Blogging at the Big Dog

In the aftermath of the historic election of the first black American president, there has been much wrangling over the challenges he now faces and what kind of president he will be. As pundits grapple with the symbolism of the vote and Barack Obama’s iconic status, I submit this: it doesn’t matter.

Good, bad or indifferent, Obama has already done his job. He got elected.

One of the best things I heard during election night coverage on CBC was a quote from an anonymous source: “Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther King could walk. King walked so Barack Obama could run. Obama ran so we all could fly.”

Sometimes iconic is all you need to be.

The next generation of black Americans will grow up in a country in which King’s dream of a time when a person is judged by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin is not just an ideal, but a tangible possibility.

That is not to say Tuesday November 4, 2008 represents the end of civil rights struggles in the United States. For example, while the California vote was a virtual landslide for Obama, the same people passed a resolution rescinding gay marriage rights. Furthermore, 76 per cent of African Americans who voted for Obama in California voted against homosexual nuptials.

Bigotry and discrimination is far from dead south of the border.

Still, it is progress. Progress Canadians overwhelmingly support. If we were the fifty-first state, Obama would have won here by five-to-one. The reason: we think it brings them closer to our own ideals.

Let’s think again. African Americans in the U.S. had the right to vote, at least theoretically, a century before Native Canadians did here. And while we have come a long way to entrenching these rights politically, both the U.S. and Canada still have a long way to go to remove the institutional and societal barriers to full democracy.

Also, while we see Obama as progressive, we are judging him by American standards, not Canadian ones. He is still way more conservative than our version of conservatism. How so many Canadians who hate and distrust Stephen Harper can love and trust Barack Obama is a little bit confusing. Oh yeah, there is that charisma thing.

In any event, President Obama is light years superior to the alternative. Even the idea of Sarah Palin in the Vice President’s chair sends shivers down my spine.

Much has been said in the last week about this historic election restoring the USA’s reputation. Let’s hope so, but it’s a long road ahead. There are still two wars to deal with, the unabashed greed of unbridled capitalism to correct and the growing threat of evangelical, rapture-seeking militant Christianity to quash.

As Leonard Cohen said, America is the cradle of the best and of the worst. The worst will definitely rear its ugly head again. In the meantime, let us just savour a moment in which the best has prevailed and that means so much to so many around the world. That change is possible. That ignorance is defeatable. That there is always hope.

Anyone who is willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.

I suspect almost everyone has heard something along those lines. Over the years, it’s been attributed to numerous individuals, most famously Ben Franklin. But regardless of who first uttered the sentiment, anyone who cherishes freedom should really take those words to heart.

I found out something very disturbing the other day. It seems, anyone who wishes to sell or purchase property in Canada is now “required” to fill out yet another form in the name of “national security.”

“An Individual Identification Information Record is required by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act,” the document reads.

Personally, I am outraged. At the very best this is yet another example of knee-jerk post-9/11 policy designed to create the illusion that someone is doing something to make us more secure.

At worst, it is yet another infringement on individual privacy and freedom that basically creates a record for secretive government agencies and turns every citizen who desires to be a property owner into a suspected terrorist.

What I find most disturbing is that nobody with whom I have shared my outrage seems to be disturbed by it in the least.

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the big deal?” comes the inevitable response.

The big deal is anyone who doesn’t have anything to hide shouldn’t have to worry about not hiding what he doesn’t have to hide. In other words, it’s the principle of the thing and, contrary to the apparent apathy of my 21st century compatriots, principles are extremely important.

For example, on Oct. 18, we passed the 79th anniversary of the landmark “persons” decision in which five dedicated Alberta women altered the course of Canadian history. In a nutshell, the Famous Five successfully challenged an archaic law that kept women from being eligible for appointment to the Canadian Senate. They stood on the simple principle that women are persons.

Without principles there can be no social progress and, if we allow the erosion of the principles on which our fundamental freedoms are founded, we will soon find ourselves regressing and losing the freedoms themselves. We’ve already seen how new terrorism legislation has allowed our government to trample disgustingly on the rights of its own citizens in the cases of Maher Arrar and others in the name of “national security.”

“The problem with defense is how far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?” Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1953.

A very good question, indeed. The world is, always has been, and always will be a dangerous place. The pursuit of perfect security is futile and a slippery slope that diverts attention and resources away from programs that may actually be able to do some real good. The Individual Identification Information Record, while perhaps seemingly innocuous, is simply a violation by government of our personal privacy and a complete waste of time and resources that should not be tolerated in a free society.

Last week, I had some pretty harsh words for our political leaders. My cynicism is born of frustration with a system that rewards power-seeking and encourages corruption. The first-past-the-post, winner-take-all model simply isn’t very democratic.

That’s not to say I don’t admire the men and women who stand for election. Elected public service is a noble calling not for the thin-skinned or faint-of-heart. And once the winners get to Ottawa, I don’t envy them the task at hand or the public scrutiny they’ll endure.

By the time this edition of The Times hits the newsstands, Canadians will be going to the polls and we’ll be well on our way to a new, probably minority, government.

Personally, I took advantage of the advance poll on Oct. 6 because of an Elections Canada SNAFU that would have meant going to Dysart to vote, but that’s an issue for another day.

I did something unusual this year. In the past, I’ve voted in a variety of different ways. I’ve voted strategically, to help stop an undesirable party from winning. I’ve voted for the candidate I thought was best in my riding, regardless of party. And I’ve given the nod to a candidate I didn’t like because of their party affiliation.

This time I voted for democracy, or, more specifically, democratic reform, by marking my ballot for the Greens. It was certainly not an endorsement of their environmental policy. I don’t think they, or anyone else, has a clue when in comes to climate change, but that too is an issue for another day.

The issue for today is proportional representation. Even if the Greens don’t elect a single MP this time, I am hoping my vote will be among a groundswell bumping their share of the popular vote thus sending a message of dissatisfaction with the status quo to Ottawa.

Indeed, the mere fact that in 2006 the Greens achieved almost five per cent of the popular vote and didn’t get a single seat should tell just about anyone there is a big problem with the system. That’s more than 664,000 Canadians who were not represented in the last Parliament.

The other tell-tale sign of a big problem with the system is that Canada is among only a handful of major democracies that haven’t already recognized proportional representation is fairer and results in more diverse representation; cleaner campaigns; and less influence by special interests. Governments elected by P.R. also tend to be more responsive, cooperative and transparent.

Proportional representation is the evolution of democracy and only the truly stubborn (Canada, The United States, Great Britain) refuse to see it.

The big knock on P.R. systems is, of course, government instability because virtually every election results in some kind of ad-hoc coalition. This criticism is generally fear-mongering by the those who have a major stake (Liberals and Conservatives) in maintaining the cronyism that has characterized Canadian governments since confederation.

That’s not to say P.R. doesn’t have its own warts, but even with its problems, it’s better than what we’ve got and we’re halfway there already. Eight of the last 17 Parliaments have been minority governments. Once politicians get used to the idea of working together, maybe they’ll finally get down to doing the job without all the partisan bickering.

Psst, Liberal Party, your desperation is showing.

Last week, Canada’s second (or is it third now? fourth?) party, trumped up a five-year-old plagiarism charge against Stephen Harper. I say trumped up because, in the first place, the guy doesn’t even write his own speeches. Secondly, I’m not entirely sure what this “big revelation” was supposed to demonstrate. That the Prime Minister sometimes struggles to engage in original thought? Puh-leeze, tell us something we didn’t already know.

In any event, PMO staffer Owen Lippert immediately fell on his pen to shield his boss and, despite a flurry of international media coverage, the story was quickly ash-canned as yet another Liberal gaff and was rightfully relegated to voters’ lists of “who gives a crap?” moments in an otherwise forgettable campaign long on rhetoric and short on ideas.

Really, is this the best the party of Mackenzie King, Pearson and Trudeau can come up with these days?

It would be laughable if not for the fact that the only real alternative — four more years of Harper’s knee-jerk pandering to special interests — isn’t much of a choice at all. Mr. Layton, of course, would like us to think the NDP matters, but outside the GTA, it has simply become yet another centre-left party bleeding votes from others who might actually have a chance to challenge the neo-Cons. And when are the Greens going to get it over with and pop the big question to the Grits? They’re already living common-law, why not make it official?

Is it any wonder a recent poll indicated 15 per cent of Canadians would rather vote in the election going on south of the border? At least our U.S. counterparts have a clear choice. It’s a classic battle between good and evil (although it depends on which side of the stupidity line American voters stand as to whether they see McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden wearing the white hats).

The point is, it is a seriously discouraging time in Canadian democracy when nearly one-in -six voters cares more about a foreign election than our own. And who can blame them? The Canadian campaign is starting to remind me of a Three Stooges flick with Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Elizabeth May bumbling over one another trying to poke Harper in the eyes.

The Conservatives should be able to put this one on cruise control to bring it home.

As if we didn’t already have enough reasons not to care about the local race back here in good ol’ Regina-Qu’Appelle. In Western Canada we’re used to elections being over by the time they reach the Ontario-Manitoba border, but at least we should be able to look forward to a good, old-fashioned scrap at home. Unfortunately, despite the cheap perfume of election-induced bravado, whatsisname, whatsisname and whatsername are already starting to look like also-rans to Conservative incumbent Andrew Scheer.

At this point I hardly care. Call me idealistic, pessimistic or just plain disillusioned, but I want more from our leaders than the petty attempts at political hay-making last week’s plagiarism accusation, in particular, and this election, in general, is giving us.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to get any different until we stand up and demand better.

Seventeen per cent. Let me say that again: 17 per cent. That’s one in every 6 Canadians who smoked pot last year.

It is shocking this relatively benign drug is still illegal in this country.

A recent Angus-Reid poll indicated fifty-five per cent of Canadians support legalization. In 2002, the Canadian Senate, made up of some of the most conservative politicos in the country, recommended legalization. Their 600-page report got watered down into a ridiculous Liberal decriminalization bill that was quashed by Stephen Harper when he narrowly grabbed the reins of power.

Even Barry McNight, chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s drug abuse committee, inadvertently made the case for legalization this morning in a CBC interview. McNight focussed on the well-accepted premise that marijuana use is a health and social issue.

Trying to control it through the criminal code is just downright stupid, a complete waste of police resources and an insult to the millions of productive citizens who like a toke now and then.

Normally, I would come up with an in-depth, coherent argument, but I’m just so fed up with the idiocy of this debate, I do not feel compelled to rehash what in my view can be relegated to simple common sense.

Canadians want to smoke pot.

The problem with weed is not weed, it is the crime associated with its production and distribution.

It is approved for medicinal use in this country.

Prohibition does not work.

It is high time to take the crime out of marijuana.