centre of the universe - the dreaming

So everyone's up in arms about our Prime Minister proroguing government three times in two years. Folks're saying it's anti-democratic (it isn't; it's a function of parliamentary democracy). They're saying it's fascist (it's not. There's nothing radical about Stephen Harper, and although he does try *very* hard to be authoritarian (it's kind of cute, sometimes) and to try to capitulate to corporate whims, I don't think Harper's reign is *quite* 'fascist'. It certainly is dictatorial, though). They're saying the Canadian people are tired of Harper's shenanigans (very true, i suspect, if only for the opportunity to say 'shenanigans').

But there's something you're forgetting in all this.

Michaëlle Jean, our Governor General, she has a larger role to play in this than does Harper. He could go to her asking her to prorogue government twice a day if he wanted, and (this is the important bit, so listen up) she could say 'no'. In fact, that's what I think Canadians ought to have done more of. They ought to have spent more of their energy asking her to turn Steve down.

"No, Steve, I don't think so," she might have said.

"But...but..." he would have whined.

"Stephen, you prorogued government LAST year, and while it's not uncommon for Canadian Prime Ministers to prorogue or suspend government once a year or so, don't you think you're being a bit silly?"

"What?"

"Stephen, really," she might say, sitting on the edge of her desk while he fidgets in the chair in front. "What's this about?"

"What do you mean?! Nothing!"

"You don't have to lie to me, Stephen," she might say in a low voice.

"No! Really!..." Stephen Harper might start biting his nails and getting squirrelly.

"Is it Michael? Is Michael bullying you?"

Harper might pointedly stare at the floor and mumble, "No."

"Is Jack teasing you again, Stephen?" She might ask quietly.

Stephen may sniff a little and kick the heel of one shiny shoe with the toe of the other. In a petulant, little voice, he might mutter something about the economy.

"Look," Michaëlle Jean would say, crossing her arms, "I know government isn't easy. Especially when all the other MPs are trying to tell you what to do. Peer pressure, Stephen, causes broken hearts. Being popular is very important at this stage of your life, and I understand the pressures you're facing. I have teenage girls myself..."

At this point, Harper might raise his eyebrows and say, "Pardon me?"

Michaëlle Jean would wave her hand at him, and rise from the corner of the desk. "You know what I mean. The bottom line is that I'm not going to prorogue this parliament every time you have an attack of self-loathing or doubt. My office isn't here simply for you to come in and ask for a suspension every time you feel like you want a holiday. That's not the way this system is supposed to work."

"But...but..."

"But me no buts, Stephen. Get back to class. Er. Parliament. And maybe join the yearbook committee or the environmental club or something. ANYTHING."

So you see, it seems to me that people are really giving Stephen Harper WAAAAAY too much credit (rather like saying the Joker is single-handedly responsible for all of Batman's cool), and they're not criticising Michaëlle Jean enough.

I think Canadians ought to ask our Governor-General whether she might *ever* be prepared to stand up to the PM. Michael Ignatieff's court is proposing a bill that would limit the ability of the PM to prorogue government, which is stupid. I'm sorry, Michael, but it really is.

If your kids are misbehaving every night at bedtime, you don't just automatically put a rule in place that says "no acting up at bedtime". You have to figure out *why* (probably all those cookies at dinner).

Labels: Canadian politics, prorogue

I call this one, "Prorogue Mountain". It's about how one cowboy doesn't think it's right for the other cowboy to just ride off all willy-nilly into the sunset without so much as a handshake and a thank you, for TWO MONTHS, and how the other cowboy doesn't think there's anything wrong with that. Some might say it's an ALLEGORY. Other folks might say it's just a pretty picture of two cowboys leaning against their truck not discussing politics at all.

Labels: Canadian politics, gay marriage, prorogue

A year ago, 90% of Canadians had never, I surmise, heard of the word "prorogation". That's because it's supposed to be incredibly rare for the elected leader of a parliamentary democracy to ask the reigning monarch/head of state to suspend the country's legislature. What does it mean, effectively? It means that all bills and motions and sitting committees (known as orders of the body) are expunged, but sitting Members of Parliament don't get fired. That is to say, they're sent home but there is no need for another election. As an interesting side note, in the British Parliament, certain bills are not affected by prorogation.

Now, technically, the Queen herself, the Governor General, or the Lieutenant Governor could summon Parliament back to work at any time. Indeed, the MPs themselves can meet when and wherever they'd like, even if Parliament is not in session. Their work doesn't HAVE to stop just because their office is closed. I've phoned my twat of an MP to ask him to continue his work as my elected leader in Parliament regardless of whether the Legislature is sitting, but I've a really good feeling that he doesn't listen to me. Which is one of many reasons I did not vote for him.

Historically, prorogation was used by monarchs to essentially control Parliament. Don't like the proposed laws being read as bills? Prorogue the place and those Bills die and are tossed out with yesterday's wash water. You want Parliamentary approval for your new favourite spending plan? Summon Parliament back, throw your weight as the Monarch around a while (maybe suggest that so-and-so might get another appointment if he rubber-stamps your suggestion), then send them all away again to the cotswolds. It's all about making sure Parliamentarians know who's *really* boss (the Monarch, in case you dozed off, there). At least, it *was*. 

So what's the situation? Why is is that 25% more Canadians now know what prorogue means? Well. This is a little bit of a sore spot for me.

In Canada, the Prime Minister usually only asks for prorogation when s/he is in immediate danger of being drastically humiliated. Sometimes, the Prime Minister asks to suspend Parliament because he's simply not getting his way (do you hear me, Brian Mulroney? Sometimes, the reason you don't get your way is because the PEOPLE don't WANT you to. Funny, that).

Stephen Harper has prorogued Parliament three times in three years; twice in *one* year. Rather than let the majority speak/vote against him, he's deciding to spend taxpayers' money on sending MPs off onto a paid vacation while the actual business of the country cannot progress. It makes me angry because it's cowardly. And worse than that, it makes me even angrier that *I* didn't vote for our dictator. In proroging Parliament, Harper has removed the ability of Canadian people to govern themselves.

I would really like for the Queen to just rip the thermometer out of his armpit and scoff "you're perfectly FINE, Stephen. You do NOT need to stay home from school. And besides, if you don't go to school, you don't get to go to the Olympics."

Labels: Canadian politics, prorogue

There is hullaballoo in Canada about how the provincial government in British Columbia is asking the Supreme Court of Canada for a legal opinion on the matter of polygamy. As my friend the Rook says, it's probably not so much that the BC government wants to outlaw polygamy, but that the BC government wants to get rid of the fanatical religious sects living in their province. Which is to say, they can't figure out how to get in there and tell the folks living in places like Bountiful that it's a little reprehensible that they marry off their daughters at 12 to men four and five times their age, and that the girls really have no choice in the matter.

But that isn't an issue of polygamy.

That is an issue of misogyny, child abuse, and pedophelia.

In essence, I don't think there's a single thing wrong with polygamy or polyandry or group marriages. Nor with polyamoury. In fact, I think that the more people you can love, the more people you *should* love. Doing so within committed relationships makes it *even better*. Here's the trick: polygamy is not the same as bigamy. There's a big difference between being married to more than one person, and marrying more than one person. If you get my drift.

So.

a) I have a HUGE problem with the government of BC spending taxpayers' money on something they should be able to handle provincially. They just don't *want* to. Nobody wants to be the bad guy. No parent wants to discipline their kids. The BC government wants to get rid of some religious communities they find distasteful, and which are probably harming the provincial image.

b) I don't think polygamy should be illegal. It shouldn't matter who you choose to marry, as long as everyone involved is able to make an informed, reasonable decision to do so, in a state of honour and love.

c) It's pretty terrible that a group of fanatical people are hiding behind a freedom of religion argument, but the bottom line is that polygamy oughtn't be illegal. The fanatical people should be arrested for abuse and endangerment.

d) I really wish that people would stop trying to make this a discussion about morals. It needs to be a discussion about rights. And in my opinion, Canadians should have the right to marry whoever they want, with the provisions already mentioned. Morals have nothing to do with it. The most important moral really needs to be: do no harm.

Labels: Canadian politics, canadians, polygamy

It's not like a politician has never played a musical instrument in public before. What pleases me more than Stephen Harper showing a little bit of ...I dunno...soul? (If I were being particularly uncharitable, I'd say the soul was completely scripted and that if you're a faithful Dr. Who fan, you'll know that even very, very evil creatures can pretend to be something other than what they are. But I'm not being that uncharitable.) What pleases me more than Stephen Harper doing this is that he's not particularly good, and he knows it. What pleases me is that he's set a precedent, and now ALL the other politicians are going to have to go off and do something (Batman Jack is busking on Dundas in support of a charity, Michael Ignatieff, who is, if possible, stodgier than Harper at times, will be doing a reading) artistic. The fact that they *can* ought not surprise you. They are, after all, public speakers. Even if someone writes their lines for them, they are actors; they must know how best to deliver those lines.

So this is getting media attention for the arts. That's always good. It's giving news announcers something to talk with their sports announcers with other than the Riders' suckage in BC. That's nice, too.

But I'm thinking of this: I wonder what his kids think. It must be tough to have a Dad who's the Prime Minister of Canada. Particularly the Prime Minister of Canada whom nobody really likes much. Look what happened to the Mulroney kids - that's something I wouldn't wish on people I don't much like. Entertainment Canada? Is this something you really want to be proud of? Particularly since your father was all about the stupid Free Trade selling out to the Yanks thing anyway, maybe it's fitting that you be resigned to a fake tan worse than death. Anyway, it must be tough to have a Dad nobody's a huge fan of except the folks who kind of sound like douches on talk radio shows. And I just think that this stunt might make the kids a little happy, because all of a sudden, everybody kind of likes Stephen Harper because he's done what Canadian politicians are supposed to do.

He's allowed himself to look like a bit of a goof.

I think, if you really look at it, that's part of our Canadian identity: we're willing, as a country, as a people, and as a nation, to look like a bit of a goof. Really, I think that's okay. Speaking as a *complete* goof.

Labels: Canadian politics

Saskatchewan too backwards? Or just backwards enough?

Okay.

Gay marriage is legal in Saskatchewan. YAY!
A marriage commissioner who refused to marry a gay couple was fined $2500 for discrimination. Makes sense.
The marriage commissioner in question has launched an appeal with the Government of Saskatchewan, in essence saying that *he* is being discriminated against in terms of his religious beliefs. Okay.
Now, the Saskatchewan government is re-examining (see that link above, there) making an exception to the ruling of the previous court, that as a public official, he doesn't get to pick and choose which parts of the law he wishes to uphold. Right.

So.
First of all, as everyone knows, many Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to uphold, so why is anyone surprised that this marriage commissioner wants to pick and choose what parts of civil law he wants to obey?

Secondly, what's the big deal? So some marriage commissioners want to be 'specialists'. We don't get all up in arms when our GP refuses to do a colonoscopy, choosing instead to refer you to an arse doctor. We don't get all up in arms when our history professors refuse to teach particle physics.

We all get our knickers in a knot as soon as someone says the word 'discrimination'. We've turned that word into a kind of curse; a swear word. It's not quite as bad as the eff word or the cee word, to be sure, but if someone accuses you of 'discrimination', it's essentially a social (and sometimes legal) sentence. Discrimination doesn't have to be a bad thing, people.

I do discriminatory things *every day*. In addition to meaning "to treat differently" (which isn't always a bad thing...more on that later), Discriminate also means the ability to recognise differences, and distinguishing one thing from another. What's so wrong with treating people differently? This is something that has always blown my mind. I treat my family differently from the way I treat strangers (I don't *often* yell "GET YOUR GODDAMNED ELBOWS OFF THE GODDAMNED TABLE!" at people I don't know. Sometimes, but not often.

I'm going off the rails here.

My point is that professionals discriminate *all the time* in what they do. When you become an engineer, in, what, your second or third year, you have to discriminate "against" all the other disciplines. So what's wrong with allowing a civil servant to discriminate, to specialise?

Well, I guess you could argue that police officers don't get to choose which criminals to arrest. But they do. Every day. Sometimes, you don't get stopped and fined for jaywalking, f'rinstance. Granted, police officers who choose to arrest you or not to arrest you based on how unpink you are is kind of douchey (should that be douchy?).

I guess there's the argument that elected officials and their staff don't get to choose which parts of society they serve. But they do. Every day. My elected officials don't, for the most part, represent me *at all well* in their work. In fact, they kind of totally suck at it. They refuse to represent me, not because of my gender or my religious beliefs or whether I prefer innies or outies, but because we have differing opinions on what "they" should do with "my" money.

So, I mean, yes, it's terrible that someone refuses to perform gay marriages. Particularly a civil servant. To be honest, I think it's shameful that anyone still thinks "that way" (that backwards way). I am also of the opinion that until the church changes its position on what marriage is for, gay marriage should not be a religious ceremony. But THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT HERE. The argument is whether or not someone can refuse to perform a civil service because they have moral (or social, or religious, or whatever) objections to it.

In Canada, we uphold freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. No matter how shameful and backwards someone's action is, as long as no harm is done, you should be able to uphold your own religious beliefs wherever and whenever you want. But let's think about this - the marriage commissioner who refused to perform gay marriages on religious grounds...what's he been doing all these years? Sneaking religion into civil services? Isn't that illegal? If I wanted a civil union and the Justice of the Peace started talking about prayer and God, I think I'd hit him/her with my matron of honour and take the jerk to court. Some people just don't want to invite God to their weddings and THAT'S FINE. You can't sneak Him in. People notice that kind of thing, you know.

In fact, if I had been married by this guy, after having read some of the stuff he's said about his other civil marriages, I might file a discrimination lawsuit against him too. If he's been offering prayers on my behalf when I don't want them offered (I am not an atheist, but let's just pretend for a moment that I am), he's being incredibly offensive.

Again, sorry. I'm derailed. My point is this as long as no one is harmed, there oughtn't be a problem. Actually, no, that's not my point. My point is the question. Which was:
What's wrong with allowing JPs or Marriage Commissioners to 'specialise'? Is it just a gay thing? Would it be worse/better if it was a race thing?

Ultimately, I don't even know what *I* think about the whole thing - I mean, I think it was shameful for the Commissioner to turn away a gay couple from his services. I think it was good that he stood up for his religious beliefs. I think that maybe being a marriage commissioner was not the right vocation for this guy, and that maybe he ought to have gone into the clergy. I think that the question of whether or not gay folks should be able to marry each other is ludicrous. I think the marriage commissioner gets to feel that his religious freedom has been tramped upon. I think that his religious freedom oughtn't have come in to the equation at all, because he was supposed to have been performing a God-free service. But, you know, conscience and all. I think it's unfortunate that the couple wanting to get married were affronted (after all, just because something's legal doesn't mean folks have to like it - it's legal to own handguns in this country, but you'll never force me to like them). I think a lot of things, and could probably argue myself in to and out of either point of view.

Labels: Canadian politics, equal rights, gay marriage

In Which Stephen Hawking phoned me last night: he was Very Concerned about my water filtration service. I thought it was odd that Stephen Hawking would be so concerned about my water filtration service, since it was not he who installed it. Nonetheless, he asked me several questions about the system, the service call we'd recently had done, and our overall impressions of the water filtration system company.

Keep your eyes peeled for some Grand Water Filtration System Unification Theory. That dude is SMART. Although you'd never have known it from the way he was phrasing his questions - must have had an undergrad write them.

In Which the Canadian government is being totally hypocritical ... FOR A CHANGE: Television broadcasters in Canada are In Trouble. They're thinking they might have to move out, go to visit an aunt in Calgary for about nine months and when they return, they'll have dark circles under their eyes and fabulous hair. But rather than send them away, the Canadian government has decided that it will...okay wait. Before I get in to this, I want to make a point or two.

Point the First: The Canadian government currently calls itself "Conservative". Usually, "Conservatives" are allergic to socialism and Great Equalisers. They want no one to have the same as anyone, and believe that It Is Okay to run a country so that the people who have the most never have to come in to contact with people who have nothing. They are not really so much about making things equal. Particularly this government, who decided to do away with the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Oh wait, they didn't *do away with it*; they just cut most of the funding. Or said they were going to. They've also done things like do away with any motivation for some kind of National Daycare Program, choosing instead to give $100 to families for each child under 6 living in the house. Enough about how they don't like to make things equal.

Point the Second: The Canadian government likes to talk big about how it supports independent business and how government should get out of the business of business and concentrate on government.

Now. The Canadian Government saw that many smaller television stations in the country are In Trouble. So, in these times of difficult economic dwindles and thrusts, the Canadian Government has decided they will ...how does that expression go... oh yes. Rob Peter to pay Paul.

In Which cenobyte makes dinner:
The Captain (in a Whiny, Petulant Voice, all the way from the sitter's): "What are we having for supper?"
cenobyte, vigorously: "Turkey brains!" or "Pinecones!" or "Sauteed midget!"
The Captain and The Nipper, at home: "What's for supper?"
cenobyte, filling one pot with water: "Noodles!"
cenobyte places another pot on her head.
"Uh. Mum?"
cenobyte, in a totally neutral tone: "Yes?"
"Um. Why..." stares intently at cenobyte for a moment. "Why are you wearing a pot on your head?"
cenobyte scoffs. "Pot!!?? POT?? This, SON, is a HELMET. We must always observe the Canadian Food Guide's Recommendations for Cookery Safety. At ALL TIMES."
The Nipper shakes his head. "Mum. That really is a pot."
"Oh ye of little faith."
"Moo-oommm. You can TELL it's a POT because it has a big sticky-outy handle."
cenobyte glances up at the big sticky-outy handle. "Oh. You appear to be right." Replacing the pot on the hangar, she retrieves the steel colander. "THIS is my helmet. Remember: Safety first!"
"Mum, that ...thingy... doesn't have any padding. If something hit you in the head..."
"SUCH AS A METEOR!??" cenobyte shouts, interrupting, which is a Big No.
"Uh. Sure. Such as a meteor...if something hit you in the head, you'd still get hurt because there's no padding in there."
Cenobyte pads off to the living room and retrieves a leather fringed purse she purchased as a costume. She places it on her head so that the fringe falls down across her face, then replaces the steel colander and ties it under her chin with a shoelace.

Now the children are *really* staring. Cenobyte grabs a handful of uncooked spaghetti.
"Mum?"
"Yes, son?"
"What. Are you doing?"
"Safety first."
"No," The Captain says, staring.
"The SPAGHETTI!" The Nipper shouts. "What are you doing with that spaghetti?"
cenobyte stares at her children. "Making antennae. Duh. I have to be able to communicate with Command. How else will I know when the meteor is about to strike?"
The boys stare, open-mouthed, at cenobyte.
"That's...that's..."
"Really weird." The Nipper contributes.
"No! That's BRILLIANT!" The Captain shouts.

cenobyte grabs a large steel spoon off the wall. She holds it to her mouth. "This is cenobyte, man on the street. I'm here interviewing The Captain, for your Man on the Street update. The Captain? What are your feelings about meteors?" cenobyte shoves the spoon in The Captain's face.
"Uh. Meteors are huge balls of frozen space debris that cruise through the universe at incredible speeds?"
"Pffft." Says cenobyte. "How long until TOTAL ANNIHILATION occurs, due to meteors?"
"Um. Never?"
"There you have it. The Captain believes we have Nothing To Worry About. As for me, I'm wearing a helmet, so I'm Perfectly Safe."

Moments later, The Nipper grabs the spoon and wanders around the kitchen shoving it in our faces. "What do you think about meteors?" he hollers. "WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT DINOSAURS!!???"
"Hi my name is cenobyte and I think dinosaurs will someday be destroyed by meteors thank you very much GO RIDERS!!!"

Again with the staring.

THAT was a good night.

Labels: Canadian politics, dinosaurs, helmet, kids, meteors, safety, smart folks

You may remember Yours Truly being upset over censorship in Canada. Maybe once or twice, you know. Well, it seems the Tories are censoring people they don't want Canadians to hear from. Dangerous people. Treasonous bastards who talk about things like (and I should issue a warning here that what follows is seditious and quite possibly Extremely Insulting) the withdrawal of forces from Iran, Aid to Palestinians under fire in the Gaza Strip, and his general opposition to the war in Afghanistan.

British Member of Parliament George Galloway has been denied entry in to Canada because our Immigration Minister, a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan and a staunch right-winger, feels Galloway's presence here would be "detrimental to national interest". He was schedule to speak at an anti-war rally in Toronto.

Immigration officials cite a section of Canada's Immigration Legislation for the reason Galloway is being denied entry.

What is the Harper government so frightened of? They allowed George Bush into the country so he could accept a paid speaking engagement, but because Galloway opposes the Afghan war, he's a threat to national interest?

I don't care *what* the guy is going to say. I don't even know what *my* opinion is on the Afghan war most of the time, other than being stricken with a deep, deep sadness that people still think it's okay to kill each other, regardless of whose God told them to do what. It's profoundly enmiserating to think that we still don't understand that we are all the same, and that hurting one another is *always* wrong. I suspect I will be ensaddened by that for the rest of my life, though.

But seriously. Here's what gets me: Galloway isn't a terrorist. He doesn't kill people. He doesn't blow up blocks of children with car bombs. He hasn't raped your wife and/or children (and most likely won't). He's not claiming that his God tells him to destroy your house, your livelihood, and your family. For Christ's sake, he does *really dangerous things* like participate in aid.

So you must ask yourself: what *are* the Tories afraid of? What is it that George Galloway, a Scottish MP in England, is going to say that Stephen Harper doesn't want you to hear? What part of "the interests of our country" is he a threat to?

You think he might talk about what a bad thing the Afghani war is? Because I'm *fairly* certain there are a whole bunch of Canadians who also feel the same way. You think he might spread a message (a horrible, treasonous message) promoting peace? There are no Canadians working for peace.

But the deeper concern, the real concern is this: If the Immigration Minister under Stephen Harper is allowed to unilaterally deny entry into our country of people with whose opinions he does not agree, you'd better watch what you say when you're vacationing in Jamaica. Or Mexico. And how long is it going to be before you have to really start watching what you say when you're out for lunch? Or in your own house? Or on your own blog?

Normally, I wouldn't give a rat's fart what George Galloway says or doesn't say. I don't actually particularly care what his opinions are. What I DO care about is this fascist denial of free speech. What I DO care about is that this nimrod, Jason Kenney is trying to silence someone and is hiding behind legislation that doesn't fit the situation to do so.

I should say, I don't know Jason Kenney. I think he's an arrogant, small-minded prick (he declined to renew a government programme that provided English/French language instruction to immigrants because the grant/programme was allocated to the Candadian Arab Federation, and as we all know, all those swarthy towel-heads are in league with one another to blow up 21 Sussex Drive in the name of Allah. EVERY SINGLE ARAB in Canada is a terrorist and wants to kill pink-skinned Christians and Jews. You know how I know this? Because when I was in daycare, I had a teacher who wore an Hajib, and all she *ever* talked about was killing Westerners in the name of Allah). He's also advocating scrapping a government contract which assists new immigrants with employment in their new country. And you know, really, I support this, because if immigrants can't find their own damned jobs and at the very least learn to SPEAKY THE LANGUAGE, they don't deserve to live here.

I also don't know George Galloway. I can say that after I read what the Toronto Star had to say about the whole thing, it was abundantly clear that I would invite Galloway to my house for tea, and would grunt in disgust if Kenney showed up.

Smarten up, Canada. The only thing you do when you censor speech and ideas is make people all the more interested in them. What could Galloway *possibly* do or say that 'threatens the security of Canada'? Recommend that Canadian-owned companies buy back Tim Hortons from the Yanks? Advocate for funding education and employment programs for new Canadians? Tell a bunch of people who *already think like him and agree with him* that the war in Afghanistan is wrong?

You know what?

Whether I agree with Galloway's position or not isn't important (and I won't get in to it here, because it's not the main issue). I'm going to sign the petition to allow him in to the country. I'm also going to write a letter to Jason Kenney and tell him how ridiculous he is. I'm also going to write to my MP and I'm going to ask him why his party, the minority government of Canada, is in favour of censorship and why they didn't run on this platform in the last election. I'd also like to suggest they do so in the next election, because that will make my decision on who to vote for (or who to vote 'against') much, MUCH more clear.

Labels: Canadian politics, censorship, piss in your eye

Well, my first reaction to the prorogation of parliament is this:
"Fuck."

My second reaction is a heavy sigh, and more and profound disappointment in our head of state. You know, we should phone the Queen and tell her, "Shit's going down, man. Heavy shit."

Labels: Canadian politics, disappointment, prorogue

When it's a duck.


Now that that's over with, and my day is made, there's also the gender analyzer. It believes cenobyte is a dude. Dude! Dude. Granted, it's only 68% sure of that.

Didja watch the news last night? Didja watch the political leaders talking about why you should be very afraid of the separatists or the Tories, depending on who was talking? I did. I was glued to the television. And you know what I thought?

First, I thought it was odd that Stephen Harper chose to deliver his paranoia-inducing blathering from Casey's treehouse. Second, it was unfortunate that Stephane Dion was forced to film his speech in the rumpus room. What really struck me last night was how different these things are in our country. In the States, f'rinstance, they have a room that's dedicated just to press conferences. It's all blue curtains and wired for sound and kinda made for someone to film the president (or the president-elect...how does that work now, is Barack Obama living in the suite over the garage until Mister Gee moves out?). But in Canada, you're lucky if you get a zero-white balance from the camera guy before the shoot starts. In fact, I'm pretty sure if Batman Jack wanted his address to have been filmed in the loo, his cameraman would have been all too happy to comply.

On to the meat of the issue.

There should be no surprises, after I've outed myself as a pinko socialist (actually, I'm far more red than pink; if you thought the epithet 'pinko' would insult me because it implies that I'm a bit of a leftard, you've sorely missed your mark. The epithet 'pinko' insults me because most of the 'pinkos' I know are far too right-wing), that I was more or less disgusted with what Stephen Harper said, which was a whole bunch of nothing. Not only does the guy not know his Canadian history (or possibly he just conveniently forgot that this is not the "only time in Canadian history" that the opposition party has attempted to form government), but he sat in his Smug Spot and tried to convince Canadians that if the opposition forms government, it will be the End of Canada As We Know It (with all due respect to R.E.M....since Canada's copyright laws are so wonky, I'm not sure if I should be concerned that Michael Stipe is going to come after me with a war baguette or if I should be concerned that absolutely nothing is going to happen). There was nothing in his address that made me say "you know what? I hadn't thought of that. Hmmm." Nothing that would make me even think about considering changing my mind that the possibility of the Tories being ousted is even remotely a Bad Thing. Not one single thing that cast doubt upon the idea that his losing his jaerb is what this country needs. In fact, when he was going on and on about how allowing SEPARATISTS to participate in a coalition government would certainly be the undoing of our nation, I started to laugh. Because he certainly didn't feel that way any of the numerous times he used the Bloc's voting power in parliament to shore up his own agenda. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Stephane Dion's address...well...he obviously looked uncomfortable (which made me wonder, Stephane, why did you choose politics? You kind of always seem to be the guy whose underpants are just a shade too tight). He said what I expected him to say. I wish the network I was watching would have aired the french version of both addresses. He mentioned how Harper and his Tories have steadfastly refused to address the economic crisis looming over our country. He made some promises I don't know if he can keep, and he referred to Stephen Harper in much the same way as many have; calling to question his refusal to actually co-operate with anyone and his insistence in basically being a parliamentary bully whose attempts to squeeze everything he can get out of the parliamentary system are finally coming back to kick him in the arse.

Okay, Stephane Dion didn't say arse. Well, not intentionally. I think he was trying to say something else.

A good friend of mine wrote to me and said, "you don't seriously support the coalition, do you?" And I wrote back with an expression of glee over the sheer anarchy on Parliament hill right now. And he replied with concerns because of what the federal Liberals are doing in Alberta (which is where he lives) and how a handful of his friends had all lost their jobs, and how he fears for his own job. You know what I wrote back? Because I understand that political flux is causing change. I said something like, "I understand why that freaks you out. If there *isn't* a change in government, I'll probably lose *my* job."

There's always going to be oil production. We're living in a resource-based economy. Even if he lost his job (he's an engineer) with the company he's with, I'm *fairly* certain he could find something else. As could I. But it's much, much more difficult when the only people who have respect for the letters after your name are the ones who believe that quality is more important than quantity.

Wow. Got siderailed there. Anyway. If you didn't see the political leaders address the nation, you should go to your Googles and let them do the finding. Then you can do the watching.

Oh. And I'd like to invite you to go read James Laxer's post on the topic. Laxer is an economist and professor of Political Science at York University (thanks to Elder Gamer for the link).

Labels: Canadian politics, coalition government, llamas, Mr. Dressup

So now, the Tories are suspending Parliament and are running a bunch of ads about the SOCIALIST THREAT and SEPARATISTS TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT in an attempt to convince Canadians about something. A delay tactic which shows their cards.

I don't know why everyone is in such a tizzy about this. Non-confidence motions and the ability to change the ruling party of government without an election is a tenet of parliamentary democracy. It's what happens when the majority of elected officials feel that the ruling party isn't doing their job properly, and it's a Good Thing. It's why we don't have to put up with folks like George W. Bush for four years at a time. Another nice aspect of parliamentarianism is that an election can be called any time. In fact, in 1974 Trudeau forced an election by introducing a confidence motion with his minority government's budget. He was pretty confident he'd win the resulting election, which he did.

Stephen Harper himself proposed a coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois in 2004, so why are so many people running around, tearing out their hair and gnashing their teeth about the SEPARATIST THREAT? Stephen Harper would have been all too happy in 2004 to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT in partnership with the Bloc and/or anyone else he could find.

Now, it's fairly common knowledge that cenobyte is a bit of a rabble rouser. A bit of a rebel, if you will. Somewhat of a low-key anarchist. Part of my utter giddiness over everything that's happening in the Canadian parliament is just the sheer disorder of it all. I *love* watching Conservative MPs spit vitriolic epithets at the press about the UNDEMOCRATIC SEPARATIST COUP. I love watching Bloc MPs, calm and collected, discussing why replacing the current government is what's best for Canada - not what's best for Quebec, but what's best for Canada. I love hearing Stephane Dion say "Canadians elected 308 members of Parliament in October, not just Stephen Harper". I love watching the slow boil of panic on Parliament Hill.

I don't know what it is. Canada is not a country born of rebellion and war; we've always been a somewhat conciliatory place. Louis Riel stirred things up with his Resistance, and the FLQ. But really, it's not a country that does "things like that". You know, Good Countries Don't.

Check out the Yarn Harlot for a good explanation of how all this works (thanks to Melistress for the link): www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2008/12/03/what_is_happening_in_canada.html

Labels: anarchy, Canadian politics, coalition government

Forgive my sick fascination with what's happening in our government. On 8th December, our Governor General will have to decide whether Canadians are going back to the polls mere weeks after the last farce of an election, or whether she's going to allow A SOCIALIST COUP OF OUR NEO-FASCIST GOVERNMENT!!!

You know what? It was really, *really* fun to write that. I mean, I don't know that I actually believe that our current government is neo-fascist...or even pico-fascist. In fact, I don't think the Conservatives are fascists at all. I think Stephen Harper is a totalitarian control freak, but, you know, I didn't vote for him or for any of his lackeys.

And you know what else? I've been watching CPAC (yes, I've been watching CPAC), and I just heard an MP say something about how terrible the "Socialist coalition" is. This is nearly as bad as Jerry Springer. Seriously. I'm waiting for Jack Layton to throw a chair at Stephen Harper, and Stephane Dion to cower and scream like a schoolgirl. I just heard another Conservative MP from Alberta refer to the coalition as a 'banana republic', which is HILARIOUS. From Wikipedia:

Banana Republic is a pejorative term for a small country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture, and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique.

That pretty much sounds like what we have right now. And has nothing to do with the SOCIALIST THREAT. I'm randomly using all-caps because you should fear socialists. You should fear us like you fear toe fungus and sudden attacks of uncontrollable vomiting. You should fear us because we want to tear down your economic stability and take your money away from you so that we can give it to people who don't deserve it as much as you do because they have mental illness, social challenges, and/or historical inequity.

You should fear socialists because we're all clinically insane. We're all also of substandard intelligence because we simply don't *understand* the *reality* of how federal economics *really work*. And we don't understand human nature.

You should fear me, in particular, because I am a socialist. I want to restrict, nay, take away your freedom. I want to regulate every aspect of your life I want to harm your children by allowing them to be exposed to equal rights for all Canadians, regardless of the shape of their dangly bits, the shade of their skin, or the functionality of their minds. And you know what happens when people go crazy? They all turn into socialists and start typing randomly in all caps.

So many people are whining because the SOCIALIST COUP of the federal government is UNDEMOCRATIC and DANGEROUS because it involves co-operation with PINKOS, LOSERS, and SEPARATISTS. Because "well, *I* didn't vote for any of those three assholes". Well, you know what? The majority of the tiny majority of Canadians who voted in the last farce of an election that was (debatably) illegally called by a fellow who broke several of his own campaign promises immediately after taking office did not vote for the assholes currently in power. The fact of the matter is that what's happening now is the right of the opposition parties. It is a function of the parliamentary system. It is the right of the people who HAVE been elected by the majority of Canadians.

And I'm so damned happy it's happening. It's a bloody shame it had to happen over political parties getting funding from the federal government and not over something more important, but I'm really glad the straw has broken the camel's back. Because really, you should only allow someone to beat the crap out of you for so long before you take a stand.

I also think it's unfortunate that it's not Batman Jack who's going to be our interim Prime Minister, since I think he's better able to handle it than Stephane Dion. However, I have a little something for Monsieur Dion and Batman Jack:

Labels: Canadian politics, coalition government, SOCIALIST THREAT

So....let me get this straight.

You wouldn't stand up for the people of Canada when the government was talking about taking money away from programs that make life better for everyone in the country. And you wouldn't stand up for the people of Canada when the government was talking about cutting funding for the national food inspection agency. And you wouldn't stand up for Canada when the government decided to take money away from a newly-emerging economic powerhouse. But you'll stand up for the "people of Canada" when the government decides to take money away from you?

That's classy, Grits. That's REAL classy.

Labels: Canadian politics, coalition government