News-Based Rage Expulsion #1

So I made the mistake of reading a newspaper tonight. Not even the whole thing, just the front section. The important stuff. And now that I'm pissed off, I figured I'd write about a few of the things I read in order to calm down some, or at least order it in my head in some way so I don't have a stroke or something. These are all from today's (September 27, 2012) Globe & Mail (one of Canada's national newspapers).



If Trudeau leads, will Liberals follow?

The thing about this article that pisses me off isn't about Justin Trudeau, or Pierre Trudeau. I'm too young to have a good understanding of Trudeau-mania. What pissed me off is that there was a side-bar that demonstrated a good idea that isn't put in to use in too many parts of the world.

It demonstrates the Leadership Rules for running for party leadership in Canada. I like Canadian politics. We have some stupid politicians, the same way every country does, but we have put rules in place to prevent the wholesale abuse of our political system. And so the thing that pisses me off about this article is American politics. I like American politics too, but for different reasons: It's amazing theatre, frequently hilarious, and their two-party system leads to lots of laughs as people blatantly and proudly vote against their own self-interests.

Rule #1: There is a $75,000, non-refundable, entrance fee to run for party leader. Know what's great about that? It prevents people from running for attention. I don't care how rich you are, $75,000 is a lot of money when you compare it to a lot of things. You could choose to employ someone at a great salary for a year (or even a decent salary for 2 years). You could buy a moderately-priced luxury car. You could take a trip around the world. Basically, it's a "don't waste our time" tax. If you're running for party leadership, and all you really want is acknowledgement that mommy and daddy didn't hug you enough as a kid, we're going to charge you for it.

Rule #2: There is a $950,000 spending limit. If you want to win the leadership of your party, win people on the basis of your ideas, persuasiveness, and your political acumen. You can try to buy votes later; if you want to be in charge of your party, you get to spend exactly as much as everybody else.

Rule #3: There is a $75,000 loan limit. Granted, I'm not quite sure what this means. I know what a "loan limit" is, but I can't think of any case where an extra $75K would help in the $950K race—this might be to help people with no money run for the leadership of their party. It creates the assumption that the $950K spending limit would be made up by donations to a worthy candidate. In other words: Anyone can run for leadership of the party. We don't put limits on who runs, but if you don't have a chance you're burdening yourself with a hefty loan to pay back. Know how people joke about how "all the people who know how to run the country are driving cabs or cutting hair"? They can run here. If they're good enough. Then again, I'm not 100% sure of the rule here, so take my words with a grain of salt.

They seem like simple rules, right? Know what's great about spending limits? They prevent massive abuse by corporations and industries in buying votes. In the States, as I understand it, campaign donations are not paid back if the candidate loses. They're probably not paid back here, either, but there's a definite limit. It's like in The Dark Knight when Bruce Wayne says, "One fundraiser with my friends, you'll never need another dime." He wasn't talking about one election. He was talking about all of them. You get funded well once, you'll always be able to be a pain in the ass with a ton of money, and as you know: Money buys airtime.

Anyway, why aren't all national elections governed by the same rules? The US has 10 times our population, so multiply those numbers by 10 if necessary, but still: Why give all the power to whoever can afford the most airtime? The subtlest attack ads? The best commercial campaign? Food for thought, at least. I'm done with this for now. There's other rage to deal with.

Legal challenge threatens Ontario's anti-bullying law

So there's a little-known part of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows Catholics to appeal to the Federal cabinet over provincial laws that might infringe on their rights. For those of you who don't know Canada's history very well, it was difficult for us to ratify that document. Quebec has always been a block to federal politics because it's a large voting bloc (spelled right, dammit) dedicated to a single goal: Quebec. It'd be like if Texas had 23-25% of the House/Senate seats and over a fifth of the US's population—they also keep threatening to separate.

When the Charter was conceived, they had a legitimate claim for the same reason the US was worried when they elected their first Catholic president (JFK). They were worried that Catholicism would interfere with government, either positively or negatively. So in order to ratify the Charter, a bunch of provisions were made to preserve Quebec culture, including Catholicism. For example, Canada has two federal official languages: English and French. Quebec has one official provincial language, which is French. Now considering that Canada is not a theocracy, that's a bit weird, but I can understand standing up for minorities' rights.

The problem is that in most of the country there are multiple school boards. In my own district there's the Thames Valley District School Board, which is public, and the Catholic School Board (and some prissy private schools or whatever). They play football against each other and get along academically. The issue from the article is about straight-gay alliance clubs in high schools. Catholic schools are against it because, well, gay folks are scary. And if you get along with them early in life, you might not hate them later on. And that doesn't fit with Catholic dogma. And if you're raised Catholic and question one thing, you might question all the things. And that's fucking terrifying!

And because of an outdated law protecting Catholics from discrimination, they are now allowed to discriminate against others. That's like someone spewing hate-speech hiding behind "free speech" laws. They're not made and were never made to hide behind; they're made to give a voice to those who don't always have one.

Six doctors billed taxpayers more than $3-million last year

Canada is not a perfect country. Imagine that, I (who bleed red and white) said that. There were 6 doctors this year who billed the province that much. Each. Ontario has a population of nearly 12.9 million. I know any American readers are giggling at this point, but we're okay with our smaller population. How's your gun violence treating you? Not so well? Oh. What a shame.

Here's the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/six-ontario-doctors-each-billed-taxpayers-more-than-3-million-last-year/article4571129/?cmpid=rss1

Know what I hate about socialised medicine? The opportunities for abuse. Because specialists should be compensated for their time, but medical privacy laws mean there's little to prevent them from abusing it for financial gain. That said, have you ever heard of Canada being "a nation ruled by doctors"? No? Well that's probably because most doctors aren't complete assholes.

We had a national finger-wagging a year or two ago about a doctor who said that his 5-minute consultations (some of which never existed) counted as a full hour's consultation. We govern ourselves by the statute of "don't be a prick". Don't misuse our funds. Granted, in this case those charges were to OHIP, which is Ontario's portion of our national healthcare, but I figure if it's not abused, we have a damned good set-up here. I'm smiling, at the very least, and that takes a lot. Next rage:

With motion defeated, PMO vows to 'move on' without reigniting the abortion debate

So there was a backbencher (US readers equivalent [I think]: "private member's bill"? I think?) who tried to make abortions illegal in Canada this week. It tried to legislate when human life starts. Here's what I have an issue with: Government is not science. It's not religion. It's not morality. Governments are here to create and enforce laws, and that is literally their only function.

Don't legislate my morality. Do those words make sense? Don't take one person's tenuous grasp on morality and make a law out of it. Because we're not always right, no matter who "we" is in the first part of that sentence.

I don't know when life begins. I know it's not conception, because then taking cold medication or a flu shot is infringing on the rights of single-celled organisms to divide. But I don't know enough about biology to know any better. And, as the point I'm trying to make says: Neither do legislators. It's up to women what they're comfortable with. And any decision otherwise ignores that the legislators do not know. So how can they legislate something they have no experience with?

When will governments stop criminalizing things they have no hope of understanding?

I ran out of headlines

So those are my opinions...I present them exactly as such. You don't have to agree with me. I encourage you to disagree with me because I like debate, provided you understand that debate isn't the same as disagreement + hate. I just needed to get some opinions out tonight, and thank you for reading. I look forward to what you say.