A few days ago, while checking Facebook messages, I noticed that Rick Mercer had made his “what are you doing right now” status “Rick wants a none of the above option”. While funny, I didn’t crack a smile, more of a smirk given that Rick’s assertion is right on the money as far as I am concerned.

I am routinely asked by people, especially young people, how I view federal elections in which there doesn’t seem to be what one would call a ‘stand out candidate’. My answer is always the same – one has to look to choosing the candidate that will best serve their riding.

In the end, who represents the best interests of your riding is what is important, not that you used your vote in an attempt to thwart a Conservative majority, or any other majority for that matter. During the last federal election it can be safely said that many Canadians voted for the Liberals in an attempt to ensure that the Tories wouldn’t seize the PM’s office. It worked to an extent, leaving the Tories with having to form a minority government, but such tactics certainly didn’t produce the results that many were hoping for.

That said; how many ridings fell into the hands of representatives that have since focused more on party politics rather than their fundamental charges – ridings themselves?

In just over 20 days Canadians will be going to the polls. In that time they will do one of two things – focus on who is the lesser of five evils or who they feel will best represent their riding. While on a nation level I’m with Rick, on a local level I’m more concerned with who is going to best represent the needs of the people of Vancouver East. While not a solution to the problems facing Canadians on a national level, it does represent the root of transforming federal politics by electing representatives whose priorities are in the right place.

So the Presidential conventions are at an end. Now we just have to painfully sit through two months of media speculation and, of course, the debates, before we’re treated to a result.

I don’t rightly know what my reaction will be if John McCain wins the White House, thought it will certainly include a considerable loss of respect for those that chose to maintain what I believe to be an immensely dangerous political status quo. That’s not to say that I believe Barack Obama to be a saviour, but if he wins it will at least signal to the world that the majority of Americans haven’t completely lost their minds.

Canadians will also be going to the polls this fall, though I have little stomach for it. The state of Canadian politics is so thin that it’s hard to place faith in any of this nation’s leaders. Not unlike the state of affairs south of the border, we find ourselves in a vacuum in which the lesser of evils is largely perceived to be the best of options. As far as I’m concerned, such an outlook betrays the principles that we as a nation believe in. Surely, somewhere out there, there must be an individual worth their words, one that is more than just the construct of crafted language. It is difficult to believe in the system when all it produces is straw men, those that endeavor to placate the public when an election is called and then conveniently forget everything that slipped out between the forced smiles on their faces when the results are in.

Democracy is an antiquated ideology. It has been corrupted almost since its inception by the plutocratic, rendering it nothing more than a mechanism that ensures public docility through the belief that the people ultimately control their own destiny. That mechanism has gifted an elite segment of democratic populations the ability to continue to use the concept of democracy itself as a shield against their corruption of its ideals, all the while guarded against true public discontent because of the widespread misconception that the people are the true arbiters of power.

Were the people to throw off the yoke of what has become nothing more than ideological propaganda, the result would be the demise of the system that we now endure. As to what would occur after that I cannot say, but such an occurrence is something that scares the living hell out of those that depend on this current state of mass manipulation, and so ensuring its survival is something that is of the utmost importance.

Ultimately, though able to order pizzas at 3am and get the Playboy channel beamed into our homes, we are not truly free. We are cattle that exist to maintain economies, to support that which we are taught to support, and are derided for questioning that which we have been told not to question. Democracy is, in truth, the greatest scam every unleashed in history simply because, on the surface, it provides luxuriant distractions that convolute the perceptions of those that dwell within its comfortable bosom. It provides in its current context the most elaborately designed groundwork for the usurpation of liberty simply because it espouses the assurance of it. I am sure, even in his wildest dreams, that that is not something that even Joseph Goebbels could have thought possible.

I’ve decided to make this an open thread because it’s really interesting to see who people think will comprise the Republican and Democratic tickets in this year’s US Presidential election. Rather than my speculations - or, more the point, my desire to see an extremely historic occurrence (Obama/Clinton) - let your speculations fly!

(We should start a pool).

If you spend some time doing some investigating today you’ll quickly discover that the unrest overtaking Kenya has a very dark side to it, one that is steeped in ethnic tensions that the country’s recent election results have pushed to the forefront.

What took place in Eldoret, in Western Kenya, where 80 children were burned alive in a church along with an estimated 20 adults was, in truth, an act of ethnic cleansing undertaken by members of the Kalenjin tribe, most of them youths. After setting the church on fire, having already killed numerous local males, they waited outside of it as it burned, hacking to pieces many of those that attempted to climb out of the blazing building through windows.

Asked by journalists about the incident, those involved has no qualms about their participation, as The Guardian today revealed…

“At Ngeria Junction, hundreds of angry youths and men, all Kalenjin, gathered. They said they felt cheated by the election, awarded in dubious circumstances to President Mwai Kibaki over opposition leader Raila Odinga. They wanted revenge, and it was Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group, who were going to suffer.

Asked if they knew about the church massacre, all the youths nodded. “We were there,” said one man, who said his name was Patrick. “We got a message that the Kikuyus were arming near the church. So we went to give reinforcements to the Kalenjins there.”

Another man carried on: “The men and women had babies and small children, but they carried pangas to defend themselves. Is someone with a panga innocent? It is not our custom to kill women and children. We told them to come out of the church, but they locked the door and refused to come out. So we burned them.”

A third youth spoke. “They were not worshipping in the church. They were hiding. That makes it a cave not a church. Let Kibaki send a plane for the Kikuyus. They can go … or they will be killed.”

There is speculation abounding that this situation could develop into a genocidal state, which both sides are accusing each other of promoting. Kenyan opposition leader, Raila Odinga, is holding firm to his position that the recent election was rigged; while Mwai Kibaki’s position is that it was obviously lawful. In response, members of Parliament that belong to Mr. Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement have thus far refused to meet with the government to discuss the growing state of violence and political reconciliation.

Some not so shocking news from the London Times this morning…

“On the day she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto was due to meet two senior American politicians to show them a confidential report alleging that Pakistan’s intelligence service was using US money to rig parliamentary elections, officials in her party said yesterday.

The report was compiled by the former Prime Minister’s own contacts within the security services and alleged that the Inter-Services Intelligence agency was running the election operation from a safe house in the capital, Islamabad, they said. The operation’s aim was to undermine Ms Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and to ensure victory for the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) party, which supports President Musharraf, in the elections scheduled for January 8.

Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic congressman for Rhode Island, and Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the Senate sub-committe on foreign operations, have confirmed that they were planning to have dinner with Ms Bhutto on Thursday evening but were not available for comment yesterday.

Sarfraz Ali Lashari, a senior PPP official who works in its election monitoring cell, told The Times that he had helped to compile a 200-page report on the Government’s efforts to rig the poll, which Ms Bhutto planned to give to the Americans and to the press the day she was killed.”

This comes as absolutely no surprise. The question now is, if the PPP has the report in its possession, will it still release it, or is it now only valuable in the context of laying blame at the ISI and Musharraf’s door? If the report is accurate, and legitimate, then it should be released, but the objective of it should not, nor should it ever have been, to gift to foreign interests that were backing Ms. Bhutto. The people of Pakistan should be the report’s foremost recipients, being that its contents would have far greater implications on their lives than on those of foreign statesmen.

With such information coming to light, each layer of the onion that was the game that Ms. Bhutto was playing with regards to foreign interventionism becomes more apparent. And while the allegations that the report professes are extremely serious, the fact that Ms. Bhutto was relying on foreign interests with regards to the actions of the country’s military establishment should be seen for what it was – not a defense of true Pakistani democracy, but self centered efforts to placate such interests to secure power. And in saying that, it should not be overlooked that those who aid in the ascension of a political figure gain political capital themselves that they can later cash in to further their own objectives.

Again, that reality speaks to the betrayal of the people of Pakistan and those that risked their lives in supporting Ms. Bhutto.

There is absolutely no arguing the fact that the ISI has extreme political influence and functions as a ghost government in many ways, just as there is no denying the fact that theirs is a game that is also steeped in complexities, deceits, and self preservation. But this situation ultimately places the people of Pakistan, rather ironically, on the outside looking in. Between a government that is little more than a representation of the military establishment and a supposed democratic saviour that was, in many ways, a foreign proxy, the people of Pakistan are left courting falsehoods, insecurities, and fear – not the real possibility of true democratic salvation.

Ever wondered how to go about trying to rig an election in a country where it’s supposed to be impossible? Well, Allen Raymond’s new book, How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative might be worth a look if you have some downtime over the holidays…

“A former GOP political operative who ran an illegal election-day scheme to jam the phone lines of New Hampshire Democrats during the state’s tight 2002 U.S. Senate election said in a new book and an interview that he believes the scandal reaches higher into the Republican Party.

Allen Raymond of Bethesda, Md., whose book Simon & Schuster will publish next month, also accused the Republican Party of trying to hang all the blame for a scandal on him as part of an “old-school cover-up.”

Raymond’s book, “How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative,” offers a raw, inside glimpse of the phone scandal as it unraveled and of a ruthless world in which political operatives seek to win at all costs.
McClatchy obtained an advance copy of the book.

The 2002 New Hampshire Senate race, in which GOP Rep. John Sununu edged Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen by 19,000 votes, was among several targeted by Republicans seeking to win control of the U.S. Senate.

Raymond said those who’ve tried to make him the fall guy for the New Hampshire scheme failed to recognize that e-mails, phone records and other evidence documented the complicity of a top state GOP official and the Republican National Committee’s northeast regional director.

Both men were later convicted of charges related to the phone harassment, along with Raymond and an Idaho phone bank operator. Defense lawyers have since won a retrial for James Tobin, the former regional director for both the RNC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

A lawyer for Tobin didn’t respond to phone messages.

GOP committees have paid Washington law firms more than $6 million to defend Tobin and to fight a Democratic civil suit against the party. Raymond, himself a former RNC official, said in the book and an interview that he believes that the scandal reaches higher.”

Electioneering – it’s not just for friendly Banana Republics anymore.

Today the people of Australia are to be commended – they ousted John Howard, ending over a decade of conservative controlled government, replacing it with a Labour majority.

Australia’s new Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd, and with him comes Peter Garrett (the former front man of Midnight Oil), who will most likely end up the new Minister For The Environment.

A twenty-four percent Presidential approval rating. I have no idea how the man can show his face in public, let alone, as Keith Olbermann and company point out, spew such utter contradictions.

Here at home, one wonders what the Liberal Party is going to do about those points in the Throne Speech with which their official policies disagree? The Liberals have held the position for some time that Canada’s role in combat missions in Afghanistan end in 2009. Of course, during the Throne Speech, Mr. Harper’s government suggested, rather ambiguously, that our involvement be extended to 2011. That said, how can the Liberals, in good conscience, not vote against the speech? While I agree that another federal election will seem a pain in the ass to many Canadians, the fact remains that the Liberal policy regarding our involvement in Afghanistan has been to see combat operations end in 2009. No matter the ineffectuality of their current leadership, to alter their position now because they find themselves politically weak would, in my opinion, do far more damage to their credibility, and that is certainly something that the Conservatives would exploit in the future. One can only hope that if the Liberals do hold to their convictions, then Mr. Dion will be summarily replaced and a new Liberal leader will emerge. As to whether that will alter anything with regards to a federal election, it’s unlikely. But the point remains, if convictions are to be so easily abandoned for the sake of future political promise, then the Liberal party will have done themselves irreparable damage nonetheless.

Last night, various major news agencies ran headlines that were shocking. They declared that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was attempting to alter the constitution of his country so that he could remain in power indefinitely. There was, at the time, no mention of the fact that the actual alteration being proposed would only allow Chavez to run for re-election without term limitations. Most of them had simply jumped the gun before bothering to read the details, having since amended their reports. This morning, there is barely a mention if it anywhere to be found on the front pages of major news websites.

After reading those initial reports, I wrote an entry yesterday that lambasted the move, exclaiming that there is no excuse for tolerating the diminishment of the people’s power in any nation, be it socialistically based or not. To my discredit, having read those initial reports, I reacted before waiting to read, in detail, what was being proposed.

When it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is, quite obviously, going to be heated debate. Some believe that he is a dictator in waiting, looking only to usurp Venezuelan democracy. Others argue that he is trying to ensure that external influencing does not lead to upheaval in Venezuela and that the landslide majority that he gained in the last federal election, which was overseen by international observers, speaks volumes about the democratic support that he enjoys from the populace. Then there is the matter of the closing of RCTV, a television station that was complicit in the coup that attempted to oust Chavez from power. Human Rights Watch called the closing of the station a blatant attack on freedom of speech and the press, while others pointed to the fact that were RCTV to exist in any Western democracy that it would have been shut down long before RCTV’s license expired given that it had acted in conjunction with those known to be supported by foreign interest groups seeking the deposition of Chavez.

The underlying reality here is that we are talking about a man, and a country, that has to deal with factors that most do not. When Canadians go to the polls they don’t have to wonder whether a certain party is being bankrolled by foreign interests whose goal is to secure a government friendly to their economic interests. In fact, were it discovered that a major Canadian political party were being covertly financed by, for example, the National Endowment For Democracy, the wrath of the Canadian media and people would be incendiary. It must also not be forgotten that if such a thing occurred, that party would be banned from the process and thoroughly investigated.

Like other Latin American statesmen in the past, there is no doubt that Chavez has become paranoid to some degree given the external forces arrayed against him. While it is vitally important that political opposition parties are allowed to freely exist and partake in the political process, there can be no excuse for accepting covert support from the likes of the United States to help them in their bid to oust another party from power. Because that is also entirely undemocratic and wholly abusive of the Venezuelan people’s trust and belief in the process itself.

But that is the reality of Venezuela, and there are precedents stretching back to the early 50’s that support the growing paranoia that is displayed by men like Chavez.

Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia – these are but a few examples of countries that have endured external foreign influencing. Some of them fought against it, others were led by individuals backed, and often put in power, by foreign powers, and others simply endured high crimes committed by groups covertly funded and armed by the likes of the CIA. Like it or not, that is the reality of 20th Century Latin American history.

When I think of the funding of Venezuelan opposition groups by organizations like the NED, the first word that comes to mind is ‘bananas’. The reason? Because if a democratically elected leader, in this case Jacobo Árbenz, can be removed from power and replaced by an American puppet and strongman (Carlos Armas) to protect the interests of a US fruit company (now Chiquita Brands International), then there is only one world that is applicable – and that’s ‘bananas’. (Investigate Operation PBSUCCESS for more information of the subject).

It is easy enough for us to paint the actions of Latin American leaders as suspect because we have never been in their shoes, nor had to deal with the ramifications of other nations seriously interfering with our political processes to such a degree that they would go so far as to train murderers to intimidate and kill innocents to preserve or strengthen their influence.

As for Chavez, Venezuelan oil, the belief that he wants to emulate Castro, the nationalization of various Venezuelan industries, changes to the constitution, the championing of the Bolivarian movement, and a whole host of other matters – ask yourself one simple question. Do you believe that it will lead to his government arming death squads to quell political opposition? Do you believe that Venezuela is on the brink of disaster, and that Chavez is a tyrant in disguise waiting only to paint the streets of Caracas red with the blood of his political adversaries? If that is the case, and you do believe that that is a possibility, place into context what took place in El Salvador at the hands of those backed and trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Put into context the assassination of Monseñor Romero and others that dared to speak out against those that worked to secure the interests of a foreign power while selling their own people out.

Hugo Chavez’s government’s human rights record makes that of Saudi Arabia look demonic by comparison. In fact, the same goes for Castro’s Cuba. And yet nary is a word said about what transpires in Saudi Arabia. The United States is on the brink of gifting the Saudis, and several others in the region, some $20 billion dollars in military aid, and yet their human rights record is abysmal. In Venezuela, women can vote, hell, they can even drive cars. The same cannot be said of Saudi Arabia, where no one can vote. Venezuela does not represent a military threat to the United States, while the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis, not to mention that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

In the last Venezuelan federal election, Chavez received 62.84% of the vote. His closest rival, Manuel Rosales, received 36.9%. In all, 75% of eligible voters participated in the election, which, by comparison, puts us to shame with regards to our own participation in the last federal election. And yet our outlook on what transpires in Venezuela is always suspect.

I’ll not sit here and say that Hugo Chavez is by any means perfect, or that democracy in his country needs to be safeguarded and transparent to ensure his legitimacy and the legitimacy of Venezuelan democracy itself. But that said, I will also not condemn the man out of hand given what he’s been made to deal with as it pertains to not only campaigning against political opposition that is bankrolled by a foreign power, but the very real breach of national security that such a reality represents.

As far as I am aware, and if you have information to the contrary please do feel free to provide it in the comments, no one in Venezuela is being dragged from their bed at night and ‘disappeared’. While there are real human rights concerns to consider, let us not forget to apply context to them with regards to our own actions, especially to do with the War On Terror. Unlike the United States, Venezuela does not run numerous facilities where individuals are held outside of the auspices of international law or tortured. They also are not guilty of rendering individuals to countries know for their use of torture and then lying about it. Unlike the United States, Venezuela is a signatory of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, which was ratified while Chavez was in office.

The truth is that what is currently transpiring in Venezuela with regards to constitutional amendments is a slippery slope. Then again, it must not be overlooked that we adhere to a political system in which there are no term limits and that any person, even if they have already held the office of Prime Minister, has the right to run for, and hold, that office again. Obviously, Venezuela’s political construct differs from ours, and as I said yesterday, it would do Chavez a world of good to perhaps look at the reformation of Venezuela’s political system to better enact the changes that he is seeking rather than doing it in such a way that raises suspicions.

There were a few interesting questions put to the Democratic candidates during the CNN - YouTube debates last night. Here are two of my favourites…