Skip to main content

the triple-eek senate

you lose, old man. [source]
i like to laugh at american politics, because i'm kind of an asshole and because i like to reassure myself that we would never elect anyone who said anything as stupid as... gosh, take your pick. [planned parenthood has been more harmful to black people than the kkk?]

but i know that's not really true and the fact is that our guys are just as good at corrupt and evil [and probably just as good at dumb], they just don't get the same sort of attention because they aren't playing with the same amount of money and global power. but the money they're playing with is mine [at least partially], so i do tend to pay attention when they start doing things like spending it on bailing out friends who've had to pay back money they claimed illegally as a tax expense.

the idea of politicians deciding to stick the rest of us with $90k in bills to campaign for a party who are busy telling canadians that they have to stop relying on public funds for anything is pretty repulsive. at the same time, it wasn't that surprising. nor was it surprising that it wasn't an isolated case [i must repeat]. and no, "leaving the conservative caucus" doesn't mean either one of harper's hand puppets [don't get a mental image] has stopped sucking at the public teat. they're still senators, appointed for life, or at least until the age of 75, at which point they get to enjoy a retirement pension that is higher than the majority of canadians make in a year.

as the rush to fall on harper's sword [again, mental image] continues, it's worth considering that the man who defended pamela wallin's expenses as being about the same as any other politician [that's supposed to make me feel better???] was once a member of a party whose platform included a lot of talk about something called the "triple e senate".

the idea was that canada should have a senate a little more like the one in australia or, let's face it, the united states, where rather than just being a dumping ground for party hacks who rubber-stamped legislation passed by the lower house, men and women had to actually be elected and participate in the legislative process in order to justify their six figure salary.

the idea gained some favour in the west where, if you look into the history of canada, provinces were brought into the national fold basically as second-class citizens, exploited by the wealthier industrial provinces to the east for their considerable natural resources. the idea went over like a lead balloon in quebec, because of the "equal" part- meaning that every province would have the same number of senators [as opposed to the house of commons which, like the house of congress to the south, would be distributed by population]. it might sound reasonable to say that every province should have the same number of senators, but it would effectively end the idea that canada is a bilingual, bi-cultural country, because all of a sudden one of the "founding cultures" would be vastly outnumbered and would be placed on the same senatorial footing as a province that had 1% of the population. and a bunch of provinces that have been historically resistant to any attempts to define quebec as distinctive in any way.

aside from that, there are the obvious issues with the fact that the people who were already living here when the country was "found" would have no representation whatsoever in said senate unless they descended and took over a province. to say nothing of the complication that canada also has three territories in the north, which are not provinces, but who would probably like to have a voice at the national table and... all this to say that opening a discussion about any kind of constitutional change in canada is sort of like trying to show your friends how good you are at lighting your farts while standing next to a bucket of plutonium and tnt. in the end, no one will remember your blue angels.

whatever the issues with a "triple e senate", however, i find it really difficult to stomach tens of thousands of dollars in "expenses" being forked over to a bunch of people i didn't elect [and never liked when i had to put up with their self-satisfied mugs on my television set] by a party who came into being promising to reform said house of ill-repute.

then again, that was the same party that said that canada was being railroaded by the left-wing liberal media, including mike duffy and pamela wallin.

i'd like to be able to drown my sorrows at stephen harper's expense, but i have a feeling he'd find a way to make me pay for my drinks. and his.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …