Crappy photo, sorry

I spent the last week at the CAW (my union)'s Education Centre in Port Elgin, Ontario. I took a course on Grievance Handling & Workplace Leadership, which I found to be absolutely phenomenal. When you're a lefty unionist, sometimes you feel a little isolated and as if you're fighting for a lost cause; but this past week has re-energised me more than anything I have ever done. While up there, I felt so much solidarity with my brothers and sisters across all industries. It was refreshing to be around like-minded people who actually care about other people; I listened to their stories of lay-offs and trouble in their communities and came out of the experience refreshed and ready to redouble my efforts at making this a better world for all workers as well as disadvantaged and maligned people.

I'm excited to go back to work on Monday and apply some new techniques. I hope my enthusiasm is contagious and gets more people interested in the union and union activities. I will strongly encourage anyone who's interested to take courses up there, as our solidarity in my workplace is weak and needs strengthening.

On a related note, I was told by the wife of our current Regional rep. that she thinks I'd be good for that job once her husband retires in about 6 years. I think this is enough time to get up to speed on most of what I'd need to know, so now I have a goal.

I love this shit so much, and am so ridiculously psyched.

Deal Reached in Congress on $789 Billion Stimulus Plan

I won't post the whole article, as it is quite long. I will, however, comment on it, as if you actually read it. Firstly, how is it that Republicans, now firmly out of power, can argue that they are the party of fiscal responsibility under the current circumstances? Only 3 Republican Senators voted for the current measure, and in order to do so they cut over $50 billion from the initial bill. Their reason for not voting for this stimulus bill? Yep, you guessed it: too much money.

Have they forgotten that they presided over the biggest spending spree ever, taking a $230 billion budget surplus in 2000 (source) and turning it into a budget deficit of $438 billion in 2008 (source), for a difference of $668 billion?

$668 BILLION in 8 years. Obama and the Democrats inherited a broken system, created by the Bush tax cuts and deregulation (some of the latter admittedly took place during Clinton's presidency, but GWB took it to a whole new level). Yet the Republicans are still playing the part of concerned, fiscally responsible citizens, who just want the government to spend what money it already has. Why is nobody calling bullshit on this self-righteous display of collective amnesia, a mere two weeks after the inauguration?

Secondly, even if they have turned over a new leaf and are now true fiscal conservatives, how are they ever going to win votes by cutting funding for schools and health care?!?

Says the article: Despite intense lobbying by governors around the country, the final deal slashed $25 billion from a proposed state fiscal stabilization fund, eliminated a $16 billion line item for school construction and sharply curtailed spending to provide health insurance for the unemployed.

Schools in the US are sharply underfunded, and yet instead of using this unique opportunity to begin the development of a first-rate education system, they instead agreed to $282 billion in tax cuts, renewing the failed policies of Mr Bush. Those tax cuts, by the way, included a whopping $250 one-time payment to Social Security recipients (i.e., old age pensioners), and "$400 for individuals and $800 for families within certain income limits."

The problem I see with this plan is that, given the record high personal debt load Americans are carrying these days, most of that tax relief will go to paying Visa and MasterCard, and not into the economy. That money's already been spent. I guess paying down personal debt is never a bad thing; however this will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Building a school certainly would. Likewise with insuring the poor: they tend to avoid visits to the hospital entirely if they are uninsured, leaving the healthcare market with what economists would call underutilised capacity. Insuring the unemployed would allow them to begin/continue treatment for medical problems which a) would fill up the capacity in the market, thus creating more jobs and spurring on the economy in that sector; and b) costs less money in the long term.

In Canada, the party that cut school construction funding and health insurance in favour of a tax cut would be run out of office on a rail. Or at least I hope they would.

That is all.

Not sure if I wrote about this before, but I was running for a position on my local union's executive committee, and the results were announced last Saturday at the membership meeting. I didn't win (which is how I'm putting it to those who supported me, but really I just want to scream "I LOST!!!"... but that's bad politics).

On the positive side, it's once again nice to feel like my actions and decisions impact only me. During the whole process, I felt like anything I said or did had to be done on behalf of the members. But now, I feel like I can back away from that hard-line position and make some decisions for myself as well.

The negative side is much more interesting, though. Before I got too involved, I should have reflected on the emotional ramifications I would experience if I lost. Specifically, I should have thought about two things: a) I am a very competitive person who hates to lose; and b) that I don't deal well with rejection. As a result of the election, I have come down on the wrong side of both of those realities, and it is somewhat troublesome.

I feel the way I did when I got dumped in high school, but times 100. There are around 3000 people in my local, so being rejected by a group as large as that is more difficult than I'd imagined. There's definitely a degree of embarassment thrown in there for good measure.

I will pick myself up, dust myself off and run again, but next time I'll know that this horrible feeling is what awaits me on the other side should I lose, and I'll be ready for it. That will help me to take the necessary steps in order to win.

Two posts in one day?!? This is unheard of.

"Canada’s richest CEOs pocket the average Canadian wage of $40,237 by 9:04 a.m. January 2nd – before most Canadians have booted up their computer for another year of work,” says Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) Research Associate Hugh Mackenzie.

The CCPA released a report on January 2, 2009 showing that the 100 highest paid CEO's at publicly traded corporations in Canada earned an average of $10.4 million in total compensation in 2007, which was an average increase of 22%, from its $8.5 million average in 2006.

This compared with an average pay hike of only 3.2% to $40,237 for the average Canadian worker during 2007. "Compared with ordinary Canadians, whose wages have been stagnant for 30 years, Canada's economic downturn promises to hit the masses far harder than the best paid 100 CEOs," Mackenzie said. "They have enjoyed a decade of record pay hikes and will land on a softer cushion if they stumble from their lofty heights in the New Year."

The wage gap between the average Canadian worker and CEOs has been growing steadily over the past decade. In 2007, Canada's top 50 CEOs earned 398 times more than the average worker, compared with 85 times in 1995.

MacKenzie said that between 1998 and 2007 the average compensation of top CEOs increased by 147%, adjusted for inflation. This compared with a 3% decline in inflation-adjusted weekly wages for average Canadians and a 6% rise for those on the minimum wage.

Bonuses and salaries paid to Canadian chief executives are expected to come under increased scrutiny in 2009 from shareholders who have been burned by the decline in stock prices and as mounting pressure to slash CEO pay in the United States spills over into Canada.

CEO pay in Canada has so far not come under as intense a spotlight as in the United States, but MacKenzie of the CCPA says that Canadian shareholders are likely to take a closer look at the issue when companies hold their annual general meetings this year amid a contracting domestic economy.

"To the extent that the meltdown in the market and the reaction to it in the United States creates new trends in compensation, those trends will leak over to Canada," said MacKenzie.

Source

Is starting a Facebook group a new avenue for social activism, or is it just the path of least resistance to voicing one's displeasure? Over the last several weeks during the strike at York University for example, I have read, seen or heard numerous mentions of the creation of Facebook groups by students and parents as a means to vent negative emotions regarding the strike. Is this something we should take seriously, or can we write it off the way we would a newspaper editorial with which we disagree?

That is, where's the line between the medium and the message? Has it been sufficiently blurred by the internet and its user-driven content that there is no more need for people to actually go to a demonstration, now that they can sit in their homes and offices, voicing their opinions with a click of the mouse? Put another way, is Facebook (or other sites like it) an effective way to apply pressure in the public sphere?

In my opinion, people have mistaken Facebook for a social tool, when it is only another medium for disseminating one's message. It can be effective if viewed by enough people, however given the nature of the site, it is likely that one's audience will be composed mainly of like-minded individuals (particularly when you consider these are groups designed for people who all feel the same way: "York students against the strike," etc.). The real issue becomes that upon realising the limited scope of the medium being used, most people are reluctant to take the necessary steps to ensure they are heard. That is to say that there is no popular movement behind Facebook groups, other than some mildly disgruntled people who have computers.

From my perspective, this is yet another example of the prevailing laziness of the Canadian public when faced with something they dislike. This can be attributed to the same trend that has led to ever-lowering voter participation in elections and decreasing engagement with our government. This is coupled with the ever-increasing focus on the individual and what makes him/her happy. No longer are we expected to forego our own personal fulfillment for the sake of the community, or even for the sake of our own children. Simply put, we're taught that buying the latest iPod will bring us happiness, and that civic engagement extends only so far as the marketplace but not to our relationship with our families, our neighbours, our employers, nor our government.

(This is also tied to our changing impressions of the role of the government in our society: increasingly, we expect the government to provide high-quality services, but we do not wish to pay for them through higher taxes. Moreover, we want the government to stay out of our way when it comes to making money, yet we expect there to be a safety net when we fail.)

The underlying problem is, in my view, that these elements are threads in the fabric that forms our democracy. If participation in the public sphere is in question, how robust and reliable is our democracy? Do these problems bespeak the unravelling of our popular system of government, or merely that it is changing with the times? Furthermore, what makes a democracy? Is simply the act of voting on election day enough to underpin a participative system, or does it need to go further than that?

Well, Canada, aren't we lucky. A dangerous precedent has been set, which will henceforth allow any Prime Minister in fear of being defeated in the House to run to the Governor General and prorogue Parliament until further notice. This, in my view, is not how a Parliamentary democracy ought to run: today's decision could end up proving to be ridiculously more detrimental to our country than anything Mr. Harper has done to date. Nevertheless, the Governor General has acted on the Prime Minister's behalf to save his neck: if his Government had been defeated in the House on Monday, there would be no way that he could have kept his job (not just as PM, but also as the leader of the Conservative Party, as his caucus would have demanded his resignation during their spell in the Opposition benches). So it seems that Her Excellency has, at the very least, postponed a non-confidence measure until the New Year.

At that point, we may find that the Tories' budget proposals are very much along the lines of that which the three so-called Coalition Leaders had been proposing all along; in which case I think it would be exceptionally difficult for them to move non-confidence in the Government. That being said, however, I feel that Mr. Harper and the Conservatives at large have not proven themselves over the last two Parliaments to be very interested in conciliatory gestures: therefore, while they will probably not introduce such partisan measures as curtailing the right to strike or removing public funding for political parties, they will still introduce what we have come to know as a Conservative budget, thus (at the very least) irking the Opposition parties.

In short, I don't think there's any way the Prime Minister can win in this exercise. His unilateralism and refusal to work with the Opposition in the best interests of Canadians has finally caught up with him, and will be his undoing. This is what I find to be the most alarming about the Prime Minister's record: he has been working over the last 2 or 3 years to divide Canadians along partisan and regional lines, and he shows no real signs of changing. He is a megalomaniacal and ruthless man who treats politics as a game: a game in which the only suitable outcome is that which will bring him more power. We saw this when he was Leader of the Opposition, when he ceaselessly attacked the Liberal Government on scandal after scandal (none of which, with the notable exception of the Sponsorship Scandal, turned out to be anything at all). We also saw this in the last Parliament, when he introduced measure after measure that he knew the Liberals a) couldn't support, but b) would have to let go as they weren't ready to fight an election at that point, even though he was in a minority Parliament. Finally, the Liberals had been tarred with the Conservative brush one time too many (they knew that they had suffered due to this lack of action, as their seat count was reduced in the last election, not to mention the polling data that overwhelmingly supports this thesis). They realised that they had little choice but to act, as Harper yet again tried to ram partisan and divisive measures down the throats of Canadians who weren't interested in what he was offering. This is not to mention his rhetoric that the Conservatives have done enough to shore up our economy, and as such not much else needs to be done: they were left with the strongest fiscal situation in Canadian history, and have, in short order, turned a $13-billion surplus into a deficit, through reckless and unfair tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, and by simultaneous spending increases.

The fact is that 62% of voters in the most recent election voted for someone other than the Conservatives. For the Conservatives to interpret this as a mandate is ludicrous, and their argument that a coalition is undemocratic just doesn't hold water. In such a coalition, the Government would have the clear and unfettered support of the majority of the House of Commons, which cannot be said of the current Government. His yelling and screaming that this arrangement is unfair, then, can be interpreted only as someone who wants to save his own neck. I think it's fair to say, given what I've outlined above, that he cares more about his own job than about the thousands and thousands of Canadians who have either already lost their jobs, or are on the verge of losing them. His pension is safe, but there are thousands more who have opened their portfolios to find they are worth fully half of what they were worth a few short months ago. This situation is unfortunate and I am, for one, 100% behind any effort to oust this sorry excuse for a Government from power.

I won't even go into the Mike Harris connections... that's just too much, but I will say that they sure did a good job in Ontario.

Unlike my usual ranty entries, this one is in an effort to assist a photographer friend of mine win a contest. This will sound silly to the more jaded of you out there, however please read on...

The top prize is a $5,000 camera, which, of course, a struggling artist can't afford. This is more than just a contest, therefore... it is a means to enable an exceptionally talented young man come closer to realising his dreams.

As such, please go to http://www.metrophotochallenge.com/ca/photo/66571 and sign up to vote for this photo.

No, it's not a crappy photo of his dog. It's this:



Please, it'll only take a few minutes. Also, if you're inclined to be nice and lend a helping hand to this clearly talented photographer, would you please post the info on your own blogs? I want to do everything possible to help this young man win this contest. Yay interwebz!

Thanks to all who participate.

Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. All states that went for Bush in 2004 but swung for Obama in 2008.

By my count, if Obama had lost Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, he'd still have 299 Electoral College votes: enough to make him President.

ETA: I may have been early on calling Montana -- but its 3 electoral votes don't change the math much.</b>

From fivethirtyeight.com, speaking of Chicago on Election Day:

What To Watch For

Jubilation if and when Obama wins the Presidency, culminating in a rally in Chicago's Grant Park that may draw one million souls. It's not a Cubs' World Championship, but most Illinoisans will take it; what kind of odds could you have gotten in 1908 that a black dude would get elected president before the Cubs won the Series again?

Now there's a thought...

Gallup currently has Obama up by 11 points across all registered voters, 7 points among likely voters (using traditional methodology), and 10 points among likely voters using a new methodology they developed for this election to account for the way Obama is drawing support in corners traditionally sidelined from the process.

As if that last part isn't reason enough by itself to make this man President.

Fivethirtyeight.com predicts Obama will win 344 Electoral College votes (270 being the threshold to the Presidency). It predicts with better than a 70% chance for each state that Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada will go for Obama on November 4. Furthermore, it predicts that Missouri and North Carolina may go to the Democrats as well. (Follow the link for their methodology -- it is actually quite interesting to see how they come up with these numbers).

The New York Times is a little more conservative in its predictions, but it gives Obama 277 Electoral College votes from states solidly in, or leaning towards the Obama side. It still counts Nevada, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio as too close to call, but counts Virginia and Pennsylvania in Obama's total.

It doesn't look like the election is headed to a landslide in the traditional definition (like Reagan in 1984: he won every state but Minnesota, which he lost by less than one-fifth of a percent), but as far as Democrats since 1960 go, this is shaping up to be huge.

At the time I write this, the electoral map seems to have been drawn for the next Parliament... there are a few things still up in the air, though, to be fair. I won't harp on it, 'cause I've made this point before, but let's do some simple math.

Without knowing the exact number of people who voted (we won't know this figure for a few days), I can't give a more exact picture of how badly the NDP and smaller parties get hosed by our archaic electoral system, but I can give a rough outline by simply taking the seat total and dividing it by the percentage of the popular vote a party received. The outcome of this expression should be a fair indicator of the disparities. Let's call it h as in hosed. Basically, the lower the number, the larger the proportion of the vote necessary to garner one seat.

The Tories, our once and future fearless leaders, received abot 37.7% of the vote and 143 seats. Divide 143 by 37.7 and h=3.79.

For Liberals, who received 77 seats and 26.24% of the vote, h=2.93.

The Bloq received -get this- 49 seats with a whopping 9.98% of the vote... h=4.91.

The NDP received 37 seats and 18.18% of the vote, making h=2.03.

I obviously can't make this measurement for the other parties, as they received zero seats.

These rough figures would be meatier if I had a count of the actual votes cast, in which case I could make a proper ratio (which, perhaps, I will do in the days to come). Instead I will use fractions, and ask, simply, for someone to explain to me how one NDP vote is worth 2/3 of a Liberal vote, a little over 1/2 of a Conservative vote, and around 2/5 of a Bloq vote? WTF Canada?

Continuing my series dealing with political rants nobody gives a fuck about, I offer the following cutting insights...

Recently I have been thinking about the role of political parties in an electoral system; but more specifically, the role of the opposition in any given model. This is, in part, impacted by different numbers of political parties in the system: take for example virtually any European country (save England). There, legislatures frequently feature multiple political parties. This usually leads to no one party holding absolute power (i.e., a majority of the seats in the House), and hence encourages coalition governments and a more consensual decision-making process. Even so, the parties in the governing coalition hold positions in the Cabinet, to the exclusion of the other parties in the legislature. This latter unfortunate minority still represent their constituents and their values, and stand as a principled yet loyal opposition to the Government.

Under the Westminster model, which Canada (as well as England, clearly, and other Commonwealth nations) follows, this premise is reflected in the title of the leader of the second party in the House of Commons: The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is her/his job to stand in principled opposition to the Government's policies, thus (hopefully) achieving a Hegelian balance between Thesis and Antithesis. The argument goes that this debate will strengthen the outcome of the issue in question. Under both this model and the European one, some votes are occasionally unanimous (or nearly so), however this is by far the exception to the rule.

In the US, however, there is constantly the rhetoric of "reaching across the aisle" to achieve goals. While this teamwork and statesmanship is no doubt admirable, the element of principled opposition is lost. In many ways, the American republican system (not the party, but the system itself) relies upon systemic checks and balances to provide the fetter to absolute power that the Opposition provides in Canada and elsewhere. The problem becomes, however, that when the House, Senate and the Presidency are all held by members of the same party, those checks and balances are mitigated by common objectives. Moreover, when some catastrophic event like 9/11 happens, for example, the marginal opposition that exists within that system has been shown to evaporate almost entirely.

This leads me to ask why Americans seek bipartisan cooperation, then? Haven't we seen over the course of the last seven years that a clearly defined Opposition is necessary to the proper functioning of an evolved government? Why are Obama and McCain both touting their bipartisan records, and implying (and often explicitly stating) that they would continue same if elected President? Perhaps it's foreign to American sensibilities, but I (for one) would be much more responsive to a message that goes something along the lines of, "Fuck the other dude, I have the right ideas and they can sit the hell down for the next four years if I win." But that's just me.

I know it's less than cool to go reproducing random interweb stuff on LJ, but this is too funny.



The first thing I thought of when I heard Sarah Palin's name was Monty Python, as well.

I remember a few weeks during the summer I was 16 years old, I had to look after my bedridden grandmother. My grandfather had died around a year and a half previously, and my poor Nana had gone steadily downhill since. It wasn't as bad as you may think: mostly I spent the time trying to get cigarettes from the local stores on the Lakeshore, talking to my girlfriend on the phone, and watching TV; interspersed with this, however, was emptying her bed pan and feeding her dinner. They were a couple of weeks that have shaped my life, in some ways, and when I occasionally think of that time, it is almost always with a deep sadness.

I think these things are important to write down. I apologise that it isn't more meaningful to the reader, but I needed to record it in some way.

Home from work for another day, and for some reason I am struck by a mild anxiety attack, as if something was lurking in the shadows in every dark corner...

... Maybe I'm still frightened of the dark?

I think I miss Alexis and the dog, who are camping now (along with the rest of my friends). I got back this morning after spending Wednesday afternoon and all of Thursday up at MacGregor Point Provincial Park with Lex and Aimée, but had to leave before everyone else arrived. It was very enjoyable and relaxing, and by comparison, my city life seems mundane. It was difficult to psych myself up for work today: I found myself being snippier than usual to people (although it did seem that people were snippier than usual to me, as well... all those idiots who complain to the first person in a uniform they see really outdid themselves today).

I think I'm just tired. The anxiety is passing now (now that I've had a smoke and a few sips of beer). I still miss my little family, though.

So the Beijing Olympics begin in a couple of days. Frankly, I am unsure how I ought to feel about the whole thing, especially after reading this story today, which tells the story of a two year-old working in a factory in China.

While this is clearly not the norm (and if you read the article, it's not quite as bad as it sounds), it nevertheless highlights the numerous problems not just of awarding the Olympic Games to China, but of even trading with them at all.

In Canada, as in most Western countries, we have sophisticated and powerful legislation designed to protect workers from dangers in the workplace. As we've seen recently in Manitoba and elsewhere, these aren't always sufficient to prevent workers from being injured or killed at work. Having said this, however, there are no parallel legal protections in China, despite Western powers having spent decades trying to pressure the Chinese to enact such safeguards.

Additionally, China has a dreadful human rights record, having time and again flouted the international community's efforts to get them to liberalise their views on this issue. Amnesty International cites innumerable human rights abuses, including: torture; the harassment and detention of human rights defenders; the imprisonment of journalists and tight control of the flow of information to the population; discrimination and violence against women and homosexuals; the ongoing repression of religious and minority ethnic groups; and other abridgements of human rights.


After the Tiananmen Square Massacre, 1989
Over and over, we hear tales of woe from our own working classes of their jobs being outsourced to China (and elsewhere, I suppose) because they are cheaper. My right-wing family and friends use this as an example of the preeminence of the market system, and an expression of how trade unions and unionised workers have "priced themselves out of the market." What is in fact happening, however, is the loss of jobs (and capital) to shady sources of labour, where not only the cost of production is cheaper, but so is life itself. By buying Chinese products, we are, in effect, rewarding Chinese disregard for human life and its most basic preconditions.


A Chinese sweatshop

Some Chinese sweatshop workers work 90 hour weeks, are forced to buy their food and essentials at the Company store, and are fined for even the smallest infractions, like taking too long in the washroom (or even for using it at all). This can eat up the vast majority of their wages, essentially spiralling these workers into wage slavery. [source]



In the end, none of this really matters, though, does it? The Olympics will begin on Friday as planned, and will likely demonstrate the nicest, most media-friendly side of China as possible. I just hope that we can all see through the smoke and mirrors to what is really being celebrated here, which is nothing more than avarice, pure and simple.

So, at the behest of finefinemusic, I am finally making an entry, instead of stalking everyone on my flist and never offering anything myself...

Following up to the last post, I left my bullshit HR job and am back working on the railroad (all the live-long day). Additionally, we left our one-bedroom in posh Forest Hill for a beautiful two-bedroom on Vaughan, which is a much nicer arrangement. We have our jobs, a little money, our dog and each other, and I couldn't be happier.



For the first time in my 30 years on this planet, I feel like I'm living for myself. I've always been so concerned with the wishes and desires of other people (mostly my parents and grandparents), that I never stopped to consider what I really wanted. So, now that I have made a major life decision and have moved past the angst and disillusionment, I feel infinitely better. It's as if I can see the big picture now, and I can see the road that stretches out ahead of me and understand how every day fits into my plans for living the good life.

I made my first steps the other day towards getting involved with the union at work, if only baby steps. There's a lot of politics involved, as one might expect, and I think the key to my initial strategy will have to be not to alienate anyone and a) to make as many friends, and b) to gather as much knowledge, as possible. I'm gonna keep that red flag secret for the next little while ;)



In a nutshell, that's what's new in my life to date. I want to write in here more, so hopefully this is the beginning of something.

International Commemoration Day for the Dead and Injured takes place annually around the world on April 28, in a memorial and day of action for workers killed, disabled, injured or made unwell by their work.

According to the International Labour Organisation (an agency of the UN), each day, an average of 6,000 people die as a result of work-related accidents or diseases, totalling more than 2.2 million work-related deaths a year. Of these, about 350,000 deaths are from workplace accidents and more than 1.7 million are from work-related diseases.¹

In Ontario since 1980, 8,235 people have died as a result of their work.² In 2006, the Association of Worker's Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) reported 976 workplace fatalities in Canada, compared to 805 workplace fatalities in 1996 – an 18% increase in a ten-year period.³

April 28 allows all Canadians and people throughout the world to pay respect to those working people who have died or suffered injuries and diseases on the job. While we mourn the dead, labour and all people must dedicate themselves to fight for the living and prevent this terrible and unnecessary toll.²

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

... this is pretty great.



rofl.

Courtesy of peemonkey

Yeah, it's been a while. Get over it.

I'm in the midst of a career crisis right now, as I suppose I was two years ago. I absolutely loathe my current job, and have been applying left and right to other posts but with little luck. I've had a few interviews, but no takers.

So I decided to get in touch with my old employer to see if they're hiring. I kind of feel like it's a step backward: I was there a few years ago and worked hard to get out, and now it could all end up for naught.


The upside is that the pay is much better, and the job security is pretty much guaranteed, once I make it past the 3 month probationary period. There is a high chance of lay-off in the winter, but there's always work from around now until after Christmas. Once I build up a little seniority, the lay-off won't happen, either.

I have been having anxiety attacks since before Christmas, which I believe are, in large part, a product of my job. I simply detest the things the corporation stands for: they exploit people left, right, and centre in an effort to make just a few more bucks, and line the pockets of the president and his cronies just a little more.


Anyway, it's really become a mental health issue. Perhaps at the root of this issue is my continued difficulty in reconciling my socialism with being another cog in the capitalist system. I feel like I'm betraying all I have ever stood for, just for the simple convenience of LCD TVs and a middle-class lifestyle. I never wanted to become a BMW-driving tool of the capitalist élite, but I am well on my way to that becoming true. Hence my existential dread.

Plus, I'll be 30 in May. That might have something to do with it.

There's no resolution. I'll write more as it happens.

_________
In other news, I can't believe this chick is serious. Some people.

An excerpt: "No one in Paris knows how to speak English. ... I cannot think of any 1st World nation that does not teach its children English. It's completely stupid here in France."

All class.

I'm watching the CNN stream of the New Hampshire primary, and all I have to say about that is, I love how when they pull back for a wide shot of the Republican events, that the audience is full of middle-aged (or older) white men. Theirs is a tired, tired party.

_______

ETA: Hillary wins for the Dems... that's a smack in the face for Obama. This is going to be an interesting race.

Iowa Caucus Results

Democrats


Republicans


Stolen from ontd_political

Pretty much a dead heat in the Democratic contest, it seems, while the Republicans elected another right-wing, white Christian male. Quelle surprise.

At this point the only real differences I can see between the Democratic frontrunners are their approaches to the issues. This may be because of Iowa's preference for retail politics, the grip-and-grin, baby-kissing brand of politics Americans are famous for. We'll see in New Hampshire in a few days whether the substance behind their promises actually exists, though.

The more I watch this whole race shaping up, the more I like John Edwards. It's about time a candidate for President stopped talking about bi-partisan cooperation and really talked about what they thought. I'm sick of the middle-of-the-road tendencies of populist politicians (read: in Western Canada or pretty much anywhere in the US), as all their positions tend to get watered down so much they end up middling and banal. Edwards seems to want to stand up to the entrenched interests those of us watching this process from the outside can see all too clearly, but for some reason Americans have come to accept: insurance companies, drug companies, gun manufacturers, and their many, many lobbyists. (I read somewhere recently that lobbyists outnumber politicians in Washington by 3:1, if you believe that.)

Anyway, there's just under a year to go until the general election, and anything can change within that time. Very exciting, though....

_______

ETA: looks like Obama's going to "win" for the Dems -- not by too much though. This result doesn't particularly surprise me, given how close Illinois (Obama's home state) is to Iowa. I'd say this is a good showing for the top three candidates, though probably not what Hillary was looking for, nor is it the slam-dunk she was predicted to make at the outset of the campaign. The national polls I've seen recently indicate she's got a pretty good lead across the country, though, so we'll see how things go before Super Tuesday.

For the first time in more than 11 years Australians are waking up to a changed political landscape, with Labor readying itself to take power.

ABC News

Kevin Rudd swept aside the Prime Ministership of John Howard with a stunning victory, turning a 16-seat deficit into a majority of about 22 seats, depending on the final outcomes in a handful of electorates.

Mr Howard conceded graciously, sending Mr Rudd and the Labor Government he will lead his best wishes and admitting it was "very likely" that he had lost his own seat of Bennelong to Labor's Maxine McKew.

Mr Rudd says Australians had looked to the future in placing their trust in him and his team.

( Read more... )

Source

Well, I seem to be embarking on another YouTube spree... so here's another video.