Move to the Back of the Bus

It never ceases to amaze me how Canadians feel entitled to their personal space. Many times I've ridden the bus, and people don't have common sense when it comes to making room for others. Yes, people, this means YOU move to the back of the bus when there's room. It doesn't mean you stand there like a dumb shit while the front of the bus fills up and no one's behind you. Grab a fucking clue and move back - yes, all the way back. Stairs aren't some insurmountable barrier preventing you from moving. A couple of steps isn't a big deal. Failure to get out of your comfort zone for common courtesy means several people can't get on the bus when they otherwise could.

Worst of all, there are more people that are clueless than are aware and courteous. And the most baffling part, if I said something about it, I'm the rude one.

The REAL Christmas

So despite my little rant yesterday, I managed to hold on to some glimmer of hope. See, whatever else happens, I look forward to waking up Christmas morning and, even if it's over the phone, watch listen to my family open their presents. It has never been much of a bother to me that I'm the one who has the least number of presents under the tree (year after year). I really only care about whether or not those who have gotten me presents have thought about the gift and what it means. So this year, with one present to open (from my roommate, no less), it still didn't bother me a whole lot as long as I could share Christmas morning with the family (that I don't care for too much). And this morning was a painful remininder of exactly why I would completely disown them if my conscience would let me. You see, they had already opened their presents last night. They didn't even call me when they were doing it; I had to find out by calling them this morning. This was the one thing that would have made Christmas bearable, the one thing of substance. That thing is now gone, and there is nothing left. Christmas has literally become for me what formal logic calls "an empty set". On top of this, the money that I sent to my mom with specific instructions to spend it at a particular place was spent somewhere else; my instructions were ignored.

And yet, somehow, I can't help but feel like I'm whining over all of this. I'm not going to take away my right to feel this way. I believe people are entitled to a meaningful Christmas, and in the end, I suppose all I want for Christmas is for it to have some kind of meaning. Maybe that's why I'm feeling this way, that I can't find any meaning in it. Call me Charlie Brown, or call me Scrooge, or even call me the Grinch. I just want Christmas to mean something, and it doesn't. The biggest problem is that life is not paralleled by the movies. Movies have happy endings, and everything works out - especially Christmas ones. Life doesn't have the same fairytale settings and fantastical endings. Movies are like religion: they build high and unrealistic expectations, and when those expectations aren't met, there is nothing but disappointment and disillusionment. It's nothing that can't be remedied by lowering expectations or not getting one's hopes up.

Christmas

This year is a special Christmas for me: it's my first Christmas as an atheist. No inner contemplation, no reflection on what it means to have a saviour come into the world, no sense of fulfillment. It is an empty shell of a holiday, and I would just rather sleep through the day and buy stuff on Boxing Day. Lots of people have asked me what I'm doing for Christmas, and the only answer they got was "I don't know", which was as often as not followed by an invitation to a dinner. One person in particular pushed the issue beyond normal pleasantries. He wasn't overbearing, and was really motivated by wanting to see me enjoy the holidays, but to be honest his actions kind of backfired. See, by not giving too much thought to Christmas, I was able to enjoy it at some superficial level. Now that I'm thinking about it, that superficial enjoyment has left the building with Elvis.

What remains is a form of bitterness coupled with a sense of self-sabotage and a touch of spite. I'm reminded of how much religion fucking stole from me, of the perpetual lies and deluded thinking that people maintain. God, I wish I could be more susceptible to the delusions that provide a higher sense of meaning an purpose, but for some reason I cannot. Reflecting on the "true" meaning of Christmas used to be my way of combating the inevitable observation that Christmas is nothing more than a giant commercialized holiday, but now that that sense, that reflection is gone, I can't help but see it as anything but. So why would I want to celebrate? What is there to gain from sitting down with friends and family to celebrate something that I don't sahre a belief in? And realistically, I have nothing else to fall back on.

If Christmas is a time to spend with family, I can't say I'm too fond of mine right now. Half the time Christmas meant surviving the warzone of family conflict. I can't say I'm too fond of conflict at any time, let alone at a time when peace is supposed to be cherished. So, there's this sense of not wanting to expose myself to an environment that could be potentially difficult. And it's not just the environment either. I can honestly say I don't like who my family members are.

My niece is a lippy, arrogant, know-it-all who swears, yells, and continually disrespects my mom - and she's only 13. I can't say that this is someone I respect, like, or want anything to do with. My mom puts up with it, compains about it, but doesn't do anything about it and wonders why it continues. It never ceases to frustrate me just being around that, and I simply don't want to be. My sister, well, she gave her daughter up about six or seven years ago because she felt like she didn't have enough opportunity to party, like she had missed out on her chidlhood. Nevermind that she planned to get pregant at fifteen. Now, she has a second due date in March, and even though my mom has had custody of my niece for several years now, my sister is actually considering keeping this kid. She barely speaks to her current daughter for fucks sake! And to top it all off, this pregnancy may have been planned as well. There are no words that can express the exasperation I feel over it all. This is the family I don't want to spend Christmas with. I just want to sleep through it.

Hope

What a queer thing, hope. Hope is the quintessential element required for survival, the one fuel necessary to be propelled forward. Yet this hope is the very thing that permits suffering. We move forward because we hope for something better, believe that whatever we hope for is attainable. And if the thing we chase is unattainable, and we are deluding ourselves the entire time we chase it, then that hope that once acted as motivational fuel now reeks like the gasoline that now blankets us - and all it takes is someone with a match...

So where exactly is the line drawn? What separates hope being that optimistic feeling from being the thing that tortures? God, I wish I knew. Kind of hard to not feel like something's plaything, like it's some kind of hubris to want to rise above one's station in life and be continually disappointed, when one hopes and is not fortunate enough to attain its object. Such is the path of the deluded or the masochistic; such are the comments of the cynic. But hey, the cynic is only someone who stopped chasing the carrot, and now has enough time to point out the folly of those who have not. Can life really be nothing more than deciding between embracing truth and being lonely or having hope as a companion but forfeiting truth? What a terrible decision to make... oh cruel fate.

The Proposed Coalition Government

First of all, allow me to iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. I don’t feel the need to conjecture about whether or not this will be a good thing or bad thing for Canadians. I don’t consider myself to be nearly informed enough on politics and the issues at hand to make such an interpretation. I would encourage all who read this to consider the same point. I further refuse to be suaded by emotional arguments, that this is a bad thing because I don’t like it. My purpose is to clarify exactly what this situation is and what it isn’t, so people can understand it better before they make a decision about it or try to argue a particular position

Perhaps the most fallacious argument in this whole debate is the democratic nature of it. Those who are opposed to the idea of a coalition government claim that it is not democratic because the elected government is being sidestepped. I want to clarify that there is absolutely nothing un-democratic about this process. The only way such a coalition is possible is because the coalition would represent more Canadians. In Canada, the government is able to pass bills into laws because they have enough members of parliament vote in favour of it. When Canada has a majority government, this means that they have sufficient members within their own party to vote something in. When Canada has a minority government, they need to cooperate with other members of parliament – other parties – to pass bills into law. Thus, when a ruling minority government cannot find a way to cooperate with other members of parliament, they do not have sufficient governing power. When this happens consistently enough, this is what’s called a “Vote of No Confidence”: the rest of the house – the majority of parliament – no longer feel that the governing party can effectively do anything. The bottom line is that anything that the majority of the members of parliament do IS DEMOCRATIC.

The nature of Canada’s government allows such actions to take place. However underhanded or shady you feel such a proposal is, you have to understand that the system of Canadian government allows this very thing. It is the nature of a Westminster system. If you don’t know what this is or how it works, I would encourage you to look into it more. I would further encourage you to refrain from forming an opinion until after such information is gleaned from your research. It is also a mistake to think that we elect our Prime Minster – we do not. We elect area representatives who belong to a particular party. This party chooses who their leader is. We do not get a say. Thus, one of the major faults of the Canadian system is that the Prime Minister could lose in his or her own riding but still be the Prime Minister. Nowhere in this process is there any kind or democratic electing of our Prime Minister. Thus, side-stepping his or her authority can in no way be considered undemocratic. In fact, I would accuse the process by which our Prime Minister comes to power to be undemocratic – but then again, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a true democracy. We elect those into power (our area representatives), but for the duration of their stay, they make decisions on our behalf without having to receive input from those whom they represent. Many do anyways because they feel a responsibility to their area, and because many seek re-election. Rest assured, though, they have the power to exercise their position whatever way they see fit, and barring extreme circumstances, we are powerless to do much about it. Just ask any Canadian who is represented by an MP they did not elect.

Let’s analyze some numbers to put this all into context. National voter turnout was a whopping 59.1%. This means that of all of Canada’s eligible voters, less than two-thirds turned out to have their say. Of this 59.1%, 37.6% voted Conservative, 26.2% voted Liberal, 18.2% NDP, 10% BQ, 6.8% Green, and 1.2% other. This voter percentage is grossly misrepresented by the number of seats each party holds. This is one of the major problems I have with this “first-past-the-post” election system. It is archaic, and truly undemocratic in its very nature – but that’s another story. This means that the Conservative vote actually represents ~22% of the Canadian population. This also means that ~26% of Canadians are represented by the Liberal and NDP parties alone. Call me crazy, but that seems to me that they have more support of Canadians. When you add the BQ and Green percentages (both of whom have voiced their support), you actually have Canadian support of 36.2%. Now, there are some who would argue that 78% of Canadians didn’t vote for a Conservative government and thus make up the majority, but I consider that to be as silly of an argument as saying that a coalition is undemocratic. It is, however, fair to say that a coalition really does represent more Canadians – however distasteful you may find it. As a side note, did you know that almost twice as many Canadians didn’t vote than those who elected a Conservative government? Let’s put proportional representation into context here.

I think one of the most ironic and humorous aspects to this is the ones who are complaining – the majority of which are Conservative supporters – fail to understand that the government that would be ousted by this was the same government who put together this proposal in 2004 to fight against the Liberals. That’s right, Harper is being injured by his own weapon. This is one of those areas where I would encourage anyone who is critical of this proposed coalition to oppose it in principle, not because your favoured government is the target. Would you still criticize this and call it undemocratic if the party you supported was behind it? Think about it. If a Conservative-NDP-Green-BQ coalition government meant ousting the Liberals immediately after the Sponsorship scandal (something that I have yet to forgive the Liberals for), would you still be critical of it? Would you still consider it to be undemocratic?

Another thing that I find incredibly amusing about this is the level of, for lack of better terms, sheer stupidity of Harper and his decision to remove party funding when he had a minority government. I say nothing about the merits of such a decision, only that to question what Harper thought would happen. This reeks of a decision that you would need a majority government to pull off. When you need to cooperate with at least one other party to pass bills, do you really think you can get that cooperation if you want to handicap all other parties? Am I the only one who sees the idiocy – nay, the hubris of such an act?

I think my final criticisms rest on some more minor issues. I shake my head at Harper’s campaign promises of not needing to go into debt, but then hearing a month or so later that we need to go into debt. Couple this with the coalition’s justified claims of inaction in the face of global economic crisis, and contextualize it with this campaign promise being broken and inaction coming from someone whose career is based on economics... I trust the point is self-evident.

Claims of usurpation, undemocratic process, and many other claims are essentially unfounded. Again, I iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. If I had to find criticism for the coalition it would be that I can’t help but see politics being played at an epically sad level. I can’t help but see this coalition as a pathetic grab for power; however, I am not closed-minded to the idea that such a power grab might be necessary. If inaction in the face of global economic crisis is as dangerous as many claim it is, this coalition may be necessary. But, this is one of those area that I consider hindsight to be the only true way of knowing. Therein rests my justification for fence-sitting. I am not supportive of a Conservative government, but I’m not so sure if such extreme measures are warranted. What I will argue, however, is that such extreme measures aren’t unfounded, that and our parliamentary system is established in such a way that a coalition government is allowed. If you want to criticize this coalition, perhaps it would be more correct to criticize a system that allows such a coalition to occur in the first place. The bottom line is if more Canadians really understood the infrastructure and workings of our government, I think they might not use the particular arguments they are using. They reek of misunderstanding the system, and display only their ignorance. It is only to their benefit – and everyone else’s – to further educate themselves on Canadian parliament.