English Leaders Debate

So I watched the debate last night, myself and twelve other people across Canada who had nothing else to do. Seriously though this was one of the best debates I have seen. Every single leader came to the table and performed wonderfully. I am not sure I could pick a clear winner.

The format was different. It was a round table approach. Quite nice if you ask me. The leaders all sat around a table and they had more of a discussion then a debate. Although the questions were still posed rebuttal time still given for every accusatory comment. It made all the leaders seem more approachable and less like soap box preachers. I hope they run with this format and use it from now on. It was by far one of the best things about the debate last night.

Stephen Harper was lambasted from all sides, every single leader at that table, which is no surprise since every debate focuses on slamming the incumbent leader. What was a surprise was how well Harper handled it. Harper was swimming in shark infested water with each of the leaders snapping at him in a feeding frenzy, but Harper sat there calmly, with an aire of being untouchable. Continually stressing that he believed the opposition parties were all extremely sincere in their beliefs but that he just had differing opinions. Harper admitted that the war in Iraq was not justified, despite his well documented support of it in the past and took the lickings from that. His major problem was that his party has yet to release an economic platform, in fact the Conservatives are the only party that has not done so. He continually dodged these accusations while continually referring to his economic platform. At various times during the debate Harper was called a fraud, and a liar. The accusations rolled off him without Harper even batting an eye. Although I do have to say to Mr. Harper "It's Laissez-faire, not Lazy Faire you goof!" As my coworker said "despite Harper having all the charisma of a rock, he did really well for himself in the debate."

Stephan Dion was barely there. He made one or two well aimed jabs at Harper that bounced off the PM, but otherwise he was just a body in a seat.

Jack Layton, living up to his name "Happy Jack" was all smiles and giggles. He scored some pretty scathing points against both Dion and Harper, and stood behind May on a few points as well. I think Jack did very well, outlining the very real flaws in Harpo's government and Dion's history of supporting the government.

Gilles Duceppe was a real shock for me. I found myself actually liking the guy. He scored some very serious points against Harper, and of all of them I think Duceppe was the only one that really and truly rattled Harper's cage. Several times Harper outright dodged Duceppe's questions. I had too laugh when Duceppe pointed out the irony in the Bloc being the party that put forward the "Buy Canadian" policy proposal.

Elizabeth May was the real winner of last nights debate in my mind though. Despite being a late entrant, or perhaps because of it, she outshined them all. She had all her i's dotted and t's crossed. She knew what she was there to talk about and she was damned well going to talk about it. She continually tossed legitimate questions at Harper, calling him and his government a fraud and then backing up her claim. She was the little engine that could last night proving all the other leaders that she was a federal party leader, not some crackpot heading a laughable fourth rate group of political activists calling themselves a party. She played well with the big boys, demonstrating how miserable Harper's plans are then backing her claims up with real trusted sources. She truly debated, one might even call her a master debater, ok I digress. Really I don't like the Green Party, I think they are a fourth rate party of political activists who have a week platform and candidates who range from silly to sincere, that being said I must say they have an extremely strong leader.

Final Call:

Winner:
Elizabeth May

Second Place:
Stephen Harper

Tied for Third:
Duceppe and Happy Jack

Loser:
What's his name, Celine Dion's grandfather, Stephan

Who Wants to Be Prime Minister

Ok, so is an election which will take place on October 14th (that's right American's we go from election call to election in less then two months) and the choices are slim for who to vote if you plan on voting for who should be PM rather then who will represent your area. In the Canadian system you really should vote for the best local candidate, but lets be honest most of us vote on party lines for who should be the PM. So lets take a look at the options:


Stephen Harper (Leader of the Conservative Party): AKA Harpo, Stephen Harper is the current Prime Minister of Canada and has been so for the last three years. Despite his campaign promise of fixed election dates and open and honest government he has called a snap election in order to take advantage of the Liberals having such a weak showing in the current polls. Harper actually adopted a law to force the election dates to a static date, and yet called a snap election because he claims he can no longer run the government as a minority power, yet he also predicts he will win this election and have another minority government.


Stephan Dion (Leader of the Liberal Party): AKA ummm who is this guy? Stephan Dion is the Leader of the Liberal party, no seriously he is I looked it up. Stephan Dion has less charisma than Stephan Harper (and considering he'd lose out to a wet noodle in that department that's pretty sad). He seems to shy away from the camera and has little to say other then "Harper, bad man". Ok sure there is a Liberal platform, somewhere just give the Liberals some time to dust it off will you I am sure we'll hear about it any day now.


Jack Layton (Leader of the New Democratic Party): AKA Happy Jack, (and in case you are wondering, yes Canadians do nickname all the prime time candidates) Happy Jack is the most charismatic candidate in this race, which isn't saying much considering lame and lamer mentioned above. Jack himself is a tool in my books, constantly putting his foot in his mouth and blundering through his career blindly. However he has made some pretty effective deals to prop up various minority governments in the past. Jack is a good opposition leader, can he make a good PM? Only one way to find out, I know I'll be voting orange (NDP's colour is orange) this election.


Gilles Duceppe (leader of the Bloq Quebecois): AKA Traitor, Why even talk about this guy, unless you are from Quebec you can't vote for the Bloq, and if you are from quebec you better be pure blood quebecois if you expect him to do much for you, and you better be ready for yet another referendum vote on if Quebec should split from Canada.


Elizabeth May (Leader of the Green Party): AKA OMG is she ever going to get a seat in parliament. Whats to be said about Liz, well not much, you can't go on her voting record cause she has yet to sit in parlaiment, you can't go by her charisma because being a green you never see her on TV, you can't go by her platform (well ok the greens have a pretty well defined platform, but COME ON they are the green party, does anyone take them seriously?). Another note to consider is that the green and the liberals have a deal in which in many ridings they won't run candidates against each other. They are working together it seems, which is why the Conservatives and the NDP are opposed to the Greens being able to be at the televised debate since, in theory, it would mean there are two Liberals at the event.


Dennis Young (Leader of the Libertarian Party): AKA ummm sorry don't have one for him. Libritarians have a party in Canada really... wow.


Blair T. Longley (Leader of the Marijuana Party): AKA pass the dutchie on the left hand side. Forget the Green party vote FOR green;).




Ok so there are more, but come on who votes for anyone but Liberal Conservative or NDP anyways.

In case you do, or at least want to see other parties, here is a list of the registered parties according to elections Canada.

Legalizing All Drugs

Ok, everyone who reads this knows that I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but of late there has been a lot of talk in the press about legalizing all drugs. This is certainly an extreme view amongst legalization circles, and on this one I am not entirely decided. I mean on one hand, its not really my business what someone else injects into their body, if they want to kill themselves slowly or quickly that's their business, on the other hand many drugs are highly addictive and once a person starts its hard to stop, although I reject the notion that after one taste you can be hopelessly addicted to ANY substance for life, I don't care how addictive it is using anything once does not make you an adict.

The money that would be saved in enforcement would be beyond measure really, but how much of that would just be redirected to health care due to deteriorating health. There is a simple solution to that and say you can't get treated under governemnt health plans for ailments resulting from dangerous behaviours, it has to come out of your own poket. This is something I am actually rather a proponent of, ie if you are an alchoholic and your liver has issues, you have to pay for the treatment, if you are a smoker and get lung cancer you have to pay for the treatment, if you are a meth adict you have to pay for the treatment to get you out. However accidents and general illnesses of course would be covered. Of course the problem with this line of thought is where do you draw the line? Is a skydiver elegiable for coverage if his shute malfunctions? Skydiving is a dangerous activity.

In my mind marijuana obviously should be legalized, the proven negative effects are so incredibly small as to not even count. There is no logical reason to keep marijuana illegal. Other drugs, I still am unsure about. Though, as with marijuana, regulation is always the better option to prohibition.

Election

Ok, so Harper finally saw fit to call an election. So much for his promised set election dates eh, but who honestly expects politicians to follow through with election promises once they are in office.

But now that the elections are eminent campaigning is in full swing, though I did notice some Conservative election signs up before the actual call, but lets ignore that (just like I am sure Elections Canada will), and now Harper and his Conservatives have announced an additional 9billion in spending on the first day in parliament since the call, but Harper expects Canadians to believe that this sudden spending spree has nothing to do with the elections. Come on Mr. Harper, how stupid do you think... oh wait, you got in for one term already, obviously the average Canadian voter is really that stupid.

Goodbye Howie

Howard Hampton announced that he would not be seeking re-election as leader of the Ontario NDP. All I can think to say is good riddance. Don't get me wrong Howie's not a bad guy, and I don't disagree with his politics. So If I think he's a pretty swell guy and his politics are inline then why I am I saying good riddance. Howard has all the personality of a wet noodle, and if charisma were measured on a scale of 1 to 10 he would score -999.

If the NDP ever want to become serious they need a leader who can, oh I don't know, lead. Howard Hampton has made great strides in his time in Northern Ontario and environmental issues, and these accomplishments should be recognized by the NDP, but lets hope the next leader of the NDP doesn't have a CN Tower sized pickle shoved up his arse.

Cluster Bomb Cluster F*ck

Ok, I am all for banning cluster bombs, they are nasty and pose long term danger, but come on people, this cluster bomb treaty is a joke. 111 countries signed the treaty, the most notable countries missing from the list; USA, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel. In other words the countries that make and use cluster bombs are opposed to the treaty, and those who are cluster bomb targets are supporting and signing it.

Any bets that Iraq and Afghanistan were first in line to sign this one. Why don't the countries that support this treaty just post signs at the border that say "No Cluster Bombs Please" just like those signs we like to put on our mailboxes that say "No Flyers Please", I am sure it will be just as binding.

What is the point of a treaty that cannot be enforced due to the fact that the people who have the weapons that are being banned refuse to sign it? It's like saying "don't hit my face, I am too pretty" before entering a bar brawl.

An Argument For Polygamy/Polyandry/Polyamory

I have posted on this blog about my beliefs that same sex marriage should remain legal, primarily because the government should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens. Now, with polygamy so much in the news due to the Texas case of the splinter Mormon group that practiced polygamy and was raided, I thought I would go on record as to my reasons for supporting polygamy as well.

Now I should clarify, I do not support what the Texas group was doing should the claims prove true. In fact it is not Polygamy specifically I support but rather Polyamory. Lets start with a definition of the terms associated with polygamy:

Polygamy: the desire, practice, or acceptance of a man having more than one loving female partner

Polyandry: the desire, practice, or acceptance of a woman having more than one loving male partner

Polyamory: the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving partner

Thus I am in favor of allowing a person (male or female) to have more then one spouse (male or female) so long as all parties are consenting adults. As with my support of Same Sex Marriage, no church should be forced to recognize such a union, but should a church choose to recognize such a union then the government should not have the right to step in and say the union is invalid.

In short I feel that the government has no right to determine who should be deemed a married person and who should not. The government should completely get rid of the state sanctioned marriage business and allow the churches and other organizations to manage it. There is no logical reasons for a state run marriage business, and that is all it is a state run business.

In the case of the Texas group we are not just talking polygamy as the issue, but statutory rape. Not all the women involved were consenting adults, and in those cases the government should certainly step in and rescue the women involved. If, upon reaching the age of consent, the women choose to return then that is their business, not the governments.