I Was Right.

I would just like to brag a little that the (fucking pointless) Canadian election went exactly as I predicted. Conservatives win a large minority, Liberals down a bunch, NDP up. Greens still non-existent. I'm still bothered by this election though, for several reasons. First, seeing as there were no issues (except that the Conservatives started like 10-15 points up in the polls) was it really worth spending over 200 million dollars (the cost of the 1997 & 2000 elections) to maintain the status quo? We are still dealing with a minority government (though, if the last time is any indication, it will be able to act as a majority). Second, why are us Canadians so apathetic that we gave such a strong minority to one of the least transparent and accountable governments in the last 40 years? Third, why was it never made an issue that the Conservatives violated their own election law (for fixed elections, next one due in 2009) to call this election?
Oh well, like I said, it was a nothing changes election.
In important news, there's a new "Hockey Night in Canada" theme song. Also Apple brought out new MacBooks and they look awesome. Already my 2 month old white one is looking a little inadequate.

Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Not much else to say, I'm just enjoying a long weekend back home in Toronto.

P.S. All you Canadians better remember to vote on Tuesday. Even though new MacBooks are coming out.

A Tale of Two Debates

After careful reflection, I've decided that the Canadian leader's debate was a much more informative debate than the American V.P. debate. The Canadian debate allowed its viewers to get a much better view of the candidates than the American one. Instead of the rigid, timed presentation of topics of the American debate, the Canadian debate had a more fluid, free rolling structure. Let's be honest, for most of the American debate, only the person speaking really had to be there. There was very little opportunity to refute, rebut, or just plain argue. It allowed both debaters to stick to scripted responses and a small set of talking points. The Canadian debate forced the participants to think on their feet and react immediately to what was being said. The participants had the opportunity to challenge statements made as they were being said, not wait patiently for the moderator to let them talk. This meant that they also had to defend their positions, not merely state them.

Just for anyone who doesn't know how the formats were different, the American debate had Biden and Palin standing at podiums, pretty much ignoring each other while they threw out prepared talking points, only occasionally taking one another to task, and always having to wait for the moderator to let them speak. In the Canadian debate, all the major party leaders were sitting around a round table, and the moderator was really only there to make sure everyone got a turn, and to intervene if it got too heated (though at one point near the end he was yelling too). The debate was guided by a series of 8 questions, and as long as everyone got the chance to state their position on a question, the conversation/argument was allowed to flow naturally. Of course it led to yelling, finger pointing, leaning across the table and such, but it let viewers get a good feeling of the ability of each participant, as well as a good measure of how articulate they are. Also, if any one of the leaders had any sort of weakness in their knowledge of a topic, it was quickly, and brutally exposed and exploited. A wonderful contrast to the American debate where Palin managed to "hold her own" despite appearing very poorly knowledgeable about pretty much everything.

Debatable

So, I watched part of both the Canadian and the American debates last night. I have to say, the Canadian one was way more entertaining, they had kind of a round table, so everyone was facing each other, and the format allowed them to get into spirited arguments. The American vice presidential debate, on the other hand, was so dull as to be almost painful to watch at times.

Coming out of the Canadian debate, here is what I think of the leaders:

Elizabeth May: more competent than I expected, but sort of waffling between supporting and opposing the Liberals.

Jack Layton: Spirited and interesting to watch, but he's moved his party to far to the centre to really distinguish them from the Liberals on anything except knee-jerk issues. And the Liberals get elected sometimes.

Gilles Duceppe: Again, spirited, but he is struggling to keep his party relevant. And not quite managing to.

Stéphane Dion: Smarter and better organized than he gets credit for, but his thick accent, and mild speech impediment hindered his performance. He was very energetic though.

Stephen Harper: Still not convinced that he's not a robot. When someone criticized how he handled various situations, he looked like he was counting the ways he could kill them with whatever was in arms reach. Not including his built-in weapons systems.

All the leaders (except Harper, who was born without emotions) did appear to be very spirited and intense. Overall, I was impressed.

I'm still not really interested in this election, however. Nothing has really changed in the political climate since the last election. This is not an "issues" election, or even a "culture war" election. This is an apathy election. Harper threw a hissy fit, called an election, and the public doesn't care. The Conservatives are going to win a minority, picking up a little ground in Quebec and Ontario. The Liberals will lose a little ground, NDP will gain, Bloc will lose, Greens will win one seat. Tops. I think the election after this one will be much more interesting.

As for the American debate, my quick opinion is this:

Biden: Jesus, this guy was sharp, he answered all the questions, he hammered his opponent, and he stayed on message without getting flustered.

Palin: Did far better than I expected, but mostly because the format of the debate allowed her to get away with not actually answering anything. She was fluid, funny, and energetic, but she rarely actually answered a question. She would change topics (back to energy), even if the new topic had nothing to do with the old one.

I noticed this morning some people were calling the debate a win for Palin, because she managed to hold her own. That is bullshit. I'll give credit where credit is due, Biden did a great job, and Palin managed not to get steamrolled. Is my opinion of Palin better? No. In all honesty, it seemed like she had a few static talking points, and key words that she managed to stick to, even if they didn't really relate to the question. She frequently made points that were easily countered or disproven by Biden. The only time she said something that he couldn't respond to is when she got the last word on a question. She dodged issues, discounted Bush's policies, only to promote them later, made mistakes. She got flustered, sometimes her sentences just did not make sense. It was not a strong debate showing, but somehow the Republicans and the media have managed to convince people that it is ok to have expectations so low that her performance was better than expected. Sometimes when she spoke it sounded more like she was running for a high school student council than for vice FUCKING president. Doggoneit. It also bothers me how anyone who criticizes her is going to get hammered for being too "hard" on her. If honest criticism is being to hard on someone, they are not prepared to be vice president. If asking policy related questions is too hard on someone, they are not prepared to be vice president. Let's face it, Sarah Palin has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency. However it is true,  she does get more adorable when she's cornered in a question.