How to Make Canadian Elections Interesting

(WARNING: The following post concerns Canadian federal politics. If you don't give a rat's ass, then I suggest you wait for the next post. If you are interested but don't understand these posters, the short form is that they are meant sarcastically. That will help you).

Canadians say that Canadian politics is much more dull than the election extravaganzas put on by our neighbours to the south. So be it. Here's some ideas for new additions that will really get people to tune in and watch:

1) Get George Stroumboulopoulis to moderate a debate. If you hate Stroumboulopoulis, you'll probably get to see him fumble. If you like him, you might get to see him rise and ask an insightful question that most people wouldn't even ask. Or he might softball entirely. It'd be something to watch.

2) Every time Stephen Harper fails to explain his plan for reducing carbon emissions, David Suzuki gets to punch him in the face. Every time Stephane Dion fails to explain how his plan for reducing greenhouse gases will not lead to massive layoffs in industry, Buzz Hargrove gets to kick him in the groin. This will make everyone happy, I hope?

3) Sacha Trudeau must run as a Green Party candidate AGAINST his brother Justin. The debates alone will be worth the while.

4) Jack Layton must swear that if his party does not gain seats in Parliment in the election, he will shave his moustache.

6) One party must, MUST, make a campaign promise, that if they become the governing party, that they will appoint Pamela Anderson to the Senate. This should REALLY open an interesting dialogue on the whole "Appointment to the Senate" and what it means.

7) During the Leadership debates, we have real time polling (internet or phone) where we can measure how much Bullshit a given politician is giving us during his response to a question (The BS meter will be displayed on screen and such that the party leaders can see it). At the end of the debate, the candidate who consistently has the highest BS rating will be drugged and strapped to a lie detector and then asked all the debate questions again.

8) A CBC Reality TV show called "Solving Canada's Problems". A member from each political party in Canada (chosen at random from ALL the parties, including Communist, Green, Canadian Action Party, every given minor league party) is chosen, and all of them are thrown into a bus blindfolded and driven to a random part of the country, they are then told the problems of the people in that region and given a week to figure out what those people NEED. They can get help by asking former Canadian Prime Ministers Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Kim Campbell, and Joe Clarke. Not that any of them will be of any help. Members of the community will form a judging panel and at the end of the week, the candidate with the least helpful plan is ejected. The winner will be given additional funding provided by the CBC.

There you have it. How would you make Canadian Elections more TV-friendly?

A quick note and clarification

Because I think there's some confusion over yesterday's post:

1) The posters were not meant as an attack on politicians of a specific stripe (except maybe Cheney, whom I personally believe actually goes out of his way to pump up his rep) but rather the propoganda techniques of smearing used by ALL politicians. The NRA mini-comic I found that had these images was just really good fodder for this sort of thing, because really, blaming Gun Control on Katie Couric is just a little bit silly.

2) My own politics - First, a reminder that I'm Canadian, and thus, my interest in American politics is based on our shared culture, shared interests, and a few other items. Second, yes, I tend to be centre-left in most of my politics (by Canadian standards; in American views, I'm to the left of Ted Kennedy, but so be it) but that does NOT mean that I don't appreciate or respect the arguements of my opponents when they are based on valid arguements and verifiable facts. The arguements presented in the images are neither of these things, amounting to nothing less than smear and scare tactics, and so I'll openly take shots at crap like that, no matter who it comes from. You show me something that demonizes Republicans and conservative values the way this material does with "Liberals", and it's as in equally bad taste, and hey, I might make posters of that!

3) Finally, as someone who does observe American politics, I want to mention that I do not see particularly strong differences between your two political parties, as I feel they have narrowed your national discussion so finely that it's akin to walking a tight rope. If you'll note the political websites linked on my sidebar (which I will take some time to update in the near future) you'll note that I include Dennis Perrin and Barry Crimins; if you read them, you'll find they are not lovers of the American Democractic Party. On the other hand, yes, I will go after conservatives a tad more frequently than liberals because they've been in power far longer in America (in Canada, the opposite is true), and because some ideas I am strongly opposed to.

4) As an example of the fact that I don't think too highly of Democrats, here's a couple posters based on an image that just sort of annoyed me. I don't like or trust that Obama so easily and readily is trying to wrap himself up in salvation/hero symbolism, because I feel that it's incredibly disingenous for a politician, and speaks to a massive ego, and his desire to say or do anything to win, and it's just a cheap political ploy. Note that I don't say "and I think Obama is above that" because I DON'T. Politicians will do anything to win elections. It's their job. Whether or not you buy into any of the symbolism or narrative structure behind a candidate is your choice, and fine. Vote on the issues, and stick with the facts. We'll all be better off for it.

Political posters! Come Get!

What If We Lived in a comic book universe? Part 15

Take your "Passion" and Shove it: A Rant

Be warned, I'm going to go a little nuts here.

Full Disclosure: Born and Raised Roman Catholic, went to Catholic High school, recieved all the sacraments, etc.

Seriously people, "The Passion of the Christ"? Nothing more than a Jesus Snuff film.

How do I know this?

Let's play a little game shall we? If that movie were about any other character, historical, real or fictional, how do you think the Christian establishment would have reacted to the graphic content of the film?

That's right: Universal condemnation. They would have been screaming their heads off about "liberul Hollywood" ramming their filth down their necks. But because it involves Jesus, well, then it's A-OK! Let's bring the whole family to see the blood!

I see a lot of people (including those I call friends) heavily promote this film during Holy Week as some kind of universal bromide for the faith. Others even promote it as a cure-all for moral decay and for political motivation. I will address these issues below, and hopefully, definitively, state why I think a little reality check is in order for people.

JUSTIFICATION #1: The Stark realism of the film is brutal uncensored true account of the crucifixiton.

I would ask you to check all four of the gospels of the New Testament and note how they are all exactly the same in every detail. Oh, wait, they aren't. NONE OF THE FOUR GOSPELS EXACTLY AGREES WITH ANY OF THE OTHERS. Oddly, you don't find any mention of the details of the Passion in later parts of the New Testament, which one would assume would give some clue as to a definitive version of the tale because it was suppossedly written later. Funny that. Now if you are wondering why this is, you can just go to Wikipedia or Google and put in "Council of Nicaea". You might learn something.

The next reason this particular justification is so laughable:

EXPECTING REALISM AND HISTORICAL ACCURACY FROM A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE IS AKIN TO EXPECTING FIDELITY FROM A HOOKER

I cannot emphasise this enough: This was Mel Gibson's interpretation of the events. He may have taken some creative license or input his own religous influences. Just saying, you may want to apply as much critical thought to the passion as you would to the question of "Hey, do you really think the General Lee could jump over that ravine?"

Of course, this is probably the silliest justification, and the easiest to disassemble. The next ones require...well, they require a bit of a strong stomach really.

JUSTIFICATION #2: We need to see this level of violence to help people get back in touch with their faith.

First off, may I say that heaven help you if you require a Hollywood film to reaffirm your faith in the Almighty. Clearly, your religous values mean very little to you.

Now this may come as a shock to some, but in the days before "The Passion", one could celebrate the miracle of Christ's rebirth without a $30 million dollar Hollywood film. Churches, schools groups, and the occassional theatre group would and surprisingly still do put on their own tiny Passion Plays in this season. One wonders what motivates them; an attempt to spite Gibson and cut into the DVD sales? Or, and this is just a thought, that these are people whom, without the aid of millions of dollars of promotion and one of the biggest Hollywood actors of the last 20 years, are committed to actually expressing their faith and getting in touch with it and spreading their word to the communities that they share their values with? No, that's crazy!

I don't need to watch any movie to be reminded of my faith, and I sure as hell don't need to see every gory detail and buckets upon buckets of blood. Do I appreciate the sacrifice of Jesus? OF COURSE. Jesus was a great guy; he spoke out against blind obedience to the authority systems that prevailed in his day, and taught people to rise above their petty hatreds and nonsensical tribalistic dogmas to address that which was truly important. I believe that to truly appreciate the sacrifice of Christ means to follow in his teaching and how he acted in LIFE. I've never understood the people who obssess over the crucifixion; You can't understand what a guy died for unless you understand what were the teachings he was willing to die for. That's why I do go back to the New Testament and occassionally read from it and try to decipher what it means for ME, for TODAY. Everything else is kind of icing on the cake.

Fair warning; here's where the rant gets very politically charged. So if you have any qualms, turn back now.

JUSTIFICATION #3: We need Christian Fundamentalists to combat the scourge of Islamic Fundamentalists.

TWO WORDS:

FUCK

YOU

That's like saying that you need the cancer in your right lung to kill the cancer in your left lung.

Let's compare, shall we? Last I checked, Christian Fundamentalists wanted:

• The Elimination of separation of Church and State
• The State to rigidly adhere to a literal translation of Church Doctrine
• The State to enforce Religious Doctrine on the people
• The Curtailing of Civil Liberties when they run contrary to Church Doctrine
• The Suppression of Academic and Scientific pursuits that offend the Church
• The Repression of Women

and the Islamic Fundamentalists want...oh right, EXACTLY THE SAME THING, just with a change on the name plates. So excuse me if I'm not quite ready to surrender the concepts of democracy and dissent of authority to a bunch of crazy people so insecure about their belief system that they would burn people at the stake rather then engage in any kind of critical thinking. Look, if you want that, please, go somewhere else and let the rest of us actually try to make this whole "Freedom" thing work, k?

That's all for now. Sorry I haven't posted much in the last couple days.

Soon to be Obsolete Political Posters! Come get!

Just clearing up a couple posters that are pretty much already past their sell-by date. Here you go.

(Hey, look at it this way; he's got skills to fall back on!)

I really thought Rudy would do better. Ah well, given his rather strange interpration of how democracy works, it's probably for the best. It was fun while it lasted.