent the move by the Coyotes back toWinnipeg - reveals just how insidious that relationship is. Hockey of course is a big ad revenue generator for Canadian broadcasters, but the larger U.S. markets generate much more revenue for both the U.S. broadcasters and the NHL in absolute numbers. And this corporate driven thinking is the main reason the NHL is resisting any move to the tiny TV market of Winnipeg.
On a personal note, I have relatives who work in profession hockey operations (who, as Jack Webb would say, shall be nameless to protect the innocent), and I myself once played in the Leaf organization for a few years when I was a teenager until I got sick of playing what I now see as propaganda, recruiting games in North Ontario in addition to regular games and practices -- seven days a week. I wasn't very good, so no big loss for the Leafs. But we all know - that is, my relatives who are still working in professional hockey and I - that the illusion of professional hockey as a “sport” dissipated years ago. I mark the original expansion from six teams as the day the music stopped.
And aren't most such expansions quite obviously driven by corporate agendas to expand the market and therefore make more money? Isn't it always about money? We all know, my relatives and I - especially because of the massive expansion into the U.S. - that professional hockey, like most professional sport, is positioned for marketing purposes as undignified entertainment, not sport, and that corporations and their bottom line agendas are what really matters. Plain and simple, hockey is deeply inscribed in capitalism: NHL teams are designed to make money - sometimes they’re successful and sometimes they’re not -- and the players with their outrageous salaries are, as in all professional sport, bought and sold commodities.
I haven't watched a game since that original expansion. And I'm just as proud of that political gesture as the fact I never shop at Wal-mart, for, as I learned a long time ago, all shopping is political, and so too, one might argue, is all television watching.
via Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca.
Ethnic Voters Unite: I Was Lost and Now I'm Found
Why don't all of you who seem so upset with the mainline parties take a good look at the Greens? I simply can't vote for potential power anymore. Every time I have -- whether for the LPC or the NDP, never the Harperites -- I've compromised myself morally on some issue or other. I've found my way to the Greens in this election, and not just because of their clear recognition of the crucial condition in which planet earth finds itself on this Earth Day but also because they respect all Canadians and, unlike the mainline parties, respect the members of their very own party. Real input from the grassroots in the mainline parties is an illusion. A cabal at the top still calls the shots, and, in the case of the Harperites, an autocrat if not an implicit dictator - some would say explicit - controls everything.
Remind yourself of what sort of input the rank and file had the day Iggy was anointed and ascended to the LPC throne. That was the day many rank and file quit the LPC. Remind yourself of how man times, despite some half-decent policies, the NDP actually propped up the Harperites in order to gain a little bit of pathetic power and prestige. Remind yourself that the BQ is selfishly concerned about the welfare of only one province, not Canada as a whole. And of course you need no reminder of the endless abuses of the Harperites.
P.S. I am not a member of the Green Party. I just see full moral value in everything they do.
7:36 AM on April 22, 2011
Ethnic’ voters, unite! You have nothing to lose but your temper
Remind yourself of what sort of input the rank and file had the day Iggy was anointed and ascended to the LPC throne. That was the day many rank and file quit the LPC. Remind yourself of how man times, despite some half-decent policies, the NDP actually propped up the Harperites in order to gain a little bit of pathetic power and prestige. Remind yourself that the BQ is selfishly concerned about the welfare of only one province, not Canada as a whole. And of course you need no reminder of the endless abuses of the Harperites.
P.S. I am not a member of the Green Party. I just see full moral value in everything they do.
7:36 AM on April 22, 2011
Ethnic’ voters, unite! You have nothing to lose but your temper
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Implicit Voter Suppression: Are we Witnessing the Opening of a New Bag of Dirty Tricks?
Pressured by the Harperites, Elections Canada played perfectly into their Rove-like voter repression strategy yesterday in suspending special ballot voting on campuses across the country. If I were a university student, no matter what my voter preference, I’d be appalled if not outraged at such an ant-democractic tactic, and it amazes me how few pundits and media types have twigged to what’s really going on here. Aware of well-established voting trends on campus, the Harperites know that this potential campus vote is not, in general, going to favour them; it’s going to be for one of the other four parties. And so, in addition to all the strong-arm assaults against students at Harperite rallies, we now have another manipulative, unethical way to work towards that coveted majority. What further imported Republican-style dirt tricks are we now going to witness during the remainder of the campaign? This is really scary.
I urge all those students who want to vote on campus but will not be able to do so to bring your energy and passion for voting to your home riding or advanced polls, which begin on April 22. The future is yours to lose.
The importance of youth voting
Elections Canada puts end to ‘special ballot’ voting
Elections Canada rejects Tory bid to quash student votes
I urge all those students who want to vote on campus but will not be able to do so to bring your energy and passion for voting to your home riding or advanced polls, which begin on April 22. The future is yours to lose.
The importance of youth voting
Elections Canada puts end to ‘special ballot’ voting
Elections Canada rejects Tory bid to quash student votes
Monday, April 4, 2011
One Week Later: Leger Poll
This poll is both encouraging and worrisome for Greens: encouraging because, though slight, overall support for the GPC has risen, but worrisome in that 72% of those apparent supporters claim they might change their mind. That's an extremely high number, one that suggests a lack of commitment. Were these potential voters to do so, the migration would no doubt be to the Liberals, who are gathering momentum, not the Harperites or the Dippers. Thus the absence of Elizabeth May in the federal debates becomes even more crucial. Tomorrow's court appearance means everything.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
A Postscript to Yesterday's Post: More Than One Villlian
According to Evan (let's-beat-this-story-to-death) Solomon's in his interview with Elizabeth May on CBC's Power and Politics yesterday, all four of the federal parties with seats in the House had to agree to the decision to exclude Elizabeth May in the two televised debates. If that is true, then Michael Ignatieff's and Jack Layton's remarks about welcoming May in the debates could be considered, shall we say, a bit hypocritical. But a spokesman referenced in a story in the Globe and Mail today says the television consortium issued an ultimatum on Wednesday night to the four parties to agree to their terms, arbitrary as they are. So the charge of hypocrisy may be less weighty unless the parties had already agreed in discussions before Wednesday night to the exclusion. Very likely.
The point is why does the absence of a seat in the House determine who should be in a federal leaders' debate? As I've said, the Green Party of Canada is a legally constituted institution with 308 candidates running for seats across the country with a substantial number of supporters. It is indeed an issue of democracy and inclusiveness. Why should we fear a wide range of voices on all the issues that concern us? Debate can lead to enlightenment for both those who participate and those who watch.
After two exclusionary blowups in three years, isn't it about time we take these federal debates out of the hands of big TV and make them truly public? For all their faults, the Americans have it right on national debates.
The point is why does the absence of a seat in the House determine who should be in a federal leaders' debate? As I've said, the Green Party of Canada is a legally constituted institution with 308 candidates running for seats across the country with a substantial number of supporters. It is indeed an issue of democracy and inclusiveness. Why should we fear a wide range of voices on all the issues that concern us? Debate can lead to enlightenment for both those who participate and those who watch.
After two exclusionary blowups in three years, isn't it about time we take these federal debates out of the hands of big TV and make them truly public? For all their faults, the Americans have it right on national debates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)