“Iron My Shirt”

So a “protester” at a Clinton rally in New Hampshire decides to make a scorching political statement on Clinton’s qualifications as a candidate for President.

So what does he focus on: Her ill fated prior attempts at nationalizing health care in the 90s? Her perceived polarizing personality? Her Washington “insider” status?

Nah, he busts out with a sign demanding that someone “Iron My Shirt”, which he repeats vocally. The man is quickly removed, and Clinton states, “As I think has just been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.” Good rejoinder, stupid protester.

I’m surprised, however, that we haven’t seen more of this yet in the nomination process. I can only imagine that these things will get even more idiotic if either Clinton or Obama are nominated.

Of course, it could just be that the guy really just needed a shirt ironed and was seeking a large venue to convey this message…

Way to go all out on sign design.

(Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Oh, and as an aside, all the rage in comments on this are that this was plant. Was it or not? I could care less. However, some think there is more to the story. It appears that this may be neither a plant nor a true protester, but a couple of radio station hosts. Even more despicable than sexism!

2008 Presidential campaign issues too tough for you?

If you’re like most Americans you prefer your news in short 30 second sounds-bites.  You know, like Fox News: “War in Iraq a-okay, immigrants bad, biased liberal media at it again.”

If this is your style then you might be feeling overwhelmed by all of these so-called “issues” you hear about regarding candidates for the 2008 presidential election.  Do any of us really have the time to read a whole newspaper full of words and stuff anymore?

Fear not, Ben Co. to the rescue.  The Washington Post has been kind enough to provide a sophisticated “issue coverage tracker”which ranks issues related to a particular candidate in the same manner as tag clouds.

But even this might be confusing for the average voter.  To help, I’ve developed a users guide on how to best apply this to conversations in order to sound like you know what you’re talking about:

1. Choose a candidate - in this example we’ll choose Hillary Clinton.

2. Pick your issue and look at how big the letters are.  Memorize the issue and the size of the letters. Let’s pick health care, it’s big.

3.  Here’s the tricky part.  If you are in a conversation about Hillary Clinton you have to decide if you should be for health care or against health care.  Don’t worry if you don’t really know what the issue is about, that’s not required.

3a. If you are for health care you would say, “That Clinton, she’s all over the health care issue” while nodding your head vigorously.

3b.  If you are against health care you would say, “That Clinton, she’s all over the health care issue” while shaking your head vigorously.

4. If you forget these rules, don’t panic. Here’s your fallback.  If you blank, just remember the issue and the size of the letters, and say the name of the issue at a corresponding volume.  For example, if someone says, “What do you think of Hillary Clinton?” you would respond by yelling ”HEALTH CARE!”

There, you can now go to your next cocktail party armed with all the tools you need to masterfully debate the upcoming election.  You’re welcome! 

Politicians fear fallout from U.S. viewers denied TV

Let me set the scene for you:  It is Feburary 17, 2009.  Over 20 million U.S. residents gather around their television sets which are hooked up to antennas which are designed to receive free analog television broadcasts.

They turn them on, ready to bask in the warm glow of Fear Factor or Survivor 29: Wamsutter, Wyoming.  And they see nothing but static.  Panic ensues.  Rioting.  Nationwide protests.  The President is impeached and the U.S. descends into anarchy.

Yes, this is the future according to Senator Claire McCaskill (D - Missouri).  Apparently the U.S. will stop broadcasting analog signals in 2009 and only those with digital or satellite receivers will be able to watch television.  Senator McCaskill states that “There is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that cannot get television,” and with that sentence sums up everything that is wrong with the United States.

Now, imagine a headline along these lines: “Politicians fear fallout from U.S. citizens: angered over Darfur; angered over war in Iraq; angered over removal of freedoms in the name of ‘war on terror’; angered over failure to take steps to address climate change.”  But no, instead we have a Senator who is concerned that politicians will suffer a backlash from constituents who can’t watch Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader or Dancing With the Stars.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubts at all that Americans will be upset.  I would in fact be disappointed if U.S. citizens did not rally around this very important issue.  I mean, what is an unjust war, world genocide, or catastrophic climate change in comparison to this disaster!  Think of what this means:  for some people, those poor souls without a digital receiver, they might be forced to converse with their family, take a walk, or read a (gasp!) newspaper.  This, in turn, means that a whole segment of the population might become dimly aware that all is not rosy in the U.S., and might even question the political direction of the country.

 But who am I kidding…the current U.S. government would never allow the possibility of this revival of consciousness to occur.  Fear not, subsidies are on the way.  Yes, the government has earmarked a $1.5-billion dollar subsidy (yeah, billion, you saw that right) to provide up to 2 $40 vouchers per household to help defray the cost of getting a new converter box.

Why sink that $1.5-billion into something worthless like education, methods to combat poverty, or something as silly as sustainable resource development when you could continue to placate the masses.

Now I must run, my shows almost on…what was I upset about again?

Check out the full article after the split.

Royalty policy “not a compromise”?

So the Conservative’s long awaited response to the Royalty Review Panels reccomendations were finally released yesterday and I have to admit I am of two minds.

On one hand I expected Stelmach and the Conservatives to cave into oil companies demands to a muchgreater extent than it appears they have.  I think that, overall, this royalty policy is an improvement on the existing structure, and that Albertans will benefit from this over the coming years.  So, from that perspective, kudos to Ed.

On the other hand, I don’t think that Stelmach should run around too much spouting off that this policy does not represent a compromise on the Royalty Review Panels recommendations.  Here’s why:

First, some definitions of compromise -

• com·pro·mise  / [kom-pruh-mahyz]  noun, verb, -mised, -mis·ing.

  –noun

  1.	a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

  2.	the result of such a settlement.

  3.	something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.

  4.	an endangering, esp. of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one’s integrity.

Stelmach himself has stated that this policy addressed the needs for increased royalties while providing the adjustment period industry needs to soften the blow.  Also, the proposed policy pulls in $463 million less in royalty revenues than the panel called for.  Both of these things strike me as a compromise.

This isn’t to say that compromise is bad here, but don’t run around saying “The house isn’t burning” when, indeed, the house isburning.

Finally, I don’t hold out much hope of this policy seeing the light of day.  With implementation of the royalties being pushed back to 2009, there is lots of time for an election to take place.  Any election will most likely see this issue as front and centre, which gives plenty of opportunity for broken promises, backpedaling, and high-pressure lobbying and donations from industry.

Stelmach “State of the Province” and Royalty Review - UPDATE

So our good Premier, Steady Eddie (aka Mr. Dithers, Honest Ed) addressed the province last night.  Here are my thoughts.

1. For $125,000 of taxpayer money I would expect something a little more exciting than Ed’s wooden features and stock footage from Alberta Tourism.  The man has no facial expressions beyond “stupor”.  Even worse, that quarter of a million dollars essentially paid for a 19-minute pre-election campaign ad.

2. For an idea of just how poor a speaker Ed is, check out this text of his speech.  Nothing but two sentence soundbites.  He’s right up there with George W. and a mime in the oratory department.  Oh, and did anyone else notice that a new continent was discovered during his speech?  Sounded like “a-zia.”  I’m assuming it’s cloze to Asia.

3. I understand that the Conservatives view all Albertans as innocent naives who need simple soundbites and no new information in order to understand something.  But recycling the same “accomplishments”, spending announcements, and projects that you announced 3 and 6 months ago seems a little insulting.

4. I’m saying it now: Ed will waffle on the issue of royalties.  He will present a compromise on top of the original compromise presented by the Royalty Review Panel.  Oil companies will continue to make obnoxious profits, the cost of living will continue to rise, and Albertans will see even fewer reasons to stay in the province.

Live Blogging of 3:00 P.M. MT Press Conference (all quotes Stelmach’s unless noted otherwise)

• Well, right now there is a nice podium set up….and that’s about it.

• Ah, the man of the hour arrives.  Along with his communication director, who has a wonderful head of hair.

• “Once in a generation decision…that will affect our children and grandchildren.”

• “Confident we’ve got this right.”

• Approx. 1.4 billion dollars by 2010.  Claims a 20% increase of existing framework.

• Linking price increases to royalty increases for natural gas and oil.

• Rejected Panels recommendations on oil sands and instead will be using price/royalty matching framework.

• Claims that this will provide stability industry needs.

• Emphasizes need for in-province upgrading facilities.

• Believes future generations will see this set-up as “fair and reasonable” not “greedy and shortsighted”.

• Opened to media for questions.

• Deep gas incentives will not take the form of royalty holidays, but instead based on how deep drilling will go.

• Best interest of oil companies to “roll into” this framework.  Not ready to discuss these options.

• Cost structures based off of information provided by producers.

• No grandfathering of contracts.

• Feed started to get very choppy, no more info. for me.  Boo.

 I will take some time to digest and get back to what this all means.

Representative Poopy Pants (D-MI)

That’s right, apparently its far more important that our State Representatives in Michigan tackle the big issues, like the budget, health care, and crapping your pants in public.

HB 5046 enables those with Irritable Bowel Syndrome or Crohn’s disease (but not duodenitis) access to a bathroom at a retailer, when one is not available to the public.

So all of your card carrying IBS-ers, make sure you always have your prescription handy when shopping for your ChristMAS goodies, otherwise, the retailer doesn’t have to let you in.

There’s also a loophole to allow for those with either a) a bun in the oven or b) have present an ostomy device. So maybe some of you who are fat (but not pregnant) can lie your way into the exclusive club behind the sealed doors at Walgreen’s to drop some kids off at the pool. Or if you’re willing to carry around an ostomy bag. I’m willing to bet if anyone started waving around their ostomy bag before the passage of HB5046, any employee would quickly show you the way to the loo.

Of note, the sponsor of the bill Andy Meisner (D-Ferndale) came and spoke at my high school in 1999. I passed a note to a student and called him a nerd. Rep Meisner found the note, and apparently was upset. So Representative Meisner, I’m the asshat.

Vote, Edmonton!

Don’t forget to vote today, all you Edmontonians!

Here’s all the information you need.

Now you have no excuse except apathy.

Intolerance stirring in the Alps

So we are all familiar with Switzerland’s involvement (some proven, some alleged) with the Nazi regime during World War II. Now it appears the political and social winds in the Alps are again creating a climate of intolerance and racism.

The difference between World War II and now? It appears that the Swiss people are prepared to abandon their neutrality in favor of attacking immigrants with chainsaws.

While it appears Switzerland is mirroring an overall European shift towards xenophobia, this attack is a particularly chilling indicator of how far things have deterioriated for imigrants and visible minorities living in Switzerland, especially since there has been little notice taken on the international stage.

It will be interesting to see how the Swiss government responds, especially since passing a bill which authorizes police officers to use Tasers to force immigrants onto planes leaving Switzerland.