Persistent Political Party Problem or: Why the Cons Will Win

Seeing the 5 main Canadian parties graphed for social and economic views at CBC's Vote Compass, really drives home the point of how badly the left vote is split. Compounding on this problem is our lovely abortion of an electoral system where 38% of the vote= 46% of seats (while a party with 7% of the vote receives none). It also makes the news that Ignatieff has preemptively poopooed the idea of a coalition troubling, and essentially assures another Conservative minority government if the Libs don't manage to woo in the campaign. This might be a tactic to shut-up Harper's (hypocritical) 'coalitions are undemocratic' rhetoric, but I don't see it being very effective.

Cheers to all going into this election, let's try and keep it civil. Also lets try and replace the Conservatives.

Dear Mr. Ignatieff

I decided to email Michael Ignatieff, the Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition, to see how he feels about Bill C-15. I kept my first email short and sweet in the hopes I would get a reply sooner. Now that the Liberals have supported the bill wholeheartedly I decided to let him know how I feel about that. Below is our (short) conversation so far. I have also sent a letter to NDP member from my riding Jim Maloway a letter regarding Bill C-15 and the legalization of cannabis on the same date. Iggy is the only one who got back to me.

The Original Letter:

From: Kyle Roche
Sent: June 3, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Ignatieff, Michael - M.P. (IgnatM@parl.gc.ca)
Subject: Bill C-15

Dear Mr. Ignatieff,

I would just like to tell you that, although I am currently a member of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, I will strongly consider no longer supporting the Liberal Party of Canada (and Manitoba) should you and your party choose to support Bill C-15. I was hoping the liberal's would oppose this bill on the grounds that there is NO evidence mandatory minimums are effective. Infact the evidence is piled up to the contrary. This bill is not what Canadians want, it's just what the Conservatives want. Please do not support Bill C-15.

- Kyle Roche


Ignatieff's Reply:


From: Ignatieff, Michael - M.P. (IgnatM@parl.gc.ca)
Sent: June 23, 2009 3:12:47 PM
To: Kyle Roche

Thank you for your email regarding Bill C-15. Please be assured that your concerns have been duly noted and shall be given consideration as we craft our future policies on important issues such as crime and justice.
The Liberal Party believes that strong drug laws are only one small part of what is needed to fight gang violence. Law enforcement agencies need to have sufficient funding to deal with the many types of crimes that affect Canadian families.
To succeed in keeping our streets safe, we need to have a balanced approach. The Liberal Party believes that government can meet its responsibility of making Canadians safer by expanding on the Conservatives’ narrow-minded approach to crime and justice issues and by pushing for more effective prevention and (My note: his emphasis, not mine) rehabilitation measures.
As the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party will take responsible action on the issue of crime and justice by remaining faithful to its principles and values. We also believe that our democracy is best served by an open and constructive dialogue with all Canadians on important issues such as this. With that in mind, I thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns with me on this important matter.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me again on this or any other important issue.


Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff, M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada


Web sites of interest:
http://www.liberal.ca/
http://www.onprobation.ca/
www.liberalsenateforum.ca


My Response:

Mr. Ignatieff,


I thank you for getting back to me regarding Bill C-15, however that is all I can give you thanks for at this time.


Your reply seems to contradict the very essence of the bill you and your party (the Opposition) unanimously supported. You say you will make “Canadians safer by expanding on the Conservatives’ narrow-minded approach…by pushing for more effective prevention and rehabilitation measures.” While I agree these are two measures the Canadian government should be focusing on, especially considering how weak and under funded the current prevention and rehabilitation programs are, Bill C-15 has a heavy emphasis on enforcement, as if we didn’t spend enough on that already. You’re not expanding on the Conservatives’ “narrow-minded approach,” you’re reinforcing it!


By keeping drugs illegal you’re not making Canadians safer, if anything you’re making things more dangerous. The fact is there are a number of Canadians (about 50%) who will have used or will continue to use drugs, no matter where they are from or what laws are in place to prevent their usage. This means otherwise law abiding citizens have to deal with, and provide money to, criminal organizations. By increasing enforcement of drug laws, you will only push drugs further underground, increasing their price, only making it more profitable for gangs to deal drugs.


My (and many other Canadians) biggest qualm with this bill is the fact it introduces mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) for assorted drug crimes. Without these MMS provisions, we might have had a piece of legislation that made sense. However when the NDP proposed multiple amendments to eliminate or at least reduced the scope of these MMS, your party voted against every single one. All I can take from this is the Liberal Party supports MMS despite the literal piles of evidence showing they are ineffective and costly, especially in the case of drug crimes.


When the President for the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation said that the mandatory minimum sentence laws he wrote and introduced in the United States were the “greatest mistake of my entire career,” I would reconsider my stance if I supported MMS. When 13 of 16 expert witnesses stand in front of the Justice Committee and oppose MMS, I would think of myself as a fool for even considering them to be a viable option.


Is it better to appear weak on crime while taking a stand for the rights of all Canadians, or be weak in general and ask “How high?” when the Conservatives say “jump.” You decide Mr. Ignatieff.


- Kyle Roche


Image of the correctional facility (which we will have to build more of should bill C-15 pass) provided by: Wikipedia Commons and user Hundehalter

Why Mr. Obama?

When I first heard about Obama's online town hall I knew that some of the most popular question(s) would be related to the legalization of marijuana as it had been on the change.gov website when Obama called for ordinary citizens to voice their opinions and concerns. I was correct in this assumption but the sheer number of questions surprised even me.

Let's break it down:
A search of the questions for the phrase 'marijuana' returns 2,138 results.
Drugs, 2,233.
That's only 2% of the 104,000+ questions submitted to the website.
However...

• Under the category of 'Health Care Reform' questions related to the topic are the second and ninth most popular.

• Under 'Green Jobs and Energy' decriminalization are the 1st and 2nd biggest issues.

• 'Financial Stability's' first 4 questions all say legalize marijuana in one way or another.

• In 'Jobs' ending the war on drugs is the first and third most popular concern.

• Finally, under the heading 'Budget' the first 7 (#'s 1-7) most voted on questions for the president were related to the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana.7!

34% of the top 50 questions in these 5 categories were all basically asking the same thing. Does President Obama support the legalization and taxation of cannabis to not only save money but to make it? This speaks volumes about the scope of this issue, how much it effects, and how many people it relates to.

When the actual event came around I was sure at least one version of this questions would be brought forward. I was deeply disturbed when it wasn't. The topic would not have been acknowledged at all had Obama not stopped questioner Jared Bernstein to comment on the issue. And the comment was basically a big "fuck you very much". It felt like he was Bill O'Rielly insulting Jon Stewarts auidence.



He laughed off the question with his audience in the White House's East Room like it was some kind of a joke. After stating he thought it was "not a good strategy to grow [the] economy," the audience applauded him. I couldn't help but think "Did that really just happen?" I have always been and will continue to be a supporter of Obama but this is just not what I would expect from him. He's a self confessed (former) pot smoker yet he seems to show no sympathy towards the cause. How would he feel about the issue if he had been caught with some reefer? The racist laws he's (seemingly) trying to protect most certainly would have seen him receive, at the very least a large fine had he been caught with the drug; however he more likely would have received jail time. I can't see him making cracks about the "online audience" had this happened to him.

Why is this what people decide to applaud him on anyways? He's talking about sweeping health care reform and education reform, all of which are more worthy of applause than a dismissive comment about marijuana. These people, including Obama, need to do a little bit of research. The calls for decriminalization in recent days have been getting louder and more numerous. It seems to be the only thing that makes sense in many more ways than one. This is the quickest fix to solving the problem along the US-Mexico border because it would cripple the drug cartels that are the source of all the violence there. Demand for dirty Mexican weed falls significantly if home-grown Cali pot is made easily and readily accessible. Legalization would free up an IMMENSE amount of resource in the police force and in the prison system. It costs over a billion an estimated 33 billion dollars (source) a year to continue this fight. It would create hundreds of millions (more than a billion?) dollars a year in taxes alone. That's already, at the very least, an additional 1.5 33.5 billion (with a b) dollars annually for the government to play with. Wouldn't that be nice to have to overhaul health care or pay down the debt? Not to mention the jobs that would be created to grow and supply this plant which can be used as a recreational substance, a medicinal drug, or as a manufacturing product. It grows as fast as weeds (there's a reason it's got the nickname) and has almost limitless potential to create everything from paper to (good) hand cream. The amount of new business' that could open is an unpredictably large number. The city of Los Angeles alone currently has 180 medical marijuana dispensaries. Imagine this on a nationwide scale. The weed friendly cafe's and clubs, head shops and candy stores that would open in every town of every county in every state is unimaginable.

I also support this decision as a Canadian. If Obama legalizes weed, Canada would not be far behind, I'm sure. We almost had it before the Conservatives took over, and once they're out of office the only thing holding us back will be the fact that the U.S. wouldn't like it. For all the other reasons I cited above would be a good reason to legalize weed her in Canada. Canadians smoke more weed than any other country in the whole world and it's a miracle it's not already legalized. An estimated 44.5% of Canadians over the age of 15 have smoked pot (just ahead of the US with 42.4%), so this means even more tax dollars per capita. A shift away from the policies of yesteryear would do wonders for our economy and our provide much needed police officers across the country.

I will close with this: One expert estimated that weed, if legalized, would cost as much as tea costs gram per gram. Tea costs 0.5 cents/gram. (I read this in an old article in Macleans magazine).

Thanks for reading.

Image credit:
#1
#2

Where does Alex Castellanos get off?

In a recent article published on CNN's website columnist Alex Castellanos offers up his feelings about Barack Obama; suggesting he will be a 'one term President'. For the sake of the planet I hope he's wrong. His article is thick with sarcasm, rhetoric, and finger pointing, yet offers no solutions, compromises, or suggestions, other than his closing comment about Obama needing to grow up (more on this later).

He says:

Washington was doing such a great job making things work before the meltdown that we should give it more to do, like running health care, the energy industry, banks, Wall Street and the car business.

Sounds like a little bit of sarcasm there Alex. Funny though, that when Washington was doing a "great job" it was being run by your much loved Republican Party and the "great" President George W. Bush! The Obama administration's priorities are a little different than Bush's. While he (they?) were focused on making money for themselves, their friends, and the corporations which they represented, and bringing "peace" and "democracy" to other nations, Obama (and other Dems) are more focused on resolving issues at home that effect people other than the mega rich. Issues it seems the Bush administration didn't care about (black people, if you listen to Kanye West, also fall in this category).

You knew it was coming. From the start of the article you felt it. That deep and scary chill, a fear you couldn't quite place but knew was there. THE HAMMER AND SICKLE. That's right; the reds are back, but now they're black. Obama is an "...experiment in European-style socialism" says Castellanos. SOCIALISM! COMMUNISM! MARXISM! What's next? Building a wall through the center of Washington D.C.? I certainly think so.

I'm sick of hearing this from critics of Obama, of Democrats, of the left side of the political spectrum in general. It is nothing more than fear mongering, a ploy at conjuring up images of mustachioed men and bread lines. Having a government funded medical system is nothing to be ashamed of or to fear. It is something to wear as a badge of honour. Having one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancies for a developed nation is not.

One of the most grinding things about this article for me, and what makes me beg the question that is the title of this article, is the following quote:

Having a president who belongs to the Harvard elite and the community-organizer streets is not the same as having a president who has lived a long life among middle-class Americans and understands them.

Where does Alex Castellanos get off? When he was writing that sentence how did he not realize the overwhelming irony. This is not a valid complaint if you supported George Bush (which I'm assuming Alex did). Bush was the son of the 41st President of the United States and attended not only Harvard but Yale as well! If that is not "elite" I don't know what is.

His closing comment is another gem:

Obama is looking a little older. There would be nothing wrong with acting like it.

What does this even mean? In what ways can he "act a little older"? Obama is one of the most humble, polite, intelligent men I have ever seen or heard of. He is thoughtful and calculating and willing to compromise. If he grows up much more he would be Dr. Manhattan.

Actually that doesn't sound to bad...

Special thanks to Peter Stemmler at Quick Honey for letting me use his fantastic image of Dr. Obama in this article.

Nothing Better to Spend Money On?

The Creationist Museum that recently opened in Petersburg, Kentucky cost 27 million dollars. 27 million! I'm sure there has been a lot more, and a lot bigger wastes of money out there, but I'll use the museum as an example. I know for a fact there is better things that the money could have been spent on.

Real science is one option. Studying diseases and looking for cures, or developing energy/environment saving devices. It could be spent on aid to countries that need it the most. If, according to UNICEF, 1 penny buys a child in Africa a box of chalk, imagine what 2.7 billion pennies could buy the village that child lives in. Or even here at home, we could spend it on rehab clinics for the users whose lives have been destroyed, who now live on the street. It could be spent on our crumbling health care system, or our underfunded military.

I know that the museum isn't a Canadian expenditure, but all the money that's gets spent yearly on churches here makes up for that. New massive churches, and mosques-leave that for another day-are popping up left and right, all works of art, and all very, very expensive. Why can't you just worship your God(s) at home? Why do you need to spend countless millions building massive temples to try and appeal to your demigod of choice? Sure there's the social gathering aspect, but have some people over for a barbecue, or join a club. Maybe the money saved could go to building a good community center that would encourage togetherness and strengthen a community instead of putting everyone of different beliefs in separate buildings across the street from each other.

Grand Opening

I've joined the infamous "blogosphere" and this will be my first post. I'm debating whether or not to get World of Warcraft again. On the one hand, it's a pretty fun game, and I can do some stuff with friends and level up easier. But on the other hand, it's a waste of time and money, and I could just hang out with those people in real life. I think I got up to level 18 in my first week as a human mage. The screenshot to the right was taken a few days before my trial expired over 2 months ago. I've been off it since then, but I want to return.
After learning my PS3 can Fold@home, I updated and started folding, and it encouraged me start on my PC as well. I noticed that the PS3 computes about 25 frames a second, while my PC goes at about 1 minute 20 seconds per frame. Sounds to me like I need a new processor. Not only will I F@H better, I'll play Supreme Commander.