Political

Frightful, nonsensical, and/or anger-inducing stories about power, or commentary upon.

Who believes it?

Karen 0 comment

Did you watch CNN’s Western Republican Presidential Debate in October? Don’t worry, this is only a test.

Questions

1. Who said “I’m running for office for Pete’s sake! I can’t have illegals working on my property!” ?

2. When prompted to stay on topic, which candidate told the moderator “You get to ask the questions and I get to answer them like I want to” ?

3. Who “work[s] on the assumption that government is not really capable of managing anything, so you shouldn’t put that much trust in the government” ?

4. Who clarified flip-flopping by saying “I supported the concept of TARP, but then when this administration used discretion and did a whole lot of things that the American people didn’t like, I was then against it.” ?

5. Who would be “really worried” if another candidate claimed that nothing in that person’s faith affected their judgement, asking “how can you have judgement if you have no faith, and how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” ?

6. Regarding immigration, who believes that “there is a very real issue with magnets in this country” and that “anchor babies… is an issue we don’t have to deal with with the Constitution… we can deal with legislatively.” ?

7. Who claims that “there’s a lot that’s going on that’s eroding our religious freedom, that’s eroding the traditional values of marriage and family…” and that “… we keep running roughshod over the fact that the family in America and faith in America is being crushed by the courts and by our government, and someone needs to stand up for those institutions.” ?

8. Who claims that “we have enough weapons to blow up the world 20-25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially, and we want to spend more and more. You can’t cut a penny? This is why we’re at an impasse.” ?

9. Who believes a “virtual defense zone” with “strategic fencing”, “a lot of boots on the ground” and “predator drones” is the best way to defend the US-Mexico border?

10. Who thinks that “we should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse [the United States] for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.” ?

11. Who claims the US “has an administration that is killing jobs because they want to move us to a green energy” (sic) ?

12. Who “would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending” because “the first order of the federal government… is [to] protect us.” ?

13. Who explains that “the idea that a bunch of historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country, in BOTH parties… The fact is, to say ‘I’m going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary number’ is suicidally stupid.” ?

14. Who believes the solution to the nuclear waste problem is to “let the free market work, and on that basis we let the places that are geologically safe according to science, and where the people say the deal’s a good one, will decide where we put this stuff…” (sic) ?

15. Who thinks Occupy Wall Street protesters should instead be “out in front of the White House taking out their frustrations” because “Wall Street didn’t put in failed economic policies” and their anger is “directed at the wrong place.” ?

16. Who believes that “rights don’t come in bunches, they come as individuals, they come from a god…” ?

17. Who disagrees that “the country is founded on the individual” and believes instead that “the basic building block of a society is not the individual, it’s the family– that’s the basic unit of society.” ?

18. Who claims to be the first candidate to sign a written pledge stating “by a date certain I will build a double-walled fence… along the entire border” [between the US and Mexico] ?

19. Who claims to have “always been against amnesty” for illegal immigrants ?

Answers

(notes refer to YouTube videos entitled “Republican Debate October 18”

Parts 1-7 + time of quote)

1. Mitt Romney (PT3 11:20)

2. Rick Perry (PT4 7:58)

3. Ron Paul (PT5 9:20)

4. Herman Cain (PT5 4:40)

5. Newt Gingrich (PT5 14:20)

6. Michele Bachmann (PT4 9:35)

7. Rick Santorum (PT4 10:25)

8. Ron Paul (PT6 11:00)

9. Rick Perry (PT3 13:55)

10. Michele Bachmann (PT7 0:30)

11. Ron Paul (PT4 8:42)

12. Rick Santorum (PT6 9:30)

13. Newt Gingrich (PT6 5:30)

14. Mitt Romney (PT5 0:00)

15. Herman Cain (PT5 6:49)

16. Ron Paul  (PT4 11:30)

17. Rick Santorum (PT3 10:33)

18. Michele Bachmann (PT4 0:06)

19. Rick Perry (PT4 10:25)

GOP presidential debates

Karen 1 Comment

I stumbled upon the New Hampshire debates live on the CNN website last night. I couldn’t resist taking notes and sorting the candidates in order of preference. Notice my list has an inverse relationship with probability of winning the nomination. Note also that my opinions are not supported by research.

1. Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul.com/
“Our national security is not enhanced by our presence [in Afghanistan]”. The only candidate to mention the cost of war and the “military-industrial complex”. Genuine, not schmoozy. I’m just surprised he didn’t explain how gay marriage relates to the Federal Reserve, since everything else does. Maybe next time.

2. Herman Cain
http://www.hermancain.com/
Charismatic, sometimes stumbly. In it “for the children and grandchildren”. When asked why he said he wouldn’t be comfortable with Muslims in his administration, he said he was originally thinking only of the “Muslims who want to kill us”. Not a smooth answer, but likely good enough for Republicans.

3. Newt Gingrich
http://www.newt.org/
Smarter than most and not schmoozy. Wasn’t acting like he had to prove anything. To my surprise, he used the words “humane” and “solution” in reference to immigration and ranted against media and politicians who frame complex questions with simple, polarized options. (Note the awesome domain name).

4. Rick Santorum
http://www.ricksantorum.com/
Bland, ordinary terrorism-means-we-need-military-bases-around-the-world-to-be-safe kind of Republican. After reading about past controversies on Wikipedia this morning, I now wish I’d paid more attention to his response on the gay marriage question, which 5 out of 7 of these candidates believe should be decided by a federal not a state law, though each ranted profusely about the federal government getting involved in absolutely everything else. Still a mystery to me. (Note his website ranks 9th in Google when searching on his name– a very bad sign.)

5. Michele Bachmann
http://www.michelebachmann.com/
Like Palin, but with a brain. Fluent about taxes, economic issues, and in defense of the Tea Party. Stuttery on gay marriage and unconvincing on foreign affairs. Keen competitor for the Most Pro-Life award, which I didn’t know people compiled CVs for. Less so than Pawlenty, but occasionally broke out into biography. Babbly and sometimes nervous-sounding.

6. Mitt Romney
http://www.mittromney.com/
Belligerent, yet with strong undertones of ass-kissing. Long-winded and babbly, yet smoothly schmoozy. Leading the sub-competition for Who Hates Obama The Most.

7. Tim Pawlenty
http://www.timpawlenty.com/
A smug, babbling, fear-mongering, ass-kissing egotist. Used the debate as a platform for biographical monologues. After claiming Palin was “qualified to be President”, I’ve categorized him as both the supreme brown noser as well as clinical idiot. He is pure politician, in the cynical understanding of the term.

Is it safe to go back yet?

Karen 0 comment
Montreal, ca. 1996

True, Montreal in 2010 didn’t quite feel like Montreal 1995. No Anglos go home scrawled on the McGill library; the only guy who told me to go back home was wobbling drunkenly down St. Denis around midnight.

But in this election, was it not the same M. Duceppe I’d voted against in 1997 when my dear Parti Vert was just as unlikely to win as the NPD? The same man still insurmountable when I returned to Montreal a decade later, 15,000 votes ahead of his nearest 2008 competitor?

Why did Montreal wait for me to leave to decide to embrace anglos? If the Orange Surge had happened 3 years ago, we might have stayed.

I’d thought here in Guelph, where the Greens had gotten 21% of the vote last election, there would be Green momentum. Not so. Looks like I will have to retire to Saanich if I want to enjoy Green fever. In the meantime, I’ll finish reading Mr. Layton’s books and see if orange might be my true colour.

Signs, signs

Karen 0 comment
Lawson sign at the University of Guelph

It’s already been a few weeks since we went to hear Elizabeth May campaign at the University of Guelph. I hesitated to go because the “Get Out and Vote” event was targeted at students, but since it’s not every day party leaders are in town I changed my mind and dragged Eric out with me.

The crowd was small and the meeting was short. An organizer of U of G’s student vote mob discussed being ejected from a Conservative rally.

It’s disturbing that you may not be allowed to hear your Prime Minister speak if you don’t belong to his political party, yet unwanted Conservative campaign material can legally show up in your mailbox at any time. Today I received this prize:

Campaign material targeting uncooperative social outcasts and people who can't read full sentences.
Remember when political instability used to make the world a warmer, brighter place?

Second up, John Lawson explained what motivated him to run as the Green candidate for Guelph and the need to move beyond your comfort zone when advocating for your beliefs. The comment stuck with me and I later decided to volunteer at the local Green Party office. However, I didn’t want to knock on doors, call people, or otherwise behave intrusively (very narrow comfort zone). I guess in the end they couldn’t find any tasks to match my skill set because after one phone conversation, no one ever called me back. (Or maybe I just sounded Harperishly uncooperative?) Note to self: Remember to make a list of Factors Which Cause Me Grave Demotivation.

Uni student crowd at a Green rally

May spoke about “voter suppression” as a tactic used by American Republicans, and now also by Harper Conservatives. I’ve since heard the term thrown about by Ignatieff and in the Globe and Mail. So while anti-democracy is trending, I transferred all my unvolunteered excitement and voted on the first day of advanced polling.

Here’s a brief and incoherent video of the rally (snippets only because the ‘youths’ kept walking in front of me):

Party leader books

Karen 5 Comments

I made of list of books authored or co-authored by the federal party leaders (excluding party platforms) to get a better sense of what each person cares about (ordered alphabetically by author, then chronologically).

Duceppe, Gilles, 1947-

Harper, Stephen, 1959-

No publications found. Harper is currently writing a book about the early history of Canadian hockey.

Ignatieff, Michael

Layton, Jack, 1950-

May, Elizabeth

Creepy Conservatives and other political ads

Karen 0 comment

I didn’t know that Stephen Harper pre-screens people before allowing them into Conservative party rallies. A political science student was expelled from a rally in London because she had a photo of herself with Mr. Ignatieff on her Facebook page. Here is the Liberal response (below). Is it not a bit creepy of the Federal Liberal Agency to now use the student’s photo and name to advertise their party? I wonder if they asked permission?

I’ve been visiting all the party websites and so far the NDP have my favourite videos. I like their mix of speeches, rallies, and ads, in particular a video of their #stopthemeter rally as well as this TV spot:

While the Greens don’t exactly have a budget for ads, their ‘attack ad on attack ads’ was a decent try. It might have been more effective if they had not used the faces of the politicians they were supposed to not be attacking:

It’s not directly about the elections, but this Greenpeace spot is worth a watch, too:

Border guards searching your laptop for copyrighted materials, what?

Karen 0 comment

Yes, I’m reading the current issue of Feliciter this weekend and updating myself on all the things I didn’t know about “copyright reform”. The scariest thing so far would be ACTA, the “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”. Canada has been in negotiations since 2007 with the objective of “put[ting] in place international standards for enforcing intellectual property rights in order to fight more efficiently the growing problems of counterfeiting and piracy” (see: FAITC).

What’s wrong with that? A2Knetwork summarizes a few of the main concerns for consumers, such as authorizing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to “snoop on their clients and cut them off the Internet if sharing copyrighted files is alleged“. Yes, you read “alleged”.

Don’t blame the ISPs for wanting to snoop, though, because ACTA would also make ISPs liable for hosting illicit content (I guess the equivalent of making Bell Telephone accountable for crimes organized over the phone lines?). A2K claims that ISP liability “leads to Internet filtering”, and it’s not hard to see why. Not yet scary enough though…

ACTA would also “authorize border guards to search laptops and MP3 players and to seize them if they contain material that could seem to infringe on copyright” (see: A2K Joint Declaration on ACTA). Nice touch, if privacy rights are worth sacrificing for the music industry and Hollywood.

More evidence that ACTA is being written to protect industries, not consumers: “certain American industries have had access to ACTA documents, while the European Parliament and consumer groups have been refused such access” (see A2K again).

Next up on my reading list is Micheal Geist’s “ACTA Guide“.