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.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
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).
Sunday, August 19, 2012
We're Not Going to Take It Anymore
The American election has taken a nasty turn, focusing on personal attacks, harsh -- and sometimes inaccurate -- advertisements decrying the other candidate. What was once a campaign of 'Hope' and 'Change' now is something else entirely for President Barack Obama. However, is Obama's new direction necessarily a bad thing?
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
No She Can't: The Harper Government and REAL Women of Canada
This past primary season generated a lot vitriol towards women and women's issues, predominantly abortion and birth control. Commentators, pundits, and politicians alike have decried the Right for waging a War on Women. Some critics even suggested that the current mindset of the modern-day Republican Party lies within the Middle Ages -- enter Rick Santorum.
In Canada, we've had our own flirtation with regression when it came to women's rights. This Spring, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth proposed re-opening the debate on abortion and the right to life. Of course, a heavy stream of opposition headed his way and rightfully so. Since 1988, Canadian women have the right to terminate their pregnancy as part of their Charter right to security of the person. This was probably one of the most significant and famous Supreme Court rulings in recent history as it not only shows the potency of the newly-entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the progression of Canada as a whole.
Woodworth encountered the frustration and disapproval from women's groups who held demonstrations and protests in cities across Canada. Women took to social media by storm, flooding Woodworth’s Facebook and Twitter accounts with details of their reproductive health. Despite all of this dissent, the story is far from being over. A recent article in The Globe and Mail states that doctors who are members of the Canadian Medical Association want to squash any "backdoor" deals made by Woodworth to table his proposal. Although part of his caucus, Stephen Harper himself didn't back the motion -- M312 -- but stated that MPs are allowed to propose legislation pieces.
So, this brings me to a question: How has the Harper government contributed to the progression of women and women’s rights in Canada?
In Canada, we've had our own flirtation with regression when it came to women's rights. This Spring, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth proposed re-opening the debate on abortion and the right to life. Of course, a heavy stream of opposition headed his way and rightfully so. Since 1988, Canadian women have the right to terminate their pregnancy as part of their Charter right to security of the person. This was probably one of the most significant and famous Supreme Court rulings in recent history as it not only shows the potency of the newly-entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the progression of Canada as a whole.
Woodworth encountered the frustration and disapproval from women's groups who held demonstrations and protests in cities across Canada. Women took to social media by storm, flooding Woodworth’s Facebook and Twitter accounts with details of their reproductive health. Despite all of this dissent, the story is far from being over. A recent article in The Globe and Mail states that doctors who are members of the Canadian Medical Association want to squash any "backdoor" deals made by Woodworth to table his proposal. Although part of his caucus, Stephen Harper himself didn't back the motion -- M312 -- but stated that MPs are allowed to propose legislation pieces.
So, this brings me to a question: How has the Harper government contributed to the progression of women and women’s rights in Canada?
First, it's important to assess the amount of women MPs currently holding seats in the House of Commons.
The election in 2011 saw an unprecedented amount of women elected into office -- out of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, 76 are occupied by female MPs. Most noteworthy is Elizabeth May, the leader of the Federal Green Party, who finally secured a seat after years of working in politics. Despite having one seat, her presence has been most influential considering her role in the Budget Amendments. Moreover, most of the female MPs were from the NDP, now the Official Opposition mostly due to Jack Layton's performance in Quebec. Out of the 102 NDP MPs elected in the 2011 election, 40 of them are women.
The record-breaking number of women MPs -- from all political stripes -- is indeed encouraging. But, we still have a long way to go. According to Equal Voice, an organization committed to bridging the gender gap in the political process, Canada ranks 40th in Inter-Parliamentary Union. However, the NDP has demonstrated a commitment to encourage more women to run for pubic office. Two women -- MPs Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash -- were contenders for the leadership position for the NDP this past Spring. And, NDP leadership candidate and current MP for Ottawa Centre Paul Dewar proposed his strategy to advance women's involvement in politics and entreprise during his campaign. You can read the whole plan here, wonderfully titled, "A Woman's Place: At the Heart of Our Democracy, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Future."
As noble and progressive this plan is, it's difficult to assess as to whether it would actually work and operate successfully. Nonetheless, it's more than the Tories can say.
Speaking of which, out of the 167-member Conservative caucus that currently holds the majority, only 28 of them are women. Harper's Cabinet, which is composed of 37 other Members of Parliament, only nine are women. Nine! Contrast that with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's Shadow Cabinet where 17 female MPs are poised to be a part of the cabinet, if given a majority.
In terms of what Harper has done to advance women's rights in Canada, the results are very disappointing. As soon as Harper took office, he made significant drawbacks to programs and facilities that help Canadian women in several, several ways. To wit:
- Effectively eliminating the $1B National Child Care program, bolstering evidence that Canada is one of the most regressive countries when it comes to early children's education.
- Moreover, maternal care is at a dangerous level for Canada right now as more and more women die while giving birth. In fact, a woman giving birth in Bosnia and Herzegovina has a better chance at surviving than in Canada.
- Halting funding for the Sisters in Spirit database for Aboriginal Women in Canada who are missing
- Closing 12 out of 16 offices for the Status of Women Canada
- Cutting $1M for a research fund sponsored by the Status of Women Canada
- Didn't improve pay equity for women despite making it one of his campaign promises
- Increasing the age of retirement and cutting back on OAS when approximately 17% of senior women are living below the poverty line
- Slashing public sector jobs which has proven to offer more equitable pay rates for women than private sector jobs
You can read more detailed descriptions of the cuts and how they impact the lives of Canadian girls and women here, here, and here.
Probably one of the most telling and harrowing outcomes of major blowbacks to social assistance programs for women is an inability for them to reach out to their community and seek for help. Especially if they're in dire need like an abusive relationship, for example. In the early to mid nineties, when Ontario was under Conservative rule with PC Premier Mike Harris, a 1996 report issued by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses suggested that 66% of women stayed in an abusive relationship simply because they did not have enough access to social assistance.* That's just across a province. Imagine the entire country, devoid of any assistance programs to help and protect its own citizens.
However, there is a group of women who are fiercely and proudly Conservative. In fact, they are REAL Women of Canada -- whatever that's supposed to mean. According to their official website, their view runs counter to that of "established feminist groups" and seeks to emphasize that the "family is the most important unit in society." Although this NGO -- which claims to be non-partisan, by the way -- wants to progress women in the workplace, its real goal is to focus the debate back on the woman's role as the primary care provider for children and the family. In fact, they call themselves "pro-family."
I'm not too sure what constitutes as "anti-family." Working? Common-law relationships? Same-sex relationships? Abortion?
Well, REAL Women seem to oppose a woman's right to choose, believing that a woman should care for each member of her family, born or unborn. Using anti-feminist rhetoric, REAL Women claim that it is feminists themselves who are the oppressors in this issue, not the other way around.
On Same-Sex Unions, REAL Women are not in favour of them, arguing that they are not a real relationship because the union could never spawn children. I have to say, most of what's reported in this newsletter on same-sex relationships is pretty disgraceful. I mean, suggesting that homosexual couples are inherently unfaithful, unwilling to commit, and are just plain not real, is insulting to a significant amount of women, approximately 3 472 married couples**, who this organization supposedly represents.
And REAL Women do not support common-law relationships, at all. Again, in their newsletter, REAL Women argue that common-law relationships are "not a safe place to be in, physically, financially, or emotionally." Of course, it's indisputable that there are tax benefits for the married, but to suggest that common-law relationships are noxious, especially when an increasing number of women, approximately half of all Canadian women between the ages of 20 to 29, decided to choose an alternative to marriage.
Lastly, REAL Women have a rather peculiar approach to equal pay for equal work and I feel that I should leave it to their own statement. From their position paper on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value:
So, we have a completely disastrous record from the Harper government and an equally absurd women's group who supports this government. Both of these issues are compounded by the fact that the Conservatives are not big fans of dissent -- at any level, and certainly not when it comes to women's rights. The Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives*** have called the Conservatives and their assault on basic rights to free speech as "unprecedented in Canadian history" as women's services are defunded thereby limiting their right to speak out. Moreover, by tabling legislation like Public Sector Equitable Act, wages are determined by the "market demand" meaning women are competitively stacked up against men who are paid more anyways, sticking with discriminatory policies of the past. But, by eliminating the Court Challenges option, it's not like these women can oppose these antiquated payment policies.
Canadian women have certainly come a long way, making impact after impact with each turning decade. Prime Minsters, of course, have helped paved the way for all Canadian women seeking to achieve equality under the workplace and within their own lives. In 1993, Canada made history when PC Leader Kim Campbell became Prime Minster all for a mere four months. So, the seemingly impenetrable glass-ceiling that is still a burden to the United States has almost become chards for Canada.
But, not quite.
As mentioned before, we still have a long way to go. However, it doesn't seem like Harper and the REAL Women of Canada are helping us make any significant progress.
*Gordon Laird, Slumming It at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1998), 151.
**According to CBC, there are 7, 500 married same-sex couples in Canada, with 46.3% of them being marriage between two women. So, simple math was done to acquire that number.
***This piece in the CCPA is suggested reading.
The record-breaking number of women MPs -- from all political stripes -- is indeed encouraging. But, we still have a long way to go. According to Equal Voice, an organization committed to bridging the gender gap in the political process, Canada ranks 40th in Inter-Parliamentary Union. However, the NDP has demonstrated a commitment to encourage more women to run for pubic office. Two women -- MPs Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash -- were contenders for the leadership position for the NDP this past Spring. And, NDP leadership candidate and current MP for Ottawa Centre Paul Dewar proposed his strategy to advance women's involvement in politics and entreprise during his campaign. You can read the whole plan here, wonderfully titled, "A Woman's Place: At the Heart of Our Democracy, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Future."
As noble and progressive this plan is, it's difficult to assess as to whether it would actually work and operate successfully. Nonetheless, it's more than the Tories can say.
Speaking of which, out of the 167-member Conservative caucus that currently holds the majority, only 28 of them are women. Harper's Cabinet, which is composed of 37 other Members of Parliament, only nine are women. Nine! Contrast that with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's Shadow Cabinet where 17 female MPs are poised to be a part of the cabinet, if given a majority.
In terms of what Harper has done to advance women's rights in Canada, the results are very disappointing. As soon as Harper took office, he made significant drawbacks to programs and facilities that help Canadian women in several, several ways. To wit:
- Effectively eliminating the $1B National Child Care program, bolstering evidence that Canada is one of the most regressive countries when it comes to early children's education.
- Moreover, maternal care is at a dangerous level for Canada right now as more and more women die while giving birth. In fact, a woman giving birth in Bosnia and Herzegovina has a better chance at surviving than in Canada.
- Halting funding for the Sisters in Spirit database for Aboriginal Women in Canada who are missing
- Closing 12 out of 16 offices for the Status of Women Canada
- Cutting $1M for a research fund sponsored by the Status of Women Canada
- Didn't improve pay equity for women despite making it one of his campaign promises
- Increasing the age of retirement and cutting back on OAS when approximately 17% of senior women are living below the poverty line
- Slashing public sector jobs which has proven to offer more equitable pay rates for women than private sector jobs
You can read more detailed descriptions of the cuts and how they impact the lives of Canadian girls and women here, here, and here.
Probably one of the most telling and harrowing outcomes of major blowbacks to social assistance programs for women is an inability for them to reach out to their community and seek for help. Especially if they're in dire need like an abusive relationship, for example. In the early to mid nineties, when Ontario was under Conservative rule with PC Premier Mike Harris, a 1996 report issued by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses suggested that 66% of women stayed in an abusive relationship simply because they did not have enough access to social assistance.* That's just across a province. Imagine the entire country, devoid of any assistance programs to help and protect its own citizens.
However, there is a group of women who are fiercely and proudly Conservative. In fact, they are REAL Women of Canada -- whatever that's supposed to mean. According to their official website, their view runs counter to that of "established feminist groups" and seeks to emphasize that the "family is the most important unit in society." Although this NGO -- which claims to be non-partisan, by the way -- wants to progress women in the workplace, its real goal is to focus the debate back on the woman's role as the primary care provider for children and the family. In fact, they call themselves "pro-family."
I'm not too sure what constitutes as "anti-family." Working? Common-law relationships? Same-sex relationships? Abortion?
Well, REAL Women seem to oppose a woman's right to choose, believing that a woman should care for each member of her family, born or unborn. Using anti-feminist rhetoric, REAL Women claim that it is feminists themselves who are the oppressors in this issue, not the other way around.
On Same-Sex Unions, REAL Women are not in favour of them, arguing that they are not a real relationship because the union could never spawn children. I have to say, most of what's reported in this newsletter on same-sex relationships is pretty disgraceful. I mean, suggesting that homosexual couples are inherently unfaithful, unwilling to commit, and are just plain not real, is insulting to a significant amount of women, approximately 3 472 married couples**, who this organization supposedly represents.
And REAL Women do not support common-law relationships, at all. Again, in their newsletter, REAL Women argue that common-law relationships are "not a safe place to be in, physically, financially, or emotionally." Of course, it's indisputable that there are tax benefits for the married, but to suggest that common-law relationships are noxious, especially when an increasing number of women, approximately half of all Canadian women between the ages of 20 to 29, decided to choose an alternative to marriage.
Lastly, REAL Women have a rather peculiar approach to equal pay for equal work and I feel that I should leave it to their own statement. From their position paper on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value:
We oppose, however, the new different concept of equal pay for work of equal value, which is a comparison of different jobs for several reasons...The equal value concept means government wage control, since the government bureaucracy is required to oversee and enforce the program -- rather than having wages reflect the forces of supply and demand -- in the marketplace, regulated by laws that ensure fairness to all.So, REAL Women of Canada are essentially against their own interests with matters other than the family. Instead of fighting issues that would advance women -- like working, pay equity, abortion, common-law relationships -- they do the exact opposite and pine for a 1950s reality where women were routinely oppressed and discriminated against. When Harper released his budget in 2007, REAL Women of Canada championed the cuts, calling them a "good start." They claim that all the cuts inhibit the actions of feminists who do not represent the interests of real Canadian women. One of the main duties for the Status of Women in Canada is to fund and assist rape crisis facilities. But, remember, according to REAL Women of Canada, cutting these services is a good start.
So, we have a completely disastrous record from the Harper government and an equally absurd women's group who supports this government. Both of these issues are compounded by the fact that the Conservatives are not big fans of dissent -- at any level, and certainly not when it comes to women's rights. The Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives*** have called the Conservatives and their assault on basic rights to free speech as "unprecedented in Canadian history" as women's services are defunded thereby limiting their right to speak out. Moreover, by tabling legislation like Public Sector Equitable Act, wages are determined by the "market demand" meaning women are competitively stacked up against men who are paid more anyways, sticking with discriminatory policies of the past. But, by eliminating the Court Challenges option, it's not like these women can oppose these antiquated payment policies.
Canadian women have certainly come a long way, making impact after impact with each turning decade. Prime Minsters, of course, have helped paved the way for all Canadian women seeking to achieve equality under the workplace and within their own lives. In 1993, Canada made history when PC Leader Kim Campbell became Prime Minster all for a mere four months. So, the seemingly impenetrable glass-ceiling that is still a burden to the United States has almost become chards for Canada.
But, not quite.
As mentioned before, we still have a long way to go. However, it doesn't seem like Harper and the REAL Women of Canada are helping us make any significant progress.
*Gordon Laird, Slumming It at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1998), 151.
**According to CBC, there are 7, 500 married same-sex couples in Canada, with 46.3% of them being marriage between two women. So, simple math was done to acquire that number.
***This piece in the CCPA is suggested reading.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Your Bias is Showing
In an online editorial written today by CTV's Power Play host Don Martin, he argues that the Prime Minister needs to employ as much security forces as he can wield in order to protect himself and the standing of the Prime Ministerial office. This editorial penned by Martin is a rebuttal to a story first featured in The Globe and Mail about an incident where a canoeist was "frisked by police" after paddling too close to the Prime Minister and his barbeque.
Martin argues that in any circumstance, just like a canoeist with a lifejacket on paddling on the Credit River, the police has a duty to abruptly and harshly interrupt citizens if they even get within earshot of Stephen Harper. Granted, I'm not advocating that police don't exercise some protective measures. It's only logical to equip the Head of Government with security. But, to frisk a canoeist who -- most likely -- mistakenly portaged too close to the PM in the middle of his barbeque? Obviously, that's a little too much.
Martin then goes on to say that the tone of the article in The Globe and Mail denotes that it was a "police over-reaction" and something that overreached the gravity of the circumstance. If you read the original article, I think it does an adequate job of representing what actually occurred using mostly quotes from the canoeist itself. It balances out the harshness of the search procedure with the light jokes the police were making about the canoeist's shorts and mentioned that the police returned the knife the canoeist was carrying and told him to select another route. That's all that happened. The article was not a deep exposé into the atrocities of police brutality. Or, a writhing, scathing manifesto as to how the Harper government oversteps its boundaries and infringes on the rights of citizens. In fact, if you're looking for that, then you should continue reading the rest of Martin's editorial.
How Martin sets up the overreactions made by Harper is pretty astounding. He's indeed very casual and dismissive, as if the slight altercations aren't worthy of noting. This is straight from Martin's piece:
The editorial on CTVNews claims that more security measures are justified because "Canada has more enemies on the world stage than during the pre-911." That, I'm afraid, is undoubtedly true. It seems that we're losing more of our influence on the world stage and have culminated a sense of irrationality that has prompted other countries to feel alienated from Canada. An international poll done in 2010 suggested that only 67% of Americans, 54% of Chinese, and 62% of Brits consider Canada's influence as positive -- a staggering decline from the same poll conducted in 2008. So, what could be triggering this wave of unpopularity?
Well, our record on climate change, for one. In fact, that's a big one, since it was set amid the world stage at the Copenhagen Conference in 2010. And, our declining foreign aid spending -- which was recently slashed in the 2012 Budget.
The article is concluded with Martin saying that in our world composed of good guys and bad guys who want to take out our precious leaders, we need to reduce our security risks and frisk a few canoeists and cyclists now and then. An egregious statement if I ever saw one.
What Martin executed in his editorial piece here was not reporting or opining at the professional level. It was simply pandering and spreading Conservative bias onto the masses.
Martin argues that in any circumstance, just like a canoeist with a lifejacket on paddling on the Credit River, the police has a duty to abruptly and harshly interrupt citizens if they even get within earshot of Stephen Harper. Granted, I'm not advocating that police don't exercise some protective measures. It's only logical to equip the Head of Government with security. But, to frisk a canoeist who -- most likely -- mistakenly portaged too close to the PM in the middle of his barbeque? Obviously, that's a little too much.
Martin then goes on to say that the tone of the article in The Globe and Mail denotes that it was a "police over-reaction" and something that overreached the gravity of the circumstance. If you read the original article, I think it does an adequate job of representing what actually occurred using mostly quotes from the canoeist itself. It balances out the harshness of the search procedure with the light jokes the police were making about the canoeist's shorts and mentioned that the police returned the knife the canoeist was carrying and told him to select another route. That's all that happened. The article was not a deep exposé into the atrocities of police brutality. Or, a writhing, scathing manifesto as to how the Harper government oversteps its boundaries and infringes on the rights of citizens. In fact, if you're looking for that, then you should continue reading the rest of Martin's editorial.
How Martin sets up the overreactions made by Harper is pretty astounding. He's indeed very casual and dismissive, as if the slight altercations aren't worthy of noting. This is straight from Martin's piece:
His prime ministerial convoys seem to fluctuate in length depending on the circumstances -- three vehicles when he’s driving home for dinner, nine or more when he’s rushing around town in tandem with a visiting world leader.
And it’s true the $20-million-per-year tab for Harper’s protection detail has doubled since he became prime minister for a variety of reasons, particularly his busy travel agenda.But, hey! He is, after all, Prime Minister. According to the Toronto Sun, protecting Harper costs exactly $47 M, "almost 70 times the price tag for protecting his entire cabinet and other VIPs." Contrast that with the previous Prime Minster, Paul Martin, whose security costs peaked at around $700,000. Now, that's a very big leap.
The editorial on CTVNews claims that more security measures are justified because "Canada has more enemies on the world stage than during the pre-911." That, I'm afraid, is undoubtedly true. It seems that we're losing more of our influence on the world stage and have culminated a sense of irrationality that has prompted other countries to feel alienated from Canada. An international poll done in 2010 suggested that only 67% of Americans, 54% of Chinese, and 62% of Brits consider Canada's influence as positive -- a staggering decline from the same poll conducted in 2008. So, what could be triggering this wave of unpopularity?
Well, our record on climate change, for one. In fact, that's a big one, since it was set amid the world stage at the Copenhagen Conference in 2010. And, our declining foreign aid spending -- which was recently slashed in the 2012 Budget.
The article is concluded with Martin saying that in our world composed of good guys and bad guys who want to take out our precious leaders, we need to reduce our security risks and frisk a few canoeists and cyclists now and then. An egregious statement if I ever saw one.
What Martin executed in his editorial piece here was not reporting or opining at the professional level. It was simply pandering and spreading Conservative bias onto the masses.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Give me an R!
This morning, at 8:45 a.m., in a small, dreary town in Virginia, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney finally announced what nobody was really excited for -- well, except for Republicans who actually like Mitt Romney, but that's a small number at best. He announced his Vice President candidate, his second half of the Republican ticket, his number 2.
Names from different factions of the Republican Party flew around: Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, Rob Portman, and even Condoleeza Rice. But, of course, the ultimate decision for Romney and co. was to pick someone with gravitas, with impact, and with candor. Someone who would energize the base, excite the Tea Party, and help Romney defeat President Barack Obama come November.
Apparently, the GOP thought this person was none other than Paul Ryan.
Don't get me wrong, Paul Ryan is an interesting choice. He's 42 -- the same age as Mitt Romney's eldest son. He has a sterling record from the Conservative base (to contextualize this issue, he was elected as "Biggest Brown-Nose" by his high school class in 1988). Most importantly, his budget plan has catapulted Ryan as a major star in the GOP, someone to definitely keep an eye on. Now, Romney's support of the Ryan plan -- which is a complete gutting of Medicare, debilitating the poorest Americans, compounded with the biggest tax cuts for the richest Americans -- is even more salient, since it now becomes the Romney Plan.
If it wasn't already obvious before, Romney's VP choice shows he is not concerned about the very poor.
Below is a short reading list of what you need to know about Paul Ryan, including a notable, longread profile on him in The New Yorker by all-around awesome writer Ryan Lizza.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all Ryan Lizza's profile on Paul Ryan. This is probably the definitive account of Ryan's career and influence on the GOP out there.
http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/ Another longread in New York Magazine about Paul Ryan and his status as a GOP superstar.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-labor-unions-wisconsin Mother Jones here speculates on whether or not Ryan is a "secret union lover," a claim I wouldn't be totally surprised over, frankly.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-adult-budget Another interesting piece in Mother Jones about Ryan's budget plan and its "reverse-Robin Hood" tactic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/michael-tomasky-on-romney-s-stunning-terrible-choice-of-ryan-for-vp.html An article in the Daily Beast as to why Ryan's selection for VP may be the extra edge for the Obama campaign. I agree with the premise that Ryan's presence on the campaign could seriously inhibit any popularity for Romney considering that the Obama campaign will flesh out his budget proposal as much as humanly possible.
http://prospect.org/article/paul-ryan-obamas-dream-opponent And, another article in The American Prospect explaining all the benefits the Obama campaign can reap from Romney's VP selection.
For now, we'll have to wait and see what Ryan's inclusion into the Presidential fold may mean for both Romney and Obama. Who knows? He may shock everyone and give an impressive and strong debate performance as well as smooth interviews.
But, based on Ryan's and Romney's announcement speech, to which Romney mistakenly referred to Ryan as "the next President," it doesn't seem too likely.
Since the beginning of the summer, there has been much speculation as to who this could be, mostly because it was hard thinking of people who would mesh well with Mitt Romney. Moreover, the Republican Party seemed to handle the Veepstakes a little more seriously this time around and allowed for careful and thorough vetting. There was no way that the GOP were going to make another Palin blunder.
Names from different factions of the Republican Party flew around: Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, Rob Portman, and even Condoleeza Rice. But, of course, the ultimate decision for Romney and co. was to pick someone with gravitas, with impact, and with candor. Someone who would energize the base, excite the Tea Party, and help Romney defeat President Barack Obama come November.
Apparently, the GOP thought this person was none other than Paul Ryan.
Don't get me wrong, Paul Ryan is an interesting choice. He's 42 -- the same age as Mitt Romney's eldest son. He has a sterling record from the Conservative base (to contextualize this issue, he was elected as "Biggest Brown-Nose" by his high school class in 1988). Most importantly, his budget plan has catapulted Ryan as a major star in the GOP, someone to definitely keep an eye on. Now, Romney's support of the Ryan plan -- which is a complete gutting of Medicare, debilitating the poorest Americans, compounded with the biggest tax cuts for the richest Americans -- is even more salient, since it now becomes the Romney Plan.
If it wasn't already obvious before, Romney's VP choice shows he is not concerned about the very poor.
Below is a short reading list of what you need to know about Paul Ryan, including a notable, longread profile on him in The New Yorker by all-around awesome writer Ryan Lizza.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all Ryan Lizza's profile on Paul Ryan. This is probably the definitive account of Ryan's career and influence on the GOP out there.
http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/ Another longread in New York Magazine about Paul Ryan and his status as a GOP superstar.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-labor-unions-wisconsin Mother Jones here speculates on whether or not Ryan is a "secret union lover," a claim I wouldn't be totally surprised over, frankly.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-adult-budget Another interesting piece in Mother Jones about Ryan's budget plan and its "reverse-Robin Hood" tactic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/michael-tomasky-on-romney-s-stunning-terrible-choice-of-ryan-for-vp.html An article in the Daily Beast as to why Ryan's selection for VP may be the extra edge for the Obama campaign. I agree with the premise that Ryan's presence on the campaign could seriously inhibit any popularity for Romney considering that the Obama campaign will flesh out his budget proposal as much as humanly possible.
http://prospect.org/article/paul-ryan-obamas-dream-opponent And, another article in The American Prospect explaining all the benefits the Obama campaign can reap from Romney's VP selection.
For now, we'll have to wait and see what Ryan's inclusion into the Presidential fold may mean for both Romney and Obama. Who knows? He may shock everyone and give an impressive and strong debate performance as well as smooth interviews.
But, based on Ryan's and Romney's announcement speech, to which Romney mistakenly referred to Ryan as "the next President," it doesn't seem too likely.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Canadian Media: 'Churnalistic' By Choice
Today, in the refreshing and tolerable Toronto Star, columnist Susan Delacourt argued that current Canadian political reporting is suffering from 'churnalism.' For those unfamiliar with the term, 'churnalism' refers to political coverage merely spouting or 'churning' press release statements issued by the Communications department for politicians and political parties.
She begins by citing a poll from the United States suggesting that an impressive 78% of Americans have an unfavourable view of the political coverage in the media. I find this an especially interesting statistic considering that even the floundering cable-news network CNN effectively holds politicians accountable for spreading mistruth to the American public.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is Anderson Cooper sparring with Former Speaker Newt Gingrich on a Romney ad attacking Obama on welfare. Suffice it to say, Cooper is pretty impressive here: he doesn't interrupt Newt Gingrich but still makes him look absolutely ridiculous, stumbling around, taking back what he previously said about the ad, and admitting that the ad was not, in fact, bolstered by any evidence at all. Cooper's performance is probably one of the most professional interviews I've seen on a news network as most anchors/journalists have been shouting matches between parties. As much as I like Lawrence O'Donnell, his interview with former presidential candidate Herman Cain stepped out of bounds for a couple of reasons (ie., invoking the Vietnam War, civil rights with the sole goal of humiliating Cain on national television).
But, back to Delacourt. She claims that a similar poll could be conducted here in Canada showing similar results. She hits right on the head when she argues that "the public buys the idea, frequently put forward by the Conservatives and their allies, that the media is little more than a delivery system for the “spin” the politicians like to spout."
The Harper Government's record with the media in this country is, to put it lightly, less than favourable. My favourite part of this article -- and there is much to like about it -- is when she brings up a telling quote from a Conservative MP during an interview with Delacourt herself. The MP says, "It's not like [Harper] hates the media, it's that he has no respect for them."
And clearly, no respect for the Canadian public who -- presumably -- rely on media as their envoy to the government. By being secretive and guarded to the media, Harper is obviously being secretive and guarded to the same people who elected him to a majority government. A very telling example of this secretiveness, an impressive majority of students in my Political Science course did not know that the Harper government had to bail out the banks. Political Science students were unaware of a very significant action made by the government. Of course, this has to do with Harper's tight-lip strategy, but it also has to do with a failure on the media's part to report and discuss the issue as much as possible in order to reflect the magnitude of the situation.
Of course, Harper isn't the first PM to have a distaste for the media. Pierre Trudeau wasn't fond of the media either. And Jean Chretien probably initiated the most severe cuts to the CBC in recent history, even more than Brian Mulroney and Harper.
Harper's lack of media appearance and interviews have obviously made it hard for journalists to cover him, forcing them instead to rely solely on PR statements issued by his Communications team. But, there's more to this than just 'churnalism.' There is also a complete unwillingness for Canadian media to investigate further into situations, to delve deeper into the background and connections Harper and other politicians have. Essentially, I believe that there is a sincere lack of investigative journalism in Canada, especially in print media.
Right now, the situation has been exacerbated by the lack of different voices and perspectives in today's print media. As previously mentioned, the Toronto Star is a refreshing periodical since it showcases more Left editorial and opinion pieces more than any other newspaper in Canada. Papers owned by super-conglomerates like Postmedia and CanWest produce Conservative commentary in order to appease the interests of the readers and the stock holders who are, of course, Conservative themselves. And, then there's Sun News...
All of these print publications all rely on the same churned out versions of press release statements. There has been a serious and disconcerting de-emphasis on investigative journalism in Canadian print media. I mean, thank goodness for Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, the journalists who cracked the Robocalls Scandal, but obviously, we're in dire need of more stories like this because they are definitely out there. Despite what you may have heard, this not the most transparent government we've ever had. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you don't believe me, then look up the 'Heritage Foundation' and the connections and alliances they've had in the past. Look up 'GEO Group Inc.' Here are two stories that are worthy of attention.
If you're interested in reading the full article by Susan Delacourt, it is available right here.
She begins by citing a poll from the United States suggesting that an impressive 78% of Americans have an unfavourable view of the political coverage in the media. I find this an especially interesting statistic considering that even the floundering cable-news network CNN effectively holds politicians accountable for spreading mistruth to the American public.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is Anderson Cooper sparring with Former Speaker Newt Gingrich on a Romney ad attacking Obama on welfare. Suffice it to say, Cooper is pretty impressive here: he doesn't interrupt Newt Gingrich but still makes him look absolutely ridiculous, stumbling around, taking back what he previously said about the ad, and admitting that the ad was not, in fact, bolstered by any evidence at all. Cooper's performance is probably one of the most professional interviews I've seen on a news network as most anchors/journalists have been shouting matches between parties. As much as I like Lawrence O'Donnell, his interview with former presidential candidate Herman Cain stepped out of bounds for a couple of reasons (ie., invoking the Vietnam War, civil rights with the sole goal of humiliating Cain on national television).
But, back to Delacourt. She claims that a similar poll could be conducted here in Canada showing similar results. She hits right on the head when she argues that "the public buys the idea, frequently put forward by the Conservatives and their allies, that the media is little more than a delivery system for the “spin” the politicians like to spout."
The Harper Government's record with the media in this country is, to put it lightly, less than favourable. My favourite part of this article -- and there is much to like about it -- is when she brings up a telling quote from a Conservative MP during an interview with Delacourt herself. The MP says, "It's not like [Harper] hates the media, it's that he has no respect for them."
And clearly, no respect for the Canadian public who -- presumably -- rely on media as their envoy to the government. By being secretive and guarded to the media, Harper is obviously being secretive and guarded to the same people who elected him to a majority government. A very telling example of this secretiveness, an impressive majority of students in my Political Science course did not know that the Harper government had to bail out the banks. Political Science students were unaware of a very significant action made by the government. Of course, this has to do with Harper's tight-lip strategy, but it also has to do with a failure on the media's part to report and discuss the issue as much as possible in order to reflect the magnitude of the situation.
Of course, Harper isn't the first PM to have a distaste for the media. Pierre Trudeau wasn't fond of the media either. And Jean Chretien probably initiated the most severe cuts to the CBC in recent history, even more than Brian Mulroney and Harper.
Harper's lack of media appearance and interviews have obviously made it hard for journalists to cover him, forcing them instead to rely solely on PR statements issued by his Communications team. But, there's more to this than just 'churnalism.' There is also a complete unwillingness for Canadian media to investigate further into situations, to delve deeper into the background and connections Harper and other politicians have. Essentially, I believe that there is a sincere lack of investigative journalism in Canada, especially in print media.
Right now, the situation has been exacerbated by the lack of different voices and perspectives in today's print media. As previously mentioned, the Toronto Star is a refreshing periodical since it showcases more Left editorial and opinion pieces more than any other newspaper in Canada. Papers owned by super-conglomerates like Postmedia and CanWest produce Conservative commentary in order to appease the interests of the readers and the stock holders who are, of course, Conservative themselves. And, then there's Sun News...
All of these print publications all rely on the same churned out versions of press release statements. There has been a serious and disconcerting de-emphasis on investigative journalism in Canadian print media. I mean, thank goodness for Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, the journalists who cracked the Robocalls Scandal, but obviously, we're in dire need of more stories like this because they are definitely out there. Despite what you may have heard, this not the most transparent government we've ever had. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you don't believe me, then look up the 'Heritage Foundation' and the connections and alliances they've had in the past. Look up 'GEO Group Inc.' Here are two stories that are worthy of attention.
If you're interested in reading the full article by Susan Delacourt, it is available right here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)