Random acts of wingnuttery

Via Pandagon, I found this site which details email forwards that get sent around by in wingnut circles. It's funny and terrifying at the same time (kind of like the movie Jesus Camp, where the Jeebus-fuelled antics of youngsters had me both cackling hysterically and hiding curled up in the fetal position, quaking in fear, under a blanket - sometimes both at the same time, like with adorable Levi with his spectacular rat-tail and precocious charm and public-speaking skills...which he used to preach fire and brimstone to his fellow pre-teens) in the way that only demonstrations of extraordinary ignorance coupled with insane amounts of hate can be.

"I may need a haircut, but you're going to hell!"

I've been on the receiving end of only a couple of these types of wingnutty emails (none that were nearly as bad as the ones on this site, thanks be to the Spaghetti Monster), but the few times it happened it's always a bit awkward. They only come from one family member (and people who know me can probably guess which gun-totin', rural-living', government-distrustin' one that is) who also happens to be someone I love, respect and admire. So what do you do when they display random acts of wingnuttery?

I've mostly taken the same stance with these types of forwards as the ones that tell me to Forward This to 10 Friends and Make a Wish and it Will Come True But If You Don't Your Hair Will Fall Out and You Will Get Scabies (Whatever That Is), or Bill Gates Will Donate $$$ If u Forrward this MessAge, or DANGER! my neigbor's SON/daughter/Goldfish was killed/raped/eaten because of HOT COFFEE EXPLODING IN THE MICROWAVE/Perfume bottels with DATE_RAPE druggs/HE tasted GOOD - ignore them.

This policy has worked pretty well for me in terms of emails, but it's often harder in person. I love me a good argument, but sometimes the time is just wrong, like the very uncomfortable Christmas dinner a few years ago where the host (a lovely man who is wonderful in many many ways) started in on the rabbi who had requested a menorah be included in the Christmas display at the Seattle airport, and how this was proof of the WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!! and part of the larger WAR ON AFFLUENT, STRAIGHT WHITE PEOPLE (PARTICULARLY MEN)!!!

Unfortunately, we were just about to eat, so I didn't have any delicious turkey on my plate, so I was actually listening to the conversation instead of stuffing my face and thinking "mmmm...tuuuurkey", and as a result I jumped in with "They could have just put up the menorah" at which point the conversation went south very quickly, and ended with the assertion that since Christian soldiers fought in WWII, Jews can never complain about anything, ever again.

Well, I couldn't think of which one of the approximately two hundred million things that are wrong with that statement to address first, then his daughter managed to change the subject, and the turkey was awesome, and we're still close with them, but boy did that memory stick out in my mind when I saw that website.

How about you guys? Any random acts of wingnuttery you've had to deal with?

The wacky, wonderful world of Canadian politics

I’d been working on a lengthy, verbose and profanity-ridden post about the single most exciting thing to happen in Canadian politics since that time I played touch rugby on the Hill with Peter Mackay, but then I realized that the entire situation, like most things in life, is best summed up by a single moment from The Simpsons:



And then I continued with my regularly-scheduled verbosity, regardless.

I mean, seriously – Harper goes in with the promise of a more open, cooperative Parliament, ready to work on the pressing economic concerns of Canadians, and he follows through how? By proposing to limit the rights of civil servants to strike and women to sue for pay discrimination, and trying to effectively gut his opposition financially*, of course. What, you were expecting actual substantive solutions to an impending crisis?

But what an amazing moment – not only for the unprecedented levels of cooperation between three different parties, but also for the incredible learning opportunity this presents. I am far, far from an expert, but all those years on the Hill taught me a thing or two, and still the nuances of this situation are fascinating, and not just for giant dorks like me.

And, unlike what Harper and the Conservatives are claiming, toppling the government and setting up a coalition in its stead is not at all undemocratic. It’s a very intentional feature of our Parliamentary system, and would feature a government that, with the Green Party’s support, represents the majority of Canadian voters (almost 8.5 million between the four parties, compared to the Tories’ 5.2 million).

Some people may make a big deal about the Bloc having signed on to support a Liberal/NDP government (the term “unholy alliance” being used) but I don’t personally have a problem with this. The Bloc are legitimately elected Members of Parliament, and while I may not support their ultimate goal, they are representing the interests of their constituents, as they should. This is how Parliament works (or is supposed to work), and Harper himself has counted on their support in the past to keep his government going (and to try and form a new one – hey, it’s just like now! Only with the roles reversed! Almost like the shoe is on the other foot! Or the pot calling the kettle so power-hungry that they’ll get into bed with socialists and separatists!)

Predictions? I think Harper will ask the GG to prorogue until January, and that she will take his advice. From what I’ve read, constitutional experts disagree on the most appropriate course of action, and there’s no direct precedent, but I think she’ll want to take a moderate path and give the government a chance to present their budget.

I also think the coalition will take down the government on the budget. The Conservatives are in a bit of a no-win situation here – you simply cannot please everyone with your budget, especially people who are looking for ways to criticize you. Add in a recession and you are screwed (pronounced “scru-ed”). However, Jean can decide to dissolve Parliament, or decide to let the coalition form a government, or she may decide to take all the party leaders into her office for a stern talking to (“Can’t I ever leave you kids alone? I go to Eastern Europe for a week and all hell breaks loose. Now, you all start behaving or I am going TURN THIS COUNTRY AROUND RIGHT NOW.”)

Whatever the outcome, though, it’s nice to see the top headlines a) about Canadian politics, b) interesting, and c) in a “this is history-making and thought-provoking” way, not a “oh man, what are those idiots up to again” way.

*As for the ranting about how the Bloc, Liberals and NDP are being whiny, greedy babies throwing tantrums at being cut out of the public trough: vote subsidies encourage voter turnout, represent voters proportionally and are a progressive way of ensuring a healthy democracy by keeping multiple parties competitive. Not bad for $30M every couple of years, eh?

RELATED POSTS:

• I could just kiss Chuck Cadman, Belinda Stronach and Carolyn Parrish right now...
• It takes a village to raise a child, but just one idiot to write a budget
• Opposing forces
  

Friday Top Five

Top news story: Secretary of State Clinton.

Even if I didn't admire her, I'd be happy with this decision - at the very least, it should mean Amy Poehler returning to SNL for guest spots.

Top way to waste time: Assembler.

This simple little game about moving green crates around is addictive. Whoever solves the level with all the round crates, please give me a clue, 'cause I've been stumped all week.

Top embarrassing dad moment:

B.C. NDP house leader and middle-aged white guy Mike Farnworth using the word "bling" during question period. Stay tuned for next week when NDP leader Carole James scolds the Premier with a sassy "Oh no you di'int".

Top source of schadenfreude: Brokers with hands on their faces

Top photo: the one where Floyd finds her soulmate

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Thanks to Michelle for flagging this - another excellent take on Prop 8, this time by Keith Olbermann.



This whole thing is déjà-vù all over again, eh, my fellow Canucks? You just want to tell the fundies to tilt their heads north and observe our still-stable society which somehow failed to crumble and dissolve into panic and random man-appliance weddings in the street.

RELATED POSTS

• I Take it all Back
• From the Mouths of Morons
• It's the end of the world as we know it...
  
• Dan Savage v. Tony Perkins on Anderson Cooper

Off to the races - Liberally

I suppose that a month is a perfectly respectable mourning period, especially when you're announcing that you're not running.

Former premier of New Brunswick and ambassador to Washington Frank McKenna? "Clean up your own goddamn mess - I'm getting too old for this shit."

Former deputy prime minister John Manley? "I am also getting too old for this shit. And by too old, I mean too rich from my many high-paying jobs on boards of directors."

Grassroots phenom Martha Hall-Findley? "I'm too young for this shit. And by shit, I mean the crushing amounts of personal debt required to finance my previous leadership run, which - although awesome and inspiring to many young people, including an obscure and particularly foul-mouthed blogger - was kinda sorta the opposite of profitable."

Power broker and new MP Gerard Kennedy? "I am also too young and too broke for this shit. And - seeing as my one power-brokering moment was to throw my support behind Dion, thus winning him the previous leadership race - way, way unpopular. Like, atomic wedgie levels of unpopular."

So who does that leave us with? Would you be terribly shocked if I told you...the two frontrunners from the last convention who were overcome at the final stage by the Kennedy-Dion deal?

And some other guy, too...but dude, who are you kidding?

RELATED POSTS

• We'll always have Lansdowne Park
  

From the Archives - What a difference four years makes

Going through the dusty interweb archives and came across a blog entry reaction on the last U.S. election. Hope y'all savour the difference as much as I do.

Now that my mandatory two-week waiting period is up


RELATED POSTS

• My country 'tis of thee

Stupid arguments against electoral reform - Part III - "It doesn't produce stable governments"

Here's fun with semantics - people throw the word stability around a lot when talking about governments, when what they really mean is "majority". See, the fun thing about governments in Canada is that if you're the leader of your party, and you have a majority government, you can do whatever you want.

Legislatively, that is. You pick a cabinet minister, you tell him (or, 29% of the time if you're Harper, her) what bill you want introduced, you have it put on the House schedule, your party members vote for it, in the House and in committee, and ta daaa! Buffalo wings are now the fifth major food group. Of course, the PM has to have been around enough to have stacked the Senate with his appointees, or he can try and persuade opposition senators to his way of thinking, with many buffalo wings.

And this is what people mean by stability. No, not buffalo wings - the ability of a government to pass whatever legislation it wants, with only the threat of losing a future election to rein it in. And of course, the wisdom, foresight and good intentions of government members. So yeah, the threat of losing future elections.

Without this ability, the reasoning goes, the opposition will prevent bills from passing, effectively neutering our virile, manly and turgid governments. And with our current partisan system, it does kinda work that way. The Parliamentary system was conceived as adversarial, with an opposition holding the government accountable (the main vehicle of this being Question Period, or, as it is currently known, recess ("I'm rubber, the Honourable member is glue.." "No, I'M rubber, THAT Honourable member is glue...")).

And, thanks to three consecutive minority governments, we've had approximately 17 elections this millenium, and a 2000% increase in the use of the word "dysfunctional" to describe something other than the Spears family.

While the thought of going to another election in the next year makes me want to vomit (or maybe that's just all the buffalo wings I had), it's hardly a solid argument against proportional representation, for several reasons:

1) The "norm" of majority governments means that the parties aren't inclined to cooperation, preferring instead to engage in political (and, possibly, literal) dick-measuring;
2) If the first-past-the-post system isn't producing majorities, which it is already predisposed to do, then people are really divided on which party to support, then the answer is for the parties to work on not being so sucky, and not rewarding them for their suckiness with an artificial majority;
3) These shitty governments were produced by our current system - using them as examples of the ills of proportional representation is like microwaving tinfoil to prove the evils of the oven;
4) And, similar to Part II of this series, it assumes that "stability" (as defined by the ability of the govern to legislate as they see fit) it always preferable to "instability". Again - if that were the case - then we'd be better off under some form of dictatorship.

So here's the thing - proportional represenation may very well produce more minority governments. But only if that's what the electorate wants. And at the end of the day, that's the whole point of democracy - to get whatever government we want. Not for the government to get whatever it wants.

And maybe - just maybe - if minority governments become the norm, we'll see more groundbreaking policies developed through collaboration, and less "No, YOU'RE glue to infinity plus one nyah nyah nyah nyah boo boo."

RELATED POSTS

• Stupid arguments against electoral reform: Part I
• Stupid arguments against electoral reform: Part II
• Opposing Forces

Things that keep me up at night

I remember watching the results of the last U.S. election and getting that sinking, disbelieving, mind-reeling feeling that comes when mass stupidity is combined with raging hatred and widespread corruption.

For, as much as Canadian election results may frustrate me, I've never doubted their legitimacy. That is - it has never once occurred to me that a Canadian election has been rigged. I may not like our current PM, but I have no doubt he came by the position honestly, and with many sweaters.

Not so in the U.S. And with election day in two freakin' days, it actually keeps me up at night that the Republican party's total disregard for the will of the voters will manifest itself in enough voter purges, campaigns of voter misinformation, fear-mongering and vote rigging as to steal the election once again.

So, here's to you, Canada - at least your politicians are honest.

Well, more honest.

Well, less likely to try and rig elections.

Well, less likely to succeed at rigging elections.

Well, less likely to have the resources, including vast numbers of blindly-partisan assfaces who will commit election fraud.

Well, more likely to have elections when it's cold and there's hockey on.

UPDATE

Nobody in the history of the world has deserved a kick to the box more than this lady.

Fun with Fractions: Cabinet Shuffle Edition

Previous: 7/31=23%
Current: 11/38=29%

Stephen Harper: “Okay, I’ll add more women to my cabinet, but only if I can add almost as many more dudes.”

Had he kept to his previous cabinet size and appointed women instead of men:

11/31=35.5%

Believe it or not, my beef isn’t with Harper on this one (well, not completely). He’s not the one out there trumpeting the increased representation of women in his cabinet. He and his party are very open about their stance on women’s equality, which is that they don’t give a flying prairie oyster about it.

But at the very least, maybe media outlets could do a little math (gasp!) to put things into context. Pretty please?

RELATED POSTS:

• Extreme Makeover: Cabinet Edition

Stupid arguments against electoral reform - Part II - "It's too complicated"

Okay, straight up – BC-STV is more complicated than first-past-the-post. There’s rankings, and transfers, and mathematical equations, oh my! But my issue is with the argument that this automatically makes BC-STV a less desirable electoral system.

It’s based on the premise that simple is always preferable to complicated. Now, simplicity may be a virtue when it comes to some things (the instructions that come with IKEA furniture), but it may not be the best course of action in other cases (“Cancer, eh? Chemotherapy is awfully complicated. Here, have a milkshake.”)

The fact is, there are plenty of times in life where we opt for complicated over simple because it gives us better results. It may be something as important as cancer treatments, or as simple as what’s for dinner (“Hmm, pasta with pesto and sautéed vegetables? Naw, I’ll just eat flour out of the bag.”)

But Floyd, some people might say, simple might not always preferable to complicated in every circumstance, but it is when it comes to electoral systems.

And to them, I say – well, why stop at first-past-the-post, then? There are, after all, even simpler systems out there, and by that logic, they are better. After all, with first-past-the-post, there are multiple names on the ballot – wouldn’t it be simpler to just have one? Or, keep the multiple names, but skip the whole “counting” part.

Again, it comes back to the same point – it’s not what’s simpler or more complicated, but what gets the best results. So if someone tells me, “The best results are declining voter turnout, governments elected by less than 40% of voters, millions of people feeling their votes are wasted”, then I tell them I guess they’ll want to stick with first-past-the-post.

But, when someone tells me, “I’m not voting for BC-STV, it’s too complicated!”, my only response is, “I’m voting for BC-STV because first-past-the-post is too simple to produce truly democratic results that accurately reflect the diversity of the electorate.”

And then I direct them to this cartoon which explains BC-STV. Simply.

Related Posts:

Stupid arguments against electoral reform - Part I

Stupid arguments against electoral reform - Part I

We in Soviet Canuckistan like to act all shocked and dismayed at the flawed U.S. system, shaking our heads sadly at the poor dears who, in 2008, elected a president who earned 47.9% of the popular vote, compared to his opponent's 48.4%. Many's the person (my person included) who has sadly and smugly sighed that the U.S. isn't a real democracy.

Well, the joke's on us, and has been on us a long time. At least Bush got 48% of the American people to vote for him. Our current Prime Minister was supported by just over a third of Canadian voters - 37.6% - with voter turnout at an all-time low.

And in all fairness to the man in blue, he's not the only PM to win this way - in fact, he's the norm, not the exception. In 2000, Jean Chrétien earned 3% more of the popular than Stevie this time around, but this gave him his third majority government. Go back to 1951 - 41.4% of the vote meant a majority of seats for Mackenzie King - although his own wasn't among them, having lost in the riding of Prince Albert (shout out to my peeps in P.A.!).

Now, maybe this doesn't bother some people...but it pisses me right the hell off. Like a lot of people, it strikes me as fundamentally undemocratic that the preferences of voters get so distorted through our system. And, on a more basic, kindergarten-esque level - it's just damn unfair.

Now 57% might be enough to elect a a government, but not enough to change the way we elect that government. But here's the thing - in just under seven months, the people of Beautiful British Columbia are getting another crack at changing the way our electoral system works.

I'm going to come right out and say it - I want this. I want it so bad that not only can I taste it, I have entire imaginary meals out of proportional representation topped off with a collaborative politics dessert, and topped with a tall, refreshing glass of increased voter engagement. Mmmm...democraticalicious...

But - and this astonishes and angers me - there's voter turnout sinking like a stone, antagonistic partisan politics that take the 'us vs. them' mentality to new heights of middle school cliqueness, (if middle schoolers took out ads trashing about each other on national TV), with so many orphan voters and wasted votes - and some people are absolutely fine with this. The chance for change is coming soon and they're not going to take it.

After thinking about it a bit (specifically, the time between performances on So You Think You Can Dance Canada), I came to a conclusion about the best, and easiest way, for me explain why electoral reform is so awesome that it makes my heart develop many boners. I'm going to start adding to the list of reasons I've heard against electoral reform, and take each of them, one at a time, out into the back alley, and kick its teeth in.

And by that, I mean, I'm going to carefully and thoroughly examine it for validity, soundness and accuracy...

And then kick its teeth in.

But not until after So You Think You Can Dance Canada.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There's some terms out there that get so horribly misused I almost want to take out restraining orders on their behalf against the general population. Political correctness, for one (poor dear) Begs the question, for another. And unique, that which is one-of-a-kind, without equal, endlessly saddled with useless superlatives...listen, people, something is either unique or it's not. Your friend is not VERY unique. Your idea is not REALLY unique. Your band's sound is not SORTA unique. And your child is not TOTALLY unique - she's unique, sure, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON IN THE FRAKKIN' WORLD, and I don't care how well she finger paints.

But as much as the use and abuse of such terms tickles my grouchy bone, at least they're ACTUAL terms. Unlike certain other terms which are totally, completely, and without question MADE-UP because actual language doesn't reflect the fantasy world their users have concocted in their head. Sincethese terms have no fixed meaning, sincethey do not refer to an actual, specific thing, they are little better than fancy swears, multi-syllabic slurs that signify an excess of opinion in comparison to actual knowledge. (...don't look at me like that!)

However, as most of these are politically-loaded (the terms that one makes up when one cracks one's knee against that stupid support under one's dining room table for the UMPTEENTH time notwithstanding) the one tiny silver lining on the vomit cloud is that their use, while telling you nothing about the subject in question, tells you plenty about the speaker.

For example: "Partial-birth abortion." means "I somehow believe that women who want abortions wait until the last possible second. Why? I don't know. Maybe pregnancy is really fun? Maybe they just didn't notice? Maybe they were too busy washing their hair and talking about boys? Maybe they want the largest possible fetus to sacrifice to the secret cabal of aborto-feminists that runs the world so that now men have fewer rights than women, even though all the legal, financial and economic evidence points to the opposite? How am I supposed to know? Bitches be crazy."

"Slut." Sars at Tomato Nation says this better than I ever could.

And the one that is currently a hot topic in Vic City,, due to recent events:

"Judicial Activism", which means "I don't like this ruling, but I don't have the basic legal knowledge or intellectual standards to try and understand the judge's decision, therefore I am going to make a values-based argument against what I see as the outcome of that decision - that people are setting up a tent city in Beacon Hill Park - and fan the divisive flames of manufactured outrage, rather than dispute what is essentially a narrow legal decision that a municipal by-law forbidding the erection of temporary shelter in public parks when a)sleeping in public parks is not illegal and b)there is a vast and recognized shortage of shelter beds, violates section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person. Because that would take, uh, effort. And brains. And a desire to be constructive and help solve a difficult, frustrating and tragic problem, rather than complaining that liberal elites and smelly street people are ganging up on me like a bunch of meanies."

FYI, Michael Smyth. Pass it on to your buddy Ian, too...maybe he'll calm down if he knows those "softheaded liberal activists" exist only in his mind...

We'll always have Lansdowne Park

Oh, Stephane (whose name is spelled with an accent, I know, but I am too lazy to figure out how to provide one). You may not remember me (In fact you probably don't). It was almost 10 years ago now, and hundreds of young women (and men) just like me have come and gone. I, a lowly House of Commons Page, and you, the nebbish yet persistant Quebec lieutenant in Chretien's cabinet who kept me up all night...

...with the Opposition's filibustering of your much-maligned Clarity Act.

Oh, my dear, the memories from all those months around the House. Remember that time when you were on the MP team that played the pages, and we won? That was totally sweet. I scored the first goal and wrote a poem about it that was read into the record and then Peter MacKay, who was totally the handsomest (as in: "only handsome") MP asked me for a copy and...No, no, this is about you. You, who are equally at ease at the head of a federal party as you are hustling along the pitch in your matching green jersey and shorts. Well, maybe not equally.

Now, I wouldn't say this about just any leader of Canadian federal political party but...I like you. I really, truly, like you...as a friend. Well, acquaintance. Well, person who brought you water before your speeches...a couple of times. (And beat you at soccer). But that's not the point! The point is - why am I saying this? Why now, after so many years? Because you dear, sweet, ridiculously intelligent man...it's over. It's really, truly finally over. Who ever thought you'd make it as far as you did? But you just couldn't win over the hearts of Canadians from that tall, dark and sorta-handsome-but-those-dead-eyes-and-that-cold-smile-are-too-freaky-for-him-to-really-pull-it-off man. It's not you, it's them.

Well, it's sorta you.

But don't let that keep you down. Take heart in your many friends - all of whom are now secretly vyying for your job - and enjoy your last stretch as leader. Go for broke in Question Period ("When will the Prime Minister answer the question - what do kittens taste like?"). Play some soccer. I'll even let you win this time.

Adventures in Lotus Land - Of Bottle Returns and Homelessness

Well, Double-Ds and I have been in town for over three months now, and it's been a mostly smooth transition for me back into the Vic City groove...with a few notable exceptions. Many of these have been fermenting in my brain, so expect later posts on them (if I'm not in jail because these freakin' pedestrians DO NOT LOOK BEFORE THEY STEP OUT INTO THE ROAD and with all of the elderly drivers here not to mention the ROWDY TEENAGERS and DRUNKS and PEOPLE WHO TALK ON THEIR PHONES do you really want to PUT YOUR LIFE INTO THE HANDS OF A COMPLETE STANGER'S REFLEXES although thankfully for you mine have been honed by non-stop Rock Band sessions which is seriously THE BEST GAME ON EARTH).

One area that makes us sorely miss O-Town (and Ontario in general) is liquor stores. In the big province, it's still a provincial crown corporation, and boy, is the LCBO a yuppies dream. Big spacious stores, attractive colour schemes, a gift section, free glossy magazine with recipes and pretty pictures. Together with the Beer Store (which is basically every beer-lover's fantasy - a building that's 1/4 open space and 3/4 fridge) they dot the Ontario landscape, beckoning to thirsty people with their size, cleanliness and consistent pricing which includes taxes right on the shelf tag.

A couple of years ago, Ontario also got on the bottle deposit bandwagon - for alcoholic beverages only. Now, this was actually a bit of a pain for the DD and I, because I, as a good little west-coaster, have been recycling since utero, and therefore needed no incentive to keep containers out of the garbage other than the feeling of satisfaction and smug superiority that comes with practicing the three Rs. Still, we dutifully stacked our empty booze holders in the garage, and packed them away with us to the beer store when we when to pick up our next case. There, we would wait in line to return the empty bottles and get the little ticket stub which was immediately put towards purchasing full bottles - thus completing the circle of life.

So it was a bit of a shock when we went to our yuppie wine store in downtown Vic City and, rather than a friendly greeting and recognition of our civic mindfulness, we were awkwardly given a flat and a wine crate and - I kid you not - asked to leave the store to sort them. Yes, leave the store, crouch over on the sidewalk, and rummage through our empties like (and if you are from this city, have been to this city, or know anything about this city then you know how this ends...) street people.

Because it seems that - in all my years away - recycling empties has gone from the noble task of suburbanites and high school sports teams to a dirty thing that only the pariahs of our beautiful city participate in. And, since it's now a task of the "undesirables", the business who must, poor dears, interact with these ruffians have NO OTHER CHOICE than to make the entire process as difficult and humiliating as possible.

And why not? This is, after all, the city which has bravely sought to tackle the tragic, complex and difficult question of homelessness, and the implicated issues of addiction and mental illness, by passing random by-laws which are so blatant and short-sighted as to fall short of being "band-aid" solution - these, my friends, are "little pieces of tissue that guys put on their face when they nick themselves while shaving" solutions. Like the genius one back when I was in high school which a bunch of us learned about while waiting for the crowd to disperse after watching New Year's Eve fireworks downtown and a couple of cops came up to us and told us to stop what we were doing (and we thought they were kidding so they had to repeat themselves that) sitting on the sidewalk was illegal. And, of course, the next big one which was famously struck down just this last week - the "Oh, you have no where to sleep and it's cold and raining? Screw you!" by-law.

Not that I have all the answers (well I do, but it involves people diverting resources for the good of their fellow citizens with noting but the warm fuzzy feeling that comes with being a decent human being in return, which makes me a socialiest/commie/terrorist bastard, I guess), but it's amazing what 2 minutes hunched over a cold sidewalk pawing empty bottles does the ol' empathy gland.

Nerve centre? Cortex? Empathy cortex...yeah, that sounds right.

Discovery of the Week

Oh oh oh soooo exciting! So, I've been reading up more on this eating local, 100-mile diet thing...so DD and I found our way to the local farmer's market on opening day last week. And there were organic tomatoes and cucumber and asparagus and radishes and spinach and all the ususal suspects. And then there was (drumroll, bated breath, please): A LOCAL ARTISAN CHEESEMAKER AIEEEEE!!!!

So. Exciting. They were all sold out of everything but feta, but we sampled their blue cheese (divine) and a couple other soft cheeses and oooooohhhhh so good. So I'm thinking maybe this summer I'll try going full-out some week on a local diet, and see how it goes. I was sure about it, but at least know I know that, if nothing else, I can eat cheese all week.

In other news, the garden, she is growing - we've had over 3 inches of rain this past week, so the plants and veggies and lawn are just sprouting up like crazy. I mean, they are doing that because I am such an excellent gardener!

And - in work news - I guess I lost the bet I had...with myself. It wasn't Maurice Vellacott who introduced the first fetal rights bill, but his friend and party-member Leon Benoit. There'll be a post on this later at The Fetal Position, 'cause I'd like to go in-depth on this one. It is a very particular issue. But I'm still holding out for good old Mauriiice in the anti-abortion bill area. Don't let me down again!

Oh, wait - please do. Please let me down, now and forever.

New blog, and other things...

Wow, this is an entry-riffic day so far. Coupla things; I'm gonna start with the small stuff first and work my way down to the heavies:

1)I have an rss feed now. I think. Maybe? Also possibly an atom feed, but I'm not 100% sure. It is so funny how my boss thinks I am some sort of Internet whiz...

2)I've started posting on a new blog called E-Parliament. For you political junkies out there...

3)I've also started a new blog called Fetal Position, at http://getyourowndamnuterus.blogspot.com. It's still under construction, and it's mostly there because to give me place to vent on issues surrounding reproductive rights. Maybe it's all the freakin' right-wing, pro-life, "fetuses are more important than woman" crap I get in the mail, maybe it's the creepingly regressive movement that's pushing back women's rights, maybe it's the time that I once sat at my computer typing with my 50-year-old mother of two co-worker doing the same while our boss was lectured on the pro-life agenda by a 23-year-old boy and the full assbackwardness of that fact finally surfaced in between thoughts on Bill Napoli and Canada's own uterus-covetor extraordinaire, Maurice Vellacott, but the last month or so I've found myself driven to the point of wordless rage more times than I can remember over the holier-than-thou crap that spews out of pro-lifers mouths as if recognizing women as full human beings is the single most immoral thing they've ever heard of.

SO! If that's your bag, check it out. And I'd like to thank everyone who spends their valuable time travellin' with Floyd. And also to those who shared their gardening stories/suggestions/memories of the time I killed their plants. I will try and have herbs and edible flowers to go with my radishes.

It takes a village to raise a child, but just one idiot to write a budget

Oh, Jim Flaherty. Jim jim jim. Jimmy jimmy jim-bob bobby jim. What are we going to do with you?

I know, I know, you've got it tough. Minister of Finance for an entire country. The first budget for a party that has not held power in over a decade, and, technically, never governed really governed this country in its current incarnation. No matter what you did, somebody was bound to complain. I hear ya!

And really, I shouldn't be complaining about you. It's not your fault that your so-called economist boss put forward two of the most economically unsound campaign promises since...well, okay, since the Liberals promised to cut the GST. But at least they had the good sense to not follow through with it.

'Cause here's the thing, Jim. This whole 1% GST cut? Is awesome - for you. And your golfing buddies. And all other high-income earners in Canada. Here's some simple math for you (and it'd better be simple, for the guy who thought that 15.5% was a smaller amount than 15%).

Last year's income tax cuts put around 1$ back in taxpayers' pockets for every 100$ they earned between $8500-34,000. It also, by raising the basic personal exemption by $500, gave an automatic $75 back for everyone earning at least $8500. If you made $34000 or more, it meant savings of between $250-300.

In order to get the same savings out of a 1% GST cut, someone earning $34000 would have to spend $25,000-30,000. Yes, that's right - THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PRE-TAX DOLLAR THEY EARNED. Genius! Spend to save! Brilliant:

Person 1: Love the new car!
Person 2: Thanks! It cost $50,000. I was going to buy the $25,000 one, but I realized I could save twice as much on the GST if I bought the more expensive one. Now I have an extra $500 towards retirement.
Person 1: But...couldn't you have an extra $25,000 by buying the cheaper one?
Person 2: Whuh?...I guess...you...SHUT UP YOU'RE STUPID I HATE YOU

And don't even get me started on your Universal Child Care Benefit. Oh, too late! So, let's see...study after study comes out showing that early access to educational and developmental programs is the key determinant in future success. Countries around the world (and Quebec right here at home) progress towards universal daycare. The former Minister of Social Development and Making Hockey Dads Stare in Awe manages to pull a goddamn miracle out of his ass and get ALL 10 provinces to sign Childcare Agreements whereby they will receive federal funding to creat childcare spaces that meet the QUAD criteria of Quality, Universal, Accessible, and Developmental.

And then your boss says, "Fuck that! $1200 taxable bucks a year per kid under six! For everyone! No matter if you're barely scraping by, or if you wipe your kid's ass with hundred-dollar bills!"

And you're all - fo sho, dawg. I've already helped out my privileged male friends with stay-at-home wives earning more than $100,000 grand once - why not do it again?

Because, here's the rub: those are the people who will benefit most. Well-off, single-income families (and not to make this a gender issue, but...OH WAIT. THIS TOTALLY IS A GENDER ISSUE. 'Cause the number of stay-at-home dads is about as high as the number of female heads of companies or states. WHAT A CRAZY COINCIDENCE. But now, thanks to this extra taxable $1200 a year, moms have a choice! They can choose to stay at home with their kid(s), or they can choose to...stay at home anyway because the real problem is that it is almost impossible to find quality, affordable daycare outside of Quebec!) will keep the most of the benefit. Lower income, two-earners households will keep the least. Plus, some of their other benefits are being rolled back. Oh, yes, Stephen Harper, champion of the working Canadian family - the way he wants it, with Dad off to the office and mom making dinner and babies.

Dammit, Jim, I'm a spin doctor, not an economist, but even I can see that your plan sucks. It sucks so much that even light cannot escape its swirling vortex of doom. Now, to be fair to you, I can hardly claim full non-partisan status. But, to be fair to me, the budget sucks. I don't want to save by spending, I want to save when I earn. I don't want you to throw spare change at parents, I want you to give them real choice. I don't want a transit tax credit, I want a bus with brakes that don't squeal like a group of teenage girls at a Simple Plan concert.

I don't want a paltry cheque, a slap on the back, and a hearty "Here you go - now fend for yourself!" I do want a village, a community, a country that grows and prospers together.

And at the end of the day, all I can do is rally the villagers. Normally that means pitchforks and torches and thunderstorms...so I guess that explains the extra 1,000 RCMP officers.

Maybe you're not such an idiot, after all.

So it's true!

The truth about Stephen Harper's diet revealed on the GO trains...

As Bad As You Can Possibly Imagine

Content Note from 2021: contains references to sexual assault. Edited to remove transphobic language.

Now, I know this story has been out for awhile, but I just wanted to weigh in on the whole South Dakota abortion ban boondoggle. Let me start off by giving my heartfelt thanks to Bill Napoli. Bill, or B-Nap, as I like to fondly refer to him, is one of those few men out there who really goes the distance to try and bridge the gender gap. He's one of those few dicks (and I mean that literally) who's willing to put his money where his mouth is and try to get into the mind of a pregnant person. Now, of course, being a dick, B-Nap can't ever really know what it's like to be either of those things. But at least he's thought about it. I mean, A LOT. Especially in the case of rape victims. I would imagine that, based on this video, he has selflessly spent at least the better part of his life since puberty thinking about rape victims. Especially young, nubile, virginal rape victims. To which I can only ask, WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE BILL NAPOLIS OF THE WORLD? Where are the rest of these men who will take the time out of their day, packed with important manly things, to ponder vivid and brutal rape scenarios, replaying them over and over in their minds until their wives can't help but wonder why they are suddenly being asked to dress up like Catholic school girls during sex? WHERE? Now, a lot of people will say that the opinions of men who will never have to face the physical, emotional and psychological realities of pregnancies are somehow less valid when it comes to that issue. But I think what B-Nap has shown is that if you think about something a lot, then you are totally qualified to pass judgement on it. This is also known as the "professional sports fan" syndrome, as in "You suck Redden! Learn to skate! If I could get off this couch without falling over, I'd show you a thing or two about [falls over]". I would also be curious to now where B-Nap stands on gay rights. I would guess that he would be against them. Now, it may seem hateful and ignorant, ladies, but him and other supposed "homophobes" are actually doing us a favour! It is obvious that only cishet men can really care about women: after all, who spends more time thinking about the violent sodomy of young female virgins?   So thanks, B-Nap, for reminding me that that certain type of man still exists. The type of man who doesn't need a medical degree, or a uterus, to know what the standard for pregnancy rights in this country should be. The type of man who's willing to spend countless hours imagining the most horrible rape he can, and then brave enough to go on TV and share it with the nation. The type of man who knows that there aren't many women out there who would procreate with his type of man voluntarily, and so decides to make some important changes within himself, like becoming a politician and making a law that allows him and his type to rape and then force their victims to bear their children, just like in that mythical Stone Age his blasphemous science teacher once told him about. So to you, B-Nap, I say, may I never forget that your type is not yet extinct. And so determined am I to remember this fact, that I even purchased a little memento.

Opposing Forces

There's few times more profoundly disorganized in politics than a change of governing parties. It's like moving to a new home, times one thousand. I mean, there's the actual moving part - defeated and retiring MPs cleaning out their offices, former Cabinet Ministers giving up the cushy corner spot for the broom closet in the attic, my co-worker and I living in fear that someone will notice we have a (small, cold, usually functioning) bathroom in our office and try for a hostile takeover, the new Government Whip trying to buck decades of tradition by abandoning the "MPs assigned those plum offices in Centre Block by seniority" in favour of kicking out all opposition MPs before the House opened, only to be stopped by the House of Commons Material Management staff who are a)unionized, and b)reasonable enough to explain to him doing a move of that magnituted before the House opens is nigh impossible, asshole (well...maybe that last part was silent) - and then some.

There are websites that need updating, contact lists that need changing, people out job-searching (Liberals), people out desperately looking for someone, anyone, who can stomach even the cushiest of jobs working for them (Conservatives), people upstairs at the vending machine wondering why they stopped stocking Twix (me), and so on.

So, it's been a pretty big change. Now, very few Liberal staffers have ever worked in Opposition before, and people were all "Oooh, it's going to be sooo hard, how're we going to do this, where's my cushy ministerial job at age 26 that I, like, totally am qualified for, I'm scared, hold me!" and yet...not so much. From a communications perspective, Opposition is a breeze. Opposition is not only shooting fish in a barrel, it's shooting dead fish who have been immobilized with tiny chains, using a laser-sighted bazooka. Because at the end of the day? It's waaaaaaay easier to complain about something than to actually do something.

For example: Let's say I am the Minister Finance. Everyday, people are all up in my face, all "My taxes are too high! Why are my taxes so high? This is bullshit! I drove all the way here my fancy SUV on these nice roads past all these structural sound bridges and first-rate hospitals to tell you this, you big jerk! Why aren't you doing anything about it? I pay my taxes! I know my rights! I'm a citizen blah blah blah blah" and so on.

Now I, the Minister of Finace, have to come up with a plan. It should, ideally, be a good plan, but thanks to the miracle of partisan politics, it doesn't really matter because whatever I propose, my party (the government) will support me and every other party will say that my plan's not worth the 100% post-consumer recycled paper it's written on. I cannot stress this enough - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MY PLAN IS. I could have the best, most even-handed, most realistic, most scientifically-supported plan in all of creation, and the opposition will say that it is a pile of bear shit. Conversely, I could have a plan that IS actually bear shit, and my party will say that it's magical golden bear shit which will amazingly solve all problems, ever, and truth be damned!

But the bottom line is - I, the Minister, still have to do something. I have to get research done, hire policy analysts, economists, specialists in their fields; I have to go over this research and policy analysis and guide it and approve and have it go through the single most confusing internal process in the known world and throughout it all, defend myself against the inevitable attacks from the opposition.

And now, let's pretend I am in the opposition. Here is the sum of my work day: "Mister Speaker, the Minister of Finance has clearly come up with the single worst piece of legislation ever. When will he resign?". Then, I go have a martini in the lobby.

Okay, I'm exaggerate slightly. The MPs are far more likely to grab a Keith's.

Seriously, though, even my job as a staffer in an Official Opposition office is a lot easier. It's busier, but it's easier. Let me explain the first by explaining the second:

We've already discussed how much less effort it takes to complain than to actually accomplish something. So, I don't have to spend any of my time thinking up ways to promote and defend the government's policies. All of my writing can basically be summed up as "The government stinks. Like, ew. Gross!"

That being said - it's a lot easier to write those pieces. And somebody in the know caught on to this fact...so now I have to write a lot more. So! Like I said - easier but busier.

Also fun - when people call up to complain about how the government stinks - before, I had to get all informed about stuff and get the official line and explain to them that the stench was really the overpowering smell of the government's inherent awesomeness. Now, I can just go, "Oh yeah, they totally stink! Like, ew. Gross!" And it is waaaay easier to say that than to write it. Honestly, that is kind of my ideal job - people calling me up to say how much they hate certain sucky things (our current government, tailgaters, mushy peas, the fact that Everybody Loves Raymond ran for a zillion years and Firefly got pulled before one full season) and I would totally agree and we'd bitch together and maybe I'd have some Ben & Jerry's and later we could braid each others hair.

Yeeeeaaaah....this opposition thing isn't going to be that bad, after all.