|
|
It Ain't The Law That's A AssJanuary 17, 2006... Notwithstanding the last post, I've been pretty good about not polluting this "mp3 blog" with shit related to the election campaign currently underway in Canada. It's not that the pols haven't given me material to write about. Like when the leader of the Liberal Party tried to use the Conservative Party leader's imagined lack of patriotism as a wedge issue, for example... A member of the press asked Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party, if he loved Canada, and Harper hemmed and hawed for a few seconds before finally saying that he thinks Canada is "great." I'm not sure that's evidence of a lack of patriotism so much as it is evidence that Harper might prefer to deal with real, substantive issues rather than trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator with empty, meaningless gestures. In this regard, he would appear to be very much unlike his opponent, Paul Martin, of the Liberals.
On the downside, though, when Harper and his Conservative comrades put their minds to real, substantive issues, they seem to come up with some ... uh ... odd ideas. I mean, what would really be achieved by implementing the promised monthly day care subsidy of $100 per child for every family in Canada? Rich fuckers who can already afford to place their chirren in day care don't need the money; and for most poor fuckers who can't afford to place their chirren in day care, $100 per chile per month ain't gonna make no difference no how. But I digress... I was eating dinner in a restaurant recently when the owner came over and started talking to me about his business. Business is bad, he told me. But it isn't because the place is empty. No. It's because of the government. Yeah. Their $35-fee-for-this and $60-fee-for-that, he said, is killing him... "What we oughta do," he said, "Instead of holding elections, is pick names out of a hat. You and I couldn't do no worse than them crooks we got in there now." I was shocked. I'd been thinking the same thing for quite a while. If our Members of Parliament were chosen at random from the entire citizenry, we'd end up with a Parliament that more accurately reflected our society. Because of the law of averages, about half our MPs would be female. There'd probably be more visible minorities, too. Best of all, though, there'd be people in the House who knew first hand what it was like to struggle and fail. Not like now, when an exclusive club of lawyers and business owners make decisions effecting all of society--even though they have no idea how the other 85% live. Yeah, it'd be like jury duty. Your name gets pulled outta the hat, you go to Ottawa for a year. No ifs, ands or buts ... unless you're non compos mentis, that is. Your income level doesn't change, either. If you were broke before, you stay broke while in office. But now you're lending your perspective as a broke motherfucker to the proceedings of Parliament. Mmm... I like the sound of that. And it's not that weird an idea. In 2003, British Columbia randomly chose a Citizens' Assembly of 160 people to study the issue of electoral reform. The Assembly duly studied the issue and eventually recommended a series of electoral reforms that 58% of the electorate later accepted in a referendum. Unfortunately, in an odd twist on the concept of majority rule, the rich windbags in office had set the threshold for a win at 60%, so nothing changed... Think about it, though. You and I couldn't do no worse than the crooks we got in there now. Permadink | | |
Home |
