Papineau, Que MP Justin Trudeau is officially running for the leadership position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Although he did not formally announce it himself nor will he do so during the caucus retreat, Warren Kinsella broke the news on his website in August. On September 26, the Liberal Party tactfully leaked the announcement to Radio-Canada where Trudeau would make the bid official a week later in his riding. Remarkably, Trudeau's staff will only comprise of people under the age of 40. Trudeau, who is the Liberal Critic of Youth, Recreation, and Sport, has been rumoured to run for Liberal leader for a while now, ever since Bob Rae broke the news that he wasn't going for the top bid. In many ways, Trudeau is everything the Liberal Party could ask for in a leader: he's young, energetic, and is popular among Canadians. Like his father before him, Trudeau is charismatic and candid.
As many newspapers are wont to point out, Trudeau stands alone in this race and it is his and his alone to win. However, if the Liberals are going to make Trudeau shoulder all of the party's burdens, then they can forget about reclaiming the government on their own. For the sake of the Liberal Party, they simply cannot re-enter another phase of Trudeaumania, especially when it's all style and no substance. They tried to make saviours out of leaders twice already and both times ended up in abysmal failures. If the Liberal Party wants any chance at defeating the Tories come 2015, they need to form a coalition with the NDP (duh). Much to the left's chagrin, it's hard to believe this will happen anytime soon.
Now, for Trudeau as leader, his bid is an interesting one. First, it will be especially hard for the Tories or even the NDP to define Trudeau through their attack ads since Trudeau has done an adequate job of doing that himself. You can look no further to his bout with Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau as proof. Although for charity, the match probably meant more to Liberals than anything they accomplished in Parliament. For the first time in a long time, people were rooting for a Liberal and they were excited for a Liberal and a Liberal delivered even when expectations were low. It drove momentum oddly enough, and guaranteed Trudeau as a star within Canadian politics. Even though he has done fairly little as an MP in his 4-year career, he still had the political courage and mettle to win and hold his riding in Papineau, a riding that was held by the Bloc Quebecois and was easily susceptible to the Orange Crush in 2011. And of course, he probably said what we were all thinking to Conservative MP and Environment Minister Peter Kent during Question Period.
Second, Trudeau does have alternance by his side. Thought of as an antiquated and weak unwritten norm, alternance now is anything but with the Liberals completely wiped out of Quebec. In the Federal Level, the incumbent Liberal MPs were unseated by new and inexperienced NDP MPs. In the Provincial Level, the Liberal Party is embroiled in scandal and draconian measures as well as incompetent leadership. Therefore, when April rolls around and the Liberals head to the polls, they're probably going to feel more inclined to select a Francophone -- especially a popular Francophone like Trudeau -- to reestablish the party once again in Quebec.
But, what do we know about Trudeau, really? We know that he thinks calling honour killing 'barbaric' is wrong. And, we know that he thinks Environment Minister is a piece of shit. And, we know that he was once an actor and had facial hair once that was met with the displeasure of many Canadians, oddly enough. What his campaign can do is flesh and unpack his positions on issues that affect the country.
While I'll admit that the press has covered Trudeau abundantly, his entry is still something that Canadians need to reconsider. Will a fresh face mean a fresh, bold attitude for the Liberal Party? Will his youth propel the party to take more leftist ideologies? Where does Trudeau even stand on national security, the economy, and foreign policy? Canadians are already willing to give the Liberals a victory if it means Trudeau is at the helm even though we don't know how he feels about any of those things. Granted, there is still lots of time for us to find out.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
What the Stuff Is: The VP Debate, Why It Was Great and Why It Still Doesn't Matter
The media still can't get over the recent Vice-Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. I can understand why -- it was pretty fiery and entertaining, especially when compared to the largely boring exchange between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney. As much as I enjoyed it, and as much as I believe that Biden won the debate, my original argument outlined in my last post still remains: debates don't matter. And, VP debates? They prove to be inconsequential to the actual outcome of the debate. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously fooling themselves.
Still, the debate has many people abuzzing about Biden's performance and Ryan's demeanor. Yes, Biden was pretty aggressive. He laughed and smiled and interrupted Ryan when he was giving his responses. For Democrats and liberals, it was purely cathartic. That's why liberals were going crazy over his performance: a Democrat finally had the balls to say what all Democrats are thinking about Ryan, Romney, and the Republicans. Biden not only used the facts but showed a stunning sense of exuberance and style and obviously made up for Obama's lacklustre performance.
The most interesting part about the debate's aftermath has to be the Republican's take on Biden's performance. They whined about his behaviour, that it was rude and outlandish and not Presidential -- meanwhile, Ryan can blatantly lie over and over again and that somehow makes him presidential. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, this always happen to the losing side: they begin a campaign to tarnish the opposing candidate in order to gain what they feel is their rightful victory. The Obama campaign did this last time, she said, with Obama supporters starting the phrase "testy Mitt." And now, we see the GOP -- a party whose candidates have snapped at moderators or attracts viewers that boo an openly gay soldier or cheer an uninsured man dying -- complaining about rudeness and disrespect.
Incredible.
The VP debates -- like all debates, really -- may be insignificant to the overall race, but as I've said before, they are perfect displays of the type of race we have on our hands. Biden, Ryan's own fact-checker, pushed the facts: that it is better than how it was four years ago, that relations with Israel is stable, that sanctions on Iran are stronger than they ever were, and that the Republicans would totally cripple the lower-class by privatizing Social Security and MediCare. Ryan, on the other hand, continued the inchoate character that plagued him since his convention speech, one of an unbelievable liar.
As Biden said as he turned and looked straight into the camera, "folks, use your common sense."
Still, the debate has many people abuzzing about Biden's performance and Ryan's demeanor. Yes, Biden was pretty aggressive. He laughed and smiled and interrupted Ryan when he was giving his responses. For Democrats and liberals, it was purely cathartic. That's why liberals were going crazy over his performance: a Democrat finally had the balls to say what all Democrats are thinking about Ryan, Romney, and the Republicans. Biden not only used the facts but showed a stunning sense of exuberance and style and obviously made up for Obama's lacklustre performance.
The most interesting part about the debate's aftermath has to be the Republican's take on Biden's performance. They whined about his behaviour, that it was rude and outlandish and not Presidential -- meanwhile, Ryan can blatantly lie over and over again and that somehow makes him presidential. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, this always happen to the losing side: they begin a campaign to tarnish the opposing candidate in order to gain what they feel is their rightful victory. The Obama campaign did this last time, she said, with Obama supporters starting the phrase "testy Mitt." And now, we see the GOP -- a party whose candidates have snapped at moderators or attracts viewers that boo an openly gay soldier or cheer an uninsured man dying -- complaining about rudeness and disrespect.
Incredible.
The VP debates -- like all debates, really -- may be insignificant to the overall race, but as I've said before, they are perfect displays of the type of race we have on our hands. Biden, Ryan's own fact-checker, pushed the facts: that it is better than how it was four years ago, that relations with Israel is stable, that sanctions on Iran are stronger than they ever were, and that the Republicans would totally cripple the lower-class by privatizing Social Security and MediCare. Ryan, on the other hand, continued the inchoate character that plagued him since his convention speech, one of an unbelievable liar.
As Biden said as he turned and looked straight into the camera, "folks, use your common sense."
Sunday, October 7, 2012
A Debate Abate
I have things to say about the first Presidential Debate held on October 3, 2012.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Ban She: Rona Ambrose on M312
I'm going to do two things with this post, one will be brief and the other will be more in-depth.
First, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth's motion calling for a debate on the commencement of life was defeated in House of Commons on Wednesday night 203-91. Woodworth himself didn't think that the motion would get much support and he was right. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself voted against the motion. And, we all know where the Opposition stands.
Second, the vote that really encountered a whirlwind of vitriol, alarm, and overall frenzy was that of Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose who voted in favour of the motion. NDP MP Libby Davis rightfully called for her resignation. In fact, in the House of Commons the next day, when Ambrose answered a question from the Opposition, she brought up the point that it had been the first time in over the year that she was questioned about her role as Minister of Status of Women. She claims it's because she was doing a good job. The Opposition responded with, "you're useless." And, the NDP is right. Harper has rendered the Minister of Status of Women as a meaningless position, one so small that it can be held alongside another, more "important" position like public works. Reputable women's group has decried this government's actions on women's equality and rights and that's because it is, as I detailed in this post here.
Ambrose is entitled to believe what she wants but she should really consider what her position entails. As Minister of Status of Women, she is more than just the embodiment of a decorum position, occupying space in photo-ops and tweeting about her experiences. She is supposed to be the minister who is in charge of advancing women's rights in Canada. And, as far as I can tell, she hasn't, in fact, been doing a good job. It's only made worse when you have Conservative-sympathizers at the National Post critiquing the Ambrose's critics.
To isolate that National Post article, it left me absolutely stunned. That article is not a defense of Ambrose's feminism or feminism in general in any way shape or form. It simply is not. Want proof? The columnist said Ambrose is "a better kind of feminist" than the women who rightfully critique her for voting in favour of the committee. That notion is completely and utterly regressive and flat-out dumb. It shows feminism as a type of skill or challenge that some are more capable of doing than others: "these women here are bad at feminism, and these women here are good at feminism." She is absolutely divisive and counter-intuitive when discussing feminism which is supposed to be about the empowerment of all women. The wonderful, wonderful Canadian feminist blog GenderFocus offers a great rebuttal to the backlash of the backlash.
By limiting the options of women, Ambrose does not do justice to her position. To call for her resignation, however, would be futile and just standard Parliamentary procedure. But, she needs to be held account for what her vote entailed and what it meant to the current Canadian psyche regarding feminism and reproductive rights. The popular claim pushed by the Conservatives is that Ambrose was spreading advocacy over sex-selection abortion, a practice that occurs around the world and in Canada among immigrants.
As a feminist, I believe sex-selection abortion is wrong (duh). The solution, then, wouldn't necessarily be to put bans on abortion and infusing it with more inaccessibility. That would hurt many women, mostly young, low-income, minority women. The solution would be to foster more empowerment among women all over the world -- starting with Canada. Canada should be a country that would set the example for more countries to follow when it comes to treatment of women. Canada should be the country that helps more women in countries where they normally would be subjugated to abuse and oppression.
But, we're not. We have an ample amount of opportunity to grow and prosper, here. But, we're not the country we should be -- or could be -- when it comes to protecting women's rights. And one of the biggest barriers seems to be the Minister for the Status of Women herself.
First, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth's motion calling for a debate on the commencement of life was defeated in House of Commons on Wednesday night 203-91. Woodworth himself didn't think that the motion would get much support and he was right. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself voted against the motion. And, we all know where the Opposition stands.
Second, the vote that really encountered a whirlwind of vitriol, alarm, and overall frenzy was that of Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose who voted in favour of the motion. NDP MP Libby Davis rightfully called for her resignation. In fact, in the House of Commons the next day, when Ambrose answered a question from the Opposition, she brought up the point that it had been the first time in over the year that she was questioned about her role as Minister of Status of Women. She claims it's because she was doing a good job. The Opposition responded with, "you're useless." And, the NDP is right. Harper has rendered the Minister of Status of Women as a meaningless position, one so small that it can be held alongside another, more "important" position like public works. Reputable women's group has decried this government's actions on women's equality and rights and that's because it is, as I detailed in this post here.
Ambrose is entitled to believe what she wants but she should really consider what her position entails. As Minister of Status of Women, she is more than just the embodiment of a decorum position, occupying space in photo-ops and tweeting about her experiences. She is supposed to be the minister who is in charge of advancing women's rights in Canada. And, as far as I can tell, she hasn't, in fact, been doing a good job. It's only made worse when you have Conservative-sympathizers at the National Post critiquing the Ambrose's critics.
To isolate that National Post article, it left me absolutely stunned. That article is not a defense of Ambrose's feminism or feminism in general in any way shape or form. It simply is not. Want proof? The columnist said Ambrose is "a better kind of feminist" than the women who rightfully critique her for voting in favour of the committee. That notion is completely and utterly regressive and flat-out dumb. It shows feminism as a type of skill or challenge that some are more capable of doing than others: "these women here are bad at feminism, and these women here are good at feminism." She is absolutely divisive and counter-intuitive when discussing feminism which is supposed to be about the empowerment of all women. The wonderful, wonderful Canadian feminist blog GenderFocus offers a great rebuttal to the backlash of the backlash.
By limiting the options of women, Ambrose does not do justice to her position. To call for her resignation, however, would be futile and just standard Parliamentary procedure. But, she needs to be held account for what her vote entailed and what it meant to the current Canadian psyche regarding feminism and reproductive rights. The popular claim pushed by the Conservatives is that Ambrose was spreading advocacy over sex-selection abortion, a practice that occurs around the world and in Canada among immigrants.
As a feminist, I believe sex-selection abortion is wrong (duh). The solution, then, wouldn't necessarily be to put bans on abortion and infusing it with more inaccessibility. That would hurt many women, mostly young, low-income, minority women. The solution would be to foster more empowerment among women all over the world -- starting with Canada. Canada should be a country that would set the example for more countries to follow when it comes to treatment of women. Canada should be the country that helps more women in countries where they normally would be subjugated to abuse and oppression.
But, we're not. We have an ample amount of opportunity to grow and prosper, here. But, we're not the country we should be -- or could be -- when it comes to protecting women's rights. And one of the biggest barriers seems to be the Minister for the Status of Women herself.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Globe and Fail, Part 2: Wentegate
What blogger and University of Ottawa professor Carol Wainio is doing is completely right and valid and should be given the praise it deserves and then some. She not only exposed serial Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente of plagiarism but continually shows the blatant laziness and lack of integrity of the national newspaper she writes for. Despite Wente's inconsistencies and "slip-ups," she remains a vital part of the Globe and Mail editorial team. She doesn't get excused nor punished nor questioned by her editors at length. Why? Well, she actually was "punished" by editor John Stackhouse. However, nobody is sure what Wente's punishment entails and if it will actually teach her a lesson. If Wente was a starting journalist making these mistakes -- failing to attribute, stealing quotes, etc. -- she would be finished, as Jonah Lehrer himself discovered this past summer. Hey, even a veteran seasoned journalist with an abundant amount of respect like Fareed Zakaria can get docked for plagiarism. It doesn't matter that he's the Editor-at-Large at Time Magazine, or the author of The Post-American World, or the host of CNN's Global Public Square. He cheated so he gets punished.
Wente wrote a defensive column about Wainio's "allegations" today in the Globe. I must say, what she says boggles my mind and not just because I'm studying journalism. It mostly boggles my mind because, like a lot of people, I read the news. As consequence, it's completely egregious to read a journalist passively dismissing their mistakes as if it happens all the time: "It's just the way it is." Moreover, Wente references the content of her articles, that she gets unfairly targeted sometimes because people disagree with what she says. Yes, Wente is notorious for spouting unfavourable opinions but her content is besides the point. I can disagree with Wente -- and I often do -- but if she conducts her journalism with the highest standards, meaning upholding accuracy, then I can't say she's doing anything wrong, per se. According to Wente, anybody who calls her out on her plagiarism must hate her already because of her opinions. According to Wente, Wainio must've read too many of her infuriating columns and launched this personal vendetta against her. In her "apology," Wente comes off as hostile, defensive, and haughty instead of modest and remorseful.
Yes, mistakes are made in the papers. However, the onus is on the journalist and the editor to ensure it never happens again. It not only engenders a sense of distrust in the paper and in journalism as a whole, but it completely tarnishes the reputation of a writer and the paper he or she works for. This is obvious. This is fact. I don't see why The Globe and Mail is exempt from this rule.
If the Globe and Mail's decision to keep Wente on board is purely based on financial gain, then as far as I'm concerned the Globe is just as bad as the National Post.
It's pathetic that in Canada, we can't even have a national newspaper that we can trust 100% of the time, that is all encompassing of all viewpoints while at the same time having top-notch reporters covering each beat with enthusiasm, clarity, and accuracy. As I've stated before in the past, the only reliable and tolerable newspaper we have in Canada is The Toronto Star. Speaking of newspapers, I heard on The Current today that the mainstream media has not been taking a more active role in covering this story which is true. Only now has Wentegate stretched out of social media and into the media institutions within public life. If journalists really are the fourth estate, then they need to afflict the comfortable here, even if that includes their own colleagues. Media institutions -- like the Globe and Mail -- are still companies with a business motive and should therefore be scrutinized routinely so that people understand the truth. For a newspaper, understanding the truth about where you get your news is of vital importance.
But, newspapers are no longer becoming the only source of information. In fact, they're one of the last sources ordinary people consult when it comes to gathering data and opinions. According to Poynter Institute, more than half of Americans use the internet for news while readership in media has dropped significantly. The Wente case elegantly and effectively shows the problems of print media and why journalism should be striving to use more digital platforms for sharing the news. With digital media, it's much easier to hold writers accountable since online readership is larger therefore more people with different areas of expertise would be readily available to point out inconsistencies. By having a simple Google search at the fingertips, anyone can just copy and paste a questionable statement into the search engine and see if results pop up showing similar if not identical stories. In addition, it's much easier for the host website to make adjustments to the original story, not to mention less embarrassing since they don't have to run a Correction Notice in thousands upon thousands of newspapers.
The Globe and Mail used to be a centrist and sensible newspaper and, occasionally, they still have bursts of insight. Where else but the Globe and Mail could ordinary Canadians read about ending Canada's Mexican myopia? Where else could they have read the Globe's interview with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President-elect of Mexico? They could've gone online, or they could've read it in their favourite newspaper on the commute. The Globe and Mail has already started to rectify one particular issue: the Public Editor, which was recently created, now has to report to the publisher not the Editor-in-Chief, a change that will streamline this whole process and will avoid any further complications.
But, this is not enough.
The Globe and Mail needs to either 1) Work out a better arrangement with Wente if they're so keen on keeping her on. An arrangement could consist of lightening Wente's load so that she doesn't have to write 3 columns a week, if that's the underlining problem to her carelessless. Instead, she could do more investigative and feature work. Or 2) Fire Wente.
If she's fired, then the Globe wouldn't have to worry about this ever again. If she's fired, then Wente couldn't do more damage to her career since it would be effectively finished. If she's fired, then maybe The Globe and Mail would smarten up next time.
Wente wrote a defensive column about Wainio's "allegations" today in the Globe. I must say, what she says boggles my mind and not just because I'm studying journalism. It mostly boggles my mind because, like a lot of people, I read the news. As consequence, it's completely egregious to read a journalist passively dismissing their mistakes as if it happens all the time: "It's just the way it is." Moreover, Wente references the content of her articles, that she gets unfairly targeted sometimes because people disagree with what she says. Yes, Wente is notorious for spouting unfavourable opinions but her content is besides the point. I can disagree with Wente -- and I often do -- but if she conducts her journalism with the highest standards, meaning upholding accuracy, then I can't say she's doing anything wrong, per se. According to Wente, anybody who calls her out on her plagiarism must hate her already because of her opinions. According to Wente, Wainio must've read too many of her infuriating columns and launched this personal vendetta against her. In her "apology," Wente comes off as hostile, defensive, and haughty instead of modest and remorseful.
Yes, mistakes are made in the papers. However, the onus is on the journalist and the editor to ensure it never happens again. It not only engenders a sense of distrust in the paper and in journalism as a whole, but it completely tarnishes the reputation of a writer and the paper he or she works for. This is obvious. This is fact. I don't see why The Globe and Mail is exempt from this rule.
If the Globe and Mail's decision to keep Wente on board is purely based on financial gain, then as far as I'm concerned the Globe is just as bad as the National Post.
It's pathetic that in Canada, we can't even have a national newspaper that we can trust 100% of the time, that is all encompassing of all viewpoints while at the same time having top-notch reporters covering each beat with enthusiasm, clarity, and accuracy. As I've stated before in the past, the only reliable and tolerable newspaper we have in Canada is The Toronto Star. Speaking of newspapers, I heard on The Current today that the mainstream media has not been taking a more active role in covering this story which is true. Only now has Wentegate stretched out of social media and into the media institutions within public life. If journalists really are the fourth estate, then they need to afflict the comfortable here, even if that includes their own colleagues. Media institutions -- like the Globe and Mail -- are still companies with a business motive and should therefore be scrutinized routinely so that people understand the truth. For a newspaper, understanding the truth about where you get your news is of vital importance.
But, newspapers are no longer becoming the only source of information. In fact, they're one of the last sources ordinary people consult when it comes to gathering data and opinions. According to Poynter Institute, more than half of Americans use the internet for news while readership in media has dropped significantly. The Wente case elegantly and effectively shows the problems of print media and why journalism should be striving to use more digital platforms for sharing the news. With digital media, it's much easier to hold writers accountable since online readership is larger therefore more people with different areas of expertise would be readily available to point out inconsistencies. By having a simple Google search at the fingertips, anyone can just copy and paste a questionable statement into the search engine and see if results pop up showing similar if not identical stories. In addition, it's much easier for the host website to make adjustments to the original story, not to mention less embarrassing since they don't have to run a Correction Notice in thousands upon thousands of newspapers.
The Globe and Mail used to be a centrist and sensible newspaper and, occasionally, they still have bursts of insight. Where else but the Globe and Mail could ordinary Canadians read about ending Canada's Mexican myopia? Where else could they have read the Globe's interview with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President-elect of Mexico? They could've gone online, or they could've read it in their favourite newspaper on the commute. The Globe and Mail has already started to rectify one particular issue: the Public Editor, which was recently created, now has to report to the publisher not the Editor-in-Chief, a change that will streamline this whole process and will avoid any further complications.
But, this is not enough.
The Globe and Mail needs to either 1) Work out a better arrangement with Wente if they're so keen on keeping her on. An arrangement could consist of lightening Wente's load so that she doesn't have to write 3 columns a week, if that's the underlining problem to her carelessless. Instead, she could do more investigative and feature work. Or 2) Fire Wente.
If she's fired, then the Globe wouldn't have to worry about this ever again. If she's fired, then Wente couldn't do more damage to her career since it would be effectively finished. If she's fired, then maybe The Globe and Mail would smarten up next time.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Real Mitt Romney Has Stood Up
Mother Jones really does offer smart, fearless journalism. Earlier this week, the liberal magazine unearthed a video of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a fundraiser dinner in May saying the following comments:
These are pretty damaging things for a political campaign, almost beyond repair. But, of course, for that to happen, the media needs to cover this story with enough fervor in order for the American public to grasp the magnitude of what exactly Romney is saying since he is, after all, writing off close to half of the US population.
This is going to be known as the week Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election.
He's calling half of the American population free-loading moochers who want the government to do everything for them. Yes, these free-loading 47 percenters who don't pay income tax because their income is just too low or because they're elderly. These people who vote for Obama because they feel "entitled" to things like health, food, and housing. These people are wrong, Romney says, and he doesn't care about them. Why should he care about these poor people who don't take responsibility for their lives? This is only exacerbated by the fact that Romney said this among close, wealthy friends at a fundraiser dinner. The popular sentiment here is that Romney comes off as "a sneering plutocrat," clinking his wine glass as he hobnobs with the 1%.
Romney, not Obama, is the one being divisive by calling off and dismissing half of the American people.
In contrast, Obama has been the president of unity, in a way. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention brilliantly stated that there is no black America, or white America, or Latino America, or Asian America, but the United States of America. He was the president of Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. In his presidency, Obama sought to bring both parties together in order to solve America's deepest problems, but to no avail. In fact, you have Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the number one concern for his party would be not to create jobs, not to repair the crippling economy, but to make sure Obama is finished. That notion, apart from being completely odious, is divisive and unpatriotic. In this sense, it is the Republicans who are dividing America by making a clear distinction between the President, who is out to destroy America -- literally destroy it since Romney/Ryan have focused on bringing America back, whatever that means -- and them, the saviours.
The popular Republican talking point is that Obama wants to start on war on those that are successful: class warfare. I think it was Deval Patrick who stated at this year's DNC that asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes isn't tax warfare, it's patriotism. It's the Democrats, it's Obama, who are actually saying We Built That -- together for everyone -- not the Republicans. If any party is engaging in class warfare, it's the GOP. Romney is demonizing those who receive entitlement programs, his running mate wants to end MediCare as we know it, and both of them are interested in shifting the tax burden onto the middle-class while the top 1% literally pay nothing. If this isn't war on the lower-class, then I don't know what is.
After these comments surfaced, the choice between the two candidates couldn't be more clear or more stark. On one hand, you have one candidate who wants to help everyone in America get a fair shot at success, whether that is starting and owning a small business or earning an education. You have a candidate who brought health-care to millions of Americans, 6.6 million young people alone. You have a candidate who made America a safehaven for 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who wish to study in the United States. You have a candidate who made it easier for women to gain equal pay for equal work.
And then, you have a candidate who doesn't believe that Americans should be entitled to food.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.But, it doesn't stop there. Romney goes on wishing that he had Mexican parents in order to secure the Latino vote. He talks about being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, something he claims could only be done in America. He calls Obama "corrupt" and "a disappointment." He brags about his consultants who have ties with Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu. He believes that Palestine is not equipped to bring peace to the table with their conflict with Israel. He claims that Iran will invoke a nuclear threat by unleashing a "dirty bomb," something that actually could be conceived without a strong nuclear program since it can be made from radioactive waste. He implies that President Barack Obama apologizes worldwide for the values America upholds as part of his foreign policy. He criticizes Obama for dividing the nation and proclaiming class warfare, when he himself just did by bringing up his 47% statistic.
These are pretty damaging things for a political campaign, almost beyond repair. But, of course, for that to happen, the media needs to cover this story with enough fervor in order for the American public to grasp the magnitude of what exactly Romney is saying since he is, after all, writing off close to half of the US population.
This is going to be known as the week Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election.
He's calling half of the American population free-loading moochers who want the government to do everything for them. Yes, these free-loading 47 percenters who don't pay income tax because their income is just too low or because they're elderly. These people who vote for Obama because they feel "entitled" to things like health, food, and housing. These people are wrong, Romney says, and he doesn't care about them. Why should he care about these poor people who don't take responsibility for their lives? This is only exacerbated by the fact that Romney said this among close, wealthy friends at a fundraiser dinner. The popular sentiment here is that Romney comes off as "a sneering plutocrat," clinking his wine glass as he hobnobs with the 1%.
Romney, not Obama, is the one being divisive by calling off and dismissing half of the American people.
In contrast, Obama has been the president of unity, in a way. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention brilliantly stated that there is no black America, or white America, or Latino America, or Asian America, but the United States of America. He was the president of Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. In his presidency, Obama sought to bring both parties together in order to solve America's deepest problems, but to no avail. In fact, you have Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the number one concern for his party would be not to create jobs, not to repair the crippling economy, but to make sure Obama is finished. That notion, apart from being completely odious, is divisive and unpatriotic. In this sense, it is the Republicans who are dividing America by making a clear distinction between the President, who is out to destroy America -- literally destroy it since Romney/Ryan have focused on bringing America back, whatever that means -- and them, the saviours.
The popular Republican talking point is that Obama wants to start on war on those that are successful: class warfare. I think it was Deval Patrick who stated at this year's DNC that asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes isn't tax warfare, it's patriotism. It's the Democrats, it's Obama, who are actually saying We Built That -- together for everyone -- not the Republicans. If any party is engaging in class warfare, it's the GOP. Romney is demonizing those who receive entitlement programs, his running mate wants to end MediCare as we know it, and both of them are interested in shifting the tax burden onto the middle-class while the top 1% literally pay nothing. If this isn't war on the lower-class, then I don't know what is.
After these comments surfaced, the choice between the two candidates couldn't be more clear or more stark. On one hand, you have one candidate who wants to help everyone in America get a fair shot at success, whether that is starting and owning a small business or earning an education. You have a candidate who brought health-care to millions of Americans, 6.6 million young people alone. You have a candidate who made America a safehaven for 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who wish to study in the United States. You have a candidate who made it easier for women to gain equal pay for equal work.
And then, you have a candidate who doesn't believe that Americans should be entitled to food.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Teachers and Unions and Unions and Teachers
So, the Liberals defy the nay-sayers and go against the union who provided the bulk of their support for over a decade all in the hopes of keeping the Ontario economy afloat. Earlier last week, the Liberals passed Bill 115, legislation that would make it illegal for Ontario teachers to strike and collectively bargain. This, of course, is completely incredulous and resembles Conservative tactic in the Mike Harris days -- although, I concede that Harris was much, much worse. What Dalton McGuinty is doing is playing roughshod politics with a faction group he does not want to spar with. The Ontario teachers union has developed into a pretty powerful organization who has the crutch of citing the interests of the student whenever they're faced with some opposition. But, sometimes they do the exact opposite. Right now, the teachers abruptly halted any voluntary after-school activities they head as retaliation. Students, then, are the pawns in the middle of their feud. Interestingly enough, the students are the ones protesting and taking up the activist cause as exemplified by students at Sir Robert Borden in Ottawa. Now, as of Saturday, the teachers' unions have started to voice their concerns through public demonstrations.
As pro-union, I am firmly against the Liberals' move to nullify the teachers' ability to strike. This is, after all, their constitutional right. However, thanks to the Liberals, teachers' wages have increased exponentially due to his consistent support and Ontario teachers are revered across the nation for their livable and equitable benefits. Case in point, when BC teachers went on strike, they often cited Ontario teachers for the model they would like to have implemented in their own province. But, by openly criticizing the Liberals, the teachers' union are left with a precarious situation in which they could see the majority of their members heading straight for an alternative. An alternative in this case be the next party in line: the Tim Hudak Conservatives. This was something that happened before in Ontario, when NDP Leader Bob Rae was Premier and imposed a series of "Rae Days," or unpaid vacation days. This blogger does an excellent job of contextualizing the issue by comparing the austerity measures during Harris with austerity under McGuinty. The two do not compare, concludes the blogger, and that by turning their back on the Liberals, the teachers face an even greater risk: a Conservative government.
But, instead of actually reflecting on the travesty that was the Harris Common Sense Revolution, teachers are already decrying Bill 115 and McGuinty as "worse than Mike Harris." Hopefully, this one source doesn't speak on behalf of the teachers' union because this notion could not be more wrong.
Instead of puffing their chests and lashing out, the teachers should wake up from their political amnesia and grit and bear it for a while, lest they open the doors for a swift interception by Hudak. Teachers in Ontario get paid -- on average -- $86, 865, the second highest among teachers' unions in Canada, according to their 2011 Collective Agreement. Ontario teachers make almost $10,000 more than teachers in Saskatchewan and almost $20,000 more than their counterparts in P.E.I. Whether teachers deserve that money is whole other question. They've put in the hours in completing their education and obviously the effort to creating a lesson plan for their students. Although, it's true that there are some bad teachers out there who don't make the material engaging or interesting but aren't penalized because they're protected by the union. That's a problem, but a fair solution shouldn't be to demonize the entire union which conservatives are wont to do, but to adapt better evaluative procedures to weed out the ineffective teachers.
Anyways, teachers have consistently been making more and more money ever since McGuinty came into power in 2000, something that Anna Maria Tremonti pointed out to a representative of the teachers union as a cause of Ontario's deficit. The Liberals also implemented better benefits for the teachers to enjoy, most notably their pension plan which gives them a comfortable retirement after their teaching career. As the self-proclaimed "Education Premier," McGuinty has concentrated his efforts on securing higher performance rates for elementary and high-school students, which he has successfully accomplished, generally speaking. The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers comfortable lifestyle, better than most people in Ontario since we're suffering from a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Most people in Ontario can't empathize with the teachers' unions mostly due to their cozy relationship with the Liberals in all these years. They have a good pay, secured benefits, and a comfortable -- albeit not that generous -- pension. Irregardless, the pension is better than most working-class people in Ontario. When discussing the robbery of the right to strike, well, it seems like most people in Ontario face that same problem. Nurses can't strike and they're arguably faced with stressful working conditions. Ontario used to rely on manufacturing for their economy, but now, the majority of employment seems to be in retail or temporary work and most of those people can't strike. Moreover, it certainly doesn't help matters when you have an Ontario MP calling for the start of 'voluntary' unions.
As I've said before, in no way do I support the Liberals' disempowerment of the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargain. If the teachers are being mismanaged and handled unfairly while putting in the hours to educate and coach, then striking is the only reasonable action if negotiation breaks down. But, the fact is, the teachers aren't in that position in this province. As I've said, they make a good wage with equally good benefits with good vacation time. Of course, the job is never easy. But, what job is these days? Teachers have to deal with mountains of marking, individual needs of the students, and any voluntary positions they hold to make the year enjoyable. However, most teachers don't have to live paycheque to paycheque. Most teachers don't have to feel that they have to make a choice between rent or food. But I stress: this does not mean that their right to bargain should be suspended, even for a short period of time.
The Liberals -- at least the McGuinty liberals -- have duped themselves in betraying their key support group this time around. If they don't see public approval angling their way, they only have themselves to blame. The past by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo is emblematic enough of how weary people are of giving the Liberals a majority, especially when they're not even trying too hard. The winner, the NDP's Catherine Fife, single-handedly got to know her constituents and ran a great campaign. Since McGuinty permanently severed ties with the teachers, this means that the teachers can look to the NDP to be their party since the NDP are the party of unions. This means that -- potentially -- the NDP could land a victory and score a mandate in Ontario once again. And as for the Ontario PCs? Well, their only support is confined with the rural areas of Ontario.
McGuinty may have lost the teachers indefinitely but it's up to the teachers to realize who are and who aren't their allies.
As pro-union, I am firmly against the Liberals' move to nullify the teachers' ability to strike. This is, after all, their constitutional right. However, thanks to the Liberals, teachers' wages have increased exponentially due to his consistent support and Ontario teachers are revered across the nation for their livable and equitable benefits. Case in point, when BC teachers went on strike, they often cited Ontario teachers for the model they would like to have implemented in their own province. But, by openly criticizing the Liberals, the teachers' union are left with a precarious situation in which they could see the majority of their members heading straight for an alternative. An alternative in this case be the next party in line: the Tim Hudak Conservatives. This was something that happened before in Ontario, when NDP Leader Bob Rae was Premier and imposed a series of "Rae Days," or unpaid vacation days. This blogger does an excellent job of contextualizing the issue by comparing the austerity measures during Harris with austerity under McGuinty. The two do not compare, concludes the blogger, and that by turning their back on the Liberals, the teachers face an even greater risk: a Conservative government.
But, instead of actually reflecting on the travesty that was the Harris Common Sense Revolution, teachers are already decrying Bill 115 and McGuinty as "worse than Mike Harris." Hopefully, this one source doesn't speak on behalf of the teachers' union because this notion could not be more wrong.
Instead of puffing their chests and lashing out, the teachers should wake up from their political amnesia and grit and bear it for a while, lest they open the doors for a swift interception by Hudak. Teachers in Ontario get paid -- on average -- $86, 865, the second highest among teachers' unions in Canada, according to their 2011 Collective Agreement. Ontario teachers make almost $10,000 more than teachers in Saskatchewan and almost $20,000 more than their counterparts in P.E.I. Whether teachers deserve that money is whole other question. They've put in the hours in completing their education and obviously the effort to creating a lesson plan for their students. Although, it's true that there are some bad teachers out there who don't make the material engaging or interesting but aren't penalized because they're protected by the union. That's a problem, but a fair solution shouldn't be to demonize the entire union which conservatives are wont to do, but to adapt better evaluative procedures to weed out the ineffective teachers.
Anyways, teachers have consistently been making more and more money ever since McGuinty came into power in 2000, something that Anna Maria Tremonti pointed out to a representative of the teachers union as a cause of Ontario's deficit. The Liberals also implemented better benefits for the teachers to enjoy, most notably their pension plan which gives them a comfortable retirement after their teaching career. As the self-proclaimed "Education Premier," McGuinty has concentrated his efforts on securing higher performance rates for elementary and high-school students, which he has successfully accomplished, generally speaking. The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers comfortable lifestyle, better than most people in Ontario since we're suffering from a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Most people in Ontario can't empathize with the teachers' unions mostly due to their cozy relationship with the Liberals in all these years. They have a good pay, secured benefits, and a comfortable -- albeit not that generous -- pension. Irregardless, the pension is better than most working-class people in Ontario. When discussing the robbery of the right to strike, well, it seems like most people in Ontario face that same problem. Nurses can't strike and they're arguably faced with stressful working conditions. Ontario used to rely on manufacturing for their economy, but now, the majority of employment seems to be in retail or temporary work and most of those people can't strike. Moreover, it certainly doesn't help matters when you have an Ontario MP calling for the start of 'voluntary' unions.
As I've said before, in no way do I support the Liberals' disempowerment of the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargain. If the teachers are being mismanaged and handled unfairly while putting in the hours to educate and coach, then striking is the only reasonable action if negotiation breaks down. But, the fact is, the teachers aren't in that position in this province. As I've said, they make a good wage with equally good benefits with good vacation time. Of course, the job is never easy. But, what job is these days? Teachers have to deal with mountains of marking, individual needs of the students, and any voluntary positions they hold to make the year enjoyable. However, most teachers don't have to live paycheque to paycheque. Most teachers don't have to feel that they have to make a choice between rent or food. But I stress: this does not mean that their right to bargain should be suspended, even for a short period of time.
The Liberals -- at least the McGuinty liberals -- have duped themselves in betraying their key support group this time around. If they don't see public approval angling their way, they only have themselves to blame. The past by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo is emblematic enough of how weary people are of giving the Liberals a majority, especially when they're not even trying too hard. The winner, the NDP's Catherine Fife, single-handedly got to know her constituents and ran a great campaign. Since McGuinty permanently severed ties with the teachers, this means that the teachers can look to the NDP to be their party since the NDP are the party of unions. This means that -- potentially -- the NDP could land a victory and score a mandate in Ontario once again. And as for the Ontario PCs? Well, their only support is confined with the rural areas of Ontario.
McGuinty may have lost the teachers indefinitely but it's up to the teachers to realize who are and who aren't their allies.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Feminist-In-Chief: Obama, Empowering Women, and the DNC
To be blunt, the Democrats put on a successful convention, one better than the Republicans on most regards. Note when I say "most" because, to be fair, speeches given at the Republican convention were actually pretty good. As I pointed out in my post about the RNC, Ann Romney gave a truly moving speech about her husband and likewise Chris Christie gave a fiery address that prompted presidential buzz. But, speeches at the RNC were marred with inconsistencies and blatant lies. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention were not, at least not at the level the RNC was. In fact, not only were the speeches brilliant and rousing, but they were also substantive and focused on the main goal: convincing the American public that President Barack Obama deserves a second term.
The Jobs Report which was released Friday is, I think, the most fitting conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The report shows exactly how much progress the Obama Administration made and will surely resonate more with Americans than a speech or tribute video. In August, the US economy added 96,000 jobs meaning that August is the 30th month of consecutive job growth. That's not bad considering the Republicans won't collaborate with Obama under any circumstances. That's not bad considering that the GOP shot down the Jobs Act last year which was estimated to create over 2 million jobs. However, 96,000 jobs are not enough to make a significant dent on the unemployment rate. That would take approximately 250,000 jobs to do that. But, the jobs report does prove that the Obama Administration does not hate the private sector since, according to Think Progress, 103,000 jobs were created. It also shows that Obama still has a long way to go to convince the American people that the economy will revive itself. The Jobs Report is not abysmal since it actually is an improvement from the US economy exactly 4 years ago, when it collapsed dramatically due to the stock market crash and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. If anything, the Jobs Report is sobering to the Obama campaign and the Democrats amid the post-convention frenzy.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
This is why.
The Convention did a great job of emphasizing the highlights of Obama's mandate and did an even better job of dispelling common myths propagated last week at the RNC. A number of speakers directly quoted speeches made in the week before in Tampa and then told the audience the truth. The truth being that the GM plant Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was talking about actually closed in 2008 under Bush. The truth being that the Affordable Care Act cuts money away from corporations to cut fraud in the health care system, not remove solvency from MediCare as much as the Republicans like to tout. The truth being that Obama has created more private sector jobs than the GOP would like to admit. The truth being that Obama cannot solely be blamed for the economic calamity that is occurring in America but the work he has done as rectification has been impressive. The truth being that it doesn't take just 4 years to get America back on track, something that Obama himself said in his 2009 inauguration speech.
What the convention did most of all was to undergird the campaign with more optimism. The attacks on Ryan and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were present, of course. They have to be. But, the overall direction of the campaign was more focused on supporting the President and Vice President opposed to attacking the other side. Unlike his opponent, Obama refrained from criticizing Romney by name. A wise move as most people have chided the Obama campaign time and time again for being largely negative.
But, of course, no political convention could be complete if there wasn't some speculation about potential presidential candidates for 2016. For the Democrats, they have a sizable playing field: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick are some of the most prominent and qualified. However, instead of giving narcissistic speeches for the campaign in coming years, they gave gracious speeches that were autobiographical in tone but supportive for Obama in heart. Unlike Christie, the keynoter for the RNC, whose speech rife with 2016 hints.
Although, that doesn't mean that the Democratic National Convention wasn't tact since it reaped the benefits from the oversights made in the RNC. For instance, the DNC are now unequivocally the party of gay rights. According to the Democrats, it's not about sexual orientation anymore. It's about "who you love," thereby spreading a much more positive issue that would render the topic of same-sex marriage as hard to refute. The Democrats seized and pounced on the opportunity to mention veterans and the troops fighting in Afghanistan, something that the Republicans didn't do at all. A military mom, Jill Biden gave a pleasant speech about her son in combat. Michelle Obama, whose speech was phenomenal, was introduced by a military mom as tribute to Obama and Biden's work for military families. Tammy Duckworth is now a Democratic Senatorial candidate who is placing military and veteran issues on the table.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life — whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.
After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.
My first piece of advice is this: Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.
No woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.
So think about what that means to a young Latina girl when she sees a Cabinet secretary that looks like her. (Applause.) Think about what it means to a young girl in Iowa when she sees a presidential candidate who looks like her. Think about what it means to a young girl walking in Harlem right down the street when she sees a U.N. ambassador who looks like her. Do not underestimate the power of your example.Those are just some of the things Obama said in his speech at Barnard. Now, for his speech at last week's Democratic Convention:
We believe the little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States, and it’s in our power to give her that chance.
If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void ... [like] Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves.
The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter, she gives me hope.Romney didn't have anything like this in his speech nor did any other speaker talk so candidly about advancing the rights of women. But, as Republicans are quick to point out, issues like women's rights "don't matter" since they're not as "important" as the economy. Well, the Republicans are not in the position to comment on the economy since they are, in fact, the party responsible for the calamity. Moreover, to dismiss women's issues is to dismiss issues that directly affect half of the US population. To say that prosperity only depends on finances is completely myopic and negligent. No longer do we live in a time where women's issues are contained in a box only to be opened when the debate is heated. Now, we live in a time where women's issues are everyone's issues.
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Globe and Fail: John Ibbitson on Mitt Romney for Canada
This past Wednesday, during the Republican National Convention, the Globe and Mail featured an interesting article written by one of their regular columnists John Ibbitson. The article was essentially making the case on why Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be a good president for Canadian interests. The wonderful blogger SixthEstate brought this article to my attention and used it to further dispel the myth of Liberal media in Canada. The Globe and Mail, to be frank, is not liberal. While it's true they have occasional bursts of insight, they mostly write incredulous articles like this one or this one.
Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!
Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.
In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.
The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.
Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.
After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.
Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.
*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.
Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!
Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.
In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.
The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.
Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.
After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.
Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.
*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Grand Old Party
So, the end is nigh for the Republican National Convention. Today, they wrapped things up at the historic 40th nomination of the Republican presidential candidate and say goodbye to Tampa, Florida, hilariously nicknamed "The Big Guava." Exactly 2,286 delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates were present at the convention, mostly throwing their support behind the-now official Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. However, it wasn't a Republican convention without some thunder-stealing from the Ron Paul contingent, who voiced their dissatisfaction at the RNC for cancelling Paul's speech. A telling example of their vocal frustration was a sign fight between a Paul supporter and a Romney supporter during the roll call of the States.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Riddell Revealed
As I stated what seems so long ago, new developments of the Clayton Riddell Political Management School were sure to follow. Today, August 28, Carleton University has officially rewritten the contract between the university and Riddell, the founder of the program, so that Riddell doesn't have the final word on the hiring process of educators and curriculum. However, Carleton has stated in the past that Riddell doesn't have the authority to confirm hiring of educators in their press release. But, those statements didn't exactly line up to the actual agreement which, obviously, stated that Riddell does have that privilege.
This change in direction comes after the school was caught under fire by the Canadian Association of University Teachers decrying the deal, labelling it as a "damage to our reputation." Article after article was released in various newspapers following the developments of the contract and the school. I for one was interested in the story as a student at Carleton and as someone who has interest in insulating universities away from private donors.
This announcement comes at the one-year anniversary of the Political Management school at Carleton. The 20-25 students in the program will graduate and attend their convocation ceremony late in the fall. Carleton University has indeed released the revised clause for the public's viewing. This clause revision doesn't really change anything. The committee still gets to oversee the overall "direction" of the school and to see if the funds of the donor are being distributed fairly and evenly. To me, and probably to most people, that still implies that the five-man Tory operative is still powerful and still under the bidding of Riddell.
The statements made by Carleton University President Roseann Runte are dubious and spotty, at best. She claims that there were certain areas in the donor agreement that were "confusing." The donor agreement basically dismantles the power held by the five-person committee (that were mostly composed of Conservative sympathizers) and will give the authority to hiring back to the university.
The details are a bit muddled and I still don't exactly trust Carleton on this. Clayton Riddell and Preston Manning (who is on the committee) still wield the money and influence to determine the path of the the school. The rewritten documents doesn't mention how students are selected which we all know are hand-picked by the program's administration.
There is no way this program can be trusted. Although they promote their program as being "cross-partisan," it would be naive to believe that assertion. This is a wealthy oilman we're talking about who has interests in securing his wealth and furthering his own financial gains at the expense of others. And, this is the former leader of the Canadian Alliance: an absurdly, right-wing party that propagated damaging ideas that infringed on the basic rights of citizens. I'm talking in reference, of course, of gays and lesbians. The Manning Centre for Democracy is not a centre promoting democratic values. That would imply a diversity of opinions shared among students and faculty. What it does accomplish, however, is the advancement of Conservative ideas for a new generation of Canadians so that they can one day seize the government.
Students should be compelled to mobilize and take action over what's going on under their very noses. This is something that affects them since it could be the beginning of private interests seeping in Carleton University and misinforming students on the truth. Carleton has taken a step in the right direction by announcing the limitations to Riddell's announcements even though Carleton is clearly a few steps back.
This change in direction comes after the school was caught under fire by the Canadian Association of University Teachers decrying the deal, labelling it as a "damage to our reputation." Article after article was released in various newspapers following the developments of the contract and the school. I for one was interested in the story as a student at Carleton and as someone who has interest in insulating universities away from private donors.
This announcement comes at the one-year anniversary of the Political Management school at Carleton. The 20-25 students in the program will graduate and attend their convocation ceremony late in the fall. Carleton University has indeed released the revised clause for the public's viewing. This clause revision doesn't really change anything. The committee still gets to oversee the overall "direction" of the school and to see if the funds of the donor are being distributed fairly and evenly. To me, and probably to most people, that still implies that the five-man Tory operative is still powerful and still under the bidding of Riddell.
The statements made by Carleton University President Roseann Runte are dubious and spotty, at best. She claims that there were certain areas in the donor agreement that were "confusing." The donor agreement basically dismantles the power held by the five-person committee (that were mostly composed of Conservative sympathizers) and will give the authority to hiring back to the university.
The details are a bit muddled and I still don't exactly trust Carleton on this. Clayton Riddell and Preston Manning (who is on the committee) still wield the money and influence to determine the path of the the school. The rewritten documents doesn't mention how students are selected which we all know are hand-picked by the program's administration.
There is no way this program can be trusted. Although they promote their program as being "cross-partisan," it would be naive to believe that assertion. This is a wealthy oilman we're talking about who has interests in securing his wealth and furthering his own financial gains at the expense of others. And, this is the former leader of the Canadian Alliance: an absurdly, right-wing party that propagated damaging ideas that infringed on the basic rights of citizens. I'm talking in reference, of course, of gays and lesbians. The Manning Centre for Democracy is not a centre promoting democratic values. That would imply a diversity of opinions shared among students and faculty. What it does accomplish, however, is the advancement of Conservative ideas for a new generation of Canadians so that they can one day seize the government.
Students should be compelled to mobilize and take action over what's going on under their very noses. This is something that affects them since it could be the beginning of private interests seeping in Carleton University and misinforming students on the truth. Carleton has taken a step in the right direction by announcing the limitations to Riddell's announcements even though Carleton is clearly a few steps back.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Destroying Things Is Much Easier Than Making Them
Current affairs magazines are probably the most widely-sought after publications for lengthy political commentary and interesting viewpoints from engaging and familiar columnists. One of the most interesting -- and probably the most palatable -- features of the magazine happens to be the magazine cover. Throughout this election season, there have been great magazine covers depicting the race as a physical aggression between foes. Popular magazines such as The Atlantic and Newsweek have given their own interpretation of the blood-thirsty competition that is the Presidential Election.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
This year, both Newsweek and The Atlantic took the political race, either the Republican primaries or the general election, and turned it into a vicious battle between enemies and translated it onto their covers. In a way, this is perfect.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Chain Game
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden remarked that the GOP will soon usher the American people back in chains during a rally in Virginia. The exact words Biden used to convey this idea to a mostly African-American audience was, "Unchain Wall Street. They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Now, if you haven't see the video, it's available here.
Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:
First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.
Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*
The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.
To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.
So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.
*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.
Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:
RICK SANTORUM: It's one thing to go out and attack Governor Romney's record. Fair game, go for it. But to go out and do what he's doing as far as dividing this country, and he is. And it's class warfare at its worst, and then you saw Vice President Biden, you know, play the race card in Virginia. This...
[JIM] ACOSTA: Did he play the race card?
SANTORUM: There's no -- y'all? I mean, y'all is y'all. And when you are in a group, I have been in groups like that, and you know, it is very easy when you are in a group of people that, you know, when you are in a south or in up in different areas of the country and different groups of people, and you develop an affinity with the group that you are speaking in front of, that is what president -- Vice President Obama was doing. He was trying to develop that affinity and he did so in a very horrendous way. And he should apologize for it, but it is exactly the tone of this campaign. Governor Romney is like any other candidate, you want to go after my record, you want to go after things I've said and done, fine. That's not what he's -- that's not the complaint of the Romney campaign. The complaint -- the legitimate complaint is that President Obama is dividing this country to try to win this election.I have to take issue with a number of things Santorum is saying here.
First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.
Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*
The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.
To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.
So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.
*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Akin to Disgust
Republican Representative Todd Akin said some pretty heinous comments over the weekend regarding rape. I mean, they were downright false and insulting to women everywhere. For those of you unaware, here are all the things wrong with Todd Akin's comments:
1. The female body does not secrete a substance or withhold fertilization or somehow stop eggs from producing when faced with rape.
2. Akin said in cases of "legitimate rape." Then, what constitutes as illegitimate rape? When she actually becomes pregnant, according to Akin's pretzel logic? When she is drugged? When she is unconscious? When she is a minor?
3. That abortion should not be granted to rape victims, period. Although, this is pretty much the common sentiment among the GOP, including Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
4. That Akin is a man who thinks he knows better than women as to the decisions she should make when faced with the awful trauma of rape.
I could go on and on about how Akin is just fundamentally wrong.* I could also elucidate on the Republican agenda on abortion and reproductive rights. But, instead, I want to focus on Akin's response to this whole debacle which is his decision to stay in the race for the Senate seat in Missouri against incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. She is, in fact, fighting for him to stay despite members of his own party -- like Republican National Committee President Reince Priebus -- to drop out. This is a shrewd move by her, but a logical one. By fighting for Akin to stay in, she ultimately wins. Voters are then confronted by the choice of the incumbent -- who usually has a greater chance of winning anyways -- and a crazy Republican who believes in different forms of rape. McCaskill wins and she continues to help President Barack Obama and the Democrats.
I'm siding with McCaskill, here. He should stay in. When he apologized for his comments, he merely apologized for the words he said not for the position he holds. So, of course, if Akin truly believes in these ideas of "legitimate rape" and the female body's ability to stop fertilization when raped, he should still be in and let voters decide what they want. And, if voters in Missouri decide they want to cast their ballot for Akin over McCaskill, then that would prove two things:
1. That Akin is emblematic of the mainstream Republican party and that there are no more moderate Republicans left in the fold since people are now demanding for the extreme and vitriolic.
And 2. That America is in serious, serious trouble.
*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.
*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.
Monday, August 20, 2012
'Don't Let Them Tell You It Can't Be Done': Humanizing Jack Layton
On August 22nd, Canadians everywhere will most likely be confronted with the news of the one year anniversary of Jack Layton's death. The out pour of emotion will not be as strong as it was, nor will Canadians of all political stripes converge in the public quorums and spaces in their community to celebrate a man they probably never knew. When happened in the wake of his death was probably a testament to Layton's likeability factor and eagerness on the campaign trail to fix the 'big problems' of government and to fight for the everyday man or woman. These were undoubtedly ideas that resonated with people. Well, enough people to grant Layton and his party, the NDP, Official Opposition status in the Canadian government. Although his political achievements are worthy of observance and appraisal -- most notably, fighting for gay rights, establishing greener infrastructure complete with a sound emphasis on cycling lanes in Toronto, putting homelessness on the map, and passing a motion calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops in Afghanistan -- his work outside the political realm are just as bold and just as noble.*
But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.
What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper. (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.
But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.
Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.
Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.
One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.
In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.
Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.
The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.
Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.
I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:
*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).
But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.
What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper. (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.
But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.
Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.
Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.
One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.
In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.
Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.
The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.
Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.
I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:
Instead of just one ministry dedicated to keeping an eye on issues of particular concern for women (which frankly could be rendered powerless), think of the impact women's perspectives would have if they were completely integrated into the decision-making of all institutions, whether the House of Commons, government departments, or major corporations. Imagine what society would look like if the decisions about priority spending and program design, for example, all had to run through the filter of "How will this affect women?" Then the systemic discrimination that women face would begin to get the attention needed for real change to happen.**
*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)