The Honourable Stephen W. Harper Jr.

With the terror attacks going on in India, a major political event in Canada was partially buried in the media last night. By Monday, the Conservative government may lose the confidence of the House of Commons, and a new leading party and Prime Minister may very well take power.

Canada has always sat somewhere between the extreme political system of the US, where a razor-thin majority results in a single party ruling the country, and Europe, where several smaller minorities regularly form coalition governments. As of Monday, this "middle-ground" approach to our democracy may very well be in crisis as the opposition parties in the House are expected to vote "no confidence" towards the ruling party only two months after an election.

The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc will attempt to make this about the economy, but there's actually a lot more at stake here. Stephen Harper gave a speech yesterday that virtually smacked down any notion of an economic stimulus package, and in many ways, this should not be surprising. It's just the standard ideological argument of Right versus Left that we're used to. The real heart of the matter, however, is a small clause in the mini-budget which takes away public funding of Canada's political parties.

The knee-jerk reaction to this "cost cutting measure" (it's pocket change compared to other bloated government programs) is "good riddance". Off hand, most taxpayers will question why their money is going towards lining the pockets of political parties in the first place. The reality, however, is that regardless of what happens either now or in the future, somebody is going to have to be lining these pockets--election campaigns aren't cheap. Would you rather have a fair system where parties receive funding based on the number of votes they get, or would you rather have a system where parties primarily receive funding from corporate and union interests?

If this argument feels somewhat familiar to you, you're not mistaken. The current United States government under George W. Bush has been solely focused on bending the constitution to give itself more political power while simultaneously pulling itself out of the lives of its citizens. Money talks, not votes. More power and less regulation to the corporations, especially those who fund campaigns. Noting can possib-lie go wrong.*

We've all seen how this is going to end if the Harper government succeeds. It is well known that the Conservatives receive much more funding from corporations than any other political party in Canada. Other parties--especially those that don't put corporate interests at the forefront--will have almost no funding, while smaller parties such as the Greens are likely to go completely bankrupt. The passing of this motion will dictate a permanent shift in the way our democracy operates.

If you don't like the notion of having yet another election or us moving towards a European style of government, think again. The very foundation of our country is at stake.

*I retain the right to insert Simpsons references at my discretion, regardless of the seriousness of my argument.

Conserve THIS!

I wonder how many times in our history such a widespread simultaneous celebration has taken place. Last night, the majority of people on every single continent on this planet erupted in joy as Obama officially earned the title of "President-Elect".

More importantly, the win signified a major and permanent generational shift in politics in the United States--a trend that you have to assume will spread throughout the free world. Advocates of social and economic conservatism have been shrinking in numbers as more and more liberal-minded youth are growing up.

While the Right will need to reinvent itself in order to have another chance at power, advocates of the old-school conservative ideology will die a slow death. Three states passed anti-gay legislation during the election and California (of all places) was one of them, which put the status of thousands of married couples in jeopardy. And while Obama's gains among rural voters in the north were impressive, white voters in the deep south flatly rejected him.

But here's the thing. Conservatism as it stands has never and will never work. It's a known fact that a bad economy usually results in a Republican defeat during the election season, which makes you wonder why Americans have taken so long to catch on to this trend. An unregulated free market allows the rich and greedy to seize control of power without the best intentions in mind, and the economy has consistently failed under a system that allows the gap between the rich and the poor to expand. The credit crisis was not an accident.

For that matter, no ideology will ever work in government, conservative or otherwise. By definition, change and adaptation to a shifting world is often at odds when a rigid set of ideals are put in place whether they happen to be on the Left or the Right. Our generation understands this, just as the generations after us will learn from our mistakes. Obama represents a long awaited return to logic. His campaign, and hopefully his presidency, has shunned the easy giveaways and pointless ideological attacks that have plagued prior elections.

And so, there will be enormous pressure on Obama to prove to the world that fiscally responsible liberalism can work in government, and that our generation is ready to lead. However, if you consider the fact that the majority of the American people elected a minority candidate as president, it's clear to me that success has already been achieved.

Mmmmm... stakes....

One thing I love about politics is that it's really the only reliable way to capture the pulse of an entire society. Most people in the world may be truthful, but the only way to ensure that everybody is truthful is to give them their very own voting booth.

Like it or not, the election tomorrow will decide the direction of the world as we know it. This is a turning point. The United States is approaching eight years under one of the worst presidents in its history, and is caught in its worst financial crisis since the Depression. The country remains the world's greatest superpower, but if they are unable to adapt to the new realities of the world, we could be in the midst of fallen empire.

As Canadians, we need to realize how closely we're tied to the US for better or worse. I'll take a reformed America over a World War with China and Russia any day. Most networks are pitching the slogan, "the stakes of this election are high", and for once, they can't really overstate that fact.

Obama doesn't just represent a change in policy, but also represents a change in politics. Capitalism in America has dissolved into an aristocracy of a few hundred exceedingly wealthy people, and these people have a grip on the White House. If democracy is to work, it is up to millions of average Americans to reclaim the government.

And so, the direction of the world rests in the hands of millions of Joe the Plumbers. The only real question at this point is just how many Joe the fuckin' Plumbers are horribly racist, and exactly how many of those will lie to pollsters in order to hide their true intentions. My guess is a whole lot.

Still, if you look at the makeup of the current polls, a minority candidate is poised for one of the largest election landslides in US history. Tomorrow may very well be proof positive that democracy has the ability to heal itself from the ground up, or.....

Racism under the veil of "tolerance"

In Barak Obama's latest book, The Audacity of Hope, there's a chapter that talks about the polarization of the American media, which has allowed extreme views on either side of the political spectrum to make its way into the mainstream. He writes, "The absense of even rough agreement on the facts puts every opinion on equal footing and therefore eliminates the basis for thoughtful compromise. It rewards not those who are right, but those... who can make their arguments most loudly."

I believe that this assessment correctly identifies the growing divide amongst Americans (and to a smaller part, Canadians) which has become more and more evident after each election. It's no secret that the majority of the electorate tends to be independent-minded and moderate, yet it is those on the extreme right and the extreme left who are awarded the most air time. A unique, bipartisan, and often downright logical opinion on the slightest of issues gets trumped by the juiciness of pundits on either side turning the topic into a philosophical and self-serving argument.

Unfortunately, the monopolistic trend of the world's major media corporations has further pushed along this cause. Conservative-minded Rupert Murdoch recognized the power of the media to sway voters, which led to the creation of Fox News, a network that has relied on tabloid-style "journalism" and blatant right wing propaganda to successfully push its political agenda. The backlash over this erosion of journalistic integrity has lead to an outright paranoia amongst the few remaining media conglomerates, while they still attempt to grab the juicy headlines under the guise of independence. Now, instead of providing a single balanced view that reflects the true pulse of America, they simply throw together two polar extremists to bicker about pointless issues for hours on end.

The climate has been somehow construed such that racists are now allowed to freely give their opinions on a variety of matters, because not allowing them to do so would be denying the "right" the opportunity to express their opinion, and the conservative base would surely accuse the media of being biased otherwise.

This phenomenon has reared its ugly head in the backlash against Rachael Ray, who wore a traditional Arab kaffiyeh as a scarf during a promotional television ad for Dunkin' Donuts. Because of the scarf's association with the middle east, pundits on the extreme right were allowed to incorrectly associate the garb with terrorism, and the ad was subsequently pulled after a media infused firestorm.

Rachael "Hussein" Ray: terrorist, or delicious Christmas ham?

The notion that any accessory or piece of clothing associated with the Arab world is somehow a throwback to terrorism is blatantly racist, yet the issue has been given credence by a media market half bent on giving these assholes airtime. Social conservatives are allowed to continually refer to the Democratic presidential candidate as "Barak HUSSEIN Obama", which plays off the exact same angle.

The umbrella of tolerance has suddenly included a hatred towards an entire race of people. Exactly who is speaking up for them, and exactly who is speaking up for the millions of people in North America who still consider the realm of logic fair game?

Hate to say I told you so (not really)

Although I tend to think of myself as a skeptic, I pointed out a possible Conservative conspiracy during the 2006 election campaign regarding the Income Trust probe. During the probe, the Liberal finance minister's name was leaked as a possible suspect merely two weeks before voters went to the polls. During a lull in my insane ramblings, I pointed out that "the public needs to know the evidence behind this case now."

Using my trusty government conversion table, I soon found out that "now" equates to roughly two years in human time. Low and behold, the details surrounding the probe are finally becoming clear, and it now appears that the minister's involvement was non-existent, and even worse, the leaking of his name was contrary to RCMP policy.

The most unfortunate thing about this revelation is the timing of its release. Two years ago is considered ancient in the political timeframe, and this story is very unlikely to gain any traction beyond today's blip. In my opinion, the head of a government police agency falsely pointing the finger towards a finance minister in the heat of an election is no different than the alleged vote tampering conducted by the Bush administration. The only difference here is the immediacy of the accusation -- the Conservatives have once again successfully pushed more of their filth under the carpet, and stolen an election without a peep from the media.

To make sure the public isn't able to fully digest this new bit of news, the Conservatives clearly need to deflect some of the attention from themselves. Slander for political gain seems to be right up their alley, so maybe another false accusation about Obama's policy is in the cards.

No balls about it!

Yesterday's widely publicized questioning period regarding the Roger Clemens steroid scandal provided viewers with some of the most dramatic and intense moments outside of a Fox reality show. As an avid Blue Jays fan, I couldn't help but smile as Clemens awkwardly shifted around his seat, attempting to explain his often contradictory stories regarding his relationship with Jose Canseco and Brain McNamee.

It's no secret around the baseball world that Clemens is an egomaniac, and has told his share of lies. I avidly remember the circumstances in which he left the Jays back in 1998, using a vague (and apparently illegal) clause in his contract to take a much more lucrative offer with the New York Yankees. This was after he repeatedly assured both his Toronto fans and Blue Jays G.M. Gord Ash that he had no intention of ditching the team. For crying out loud, the man is so self-absorbed that the names of all of his children start with the letter "K" as a tribute to his strikeouts (let's see here... Kody, Kimble, Kris, Karen, Kbobby, Kxavier... ).

The, Clemens, the (it’s translated from German).

There are some people in the media who are painting this inquiry as a witch hunt. It is becoming blatantly obvious that steroids were slowly drifting towards general acceptance in the professional sports world long before the whole thing blew up. If you put yourself in the shoes of a young athlete who has sacrificed his or her life to make the cut on a professional sports team and the only difference between being a somebody and being a nobody is an occasional injection, the decision is understandable.

But Clemens was a somebody long before he started taking steroids. To make things worse, he has repeatedly lied to fans, the media, and now directly to a group of congressmen regarding his involvement in the matter. The man seems to have no problem propping up his "solid" character during press conferences, yet he has failed miserably to take the high road during direct questioning. This is in direct contrast to Marion Jones, who in my opinion took an incredibly courageous step by admitting her prior drug use and giving her gold medals back to the IOC. Unlike Jose Canseco, there was no financial gain to be had by admitting her mistakes, and it's a travesty that a misguided judge decided to turn her into a scapegoat by slapping her with a six month prison term.

To me, this arrogant behaviour underscores a major image problem that baseball players have faced since the strike of 1994. The collective bargaining agreement has ensured exponential salary growth to players, while completely marginalizing smaller market teams. Major League Baseball's answer to these problems was to turn a blind eye to the drug problem as the home run explosion effectively brought the sport back to pre-strike levels. Even when the steroid problem became public, it took the sport years before drug testing was finally imposed, as management had to "negotiate" these new policies with the player's union. Shame on both the players union and Major League Baseball for allowing this to go on as long as it has. As far as I'm concerned, this is one witch hunt that is justified.

The land of the free, and the home of the screwed

Although I do believe that many services provided by the government are wasteful and counterproductive, health care certainly isn't one of them. Heath care should be a right of every citizen, regardless of social or financial stature, period.

The notion that a free market will always result in the highest quality to the consumers is a flawed one. There is a fundamental difference between using the free market to purchase a car, for example, and using the free market to purchase health care. Unlike that shiny convertible sitting in the local lot, heath care is a necessity. Therefore, when a person has to choose between going into debt or dying, they're obviously going to choose the former.

In the end, people have no choice but to obtain health care in some way, shape, or form. This forced demand undermines the open market, whereby providers are under no pressure to lower their prices in the face of guaranteed purchasers. For that matter, quality inevitably goes out the window as well.

Hillary: fresh after eating a small container of puppies.

After reviewing the health care policies of the two Democratic candidates, it's clear that neither Clinton nor Obama will fix the American health care system. In fact, it's starting to look like their policies will make the system even worse.

On one side, Obama is suggesting that providing Americans with more health care options and subsidizing those who can't afford it will ensure "quality, affordable, and portable coverage for all." In addition, he has pledged that coverage will be mandatory for all citizens under the age of 25, yet he is still requiring these people to pay for the plans out of their own pockets. These changes will effectively increase the "forced demand" on an already overloaded market and drive costs up for the rich and poor alike. Insurance companies will have the right to increase their prices when a flood of new coverage requests are delivered on their doorstep due to these government-imposed regulations.

Clinton's policy, although she has continually thrown around the phrase "universal health care" in her speeches, is nearly identical to Obama's. Like Obama, she has put special emphasis on subsidies and choices, without addressing how these new rules will affect the open market. In addition, she has promised to introduce laws forcing insurance providers to accept all applicants, regardless of their health history. When two million obese Americans suddenly enter the system, does she really expect coverage to become more affordable?

When it comes to health care, you simply can't have your cake and eat it too. Private or public. Make a choice. The next time the government -- any government -- throws around the word "subsidy" as a compromise, ask yourself exactly who will be reaping this reward.

Tuesday: more "super" than Sunday

America is currently getting geared up for their so-called "Super Tuesday" whereby twenty-four states will vote to elect the leaders of the two political parties. This event has slowly been building momentum in the worldwide media, largely due to the tight race between Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton on the Democratic card. For the first time in recent memory, the mere act of voting is generating genuine excitement south of the border.

Supertuesday: The day is actually a lot cooler than the band.

Indeed, I believe this excitement is well warranted. For the first time in history, there is a very good chance that either a black man or a woman will be elected as leader of the world's most powerful nation. After voters decided to grant George W. Bush a second term back in 2004, it's hard to believe the profound social shift that has occurred in the American psyche. Who could have possibly predicted a liberal-minded woman or black middle-class rookie Senator making it all the way to the November election in this day and age?

However, one cannot simply credit demographics as the sole reason for tomorrow's importance. In my opinion, the policies and attitudes of both Democratic front runners represent an all-out revolution in American politics that hasn't been seen since the Kennedy era. Obama in particular is more focused on peace, equality, and fairness than any American leader in history. For once, he is rejecting the long-standing and childish policies of violence-before-dialogue that has gripped the world in decades of war and violence.

The emergence of these two renegade nominees underscores a major victory with the American brand of democracy. George W. Bush has miraculously managed to skirt his way around his country's own constitution by blatantly siphoning power away from Congress and violating international torture and rule-of-engagement laws. In merely eight years, the US has seen the foundation of its own democracy erode away without as much as a whimper to stop it. However, the last few months leading up to tomorrow's vote has reignited faith in the system, and for the first time in recent memory, voters have been given the mandate to save themselves by demanding a revolution within their leadership.

The irony of this situation is that like a human being, democracy needed to hit rock bottom before gaining the momentum to redeem itself. It is now generating more excitement and attention than it has in decades, and in a twisted way, we have the brutal policies of George W. Bush to thank for it. A democratic country is indeed reflected by the will of its people, and as such, it continually matures in line with the society that shapes it. We're about to witness a huge step forward in this maturity when over half of the country goes to the polls tomorrow.

Gouge Away!

Fast on the heels of my last blog entry, Rogers today announced they would be increasing the price of their home phone "system access fee" by 30%. Consumers who were willing to sign a contract after being tempted with low rates are out of luck as usual. To make things worse, increasing the system access fee also allows Rogers to advertise the same rates to people as they were before.

This is in sharp contrast to our friends south of the border, who were able to nullify their cell phone contracts after Verizon increased their text messaging fees.

Where is the protection for Canadians?

The Wireless Industry and the Pitfall of Capitalism

A very interesting article was posted today by Wired Magazine outlining Apple's foray into the mobile phone market. The story chronicles Apple's five year struggle to enter the market and goes on to explain how the iPhone "blew up" the entire industry.

While some may scoff at the iPhone as simply a fashionable product with clever marketing, any Canadian cell phone consumer can tell you the serious flaws currently plaguing the wireless industry. Many of the issues brought up in the Wired article should strike a chord with Canadians, as a serious lack of competition and loopholes in our laws have allowed the major providers to exploit their customers.

The big three -- Rogers, Telus, and Bell -- are posting record annual profits, while intentionally stifling competition and innovation. They have a stranglehold over the hardware manufacturers and are allowed to dictate the exact features (or lack thereof) being brought to the marketplace. While Asian countries enjoy the benefit of the latest and greatest hardware, North Americans have been stuck with phones that are years behind on the technological curve. By only offering the most basic handsets to their consumers, these companies are allowed to greatly increase their margins, while managing to block out the more advanced products.

When the iPhone was first introduced by Steve Jobs almost a year ago, I always maintained that we'd never be seeing the product in Canada. Over the past year, rampant rumours continue to surface in our media about "delays" in the iPhone's Canadian launch, speculating on anything from hurdles in Canadian copyright law to Apple themselves blocking the sale (which clearly makes absolutely no sense). The fact of the matter is that the iPhone represents a scenario where the manufacturer is allowed to directly cater to the consumer, which would effectively cut off Rogers as the middleman and stifle their artificial controls imposed on the marketplace.

This is what has become of our so-called "free market". The whole idea behind capitalism is that producers will compete and continue to innovate themselves in an effort to set themselves apart from the competition. Instead, companies are continually finding loopholes in an effort to trap their customers into buying their services. I have spoken to countless people who have been stuck with a cellular contract they never wanted, simply because they couldn't afford to pay the ridiculous prices for out-of-date hardware. To make matters worse, cell phone contracts are unfairly one-sided, where the provider is allowed to increase their rates at any point in time, while consumers are penalized hundreds of dollars for choosing to cancel their service.

We've gotten to the point where these large companies have free reign to engage in anti-competitive behaviour. They trick and coerce people into signing contracts against their will, and create a monopolized marketplace. The Microsoft business model over the last decade has further proven that it's far more cost effective to buy out the competition rather than competing with them. Larger and larger companies are emerging because of this, and North America is slowly but surely falling behind the rest of the world.

As these monopolies continue to grow, so do the pocketbooks of the lawyers and lobbyists whose mission it is to maintain the status quo. We're caught in a positive feedback cycle, and the only way to get out of it is for the government to interfere immediately.