Keeping Hope honest...

The incoming Obama administration hasn't yet taken the reins of the White House, but they're certainly preparing themselves for the task at hand. His accompanying cabinet is bi-partisan in nature, with membership spanning both the Democratic and Republican parties. 

His cabinet selections are not without there own controversies. Obama's selection of Eric Holder as Attorney General upsets many who feel his ties to the Clinton Inc and his controversial pardon history are an unfair renege on Obama's earlier promises of "change". The new Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood has created an unwelcome stir among the environmental crowd because of his ties to the GOP and how he'll handle transportation issues as part of Obama's grandiose plan to revitalize the American transportation industry. Appointing Hillary as Secretary of State has certainly left some scratching their heads.

The point is that the days of tirelessly running around touting Obama over everyone else are quickly coming to a close. He's in. There's no one else to beat. You'll notice that the frequency of words like change, hope and "yes, we can" has fallen significantly in the media and from Mr. Obama. The country's (and the rest of the world for that matter) love for him should no longer be blind. And it is becoming clear that Obama is not the idealistic saviour that many (myself included) made him out to be during the last two years.

His faults are becoming increasingly clear as time progresses. He plays the political game like many other politicians, as his cabinet appointments have clearly indicated. The hulabaloo erupting with his selection of the strongly anti-abortion and anti-gay Rev. Rick Warren as part of his inauguration reflects the need to look at Obama's own values. He doesn't seem to be quite as left-of-centre as we made him out to be, as he's clearly tiptoeing the centre as he gets ready to take over the most difficult and responsible position in the world.     

This is not to say that I am angry at Obama, nor do I believe he isn't the right man for the job. He's doing what he should to run the world's most powerful country. But what makes the job so difficult is that he has to answer to his decisions and explain why and how he will make those decisions. The public and the media especially should not turn a blind eye to Obama's choices and statements, as many of us may have during the elections citing that "it's OK, he's the almighty Obama. Let's trust he knows what he's doing". 

So when Obama takes power on January 20, we can celebrate that we've finally got someone else running the country. But let's drop those pro-Obama allegiances, critically examine the administration and keep him honest. It'll keep the Hope-Train on the tracks and going in the right direction. 

If Canada only had a reset button...

So the last federal election was a humongous waste of time and money. Only about 60% of eligible Canadians showed up to wield their democratic right, the lowest in history if I'm not mistaken. It swamped the Canadian media for over a month and very little policy was discussed, but we did get to find out how each federal leader appreciates to arts. Yawn.

And after it was all said and done, what do we get? A slightly larger Harper minority; the expected land-second disappearance of the Greens; rambunctious Jack making up a bit of ground but still far from his unrealistic bid to actually run the country; and the downfall of the Liberal superpower at the hands of the outgoing (and not a minute too early) leader, Mr. Dion. 

So now what? The Liberals (still in debt) are in the midst of another unaffordable and overly dramatic leadership race, Elizabeth May has disappeared (perhaps abducted by eco-aliens), Jack is being Jack, Quebec is acting like the good ol' nation within a united Canada that it is and Steve, well, he's still leading this country into oblivion, sweater vest and all. 

Government finally got back into session and within a week or so there's talk of another election. The Conservative government released its economic update, stating that it has been forced to cut a number of programs including funding to the other political parties, all in the name of keeping the budget balanced. The big piece missing from all this: a nice big stimulus package for the economy.

Don't Flaherty and Harper keep up with the times? Big, fat stimulus packages are all the rage these days. And as much as we may like balanced budgets, this is one of those times where its OK for the conservative folks to roll down their socks and spend a little money. Otherwise there won't be much of a budget to balance next fiscal year after tax revenues have dwindled to nothing when the average Canadian Joe the Igloo Plumber doesn't have any money to be taxed of. 

So what's the other option? Obviously we can't let this go through, so now the opposition parties are considering a coalition. Oh, great. I'm sure this will be a very co-operative group. The drama that will unfold from that may be worse than holding another election. Who will be the new Prime Minister? We might all cry if its Dion. Duceppe isn't all that much of a national guy. Jack would be lousy because he'd have no one to complain about. And May doesn't have a seat, so scratch her off the list. Ignatieff or Rae might forego the leadership race and just step in, which could be alright, but I'd be a little bit worried about Rae after his time serving with a coalition government and then heading a majority for several very awkward years at the helm of Ontario.

So basically it's a huge mess. Election=bad. Even less people will show up and the last thing we need is an election at a time when politicians should be at work saving the country from economic collapse. Coalition=probably bad. Expect lots of infighting and hairpulling. 

I offer a simple solution. Perhaps we can grab a four year free-trial from the United States to join up and make up their giant 51st state. At least we'd have a decent guy at the helm who seems to know what he's doing, and we could sit back and enjoy the benefits of these massive stimulus packages. And by the time the taxpayers have to start paying back the $2 trillion or so of government debt, we kindly return to our status as an independent nation.  

 

Santa's sleigh might be a little lighter this year...

No, jolly ol' St. Nick hasn't suddenly realized that he is at a massive risk of diabetes and heart disease and decided to sign up for Jenny Craig's attractive weight loss program. Although, who's to say he hasn't. It has been quite awhile since we've seen him last.

The lightness of his sleigh won't come from Santa himself, but from his bag of goodies. Something tells me Christmas won't be quite the same this year.

The economic crisis that has hit us is already starting to have significant effects on people's savings, values of their homes, their jobs and ultimately their spending practices. But here we are in mid-November. This is the time when our consumption-laden society starts to vamp up for the Christmas (holiday, to be politically correct) shopping season. This is when the wallets are supposed to open up so we can all buy those sweet, sweet goods we all know and love. I'm not quite sure that will happen this year.

The crisis is far from over and far from starting to recover. Many of the big box stores that thrive off the holiday season are preparing for the worst, as many of them have shut down numerous stores and the people who rely on them for temporary employment (students, stay-at-home parents, the elderly etc) during the season are being turned away in droves. And this crisis certainly won't be solved by people going out and spending money (circa 2001). Nobody has any.

So what will this mean for little Johnny and Sally Smith, who have been used to getting the latest iPod or XBox for the past decade of holiday seasons? Well, one can only hope the parents will be able to say no. And they better, because many will be financially forced to say no. I'm not sure how much good a new Wii will be if there's no electricity to run it after the hydro company shuts your power off for accruing bills that are far past due.

People may now be able to cherish those long-lost staples of the holiday season that are commonly gawked at: being with friends and family, non-materialistic generosity and being thankful for what we have. A little hokey, isn't it? But there's something to it.

I come from a relatively privileged household and grew up with my Christmas focus being all the great gifts I got. And rarely did my parents disappoint. This is not to say I was spoiled, but I put a higher value on materialistic gifts than on the other parts of the holiday. I didn't really realize it to its full extent until I moved away from home and was only able to see family every few months. I didn't care about the gifts or anything like that (although they still are nice to get); I was far happier to be home enjoying what I had.

I also had a terribly frustrating time during my first year of holiday shopping on my own. I figured that since I was away from home I could bring everyone cool, exotic gifts. The price tag was high (especially when I had become financially independent and much poorer than I had ever been), but I didn't care because I knew everyone would be happy with such things. I didn't quite get the reaction I was looking for, which was a little troubling. But I later realized everyone was just happy to see me and there was no materialistic value anyone can put on that.

So now I hesitate to spend ridiculous amounts on people. Not because they won't care about the gifts or be happy about them, but because they value the non-materialistic pieces more. And it is a far nicer way to enjoy the holidays.

There is a silver lining in this crisis. We've focused on consumerism and materialistic value for far too long. If people are able to shift away from this come the holidays, it could be one of the most valuable and humbling shifts we could ever take.

Student politics takes a step, but in which direction...

Seemingly from out of nowhere, Trent University's Student President is on the chopping block. A recent meeting held by the Student Union included several motions recommending the impeachment of Pres. Liam Mooney. As a result, he has been indefinitely suspended pending an investigation into the reasoning for the motion. A call for his resignation has also been proposed. 

Wow. That was quick. In all likelihood, Mooney's days are numbered as Student President, but it certainly seemed to come out of nowhere. I was aware that there was some discontent among the student body towards Mooney, but such discontent often exists with any Student President. I'm also adequately cynical to assume that nobody cares nearly enough about student politics at Trent to actually go as far as to recommend impeachment. But that's beside the point.

I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is a sign of a good student-political system. Sure, it's great that a President is being held accountable for his actions, but what were his actions? I'm a fairly well-informed student, but not to the degree that I would find anything so wrong with Mooney that would induce me to the point of recommending impeachment. This seems to be a common sentiment among the student body.

On a Facebook group that advertised the student meeting, nearly half the public comments pertained to students asking what exactly Mooney had done wrong. There was no mention on the site as to what this was all about. I've looked into it and I still don't know the full story. I believe some of it has to do with him wanting to audit the various student groups on campus, eventually weeding out the 'inefficient' ones. 

But when looking at this in context, I'm slightly confused. For the first time in my life, the student elections contained two distinct parties, one of which Mooney was the 'leader'. From what I remember last spring, the two parties were less than enthusiastic about each other. But a myriad of people from both parties were elected, giving rise to a Student Union that was hopelessly divided. I say I'm confused because I'm not sure whether having two parties govern the Student Union is a good thing or not.

Sure, one can keep the check on the other one, but party politics can be annoyingly, well, political. Does anyone else have any experience with student politics being run this way, or any feelings towards it? Because I'm at a standstill. 

Hope comes back down to Earth...

After nearly two years, one of the world's most memorable campaigns finally came to a close with the climactic and historical election victory of Barack Obama on November 4th. The chants of 'hope', 'change' and 'yes we can' have become staples of a revamped America and his campaign seemed to bring out the best in his supporters. Quite simply, the campaign was electric.

But now we're over a week past that momentous occasion and things seem to have settled down quite a bit. There's no more Barack supporters running around in droves trying to spread the word of 'hope' and Obama's speeches now lack the same vigour they were once made famous for. But is this necessarily a bad thing?

The campaign was ultimately successful in what it was trying to accomplish: putting Obama in the White House. The first stage of 'yes we can' was certainly met when his victory was announced. But the sense of 'hope' is still very much there, only it has now been toned down. 

After we all finally leveled off our post-Nov. 4th highs, it became time to get back to business. Not just for Mr. Obama, but for everyone else. Obama wasn't simply telling everyone how he could 'change' the world and America, he was saying how everyone together could do it. He was offering an open invitation for everyone to participate. 

And we did our first job by getting him elected. The next stage is on us to do our part in our own lives. 

You can sense it even here in Canada. We were more caught up in that election than our own election. But now that it's over, we can get back to our lives. It's nice. But it has nothing to do with forgetting Obama or his message and everything to do with being active participants in a system that does not always recognize people's contributions.  

Has our neighbour really changed?..

I've spent much of my past year considering different law schools to attend after my undergraduate time at Trent. For the longest time I had simply dismissed any possibility of attending an American law school, largely because it would involve living and eventually staying in the United States.

But during the last week I suddenly had a spurring interest in that very possibility; something that hadn't appeared on my radar for nearly a year. But why now?

Sure, American law schools have several advantages (and disadvantages) over Canadian schools, but these have been apparent to me for quite a long time. After thinking about it, I realized that it was the election results that led to this renewed interest.

I had been following the election and the campaigns incredibly closely for years, cheering for Obama from the get-go. But it had never occurred to me that he might have had such an effect on me.

I find it quite amazing. Here I am considering such a significant decision in my life and subconsciously the fact that Obama will be President has put America back on the map for me.

I also thought that this may simply be a brief cresting of interest coming off the election victory, but I realized that this was an interest that came subconsciously. At no time had I thought, "Oh boy, this is where Obama is President". The United States just doesn't seem like such an awful place to go anymore, at least at first glance. Of course, when you think about, it hasn't changed too much, but it's a step in the right direction.

I was sure that Obama's victory would give the United States a slightly better identity abroad, but I never thought it would hit me that quickly and stealthily.

I wonder if this is simply a brief spike in interest and whether I'm standing alone here in these weird experiences. Has anybody else's perspective of the United States changed at first glance, either consciously or subconsciously?

McCain breathes a sigh of relief...

You may look at the title of this piece and notice the corresponding date. Yes, the historical campaign for the 44th U.S. Presidency finally came to a close as Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated Sen. John McCain to become the first African-American President-Elect in U.S. history.

But this piece does not focus on the country's next President, but instead his dearly defeated opponent, John McCain.

In watching John McCain's very gracious speech last night, whereby he conceded defeat to Obama, there was a sense that John was not about to raise hell or whine like a baby. There was a slight touch about his voice and they way he smiled that indicated McCain was feeling something quite unexpected that night: relief.

I may be relatively young, but I remember the pre-election McCain. He was a humourous, delightful old guy who routinely made appearances on late night television shows like David Letterman and Jay Leno, and was one of the oldest and only politicians to go on those shows. Despite the recent overdose of the term, John McCain was actually a maverick by Republican standards. He was loathed by many members of the Republican party because of it. He prescribed to a more moderate approach than many of them, taking a more progressive stance on health care, climate change and gun control. And just as he said repeatedly throughout the campaign, he had crossed the floor many times and worked with the Democrats.

While he agreed with numerous fundamental conservative principles, he was not a bad guy. From a liberal's point of view, you couldn't find a better Republican.

Then came the election. Republican's were unsurprisingly nervous when John McCain became the forerunner and ultimate victor in the race for the Republican nomination. He was considerably more moderate than his opponents: the bass-playing Evangelical Mike Huckabee, the millionaire businessman Mitt Romney and the former New York Mayor (and soon to be featured on next week's 'Where are they now?') Rudy Giuliani. But as the Democratic freight train began to pick up steam, with Obama at the helm, it became clear that McCain's moderate approach would sink him in the election.

The Republican party relies on a few key parts of the country: rural, old white voters and the religious white voters. McCain didn't really appeal to them the same way a Mike Huckabee might've, so it became clear to the party advisors (and to McCain) that John would have to change his tune. He began leaning considerably farther to the right and adopting many traditional Republican strategies including the notorious attack ads. His most notable move was his (though probably made against his true wishes) pick of Gov. Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee. That sure pulled back the Republican base. But McCain lost a lot of respect among the more moderate Republicans, for good reason: Palin is an idiot.

I wouldn't be surprised if McCain is slightly relieved to not be assuming office in January. First of all, look at what he'd inherit. One of the world's most devastating economic crises, two seemingly-endless wars and an America that was reviled by many internationally and domestically. And he'd have to deal with Palin (whom I don't believe he ever would have associated himself with in any other situation) to work through it, not to mention a Democratic House and Senate.

And look who he gets to lose to: one of America's most dynamic and groundbreaking figures of all time, who has electrified an entire nation. Not a bad deal. It might've been a little worse if it had been some Joe-Schmo old white guy.

It's a shame that McCain was forced into changing his tune. Many have lost a lot of respect for him. But after his speech on Tuesday night, he may have gained much of it back.

I've thought throughout the election he's had to act a certain way, a way that was certainly not genuine John McCain. He's been an actor. Now hopefully he can go back to being the old John, keeping everyone in check and playing hardball with both parties. I wouldn't be surprised to see a very positive relationship form between McCain and Obama, or even some kind of post for McCain within the new administration. Either way, he's certainly not going anywhere.

McCain may not have been the worst President we've ever seen, but phew, thank goodness Obama won.

The trouble with Beck...

There's just something about Glenn Beck. If you're like me, you may have found yourself flipping through the various American news channels during the highly entertaining American presidential nominee races. You may have also stumbled onto CNN's back-burner station, CNN Headline News, and found yourself face to face with one of their conservative pundits, Glenn Beck.

Beck hosts a talk show on CNN Headline News where he offers his right-wing insights into the going-ons of the world. To put it in a simple Canadian context, he makes PM Harper look like a raving socialist, and Beck will be the first to admit it.

Glenn Beck and I disagree on a wide variety of issues, yet I still find myself drawn into his show. By no means do I rifle through the TV Guide looking for his schedule, but when I run into his show I feel inclined to pay attention. The mystery of why this happens to me has been nagging at me for the past few months.

His show is not especially exciting. He doesn't have entertaining skits; his guests seem to be remarkably boring (and usually in total agreement with Beck); he doesn't have special effect-enhanced visual graphics to awe his viewers. Quite simply, it is Beck talking. He is very one-sided and not afraid to offend anyone, be it liberals or conservatives.

Watching him seems to ignite something inside me, which is perhaps why I'm inclined to watch his show. More often than not I question why I'm watching his 'anti-liberal' rants, similarly to the way that I may question why I'm watching Jerry Springer. But with both of these highly controversial hosts, I just can't seem to turn away very easily. Perhaps it is Beck's politics that fascinate me, or maybe even that someone can believe so strongly in things I believe so strongly against. The uniqueness of Beck is that he is the only one of these conservative talk show hosts that I can't seem to evade. Nancy Grace is just annoying and seems to make accusations rather than report on issues, making it very easy to turn away. The ramblings of Rush Limbaugh are met with the same fate. But Glenn Beck just has a weird gravitational pull.

I can only imagine the scope of Beck's conservative audience (he mentioned his best-selling book for the umpteenth time just this night) but I'm quite curious whether Beck attracts a good number of more left-leaning viewers, or whether I'm simply an entranced phenomenon.