Clearcut Blogging

Ten Reasons Why Polygamy Should Be Illegal

2006-05-17T06:33:00.000-07:00

In all polygamous cultures on the planet, women have extremely low status. All must obey their husbands, fathers, or brothers at all times. All are poor with few or no rights. In many, the women are virtual prisoners of their family compounds. Almost none get to choose who they marry, and many are married against their will to much older men. Moreover, the religions in these cultures assign women very low status, which teaches women not to expect more out of life for themselves. Thus, despite the polygamists' arguments, polygamy is not about rights: it's about the power over and control of one group by another.
Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It's not about women's freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have: it's about women being owned by men.
Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women. If one man can take 20 women as spouses, then 19 men must do without spouses entirely. For this reason, polygamous cultures have to deal with the problem of excess males, either through wars and conflicts or through ostracization. This skewing of the natural ratio would create conflict in Canada.
Most North American "families" in polygamous situations are on welfare or food stamps. The men in these "families" cannot financially support all the women and children, and the women are generally not permitted the freedom to choose a career and work outside the family compound. This shows that in a modern society, polygamous marriages are neither healthy nor stable institutions.
The media has shown some polygamous women claiming that they are happy in their multiple marriages. But these statements have to be viewed carefully. According to the religion of these cultures, women are only permitted into heaven by permission of their "husband." In addition, if these women make a statement that could be construed as anti-polygamy, the leadership of the religious community will take away their children. Thus, women in these cultures are afraid to reveal their true thoughts and feelings or to jeopardize their fragile status. Meanwhile, many women who have left these polygamous cults describe the complete subjugation they had to endure. For this reason, the statements of polygamous women cannot be taken at face value.
Legal polygamy would turn immigration into a nightmare. An immigrant can claim to be wed to half a nation of women and demand that all these women be brought to Canada. Polygamists can arrive at the border and demand refugee status because of persecution. Sorting out these claims would be impossible, since most nations refuse to give legal status to such marriages.
Legalized polygamy would reduce women's rights. Polygamous cults from all over the world would start immigrating to Canada to take advantage of a right to live this lifestyle. Once they take citizenship, they would be able to vote for the values they believe in – low status for women. Moreover, they would raise their enormous families of children to believe these same values, which would further add to the anti-women voting pool. In a short period of time, 200 years of struggle for women's rights would vanish.
The issue of same-sex marriage is not at all in the same category as polygamous marriage. First, same-sex marriage is still a partnership and relationship of two people, most often with the objective of starting a family. Second, nonheterosexuality is a biological state, not a choice. In contrast, nobody is born a polygamist. Thus, polygamy is not a rights situation in the same sense that nonheterosexual marriage recognition is a rights situation. Third, same-sex marriage does not affect anyone except the two people involved; whereas polygamous marriage affects all of society because of its impact on women's status in Canada.
In Canada, marriage is a partnership and a relationship. Polygamy turns marriage into a cattle drive.
Canada should be prepared to protect the lifestyle choices of those who have sexual-family forms that are not marriages. A multiple sexual partners lifestyle is not and should never be illegal in Canada. In addition, having children with multiple partners or sharing one father for several women's children should never be illegal either. These are lifestyle choices. However, Canada has the right and the responsibility to recognize only one spouse as a legal spouse and refuse to recognize all others. In other words, Canada cannot prevent polygamists from doing what they do, but they can refuse to grant it any legal status.

Tory Sharia

2006-02-25T06:49:00.000-08:00

The state of South Dakota is in the process of turning back the clock to return to the Golden Age of Before Abortion. Unless someone breaks the governor's arms in the next short while, he will be signing into law the criminalization of all abortions except where the mother's health is at risk.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Sharia is not something exclusive to Islam. Christian fundamentalists and conservatives have their own version of sharia, and they are just as willing to use government to push through their agendas. Polls have shown that Christian conservatives in the US would like to see all abortions illegal (regardless of the health of the mother); divorce, nonheterosexuality, and nonmarital sex illegal; corporal punishment of children *legal*; the death penality enforced in all states; and women relegated to the home.

There is a vague sense that if Americans would only return to the True Values of the Judeo-Christian Heritage, then everything would be all right again. America would return to its rightful place as worshipped master of the world, crime would evaporate, and everyone would eat their vegetables.

Which is so word-for-word an echo of the Islamic Wahhabist desire to return to their Golden Age.

What does democracy mean when a powerful minority group can force their religious ideologies on a secular majority? The Wahhabits don't claim to be democratic; but the American Christian fundamentalists do.

I am concerned that Canadian religious conservatives, including the roster of wingnuts in the Tory ranks, might take South Dakota as an example of what kind of sharia is possible in Canada.

The sooner we bring RU486 on the market, the better.

The Big Fat Book of Offensive Religious Cartoons

2006-02-16T11:51:00.000-08:00

Spying on Peace Groups

2006-02-11T12:04:00.000-08:00

As the US government continues to justify its phone taps on peace and social justice groups, one group explains why it doesn't really mind. This article by Bob Burnett appeared in the Huffington Post in California:

Still Suspicious After All These Years

Which American religious group has been under surveillance for 350 years? It's the Quakers. So last week, when Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy revealed that the Department of Defense has been spying on Burlington Quakers, it didn't come as a surprise. We're used to it.

Leahy's revelation came on the heels of the December 14th news that the National Security Agency spied on a Florida Quaker Meeting - labeled it a threat.
If you just heard about these outrages, you might ask why the White House cares about Quakers? Why expend public funds spying on a group that many Americans primarily associate with breakfast cereal?

The answer is that Quakers are liberal Christians who believe that Jesus taught his followers to work for peace on earth. We're against war and for justice. As a result, we disagree with the policies of the Bush Administration, as we do with the policies of most Administrations.

This got us in trouble early on. First, under Oliver Cromwell, in 1652, and then with King Charles II, we wouldn't join the English army. So we were spied upon, thrown in prison, and our Meeting Houses burned down. The persecution didn't end until 1689, when Quaker leader, William Penn, convinced King James II to sign the act of religious toleration. (Which, by the way, guaranteed freedom of religion for all faiths.)

In the meantime, many Quakers came to the American colonies hoping to find acceptance. While we did take sanctuary in New Jersey and Pennsylvania - founded by the same William Penn, we were persecuted in other states. This initiated an American tradition of spying on Quakers. We were under surveillance during the Civil War, the first and second World Wars, the Wars in Korea and in Vietnam. Why should the War on Terror be any different?

There are several Quaker practices that seem to drive politicians crazy, cause them to spy on us. But, it's not just American politicians. We were active in other countries like Germany, when the Nazis were in power, and Iraq, under the despicable Saddam Hussein. They, too, kept us under surveillance and, occasionally, imprisoned our representatives, or worse.

We hold three beliefs that incense politicians of all stripes. The first is that we don't agree that violence and war are the best way to get things done. Many Americans respond: Duh, no wonder you get hassled; violence is the American way and war is good for business.

We don't agree. More than that, we feel that it is our responsibility to let elected officials know that we don't accept their militaristic policies. We may sit silently in our Sunday Meetings, but we are vocal in the public arena. Quakers have the temerity to suggest that there may be a better way to bring about world peace than by threatening, or killing, those who disagree with us.

We have a second value that pushes the buttons of many politicians - we believe in equality. We hold that everyone should have a voice: young and old, black and white, gay and straight, men and women. Many of our leaders are women. (A grandmother was the organizer of the Florida anti-war meeting taped by the NSA.)

Finally, we hold a third belief that drives the powers that be completely bonkers - we believe in openness. Quakers take very seriously the teaching of Jesus that we should tell the truth all the time. We extend this to mean that we should open all of our meetings to everyone and that we should strive to be direct. While this tradition of openness gives us a certain cachet in the progressive community, it has often met with scorn in the political world. Many elected officials scoff: How can one do the public's business by being open and direct?

Despite criticism, we persist in our quaint practice of telling the truth. In Quaker-speak we call this, speaking truth to power. This means that if we are going to stage an anti-war protest - a frequent occurrence these days - we tell the authorities about it ahead of time. It also implies that if we are going to participate in acts of civil disobedience, such as blocking the entrance to the torture school - the Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning - we give prior warning. Quakers believe that directness is the key to building trust between adversaries: we should say what we mean and then doing what we say.

Sadly, the Bush Administration finds these Quaker beliefs to be threatening. They have joined a long list of Presidencies that find it necessary to keep us under surveillance. We're sorry that they feel this way and have a suggestion that may make their job easier.

Rather than tap our phones, videotape our gatherings with hidden cameras, or plant informers among us, why don't you do the obvious? Come into our meetings and ask us what we plan to do. We'll tell you the truth. We're Quakers.

One Picture, A Thousand Outcries

2006-02-10T04:51:00.000-08:00

An article on the cartoon controversy by Signe Wilkinson, an American newspaper cartoonist. About why she doesn't make cartoons about Muslims -- and why she does. The best argument for free speech I've seen so far.

Should Hinzman Stay?

2006-02-09T13:36:00.000-08:00

Jeremy Hinzman's case isn’t simply whether a military defector from the US should be allowed to take refuge in Canada. It raises big questions about who or what the military is.

This week the Supreme Court will hear Hintzman's arguments that the War in Iraq is not a legal or ethical war, and that even as a soldier, he should have the right of conscientious objection to it.

On one level, it's cut-and-dry: either he stays or he goes, either he has the right or he doesn't. Canada took in thousands of draft dodgers during the Vietnam War, which suggests we should let him stay. However, those were not enlisted soldiers, so they had more of a case that they were conscientious objectors.

That’s on one level. But essentially, this case poses a much bigger question: Should soldiers have individual rights?

Tradition says No. Armies have to work as a single unit, and they can't tolerate soldiers making their own decisions. Military service is not a buffet.

Yet a slew of recent court decisions suggest that soldiers can be held individually accountable for their actions, even while following orders. The American soldiers who mistakenly bombed and killed four Canadian soldiers while on a routine air mission in Afghanistan faced penalties. The soldiers who ran the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq went to jail. Were these soldiers acting as individuals at these times, or were they just "doing their duty" as they understood it? In neither case did their supervisors face any penalties, which suggests that the "“single unit" idea doesn’t hold anymore.

At the same time, another group of American troops had to face the courts because they refused to follow orders while in Iraq because they had deemed the orders too dangerous. Nobody investigated whether these orders really were too dangerous: the only question was whether they refused to obey. But what if these troops had obeyed orders and then found themselves in a situation they couldn't handle and then went berserk, nutso, shooting from the hip? They would have been held individually responsible for the results of their actions. Basically, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

(Even the soldiers who tried to stop the commander who had ordered the My Lai massacre in Vietnam originally faced courtmartial. Of course, once the media got wind of the story, they were transformed into national heros).

My point is that the military is the last accepted form of slavery in the West. Once persons sign up, they no longer own their own lives. They can be shipped anywhere and ordered to do anything – including killing and dying. They are not allowed to question the motives. They are owned body, mind and soul by the state.

This system may have worked well in the past, but in the age of individual responsibility and universal education, it's fraying. We expect soldiers to think for themselves and to make ethical decisions on the spot, under fire. By punishing them for unethical actions and bad judgment, the courts have in effect assigned them responsibilities as individuals. Yet soldiers don't have rights as individuals—and aren't even supposed to be individuals.

I suspect if the military ever unionized, the face of war would change forever. And in Canada, so would the level of equipment of our soldiers and the living standards of their families. They would be slaves no more.

It bears a bit of thinking.

However, in the Hinzman case, the decision is dicey. What if we let him stay? This isn’t just a “What would the Americans say?” decision. If Hinzman can conscientiously object to a particular war as an enlisted soldier, then so can any Canadian soldier.

Maybe that's just too weird for Canadians to deal with.

Or maybe it’s about time.

The Trouble with Normal

2006-02-08T13:32:00.000-08:00

...is it always gets worse. Which is what happens when cartoons head-butt into religious taboos.

To Westerners, rioting about a cartoon isn't Normal. But in an empty economy with no future, too much sand, too much pride, and too many guns, it is.

Normal isn't always normal.

Normal is the reason why IMHO democracy can't be parachuted into violent or totalitarian countries. It just won't take. Normal is very resilient. Look at Russia: from czarist rule to Marxist revolution to Lenin and Stalin to today, it's totalitarianism all the way. On the other hand, look how quickly the US recovered from the 9/11 attacks. Look at the corruption in Canadian politics. Change the party, the tune stays the same... because it's Normal. In fact, it's almost a Canadian tradition now. And Canadians don't torch down the Parliament Buildings either, because that's not Normal.

Ironically, under the Wahabi doctrines that have taken over militant Islam, violent eradication of non-Muslims and their culture is the only way to usher in a return of the golden age of Arabic history -- an old, calm, strong Normal. If they take over the world again and return to the purist Islamic ways of the 7th century, God will forgive them for all their wrongs of the past and give them a better future.

It's their New Normal.

That's another trouble with Normal.

Gomery: A Canadian Perestroika

2006-02-02T07:22:00.000-08:00

The Gomery Inquiry was just plain gross from beginning to end, but we can cheer at least a little simply because it did happen. It has exposed major long-term patterns of abuse and corruption of those in power -- something that just isn't possible in most countries of the world.

The system still works.

But the Gomery Reports show how easily the system can morph into a slimebog.

By definition, the role of the public service is to serve the public. Not the government. It's supposed to be an independent government arm of service delivery, research, and support. Yet slowly over the past two decades, the public service has been twisted into the servant of the government in power.

What's the difference?

Public servants who advise the government in power are supposed to "speak truth to power." They do the research and present the facts on the issues to the policy-makers. But insiders in the public service have told me that normally now they are expected to provide information to justify a policy decision that has already been made. If they present facts that don't support the policy idea, then they are sent back to edit it. Ministers get angry at what they see as "partisan" public servants -- in other words, public servants who try to serve the public interest.

In one case, a department presented facts that argued against a certain policy idea, but the minister went on to implement the decision anyway (which is a minster's right: he or she doesn't have to act on the public service's information). But after the decision was made, the minister required the same department to write the documents to support the decision.

Major role confusion. Political interests are like a vampire on the neck of truth.

There are other problems that reinforce this government-servant role. Heads of departments used to rise up through the ranks of the department so that they were familiar with the information and tasks before they assumed leadership. Now heads of departments are career MBAs, interested in lateral moves to rise to the top faster. They rarely stay with one department more than two years. So in effect, these heads are not interested in the department: just in their careers. They are sycophants to the government that directs their career path.

I'm not sure that these two issues have been dealt with in plain enough terms in the Gomery Reports. However, Gomery has taken on the whole notion of ministerial accountability, because it has become ministerial ubercontrol of the public service. We could blame the public service, but we have to place bigger blame on the governing parties for abusing ministerial power and riding the public service like a mule. Perhaps once this leash is cut, the public service will be able to return to its former independent role: helping the government to avoid making stupid mistakes with our money and our future.

I'm just glad it all happened.

Being Wife of a Tory PM

2006-01-31T12:29:00.000-08:00

*
We're not even sure what her real name is.

Some say it's Laureen Teskey. Others say she now asks to be called "Mrs. Harper." Hm, but then, does that mean her name *is* "Mrs. Harper"? Did she (ack!) change it to appease the social-right-wingers in the Reform-Alliance-Conservative pack, to pretend to not be the intelligent, independent person that she apparently is?

Serious, serious ack if she did.

She has two kids, she rides a motorcycle, she's outgoing and extroverted and yet somehow married Mr. Harper. She also calls herself a "moderate" conservative and not a social conservative at all.

(I always find it reassuring to read things like that, but then, everybody thinks they're moderate, right? Does it mean anything when you call it yourself?)

She's trained as a journalist and used to run her own business, but quit to support Stephen's political career. She's always been politically active, but she has relegated herself to acting as advisor to her hubby.

Which is lovely and supportive and admirable and all that, and of course everyone knows it's next to impossible to have two careers going if one spouse is prime minister. But when I combine this with the appallingly low numbers of female candidates (and voters!) in the Tory ranks, and the pre-1960 attitudes towards childcare, feminism, reproductive choice, and "the family," I become slightly uncomfortable.

What's happened to the women's movement?

I mean, we don't even know her name.

BBC: Greenland is Melting

2006-01-30T08:59:00.000-08:00

Check out this top story on BBC: Greenland icecap is melting very quickly, sea levels are going to rise.

My question: Will the Tories now renew commitment to Kyoto, or will they give Newfoundlanders free swimming lessons?

US Military PsyOps

2006-01-27T16:49:00.000-08:00

Go here, read this: BBC on US military psychological operations in the US, Iraq and elsewhere, as revealed by government documents.

Harper Reality Check

2006-01-27T05:23:00.000-08:00

The progressive blogs are saying that Harper is a cyborg. Something to do with a wooden smile and shaking his kids’ hands at school.

But last night, the CBC told us who Harper really is (and the CBC wouldn’t LIE - even though they're evil enough to show his high school yearbook picture). He’s a quiet, reserved kind of guy who hates the public spotlight. He’s a theorist, an economist, an introverted, bookworm type who never wanted to be a politician.

Gulp. Bad career choice, dude.

But on the other hand, knowing that he’s really just shy is kind of … endearing. Okay, that’s a bit strong, but he’s just a dweeb. A philosopher-king kind of dweeb, definitely geeky.

Just like us.

He must be scared sh*tless.

But if he’s as nerdy and introverted and camera-shy as the CBC says he is (and the CBC wouldn’t LIE), then he would be the type to read blogs, rather than muscle around on Parliament Hill. He might even be reading our blogs. Hey, he might even be reading THIS blog right now.

If you are, Stevie, then hullo, welcome to the community. I’ve got a few starter tips for you to get you started off on the right (ha, get it?) foot.

1. When you have a radical new idea you want to get through Parliament, then present it like this: “We have a new idea here, and here are the basic ideas and the options we’re considering. Take some time to look it over and discuss it. If you have some other options, bring them to the table. Let’s focus our goals so that we’re working toward the same thing.” Instead of: “Here’s what we’re going to do. It’s all written in this 400-page document. No discussion, no options, no time, just shut up and sign it, and I am a CYBORG!”

2. The philosopher-king idea sounded great in Plato, but in real life, reality and philosophy don’t mix very well. You may like to align all ideas along a one-dimensional line of Right-to-left (right=good, left=stupid), but the real world is three-dimensional. The Earth is tilted on its axis. Its orbit wobbles. Its not a sphere, but an ovoid because the poles are flattened. The people on it are generally rational, but an incredible number are TSFW (too stupid for words). Toilets don’t flush, wind directions change. And watch out for that yin-yang thing: what’s good becomes bad in a different context. Tip: modify the philosophies to fit the realities, not the other way around.

3. The most heinous governments in the world have always been ideological.

4. There are really just two regions in Canada: Alberta, and The Rest Of Canada. If that’s news to you, then take a look at the election results. I don’t know what it is that does it – maybe those big hats. But Albertans are definitely cut from a different cloth, and they used the same scissors to cut you. All the more reason to do a federalism shake-down, that’s what I say. But don’t take out those scissors on us, or expect some big trouble.

5. Don’t lose sight of the irrational things of political life. Myth. Tradition. Home loyalties. Symbolism. Like the HBC being sold to an Amurican the day you walked into the Parliament Building as PM-elect. You may think the big issue of your reign will be democratic and federal reform, but it might end up being bird flu. Or mad cows. Life has a way of doing these things.

6. My final tip: Use that vast cranium to think. As much as I’m in favour of recycling, I don’t favour politicians re-using old ideas. What you thought up in the 1990s belongs in the 1990s. Think today about today. Also, keep in mind that on every issue, there is a Yes side and No side in an endless, yanking tug-of-war. But there are also those Third Options, the ones no one has considered yet. Think: "I like third options, I like third options..."

That's it, enough to get your started.

So Steve, feel free to check in regularly. I'll keep letting you know how you're doing, give you some pointers for working with us Rest-Of-Canaders. We're not so bad once you get to know us.

You can do it, buddy. Just keep your stick on the ice.

McKenna McDrama

2006-01-26T14:39:00.000-08:00

Wasn't it just yesterday, the Liberals were falling down on their knees, thanking the Almighty for their puny survival. But today, the grey creep of dawn won't spare them their dishonour.

The castle has been lost. The giant hand has moved in the black king, rolled up the drawbridge, and clanged it shut. It was all there on TV for the nation to see.

Yet their punishment is not over. Besmirched and poverty-striken from their past excesses, they now have battle each other for control of the party monster. Like Medusa’s head, it writhes, serpentine. Martin, oh Martin has fled!

It's hard to pity them. And it's hard not to -- a scrambling mix of the hopeful and the hopeless, grasping for power, unwashed and undeserving.

And then, lo and behold! -- here’s Frank McKenna, the newly minted ex-ambassador to USA, marching back across the border to trumpet anthems, wings ablaze, like a veritable messenger from God.

Frank McKenna, the cool, the unflappable. Frank McKenna, stately, solemn, dignified, his cute li’l ol’ east-coast accent firmly in check.

Frank McKenna in every newspaper, that elegantly written letter, a flourish in every paragraph. My, what a letter.

Everything about him screaming Experienced, Capable, Untainted.

Worthy.

The Liberals look up from their misery, drop their cudgels, wipe their drooling lips, gasp for air.

Could he… could he… be The One?

Polygamy in Canada

2006-01-26T07:43:00.000-08:00

Last night's Fifth Estate featured an extremist Mormon community in BC that practices polygamy. The guy they were interviewing had 20 "wives." He argued that if people have the right to be adulterous or enter same-sex marriages, then he has the right to live his lifestyle.

What was weird was that except for the multiple-wife thing (and except for the skating arena he has to rent every time his 'family' wants to go skating), he seemed kind of normal. Trust me, it was eerie.

The question, then, is what does a pluralistic, accepting nation like Canada do with polygamy? On the one hand, the government tends to want to stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. On the other hand, we know that multiple-marriages virtually always involve multiple wives, not multiple husbands. (Even the idea of multiple husbands is enough to make women run off screaming.) Moreover, polygamy women occupy a low status in their society and religion, are usually deprived of a full education, are denied birth control options, and are usually married without real consent at an age too young to know what is happening. Moreover, they live very restricted lives under a severely patriarchal system that imposes rules regarding their movements, clothing, and obedience and denies them knowledge of the outside world.

The polygamists would argue that the women have chosen this life. I would hand them a dictionary have them look up "choose."

One concern about polygamy is that the idea can spread, especially to other religious groups with strong patriarchal or Old-Testament tendencies. Western women have worked hard to gain the right to freedom and autonomy. If polygamy becomes widely accepted, then women will once again be relegated to a low status.

The courts are going to have to decide this. And it’s going to be tricky, because fundamentally, people are free to live the lifestyles they choose. So what to do?

The courts can start by focusing the definition of marriage to exclude communal groups. A Western marriage is a relationship and a partnership. A man with 20 women is neither relationship nor partnership. Moreover, multiple marriages are not in the public interest, since they would skew the ratio of available males and females in society and cause strife. So the courts can restrict the definition of spouse to 1/uno/un.

This would mean that only the first woman a man marries can be regarded as his legal wife for legal, inheritance, travel, and insurance purposes. The others would have no status except consensual adultery. If those women wish to marry someone else (or each other, as in the same-sex marriage of 2 of the 20 "wives" on TV last night!), they would have the freedom to do so. Moreover, the children of the other women would all belong entirely to their mothers.

In the case of divorce, only the legal wife can divorce. She can use adultery as the cause. (No kidding?) But the courts may want to create a form of "aggravated adultery," to refer to any situation in which the woman has to endure adultery in her own home against her will. This would open an option for legal action against the husband and the religious organization.

Yes, now we're getting into the "negative reinforcement" section...

In addition, if any of the other women want to "divorce," all they would have to do is leave -- because they're not married. If they put the father’s name is on any birth certificates, they can sue for child support for their children (otherwise, they would seek a paternity suit the old-fashioned way). Also, if the fake marriage was performed by a religious organization, she can also sue the husband and clergy for false marriage. AND if she was being held in the marriage against her will or was "married" before a reasonable age of consent into a group situation, then she can sue for these additional forms of abuse, which could carry a criminal charge.

Message from the courts: It's up to you, dude, but you will probably regret it.

I would also suggest that the RCMP should be able to seek warrants to enter premises where polygamy is suspected so that they visit the building or school and educate the "house of spouses" about their rights and their options under Canadian law. Resistance to these warrants would constitute grounds for arrest.

These laws would not make it a crime to part of a consensual sexual group, if that is the lifestyle a guy chooses. However, they would restrict the legal recognition of such arrangements and provide for the rights of the women involved. In short, they would make the risks and costs of these arrangements high enough to discourage men and religions from getting involved.

The risks to the women are already quite apparent.

Media Bias

2006-01-25T17:56:00.000-08:00

I keep reading Tory complaints about the Great Eastern-Leftist Bias in the Media and how it smears Westerners, Tories, and Tories Who Wear Cowboy Costumes in particular.

Never believed it myself, since I didn't see a single kind word said about Martin through the whole campaign.

MyBlahg reposted this article, which I'm quoting and reposting. It thumb-squishes this Tory rumour (which we could call the Great Western-Tory Bias in Reporting on the Media):

Crawl Across The Ocean puts to rest the silly liberal media bias lie with the results from this year’s McGill study on media bias during the election campaign.
During the campaign there were 3,753 articles written about the election in the 7 newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun, La Presse and Le Devoir).

Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election’s 10-1 ratio).

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half).

Rebuild?

2006-01-25T17:39:00.000-08:00

Harper says he's going to rebuild this great country of ours.

Dude, the country wasn't broken. The government was.

So like, just fix the government. Leave the country alone.

Jeesh.

Canada Survives

2006-01-24T08:45:00.000-08:00

Well, it's over, and thank God. And now we got what we got. It could have been worse.

As a little House-warming (ha ha, get it?) gesture, I have some letters for each of the parties.

Dear Conservatives:

Congratulations on your win. You managed a very cautious and painstaking campaign, with some surprising accommodations to, well, to Canada .

Your job now is to continue to accommodate, not to charge in with the cavalry. I hope we made that clear last night. No gutting of social programs, no turning back the clock, no ass-kissing of aging superpowers, no nickel-and-diming on childcare.

To Stephen Harper, welcome to the hot seat. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha...!

Dear Liberals:

Well, phew, you survived. So the moral of the story is: Canadians will not tolerate corruption, even in relatively good economic times. This is still a liberal country: but you are in time-out until you learn to behave properly.

To Paul Martin, thank you for some effective though non-stellar leadership through recent crises. I appreciate the two balanced budgets and the calm hand on the tiller. I also appreciate your resignation. Your party has to convince Canadians that it's a new Liberal party if it expects to be elected again. How about a chick for leader?

Dear NDP – or should I just call you Jack?

Jack, you deserve the seats you got. Your job over the next two years is to focus like a laser on those social issues that need to be kept alive while the Tories are in power. We’re counting on you.

Cher Bloc:

It might look tres mal, but just give it un peu de temps. Vous avez un primo opportunity here to work avec Monsieur Harper to get most of les ideals de sovereignte into the nouveau federalism. Politics cree des bedfellows etranges.

Dear Green Party:

We're standing still, mates. Time to get out the lawyers and go after the CRTC.

To all the new MPs:

We have given you a mandate. Here is it: “Now SHUT UP and WORK TOGETHER for the next THREE YEARS, and we DON’T WANT TO HEAR A PEEP OUT OF YOU." Got it?

Yours very sincerely
Clearcut Blogger

Election Night in Canada

2006-01-23T16:00:00.000-08:00

It's obvious, isn't it? Voting for the best candidate in your riding and voting for the best party in the country are the two pulls of an election ballot that are in direct conflict with each other. Either we vote dolts into Parliament or a doltish party into Parliament. The doltish party seems the greater evil.

Small wonder we're running an election over corruption.

This weekend, the Kingston Whig-Standard officially endorsed Eric Walton, the Green candidate, as the best-calibre candidate on the ballot with the best balance of good vs weak policies. But how much strength will that endorsement of an individual have against the pull of the parties?

The Star's Richard Gwyn said last week that first-past-the-post system works well. Works well for whom and for what?

The good guys don't win. First-past-the-post is really first-past-the-best.

Why I'm Voting Green

2006-01-21T11:56:00.000-08:00

Hello, greetings from southeastern Ontario. I am a blogger on other forums, and I'm seeing a need to add my voice to the expanding Green and progressive Canadian political blogsphere. If we're heading for Torydom for the next long while, then we're going to need to yell and holler loud.

Why I'm voting Green:

1. Winter hasn't come to this area for the past six years.

2. I remember the Ice Storm.

3. I don't want to shake dice when I vote.

4. I don't believe 17th-century economic theories work anymore. I don't believe they ever really did.

5. As the world becomes a global community, our politics have to become global as well.

6. As the US heads toward full economic and social collapse, I want Canada to be strong, independent, and nimble.

7. I have two children.

8. I believe politicians need to represent people, not political parties (and their funders).

9. I value healthcare more than sickcare (but I value sickcare too!).

10. I believe our problems are solvable if we focus on the root of the problem and are open to making the changes necessary to fixing them.

Okay, a spongy start for a political blog. But it'll pick up steam as I get going...