Whither Greece?

Anyone who has been a close observer of democracy knows that Western countries have only ever been committed to democratic principles to the degree to which they support and strengthen Western (generally capitalist) interests. Western countries love to talk about democracy but when they don't like the results that a democratic process promotes they quietly (or sometimes loudly) ignore or condemn the process. From the early days of the Trilateral Commission worrying about "too much democracy" to the election of Hamas, the West shows itself again and again to be interested in democracy only to the degree that it promotes their interests. Recently our own government in the past several years has done everything in its power to avoid established democratic processes and principle.

This anti-democratic tendency among the world's nations and the capitalist elite was on full display today when Prime Minister Papandreou suggested that his nation should hold a referendum on the policy that will have perhaps the greatest effect of any legislation on Greece for a generation, and governments and capitalist around the world reacted with disgust and panic. Imagine letting the people decide on something so important. Now, I am not naive and I know that there are cases in which so-called direct democracy can be a problem. But the cases in which democracy can be overridden are those in which the rights of the few are going to be overridden by the bigotry of the many. Federal and supreme courts in many countries can override democratically elected governments in cases such as human rights in which the majority is attempting to prevent certain people in society from enjoying equal rights. Such cases have been seen in things like so-called "interracial" marriage or gay marriage. Furthermore, I am sure that there are cases in which the "people" do not act in the real, longterm interests of the nation. However, in the case of Greece we have a nation that has been pushed to the brink by the irresponsibility of the banks and by a deeply corrupted taxation system in which the rich and corporations have paid almost no tax for decades despite so-called 'socialist' governments. Now, even though they have been paying for generations, the people are once again being asked to bear the brunt of the rich exploiting the system in their own interests. Bankers, large market investors, and the rich in general dread the idea that Greece or any nation could ask the people what is right and wrong when it comes to economic interests. This is what capitalists have always feared. But socialists (and in the old days even Liberals) have been saying for a long time, the economy is hear to serve us not the other way around, and if we decide that banks or capitalist shouldn't be allowed to act in certain ways then frankly that is just too bad for the banks. Despite what rightwingers might tell you, corporations are NOT people and the people can control, and always have controlled markets in various ways. If the people of Greece reject a solution to an economic crisis entirely brought about by banks and the rich syphoning off billions of dollars that should be distributed more fairly throughout the economy - that is a victory for democracy, and those who fear it are those that fear democracy in its most basic and principled form.

UPDATE - Shortly after I wrote this our dear Finance Minister Flaherty responded to the issue of a referendum in Greece. Trying not to sound too outrageously anti-democratic Flaherty said "It is not for us to dictate terms to the Europeans." But he we went on to say that "delay endangers the global economy." The real message from the Harper Tories has consistently been that democracy is dangerous to THEIR goals unless they can get something out of it for themselves. Remember that this is the man who, as finance minister of Ontario left a six billion dollar deficit during a time of global prosperity and then tried to hide his incompetence during the election. Naturally, for this remarkable feat, Harper put him in charge of the nation's finances. 

To Hell with Democracy. . . .

Now that the gun-registry vote has taken place I feel the need to say a few words about the whole affair. I, and I think many people, found a number of things disturbing in the whole process.

Firstly, I found the tone of the debate very troubling. The vitriolic, often angry, sometimes paranoid level of discourse (and it hardly qualifies for such a dignified word) on the part of those who object to the registry was odd, one might even say worrying. On the other hand, I understand why some of those who lost loved ones to guns might be very emotional and heated; rightly or wrongly many of them believe the registry saves lives like the ones they have lost and they are bound to become heated during the course of the debate. However, in a society where we are so accustomed to getting licenses and registering things, I certainly have trouble understanding the level of vitriolic and emotional objections that most anti-gun registry advocates demonstrated. I was constantly reminded of the Shakespeare quote "Methinks they do protest too much." And I have yet to hear a single good argument of why such a simple thing is so vile. But the nature of the debate got even uglier after the vote took place. Conservative spokespeople and bloggers called it a sham, a fraud, and I even read one blogger who called it a coup! Well Conservatives might call it a coup when the majority of representatives of the majority of the population vote in a certain way, but the rest of us call it democracy. And talk by the PM of "refusing" to accept the vote is genuinely frightening because it undermines the very principles of democracy. Furthermore, talk of Toronto "elites" by people who have 200 thousand dollar salaries and chauffeurs, is not only laughably ironic but does nothing but divide the country in ways that ultimate harms the whole nation.

Secondly, I was troubled by the underlying nature of the debate. Neo-Conservatism has been very successful in convincing people that everything in the realm of public policy must be quantifiable and have measurable and immediate results. This is, as I have said before, the colonization of normative debate by technical-rational discourse which the philosophers of the Frankfort School warned of several generations ago. The truth is that much law and public policy does not, and has never, worked this way. Take an issue like the anti-segregation movement that happened largely under the presidency of LBJ. The moves to integrate African-American children in all white schools was not public policy that had directly measurable results. In fact in many cases it actually inflamed racial tensions for some time rather than helping the overall race relations. But one of its intended goals was to change the way people reacted to the issue of race, to contributed to a change in what people considered acceptable or appropriate behaviour. Many types of public policy works precisely this way. And normative discourse should always take this kind of thing into account. Individual gun laws in themselves have very limited results in the quantifiable sense, rather they are intended to shift the way that people react to guns and gun ownership. Just like forced integration didn't suddenly make racists into nice tolerant people; rather, it helped to create an atmosphere in which younger people growing up were less likely to find racism acceptable.

Thirdly, I was very disturbed by the American nature of many of the anit-gun registry arguments. For example, the primary argument against registering guns has been that such a program is wasteful and doesn't actually have any effect. Now, the fact is that once the money has been spent to establish the registry(and it has) it is not particularly expensive to run. In fact, in relation to much of the country's policing costs, it is relatively cheap. But more importantly is the claim that registering guns doesn't do anything. The implication of this argument is that we should not register hand-guns either, this is very clear and it points to a huge hypocrisy on the part of Harper and gun-registry detractors. Why don't we hear them out there saying "I shouldn't I have to register my handgun?" If they believe that registering long-guns does nothing, then the same applies for handguns. But the Tories know it would be political suicide to make this argument. This is how we know that the whole argument on the part of Harper and his Cohorts is entirely disingenuous. The other American-style part of the argument is this idea that making people register guns is tantamount to "treating them like criminals." The NRA commonly makes this argument and it is bizarre and non-sensical, and only made in order to stir people's emotions. The fact is that no one "feels like a criminal" when they register their car. However, part of the reason that they register cars is to ensure that people registering them are not in fact violating the law in some manner. Furthermore, I don't hear throngs of right-wingers complaining that when they are searched to get on an airplane they are treated like criminals. Again this demonstrates the disingenuousness of the anti-gun registry arguments. But more than this is demonstrates a creeping Americanization of politics in which people throw around emotional and deeply divisive arguments solely to sway public opinion.

All of these things are troubling and speak to the various ways in which Harper's poisonous attitude is eroding democracy in this country and undermine genuine political discourse.

To Hell with Politics part deux. . .

I was pleasantly surprised to find six sympathetic comments on my rather depressing blog post which I made late last night in a fit of pique. I think I struck a chord with a number of people who are perhaps feeling the same kinds of frustrations that I am concerning these difficult times in which we live. Thank you to all that sent me their sympathies. I didn't even know that many people read my blog, but I appreciate the thoughts.

Whenever you lose someone you care about it makes you think about a lot of things in your life. And the fact that my father spent so much energy thinking about politics, makes my heart ache for our failures in gaining justice for all those causes for which we fight. Whenever my dad began to feel fed up with it all he would just say sometimes 'we need to enjoy being alive.' Indeed, I will always appreciate my father for this advice. It is important just to enjoy the simplest things of life. My dad loved my daughter Cairo so very much, he once told me that seeing her grow up had been the very greatest joy of his whole life. Though he missed her sixth birthday by only a few days, he would have appreciated seeing her joy as the Clown that came to her party turned a balloon into a bunny. These are the little things. These are the joys my father loved to embrace.

When the revolutions of 1848 failed, Karl Marx began, correctly, to believe that Europe was going to go through a quiet conservative period in which the forces of radicalism would be in retreat for many years. He was right. So instead of his normal political activity, Marx began a long period of study that would eventually lead to his monumental work Das Kapital.

I feel a bit like Marx must have felt. We are going through a period in which the right has in some sense gained an ascendancy at least at an abstract level. Certain basic assumptions are lately being made about the 'natural' supremacy of 'markets' and the values that they supposedly promote. Perhaps instead of worrying about the day to day politics which are so frustrating for those of us who are living through hard times, we should be starting a more meaningful discourse about basic values and the big problems with the system itself. I think my father would have appreciated this.

Here is the type of thing I am talking about. The next time you are having an argument with someone who claims to believe in the so-called ''Free-market," ask them if they think that labor should be treated like any other commodity in the market. At first you will probably receive a look of confusion. They won't really know how to answer this question. But keep in mind that this was one of the fundamental principles of many early capitalists. They thought that labor itself was a commodity and that it should be bought and sold like any other commodity. This attitude conveniently reduced human beings to their most basic function in the market. Many so-called free-marketeers will want to react by saying that labor should indeed be treated like other commodities. Anyone should be able to buy and sell labor the whenever and for whatever duration or price they like, so they will assume. But of course any serious exploration of this question will make one quickly realize that we can't treat labor like we treat, say, plastic widgets. We cannot, de facto, buy labor at any price we'd like because of legislated minimum wage laws. But even if some capitalist believes we shouldn't have such laws, there are other more serious problems. When we go shopping for towels we can choose to purchase only white towels. If labor were the same as any other commodity then we should be able to purchase only 'white' labor. Aha! Therein lies the rub. If someone went out to buy only white laborers or male laborers we all know that implies and what would happen. Then ask this capitalist with whom you are having this discussion, 'If people really are commodities why can't they sell themselves into slavery?"

So what does all that mean? Well, it begs such questions as 'what exactly is a commodity' and 'why can't we buy and sell commodities exactly how we would like?" Well the answer is simple and incredibly important. As much as free-marketeers would like us to believe that markets are supreme, the truth is fairly simple, as this question demonstrates, "Our values stand over and above markets, and markets must be held in service to our values rather than the other way around." And when markets fail to serve our values they must be changed or eliminated. Labor must not be treated as a commodity because people must not be treated like commodities. And if our values must be treated as supreme in relation to markets, the capitalist system itself (as most people understand it) must be questioned. A serious and real public discourse must be initiated about these problems before men like Harper take us back to the 'good old days' when children worked in factories. We must take back the discourse on values that the right has tried to colonize. Only then will we begin to win the struggle against modern neo-liberal barbarism.

It is in honor of my father that I will wage a more abstract political fight in the future. Not a struggle for the merely possible or a fight for what is expedient. But a fight for what is right at the most basic level. Harper and his bullies will no longer dehumanize me because our struggle must be for what is most inherently human.

To Hell with Politics. . . .

I have blogged very little since my father died a few weeks ago. This is partly because I have just been too depressed. But it is partly because politics just seems increasingly stupid to me nowadays. My father spent years thinking about politics on a personal level and in the normal sense of the word. And now it all seems like just a giant waste of time. Almost every politician is just a nauseating A-type egomaniac who cares little for the actual issues they claim to be passionate about, or they retain their passion only because in the long run they hope to benefit personally from their cause. Meanwhile the people that follow the politicians are little more than blinkered, hyper-partisan, poorly informed, ignoramuses. Yes, I know it sounds cynical but it just doesn't seem worth bothering with politics in a time and place where a man (and I use that term loosely) like Harper can get elected twice and still, in the face of the most incompetent and blatantly self-interested regime in Canadian history, have a fair degree of popularity. I suppose that many Germans felt this way in 1934 when the people of Germany brought a man like Hitler to power through the ballot box.

It is no wonder that so many young people just don't bother with electoral politics. Yes, I know that this is exactly how Harper and is corrupt gang of bullies want us to feel. They want as many people as possible alienated from the political process because that will help them stay in power. Well, I will still exercise my so-called democratic right and I will cast a ballot in the next election. But I am giving up on politics once and for all. If nearly forty percent of Canadians still think Harper's regime is not too bad, there is something so desperately wrong with our society that it is just not worth saving. (And this doesn't even touch upon places like the US which are significantly worse that Canada)

And keep in mind this is not only true of the Right-wing. In the past twenty years I have been exposed to people who have been active left-wingers who are, at a personal level, little better than pond-scum. There are many people in the world actively working for what is right and just. But it is the power hungry scum-bags that gain the power and constantly override all the good that the rest try to do.

Let me make it clear, Harper and his gang are corrupt, self-interested, anti-democratic, ignorant, racist, sexist, fascist, trash. But until the people of Canada wake up from this nightmare, I am finished with the lot of them. A few weeks ago I watched the last breath go out of my father's body. I am not going to waste one more of my own breaths worrying about people who can't even worry about themselves. People like Harper and his supporters will drag us slowly back to the primordial ooze from whence we came. Maybe we just don't deserve any better. See you all in Hell.

Corporatism and the attack on Democracy

There is an inherent conflict at the heart of modern conservative theory between its social and fiscal elements. On the one hand conservatives want to hold on to certain supposedly traditional aspects of our social system, particularly those surrounding the 'family,' sexual preferences, child rearing, gender mores, ages of sexual consent etc. As a result many conservatives publicly lament the divorce rates, the abundance of single-parent or blended families, same-sex marriage, the sexualization of teen-agers, the absence of the traditional stay at home parent, etc. The problem is, of course,  that these social factors are being pushed forward by gradual changes in the market, changes promoted for the most part by. . . . conservatives. The most obvious element in this process and one which many sociologists and social commentators have talked about has been the growing necessity for both parents to go out to work in order to maintain an average family. Huge increases in housing costs (which has grown in large part by government's resistance to rent controls or the production and maintenance of decent social housing) has been a major element in this. In the Western countries, deregulation in trade has also put increasing pressure on households by making it easy for manufacturing jobs to disappear to third-world nations. Traditionally, if one parent went out to work it was the father because his earning potential was greater and this lead to an exacerbation of the power inequities between men and women at home and in the economy in general. As it has become increasingly difficult for one parent to stay at home during the early childhood years, women have ironically gained more economic and social power despite the negative pressure put upon them by conservative ideology which has fostered guilt for mothers who feel that putting their children in the hands of day-care workers is a sign of poor parenting. But the increasing financial power of women has also had the natural effect of increasing divorce rates as women who were once trapped in the bonds of marriage by their financial incapacity to act independently are now able to make more choices. Conservatives have begun to adapt to this reality at least in terms of their rhetoric, because you seldom hear mainstream conservatives condemning 'working women.' This shift in ideology has allowed conservative parties not to actually address these issues which could be done by giving significant tax breaks for families (particularly so-called income splitting), or by protecting the kinds of jobs that would make it easier for a live at home parent, or to institute living wage legislation. The conservatives essential pursue policies that push countries like Canada toward third-world economies while lamenting the disappearance of the traditional family (something which ironically existed for a very small group of middle and upper-class people for a very short historical period). This is why a conservative like Mike Harris, former Ontario Premier, makes more sense than a traditional conservative. Mike Harris essentially jettisoned the social aspect of the conservative agenda because at some level he knew that the forces of the Market that he was choosing to pursue were a major factor in the breakdown in traditional mores and it therefore made little sense to, say, attack parents for not staying at home to raise children. 

But the increasing power of the market, particularly as exercised through new technologies has also been a major factor in other aspects of social change. Marketing to children has been an important factor in the sexualization of teenagers, particularly teenage girls. The globalization of the entertainment industry, made so powerful through new technology, has given rise to a whole industry of sexualized teenagers that is evident in everything from Disney Television to music videos. Huge multinational corporations like Fox, Disney, Viacom, etc, have been instrumental to the globalization process and have also been major marketers to children. This has led not only to younger people exploring their sexuality but to the increasing profile of so-called alternative life-styles which traditional social conservative so abhor. Conservative parties, being largely allied to these very same forces of globalization are not about to put restrictions on such things as children in advertising or to the significant sexual content of music videos. Conservatism is more economically tied to multinational corporations than it is to a decreasing number of social traditionalists. As a result the ideology of conservatism is increasingly jettisoning its social aspect in favor of the rhetoric of the market and globalization in the full knowledge that its real power lies in the increasing strength of multinational corporations which will exploit any market to feed the insatiable greed of the casino economy. 

This is particularly evident in the agenda of the Conservative movement in Canada which has a decreasing interest in social traditionalism. While they attack recent increases in NGO strength to struggle for the rights of women, for example, they do so not because they are promoting a traditional family agenda but because their market model increasingly seeks to undermine the ability of people, particularly the most vulnerable, to fight back against the amazing increases in the market and the centralization corporate power. Meanwhile they make conscious, if entirely fabricated, efforts to hold on to their traditional base by paying lip-service to such issues as crime, which they know full-well has been on a steady decrease despite supposedly lax crime legislation which the aging population imagines 'coddles' criminals. 

Ironically this situation has lead to an increasing strength for Conservatives at the very time when the population in general is increasingly liberal in many ways. While multinational corporations have more and more power over the political agenda, people who are frighteningly ignorant of the economic processes at the heart of the very system they live in, become convinced of the inevitability of the corporate agenda at home and abroad. In fact, people become convinced that it is not an 'agenda' at all but a 'natural' and organic process of economy. This is an amazing display of Marx's concept of reification playing out at the heart of  modern capitalism. Meanwhile the traditional conservatives will not shift their vote to another party because their is very little space for the emergence of an actual conservative (in the broadest sense) party. These factors, coupled with the vagaries of our first past the post system and the splits in the Center and center-left means that conservatives can exercise an inordinate degree of power despite the growing liberalism of our age. 

The most problematic part of this process is that the majority of people remain woefully unaware of the actual corporatist agenda at the heart of the shifting conservative ideology. The neo-liberal movement has been remarkably effective at convincing people that the changes in the global economy are not the result of a conscious and concerted effort on the part of corporations and their political allies, but that they are an organic growth of an economy which they want us to believe that we have no power to influence. In this circumstance it becomes relatively easy to make attacks on democratic processes because the political system increasingly appears to be a simple administrative body which "administers" the economy rather than actively guiding society according to a general will. 

Harper Hates Democracy. . . .

I read a really interesting book in manuscript form over the weekend while I was nursing my cold. It is about a man's personal journey to political enlightenment throughout certain adventures in England, the US, and Latin America. The adventures, such as being held in an El Salvadoran prison, are interesting but what I found particularly good was that it reminded me of why so many modern right-wingers hate democracy so much. The book uses a quote from Milton Friedman, the gist of which is that if democratically elected representatives enact any policies which are perceived to be controls on the so-called 'free-market' then these decisions are a priori anti-democratic. In other words, Friedman used the argument that Democracies are good only so long as they bring about decisions that he  agrees with, otherwise they are not actually democratic at all. 

This reminded me that modern right-wingers (and this doesn't necessarily apply to old school tories) hate democracy because they don't believe that the people of a nation can form a general will that has as its goal some kind of social plan, particularly about the distribution of resources. But since this is the primary goal of democracy, to believe such a thing is to hollow out the entire concept.

I remember a meeting in the 90s where a World Bank official was speaking about so-called 'good governance' and democracy in the Third World. The WB official was suggesting that Third World democracies had to follow the World Bank policies of eliminating social programs and deregulating markets. But when asked "what exactly is the point of democratic elections if the agenda is already set by a set of World Bank officials" the man had no response. 

Men like Harper hate democracy because they want us to believe that there is no society, just a bunch of individuals pursuing their own wealth. The last thing they want is the population actually deciding how society should be organized or how resources should be distributed and used. In other words, Harper wants his model of society to be perceived as 'natural' and immutable; and not something that democratic processes should be able to touch. Ironically of course, Harper's model actually consists of using the government to funnel tax-payer's money to large corporations while pretending that they believe in 'free markets.' 

Harper hates democracy because he hates people and loathes the idea that we can get together and collectively decide on our future. But society does exist and it belongs to the people who form it and we have democratic processes to decide on how we will form that society. If the market was all we needed, there would be no need of democracy. 

Milton Friedman is, by the way, quite dead and his model will die as well. Harper is a follower of Friedman and has shown his contempt for democracy again and again. But people will eventually realize that tyranny is not freedom and that society and the economy belongs to them and not to the CEOs of Bay Street, and the people will eventually take it back and the Harper era will be considered a dark period of our history. 

Either that or Harper and his ilk will slowly destroy everything good that society has built. 

Olympic protests and the Black Block. . .

Many people have been very upset by the so-called Black Block protesters at the Olympics. These self identified young 'anarchists' show up many of these international events, often wreaking havoc with their militant and sometimes violent tactics. They are a very loose affiliation of activists who have some very basic, gut-reaction objections to the inequities of modern capitalism and the power of what they consider to be an international ruling capitalist class that effectively controls much of thee agenda through a rather strong strangle-hold on the media. Thus they often target international meetings which they see as a reflection of this elitist control of democracy, media, and resources. Their basic strategy is fairly simple: create a certain degree of chaos on the street through mildly violent action, thus attracting media attention which, despite a large degree of corporate control still reports on these actions. 

Of course one can largely agree with the analysis of these people concerning the injustices of the international relations of  production and distribution without agreeing with their tactics. But the argument is not at all as clear as one would like it to be. Those who opposes such actions contend that they fail to progress the cause of greater international justice and democracy because they alienate many of the people who could be converted to the cause. ON the other hand, many of these anarchists would argue that without such actions there would be little or no coverage of the opposition to these international events, leading people to believe that these is no real problems with the international bodies such as the G20, the IMF, the World Bank etc. 

To a certain degree both these arguments are correct. In the face of a media controlled almost everywhere by a small group of corporations which, naturally, pursue a certain narrow corporatist agenda, it is near impossible to proliferate the debate concerning the corporate roots of global inequities and injustices. However, there are many who, if they really knew what was going on, would be profoundly opposed to much of what is really happening in the pursuit of international profit. But many of these people are just turned off by the sight of youths dressed in black breaking storefront windows and fighting with police. 

However one feels about these people and their actions, it would be folly not to take what they have to say seriously. There is an ever growing opposition to the inequities of the international economic system. These people are informed, often well educated, energetic, and committed. This is exactly the constituency of many of the worlds great revolutions. They are struggling for the same things that inspired those who fought the French revolution in thee 1789 and in many ways the goals of their cause are becoming ever more popular. In the years preceding the Revolution in France there was a tendency among the ruling class to ride in ever larger and more extravagant coaches as the desrepenciee in wealth become more pronounced in French culture. Today the differences between rich and poor are steadily growing, and the ultra-wealthy drive ever more extravagant vehicles and Wall St. and Bay St. Bankers and investors are making money that normal people can hardly imagine. 

And perhaps even more importantly many average people are feeling alienated by a system that is supposed to be democratic but is increasingly rarified and controlled by a political and economic elite. The very institutions that were supposed to guarantee the voice of the people are becoming more or less the 'playthings' of the rich and powerful who are able to manipulate them in their interests. This tendency causes a vague feeling of unease among people which, though they cannot necessarily express it in clear and rational discourse, slowly undermines the system's legitimacy. I believe the fairly strong reaction to the recent prorogation of parliament is a small example of this unease. The people in the so-called Black Block are just one of the most obvious expressions of this sentiment. But just as Parkinson's disease may begin with a very small tremor in the hand, social movements which lead to major social upheavals begin with a ragtag group of malcontents. Disregard them or condemn them if you will but you do so at your folly. 

Ideology and Weltenschauung. . . .

I have been thinking about my last post and how political analysts like Rex Murphy are shying from ideological discourse. This tendency has been growing for some time now in Western nations, particularly since the end of so-called soviet socialism. This has been a fairly conscious and concerted effort to undermine opposition to capitalism and western power by creating the image that the system we live in is somehow 'natural,' inevitable, unavoidable, and somehow rationally based. (The analysis of this phenomenon goes back, of course, to Marx) Capitalists, and the advocates of the prevailing paradigm want to instill in people that our system is not driven by ideology but only by necessary and technically based decisions. This effort manifests in people the delusion that we live in a pure technocracy where our leaders are not driven by their ideologies but by unavoidable decisions informed by technical experts. This has not only been driven by extreme right wingers, it has been driven by many people including some on the centre-left. But in recent years we have had a federal government that is working of the highest principles of this model as once practiced by leaders such as Margaret Thatcher. And if Rex Murphy's column quoted in my last blog is any indication, this move is working well here in Canada. The import of Murphy's analysis is that - since all the decisions of the government are, in the broad sense, necessary and driven by forces which are not in our control, then Harper's failure to get a majority must necessarily be a result purely of technical-strategic mistakes on his part and if he could just create a better public image, he would easily win his coveted majority. 

But I agree with the great French philosopher Louis Althusser, everything is, to a large degree, ideologically driven.  There are of course certain 'life-world' (Weltenschauung) assumptions that we share that stand somewhat above the fray of common ideological debates. But the rest is ideology. And it would be in the interest of any prevailing power structure to convince the population at large that we exist beyond ideological structure and our Prime Minister and his cronies are desperate to do just this. But the poverty of such analysis should be obvious to anyone who genuinely pays attention to the broad picture of how our society is developing. 

A few thoughts on reform. .

I think one of the primary political problems facing our country is fairly straightforward, albeit difficult to solve. It can be expressed this way: we live in a society in which compromise and coalition building is becoming ever more necessary but our political institutions continue to exist in the traditional paradigm of excessive centralization of power which not only doesn’t foster compromise but actually exerts pressure in the other direction. The problems of our society are increasingly complex and require greater input from more people and a greater willingness on the part of our politicians to listen carefully to a multitude of opinions and act with greater concern for the various forces and elements of society. However, the traditional power-centered system of our politics is fostering individuals who have very little interest in compromise and simply crave power.

Given this problem, the first question we need to ask concerning any potential political reform is; to what degree will this change promote the kinds of positive changes which will promote a new politics and undermine the old politics?

It follows therefore that this is the question we need to ask with regard to any potential Senate reform in Canada. I am not particularly in favor of Senate reform at the present time because there is no clear vision of significant reforms that will promote a new compromise politics. On the other hand, I also don’t support the NDP policy of simply eliminating the Senate because such a move will just further the concentration of power in the PMO which is the most pressingl example of the problem with the present political paradigm.

The Conservative party has made a lot of noise about reforming the Senate but since we know, a priori, that they have no interest in creating a new compromise oriented political paradigm, we also know that their reforms would not score high on the above question to which we must subject our potential reforms.

Most models of an elected Senate would do little to change the prevailing political circumstances in the country. Let’s say that we have an equal Senate along the lines of the US Senate. Since we would have to have fewer Senators than MPs (because an upper house of 300 plus Senators would simply be too unwieldy), we could guess that we might have, let’s say, ten Senators from each Province and Territory. That would give us 130 Senators. However, since the electoral boundaries would have to be, in most cases, smaller than those for MPs, third parties would be even less represented than they are in the House of Commons and the vast majority of Senators would be Liberals and Conservatives. If votes in this Senate were whipped, party votes then the situation would be largely the same as it is now. The only cases in which it would be different would be when the majority party in the Senate was different than that in the House. This could happen, and if the elections were staggered it could happen on a regular basis. This is the only case in which this type of Senate might promote more compromise because it would generate a situation in which governments would be faced with getting little or nothing done unless they learned to compromise. But there would certainly be nothing built into this institutional structure that would guarantee that this would happen.

We desperately need political reforms in this country; reforms that decentralize power and promote more varied inputs and greater representation. We should absolutely resist any reforms to the Senate which fail to create institutions which embrace and represent these reforms. So far the reforms that have been talked about would simply further entrench powers in negative ways. And I don’t think eliminating the Senate does us any favors either since at the very minimum it does occasionally undermine the arbitrary power of the executive and it creates a group of representatives who are not subject to the continuous whims of electoral politics. As things stand now Ontario and Quebec are resisting any Conservative reforms to the Senate largely because they stand to lose power in a Senate which has equal representation from all the provinces and territories. And attempt to push through reforms without the consent of the provinces risks a serious constitutional crisis. This is the simple fact that the Conservatives overlooked when they campaigned on reforming the Senate. It was foolhardy of Harper to say he would not appoint Senators and going to reform the Senate when any such reforms would require all provinces consent. It was the same foolhardy and politically meaningless promise that the Mayor of Ottawa made when he said he would ensure a zero tax increase when he knew that such a move would require the majority of the city councilors. But Mayor O’Brian is much like Stephen Harper; they both exist in the traditional paradigm of power centered politics and have a pathological need to wield absolute power.

Any significant reforms to the Senate should include an entire package of reforms that lessons the power of the executive branch of government and which extends the ideal principles of democracy. The Conservative have absolutely no interested in the extension of democratic principles so nothing they say about Senate reform should be of interest to true democrats. I am still waiting for a party to have some actual vision on this issue. 

Canada's weak democracy. . . .

I am very tired of right-wing nut jobs who are so insanely desperate to see Stephen Harper stay in power that they would say or do just about anything. For the past year or more one of the things these drooling dunderheads have been constantly telling anyone who will listen that any suggestion of replacing the minority government with any kind or coalition (formal or informal) would amount to some kind of coup. Never mind that their own mindless, power-hungry little dictator,  attempt the same thing himself. And never mind that I heard talk from the right-wing all through the 90s when the right-wing was split about doing almost anything to bring the right to power including formal agreements. None of that matters to the power hungry right wingers. Now that they are in government there is some kind of sacred status to a minority governments and the idea of coalition governments are tantamount to the total destruction of democracy. Any kind of coalition would be "overriding the duly elected government and thwarting the will of the people" I have heard people on the right say it over and over like a mantra of fear and dishonesty. BUT IT IS A LIE!

Here is a news flash everyone. . . MINORITY GOVERNMENTS DON'T REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE - THEY REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE MINORITY! It is not complicated. The Majority of people in the country didn't vote for the government, ergo they don't represent the general will. And this situation is almost unique to Canada and Britain. In almost every other country in the world you cannot form a government without the majority of duly elected representatives. Which makes our system one of the weakest and least representative of all the world's democracies. This was the real point of the now famous article in the Economist. Could you imagine how crazy the right-wing would be if by some quirk of geography and constituency organization Jack Layton was elected Prime Minister in the next election with 30 percent of the vote? Andrew Coyne would have an epileptic fit right on the next broadcast of The National. Suddenly the right-wing would never tire of telling us that the government doesn't represent the will of the majority. 

It is about time for Canada's democracy to catch up with the rest of the world and institute reforms that would guarantee that future governments in Canada do actually represent the will of the majority, that the executive cannot rule more or less by decree, and that smaller groups of elected representatives have some sway in the legislative process. It is about time that we started taking some steps to ensure that our own political system is actually moving toward the ideal of democracy rather than away from it. 

Say so-long to democracy guys. . . .

I am amazed that many, maybe even most, Canadians really don't get it. Yesterday by refusing to abide by an order of parliament the Harper government took us out of the realm of democracy and put us in the realm of a dictatorship. If the government is able to ignore an order of parliament, which by many legal accounts is the highest legal directive in the land, then our government is a de facto dictatorship. This is fairly simple folks. And all of those Conservatives out there who are acting as apologists for the tyrannous actions of this government, keep in mind the precedent that has been set here. When the Conservatives find themselves in opposition (if they ever actually relinquish power, and it is not clear that they will now that they have made their dictatorial powers clear) the next government can further entrench the dictatorship of the PMO until we have no democracy left. And what will the Conservatives say then? They will have no position to criticize a government that is extending the very principles they first enacted. We are now in very dangerous territory. And if the Liberals do not force the issue and they let the government get away with ignoring the real power of parliament then we are all in very big trouble. 

Even the last Liberal government, which was so vilified for its corruption was quick to call a public inquiry when faced with a real scandal ( a scandal that didn't even compare to a serious cover-up of torture). And honestly I cannot imagining even the Liberals ignoring an order of parliament, and if they ever had Harper would have gone crazy with his criticism. The last thing that compares to this in English parliament is, I think, when Prime Minister William Pitt refused to dissolve parliament when he lost a vote of confidence. 

And can someone tell me why Warren Kinsella is the face of the Liberal Party? I have seen almost no sign of any major Liberal MP in the media for several days now. Pathetic guys, really pathetic. 

Malalai Joya and democracy

Anyone who has been paying attention to the situation in Afghanistan has hopefully run across the remarkable Afghan woman named Malalai Joya. She is an amazing thirty year old Afghan MP who was suspended from parliament by the dark forces in that country for her outspoken criticism of the foreign occupation, the corruption in government, and president himself. While our government offers platitudes and has the gall to act as though President Karzai has been duly elected, this woman risks her life speaking about what a lie the Western invasion has been. Ms. Joya is an excellent and historic role model for young girls and women and will be proud to teach my own daughter about her life and work.

But one issue that the events surrounding Ms. Joya raises in my mind is the question of the legitimacy of democracy in our age. A great deal of what have come to expect from democracy has vanish slowly before our eyes and has gone unnoticed by many in our society.  Extreme events such as those in Afghanistan often give us a glimpse into the real workings behind a process like democracy. And watching such ‘elections’ as those they recently had there illustrate the real failings of the democratic process in the modern world. Ideally a democratic system should be nurtured by a healthy public sphere (now sometime mistermed ‘civil society,’ a term with a long and complex history) in which ideas about the ‘good life’ and our collective future are openly debated in honest meaningful way. However, in recent years such an ideal has receded so far beyond reach that we cannot even talk about a fair process let alone reach that process.  Money and power have corrupted the system so severely that the vast majority of people don’t even understand the possibilities of political debate anymore. The influence of money in the process gradually narrows the terms of debate and the essence of our collective possibilities to the point that democracy grows gradually meaningless. It is similar to being stranded on a desert island with, say, twenty people, and three of them have most of the supplies and guns. Even if one attempted to institute a democratic decision making process in such circumstances they would mean little because the three people with the inherent power would easily control the terms of the debate. And these three individuals were also mean-spirited and nasty (as our present leaders here in Canada are) democracy would become completely meaningless.

Ms. Joya reminds us of the courage of some individuals in the face of the threat of death to work for justice. Unfortunately she also reminds us of the corruption of democracy and the degree to which the ideals of democracy are quickly receding. 

Cheque-scam and the voting public. . .

The fact that the Harper government is corrupt is easily demonstrable. Chose one of a dozen scandals. The In and Out scheme for example. This was considerably worse than the sponsorship scandal which so damaged the Liberal Party brand because the sponsorship scandal was a few peons trying to make money for themselves, while the In and Out scandal is a case of a party attempting, through corruption, to manipulate democracy at the highest level. However, even if one were a Conservative supporter and thought that the sponsorship scandal was worse, the only defense you have is that the Liberals were corrupt too (a school yard defense for a party that was elected claiming it would be the direct opposite of the Liberals). And there are plenty of other issues that demonstrate the Tory corruption is just as bad as Liberal corruption used to be. But of course then there is the fact that the Tories, beside being corrupt, are also rabidly anti-democratic, anti-woman, anti-gay, they hate any kind of genuine people's representation, or any kind of equity. 

Yet, the worse the Tories get the higher their poll numbers go. I for one can't entirely figure this out even with the incredibly biased work of CTV. Of course, like the explanation for most phenomena it is a confluence of factors. Many people just don't pay attention. Many are just not very politically savvy and don't understand the issues. Many people are so partisan that they could have pictures of Harper molesting Collies and they would still think he was a great leader. And many people actually support the total destruction of our democracy and social safety net. After all, the NAZI party was brought to power through the ballot-box, a fact many forget. 

The only part that is really a bit of a mystery to me is that most leaders who are blatantly corrupt like Harper is, and manage to maintain  a degree of popularity, have a good deal of charisma. Now, regardless of one's political stripes it is obvious that Harper is fairly deficient in the charisma department. And herein lies the rub; the real reason we are where we are is that while Harper appeals to the worst in people politically speaking (something which always gains in popularity during troubled times - again remember the Hitler lesson) , the only real bulwark against Fascist tendencies in difficult times is an opposition leader with real charisma. This is, of course, what we are sadly lacking. And in the absence of this there will continue to be a large part of the population in difficult times which finds the easy way out - the path of anger, blame, and hate. And this phenomenon will only get worse as the population ages because in my experience the older that people get the more susceptible they become to this kind of ideological trap. It seems to me that as many people age they too often fall into two poor political habits. One is that they become disappointed with their lives and start to lay blame for their supposed failures on other people. This it the - "It is single-mothers on welfare, or gay people that are getting all the government's attention and resources, and the rest of us are getting nothing" attitude. Or they begin to imagine that despite all the public services they enjoyed in the past - they were solely responsible for their successes. This it the - "I got there with absolutely no help from anyone, and anyone who can't do the same is just lazy" attitude. 

Anyway, as capitalism slowly changes and decays, one of the possible responses that people inevitably take is the one that many in Germany took in the early 1930s, to wit; things are getting bad because minorities and moral degenerates have taken advantage of our kindness and we need to attack these elements of society which are sapping our strength and wealth. This is precisely what Harper's politics represent, and even without the Charisma of Hitler there are enough people who take this negative response in our troubled times to make it a very real and dangerous possibility. Of course, as is almost always the case, conservatives will lead us to a disaster, and when things get really bad progressive people will have to clean up the mess. In the meantime, we must watch the difficult pendulum of history feed people's  anger and negativity and watch one more right-wing fool dismantle democracy and equality with the support of many of those who will eventually suffer the terrible consequences. The angry, spiteful, disgusting tirades of men like John Baird will fill our airwaves and some people will eat it up, as though MR. Baird is being publicly hateful the way many would like to be. And as the distribution of wealth gets worse and the education system decays, and democracy is dismantled, and workers lose their rights, and the gap between the rich and the poor increases, what is good in the human spirit will endeavor to persevere in the face of Harper's hatred and we, or our children will attempt, once again, to clean up the mess. 

Time to go Mr. Layton. . . .

It is time for people on the left of Centre to take back the NDP and make it a party of principle. I don't care what your political stripes, if you are committed to democracy (unfortunately many conservatives are not so committed) you must know that there is a place for a party at the left of center to make a contribution. Unfortunately, under Jacky Layton the NDP has become a party that seems to change positions with the changing of the weather. Unfortunately there are other NDP MPs who are even worse that Layton like Mr. Mulcaire. In recent decades we have have watched the political spectrum shift slowly to the right and the result has been more inequality of wealth, the centralization of power, radical increases in corporate crime against the environment and human rights, decreases in political participation, media concentration. The fact is that a handful of people have most of the wealth and through that wealth they control most of the political agenda. Global capitalism is failing and so is democracy. The NDP under Layton is part of the shift to the right. It is time for a change. It is time for principles to return. 

The Conservative government of Canada is more than just bad, it is evil. It is evil because they want social democracy to fail, they want all the things that make a country civilized to break down. They want a society run by the rich for the rich. They are the very reason the human soul is being lost in a quagmire of greed, self-interest, hate, and anger. 

And here is the irony; they want society to fail, and it is failing. The fact that the Conservatives register even a few points in the polls is a sign that democracy in the age of media concentration simply is not working. People are either not paying attention or so lost in a cloud of ideological misrepresentation and spin that they have lost all sense of reason. 

From the beginning, it has been central to the Conservative strategy to destroy the system. And, as always, it is easier to destroy than to create. The cons know that there is a certain group of society that wallows in hate and ignorance that will always vote conservative no matter what. All the conservatives have had to do is hold on to these and then create an atmosphere of cynicism and disgust at the system and it would alienate enough of the rest that they could stay in power because not enough people would bother with the system. It is a basic divide and conquer strategy that can be very effective. I believe that Harper probably even held meetings with ministers like Baird and told them to be as obnoxious and offensive as they could because that would help destroy confidence in the system itself. Surely nothing else explains such behavior from a party that was initially elected with the claim that they would bring decorum and legitimacy back to the system. (And I would like to believe that no one could be naturally as offensive and ignorant as men like Baird or Polleivre.)

So it goes.....

Why Harper should not be reelected. . . .

Here are a few reasons why the Conservative Government should not be reelected. 

Total contempt for parliament. The Harper Government has consistently shown that it has nothing but contempt for parliament. It has said on more than one occasion that it will simply ignore certain bills that have duly passed through the House. The most outrageous of course was the directive for the government to abide by the Kyoto standards. Remember also the creation of a hand-book of for committee chairs to shut down discourse and even shut down entire committee hearing if the Conservatives don’t like the direction that the committee is going. The government also broke its own election law for political expediency. This kind of contempt to parliament and open discourse should make us reluctant to elect any Tories to the House let alone let them act as the government of the nation.

Contempt for citizenship. The Harper Government has proven over and over that it has no respect for the principle of citizenship (particularly if you are a person of color). It has even used the courts to attempt to avoid living up to its responsibility to protect our citizens abroad. No party that fails to respect its citizen’s human rights or stand up to defend them against arbitrary abuse of power by foreign governments deserves to be reelected.

Contempt to the Constitution. Harper’s government has shown that it has no respect for Canada’s Constitution. The proroguing of parliament just to avoid losing power was a terrible and dangerous precedent. But the misrepresentation of the constitution to the people of Canada by suggesting that a coalition was tantamount to a coup was an egregious perversion of the constitution. As anyone who understands the British parliamentary system knows, a majority of the representatives in the House elect the Prime Minister and it has been so for hundreds of years. This misrepresentation of the Constitution should preclude the Tories from governing.

Contempt for the Law. Harper’s government ended the court challenges program because it strives to subvert the legitimate role that the courts play in a parliamentary democracy. Though they are happy to use the courts to their own advantage, when courts make decisions that they don’t like they suggest that judges are ‘legislating from the bench.’ However, the courts are an essential part of a democracy and they play the role of checking the power of the legislative branch of government from instituting laws that violate the principles as set out in the constitution.

Contempt for Opponents. The Conservatives have no respect for the basic principles of political discourse and fair play. Instead Harper runs a government of extreme bullies who prefer to belittle and divide than actually discuss political issues. The chief bullies are Pollievre, Kenney, Baird, Flaherty, Van Loan, and Harper himself. They run a constant stream of personal attacks on any and all opponents and their attacks almost never have anything to do with actual policy issues.

Contempt for the environment. The Harper Government has continually been uninterested in any actual environmental policy. It all began with their first environment minister Rona Ambrose. Ambrose has long been a friend of the oil industry in her native Alberta and consistently denied the existence of any kind of global warming. She is also a long time fan of Ayn Rand who consistently claimed that cut-throat, unfettered capitalism could never lead to environmental disaster, and that selfishness is a virtue. (Do a quick google search to see the wacko Randism streak against any kind of environmentalism)

Contempt for Democracy. When facing the threat that the majority of the people’s representatives might actually rule the House of Commons the Conservatives showed their true colors by not only suggesting that the majority had no right to rule but they spent much of their energy marginalizing many of the people’s representatives by labeling them “separatists” and “socialists.” They made it very clear that some people who are duly elected by the people have no business being in the House simply because the Conservative  don’t  like them.

 

Harper’s government is not just a poor and incompetent government; it is has poisoned the country and subverted the principles of democracy and human rights. Harper poses a genuine threat to our rights and the future of the country and don’t deserve to be reelected. 

The Process of Democracy. . . .

Many people, including some so-called experts, talk of democracy as a political ‘system;’ something that we either have or don’t have. I have thought for a long time that democracy needs to be thought of as a process, a working toward. In other words, democracy should be thought of as a verb rather than a noun. This is important because there are many who are, in a rather Western-centric way, smugly satisfied that we live in a finished democracy. And people who think this way are perfectly satisfied when elections occur, elections (keep in mind) that are already made severely problematic by the influence of money, and a party wins the most seats even with only say thirty-five percent of the votes cast, then this party has some kind of inalienable right to dictate the entire legislative agenda of the nation. They imagine that this is democracy, end of story. But this cannot be. If democracy is a process, a working toward ever greater degrees of fairness, justice, and a society’s self realization, then this can hardly be the end of the story. We must work ever vigilantly for our political institutions to express the will of the people. But just as important as this, the ‘will of the people’ must be ever more expressed and expressible. And by expressible I mean that we must work ever harder to lessen the degree to which power determines what can be expressed. If those with a great deal of money and power are able to narrow the field of expressible possibilities then we are working away from our ideals rather than toward them. And in recent years not only has the field of political discourse narrowed  (largely in the interests of those with a corporate agenda), but even in the very institution of legislative power a mockery has been made of the idea of democratic expression. At every corner of the country our present government has made every attempt to shut down discourse, to narrow its field, and to rob it of its meaning. From closing down the Supreme Court challenges program, to the erasure of almost all adult literacy programs; from a handbook for Committee chairs instructing them on how to shut down committee discussion, to the proroguing of parliament and convincing the nation that the expression of the majority could be a coup, the Harper Government continues to reverse the process of democracy and to move away from the very ideals that democracy aims toward. Just like the concept of justice, democracy is a difficult and abstract concept, but the right-wing’s consistent effort to move away from both is becoming more and more clear. 

Iran and our own Democracies.

The events is Iran are tragic and profoundly unjust. However, we in the Western ‘democracies’ love to point to democratic failures elsewhere and have little inclination to turn a critical eye on our democratic processes. We imagine that we have more or less perfect democracies and that we could never be subject to the kind of oppression that the people in Iran are experiencing. But we shouldn’t be so smug and events in Iran should give us pause to consider our own situation.

In the last General Election in Canada a little less than 60% of registered voters turned out to vote. The Conservatives won about 40% of those votes. This means that about twenty-five percent of registered voters voted for the ruling party. Now given that a certain percentage of adults are registered or cannot register to vote, this means that we can conservatively estimate that perhaps 20% of adults in Canada voted for the ruling party. Now if the Conservatives had won few more seats they would be a majority government and rule as a de facto dictatorship with less that quarter of the people supporting them. (Keep in mind now that given Harper’s complete disregard for the courts in cases when they decide against his agenda when I say a de facto dictatorship I don’t think it is hyperbole) Now such a circumstance must be treated with suspicion and to say that this is democratic is surely questionable. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that all of these candidates were chosen by unaccountable local constituency offices and many of them were parachuted in by the upper management of the party.

Now, as undemocratic as our system is at a practical level, we should keep in mind that if millions of people had massed in Ottawa at Parliament Hill suggesting that the will of the majority is being ignored in the organization of government, our Prime Minister would be even quicker to call out the army to disperse such crowds that the Iranian clerics have been. Anyone who doesn’t believe it is irretrievably naive.

So while you are watching the terrible events unfold in Iran, don’t be so quick to feel comfortable and superior in the nature of our democracy. We have plenty to work on here in our ‘democracies’ and we should get to work. 

Democracy's Failures

Well the people of British Columbia, in their (lack of) wisdom, reelected the most right-wing, self-interested, hypocritical premier in the country. But as anyone who has read my blog knows, I believe that democracy is a system severely compromised by market forces that distort results in favor of a corporate agenda and centralizing power. Democracy as it presently exists can be said to be significantly failing the very principles it was instituted to uphold. With this in mind, on this rather depressing day, I bring you some other failures of democracy.

-1933 Hitler’s Nazi Party elected with 44% of the vote.

-1967 Lestor Madox elected Governor of Georgia.

-1963-87 George Wallace elected Governor of Alabama (Four Times!)

-1968 & 72 Richard Nixon elected twice (the 2^nd time with 49 of 50 states)

-1991 Boris Yetlsin elected President of Russia by 57%

-1993 Derek Beackon elected Councilor for Milwall under the BNP banner

-2000 Vladimir Putin elected President of Russia twice!

-2009 the Fascist UBP wins the Cyprus Elections

 

The story continues . . . 

Letter to Mr. Poilievre, (unfortunately) my MP

Dear Mr. Poilievre

 

As a constituent in Nepean-Carleton I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in the conduct of my Member of Parliament. It seems that you spend most of your time, and our money, campaigning against the opposition in a callous, disrespectful, and ultra-partisan manner. While your constituents are facing serious issues such as pollution, job-losses, radically rising food prices, unplanned urban sprawl, etc., you are continually presenting yourself to the public as nothing more than a disrespectful bully who conducts himself as little more than a child in public. As a parent who believes in living a responsible civic life, I encourage my teenage children to learn about politics and keep a close eye on how our government works. And they have asked me on more than one occasion why their MP is allowed to act in so discourteous and ill-mannered a way in and out of the House of Commons. And I have no answer for them. Instead, thanks to conduct like yours I have to watch my kids become disillusioned with politics and cynical about life! Please desist from tell your constituents that you support family values. Cynicism, belligerence, and blind political ambition are not family values! We cannot even depend upon you to stand by the rules, as yesterday you again violated them by indicating, in one of your ultra-partisan diatribes, that one of the Members was absent  from the house.

 

And the biggest tragedy for my kids and the future of this country is that when they ask me why you act that way, and they suggest that even for the sake of his own reelection shouldn’t  Mr. Poilievre act with more respect and greater decorum. I have to tell them “Well, he just doesn’t care. Even if he loses he will get a pension and enjoy a lucrative career based upon his time in the House.” And then my kids just shake their heads and ask me why they should bother with politics. But I have no answer Mr. Poilievre!  You spend our taxpayer’s money forging your own political career by continually campaigning instead of actually acting like a responsible representative and in the process you are destroying the political culture of this country, which is all tragically amusing considering that the Conservatives were first elected because of a commitment to change the political culture to a more humane and responsible discourse. Instead of laughing when one of your peers takes a jab at another, you should solemnly bow your head at this sign of disrespect and immaturity.

 

This is not a game Mr. Poilievre, it is real life and people out here have real problems! As a constituent and taxpayer, I demand that you start acting like an adult. This means forging compromise and cooperation while showing respect and decorum. Your present actions are doing nothing but undermining democracy itself.