The Scott Ross

The Defamiliarization of a Saturday Morning

2012-01-28T13:47:00.000-08:00

This morning, with a brightening glow from my right I looked up from my newspaper to see a fog of falling snow across the yard, neighbouring street, and rooftops below. The unplanned and surprising sight had taken me back, contrasted all the more by the warm mug in my hand and the comfortable cozy temperature of the dining room I was sitting in. The snowflakes dominated the air, making it a mere medium for them to densely fill in.

I was struck by this awareness, not of the snow, but of the snow making what was previously ordinary into something extraordinary. Where when I woke up this morning the space around me and my home was nothing, that the few things that I considered as existing outside my door were the things I could see, from the grass to the concrete to the homes of neighbours. The unexpected arrival of snow did add to that list the falling particles of ice, but more importantly, in fluttering down to earth, moved by gravity and wind, the snow showed what was there all along, air.

The snow inspired a change of perception, it offered a difference which gave substance and importance to something which I had gradually over time perceived to lack it. These snowflakes, and what they motivated within, reminded me of what a professor had once claimed to be the goal of poetry and indeed of all art; that the purpose is not to replicate reality, but to show the familiar in an unfamiliar way.

Whether it be subtle in a landscape portrait with slightly brighter hues on a lone tree far from the forest or more obvious in a poem that shines light on the pain of love, the defamiliarization, the taking of the familiar and making it unfamiliar allows the perceiver to understand the content better, or perhaps just to understand it at all.

And as I sat there looking at the cold delicate crystals give substance to the sky, I realized why defamiliarization, why looking at things differently is so important and that is because we make things important.

Without people, without humankind the world, the universe has no value, no importance within, as such attributes are created solely from our perspectives. With us placing importance on some things and placing less on others, we prosper individually, socially, and as a species. We do not merely react like a simple organism would but instead we pursue objects based on their value to our survival and success. Things that are less valuable are pushed to the side and ignored allowing us to focus on the things at hand, like innovation and advancement.

Without this ability to value things, to place importance on them, humans could not perform simple tasks and perhaps would be doomed as a species. If humans saw everything as equally valuable or equally valueless, we would have died long ago by eating rocks, or be less successful today by previous dedication completely to hunting and gathering.

Everything in the universe has no value, it is only us who impose value on that which is around us. This ability to differentiate between importance and non-importance, between things that are valuable and things that are less so, is what enables our species to act and to prosper.

Defamiliarization or looking at the familiar in an unfamiliar way is important because it inherently changes how we view the world, and makes us reassess what is important or whether things are as important as they should be or shouldn't be.

Truly, defamiliarization is the success of our species, that it is one thing to hold values, another to be able to change them. Defamiliarization provides us with insight on whether we need to change our values, just as our values provide us insight on whether we need to change the world. Without defamiliarization, wthout our ability to see what we think is important and what isn't, our ability to value things would be as valueless as the world without us in it.

And all this from snowflakes.

The Liberal Identity

2012-01-26T19:18:00.000-08:00

The Liberal Party lost the last election not because they didn't know what they stood for, but because they stopped looking.

After the last election many party officials, pundits and members of the public claimed the Liberals lost because they didn't stand for anything, that Liberals didn't even know who they were, and as these comments are reflected upon, one cannot help but be reminded that the Liberal's identity problem is Canada's as well.

Ever since confederation our politicians, our generals, our poets, and our artists, have all sought to define what it is to be Canadian. While some rest on the definition of "Not American" or suggest Canadians were formed merely out of a response to our southern neighbour, the definition provided of our own national being is often nebulous and vague.

And though some general characteristic is often mentioned such as politeness or some affinity to hockey and syrup, the history of Canada shows that we find the definition of what being Canadian is in the pursuit of it. That in continuing to search for who we are, we find we are characterized by the search itself, we find we are not dogmatic, we find we are open and tolerant, and we find we never give up.

In almost 150 years of our country, our citizenship has not been chained by time, restrained in historical context from some emotional fluctuation of a moment long past, but instead in always seeking to define ourselves, our citizenship has always been one based on principle and freed by eternal reason.

What it is to be Liberal, is the same as it is to be Canadian, whether we begin from Liberal principles or the Charter, we must always continue to seek to define ourselves, not for one brief moment in time, but for all of it.

The Liberal Party lost the last election not because it didn't define itself, but because it did. The Liberal Party lost because of traditions within the party, because of old minds within the organization, and most importantly they lost because the Liberals stopped seeking to define who they were and instead defined themselves as who they weren't.

Slack-tivists All

2012-01-25T19:16:00.000-08:00

People who click "like" on Facebook to show support for a cause are slacktivists, you on the other hand with your "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker, breast cancer ribboned fleece and poppy laden dashboard are not.

Slacktivism is a pejorative term that refers to easy and simple gestures, relatively symbolic acts in support of an issue or cause. Recent usage of the word and its derivatives have been mostly applied to Facebook users as the social media site allows anyone to support something with as little as a click.

The fact that the majority of Facebook users are young, innovative, and are just of a different generation, has no bearing on the fact that older, less tech savvy people who are stuck in their ways criticize the youth and their minimal participation in political and social causes.

Clearly the older generation does not engage in slacker activism, the number of bumper stickers in traffic or breast cancer ribbons on lapels are proof of that.

The youth who just manage to click on a website are just slackers participating as little as possible in a cause, while the older generation who are incredibly politically active have to, once every few years, laboriously find a place on their jacket, spend the seconds necessary to pin a yellow, pink, or red ribbon on it, and then if that was not enough, have to readjust it so everyone can see it.

Slacktivism is a growing problem. With more and more people clicking to support a cause instead of actually doing something to support it like wearing a ribbon, soon everyone will just appear to support causes while no one really does.

"Like"-ing a war memorial page on Facebook is just showing others online that you remember the sacrifices armed men and women made for this country by you clicking a button, whereas wearing a poppy shows others that you actually remember those sacrifices by pinning it on a jacket.

Slacktivism is a danger to our society, and we're clearly doomed if it ever spreads beyond the internet to our car bumpers or our lapels.

State of the Canadian Union

2012-01-24T21:08:00.001-08:00

When Americans want to know the direction their country is taking they watch their President's State of the Union address. When Canadians want to know the direction their country is taking they should look at how many of them watched that same address.

Last night when Barack Obama spoke to Americans, Canadians listened. They did not listen because they thought Obama was speaking to them, they listened because the most powerful man on earth was merely speaking. Yet for all of his nation's material strength, be it economic enormity, military might, or social media success, the greatest American strength, the most powerful weapon the United States wields is our interest in it.

Interest in American politics breeds familiarity, not just with its structure but with the reasoning behind it. And with that understanding, Canadian values are altered. Ideas of democracy shift from parliamentary to presidential, Canadian to American.

To look at the future direction of Canada, one just needs to look at the interest Canadians have in American affairs today. The stronger the interest, the more likely an elected Senate will be implemented, fixed election dates proposed, coalitions banned, the multi-party system weakened, and the principle of responsible government eroded.

Many Canadians watched the State of the Union because of interest in American politics, interest only because America is powerful and yet its most powerful influence is us watching it.

Liberal History

2012-01-23T00:25:00.000-08:00

Laurier, McKenzie King, Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien all mean nothing to the Liberal Party, to Canada if we as members and as Canadians do nothing.

Though each man was great in his own time, their greatness today rests on our shoulders. For if the Liberal Party was to disintegrate, was to collapse, the ideals these men stood for would be shown to be temporary, to be insufficient to cohere a party, let alone a country.

If Liberals do not define what Liberalism is, they relegate the ideology to Laurier's tomb and show both to be long dead. If Liberals fail to build a party, a new party by soliciting opinion, they will not only let our banner fall, but so too the history of Pearson, a Liberal who built a party to listen and to act. If Liberals cannot risk being wrong, they judge themselves so and surrender the rogueness that Trudeau inscribed into our party to Conservative mediocrity. And if Liberals are not stubborn, if they waver and give up, they let the determination that Jean Chretien instilled in Liberals to become barren and infertile.

Past Liberal Leaders, past Prime Ministers were great men, but for their contributions to our party, their ideals to be remembered, to be honoured and to be sustained, our party must continue, must work, and must succeed.

As Liberals we stand on the shoulders of giants, our history proves these to be men who were giants of ideas, principles and values; but that history, and all history is meaningless if our actions today aren't influenced by it.

For all that Laurier, McKenzie King, Pearson, Trudeau and Chretien did in building a party, if the members today do nothing, if they do not hold policy socials, do not have the nerve to ask friends to sign up, and stop trying after one or two rejections, if the members today do nothing they condemn that same outcome to all who came before them. A Liberal Party that does nothing will not exist and its history will not continue to contribute to our actions, to our country.

If Liberals do nothing today, nothing will be our past and nothing will be our future. Liberal history is great, but only if we are today.

Canadian Pride

2012-01-21T22:40:00.000-08:00

Canada has the best government, the best history, and the best culture, but what makes me proudest to be Canadian, is not the democracy, not the tolerance and diversity, not the public health care, nothing, absolutely nothing makes me prouder to be Canadian than the Canadians who believe they can change all of that for the better.

Responsible government does not just denote prudence, it is the greatest democratic principle a country could adhere itself to; where instead of being accountable to the people once in every four years, our government is and must be accountable to them every day. Though I would fight for that democracy, though it fills me with pride to know our country believes in democracy that much, it and voting rests on Canadians believing they can make a difference and without it we would be nothing.

The history of Canada is great, it's great because it starts with our first peoples, the aboriginals that gave our nation its name and the aboriginals that fought in battles that shaped our nation from the Plains of Abraham to the War of 1812 to the Red River Rebellion. Our history is great from the external forces that coalesced a people to stand on their own and create an identity built on globalization. Our history is great from the compromisers of John A. McDonald, Darcy McGee, Wilfred Laurier, Robert Borden, and William Lyon McKenzie King. Our history is great as it influences our current actions, but it is also meaningless without those same actions, and those rest on Canadians who believe they can make a difference.

Canada could have been created out of defeat, it could have been founded by men of disrepute, it could have been a dictatorship, we could be poor, we could be hungry, we could be lost, but I would be just as proud of our nation, if our people were as determined as they are now to make it better.

From over hearing teenagers talk about politics, to seeing a lone protester in front of a government building, to seeing hundreds of Canadians at a rally, or just a few talk about policy, nothing makes me prouder of Canada than other Canadians believing they can change it.

Conservatives Don't Hate Democracy, They Just Don't Need It

2012-01-18T20:46:00.000-08:00

In Canada our representatives are elected; our churches, charities, and businesses are not. Conservatives by their ideology believe that less power should be given to our democratically elected government and more power given to groups that do not answer to voters, whether they be private hospitals, unaccountable church organizations, or multinational corporations. It is not that Conservatives hate democracy, it is that their ideology demands less of it.

Conservatives rally against coalitions, but coalitions of elected MPs are more democratic than private hospitals. Conservatives fought against the Canadian Wheat Board, but a board of elected officials is more democratic than a world market. Conservatives want private organizations to replace government social programs, but our Parliament is more democratic than churches. Conservatives believe a free market is the best method for organizing the economy, but our House of Commons is more democratic than any stock exchange.

In wanting a small government, Conservatives want a small democracy with less power given to a citizen's vote, and more power given to unelected corporations, appointed churches, insulated social organizations, and other unaccountable industries.

Conservatives cannot believe that democracy is so great when they only reduce the government it exists in.

A Liberal Spark

2012-01-16T00:06:00.000-08:00

A national convention this weekend showed that out the ashes of the Liberal Party there was a spark. That in Ottawa, where once the largest Liberal flame burned, where once it warmed all of a cold Canada, this weekend the city now home to the party's cinders flared the tiniest but most ardent spark of love, liberty, and democracy.

Adopting policies like opening the party up to non-members, allowing the public to vote for Liberal leader, preferential ballots for general elections and marijuana legalization were the ignition, lighting up the hopes of Liberals across our country. But a flash is not a fire, a spark is not a blaze, and just as fast as the flare was created, it can go out even quicker.

Whether you approve or not of the policies passed this weekend at the Liberal convention, those keepers of the flame who traveled across this country to start anew, did do something; they did create a light of inspiration and hope. The spark itself is not something that can be judged, it's what's done with that spark that matters. It's whether that spark is fanned that will determine whether liberalism grows or is extinguished.

This weekend's policies are not what matters, what matters is that a spark was made, and though sparks can burn down buildings they also power engines and move the world. This weekend by itself does not matter, it's what we do after it that does, and yes we can let our spark go out or we can let it burn down the last remenants of the Liberal Party, but we can also give it oxygen, we can kindle a flame, not just in Ottawa, but in every Canadian.

This weekend the Liberal Party created a spark, what happens with that spark is up to us.

Liberal President Priorities

2012-01-15T00:04:00.001-08:00

On Saturday a respectable 1744 Liberal members voted on the most important change to the Liberal Party in years, perhaps ever, opening up the party to non-members and completely revolutionizing how Canadian political parties operate. Today Sunday more than 2500 will have cast a ballot for party president, an office that has less significance in Canadian politics than a pro-choice Conservative backbencher.

Why the disproportionate amount of Liberal interest in party president and so little in substantive and fundamental change to the Liberal Party itself? Simple, the 800 or more difference of delegates who voted for President didn't care about the Party.

Of course the vote for President hasn't been tallied yet and I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not. Besides the constant anecdotal reports from the Convention about long lines for delegates to cast a ballot for President, the fact remains that this Convention is in Ontario and the two prominent candidates call that province home with many supporters that wouldn't have to drive far. These supporters would easily be given delegate status, the Party has filled many delegate spots from ridings that didn't send a full contingent.

So after weeks of campaigning about putting the party first, today one of the five candidates for Liberal President will win, ironically for signing up members who put the party last.

UPDATE: Though no hard numbers have been released, a candidate who lost stated on Liberal Live that 97% of all the 3276 delegates voted in the election of the Party Executive. 97% voted for an office that doesn't mean much and only 54.5% voted on constitutional amendments that dramatically changed our party, changed how Canadians view our party and perhaps changed how other parties operate.

Liberals have a lot to be proud of this week, but having almost half of the delegates only there to vote for President and to ignore the party is not one of them.

Liberal Members Vote To Allow Supporters To Lose Too

2012-01-14T18:45:00.000-08:00

Without buying a party membership you can become a Liberal supporter and not vote too.

Liberals this weekend passed numerous amendments, one of them allows for non-members to vote for Leader, and though this issue was passed by a majority, both sides of the debate lost, because so few delegates actually voted.

Whether the Liberal Convention was a success or not does not depend on what was passed or what wasn't, that's a matter of opinion, but what measures its success is how many Liberals were involved. And though the National Convention can be satisfied with 3200 delegates being registered, only half of them actually participated when it mattered.

On Saturday at their national convention Liberal delegates voted and passed multiple amendments creating a new class of participation "supporters" that is free and opens the opportunity to vote for Liberal Leader to all Canadians.

Canadians who want to have a say but not want the political association or to pay ten dollars for a membership card can sign up as a supporter and choose who will lead the Liberals as they rebuild and reinvigorate their red machine.

With 75% for and 25% against, the open leadership vote amendment surpassed the 66% requirement for acceptance and was met with cheers from the crowd. Though there were 3200 delegates registered for the convention, only 1744 voted on this pivotal amendment, significantly undermining the arguments on both sides of the vote.

Even at a convention where only Liberal members could attend, most of them the supposed most faithful and ardent of supporters, and each one having to pay hundreds in delegate fees and many having to pay additional travel costs, less than 55% actually attended perhaps the most important vote of this biennial event.

Those opposed to giving anyone the power to vote for Liberal Leader argued members should have some privilege in return for their hard work, yet with such a poor attendance at this vote, members clearly don't deserve such a privilege.

Those who supported the amendment argued the party needed to adopt it to get more people involved, yet with such poor attendance at this vote, allowing more people to vote isn't going to help when we can't even get our most passionate Liberals to attend critical moments for the future of our party.

Liberal members at this convention can argue they achieved substantive results, and perhaps they did, but this convention's participation was not one of them.

Only the future will tell if the Liberal Party can do a better job of getting supporters to participate than it does for its members, but if this convention is any measure, the party is just broadening the base of those who show up but don't vote.

Liberal Change For Innovation

2012-01-14T13:16:00.002-08:00

May 2 2011- The Liberal Party had its worst defeat in history.

June 18 2011- The Liberal Party holds an extraordinary convention over the phone and online, the first teleconference of its scope and size in North America.

January 11 2012- Despite suffering worst electoral defeat, Interim Leader Bob Rae announces the Liberal Party has raised the most money it ever has in one year.

January 13-15- the Liberal Party's national convention is the first to be completely broadcast live online with 13,000 views on the first day alone.

A defeat isn't a defeat if it makes you better for it; and winning isn't winning if you're the worse for it. After the last election the Liberal Party had to change and it's beginning to. And though the Conservative Party rightly won the last election, they've done nothing to broaden their party, to incorporate new technology, and listen to members.

The Liberal Party's innovation in embracing technology like no other party has between elections only strengthens the ability of its members to use it during elections at an unparalleled level.

In the decades to follow when the Liberal Party still exists, when the party is stronger for losing, Liberals will look back and admit they needed to lose in 2011; the Conservatives will look back and only wish they had.

With the unprecedented use of technology, with the openness of change to the party, and with the opportunites before us, looking at May 2 to today, the Liberal Party is better, and tomorrow only looks brighter.

Our Mandate

2012-01-12T22:51:00.000-08:00

"Well you know the Conservatives say, and we know the mantra those of us who have to sit through this every day in the House of commons, that Canadians gave them a mandate to do whatever it is that they want to do; a mandate to carry out whatever abuses they want to carry out. Well Mr.Harper let me tell you something, Canadians gave us a mandate as well. They gave us a mandate to hold you to account and to keep you from abusing your power, and that's exactly what we are going to do and what we are going to continue to do. You may have your mandate sir, we have ours as members of the Opposition of Canada." - Bob Rae, Jan 11 2012

With St-Denis, NDP Can't Move On, Only Down

2012-01-12T22:26:00.000-08:00

NDP MP Lise St-Denis turned Liberal, and just as her former party capitalized on Jack Layton, so is her new party.

The recently elected Quebec MP Lise St-Denis left the NDP and in a carefully crafted statement provided the most potent thrust the Liberal Party can offer to Quebec and probably did through the lips of St-Denis.

In justifying her change to those who voted for her, the newly minted Liberal MP offered a powerful reminder, Quebeckers didn't vote for the NDP, "They voted for Jack Layton, who is now deceased."

It might be that the Liberal Party did not influence St-Denis's choice of words, but considering the boon it was for the Grit caucus to grow and the potential opportunity it offered to strike at the NDP, there is little chance that the framing of the NDP as being lost with their Leader was no coincidence.

St-Denis represented the orange wave that swept through Quebec. She was elected by many who voted for the NDP for the first time. Her switching parties when the NDP was most vulnerable could not have been a more persuasive advertisement for the Liberal Party; with polls beginning to show minor leaks in NDP support, the timing of St-Denis's announcement was more than likely strategically planned.

The connection of NDP support in Quebec to the departed Jack Layton implicitly argues that the support was temporary and now with its raison d'etre gone, is unwarranted. St-Denis, through brillantly contrived optics or through rare Liberal luck, is offered as an example of where that support should go.

Just as the NDP capitalized on Jack Layton for Quebec, in the same province the Liberals will try to capitalize on his absence.

Sheila Copps Wants Another Ignatieff

2012-01-10T01:05:00.000-08:00

Sheila Copps is old politics, I'm tired of old politics.

Sheila Copps wouldn't apply rules to Interim Leader Bob Rae, she would allow him to become Leader like how Michael Ignatieff became Leader, not on the convention floor but in a backroom.

Liberals cannot allow an Interim Leader to run as Leader; it would be unfair to other candidates, because they wouldn't be able to compete against the person who is already in the position with the resources and the authority; it would be unfair to members because just like in 2009 they wouldn't get a choice; and it would be unfair to Canadians because we had said we would change.

We certainly have made mistakes in the past, and we will probably make mistakes in the future, but let's not make our President one. Sheila Copps can keep her old politics for her own leadership bid and Bob Rae can win like a Leader.

Liberal Pride

2012-01-06T00:59:00.000-08:00

Many Liberals may take pride at the sight of increasing poll numbers, they shouldn't.

The Liberals have problems, increasing poll numbers aren't going to fix them. Liberals need to build a new party, that will take time, determination and purpose. Poll numbers aren't going to stop backroom deals, poll numbers aren't going to hold coffee meetings, poll numbers aren't going to make the apathetic passionate, and poll numbers aren't going to better Canada.

The Liberal Party could surge even higher, even surpassing the Conservatives, but in the longrun that will mean nothing, because polls are temporary while a party true to its philosophy and to its people is forever.

Right now the Liberals do not even have the polls, but what they do have is a start. A start where the party organization has begun to realize it cannot depend on itself but must rely on all of its members, for hearts to give it purpose, for hands to work in every community, and for voices to resonate from sea to sea to sea.

This is a start where the party depends on us because its organization has failed, and this is a start where we depend on the party because for the first time in a long time, it is us.

Higher poll numbers aren't going to make the Liberal Party better, we are, and that, not poll numbers, will be something to be proud of.

Less Liberal, Less Canadian

2012-01-05T12:25:00.000-08:00

In 2006 Howard Dean spoke at the Liberal Leadership convention. In 2008 many Liberal organizers went to the United States and worked for the Democrats. In that same year many Liberals attempted to draw similarities between Liberal Leadership candidate and longtime American resident Michael Ignatieff with Barack Obama. In 2009 Liberals began using the same database Democrats use. In 2012 two influential Democrats will speak at the Liberal Convention. In this same year more Liberal organizers and volunteers are planning to go South to participate in an American President's re-election.

This is at the same time that Liberals are contemplating adopting a primary system similar to one that exists in the United States. This is at the same time that support for an American-like elected Senate has strengthened. This is at the same time that the Canadian idea of coalitions has been replaced with the American one that they are undemocratic. This is at the same time that Canada, like its southern neighbour has moved away from combatting climate change. This is at the same time that our Canadian government has become the only other country besides the United States to create the Office of Religious Freedom. This is at the same time that the private health care that exists in the United States has continued to become more prevelant in Canada.

No one directly chooses the values they hold, but they do choose the situations that create them. Liberals, as well as all Canadians, are choosing the situations that are making them less Liberal, and less Canadian.

Why Canadians Want The Worst Politics Of America

2012-01-04T23:53:00.000-08:00

Canadians would support our own political institutions if we didn't idealize worse ones.

The last few years have offered an incredible contrast in politics between what interests Canadians and what is best for Canadians. In looking at what has attracted support recently it is undeniably clear that pervasive American values have underpinned changing attitudes in Canada.

From strengthened calls for an elected Senate like our southern neighbour to thinking coalitions shouldn't exist here because they don't in the United States to a Canadian federal party contemplating a primary system similar to an American one; all of this and more is the result not of conscious determined imitation of American institutions, but out of unconsciously adopting the values that created them.

Whether you agree or not that American values are becoming more popular in Canada, American institutions are, and for all the wrong reasons. We may look south with jealousy to their elected Senate, to their protection from coalitions, to their directly elected President, and to their entertaining primaries, but every single one of those institutions has imperilled the United States and is intrinsically and extrinsically worse than the institutions that exist here.

While there is growing support for an elected Senate in Canada, the fact that the American Senate is elected was one of the critical reasons for the recent debt crisis that almost destroyed that nation. In having two equal houses dominated by partisans, with no clear subordination of the Senate as exists in Canada, raising the American debt ceiling was met with legislative deadlock and almost caused the most powerful nation on earth to default on its loans with unimaginable consequences.

Even with an elected Senate endangering the world's largest economy, Canadians still argue an elected Senate is better than one that doesn't do much. This is an example that these attitudes for reforming our political institutions aren't based on results, but values, and in comparing Constitutions, it's clear these values aren't Canadian.

Growing Canadian support for other American institutions is less obvious but just as undeniable. In 2010 Canadians were introduced to the menace of democracy, the dreaded coalition, yet the only kind of democracy that coalitions threaten is the distinctly American kind. In any Westminster system, a system which Canada has embraced since its conception, coalitions are not only permitted but necessary for the principle of responsible government, perhaps one of the greatest principles a democracy can adhere itself to.

Where American democracy is based on a government elected by the people and for the people, it does not depend on the people. Once elected the American government is set for its term, independent from the voters who empowered it.

A President is in the White House for four years no matter the change of public opinion, where Canadian responsible government has, does, and will always demand that our Prime Minister and cabinet depend on citizens during elections and between them. Without coalitions however responsible government is threatened, and if the attitudes of Canadians continue to change, would be replaced with a less democratic American system.

There are of course many other American institutions that Canadians are increasingly favouring over their own, from Liberals contemplating American primaries, Conservatives adopting the American Office of Religious Freedom, support for a two party system (elimination of party subsidies), general pervasion of private health care, polling indicating support for a directly elected Prime Minister, and many others.

If Canadian institutions are more effective, why then are the attitudes of Canadians changing away from them? Well if it's not the results of these institutions that are changing opinions, it must be the values under them that are. Canadian values are slowly being replaced with American ones, not out of choice, but out of cultural-social dominance.

Canadians may not think the American system of governance is the best, but because of the power it wields in the world we pay attention to their political processes, and in that attention paid, our values are affected and altered. Being more and more immersed in their system of checks and balances, the justifications for our own system are becoming more and more ignored and even more forgotten.

What is left, is a Canadian system that is better but is not understood, and an American system that is worse, but familiar.

The Cost of Conservative Religious Hegemony

2012-01-04T11:26:00.001-08:00

How much would you give to protect your own religious freedom? Probably a lot, from money, to political action, to perhaps your life. I suspect you would give comparably to protect that freedom of another Canadian.

Now what would you give to protect the religious freedom of only people in other countries who worship the gods and dieties this government approves of (and by that I realize those nouns should have been singular)? I suspect it's much less, not because you don't care about those people who may have their religions repressed, but because the process is wrong.

Unfortunately, the amount you are willing to pay is not dependent on how much you will pay. The government is fulfilling an election promise and will soon establish an Office of Religious Freedom, the first Canadian office mandated to interfere in other nations in order to promote values and religions selected by this Conservative government.

The cost for this new office has been estimated to be $5 million a year, however the Conservative platform offers details that the scope will cost much more. The 2011 Conservative platform (pdf pg 40) states that the Office of Religious Freedom will protect religious groups in other countries that are being repressed, but in addition the Party also promises to "ensure that the Canadian International Development Agency [CIDA] works with groups supporting such vulnerable minorities."

The office may only cost $5 million a year to fund preferred religious groups, infringing on other nations' sovereignty, but how much money from CIDA will be directed to this ignoble hegemonic goal is unknown.

In the end though it doesn't matter how much you would you pay for our government to selectively fund certain religious groups in foreign nations, how much you would pay for Canada to lose its image of a tolerant nation, and how much you would pay for our country to join the United States as the only nations with offices intended to interfere in other societies; you're going to pay anyways, and it's clear, you're going to pay more than you know.

Office of Religious Freedom: Persecuting Tolerance

2012-01-03T13:42:00.000-08:00

Canada does not have an Office of Free Speech, it does not have a Bureau of Foreign Public Safety, it does not even have a Multi-Purpose Room of Peace Protection, but with priorities in order, this Conservative government is making sure Canada will soon have an Office of Religious Freedom.

And though religious freedom within our borders is but one example of our tolerance as a nation, imposing religious freedom on other countries is not.

The 2011 Conservative Platform (pdf pg 40) offers the only details, albeit few, of the new government office. In the platform the Conservatives promised to:

"Create a special Office of Religious Freedom in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to monitor religious freedom around the world, to promote religious freedom as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy, and to advance policies and programs that support religious freedom."

It is hard for anyone to argue against protecting innocent people, and I am sure no one will, but arguing against a prejudiced selective process on who to protect is a completely different story, especially if protecting does not just entail protection, but financial support, investment, infrastructure and the infringement of other nations sovereignty.

The mandate for the Office of Religious Freedom is not just to act when lives are in danger, and even in those cases protecting religious freedom wouldn't be needed for the justification to act, but this office has a much broader mandate and that is to act even when a certain faith is merely "persecuted" or even just "repressed".

For Canada to intervene in another country's affairs through policies and programs merely because their society does not believe that every religion should be recognized is a Canada that is not tolerant of other nations.

The new Office of Religious Freedom is not an institution to protect innocent people, it is an office to choose who to protect based on which religious denomination, without the slightest consideration of whether we should impose our values on other countries with different societies and cultures.

Of course it is speculation to conclude that certain religious groups will be ignored by this new office and that others will be preferred, excluding the fact certain religious groups have already been ignored in the creation of it.

One thing that cannot be denied is that institutionalizing a global enforcement unit based on our own cultural and political values within the Canadian government is not tolerant, but intolerant. Not just possibly and most likely intolerant to religions that are viewed negatively by this government but intolerant to whole cultures that do not hold similar beliefs in a religiously pluralistic society.

Our new Office of Religious Freedom is not an example of tolerance; it seeks to impose our values, our beliefs on other countries and other societies. The new office seeks to subvert our traditional Canadian quality of our tolerance, replacing tolerance with intolerance.

This change, this creation of a new office is an attempt to end persecution, but instead perpetuates it in its end of Canadian tolerance and beginning of the assumed Canadian claim of moral, cultural, and religious superiority.

The office may attempt to end persecution of religious groups in other countries, but in imposing our values on other nations it will only succeed in persecuting tolerance within our own borders.

Liberals & Conservatives, Two Halves of One Party

2012-01-03T00:02:00.000-08:00

Are the BC Liberals a coalition of federal Conservatives and Liberals or are the Conservatives and Liberals just a federal party not yet united? There's an answer to that question and though it relies on perspective, it doesn't rely on your own.

The BC Liberal Party is sometimes cited as a coalition of federal Conservatives and Liberals, that it must offer a balance between the two ideologies (as if both vague, populist parties offer ideologies) to satisfy its membership and to remain in power.

However what justification could someone have in defining a provincial party and its internal machinery by its federal components? Any supportive rationality relies on the perspective that federal politics supersede the provincial sort, as if Parliament was the periodic table and provincial legislatures were just subsequent molecules.

For people who hold the contrary perspective, who believe provincial politics subordinate federal, the BC Liberals would not exist as a coalition, but would exist as a whole, and the federal Conservatives and Liberals would be merely two halves of one party yet un-united.

It may appear then that how one defines the BC Liberal Party and other parties is relative to perspective, and it is, but just as it is relative to each of us which party is best, there is a right answer, and democratically it’s determined by the majority.

Who can be right is not the pundits, it's not the organizers, and it's not the politicians. Whether federal or provincial politics are more important, whether one shapes the other, is ultimately determined by the people.

If enough members of the BC Liberals see federal politics trumping provincial, the party will be relegated to being a mere coalition, but if enough people view provincial politics as supreme or even just equal, federal politics, particularly federal parties, will be seen as they should.

Federal parties should not be seen to exhaustively comprise every provincial political organization, instead they should be viewed and actually exist as the federal entities they are. Federal parties should not compose the elements for every provincial party; they must be composed of them.

So are provincial parties merely manifestations of federal ones? The answer rests on whether federal politics are more important than provincial politics, and that can only be found in how Canadians view their country, and more specifically, how they view the intergovernmental relationships within it.

The Great Liberal Difference

2011-12-09T22:49:00.001-08:00

Having the luxury of being in government for so long allowed Liberals to think they were special, that there were huge differences between them and other parties, well there aren't and they should stop thinking there are.

Yes there are differences between all the parties, but they are far less severe than partisans on either side realize. To perpetuate the belief that Liberals differ greatly from the Conservatives or the NDP is to perpetuate the current political landscape, and our disadvantage.

The fact is Canadians support the Conservatives, they do so by not supporting their party constitution or by paying membership dues, Canadians support the Conservatives because they are perceived to be tough on crime, good with the economy and strong on other important issues.

Liberal partisans can surrender being tough on crime to the Conservatives, but they do so falsely and based on the distorted arrogance that only comes from being in government for too long and for not being in government for too little.

For years Liberals were insulated from any real threat, and continued victories were not looked upon as being caused by a weak opposition but instead caused by Canadians becoming more and more Liberal. This was a distortion of reality, history shows populations do not change so quickly to adopt party ideologies wholesale and, indeed especially in Canada, moderation lasts longer than any parliament.

The fact that a population`s opinion is not shaped in a short time by the government in power was lost on the Liberals, and instead arrogantly believed they were successful because it was some intrinsic quality they, and only they, possessed.

Now in third place, having suffered defeat multiple times, Liberals still suffering from hubris, look for that mysterious lost quality that they owe their past success to. Like superstitious pagans they try to find that magical kind of liberalism of yesteryear that will finally win over the masses, that will convert them once again to the party of McKenzie King and Trudeau.

The search will be in vain, Liberals will not find that intrinsic quality within liberalism that will have soccer moms, university students, and retirees returning to the ideology of the promise land, because that quality never existed. What does exist is the wants of Canadians to have a strong government that will crack down on crime, that will improve our economy, and that won`t tax them to death.

It may sound Conservative, and it does, but just as Conservatives sounded Liberal in 2006, Liberals sounded Conservative in 1993, and so on and so on, contrary to what arrogant partisans believe, there are little differences between our parties.

No one can deny that there are differences between political parties in Canada, but as they all seek the votes of one unchanging moderate people, Liberals must recognize these differences cannot be great or unyielding.

Liberals will not form government because they emphasize huge differences between them and more successful parties; Liberals will form government when they realize those differences are small, and the Canadian public is all that matters.

Canadian Liberals & British Labour

2011-12-06T22:54:00.001-08:00

"Before you're the answer, people have to ask the question."- Senior Labour Party Official, as quoted in The Guardian

Canadian Liberals and British Labour share similar circumstances, and there's certainly lessons to be learned in being ready to seize opportunities.

"As for the politics, Balls believes there is a natural sequence that can't be accelerated. First, the public has to conclude that the current approach is not working. That is not as simple a step as it might seem: even consistently low growth and high unemployment figures will not settle it overnight. For voters who switched to the Tories or Lib Dems to declare that the government got it wrong will be to concede that they themselves got it wrong, and people are always reluctant to do that.

Even once they've made that critical shift, the public will need to make another – by wondering if there is an alternative. As one senior Labour figure puts it: "Before you're the answer, people have to ask the question." Current polling suggests we're not there yet. But Balls is surely right to believe that once cuts and job losses really hit home they will feel infinitely more real than the inherently abstract notion that is the deficit. At that point, voters will be looking for another way – and the question will then be: "Does Labour offer it?""

Nothing Is Foreign To The Universe

2011-11-27T11:18:00.001-08:00

There are creatures that live on a planet that originated thousand of light years away but you and I do not call them alien. There are strange beings that survive on a rock composed of particles from the edge of the universe, but we have known of their existence for millennia. There are humans who were born on land that came from another galaxy, but we do not refuse them healthcare. The planet previously mentioned is composed of atoms, particles, meteorites, and parts of other celestial bodies from all across the universe; we know it better by its proper name, Earth.

We temporary beings define our planet as a local sphere, a purely domestic region, having the gall to call it ours while anything outside its also temporary borders is foreign and alien, completely disregarding those regions are from where our planet originated.

When the human race passes, the Earth will not have to wait to degenerate to celestial dust to return to its foreign natural state where it is not isolated from the cosmos through arbitrary delineation of natural or alien, the disappearance of humans will already have done that. For what is foreign or alien is not determined by the universe, it is determined by us, and is as temporary as us.

A Conservative Winter

2011-11-26T17:28:00.001-08:00

Looking upward and looking forward, I see some parallels today between the weather, between those fixtures in the sky and us, and our political struggle.

The clouds may cover or block out the sun, they may make the world dull, dreary, cold and harsh. Like a certain other party; they may make it less social as people hide in their individual homes hesitant to go out, scared to face the world and its coldness, its barrenness. But just as in the sky, there is something greater, something with substance and not just wet air; there is another political party, a party with brighter ideals, higher hopes, and whose principles do not change with the wind.

The liberalism in Canada, our liberalism in Canada is like the sun in the sky, bringing brightness and warmth to an otherwise cold and dark world. Our values and our beliefs that we have a social responsibility to our fellow Canadians, is the warmth in each and every one of us.

And in the sky, though the clouds may cover the sun, it must always be remembered they are but temporary. They may appear, but just like the conservatives in all their different forms, they come and go. Liberalism, on the other hand, the principles that we hold dear, like the sun, are always there. We do not change them; we do not waver in our belief that you need strong fiscal management; we don’t waver in our belief that we should have childcare, we don’t waver in our belief that you shouldn’t have to pay to see a doctor.

And though I liken liberalism to the Sun, I dare say liberalism is even more powerful. Because where the Sun can be blocked, the passion, the determination in us to make Canada a better country cannot.

Today may be the coldest time of the coldest season, but that is all the more reason for the individual flame to be fanned and made all the larger. Where once the climate outside our door matched the temperature in our beings, the Canadian landscape is now grey and foreboding. Where once the seasonal warmth existed across Canada, it now only exists within us.

This conservative winter may seem hostile to liberals but we are not Europeans new to this land, we are Canadians and Canadians do not shirk at the sight of snow, we smile and sharpen our skates. We do not wait for the coldness to seize us, we stoke our fires, warm our neighbours and build a country.

The strength of Canada does not come from a warm climate, but from a warm people, and in this cold, liberals must not look outside for strength but instead from within.

The Political Life

2011-11-24T22:09:00.005-08:00

Recently I had the opportunity to run in a municipal election, and though I handily lost, I had one of the greatest experiences of my life. The joy did not come from a forum, it did not come from money raised, or from supporters gathered; my satisfaction came from a lesson, from a point of view that I hope to never forget.

At the start of my campaign for Kelowna city councillor I took every detail into consideration and perfection was not just a priority, it was a necessity. In just a manner of days I was sleep deprived and overcome with anxiety.

I found myself focused on planning to the minute, but all was put into context when I looked at my full calender and saw the day after the election blank. At that moment I saw the election not as my life but as only a small part of it.

I sunk back into my chair outpaced by the idea that win or lose, this election, my first election, would be something I would remember for the rest of my life and instead of worrying about every detail I should enjoy it.

Events, forums, and meetings followed, they did not exist as individual competitions of potential gains and losses but instead as accumulating sensations of unforgettable memories. In viewing the experience, not as a singular episode, but as a small segment in my life, the few negative moments were seen as constructive and the positive ones were seen as wells of motivation and fulfillment.

Though I had been to 7,000 doors, raised more money than planned, and received more support than anticipated, election night brought a resounding defeat. From the start of my campaign I had known I had little chance, but I never gave up. I always saw hard work as my way to victory.

Even with my altered perspective, I worried that the small part of me would be crushed with an election loss, that even with conscious recognition of just enjoying the experience, that part of me that hoped to win would be irreconcilable with defeat.

As the numbers came in, from the first poll it was clear I was out of the running, but as my eyes looked inward, I was stunned, it was not sadness or depression that I felt welling up inside me, it was happiness. It was a feeling of contentness from the experience. Yes defeat was felt, but only in terms of the election, in terms of my life, the defeat was nothing but a difference in numbers.

At the start of the election I saw it as everything, as my life, but just like every thing, it wasn't. My life, your life, is more than any one thing; it is more than any of them combined.

Life is not measured by the outcome of events, life is measured by how you live them. Treating the election as something that I would never forget altered my view of it immensely and I enjoyed every minute of it.

It's an attitude that I hope to adopt every day.