Tom Lehrer!

I've been having an incredibly hard time figuring out what I think of Michael Ignatieff, which is making it hard for me to tell you what you should think about Michael Ignatieff.

On one level, I am ecstatic that he has entered politics. He is exactly the type of person that there should be more of on Parliament Hill: highly educated, worldly, well-written and well-spoken, and intellectually brilliant. He is a humanist, anti-nationalist, and human rights advocate.

He is also very, very scary.

He is exactly the kind of leader we need, but a select few political positions - especially with regards to the war on terror - I find revolting. In ethics, he openly embraces "the lesser evil": can I justify embracing the lesser evil by supporting him for all that I like, and biting my lip over what I cannot accept?

The thing is, some of the differences are not in policy but in fundamental philosophy. As I read more of his works, I may post reflections and perhaps what pale flimsy attempts at rebuttal I can muster. I'm off to university in a matter of months to study what he is an expert in. However, he is my intellectual superior in reasoning, education, experience, and expression, just as he is to practically every other person in this country.

That is why, I think, I find him scary. Certainly, I disagree with some positions of just about every politician (or person) who walks this beauteous earth. The political manifestation of Michael Ignatieff's views, though, would be taking this country in a new direction that I am not entirely comfortable with. Further, he has the intellectual and verbal prowess to defend his views and perhaps convince a party or a parliament or a nation to go along with him.

Frankly, though, I'm romanticising this far too much. He is a first-time MP, and an ex-professor; until he sweeps to power gloriously amidst plagues of locusts and a 70% chance of scattered blood showers by midday, I have no business attributing antichrist qualities to him.

Lenscrafters offers an unconditional happiness guarantee.

I'm really glad somebody's finally figured it all out.

Some sort of an act of clarity:

(For riding [x]):
A vote for (third place party [x]) is a vote for (first place party [x]).

Note: logical fallacy.

An open letter to Simon Gurofsky:

So, uh, did you really vote Communist? Like, actually?

Oh, so also, I got accepted into Carleton today for Philosophy. I have a conditional fallback.

I actually knew that before I put up that last post, but I didn't want the two things to mutually dull their lustre by sharing a post.

So I was reading some platforms the other day, specifically, the bit about foreign policy. You may remember that the seven billion people who don't live in Canada are sort of a pet cause of mine.

I won't tell you which one, but the party we just gave a minority government too had this to say:

"[We will] advance Canada’s interests through foreign aid . . ."

That's it. They will "advance our interests" through foreign aid. Hell, when that moral wasteland of a government down south talks about Iraq, they have the common decency to at least pretend they're there because they care about the people of Iraq. We know that they're simply "advancing their interests", but it's not polite to say it out loud.

Our new PM? Fuck pretending to care about people who don't have a vote. If we do help the world, it won't be from some dumb sissy pretence of responsibility or moral obligation; it'll just be to cash in.

Way to go, Canada. You've elected a winner.

Note: this is the only line concerning the party's money-spending philosophy. I'm not trying to fool you with context. There is one other line about 'moving toward' average spending, but the implication is that that foreign aid is still only used to 'advance our interests'.

As promised:
From the Daily Show World News Headquarters, it's Indecision 2006/Indécision 2006!

Click on the video mislabelled "New Osama Tape", and wait out the first thirty seconds through your tears of laughter, then prepare to cease breathing for approximately five minutes.

If any of you 1337 h4x0rx can give me a direct link to the video so I can save it for posterity, I would be grateful to a finite and reasonable degree. I tried and failed, as a goodwill gesture.

I'm not going to try to influence your vote, but for God's sake help stop the Conservative party.

Here are some links:

Election Polling Report:
Summarises several different Canadian polls.

democraticSPACE:
Detailed riding-by-riding statistics and predictions. Good for strategic voters.*

*Note: Strategic voting refers to, and only to, casting your vote for your second-choice party if your first-choice party has no chance in your riding and your vote can make a difference. For instance, in the Ottawa-Orleans riding, current polling puts it at 42% Conservative, 40% Liberal, and 13% NDP. The NDP have no chance, but if one in six NDP voters turns Liberal, the Conservative candidate will be defeated. Not only will this help reduce the Conservative power, but it will actually help the NDP by helping to prevent a Conservative majority (under which NDP would have no power).

To be linked as soon as it appears online:
Jon Stewart's Indecision 2006 / Indécision 2006 coverage.

Happy Orthodox Christmas.

Happy Orthodox Christmas Eve.