 |
I'm just a bill... yes I'm only a bill... and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill...
I've been playing Professor Layton and the Curious Village lately, so maybe I'm just seeing things from a puzzle point of view, but there's a quote in the New York Times that I've been scratching my head over.
“The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people. It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate.”
This is a comment from Barack Obama, talking about how the Republicans have been running things, and how things would be different if he were president.
It's a great comment. Very inspiring and hopeful. And it would be completely true if he were the Prime Minister of Canada.
But he's not.
And it's not.
The President of the United States neither introduces bills nor makes laws. The President is a powerful figurehead and certainly influences policy, but the job is to be, pardon the cliche, the 'commander and chief': he -- I use the male pronoun because there has not yet been a female president -- is the head of the US military and upholder of American law. The President is the leader of the Executive Branch of government, which makes policy to enforce existing laws, which are made by Congress. The president has no right to force Congress to debate things in a certain way. In fact, when it comes to the passage of laws, the president has a very stark choice: to veto, or not to veto. Voting 'present' isn't an option.
So what's Obama going on about with this setting debate terms messhugas?
As a civil rights lawyer (Judicial Branch) and a legislator (Legislative Branch) I think Obama knows how the American government works. Unfortunately, MOST Americans don't know how their government works, which allows them to be swayed by nonsensical, impossible statements made by politicians. Americans are aware of their myths far more than their history, and a good example of this -- yes, I'm fully aware of the minefield I'm stepping into by bringing this one up -- is the Emancipation Proclamation.
Most Americans think of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as the President of the United States, ol' Honest Abe, making slavery illegal. But that's not at all what it was. The Emancipation Proclamation was, in fact, an executive order, made by the President as the head of the American Military in a time of war. Slavery wasn't officially made illegal until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, a legislative act of CONGRESS, not the President. There ha been a great deal of debate among historians about the actual legality of the Emancipation Proclamation, but all of that is all legally moot, because of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Since then, executive orders which attempt to make laws instead of interpreting them have been overturned, albeit it extremely rarely. Only twice, in fact. One happened when Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry. The other happened to an executive order issued by... drumroll... Bill Clinton.
This might be why Hillary's approach to government is more 'cynical' and 'skeptical'. These symptoms of experience and practicality have become poo poo words as America struggles to pull hope out of numerous economic crises and a war that hasn't turned out like the 'shock and awe' victory they were hoping for.
To put these varying viewpoints in perspective, allow me to make a mundane analogy. I've seen a lot of would-be television professionals come out of the colleges with a ton of theory and ideology and enthusiasm. They want to be directing after a week on the job, because they think their singular vision and charisma will be the vanguard of a television revolution. They'll 'change the way television is made'!
Of course, they usually just end up getting fired. Meanwhile cynical, skeptical me keeps on making small changes within the scope of my power and influence, over a slow and painful process of many many seasons of shows. I made the same mistakes when I was twenty years old and just starting in the executive branch of television. I'm still trying to live some of them down. But I learned that to change things, one must work with the flawed and brittle system, as opposed to attempting to abolish it.
Yes, you can make revolutionary changes in individual programs, and do some really fantastic things, but change the entire process of television? There're hundreds of network execs managing the system. That like the way things work. And who are more likely to tell you to kiss their asses than listen to your ideas on remaking the entire process, because their networks will bleed money while some douchebag is trying to reinvent the wheel. So we get procedural dramas and reality tv, but the BUSINESS of television, the inner workings, still progress the same way they have since I Love Lucy was on the air.
So one could claim that simple inexperience led Obama to make his evanescent, enthusiastic declaration that he'll change the way Congress works. But this isn't the only possible motivation for Obama's statement, and isn't the one I subscribe to, since that's absolutely inexcusable ignorance and I think he's a smart guy.
He could have simply gotten carried away. He could have been outright lying. Or he might have simply misspoke and needs to refine his message. Although I don't know about that last suggestion, since he's been claiming that he can change the way Washington is run throughout his campaign.
You may believe that Obama believes he can change Washington. You may believe he's even going to try. But if you think that he and his compatriots can override hundreds of years of tradition, legalities, and constitutional boundaries, you're pissing in the ear of every president from George Washington to George W. Bush, and trying to tell them it's raining.
And you're encouraging the candidate you're backing to do something that is essentially illegal, since it's a violation of executive privilege and free speech.
I absolutely agree with Obama that partisanship is out of control. Unfortunately, "we're going to do things my way now" is just an extreme form of partisanship. Equally unfortunately, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, ESPECIALLY John McCain, have much longer resumes of bi-partisanship and non-partisanship. In fact, McCain co-sponsored a bill that actually became the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. The man he co-sponsored the bill with was Russell Feingold, a Democrat, hence the... yeah... 'Bipartisan' part. This alienated McCain rather severely from the Republicans before primary voters decided they'd had enough of the hard Right. The McCain-Feingold bill divided people, all right, but along money trails, not party lines.
Unfortunately, words seem to speak louder than actions in politics, and this election cycle is just politics as usual. But it's not the first time I've read some comment about government that makes my head threaten to explode from the sheer nonsense of it, and these very smart, very educated people wouldn't make these statements if they didn't think they'd get them somewhere.
It's up to American voters to understand how their government works so that they aren't swayed by nonsensical rhetoric. Someone needs to bring back Schoolhouse Rock or something.
(EDIT: Immediately after writing this blog, I discovered that a third ruling against an executive order issued by a president was overruled by the Supreme Court TODAY. President Bush was found to have had no power to tell the State of Texas to reopen the case of a Mexican on death row for the murder and rape of two teenaged girls. The ruling quoted language from the 1952 ruling against Truman.)
Press Release
Strong enough for a man...but women like it too!
Ed & Red`s Night Party! maintains ratings lead among male viewers --
and now among female viewers too!
March 6, 2008 - According to the Fall 2007 Toronto ratings data from Nielsen Media Research, Ed & Red's Night Party! continues to beat both the Tonight Show and the Late Show on Friday nights among males 18-54. This is a streak that extends back to 2001, when Citytv first began measuring Ed the Sock`s strength against that of American powerhouses David Letterman and Jay Leno.
As well, ERNP leads Leno and Letterman in all adult viewers 18-49 and 25-54.
And now for the first time in the show`s 13 years on Citytv, Ed & Red lead Leno and Letterman among female viewers in all categories - 18-34, 18-49 and 25-54.
This new strength among women may be attributed to the titular `Red`, co-star and producer Liana K. A funny and vivacious redhead, Liana has provided a strong female presence on a show previously co-hosted by a procession of men. In her 4th season as Ed's comic foil, Liana's unique combination of confident sex appeal and sharp intelligent wit have earned Red her own fan following among men and women -- who have come to identify with her attitude and anti-Hollywood natural beauty.
ERNP's strong female viewership puts the lie to the notion that the show is simply tailored for frat boy audiences. While in its earlier years the program did cater to young males, the show has evolved and broadened its appeal while mediating the nudity and coarseness it had been famous (infamous) for. And this year, the show continues to grow with a slew of new features & full HD.
The continuing strength among men and solid growth among women is all the more remarkable for a show in its 16th season (13 on Citytv). 2008 represents Ed the Sock`s 21st year on Canadian TV, and the Night Party is the longest-running late night show and second longest-running comedy show in Canadian TV history. Not bad for a show that began on Toronto's tiniest (now extinct) cable access station.
Ed & Red's Night Party! is an international co-production of Kerzner/Mediarts Entertainment (Canada) and Ripe Digital Media (USA) and airs Fridays at 11:35PM and Sundays at 11:30PM on Citytv.
-30-
Ed and Red's Summer of Geek Love
Unveiling... *fanfare*
...What we're affectionately calling the Ed and Red's Summer of Geek Love Tour! Here's our line up for the coming months:
Ad Astra, Toronto (Friday March 28 - Sunday March 30) Website Click HERE
-- Once again Ed and I will be doing opening ceremonies, and I'll be participating in the infamous Beefcake/Cheesecake event. Come get a photo or eat cheesecake for charity!
One Day CHO, Paradise Comics, Toronto (Friday April 18, 5-8PM) Webby Goodness Or the FACEBOOK group
-- If you can't make it to New York Comicon, fear not! While con-goers will be crammed in there with other sweaty guys, we'll be partying Frank Cho style! Ladies, you will not be the lone girl at this comics event!
Calgary Comics Expo (Saturday April 26 - Sunday April 27) Yee haw!
-- First chance to get your hands on Ed and Red's Comic Strip #3! MC Sean Ward will be with us for this show!
Free Comic Book Day, Happy Harbour Comics, Edmonton (Saturday May 3rd) Click dis!
-- As the name implies, lots of freebies.
Winnipeg Keycon (May 16th - 19th) Dee PEG boss, dee PEG!
-- I might be jumping the gun a little on this one because I'm not on their web page yet, but it's in the hopper. 25th year anniversary! Wow!
Wizard World Chicago (June 26th - 29th) Da CON!
-- The yearly pilgrimage. Look for us in the small press area again!
Paradise Toronto Comicon (Saturday July 12th - July 13th) <3 this show FACEBOOK
-- The one COMICS show we do in Toronto. This show is always a blast, and now with a change of venue bringing it right downtown, it'll be easier to get to!
San Diego Comicon LAND CRUISE! Departing from Edmonton, AB ( July 20th -- July 31st) KAPOW!
--Only 12 spaces left!
Pandemonium, Toronto (late August) Fortune favours the bold Adventurer!
-- My Realms Quest friends from the now-infamous LARP episode organize this show, and it's serious fun! If you're into gaming, used to play and want to get back into it, or even if you're just curious but have never played before, this is a good weekend. They're a very welcoming bunch who are kind to newbies. It's the hidden gem of the Toronto convention scene.
More to come about events, giveaways, and exclusives! Keep checking back!
Plus, don't forget the ParGar Pre-Garden Party!
(Geek) Love,
Liana K
RIP Gary Gygax
:(
Sniffle
Event!
Come one, come all!
Busy week!
I'll be calling in to the Smash internet radio show tomorrow at 12 noon EST. The address to listen is: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thesmash
To call in and ask me a question, call (347) 324-3507!
If you missed it (All 3 hours of it. Ow my voice) you can listen here:
Geeking about Black Canary
Hi all!
No heavy hitting blog today. Just wanted to let everyone know that I did another little piece for Space. Smallville is debuting a really out there version of Black Canary this week, and Hypaspace did a quick thing with me to talk about why she's cool in the comics! I dragged myself out from having the flu to do it, which is saying a lot because I was so sick I missed the Turok preview.
Hypaspace airs Saturday at 5:30, Sunday at 4:40, on SPACE of course!
Super Tuesday
I've been loathe to comment on what's going on in the US primaries because of my personal beliefs regarding non-citizens influencing democratic elections. I'm not an American citizen, so while I agree that American politics is world politics, and that broad-stroke political discussions are appropriate -- Left versus Right partisan politics exist outside of America -- I don't think it's appropriate for me to be 'endorsing' candidates in the primary stages. I'm not sure I feel that any media personality should be endorsing candidates in the nomination stages. The hyperbole required in the process creates a lingering awkwardness that lasts far beyond the primaries and caucuses, as Oprah Winfrey and her ilk will soon find out.
So I've been trying to figure out how to present some relevant thoughts on trends and processes without putting too fine a point on the candidate(s) I "support"; "support" is in quotations because it's a passive act. I can't caucus.
The frenzy that is primary season is a baffling one for those of us living under parliamentary governments. Here, nominations of party leaders are internal matters, so unless one of us is intensely and directly involved in politics... or someone does something amusingly and incredibly stupid... we don't get our bonnets full of bees about it.
So I've been an upset and horrified spectator to this Clinton/Obama/McCain/Romney/Paul/Huckabee/Jabberwocky/Frankenstein... thing that's been happening. I included the fictional references because I can't help but feel like a monster is being created here.
America has a history of internal strife. In a country that geographically big, it's bound to happen. That America has held itself together is nothing short of a miracle by design. Other countries have split apart that have had similar tensions and such varying levels of civil war of both hot and cold varieties. But WOW does America love to fight itself.
Even though I know that politics is a dirty and bloody game, I still believe that this current cycle has gone far beyond what was necessary, practical or useful. While the politics of personality is an old and common theme, this period has been more the politics of 'hey! Look at me! I matter!' I'm not talking about the candidates. I'm talking about the voters.
People cry foul when talk of voting along racial or gender lines emerges, but recent statistics seem to point to people voting the way girls pick out dolls: they tend to go for the one that looks the most like them, or the one they'd like to look like. When that's questioned, people have lashed out. Because it took too long for people to realize that when an individual declared which candidate they supported, they were trying to affirm themselves, and things became too personal for a national debate reported to an international audience. Foreign news sources started throwing in their two cents, and the Western Hemisphere lost its Reason. (capital R, apologies to Kant)
It's tragic that a campaign that began with so many sources and themes of hope has ended in so much metaphorical bloodshed. But in retrospect, I'm not sure it could have ended any other way: the narrowing down of political candidates involves analysis and deconstruction, but this time, we weren't tearing down people. We were flaying dreams.
The process defamed a romantic, handsome upstart with big dreams from a long-oppressed people; it bludgeoned a scrappy, determined, long-suffering-yet-devoted feminist love interest; it impugned a tell-it-like-it-is war hero; it demonized a dashing millionaire, devoted family man, and man of the church; it humiliated a fearless leader who brought the country through its darkest hour in modern history... and it all but completely ignored Ron Paul.
Well, that's how their supporters see Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. In Rudy's case, all five that remain still think he's swell. Of course, every single one of these shining lights was surrounded by an army of campaign workers whose mission it was to make they're opponents look as downright evil as they possibly could. Cries of racism, illegitimate children, cult-like religious practices, and conspiring with slumlords rang out. Everyone had too much of a checkered past, or not enough experience; was too old or too young; was too liberal, too conservative, or too much contact with the other side.
And voter after voter complained that they wanted to hear about the issues, but poll after poll indicated that what they wanted was personality and celebrity. They wanted someone who would make them feel good about themselves.
That's not new, really. That was the underpinning of George W. Bush's early popularity as well. The side-effect of his fall from grace is that this time around, it's anyone's race to win, and that's created an unexpectedly bumper crop of good candidates. But who's the BEST candidate? I don't think the process has allowed anyone to determine that with any certainty.
At some point it became the general consensus that, at least on the Democratic Party's side, Obama and Clinton were essentially identical on the issues. Which would be great, except it's not true. In terms of their health care platforms, there are clear distinctions in their programs, as have their been in their comments regarding certain foreign policy events, such as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The Republican side, despite their more discernible shades of grey on key issues, still line up similarly in terms of broad strokes, but there ARE differences.
But who gives a damn about issues and subtlety when there's a rip-roaring popularity contest going on! It makes me think about when I was running for student president in the fifth grade. All the 'candidates' were supposed to make speeches about how they'd make the school better, despite the oldest of us being all of twelve. I guess it was a good lesson though, because the girl who won was the prettiest and most popular, even though she barely spoke above a whisper. No, that girl wasn't me.
So as "Super Tuesday" looms, I lament that the process has brought America closer to electing a popular leader instead of a competent one. That doesn't mean that a candidate can't be both, but the selection criteria has nothing to do with actual ability to govern. All the cheers of 'it's time it's time' make me wonder 'time, for what, exactly?' Time for the first black president? The first woman president? A truly compassionate conservative?
Maybe it's time for America to finally truly come to terms with its own prejudices and myths, things that have been writ large during this campaign. Until it does that, the skin colour or the gender of the president is little more than illusion in a country of myths with a tendency to eat its own.
|
|
|
|
