About Pucking Time...

Hockey starts today! Hockey starts today! Hockey starts today!

I've kind of let myself ignore it, but this mornign when I woke up there was just one thought on my mind - the NHL is back!

Game One tonight has every team in the league playing on one night. Here in Vancouver, Gretzky will coach his first game in what could be the hockey hat-trick of all time - the greatest player of all time; the administrator who brought the olympic gold back to Canada; and if things go well, an All-Star coach. Could be - pretty exciting if it does work that way.

As for the Canucks... well they are very nearly the same team that was iced two years ago - not many teams can claim that. Anson Carter is buoying up the Sedins and seem to be giving us a really strong second line - at least in the pre-season that is what appeared. Recall that in Spring 2004 the Canucks when to game seven O.T. with the team that came within a goal of winning the Stanely Cup in Game seven - and the Canucks didn't have Bertuzzi, Naslund had no wrist-shot thanks to a bone-spur, and we were dressing our third-string goal-tender. So many 'what-ifs.' But as any die-hard Canuck will point out, it's finally YEAR 12. I can't believe it's here already. If 'Year 12' means nothing to you, you aren't a Canucks fan. If you want to know, I'm not telling, but I will give you a hint to do some detective work: 70, 82, 94. It really seems like it COULD happen this time.

Bertuzzi - oh how we missed him. I'm curious how life in Colorado is for Brad May. But here in Vancouver, Bertuzzi did little wrong - or at least the wrongs he did were seen as somewhat justified & the lead up to it was hypocritical when compared to the outcome. He did the wrong thing for the right reason and it got blown out of proportion - or at the very least any previous similar incidents were not blown INTO proportion simply because they didn't lead to an injury of equivalent gravity. But he's back and has something to prove. If he proves it, we could be a totally fearsome team. Naslund, Bertuzzi, plus a second line that will do the scoring when the oposing defense is expending itself trying to shut down the deadliest line in the NHL... ahhhh 'tis good.

Goaltending. Apart from Bertuzzi, the other big Q is in goal. We've got three goaltenders who could step it up. If one of them does - and I DO hope it's cloutier, but I'm not fussy - the Canucks are nearly unstoppable, if not they'll have to fight for superiority.

But...

No one really knows. This year was the big reset button. The Canucks got lucky and kept their core - unlike, say Anaheim. This season will be a career maker for someone(s) - a coach (maybe Gretzky - I'd prefer Crawford) who has the vision to capitalize on the new rules; a General manager who most quickly sees how to exploit the new business rules; a player who breaks out with the new restrictions on obstruction, or one who conversely re-invents himself as he is otherwise obsolete.
Previously it was relatively easy to expect things to be similar from season to season, with team quality shifting, but not significantly shaking up (in any given year a team or two might climb or drop a long ways up the league ladder, but generally a good team this year will be a decent team or better, next year and a bad team can only build so much in the off-season.) But with a big shake up of personel, new rules for business and play and a year off for many players (or a reduced season for the others) there are simply too many x-factors to truly say "Team-X is a real contender." Best guesses are the most we can hope for.

I'm crossing my fingers for a Vancouver/Ottawa Cup final. That's a no-lose situation, especially if Ottawa crushes Philadelphia in round one and the Canucks face Detroit in the Conference final. If the Canucks hoisted the hardware when all was said and done, THAT would be hockey nirvana.

The House Band in Hell

As a personal excercise in self-entertainment I spent my lunch hour imagining what the house band in hell would be like for me.

A few elements were pretty easy to imagine.

Start with Bob Marley. As his back-up singers he has those Scottish clods The Proclaimers.
His rhythm section is made up entirely by Linda McCartney.
And they only know two songs - both by Peter Frampton. They keep playing "Baby I Love Your Way" and threaten constantly to start playing "Show Me the Way."

Sound a little thin musically? Exactly.

The opening act would have been an All-Star jam with Pearl Jam, Springsteen, The Clash, REM, and The Police... and I missed it.

An End to this Mess

Mark Messier has retired.

He is my favourite player of all time. There are others who are close - ones who could surpass him even given more time. There was no way, so long as he kept playing that anyone would surpass him in my mind.

It was time. But it still saddens me. An era is over. I think that in the same way that the music of your college years tends to define your musical taste for life, the sports team of your adolescence (in this case the 80s Oilers) tends to define your concept of the best that ever played the game. That team is pretty much gone now. Sure, rookies are now the grizzled veterans, but the core of that team has hung up it's skates forever.

That makes me feel old.

I'll feel older when Trevor Linden retires. He's only a month older than me, and he's one of the few players that have any chance of passing Messier in my mind as my favourite. I suppose he's my favourite player now playing... although Stevie Y is way up there, I just haven't got a lot of faith in Yzerman's knees which makes it really hard to cannonize him.

Speaking of bad-knees... I once had a discussion with Mark Messier. It was when he was playing in Vancouver (Don't get me started. Those were bad times, but it wasn't Messier's fault.)

Mess was injured - his knee. He'd been our for a few weeks.

I was walking to work and I passed a restaurant downtown with a big window. Who was sitting having lunch, but Mark Messier. I stopped and looked. I mean, he is my favourite player right. I had to. But my look turned into a stare before I realized it. After a moment Mess turned and looked back. I realised that I was being rude and shook myself and went on, but then thought "Damn! This is Mark Messier!"

So I turned back and waved. He waved back. I pointed to my knee and made motions that I can only describe as 'questioning.' He made a 'so-so' gesture with his hand. I smiled and nodded and gave a quick salute 'bye.' He reciperocated and on I went with my day.

My other Messier story is from a game. A friend had tickets that he couldn't use. 3rd row, corner. The first and second rows were being used by the Pee-Wee teams that would eventually play during the second intermission, so they disappeared at the first break. The friend I brought and I moved up to the glass.
Early in the second period the game took a bad turn. It was a game against Phoenix, and it was back in the day when Vancouver still thought of Phoenix as their old Winnipeg Jets rival. Long story short, it was the roughest game I've ever seen, and it turned out to be the most penalized game of the season, the Canucks second most penalized ever.
In the 3rd, things were getting really brutal and both teams were absolutely furious. The puck got iced into the corner in front of us. Bob Corkum had the jump on Messier for the puck and beat him to it, keeping play alive, but Messier was right on top of him and nailed him. Hard. HARD. We practically jumped back to our original seats. We thought for sure Corkum was about to land in our laps. But at much as anything, what I recall is the infamous 'look.' It's not just a legend folks. It's real. Messier's eyes, when he is 'on' are terrifying. The intensity is... well there aren't words.

Thanks Mark.

I just pray that in the new NHL there will be some heroes who at least come close.

When What Makes Most Sense Makes No Sense

Eden and I have been having a bad time recently.

She's already been married to a workaholic artist.

On paper she's the best girlfriend ever. But we just can't seem to meet in the middle. I can't change who I am and she can't handle the negative side of who I am. She's attracted to guys who are a lot like me. It's not like she'll be able to move on to someone else and avoid the problems that she's had with both Verne and I.

It's a bad place for her to be.

As for myself, I think she's awesome, but I get really weary of her analysing our relationship with her psychology degree, I also think she needs to just let me be who I am. Encourage me, but don't limit me. Work with me, not against me. When I say against, I don't mean that she tries to cause problems, but she doesn't always appreciate my methods for what they are. She also doesn't think we have similar long term goals. I think she's dead wrong there, I'm just not worried about them - they will come when they come and all I can deal with is what is in front of me.

She also compares where I am to Verne. Success and the path to it is a continuum, not an on/off switch. And I can only deal with things one step at a time.

We've been actively struggling for a while. Last night we decided to 'take a break.' Taking a break strikes me as an almost certainly deadly approach to releationship repair, but I really don't know what is left. We need to find out if we're miserable without one another. If we are, then we can make the necessary adjustments - we'll be clear on the need and the stake. But I haven't got high hopes.

'Trial separation' is synonymous with 'practice break-up.'

But it appears as though it's all we have left unless we want to start hating each other - and we like each other too much to risk that. We're just not that masochistic or foolish.

Rehearsal SWAT-ed Down

Yeah. What a fucking day.

I've told the story about two dozen times, including to the TV news by now. So I'm not going to get into it in detail.

But the other day, our rehearsal for Cosmic Banditos was busted by the Vancouver SWAT team. Fucking hell.

It falls into the category of 'funny, but not.' It was a bowel-loosening experience, and people laugh when I tell the tale, but I'm actually at the point where I found it more funny at the time.

I've got no issues with the cops (well, I did when I was younger, but I've out grown them) and they did their jobs well, but it's damned sobering to have a live machine gun trained on you.

What idiots we were.

Big Easy needs a Big Squeegie

I'm betting that The Tragically Hip are already sick of fielding meaningless questions about their fifteen year old break through hit.

Speaking of The Hip: Checkout this site with a nifty weekly podcast: Hipbase

Here's a pretty crazy blog from the newly re-located Gulf of Mexico.

There's also a local band who possibly have to reconsider thier moniker: Hurricane Kitty. I just tried to do a search for their web-site - one of the girls in the band is a good friend (she lives upstairs AND is stage manager of my Fringe show) and she mentioned the web-site last night. Can I find it? Nope.

Okay, but what I really wanted to mention... not an original thought, but worth bringing up, cause it's impact ought to be widespread:
How many DC-10s and other transport planes do the U.S Armed Forces have outside of the continental States right now in Iraq and Afganistan et al? Just think of how the awesome logisitical might of that could have evacuated a LOT of people who are now floating face down in the streets of New Orleans. Or of how many troops, deployed in Louisiana instead of the Middle East at this very moment could be having a clear and positive effect in both keeping the peace... snipers... I can't fucking fathom it... it obviously must seem like the end of the world down there - not to mention the additional effect more man-power would give rescue efforts.

Fucking America. Home first, the world, later.

A quick catch up

I've been so busy.

First there was the build up to the ReelFast competiton. I managed to get a business man to sponsor my team to the tune of $1200.
We did something that no one else had ever done - made a film entirely with still photos - about 2000 of them. It was utterly exhausting. I got 2 hours sleep during the production weekend, most of my team got at least slightly sunstroke and several could hardly move as their backs seized... we made a film where the main characters were TV sets. Moving TV sets for 12 hours in the blistering sun is totally fucking masochistic.
The results were short of our intentions. We intend to go back and improve the film in the next few weeks, but for now it's mediocre, especially when viewed beside the OTHER team that decided to do stop-motion (not the first time that a 'first' in ReelFast has been synchronic with another - last year THREE teams shot underwater footage). The other team used action figures and repeated a LOT of frames (all of ours were unique) - in the context of the competition it was far more successful, but I don't think they have a film anyone is going to care about now that it's all over. We could, once the editing is re-done. We shot a good little film, we just didn't have the time left to put it together nicely.

Immediately following the ReelFast production weekend was the Launch of my new company PROVOST PICTURES. I won't get into a lot of detail - it's all on that site, and reiteration would be a waste of time - if you really wat the details see the accompanying blog. Actually that took up a lot of prep time before ReelFast too. We had the launch, then dealt with the press for a week and finished up by sitting on tenter-pegs over the auction results. The auction was disappointing financially, but a total success publicity-wise. We didn't make money in the end, but we gained a good start for a profile for free - I don't think Mr. Trump would fire us. We worked our asses off and I'm not sure we could have done too much more without simply throwing money away.

The auction ended last Friday. Last Wednesday I started rehearsing for the Fringe Festival. I'm doing an authorized version of the book Cosmic Banditos. Long story short - which I will likely expand upon later - we left rehearsals too late. We're struggling and it's a major pain in the ass. I'm a bit pissed off as I was trying to avoid this since Christmas, but here we are.

Anyhow, I've got to go learn a massive amount of lines...

It's Official: Nicole got Me in the Divorce

Nicole Kidman is making films like The Interpreter and (to a lesser degree, but smart in it's own right) Bewitched.

Tom Cruise is having insane arguments with Matt Lauer on the today show.

Examples of Cruise's exceptional debating skill...

Not allowing his opponent to finish his point:
"No, no, Matt. Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt-- Matt, I'm-- Matt, I'm asking you a question. "

Unsubstantiated remarks:
"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

And a complete lack of communicative abilty:
"It's that thing where you just - in life when it just happens. ... And it's - I can't even describe it."

All I have to say is: Katie! Come back to me!

Bob's a Knob

Bob Geldof's auto-biography was "Is that it?" Right now, I think many Canadians are wishing that it was.

I respect what he did in the past for famine relief. I respect that he's doing it again - by now everyone has forgotten just how 'drop in the bucket' Live Aid really was - so it's time for another drop, just to raise awareness.

The point he was making about Prime Minster Martin was absolutely correct. Canada is offering a fairly paltry relief package. But... what is he accomplishing by calling out the PM? Good job Bob, alienate Canadians and have us less interested as a group to support relief efforts.

The call to boycott Live 8 is out. Will we listen? Part of me hopes we do, but at what cost?

Well done Bob.

You knob.

The Second Act

Jumping off from a marathon session of watching The Daily Show. So a certain amount of this thought is borrowed. (Even my title is a semi-copped from John Stewart.) But more than that, the Daily Show was a jumping off place for further thought...

Bush is looking to renew the National Security Act. In his own words, it is 'working' so why let it 'expire?' Well, how about this... it's not really working. In fact, it's main result has been to incarcerate a lot of innocent people. YES, there are guilty parties being ferreted out, but at what cost to civil liberties?

It was intended to be a temporary measure. But, it's not looking like it. If it is renewed, then next time around it's easier to renew it out of hand, and again until it gets renewed without notice by the public, possibly even being put into permanence without so much as a single head turned.

I'm going to be quick to point out that in fact I personally believe that the access to personal information that is an inherent part of the act is at it's core a good thing. What is a problem is that the access is not universal. I won't waste time explaining this concept here, it's not that relevant except to add some clarity to what would seem like a hypocritical position on my part. I'm not opposed to the access authorities have to personal information. I am opposed to it not being two-way glass. For more info on this concept, read The Transparent Society by David Brin.

This is a slippery slope. Allowing the act to remain unchanged is allowing potentially abusive power to further blossom in the United States. By increments, the American people are allowing themselves to slip closer and closer into a state of neo-fascism.

John Stewart has also on a recent program taken a stand to call out anyone who insists on making comparisons to Hitler or Nazism in any circumstance where they are faced with someone or a political situation that they disagree with.

On a certain level, I agree with him. It's exceptionally specious when the claim is made in the wrong direction along the political spectrum. But I think that calling for an all-out moratorium on invoking Hitler's name is bullshit. Certainly a greater degree of reason needs to be applied to that kneejerk, but if it is in any way appropriate, it's fair game - particularly if the specific accuracy of the situation is noted. Call someone Hitler and note how it's apropos, I'm right behind you.

For example: Hitler at one time appeared to be a reasonable, if somewhat extreme man. His regime rose to power by the gradual application of restraint upon the German nation. Not unlike the current rise of the Republican party in the U.S. Now, the current state of the Republican party is a LONG LONG WAY from the images we have of the Nazi party... but remember that at one time, so was the Nazi party.

Jackson Beat It

Not much to say that I haven't already said - and I'm ill and leaving work early, so I don't have time for much anyhow.

I am a little surprised that he got off on all charges. I thought that he might at least have got the slap of the administering alcohol charge. But he didn't.

Insufficent evidence - regardless of the truth.

Nice to see the justice system working properly.

Shooting Sitting Ducks in a Barrel

Leave it my favourite whipping... country.

I can only assume that the recently started '100 Greatest Americans' show is taking it's cue from the success of the Canadian show that ran over nine months ago.

But have you seen the list? It's clearly based on some sort of bizarro-world logic about what constitutes great... oh, no sorry. I am wrong. Upon further inspection the list is actually clearly dictated by the masses who actually have the inanity to sit and watch a show like this. It's not bizarro-world, it's Red-state... Oh, right. That IS bizarro-world.

A quick look at the list:

Abraham Lincoln - A Great American, no matter how you slice it. But looking at the rest of this list it strikes me that the Red States just grudgingly accepted the inclusion of the champion of the 13th Ammendment, who kicked their ass in the Civil War, just so as to not make it look too obvious who is calling the shots.
Albert Einstein - Ah yes, a great man. A truly great A........ he was German.
Alexander Graham Bell - Sure, Top 100, sure in a walk.
Alexander Hamilton - As a historical statesman he certainly did his part.
Amelia Earhart - Strikes me as an odd choice, but... sure. There need to be a few wild cards right? Why not someone whose main claim to fame is disappearing without a trace... actually, when put THAT way...
Andrew Carnegie - I'd never pick him, but at least the reasons for picking him reflect a value judgment that I can give some creedence to.
Arnold Schwarzenegger - .....Okay. We just completely lost the plot all in one fell-swoop. ONE: Austrian. TWO: OKay... I admit, we must be talking about a different Arnold Schwarzenegger. One I've never heard of. 'Cause you can't possibly be talking about the body-builder-turned actor-turned governor of California, 'cause thats just... laughable.
Audie Murphy - Here's a tough one. I really think of Audie Murphy as a singer and actor, and we all remember his classics don't we? Like, uh... But really, that was all icing. Audie Murphy really makes the list for being the most decorated soldier of WWII... so is THAT what makes a great American? Why should I be surprised.
Babe Ruth - A stretch. But so was Wayne Gretzky on the Canadian List. No... let me take that back. Wayne Gretzky was not a stretch on the Canadian top 100 list. What he was was a stretch on the Top 10. We are after all talking about the greatest player ever to play the quintessential Canadian game. So, by that measure, Babe Ruth has every right to have his fat drunken ass on the American list.
Barack Obama - A self proclaimed "skinny kid with a funny name." And the only African-American in the Senate, right now. RIGHT NOW. (Admittedly there have only ever been five - I've read my Wikipedia!) But what about the FIRST! The simple fact that I had to look him up is not good for his status as a great American. Will we remember who he was in a hundered years? Not unless he manages to do something unarguably great... and I can't see that he's done it yet, so why is he on this list?
Barbara Bush - I can't say I've ever really understood how being a First Lady qualifies one as a person of value. Certainly they must be supportive and patient to a degree I personaly couldn't attain, but I could also say that about any babysitter who came back to my house more than once. Of all First Ladys to make the list, this one probably baffles me the most.
Benjamin Franklin - Not a word of argument from me. A true modernist.
Bill Clinton - In my opinion, the best President of my lifetime... which may still be damning with faint praise when my lifetime is done.
Bill Cosby (William Henry Cosby, Jr.) - Uh... a few questions... Why the extra specification? Is it just in case we aren't sure which Bill Cosby? Because we might think that Bill Cosby might be a weird choice, being a comedian and all? Okay, then why not specify WHICH Arnold Schwarzenegger? Okay. One more question - Why?
Bill Gates - Gates qualifies in the same manner as Andrew Carnegie. I guess in a way he's simply a new Carnegie.
Billy Graham - Oh, those red states... chuckle chuckle... you crazy guys.
Bob Hope - Because he... ummm... because he... made so many of those funny 'road' movies?
Brett Favre - Favre was a great QB. Sure, but he was hardly football's Wayne Gretzky.
Carl Sagan - Well, obviously a few Blue State votes got through, 'cause - I mean Sagan is really just one of those Science Shamen that they pray to on the coasts. You know, the ones who beieve those crazy things like Global Warming and Evolution.
Cesar Chavez - I don't know a lot about Cesar Chavez. I essentially see him as sort of a Latino Malcolm X - a comparison which may upset adherents on either side. But Malcolm X makes the list, so so should Chavez.
Charles Lindbergh - Well, at least unlike Earhart, he landed.
Christopher Reeve - Well, duh, he fought for truth justice and the American Way!
Chuck Yeager - Y'know, I've flown faster than the speed of sound. Somehow I didn't make it to the Canadian list.
Clint Eastwood - Seriously? Did you see how he treated Tuco in The Good the Bad and the Ugly? But to be fair, he made a damned fine Mayor for... what was that place called? I mean, he put it on the map! You know, that town he was Mayor of... East-wood-ville... or something.
Colin Powell - Well, when it comes to the right wing. Powell is a class act. I could go on about how much I dig the way he speaks about the WMD fiasco... but of course he still DID it! If there is another Republican in the White House in 2009, please let it be Powell or McCain!
Condoleezza Rice - Satan must be on this list when I get down to the 'S's.
Donald Trump - Another Carnegie.
Dwight D. Eisenhower - I don't know what there is to specifically like about Ike. The world didn't go up in a nuclear cloud under his watch... but under whose did it? The Cold War got well under way while he was at the helm... that's a strike. Being a President who was in office duirng the lifetimes of the voters seems to be all but a slam-dunk as far as making this list.
Eleanor Roosevelt (Anna Eleanor Roosevelt) - For god's sake don't confuse her with Eleanor 'Left-eye' Roosevelt! Of the First Ladys on this list, this one makes sense - possibly the most.
Ellen DeGeneres - She made the list 'cause she's black, right?
Elvis Presley - I don't see ANY reason for ANY mere entertainer to be on the list. Don't get me wrong. I'm in the performing arts myself. But unless you manage to at least become Mayor of Eastwoodville you do not deserve to be on the list. For that matter sports figures too. Gretzky, you're out!
Frank Sinatra - Now, don't make me repeat myself.
Franklin D. Roosevelt - He'd make a list of top ten American Presidents in just about anyone's estimation, so I can't possibly argue.
Frederick Douglass - A name which ought to be better known. His work on the abolition of slavery was fundamental. More people should know his name and instantly associate it with emancipation. He should make it onto a much shorter list than this.
George H. W. Bush - Wouldn't deserve to make the list of top ten American Presidents.
George W. Bush - Wouldn't deserve to make the top one hundred.
George Lucas - There are three film directors on this list. Of all possible choices - George Lucas!?! Has anyone who voted for him actually watched the movies he directs? If you can name three that rise above the level of 'tepid', you're stretching the truth. I can name directors who have only ever made three films who have a better track record. Now, yes, one of those films happens to be the most influential film of a generation (or more) and it and it's sequels - including several tepid ones directed by Lucas - have more economic clout than the average African Nation... but even that film, when you get right down to it gets worse with every viewing. For Christ-sake Roger Corman made more films that are worth repeat viewing than George Lucas! ...I'm ranting.
George Patton - Well, okay. Though I must quote Yoda - "Wars not make one great."
George Washington - I'd point out that he wasn't a born American, but in this case it'd be a bit specious. And let's face it the only thing that REALLY made him a special President was the fact that he was first.
George Washington Carver - I don't really know much about George Washington Carver. I know he made huge advances in the uses of peanuts and soy and stuff - an inventor of high caliber and great honour. In my mind there aren't enough thinkers on this list. SO Carver gets the nod from me, despite my relative ignorance.
Harriet Ross Tubman - Why isn't there a movie about his woman? Let's make that movies. There could be a semi-fictionalized adventure version about the underground railroad - ya hear me Bruckheimer!? And there could also be a more respectful and arty bio-pic by someone who could really honour the woman, say Spike Lee. Here is an example where direct action deserves the recognition of being named to this list.
Harry Truman - I have to admit that I don't actually know a heck of a lot about HST. Sure he lead the US out of WWII, but by the time he got in, that would have happened even if Hop-a-long Cassidy was the CIC.
Helen Keller - How exactly does being famous for a birth defect qualify you as great? Perhaps because in the case of being deaf and blind it means that you are much more likely to crash a plane where it will never be found.
Henry Ford - There aren't manythings more American than the Automobile and being a self-made multi-millionaire. He kind of falls somewhere between Bell and Carnegie. Too bad he wasn't a great out-fielder too, he'd have it all wrapped up.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Another First Lady. Sigh. Again I'll have to give her some props. She's one of the best First Ladies on this list and probably the best First Lady on my life time, and she may yet make that top ten Presidents list.
Howard Hughes - A flying Carnegie!
Hugh Hefner - ... no really. I can't. It's beneath me.
Jackie Robinson (Jack Roosevelt Robinson) - Rumour has it that he was an asshole. But, it would be an asshole who'd deny him a position on this list. He was more than just a great athlete than the sport that he excelled at.
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - I don't really know what Jackie 'O' accomplished as First Lady beyond wiping off the trunk of the car.
Jesse Owens - For breaking racial barriers, you bet. But a quandry exists right? I mean part of his message was we we're supposed to be judging him as an athlete and as an equal not as a member of a minority race, so by putting him on this list we're saying he was a really great runner? Or are was saying he did great things for by breaking racial barriers? Isn't that by definition judging him as a member of a minority race? It's a paradox. But like Jackie Robinson he transcended his sport, that is why he's here - ironic or not.
Jimmy Carter - Oddly, he seems to have done more as an ex-President than as a President. Hard to say a Nobel prize winner doesn't have a place on the list though. But you can't give every Nobel winner a place on this list either, can you?
Jimmy Stewart - You're kidding right? Thank you Clarence, I can't imagine what life would have been without him.
John Edwards - ... Uh. Now I really COULD use some clarification. You don't really mean John Edwards, running mate of failed Democtatic Presidential candidate John Kerry do you? Why isn't Lloyd Bentsen on this list?
John Glenn - I've got a hard time with this. What did he do that the monkey didn't do first? He was nothing but a willing lab-rat on a the world's (then) biggest firecracker.
John F. Kennedy - Another top ten President.
John Wayne - No way, pilgrim.
Johnny Carson (John William Carson) - Yes, Johnny Carson is the equal of Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and James Madison......... wait a second..... where the fuck is James Madison!!!?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he write your fucking Constitution?
Jonas Edward Salk - The man who eliminated Polio. Very cool. He probably won't make as short a list as he deserves.
Joseph Smith Jr. - There is no way it gets more red-state than this.
Katharine Hepburn - What? Well, at least she did more for women's rights than the Mayor of Eastwoodville.
Lance Armstrong - Well of course! I mean, he's the frikken Wayne Gretzky of that great American sport - bicycling!
Laura Bush - My respect for Laura Bush is only slightly higher than that which I have for her husband. Look how I treated him! I would have evren more respect for her if she'd had the strength of character to not marry him in the first place.
Lucille Ball - A funny, funny lady. Very funny. Very talented. Very revered. But looking at my other comments it ought to come as no surprise that I don't think she has any business being on this list.
Lyndon B. Johnson - I don't really know a lot about LBJ. All I know is that he didn't initially get in by being elected to the post. And note that with the exception of Gerald Ford, every President since 1933 made the list? Even Nixon for Christ's sake! If I were Gerry Ford, I'd be pissed! Wasn't Johnson the one who carried his dogs by the ears? What a great man.
Madonna (Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone) - Uh, wasn't Madonna from Galleli? America was still about 1500 years away from discovery by the Spanish at that point... Oh, wrong Madonna, good thing they specified Madonna Ciccone. I mean, I could understand how the Blessed Virgin could make the list, but this Madonna is merely like a virgin.
Malcolm X (Malcolm Little) - I totally think Malcom X is worthy of a place on this list, but not before and above James Madison.
Marilyn Monroe - For that matter why in all that is, hell anything, is Marilyn Monroe before and above James Madison? I mean, why isn't Paris Hilton on this list then? At least she is a HILTON!
Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) - If an all-American writer deserves to be put beside the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, Mark Twain certainly fits the bill. But it does beg questions about other notable authors who are missing for example Edgar Allen Poe, Ernest Hemmingway and John Steinbeck. Oh, but they were an opium addict, a manic depressive and Communist respectively.
Martha Stewart - Certainly no Communist, she. But a great practitioner of the great American art of tax-evasion. Hey! Why isn't Al Capone on this list then?
Martin Luther King Jr. - A vicious rumour (purportedly started by that nasty John Stewart on the Daily Show) is circulating that Martin Luther King is NOT on the list. Well, here he is, and well deserved.
Maya Angelou - Perhaps a bit on the PC side, but of all marginal nominees, she's certainly on the legit end of the scale. I can't imagine that there aren't more worthy possibilities. Will she still be on the list in a hundred years?
Mel Gibson - Only slightly more American than Swartzenegger. Really more Australian than anything, but yes, he WAS born Stateside so I can't really split hairs that way. But not in a million years is Mel Gibson one of the Top 100 Americans of all time.
Michael Jackson - Yeah right. He may not be guilty - the jury is still literally out as I write this - but he isn't on trial for being un-assailably squeaky clean. I mean, if you really want your country represented by this screw-ball... well fuck, look who you elected President once out of the last two terms. Go ahead do what ever you like. It's your country. And let me point out - he named his kid Prince Blanket. PRINCE BLANKET... hey, it's your country.
Michael Jordan - The Wayne Gretzky of basketball. If you're sayin' sports figures are legit on that basis alone, then Michael Jordan is definitely worthy. However, I am saying that being great at a sport is NOT all it takes. You have to at least transcend the sport itself - like say, Jackie Robinson.
Michael Moore - I am one of those left-leaning sorts who is getting sick of Michael Moore. I thoroughly believe that he does more damage than good and that he is a terrible journalist and a hypocrite. He has more in common with Ann Coulter tactically than he does with Ralph Nader ideologically. Ann Coulter didn't make the list (and you can probably imagine what a field day I'd have with that) so why should he?
Muhammad Ali (Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.) - Ali DID transcend his sport, but I'm not so sure that he did it in a way that makes him truly great. He transcended it more as a pop-icon than as the activist that he is often credited with. He was no Jackie Robinson.
Neil Alden Armstrong - Another lab rat on the list. Possibly the most worthy lab rat. But that's perhaps a but like calling Kim Jong Il the most benevolent of insane world dictators.
Nikola Tesla - As brilliant as Edison, but he was Croatian.
Oprah Winfrey - Will she still be on this list in a hundred years time? REALLY? Perhaps that question should be asked of everyone. Who is timeless? Who really is? Actually, to be fair, there is an outside chance Oprah will be. I admit I'm sick to death of her - have been for years. But she's certainly got some admirable qualities that raise her above the average pop-culture icon. I don't really think she should make the list, but I'm willing to admit that this is one case in which time could prove me wrong.
Pat Tillman - You've got to be fucking kidding me. A nominal football star who happened to die in battle in a questionable war? He is a great example of what is wrong with America. No, I am sorry. He is not. His nomination is a good example. Not only will he not make the list in a hundred years, but in five years no one will know his name. This is totally retarded.
Dr. Phil McGraw - This one falls right into the middle of the You have GOT to be fucking kidding me category.
Ray Charles - Love Ray Charles. Love him. But do you really think that if he hadn't 1) Come out with a great swan song album; 2) Had an Oscar winning Bio-pic and 3) Died all within the last 18 months that he'd still be on this list?
Richard Nixon - The original Book of Lists had Nixon on the most hated people in history list along side Hitler and Satan. Was that a non-sequitur? Or am I making a point?
Robert Kennedy - I'd like to be able to justify this one. I really would. But I can't. Let's call RFK the high-water mark for people who shouldn't make the list.
Ronald Reagan - It's kind of funny how perspective changes. I still don't think of Reagan as a great man, but he no longer represents the pinnacle of Right-wing Military-Economic Imperialism that he once did... I wonder why he doesn't seem so extreme anymore?
Rosa Parks - Right on. She won't make the top ten, but there had to be some justifiable choices on the list. All for the simple act of saying 'no.' How simple greatness seems.
Rudolph W. Giuliani - Not sure if this will stand the test of time. But I know that when the towers went down and the President was no where in sight, Giuliani's composure in a state of emergency was unbelieveable. A total class-act. Whether you loved him or hated him during the controversial periods of his tenure as Mayor of New York, it was virtually impossible to not respect him in the days following 9/11. Will that really immortalize him once those of us who were alive then are gone? Who can tell. But I'll give him the bye for now.
Rush Limbaugh - Seeing as I don't have the opportunity to be outraged at Ann Coulter being on the list, this is a close second. What the fuck!? How does someone so bent on divisive pot-stirring deserve to get on the list? America needs to come together, for itself and for the planet. But good ol' Rush would rather say outrageous things that only have sporadic tethers to empirical fact that keep him controversial (and therefore making money) than to deal with the truth of the matter and actually make progressive moves. He doesn't really love America. He loves the money that Americans give him for saying things that make them feel righteous in the face of constantly growing evidence to the contrary.
Sam Walton - Wal-Mart man. No way. I've given the nod to virtually all the 'builders' and/or industrialists, but I just can't. Wal-mart is the epitome of the evils of capitalism. What makes America great (God, did I just type that clause?) is the beautiful side of capitalism... and they haven't left much of that in the wake of multi-nationalism.
Steve Jobs - Another Carnegie.
Steven Spielberg - If there is a director who deserves to be on this list, Spielberg may well be it. He makes great films, he makes American films, he makes artisitcally complex films, he makes pleasing films, he makes block-busting films, he makes righteous films, he makes self-critical films and above all else he uncompromisingly makes his own films. Obviously I don't think much about artists justifiably being on this list, but Spielberg is as close as it gets.
Susan B. Anthony - Not a word of argument from me.
Theodore Roosevelt - If Teddy Roosevelt doesn't make the top ten, America needs to give it's head a shake. Well, America needs to give it's head a shake anyhow, but you get my drift.
Thomas Edison - Much of Edison's greatness was a matter of 1) the time in which he lived - some huge batrriers in science had just fallen; 2) he took a lot of credit for work that was done under his employ; but he still guided some of the most seminal dicoveries ever. Most people don't know that he invented the fax-machine... sure it was so slow and low-res that it was next to useless, but he invented it. Oh yeah, there was that light-bulb thing too...
Thomas Jefferson - No brainer. Hey America, where's that revolution that you're supposed to have every generation? I think you've betrayed Jefferson.
Tiger Woods - Golf? The Wayne Gretzky of golf... sigh.
Tom Cruise - This is getting ridiculous. Next you're going to be naming Tom Hanks to the list!
Tom Hanks - ....................................................... . . . . . . . . ?
Walt Disney - In a way he's a Carnegie, in a way he's an entertainer. It's a huge stretch to have him on this list.
Wright Brothers (Orville & Wilbur Wright) - Uh... that's 101. No doubt flight is a pretty cool discovery. I guess, yeah sure. BTW: Did you know... not only was Orville the first human to fly, he was also the first human to die in a plane crash.

I guess if I were to boil down my criteria to it's essence, it would be that the most deserving inclusions on the list would be those that were most influential in changing the way people live (either through action, thought or widespread inspiration) and moving our species forwards to a brighter future... I.E. Today.



So, based on that who is in and who is out? All kinds of contradictions to what I said above follows.... (ignoring those who I would consider 'disqualified' as not being true Americans.)

IN (Italicized indicates marginal choices; Bold indicates definite choices.)
Abraham Lincoln
Albert Einstein
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander Hamilton
Audie Murphy
Babe Ruth
Benjamin Franklin
Bill Clinton
Bill Gates
Carl Sagan
Cesar Chavez
Colin Powell
Elvis Presley
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Frederick Douglass
George Washington
Harriet Ross Tubman
Henry Ford
Jackie Robinson
Jimmy Carter
John F. Kennedy
Jonas Edward Salk
Malcolm X
Mark Twain
Martin Luther King Jr.
Michael Jordan
Neil Alden Armstrong
Nikola Tesla
Robert Kennedy
Rosa Parks
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Susan B. Anthony
Theodore Roosevelt
Thomas Edison
Thomas Jefferson
Wright Brothers

OUT (Italicized indicates marginal choices; Bold indicates 'what were they thinking?')
Amelia Earhart
Andrew Carnegie
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Barack Obama
Barbara Bush
Bill Cosby
Billy Graham
Bob Hope
Brett Favre
Charles Lindbergh
Christopher Reeve
Chuck Yeager
Clint Eastwood
Condoleezza Rice
Donald Trump
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eleanor Roosevelt
Ellen DeGeneres
Frank Sinatra
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
George Lucas
George Patton
George Washington Carver
Harry Truman
Helen Keller
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Howard Hughes
Hugh Hefner
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Jimmy Stewart
John Edwards
John Glenn
John Wayne
Johnny Carson
Joseph Smith Jr.
Katharine Hepburn
Lance Armstrong
Laura Bush
Lucille Ball
Lyndon B. Johnson
Madonna
Marilyn Monroe
Martha Stewart
Maya Angelou
Mel Gibson
Michael Jackson
Michael Moore
Muhammad Ali
Oprah Winfrey
Pat Tillman
Dr. Phil McGraw
Ray Charles
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Rush Limbaugh
Sam Walton
Steve Jobs
Steven Spielberg
Tiger Woods
Tom Cruise
Tom Hanks
Walt Disney

Now: One more part to this rather long entry...

Who has been selected as the top 25?

Muhammad Ali
Neil Armstrong
Lance Armstrong
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Walt Disney
Thomas Edison
Albert Einstein
Henry Ford
Ben Franklin
Bill Gates
Billy Graham
Bob Hope
Thomas Jefferson
John F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King Jr.
Abraham Lincoln
Rosa Parks
Elvis Presley
Ronald Reagan
Eleanor Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
George Washington
Oprah Winfrey
Wright Brothers

For those keeping score that's:

12 of my 19 "Definite INs"
3 of my 'Normal' IN picks.
5 of my "What were they thinking?" Which I guess elevates it to "What the fuck were they thinking?"
The rest were either marginal or out.

"Let's Go." "We can't." "Why not?" "Because, we're waiting for Godot."

Done.

I can officially call myself a film-maker. A director. An Editor. I was already a writer.

Yesterday afternoon around 2pm, I rendered and watched my first film "Godot (Rien a Faire)" with the hopes that when it was done that I would be able to say "Yes. That is good enough." They are never perfect.

George Lucas has been quoted as saying - films are never finished, they are abandoned. That is one point where he understands the medium very well.

Truth be told, by that point, any problems which presented themselves would have to be pretty major for me to have said 'no.' My producer was literally on his way to pick up the files so that we can move on to the next stage - the festival circuit. It's his job now. I had watched the film SO many times by that point that anything that big would have been patently obvious and could really only be explained by some button having accidentally been pressed before the render, causing a major effect to be disabled or some such thing. (I've seen it happen in other projects.)

All was well... Okay, all was acceptable. Naturally I noticed a few things on that pass that I'd like to change (and perhaps will before final delivery for presentation) notably one sound effect seems to need to have a hum filtered out that was not previously noted - how I don't know, but it went un-noticed until that screening. It'll take 20 minutes of actual work, plus the waiting of the render time, so it's not a big deal. But when it comes down to it, I am willing to (and have) send the version that currently exists to festivals as is. The film is finished.

I think part of the desire to abandon the film is that in order to fine tune it, you are assaulted with your un-fixable errors constantly in the post-production phase. In the process you become a better film-maker. Those mistakes are all ones you will be avoiding in the future, like the plague. In essence you are a better film-maker than the one who shot the film you are in the process of finishing. It rankles that the mistakes that have been left for you to deal with by the film-maker who shot the film are yours.

If I never have to see my film again, it will be too soon.

Time to move on to the next one.

Brilliant Black on Creation

Just found this quote from an interview with Frank Black on Blogcritic.org

I think it is an excellent comment on the nature of the creative process and a spectacular smack-down of an anus-level comment.


GN: You used the bridge section from the original version of "Subbacultcha" to make a whole new song on Trompe Le Monde. That kinda strikes me as cheating, were you running out of ideas towards the end?
FB: Why is that cheating? I can do whatever I want with my own songs for corn's sake. The "original" version as you say is the one that got published on Trompe Le Monde. What you hear on the purple tape (released this past July) is a previously unpublished version of the song. If you feel cheated beause you purchased two songs of mine that happen to feature an overlapped chorus (not a bridge) then feel free to patronize another artist. As far as running out if ideas is concerned, that's for you, my darling critic, to decide on your own.

You tell 'em Charles - I mean Frank. Of course, in the same interview he indicated that the only chance of a Pixies reunion would be if it happened on the Moon. I suppose Winnipeg is similar.

FREE JACKO

Yeah that's right.

I'm flipping.

Michael Jackson should not be found guilty of molestation.

Not because he didn't - I am not totally convinced he is innocent. But that is just it, I'm not convinced he did either. In a system where reasonable doubt is the benchmark by which justice is measured against, he cannot be found guilty of molestation charges.

Of course I say this without knowledge of any number of details that did not come to light due to the partial publication ban. But from the news reports this is the feeling I have.

Enough doubt has been placed upon the Arvizo family's intentions to undermine my confidence in Jackson's alleged actions against young Gavin.

The entire trial has become a war of integrity. Jackson would not be in this position if he had fostered a better image in the first place, and if after the first time he was accused of wrong doings he had done the wise thing and KEPT HIS FUCKING DISTANCE from young boys. He is certainly guilty of severe foolhardiness on that count. Guilty or innocent, his naivete with regards to how the world views him is an issue he has GOT to address. He has got to get some 'no' men in his camp.
On the other side of the table, Gavin's Mother is practically without a doubt a charlatan of some degree. If her son has actually been abused, then it is her fault if justice is not served. It's a classic case of wolf calling.

But barring some significant un-revealed detail that tips the balance, the jury cannot convict Michael. Certainly not on the molestation account. Perhaps on the conspiracy charges - the specific details of that have been ignored to some degree or another (let's face it, in a 'bleeds it leads' news environment, molestation wins over flying someone to Brazil) - he could be found guilty. It's hard to judge that one. If anything, the misdemeanor of giving alcohol to a minor sounds like a liklihood. Not only does it allow the jury to do something, but of all of the charges it sounds like the one which he is at the least guilty of by negligence, if not complicity or even direct action.

What surpises me the most is that the jury did not return practically immediately. I would have expected that the process would have involved a straw vote off the top wherein a 'not guilty' would have been levelled on virtually all charges. Perhaps they are deliberating on whether he deserves a slap on the wrist for the Jesus Juice.

The unfortunate thing is that if found innocent that Michael will be free to do as he pleases. What he needs is a good shake. He may not be deserving of jail time, but he needs disciplining. He needs someone to sit him down and explain to him that no matter how many records he has sold, no matter how many Beatles songs he buys, no matter how elitely famous his is, he is just another dude on the big blue marble, no less fallible than the rest of us. And no matter how hard he proclaims that 'people just don't understand' the sad fact is that it is he who just doesn't understand.

Renegging on the Devil

The Jackson trial is on the cusp of it's final phase. As I write this, the Prosecution is, according to the projected time-line, delivering thier closing arguments.
Naturally I have my thoughts, but I'm going to save them for tomorrow as today I want to weigh in on a criminal trial here at home.

Karla Holmolka.

In short for those who don't know the essence of the case.
Twelve years ago Karla Holmolka and her husband Paul Bernardo were tried for raping and murdering a pair of girls in their basement. Karla turned evidence on Paul - under the guise of the abused wife - for a reduced sentence (12 years). No sooner had the deal been inked when a video tape of the murders was uncovered. What did the video tape show? Holmolka gleefully participating in the murders with Bernardo - no sign of coersion.
Now, she is on the cusp of being released. But the courts are trying to put in place measures by which she will be monitored - possibly for life - as if she were on probation or even house arrest.

I don't know about this one. I can be quoted as recently having said in reference to her well publicized upcoming release, something to the effect of "she should be locked up for life." Which I think is absolutely true. I think that the deal that was made was a terrible mistake - but that is all in hindsight, isn't it? I believe that our country has got to stand behind our words, and the ground rules we lay out - even if they should prove faulty. Don't get me wrong. If a law (or legal decision such as it is in this case) is a problem, we should change it. But we can't change it retroactively. Any rulings based on a law that changes have GOT to be grandfathered, for better or for worse. Living any other way would be tyrannical.

Having said that. A large part of me really wants Holmolka monitored. It really makes me sick that she is to a greater or lesser degree getting away with murder. I wouldn't want her living in my neighbourhood un-watched - and I don't feel like I'm in any danger of her personally if she was. But she's got to live somewhere. (Lucky for me, it appears it's going to be Montreal.)

The fact of the matter is that despite it feeling like it's a tough call, in fact it is a no-brainer. She should walk the streets as freely as I do. Monitored only by the dozens and dozens of security cameras and identity tracking processes that exist in our ever more transparent society (thank you Dr. Brin). She made a legitimate deal, as unfortunatley un-necessary and mis-guided as it was, and it must be honoured as it stands on paper - not re-interpreted for the greater-good. Re-interpreting it would in fact be the top of a slippery-slope that ultimately would not serve the 'greater good.'

Perhaps next time - the inevitable Robert Pickton trial for example, not that anyone else is yet implicated, though conspiracy theories abound - the courts should word any such agreement with a clause that clearly states the understanding which the agreement is entered into under and that if evidence should arise that makes the need for the witness in question un-necessary - or that clearly implicates the witness to a greater degree than initially understood, the deal is off. The witness is not expected to testify - and any evidence thus already gained is deemed inadmissable - and any promises flowing in the opposite direction are, at best, discretional.

But perhaps Karla Holmolka should be in favour of being monitored. I expect that with the grusomeness of the crimes, the notoriety of the case, and the publicity of her release (as well as an upcoming feature film) that she may well be in some real danger. Lord knows how long realistically, but I doubt that she will be able to live her life of freedom in peace, and there may well be a day when someone decides to take the law into their own hands... that is if the transition into real-life doesn't kill her itself.

Suck it up

If the tables were turned, the response would be "Too bad. That's just the way it works."

Danica.

And the complaints also ignore the fact that she has less mass for leverage, which has some effect on performance as well.

Has there ever been a complaint about a small man?

Get over it.

If it is a consistent issue and she wins all the time, then perhaps take a look at the sort of equalization they use with jockeys.

But until said advantage is clear, get over it and address the real issue - having to share the field with a woman. Oh, boo-hoo.

When is the movie going to get made?

.... Well, that was a nearly contextless rant.

Microsoft Woe

Well, heck.

I had my primary hard-drive fail me last week - really bad timing as I've got a delivery date for a video project on the first of June. Luckily none of my data was lost, but all my programs were! The process of recovery (several steps there, including self-driven attempts and finally getting someone else to look at it); buckling in and getting a new hard-drive; formatting and replacing the software has all taken close to a week - and I'm still not done.

It makes me crazy.

And 90% of my woes surround Windows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear the Apple advocates now saying that one word that they tend to pull out that they think means "You know better, but you're just too stubborn to do anythign about it." You know the word I mean. And it's usually delivered in a slightly condescening sing-song voice: "Ma-a-a-ac."

I'm not going to get indepth into the great Coke vs. Pepsi debate here. But I will admit that Mac's tendency to have less immediate crashing problems is appealing. But it totally ignores such things as the annoying non-modularity of it (which of course is a major reason it has less crash problems); the general counter-intuitiveness of the interface (an admittedly arguable point, but I have never found Apple products to be as easy as they we're proclaimed to be - and I was once a devoted user, my girl-friend still owns one and when I use it I want to tear it out of the wall, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance); and when a Mac does fail, it's inscruitable error messages are utterly infuriating... just to name a few beefs I have with Mac.

But I really want to air my beefs about Microsoft.

I discovered that the version of Windows that came on my hard-drive was apparently cracked. Am I surprised? No. Before XP, the work-arounds were pretty simple. But by now the updates to Service Packs 1 and 2 are really irritating (actually, in my lack of awareness of the specifics, I am not sure that it's even possible to do SP2 yet - I figure it must be, but it's taken me two days just to think I have SP1 worked out, and SP2 is still just this monster T-Rex tearing apart others of my fellow cave men on the horizon.)

Now, it is obvious that MS would like my money. And the money of anyone else who pirates their precious, next-to-mandatory operating system. I get that. But the extremes they are going to are getting pretty outrageous.
I believe that making sure that there are some extra hurdles for those who do want to take advantage of them is necessary - to stop the 'honest thief.' But to make the hurdles so close to totally exclusionary seems to me to be counter-productive. All it serves to do it make people less pleased with the products as a whole - and therefore less likely to bite the bullet and actually buy down the road. Also, preventing the community at large from being a more up-to-date, stronger, community is counter-productive. Strengthening the whole, strengthens the individual, and vice versa.

They make a ridiculous amount of money just on corporate (and other professional) installations. And it's relatively easy to keep the businesses in line - much easier to track them legally. Why not just make sure that they are all in line and be thankful for all the personal users who actually dish-out for the OS?

I am hoping that soon I will be in the category of 'business who is easier to keep in line' and then I'll be happy to pay for an honest install of Windows. I'd even do it now, just to save the grief and hassle I'm currently experiencing, but; 1) I just spent money I can barely afford on a new HD - which of course started this problem - a bit of unfortunate circular logic and; 2) This experience is souring me more to MS and actually making me want to say 'fuck-you' to them even more - also a bit of circular logic, snowballing in this case.

God, I wish I actually liked how Macs work.

Political Triage over Political Harikari

Well, Damn.

STV was voted down.

I suspect that a public that was more aware of the issue would have voted in favour. Oh well.

But it was close - more than close, really.

Way more than 60% of the ridings voted in favour by a simple majority - requirement #1 met.
Over 57% of the total voting public voted in favour. Less than 3% shy of the 60% required.

Clearly a sizable majority of the province wants change. In fact it seems pretty clear that STV is acceptable to most or all - 60% majorities are intended to protect minorities, which in this particular referendum is an illogical concern as the STV system is designed to benefit minority opinion.

The government could push STV through without much flak as it stands. The voice of the province is pretty clear. But it's dubious that they would as it doesn't serve their power position much if at all. But ignoring it would be political suicide so they have to do SOMETHING.

Curious to see what and how.

The simplest answer would be to push it through - the process has been started, the mechanics of the system are worked out and the people are in favour by a demonstrable margin.

But probably deciding upon some sort of watered down electoral reform that the parties come up with that doesn't undermine their position as badly will be the answer - - and what kind of reform is that?

Another referendum, or another Citizens Assembly is probably too much effort and cost, and too scary to let go the control of their fate yet again.

Should we just start blaming Steve Moore now?

Well, Canada lost at the IIHF Worlds of Hockey.

A Silver will have to do. And the Czechs need to be given acknowledgement as a damned good team. (Actually all four of the last teams were the four teams that should have gone into the final four. Sweden, Russia, Czech and Canada. The US was merely a close 'also ran' to those four.

But what would have happened if Canada had had Todd Bertuzzi? Would Bertie have been good for that extra punch in the final game? My money is on 'yes' - partly as a Bertuzzi true-believer, and partly out of a need to blame someone.

So who exactly do we blame for the loss then? Well, Canada really seemed to lose the game in the third - both the first two periods were solid (despite the first goal fairly early on), but the third was full of mistakes and a lack of discipline. The team is culpable there, for certain.

But if Steve Moore wasn't such a knob from the start - read: his hit on Naslund and it's fall-out that I've already weighed in on at length - then Bertuzzi could have been playing today. Canada could have won.

Really.

And yet another cheap excuse for a post...

The following is my response to the message I posted in my last post: "More on STV."

Apologies for not reformatting either into a more readable structure - busy day.

Thanks for your considered response... I was beginning to think that I may never hear anything back! (I hope I've finally got this posting as something other than 'guest' - I'd like to have SOME sort of identity.) Over the past few days I've been making a point of discussing this with virtually everyone I cross paths with. Still the balance of opinion seems to be woefully under aware of the issues - even some of the more educated and erudite folk I know have little real understanding of the processes involved. I've had to explain numerous times how the system works - at varying levels of detail depending on the interest and political capacity of the people involved. (More on that in a moment.) But generally - and this could be a function of the segment of society I typically associate with - it seems as though the weight of opinion is in favour of reform... actually I can't recall anyone declaring that they were intending to vote 'no.' As I have talked about it more and explained all I can on both sides of the issue, the more and more convinced I have become that I too will be voting 'yes.' In fact, I would pretty much call it a certainty at this point. My main concern remains that people are under educated on the issue - not that there is much to be done either way with merely six days and counting to go. My gut tells me that disenfranchised voters who don't understand the new system are more likely to vote 'yes' as their knee-jerk, thinking that it's a strike against the Liberals (which it may or may not be, depending on how you expect the system to work in the end.) Pass or fail, I take issue with blind voting. Drives me nuts. To this end I've made a point of trying to properly represent both sides of the argument when discussing the issues with people. (I would suggest that it is this effort that has actually swayed me solidly in favour.) A further concern I have is how spoiled ballots will be counted. With a double majority needed to pass the referendum, spoiled ballots could seriously favour the 'no' side. I spoke with an Elections B.C official just last night in quiring about the counting process and so forth. He could not tell me (read: 'he did not know', not the more sinister 'he wouldn't tell me') whether the 60% of the total or the 50% in any specific riding was of total ballots or of valid ballots. If spoiled ballots are counted to towards the total, a spoiled ballot is then as good as a 'no' vote! Potentially good news for the 'no' side. I can see a situation where voters are handed their referendum ballot (which aparently they have the option to outright decline) and respond with a "What!?! There's a referendum and it's been so poorly publicized that this is the first I've heard about it!? Well then, I'm expressing my outrage by spoiling this ballot." Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and the scenario laid out should be of no concern to the detractors as it works entirely in favour of the 'no' side of the debate. One more thing that I would like to respond directly to - hopefully in aid of getting more clarification:
Quote:
Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself. This level of reform strikes me as a once in a generation opportunity. Any other reformative measures (Recall, for example) are more along the lines of tweaks to the existing structure. (Indeed, Recall itself needed to be tweaked.) It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect that any electoral process we agree to is going to be a sweep. There is simply no way we will get it all right the first time around. (Of course getting it 'ALL right' will never be possible, simply due to varying opinions, but for the sake of argument let's assume that 'acceptable to the majority is synonymous with 'all right.') So it seems to me, that with no other forward-moving option on the table, we should embrace what has been presented with the knowledge that we have a legislated chance to adapt it (or give it the heave-ho) after an opportunity to road test it. I don't really think three elections is a long-time. Sure, it is at least 15% of most of our lives, but I think that it will take at least that long for the process and it's fall-out to become apparent. For better or for worse, we cannot fairly assess the system without reasonable time and practice. Yes, if we say 'no' to STV now, we will have a chance in the future for another crack at PR. I truly believe that we are much further than 12 years away from it if this is the choice we make. There is no evidence of this of course, except for how long it has taken us to get to this point in the first place. Lastly, and 'just for the record'... I can see how I may have come across as believeing that the CA was a waste of tax payer's money. Actually, I believe that it is a fantastic excercise in democracy. I was merely stating that I would understand the cornerstones of that argument fairly easily. Once again, thanks for the reasoned response. As previously mentioned, I expect I am going to be putting my 'X' in favour of BC-STV, but your aid in helping me find clarity (such as it is) is greatly appreciated, and I hope that I can use the further information you have provided to accurately present the 'No' side of the equation in my continued quest to educate those whom I cross paths with over the next week. Perhaps I'll even give a few of them enough reason to vote 'no.' Which would be my ultimate personal victory. I'd rather have someone voting 'no' from an informed position than 'yes' because they thought the acronym 'BC-STV' was 'neat' (or any other poor excuse for a decision.) Not part of the argument at hand, but an amusing anecdote to close on... Friday, my Voter Registration that I mailed... god knows how long ago... (I moved to a new riding in the past year.) was returned to me by Canada Post, despite it being "Business Reply Mail, Postage Paid of Mailed in Canada" and Elections BC's address being clearly labelled on the front - by Elections BC itself. No explanation. If I were an inherently more suspicious person... 8-o

More on STV...

I finally got a response! Hooray!!!


Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.


Next... my response in return.

When it all seems shit...

Sometimes you just have to remind yourself just how good it is for you.

Yesterday I left work and could not get over how grumpy I was. I was well past the point where the grumpiness becomes self-perpetuating. I was mad because I was mad.

I had a run in with a co-worker. Not a big one, but one that really reflected back upon myself.

He's really just a pup, and holy shit is he loud, and inconsiderate. Much like I was at his age. We often play music around the office. But usually when there are just 2-3 of us and rarely do we crank it up very loud. When there are 5 or more, it's almost always head-phones time. When it is played out loud, we take turns, so there is a good variety.

But, the Pup just doesn't 'get' it.

To make matters worse... Yesterday was Kentucky Derby Day, which meant that the work load for the person doing my specific job was heavier and (no pun intended) higher-stakes than ANY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR. On top of all that, due to some software glitches that appeared last week, my job could only be done by one person - rather than shared, as it usually is on high-volume days. The result was that I have never been under more pressure at my job than yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Pup was playing his music CONSTANTLY with the volume at 11, all day. I have no idea why no one else said anything, and certainly I should have said somethign long before I did, because it didn't come out very nicely.

It would have been less of an issue if his music taste was broader. Generally when he plays his music it is the eccelctic, yet bizarre mix of: Chris Issac - Wicked Game; AC/DC - Thunderstruck (a song that they wrote long after they jumped the shark, in my opinion); Billy Idol - White Wedding (there's a reason I can only hear that song once every now and then and still be able to enjoy it at all , but it's a long story); Public Enemy - Night Train; and the real crime of it all, any number of songs that he wrote himself (it's not that they're specifically bad, they're just typically derivative self-aggrandizing gangsta rap, and I've long since got past the point of being able to find amusement in a kid from Coquitlam talking about how he "laid a man down with [his] A.K.") But honest to god, that's it! His own weak efforts plus four songs. It makes me mental.

So, I was pretty down on myself when I got home. I was mad that I was mad and mad that I felt like I've been mad for longer than I can figure - which I'm pretty certain simply means that I have to quit drinking coffee, which won't be the end of the world - certainly not after the first week.

When I got home Eden wanted me to go out to see a play that her Ex-husband wrote. He was going to be there. Fucking great. We've never met.

But I've been wanting to get the 'meeting Vern' thing over for nine months now. I just didn't want to have to do it when a) I'm feeling like Godzilla and b) Looking like a Trailer Park Boy (for an upcoming role) - a fact that is only exacerbated by the fact that any clothes I would identify as 'good' are in the laundry.

I went anyhow - I didn't really see that I had much of a choice. The first of the two of the three plays were weak. Not outright bad, but I was simply not in the mood to put up with mediocrity.

Then came the third play - Vern's. He showed up just before it started. That was a good warm up. We got introduced, shared some pleasantries and the lights went down.

Luckily his show was the best of the three by a long shot.

We went out after wards and we joined by the Co-Artistic Director of the theatre company. It was good to chat with Vern and share some theatrical stories. It was also really good to talk with Johnna (The A.D.) - nice to find out that the A.D of a Professional Theatre Company also has a 'real' job to make sure that there is a regular income and that there's a benefits plan in place. I totally understand that. She also had some really nice things to say about a piece that I wrote and submitted to her company over a year ago. Yay.

So, here I am back at work - and back to a day with normal volume (both of music and of work). And I'm thinking that actually life is pretty good. Yeah I'd rather be doing just my art - but seeing as I'm not/can't I'm glad I have a job where I can do a lot of my art simultaneously... most days. Derby Day excluded.

I look out the window and see the crack-head shuffling down to Victory Square and Pigeon Park and I know life could be a hell of a lot worse.

I'm still going to have to have a polite and rational conversation with the Pup about how he plays his music and that no-one should have trouble hearing their headphones over it, and also let him know that I think Public Enemy is one of the most under-rated bands of the past twenty years... just so that he doesn't think I hate his taste, and maybe to encourage him to be a bit more creative and rise above the poseur level he's currently at.

BC-STV better than your average STD.

The following is a re-posting of a message I left on a BC-STV discussion board. It covers most of my thoughts thus far.

Hi,
New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate...
I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote.
I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself.
I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system.
I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system.
So... on to other concerns...
Playing devil's advocate here.
All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire.
If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit.
Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances?
If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system.
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic.
Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings.
I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!'
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a problem that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own.
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim.
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections.
Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.

Oh Rats!

Lot's I want to talk about today. But It all came to my attention fairly late - too late for me to really get going on before I have to leave the office.

Number one: While I am an advocate of free speech, ANN COULTER is really beyond the pale. I don't think murder is a commendable political tool, but if she were to suddenly DROP DEAD. I would not consider it a bad thing. I honestly think that she is dangerous to the human race.

Her comments on global warming are fucking insane. If global warming is nothing but a possibly specious theory, which side of that theory do you think it's best for us to come own on? Possibly the one that DOESN'T leave the planet in ruin?

And leaving the UN and kicking it off of US Soil? Holy Christ. Yes. I think that it ought to be hosted by another country - one with it's head screwed on straight. But leave the UN? Let's see, why would you do that? So you can wreak havoc willy-nilly without having to answer to any other nation with no regard for any sort of national conscience?

Fucking cow.

I love how she is referred to as a "controversialist" on a regular basis by Matt Drudge (Second example). A 'controversialist' - as in her opinions (such as they are) are intentionally pitched in a manner as to stir the pot. It devalues their worth as a valid train of thought.

I think if you have an opinion, you should at least be expected to adhere to some semblence of fact - especially if you are going to hold those you criticize to the same standard.

I also have more to say about the BC-STV - and the detractors and what they are saying and what I have to say - both for and against that.

Perhaps tomorrow.

Un-precedented Political Progress in British Columbia? Too good to be true?

I can't imagine that this isn't a slam-dunk in the democratic process, but then again, I could not have concieved of a nation stupid enough to re-elect George W. Bush. Luckily I am not talking about the same nation.

The referendum that will be accompanying the B.C. election has all the markings of a no-brainer to me. So much so that I am actually a bit wary of it. All the literature I've found is SO persuasively written that it raises my suspicions. So, I've delved deeper - hunting out every fact which seems obfuscated... and all the information is easily accessible... and it all seems above the board... and rational and wise. Everything seems to say EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY! Yes, there is something almost too good to be true here.

It seems bizarre to me that the B.C. Liberal government, who has benefitted from the electoral system that is in place would push such an inclusive democratic process that could only serve to undermine their status and power. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Senator Palpatine is waiting in the wings, letting us walk willfully into a trap that seems like an ideal political situation. WHAT AM I MISSING? Why isn't there a big movement to demonize the STV electoral system by the corporate entities that by all measures I can imagine only be hurt by the electoral reforms?

Well, until I can find evidence that contradicts the apparent circumstances, I stand as an advocate. We are only committed to it (if the referendum passes) for three elections (Yes, potentially 12 damaging years of our history - but NOT forever.)

The one element that I am most in favour of is the manner by which the new system was developed. The Citizens' Assembly. How progressive is that!? I've tried to find a hole in that process as well, and it too seems to be as above the board as can be. I hope that it is a big enough success that we as a Province will adopt it on other issues. Perhaps even convince other Provinces of it's value - even get it implemented Federally on select issues.

Further posts to come as my understanding develops and/or if more information arises.