What the Obama Inauguration Means to Me
Friday, 9 January 2009
Posted by austin in: Personal, Politics, comments closed
The Presidential Inauguration Committee has been asking for essays about what President-elect Obama’s inauguration means to individuals. Ten people out of however many people submit essays—whether they donate to the inauguration committee or not—will be selected to attend the inauguration. I have submitted the following essay about what this means to me.
In a word, hope.
I do not mean this flippantly, since it was one of the major themes of President-elect Obama’s campaign. Rather, I see this inauguration as an opportunity for America to heal divisions both recent and decades deep. When I was growing up as a child of an Air Force chaplain, I learned what most American schoolchildren learn: that America is the land of equality and opportunity, and that we are a shining beacon of hope and a model for the rest of the world to follow.
By time I finished college in the middle of the Clinton Presidency, I knew that this was as often false as it was true, and I felt it becoming less true as the years wore on with the bitter partisan fighting instead of paying attention to the needs of Americans and the world.
Ten and a half years ago I met my now-wife, who is Canadian. I found it very easy to emigrate: I was disillusioned with America and saw little hope that things would get any better. I could not completely leave America behind—as the place of my birth and where my parents and brother still live, it has a deep grip on my heart. I have watched over the last ten years with deep sadness and anger as my fears of the deep divisions in America were realized. When America quickly fell to partisan bickering and bullying after 9/11, I knew that I needed to be involved in my local political process and soon after took Canadian citizenship.
Yet every two years, I make sure that my voter registration is still valid and request an absentee ballot. I avoid voting on local issues because I am not affected by them, but I try to make sure that I am aware of who is running for national office and figure out the best choice that I can make. I have voted for a hope at healing in America three times in that last three Presidential elections; this election, it seems the rest of America voted with me.
The wounds in the American psyche are deep; there are entrenched interests who would not see them healed, but I have great hope that this Presidency will be the start of the healing process. I grew up with a vision of America as a better place; under President Obama, I have hope that it will begin to be so once again.
According to the rules that they put together, I am eligible for this contest since I am an American citizen, even though I reside in Canada. I hope to win, of course, but it also felt good to write this down. I’m going to leave comments open on this, but will be moderating comments much more heavily than normal. If you don’t have anything nice to say about this in a comment, either don’t say it at all or say it on your own blog.
Why Most People Don’t Trust Economists, Exhibit 732:
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Posted by austin in: Politics, comments closed
John McCain’s economics advisor, Kevin Hasset, is quoted by the New York Times as saying:
What really happens is that the economy grows more vigorously when you lower tax rates. It is beyond the reach of economic science to explain precisely why that happens, but it does.
Dani Rodrik calls this shift faith-based economics. I agree.
(Via Dani Rodrik’s weblog.)
WWF Canada Advertisement
Friday, 16 November 2007
Posted by austin in: Politics, comments closed
Sorry about the videos lately, but this is just too cool not to share.
I really wish more politicians believed this and started investing in more and better options for getting around. One of America’s greatest presidents was a conservative—in the absolute most accurate sense: he was a conservationist. That man was Theodore Roosevelt. Too bad that most modern conservatives aren’t after conserving anything.
(I’m not fond of most liberal-environmentalists, either, like Greenpeace. Frankly, I’m a futurist—I believe that technology will make a difference, and that nuclear is vital to the future.)
Amnesty Condemns Canada on Death Penalty
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Posted by austin in: Personal, Politics, comments closed
So, Amnesty International is condemning Canada for being soft on the death penalty. I mostly agree with them. The problem isn’t Canada the nation, it’s the conservative government. Canadians are still largely against the death penalty, and support the idea that we should not extradite criminals if they are to face the death penalty, and support the idea that we should request clemency for Canadian citizens facing the death penalty in other nations.
The ConservativesReform Party, on the other hand, are a bunch of rednecks who would love to see it brought back. So, they come up with excuses as to why they’re backpedaling on forty years of precedent. They sound as lame as the Republicans do south of us.
It’s really too bad that Dion’s Liberals are too lily-livered to come up with real positions that the ConservativesReform Party can’t respond to without sounding like the rednecks they are. Or that real Progressive Conservatives can’t stand up and take their party back from Stephen Harper’s rednecks.
Why I (now) wholeheartedly support MMP
Monday, 1 October 2007
Posted by austin in: Politics, Toronto, comments closed
I’ve been doing some serious thinking about the referendum question facing Ontarians this fall. Spacing Votes has been quite useful in distilling some of the issues and features of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) as opposed to FPTP (first-past-the-post, the current system), as evidenced by an earlier post I made. They continue to do so with MMP Disproportionality, Part I (Local Seats); I’m looking forward to part two.
I have, however, been thinking about the “list” seats versus geographically-based seats (”ridings”) and come to the conclusion that the problem isn’t list seats, but ridings. My office-place is an interesting example in this problem, in that the office is in nominally in Oakville (it’s at Winston Churchill and Dundas, right at the very border between Oakville and Mississauga), but very few people live in Oakville. A lot of people live west of the office, in Hamilton, St. Catharines, or Burlington; a lot of people live in Mississauga proper. Some, like myself, live in Toronto. I spend nearly ⅓ of my life away from where I live, and of the ⅔ that I’m at home, roughly ⅓ of it is spent sleeping.
So while I care about my neighbourhood’s representation in parliament (both federally and provincially), I also care about the places where I work and (at a minimum) the transit corridor I travel to and from work every day. My concerns are less about where I live than how I get to and from work, which means that regional transit policies matter to me. I can’t effectively and efficiently use a transit system to get to work. (The local Go station is ~10 minutes from my house, the train doesn’t run that often and even less often coming home, and the nearest station is still ~15 minutes from work by bus; my total commute by car is under 35 minutes).
I care about how municipalities (who should be caring more about the local rights and responsibilities) are being run over roughshod by the OMB and developers and the province itself. Mike Harris did more damage to Toronto’s infrastructure through forced amalgamation and downloading than anyone else. He also reduced our democratic representation by cutting the number of city councillors from 57 to 44—the City of Toronto web site says this was adopted by City Council, but I recall reporting at the time was that the adoption was at electoral gunpoint, just like the almagamation itself.
In other words, 90% of my concerns aren’t limited to my relatively small geographic region of the Parkdale-High Park riding, and the concerns I do have about Parkdale-High Park should be addressed through City Council and my local councillor rather than my provincial representation.
Ultimately, I don’t know that I care whether my representation is regional, and even think that regional representation may be the oddity in today’s world. As such, I can only end up supporting MMP. It may not be perfect, and I may regret supporting it in the future, but I don’t believe that being held hostage to the past in this case is a good thing.
Update: Reading a bit more, I have found another point that puts me in favour of MMP. The claim is that regional ridings represent the will of the people. This is only partially true, in that there are plenty of examples of parties parachuting in “star” candidates. I think Ken Dryden was this way for the federal Liberal party; while the people of his riding ended up voting for him, he did not have to win his party’s nomination for the seat.
Andrew Coyne: Why conservatives should support proportional representation
Posted by austin in: Politics, Toronto, comments closed
In September 22nd’s National Post, Andrew Coyne wrote an editorial in support of MMP, entitled Why conservatives should support proportional representation.
Let me be perfectly clear: I disagree with Andrew Coyne on most of what he says and writes. I don’t believe the way he believes. He believes that Mike Harris was good for Ontario (when exactly the opposite has proven true). But he is absolutely right when he says:
A Tory government…of Ontario would look much the same under Mr. Tory as under Dalton McGuinty. It would do much the same things, at much the same cost, with much the same results.
Oh, Mr. Tory would fiddle at the margins — cut a tax or two, expand funding to a few thousand kids in religious schools — issues that both leaders would like you to think show the vast gulf between them. But they’re not kidding anyone. Whoever wins, the forecast is for McGuintory governments, as far as the eye can see.…
[The current voting system creates most of what we find in] Canadian politics — viciously partisan, yet unspeakably trivial; much ado about nothing much. McGuintoryism, in short.
I think that John Tory would be bad for the province (he keeps pretending that he’s like Bill Davis, but he’s much more like Mike Harris), but that doesn’t mean that I think that Howard Hampton or Dalton McGuinty are good for the province. Something has to change; MMP may not be the best change, but we have to try.
(Via Spacing Votes.)
Ontario Votes: Voting Format Referendum
Friday, 21 September 2007
Posted by austin in: Politics, Toronto, comments closed
There’s a referendum going on in Ontario on how we will vote in the future. Others summarize it far better than I do:
I don’t think that it’s a bad system, but I am concerned about the reduction in the number of geographically-bound seats (ridings) from 107 to 90; I’d rather see us have 120 geographically-bound seats and an additional 29 “list” seats. I haven’t really decided which way I’m going to vote on it, but I am edging in favour of it.
Still, it’s interesting stuff and if you’re an Ontarian, you really need to vote on this.
Updated 2007.09.24: Added the link to the Spacing web resources for MMP. It’s important to note that MMP isn’t just a random proposal, but something strongly considered by fellow Ontarians.
