Ramblings of Noah Arney

I first discovered my only real religion as an undergraduate at the University of Toronto. I was not alone in taking a political ideology as a virtual faith. In our small embattled group was a transplanted American who, when sufficiently plastered at our regular Saturday night socials, could be counted on to declare to all and sundry: “I love socialism.”

Gerald Caplan wrote this in the Globe and Mail this Saturday.  It was the beginning to a lofty thesis (change word).  Discussing the beginning of the CCF, now called the NDP, Caplan explains the importance of the Regina Manifesto.  Beyond calling for things like respect for minorities it has two major thrusts.

Under a CCF government, the state, the institutional embodiment of The People, would quickly take ownership of all banks and insurance, transportation and communications companies. Mining, pulp and paper and the distribution of milk, bread, coal and gasoline, industries “in which exploitation, waste, financial malpractices are particularly prominent” would follow soon after. Very heady stuff.

and two

the establishment in Canada of a Co-operative Commonwealth in which the principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits. We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated … and in which genuine democratic self-government based upon economic equality will be possible.”

Basically it calls for government run businesses in all areas which are key to the survival of the country, or which operate in ways wich do not coincide with the CCF’s mandate, and to change the way businesses and government operate from a capitalist model to a socialist model.

First off.  I agree that pure capitalism tends to make a complete mess of things.  That said, non-democratic socialism makes just as big of a mess.  The key to either system is a strong democratic leadership.

Caplan goes on to say that only a few of the goals of the CCF were ever realized: minimum wage, unemployment insurance, pensions, and socialized health care.  All of which I believe are part of what makes Canada amazing.  A minimum wage in Canada that goes from a low of $7.75 all the way up to $10, and averaging about $8.50 rather than the American’s minimum wage of $5.85 (increasing to $7.25 in two years) with the highest minimum wage at $8.07 With their average being about $6.25.

Today, no progressive party in the Western world embraces anything more socialistic than a modest welfare state complemented by social liberalism, as antidotes to market economics and social conservatism.

I read that and thought: “I kinda like social liberalism”  I see the government as a system of checks and balances not just of itself, but of the whole system.  It’s not centrism, as it supports government run programs and government regulations, but it still allows free enterprise.

Caplan ends his essay with a call for the NDP to “Instead of playing arcane parliamentary games and manoeuvring to replace the Liberals, the NDP needs to restore the “New” in its name and its ideas. We need to prove that being a perennial minority party is not a wasted exercise.”

I fully agree.  The NDP has been especially effective in the house for many years regardless of it’s small numbers.  It has begun establishing itself as the actual opposition in the house recently, and has made some very shrewd decisions in the past.  But as much as the NDP would like to be the official opposition, they don’t need to be.  They are making more of a difference right now than either of the other opposition parties.

Here is my difference with Caplan though.  Canada has been a capitalist nation, though one tempered by socialism, for a fairly long time.  Our major influence tends to be from the USA and not from Europe.  Based on the NDP never getting more than 20% of the vote in Canada I think it’s safe to say that people aren’t very comfortable with the NDP.  Whether this is from transferring their animosity from provincial NDP parties to the federal one, a fear of socialism, or even just not believing that the NDP has the ability to lead doesn’t matter.  What matters is that the NDP’s platform is not being accepted.  So yes, the NDP needs to reinvent itself.

The NDP needs to back away from its historical belief in government run industry.  Instead it needs to be seen as a watchdog, examining corporations and proposing regulations.  Rather than being seen as someone who wants to run Canadian corporations, thus being seen as just as bad, they need to be seen as a protector of the Canadian people from those corporations.   The NDP also needs to stop being seen by everyone as the party for unions.  For some reason unions are now being looked on as just another type of government.  People who take your money and claim to give you services in response.  Though this isn’t accurate, it is how they are often viewed.  Instead the NDP needs to be seen as a party for everyone, stepping back from their union focus.

Or they could continue as the #3 party.  Granted they do very good work as the #3 party, but I’m sure they would like to be higher.  The question is, how much do they want to stick to their historical roots, and how much do they want to be able to help Canadians.  Because of the parties currently in the house they seem to be doing the best job.  And no, I don’t vote NDP.  But every time they do something I get a bit closer.

I was watching question period today. It was more rowdy than normal, and not a lot of interest happened. The most important part was what happened right after question period. The government house leader said that key members of the Aboriginal community in Canada will not be invited to sit in the house for the official government apology for the residential schools. They will instead have to be seated in the upper galleries as observers. Basically what this amounts to is that the Conservatives want to apologize for a dark mark upon Canadian history (a laudable goal), but they don’t want to have to look at those they are apologizing to…. Gee, this sounds like a wonderful thumbing of their collective noses at the Aboriginal community.

Below is a leak of Hillary Clinton’s speech Tomorrow:

This has been, by all accounts, an historic race.  We have set a new bar for future primaries.  My opponent has been a strong contender, and has done more than any of us could have imagined.  Thank you for the oportunity to compete agants you.  However.  All good things must come to an end, and so must our rivalry.  It is time for the Democratic party to come together and heal old wounds.  It is time for the Democratic party to present a united front against the Republican war machine.   It is time for all right thinking people to stand up for their rights, and the rights of others.  It’s time for everyone to unite under the Democratic banner and take this to the White House its self.

John McCain has shown himself to be opposed to the core things that all right thinking people desire: health, a strong economy, and peace.  He has shown that a McCain White House would be identical to a Bush White House, and that’s not what we want in a president.

It is my belief, then, that both Sen. Obama and I must come together to fight against McCain’s vision of 8 more years of the same.  Therefore I would like to take this time to respectfuly and graciously ask for Sen. Obama to step out of the race.

These six months of primaries have shown one thing: nothing has changed.  In December I was believed to be the strongest candidate.  I am still the strongest candidate.  Nothing has changed.  You might see the numbers stacked against me, but know this: I am the only Democratic candidate who can win in November.  Primary results mean nothing.  What matters is experience, and I have that.

Thank you, and I look forward to having Sen. Obama as my Vice President.

Yes, the above was a joke.  I hope you enjoyed it.

I felt like being geeky today, so I thought I’d take a look at Sen. Clinton’s mistake.  Normally I wouldn’t care, but after all of the fuss over Sen. Obama’s comments about clinging to guns I figured she’s fair game for slips.  So, without further ado here is the comment:

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

And of course the most important part:

“Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”

If you want to jump down past the grammar discussion click here.

Now a comma is used for several things.  And I’d like to point you to this site from which I got my examples.  First is the listing use.  For example:

Noun:  He brought coffee, sandwiches, cheese and soda.
Verb:  She caught, cleaned, cooked and served the fish.
Adjective:  The weather today is cool, dry and windy.
Verb phrase:  I closed the door, started the car, pulled out of the driveway, and switched on the radio.
Clause:  Mayuki made the sushi, Yung-Hee cooked the meat, and Izabella chopped the vegetables

There is one thing that you must remember when using a list.  At the end, before the last item, you MUST use the word “and”.  Without that, it’s not a list.

The next use of the comma is for conjoining two clauses:

It was raining, so I took my umbrella.

To do this you need to use one of the coordinating conjunctions: and, but, or, so, and several more.

Most of the rest of this will have the examples taken from Wikipedia.

Commas can also be used for introductory phrases: Once upon a time, I didn’t know how to use commas

Parenthetical phrases are those bits that can be pulled out of a sentence without changing the meaning.  They fall into restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.  I’m not going to go into it much, but if you’re interested, I have a lovely worksheet I do with my students.  But, there are several forms of parenthetical phrases.  The following are the ones which interest us right now:

My father, a jaded and bitter man, ate the bagel (appositive)
My father, chewing with unbridled fury, ate the bagel (free modifier).
My father, in a fit of rage, ate the bagel (prepositional phrase).
My father, with no regard for his health, ate the bagel (adverbial phrase).
My father, despite his lack of teeth, ate the bagel (adverbial phrase). 

It is also used to separate dependant and independent clauses: “After I brushed the cat, I lint-rollered my clothes”.

And back to the politics.  The most important parts of this discussion on grammar are Parenthetical Phrases and Listing.

“Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”

The only two possible types of comma that this could be are Parenthetical and Listing.  Lets look at listing.  As we know, a list is a number of points joined together by commas, and ending with the word “and” before the final.  Now we can assume that Clinton was attempting to give a list, meaning:

“Obama’s support among hard working Americans [of all colours], and white Americans [in particular] is weakening again.”

After listening to her comments though (which you can do here), I’m afraid that that’s not what she said.  She used the distinct pauses which indicate commas.  Also, she lacks the all important “and”. 

Before we continue, it is important to remember that her comments were full of “ums”.  Thus, I’ll rewrite what she said slightly.

She said “among working, hard-working”, but, from that, and from the “ums” which are included in it, she said “working” but then changed that to “hard-working”.  Her comment then is:

 ”Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”

Now, as we said, this is not, much as she might wish otherwise, a list.  It is a parenthetical phrase.  With the commas as they fall, she is saying:

“Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, is weakening again”

But, in order to assume this, we need to think that the introduction of the words “white Americans” does not change the sentence.  If it did change the sentence, the commas would not need to be there in that order.  Which means that “white Americans” is not adding to the sentence, but rather defining “hard-working Americans”.  Thus she has said:

“Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, [and they are] white Americans, is weakening again”

And that is where the problem happens.  She has verbally equated white with hard-working.  Which on the flip side implies that Obama’s largest ethnic group (black Americans) are not hard-working.

To be clear, when I started this I felt that people were simply taking their prior ingrained racism and applying it to the quote, seeing racism simply because it was a white person making a comment about white people.  However, after looking at the comma use, I feel that I must conclude that the comments made, though I’m sure it was a slip of the tongue, are in fact saying that hard-working Americans are white.

I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.  But beyond that I can see the next tunnel.  Yes, though we’ve all waited way too long for the fight over the Democratic nomination to be over, that was just a warm-up.

Obama will likely be the next candidate, though it took longer than I expected.  Of course, it isn’t over yet, but unless there’s a major change in the next few weeks, this is over.

The nomination process, though, is just the appetizer.  Next up we get to see Obama vs. McCain.

Originally when McCain started running, I thought: “well, that’s the only candidate who doesn’t seem completely repulsive.  Too bad they’ll never nominate him.”  And then, they did.  Of course since then McCain seems to have changed his principles and gone on to kiss the shoes (and probably other locations) of none other than the Christian Right, in the form of John Hagge.  Yes, the same Hagge who is famous for saying:

 ”I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.”

Remember, that McCain in 2000 after being denounced by Robertson and Jerry Falwell McCain stood up and made the following remarks:

“They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters.”

“Why? Because I don’t pander to them, because I don’t ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message.”

“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”

(see the rest of the transcript here)

 And yet, here we are.  Mr. McCain, your actions remind me of Pat Robertson last November when I accused of selling out his principles.

Don’t get me started on McCain an his boot licking of our beloved president or the whole Karl Rove thing.

 Of course none of this will even matter until Clinton decides on what she is going to do.  Personally I think she’s just waiting for a high point so she can withdraw with dignity.  She may just stay in till the last primary, and then concede, but I don’t think we’re going to get any major attack adds or speeches from her for the next while.  I hope.

According to the Globe and Mail the Federal NDP is planning on introducing a non-confidence motion.    Finally.  I’ve been waiting for this for weeks.  Ever since the Liberals lost their back bone and stopped being an opposition and became more of a politely objecting.  For all the bluster of the Liberals they haven’t done much opposing in the last few months.

And now along comes this NDP motion.  First the motion uses the Conservatives’ corporate tax cuts as the reason for the motion.  Unfortunately the Liberals support corporate tax cuts.  Their problem with them seems to be that there weren’t enough of them. 

“A key competitive advantage for Canada used to be our weak currency. Now that our dollar is at par, and we have lost this weak currency advantage, a key advantage must be a competitive corporate tax rate” (Dion, Oct. 12, 2007)

“a Liberal government is committed to reducing corporate income taxes ” (Dion, Jan. 18, 2008). 

 The second problem is that the Liberals don’t want an election:

“It’s a bad government and we’ll choose a time to defeat this bad government,” he told reporters. “You will see. But it will not be at this time where we have a snowstorm in Ontario and just before Easter. I don’t think Canadians want that.” (Dion, Mar. 8, 2008)

I think we can take it for granted that the Liberals will support the Conservatives in voting down this motion.  The only other option they have is to abstain from voting, as they’ve been doing fairly often.  But there’s a problem.

This motion isn’t aimed at taking down the government.  If it were they’d word it so the Liberals could vote for it.  Instead it’s designed to be as far from Dion’s position as possible.  Instead the NDP gets to point to the liberals and say “look how like the conservatives they are”.  The NDP isn’t trying to topple the Conservatives, they’re trying to hurt the Liberals.

 My guess from this is that the NDP’s long range plan isn’t to become the government (lets be honest, they have about as much chance of that as the Green party), but rather to unseat the Liberals as the Official Opposition.  The NDP isn’t aiming for first (though I’m sure they’d love it), they are aiming for second.  And it’s a good bid too.  As the Opposition the NDP would gain a lot of power, and a lot of press coverage, thus guaranteeing them an even better show the next election around.  Very smart, very tactical, and I’m impressed.  Well done NDP.

Also, if you need more proof, the picture I’m using in this post is from the NDP’s homepage.

Well some days you have it, and some days you don’t.

 If you had asked me a few months ago if I thought that Pat Robertson would endorse Giuliani, I would have laughed and said no.  I would have been wrong.

Now I’m wrong again.  The Liberals have been talking big recently, like they were looking for a fight.  The Conservatives called them on it, introducing a motion to stay in Afghanistan for two more years, a motion to increase the mandatory sentences for criminals, and a budget.

Well it seems like the Liberals were bluffing.  They seem to be letting the budget pass, they’re making sounds like they’ll vote for the Afghanistan Mission extension (odd since they have criticized it so much in Question Period), I wouldn’t be surprised if they chicken out on the mandatory sentences.

Well, the Conservatives still want to pressure the Liberals into calling an election, so they will be putting in a controversial motion to rework how the Canadian Wheat Board works.  Again though, it looks like the Liberals may be supporting it.

This of course has the NDP up in arms, they had counted on the Liberals support to take down the Government.  Ahh well Layton, maybe next motion.

Recently I’ve been discussing American politics a lot.  The reason behind this is of course that there is an election coming up.  But now I’ll return to Canadian politics, because… well there seems to be an election coming up.

The Liberals want an election, they feel that people are so fed up with the Conservatives that they can pull enough of the vote to take over with a minority government.  The NDP wants an election , they feel that they can get some more seats now that they’ve clothed themselves in green and have sworn to be anti-war.  The Block wants an election, though no one knows why, they have had a great recent history of loosing seats because Quebecers don’t find them relevant any more.  The Conservatives want an election if only to prove to the other parties that Canadians still support them.

So why don’t we have one?  Because no one wants to cause it.  The NDP has twice been the party to topple a minority government; they lost seats both times.  Why?  Many reasons, but the big one is probably that Canadians don’t like voting, even though they feel it’s their duty to do so.  So those who force early elections are not looked favorably on.

All of the parties know this, and because of that they are treading carefully.  The Conservatives have introduced three confidence motions at the same time: a budget, a motion to stay in Afghanistan for two more years, and a motion to increase mandatory sentences for criminals.

Why are the conservatives so cocky?  Because they can read the polls.  Sure they wouldn’t win a majority government, but they don’t have to.  They’ve figured out what the Liberals never did during their recent minority government stint: negotiate, compromise, discuss.  Because of this they know that if they have an election and win then they will have another year or two to prove to Canadians that they can in fact be trusted.  And then be boosted to a full majority government.

The Liberals on the other hand have been looking for an election since Dion solidified his control.  They know that they can’t take a majority, but they think that they can take a minority.  Of course it remains to be seen if they have learned the lessons of the past. 

The NDP?  They can’t lose.  An election makes the ruling party look weak, which gives them more power.  They have a good chance of gaining some seats.  All in all it’s a good move for them.

And the Block?  Well, I don’t think they’ve realized that people don’t want a one issue party any more.  Most of the conditions that were the cause of the separatist movement have passed, and the new generation doesn’t consider those remaining to be as much of an issue.  It’s no longer just “Anglos and Immigrants” who see the Block as not useful.  But they don’t see that.  They don’t realize that the seats lost to the Conservatives last election were only a beginning.

 So.  It’s election time in Canada.  Eventually.

America is broken.  The people no longer trust the government to govern in their stead.  And it’s no wonder.  The far left has been left out in the cold for years, having almost none of their concerns addressed.  The far right feels rightly abused.  They saw a conservative President sitting with a majority in the House and Senate, and yet their major issue of abortion was never dealt with.  Instead they got “faith based” sex education which pushed people further from abstinence, while at the same time not giving students the knowledge of birth control that would lessen the need for abortions.

The government repetitively lied to the nation while the nation was at it’s most vulnerable; and then attacked all those who tried to speak the truth.

America needs to be healed.  They need someone who can restore faith, and give something to hope for.

This is where Obama comes in.  He has the ability to begin the healing process for the nation.  Every time I hear one of his speeches I get inspired.  I don’t even need to hear him, I can just read a transcript and I feel the power and charisma of a man who can do great things.

Here’s the problem.  Just because a man can do great things, doesn’t mean he does.  Rhetoric is a great thing.  Through it men and women can peacefully sort out their differences, through it one person can bring another to a new point of view without resorting to violence.  Through it we can begin to bring hope back to the United States.

But.  There has to be a but.  The ability to speak well and convincingly does not go hand in hand with strong moral fiber regardless of what the ancient Greeks thought.  There have been many great orators in the past century who used it to convince the people of their way, and took their nations down a dark road.

At times of national crises great orators come to the front.  Martin Luther King Jr. came to the front at a time of great change and turmoil in the states.  A country was trying to re-imagine its self, and his words helped it along.  England was lead through one of it’s darkest times, during World War II, by the strength of Winston Churchill.  And Germany was brought up out of humiliation and given it’s pride and dignity back by a speaker of tremendous charisma, who then led his country into it’s worst sins, which has forever branded that country as the home of the Nazis.

Obama has the power to heal and lead.  He has the power to change America for the better.  If he is elected he could do all these things.  If he is elected, he also has the power to destroy what little respect the country has left.  He has the power to plunge America into its darkest time.

I am not so naive as to imagine that because he is an inspirational speaker and a powerful rhetor that he will use his abilities for the good of the country.  But I look at the other candidates and see no potential for healing the deep gashes in the heart of America.  They tout their experience at the heart of Washington, and try to stop people from remembering that it was those at the heart of Washington who saw the wounds and ignored them.  Who told the country that they were fine, when they were falling apart.  Who lied, and helped to cover up other’s lies.

 Obama scares me.  But he is the only candidate who has the ability to start making things right.

“To me the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists”Pat Robertson on why he’s supporting Giuliani

I’m just shaking my head over this one.

First, why would Pat Robertson, blatantly anti-gay anti-abortion pro-marriage , support a candidate with two or three divorces, and a pro-gay and pro-choice stance?  The only reason I can think of is that Giuliani has the best chance of winning the presidency.  That would translate into political power for those who supported him.  How kind of Robertson to sell out his faith and beliefs (however much I don’t support them) for the potential promise of a chance at political power.  At least Judas got paid cold hard cash.

But lets take a closer look at his statement.

“To me the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists”

Overriding issue: OK, so we have something that is more important than every other issue, be it gay marriage, the federal debt, outsourcing of jobs to other countries, the increasing gap between rich and poor, the decreasing of the US’ influence around the world, or the increasing hostility towards religions

defense of our population: Our safety is more important than any other issue.  More important than the issues listed previously, more important than faith, more important than liberty.  According to Roberts, Essential Liberty is not greater than Temporary Safety.

blood lust of Islamic terrorists:  From this we see that Islamic terrorists apparently do what they do because they love to kill people, and not for any misguided beliefs.  It’s not revenge, it’s madness.  But from the phrase “Islamic terrorists” we must assume that Islamic terrorists are different from any other type of terrorist.  So the unabomber had a much better reason to kill people than Osama bin Laden.  Apparently these people are different from other terrorists because they subscribe to a specific faith.

I have three quotes from the King James Bible which I feel speak to what this “christian leader” is saying.

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” Mat. 5:39

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” Mat. 5:44

“And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” Luke 10:27

But those are just from a carpenter a few thousand years ago.  Surely that can’t apply to so great a “christian leader” as Pat Robertson.  Jesus may have said those things, but I’m sure he must have really meant that we were supposed to kill those who hate or kill us, and to hate people who aren’t of the same religion as us, or who don’t conform to our standard of a family.

We have a “christian leader” here who first is giving up his principles for the chance at political power, and second seems to hate his enemies.  What could be more “Christian” (meaning little Christ) than that?