Celsius 488

So I forgot to mention that I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 a few weeks ago. A lot of people I know have seen it. While I loved Bowling for Columbine, I was highly skeptical going into 9/11. Most people suggested Moore was overly deceptive in getting his message across (I believe Laura referred to it as a "piece of crap").

Overall I would say I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was fairly entertaining, although not nearly as much so as Columbine. The picture Michael Moore paints is a disturbing, but mostly accurate one - a picture of an administration that lied to the world and took the lives of hundreds of innocent people, including its own soldiers.

Most people who complain about Fahrenheit say it wasn't "objective." I'm not sure who goes to a Michael Moore movie expecting objectivity, but whatever. There are no lies in the movie, but sure, he doesn't show 2 extreme sides of every issue - that's not his job. Yes, he shows us a picture of a happy little Iraqi boy flying a kite before the invasion. I don't think Moore expected anyone to believe all of Iraq was a happy place pre-invasion, nor was he denying the terror of Hussein's regime. But Iraq wasn't a complete totalitarian hell-hole either (like North Korea is, you know, the one without oil, but with WMDs, that we didn't invade). Moore doesn't need to show us images of "bad Iraq." He knows that we've had that shit shoveled down our throat by CNN and all the other US news media.

There seems to have been formed, over the last few years, in western society, the idea that in order to be a "moderate" person you have to believe something that falls into a narrow range in the geometric centre of extreme-left and extreme-right opinion. So if the status quo becomes far more right, so must the "centre." For example, you are considered too extreme if you say the first gulf war was about oil. But if you analyze it rationally, you'd know it was all about oil. I personally know soldiers that were there that admit that. Yet those that bring that up in an argument are treated like conspiracy theorists.

That same forced-moderation is what makes many people bash Fahrenheit 9/11. It deviates too much from what the mainstream media says about the Iraq war, and therefore it's "propaganda." There, of course, are the people who simply don't like what Moore is pointing out. These people tend to refer to the movie as being "full of lies" (without being able to point out any), they call Moore an ass (which he is) or fat (which he also is). The depressing thing is that that ass had to make a movie to tell the things that should be part of the mainstream news media. But they're too busy being concerned about whether the Olsen twins are anorexic or not.

Anyway, that was a bit rant-ish of me. To summarize, go see Fahrenheit 9/11, and try to keep an open mind. Contrast it to what you have been told so far. If something seems outlandish, do some research. If you still think Bush is great, let me know.

Hello-ween?

No trick-or-treaters!

Severely f***ed up

Jesus, it gets worse

I must apologize for the lack of blogging over the past month or so. I have been insanely busy. I still am, but I need at least a small break, so here I am blogging. While rabid political-scientists (or hacks, take your pic) have been focused on the election down south for the last month or twelve, there is another election going on back in my second-home province. This once could not be more opposite in its predictability, but it is interesting nonetheless. Phendrana Drifts says of the election:

"...it is going to be a great campaign. Intelligent, thought-provoking and about Alberta and where we want to go. Or at least I hope so."

I had hoped so too. Every now and then I try to convince myself that Ralph Klein is not a jackass. I tell myself that while he is a conservative he is relatively socially liberal and a good governor, and he is fiscally responsible as opposed to the American brand of neo-con. But then he goes and does something like this. Then I have to give it up and concede that yes, while he can slay a mean debt, he is undeniably a huge jackass. It wasn't enough for him to attack homeless people. One of the most powerful men in the country, with no real political threats, felt the need to lash out at disabled people - both at a systemic and individual level.

While the electorate may not feel the need to remind him of it, Alberta is still a democracy. In a democracy you hold no legitimate power other than that given to you by the people. All people, not just your supporters. People have the right to disagree with and heckle you. Not to throw pies, mind you, but to exercise their right of free speech. You don't have to agree with, or even acknowledge them. But you do have to respect them. You can refute their argument. But to say that someone "doesn't look handicapped"? Mr. Klein is an intelligent man, and surely as an alcoholic he is aware that you cannot tell someone's medical condition by looking at them. To suggest that someone is not handicapped because they have a cowboy hat on? Truly that is the height of arrogance.

Were Mr. Klein in the midst of a brutal election campaign his behaviour might be understandable, if not excusable. But he has no need to be disrespectful towards the disabled. His campaig focus is already disingenuous, does he really need to score cheap political points by attacking the most vulnerable in society?

I am under no illusions that Mr. Klein will be punished for his arrogance that has bordered on bullying during his latest term. He will ride to an easy victory once again, and conservatives will gather in bars to drink and brag about how Klein showed Ottawa and those handicapped people.

Takin' it to the hill

Off to parliament I go!

Like father...

I just saw Ben Mulrouney on TV telling me that Justin Trudeau is engaged. With a straight face. Oh Ben...

Hello Class

I've been reading way too much on the American election lately. So let's take a break from the politics to talk about the political science. It's time for Toby to be a Social Studies teacher. Today's lesson: The Electoral College.

As you all know, the US President is not elected by the popular vote, rather the mysterious electoral college, a group of 538 Freemasons and Skull-n'-Bones-men. Here's how it works:

• There are 538 Electors, divided among the states. Each state gets an Elector for each Congressman and Senator they have. D.C. also gets 3 Electors. Small states therefore get proportionally higher voting power (since each state has 2 senators).
• The Electoral College was created to emphasize the power of the States in the federation. You know, like a Triple-E Senate.
  
• The Electors from each state cast their vote on Dec 13th. The Electors are actual people who cast actual ballots. Even though they are chosen carefully by the states (and 26 states have enforcement laws) there is always the chance that an Elector will vote differently than they are "supposed to." In 2000 a D.C. Elector spoiled her ballot. In 1988 a West Virginia Elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen instead of Michael Dukakis. In 1976, an Elector from Washington voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford. So Nader could even get an Electoral vote!
  
• Generally the candidate who wins the popular vote gets all of a state's electoral votes (e.g., if you win 52% of the vote in California you get all 55 Electoral votes). Maine and Nebraska have provisions to split their votes, however, but they have never done so. On election day Colorado voters will vote to change their states regulations to split their 9 Electoral vote based on the popular vote. Had this been the method in the last election, George Bush would have only won 5 of Colorado's 9 votes and Al Gore would be the President. The interesting thing is that this change will take effect for this Presidential election. If Colorado is a swing state this brings up the alarming possibility of this law being challenged and the President once again being chosen by the Supreme Court.
• On January 6 Congress meets to tally the Electoral College votes. Here's an interesting bit of trivia: A candidate must have a majority, not just a plurality of electoral votes to win. If a candidate does not have a majority, the (newly elected) House elects the president from among the top 3 candidates and the Senate elects the VP! So, for example, if Kerry gets 269 Electoral votes, Bush gets 268, and Nader (or someone else) gets 1, then the President will be chosen by the House! In 1824 Andrew Jackson won both the popular vote and the Electoral College but the House chose John Quincy Adams. Frankly I'd love to see President Kerry and VP Cheney...

And you thought the constitutional monarchic responsible government parliamentary democracy was weird...

Polka-roo

Anyone else watch the debate last night? Two men competing to be leaders of the free world and they can't pick different ties?

Intra-generation gap

In honour of Duncan's birthday I have a story. I was waiting outside my French class last week and overheard an exchange between two fellow female students. One was a first year student, let's call her Redhead. The other, Brunette, was about my age, but could easily pass for a few years younger. They were talking about an assignment we have to do where we describe a photo of ourselves in French. Enjoy:

Brunette: I don't know if I have any pictures of myself to use, I usually just take them of my friends.

Redhead: Well, I could give you one. You'd look exactly like my best friend if you were like 20 years younger.

Brunette: Twenty?! What, if I was seven?!

Nope, didn't make me feel old a bit.

Damn dirty apes!

Was I the only one who - when bush said "'Was it worth it?' Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy." - heard "That's what distinguishes us from the animals?" Man, I laughed myself silly.