(no subject)

[felis_ultharus]

"Stories are equipment for living."

This is my new favourite quote, gleaned from CBC today. I looked up the quotee, and discovered it was a literary theorist I'd never heard of named Kenneth Burke -- and by coincidence, today would've been 110th birthday if he were still alive.

Listening to CBC for a full day on a Saturday -- as I did today at work -- is an experience in the ridiculous and the sublime. CBC is still this country's best news source, but in between the news are very strange things.

Brent Bambury's sense of humour, for instance, falls into the ridiculous category -- it makes one reflect on the banality of evil.

Politics

Among the sublime, there was a brilliant argument by a senator as to the stupidity of fixed election dates in Canada. Not just is it a numbed emulation of the American system for no reason, he argued, but it also means that we've made it illegal to call and early election.

The senate once forced Mulrouney to shelve free trade unless he got a new mandate from the people in the form of an election -- they felt that he'd sprung a major change on the public by surprise, without consulting us. We can no longer do that -- a policy either has to be shelves until the fixed date, or allowed through, and the senate may be reluctant to stonewall something that long.

It also means that that Harper can pretend he's doing something about election reform, when he isn't tackling the real problem -- the lack of proportional representation, which helps the right-wing party win elections even when most Canadians vote to the centre or to the left.

Language

On a very different note, I learned of a new punctuation mark thanks to CBC today -- the interrobang. It's meant to replace the "?!" you get at the end of loud questions -- as in "What the fuck?!". Unfortunately, I can't get it to display on my browser, even with the code.

Looking it up, I discovered the irony mark -- a backwards question mark (؟) -- for ironic statements. No doubt it'll be of great use to Alanis Morrisette؟

Comments

[jenjoou.livejournal.com]

While the idea of new punctuation marks is neat, I worry. Most people have trouble using the ones we have already. -_-

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what the show was about -- misuse of punctuation in the internet age. I think it was slanted towards "it's not so bad."

They had the guy who started "punctuation week" in the US. He sang his "pronunciation rap" for the CBC show. I swear I could hear the laughter of schoolchildren -- that special laugh reserved for adults humiliating themselves with desperate, misguided attempts to be cool.

They also had a scholar of Arabic tell us that Arabic uses no punctuation, and writers in that language consciously make use of the deliberate ambiguity that creates.

Then they had a medieval scholar who described haphazard medieval punctuation -- and said she has her students try to read some Chaucer without punctuation and try to come up with alternate interpretations of the lines.

All in all, punctuation took a beating on that show.

[yumemisama.livejournal.com]

Completely random fact: In Spanish, which pairs punctuation at the beginning and end of interrogatives and declarations, the internet-equivalent of the interrobang is to mix-'n'-match. So they type--

¡Hay las naranjas en tus pantalones?

where in English one might use the interrobang to end--

There are oranges in your pants?!

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

Thank you! Now if I'm ever in the situation where I need that particular Spanish phrase, I'm all prepared :p

It's very Transitive Vampire.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Not just is it a numbed emulation of the American system

There are plenty of countries that have fixed-term elections. France, for example. Ontario passed a bill on it in 2004. The European Parliament has them to. Why are you singling out the United States? To appeal to Canadian anti-American bigotry?

for no reason,

Not so. The impetus behind it is to prevent the government of the day from manipulating elections by calling them when they're high in the polls, even when they currently still have a mandate. That's exactly what Chretien did for years.

There may be other problems that come with a fixed-date system; but I don't see how the current way of doing things is so infinitely superior.

it also means that we've made it illegal to call an early election.

As I understand it, there are still provisions for a new election if the government falls on a vote of confidence.

The senate once forced Mulrouney to shelve free trade unless he got a new mandate from the people in the form of an election

Did they? I wasn't aware that the Senate forced anything. They certainly didn't manage to stop the GST, which was at least as controversial. They also didn't force any elections when the Liberals broke all their major promises after 1993.

a policy either has to be shelves until the fixed date, or allowed through

There can still be a federal referendum, can't there?

the lack of proportional representation, which helps the right-wing party win elections

It goes both ways. The Liberal majority governments since 1993 (and before) all exercised dictatorial powers with only ~40% of the vote.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

"Not so. The impetus behind it is to prevent the government of the day from manipulating elections by calling them when they're high in the polls, even when they currently still have a mandate. That's exactly what Chretien did for years."

That's the stated impetus, but not the real one. Harper's a real player, who's not above complete hypocrisy in using the rules he claims to detest to his advantage.

If it were really an honest attempt at election reform, it wouldn't come from the man who put Michael Fortier in the Senate after years of criticizing the Senate.

Harper was also at the forefront of the unite-the-right movement, which aimed to manipulate a flaw in our system of democracy (the first past-the-post system of voting) to get his party into power.

It worked -- the Conservatives got the lowest share of the popular vote of any ruling party in Canadian history. About 61% of the country voted farther to the left.

"As I understand it, there are still provisions for a new election if the government falls on a vote of confidence."

True, but an election can never be called early. I'd have had no problem with limiting terms to four years -- it's guaranteeing that they have to extend it to that length of time, regardless of circumstance.

"Did they? I wasn't aware that the Senate forced anything. They certainly didn't manage to stop the GST, which was at least as controversial. They also didn't force any elections when the Liberals broke all their major promises after 1993."

I'm not a fan of the Senate -- I'd like to see it turned into a body for proportional representation. Not into another region-based body, since the House of Commons already does that.

That said, yes, when Mulroney attempted to ram economic integration with US into our policy without having warned us, the Senate refused and sent back the legislation, saying it couldn't approve it because Mulroney had no mandate from the people for such a drastic change, having never mentioned it during his election.

Mulroney dissolved parliament and ran almost exclusively on the Free Trade Agreement. He essentially used the election as a referendum, which the Senate had told him to do.

Mulroney won, but only because of our first-past-the-post system which is part of why I favour proportional representation). Back then, the Liberals were anti-Free Trade, and so were the NDP.

If it was a referendum, Mulroney lost. He got 43% of the vote, compared to the 51% combined of the Liberals the NDP. That contributed to the NDP's total defeat in 1993 -- people were afraid of vote-splitting, elected Chrétien, and kept him there for ages as a bulwark against the Reform/alliance party.

As for the GST, the Senate tried. They voted down the law.

Then Mulroney realized there was a constitutional loophole that allowed him to temporarily increase the number of senators by eight. That was enough to force it through.

You're right, though, that the Senate didn't rein in Chrétien. They ought to have, but I'd just as soon see them abolished replaced as part of a PR system.

"There can still be a federal referendum, can't there?"

A favourite philosopher of mine once called direct democracy "an appealing idea that has been unworkable for 2000 years."

The same philosopher pointed out that referendums reduce complex questions to simple a "yes" versus "no," when most people have a more complex and nuanced idea of what should happen. To this end, they elect public officials.

Also, I should note that a true referendum is not legal in Canada. It would be illegal under our constitutional monarchy to require the government to approve a bill if the people voted yes. It's considered to illegally abrogate the power of the queen.

Technically, what we have here are "plebiscites" -- very expensive suggestions that the government is free to ignore as it chooses. It cannot ignore the results of an election, however.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

If it were really an honest attempt at election reform, it wouldn't come from the man who put Michael Fortier in the Senate after years of criticizing the Senate.

He also accepted whassisname crossing the floor immediately after the election.

But those two instances of hypocrisy (or giving the Liberals a taste of their own medicine) don't automatically mean that any reform proposed by the Conservatives is necessarily insincere.

Harper was also at the forefront of the unite-the-right movement, which aimed to manipulate a flaw in our system of democracy (the first past-the-post system of voting) to get his party into power.

Oh, come now. There's nothing inherently sinister, or evil, or manipulative, or underhanded about tryng to get all parties right of center under one umbrella. Under our current system, it was in fact politically necessary (or so the party leaders said).

Didn't somebody in the NDP suggest a similar 'unite-the-left' drive not so long ago?

Not into another region-based body, since the House of Commons already does that.

Actually, it doesn't. Under some of Mulroney's last legislation (which I would argue very strongly is illegal), the number of seats in Parliament is limited, and Quebec automatically gets a quarter of them even if the proportion of Quebec's population relative to the whole country goes down. So Quebec always gets 75.

Under the Constitution PEI also has a guaranteed four, regardless of its population. And all provinces are guaranteed to have no fewer than the number of seats they held at the time of the patriation.

So the House of Commons is not currently representative of the population: some provinces count more than others.

And of course, there's the whole idea of a triple-E Senate. In a large country like ours, it isn't democracy when 4 million votes in Toronto dictate what happens in BC or Alberta.

The same philosopher pointed out that referendums reduce complex questions to simple a "yes" versus "no,"

Isn't that what it comes down to in Parliament? Yea or nay?

when most people have a more complex and nuanced idea of what should happen. To this end, they elect public officials.

Actually, I think most people are blissfully ignorant of governmental concerns. They don't have a 'complex and nuanced' view; they barely know what's going on unless they go out of their way to find out. And few do.

I also don't think you can claim that public officials are elected to resolve just one issue, unless you want to have an election every time a new issue comes up.

Also, I should note that a true referendum is not legal in Canada.

? Of course it's legal. I think what you mean to say is that it isn't legally binding. I'm not sure even that's true any longer; several provinces now require a referendum before approving or vetoing changes to the Constitution, for example.

Anyway, the political cost of ignoring a referendum result on an important question is something that shouldn't be brushed aside casually by any politician who wants power. As they all do.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Whoops! I just saw something on cbc.ca indicating that there are more seats in Parliament than I thought. Does this mean they withdrew Mulroney's law while I wasn't looking? Or was I just wrong about the number of seats?

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

"It goes both ways. The Liberal majority governments since 1993 (and before) all exercised dictatorial powers with only ~40% of the vote."

True, and I support political change to remedy that -- but when you map on to the political spectrum, a centrist party ruling with only 40% of the popular vote is a very different thing than a right-wing party ruling with only 40% of the vote.

After all, the first represents a compromise between two extremes, while the second represents one side of the political spectrum dominating the majority.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Happy belated Birthday...

a centrist party ruling with only 40% of the popular vote is a very different thing than a right-wing party ruling with only 40% of the vote.

After all, the first represents a compromise between two extremes, while the second represents one side of the political spectrum dominating the majority.

I'm sure that's what the Liberals would have us believe; but that's a completely biased view.

I totally reject the idea that a 40% government of a self-styledly 'centrist' party like the Liberal Party is any sort of 'compromise', or in any way more legitimate than a 40% NDP or Conservative government.