Required reading, courtesy of PSA over at Canadian Cynic.

He's right, of course, but I think the broader issue is that, when the wheels come off the bus, at least the brakes will have been hastily applied beforehand. There might be a loss of momentum that's just enough to save one or two little old ladies sitting at the back.

Then again, part of me agrees that nothing short of a complete and total meltdown will force something mighty to happen in the US in terms of the confrontation of the brutal reality that 0.1% of their citizens own the country and all its people; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that Teh Revolutionz will be any less bloody regardless, if it happens at all. Most of me thinks that things will just get really bad for a very, very long time. The Dark Ages lasted a thousand years, and it takes a lot of oppression and poverty before people actually start to take an active hand in shaping their own fates, particularly when - as we see in South America - governments have had such a long time to get it right, it being "expertly controlling the populace."

But one way or another, as one of the passengers on that bus, Canada is in for a rough ride. But bringing it back to the point of PSA's post, yes, looking within our own borders is even more important now, because this is when they're going to try even harder to slip things by us.

So, in case you didn't hear, there was an election yesterday. Most people didn't hear - or didn't care.

The Conservatives garnered a tiny increase in the popular vote compared to 2006. They couldn't mobilize many more Canadians who wanted Stephen Harper as their Prime Minister or Cons as their MPs; they've hit the wall, and the country (those who bothered to vote) demonstrated once again that they don't think a conservative majority is a good idea. We are basically centrist, and we don't trust Stephen Harper. The Cons did successfully mobilize in ridings where they were close, and managed to dredge up another 20 seats, but that was entirely due to money and not to ideas. The Liberals were entirely responsible for most people staying home yesterday, resulting in the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Those voters are all ex-Liberals who can't bring themselves to vote Liberal but don't want to vote any other way.

The NDP did alright, better than before but they failed to pick up those self-disenfranchised voters who should have been their bread and butter.

This was an unnecessary election. Harper thought he could beat the financial crisis and get a slim majority he could use to pass his more controversial legislation; he was wrong. We'll see another "dysfunctional" Parliament - ie: Harper not getting what he wants and having to compromise - but with a three-party coalition needed to block instead of two. Not a good result for the Left, but it could be worse.

That's it. If this "stepped down after revelations of tasteless comments" thing goes on any longer it will get downright trendy. If every candidate was forced to resign for being a moron, we wouldn't have many candidates left.

This great new ad that's floating around with Stephen Harper talking about being a father really cracks me up. Wait, he loves his kids? WOW. I know it's surprising, but as Sting so wisely pointed out, even Russians love their children too.

So, to mark the lamest most panderingest ad so far in Election '08, I call for a campaign slogan contest!

Here are my entries:

1. Stephen Harper: doesn't hate his kids after all!
2. Stephen Harper: We know he's human, because even he has children!
3. Stephen Harper: his sperm are motile!
4. Stephen Harper: Somehow finds time to talk to his kids, unlike the rest of you lazy slobs.
5. Stephen Harper: more than just a firm handshake - also, music lessons.
6. Stephen Harper: The Daddy that Canada needs. Because we've been sneaking out with that unsavory Dion fellow and it has to stop, young lady.
7. Stephen Harper: Reproductively successful.
8. Stephen Harper: He may break promises to the country, but he is an adequate parent!

Er, ok, I'm all out.

McCain gropes the butt of Vice Presidential Nominee What's Her Name and, by extension, gropes the butts of every woman in America.

Also? The next time you hear an attack Obama's experience and readiness to lead, do note that this senatorgovernor has done, er, well, very little. But she has tits, and that must count for something.

This kind of pandering really chaps my hide. I'll be sending out a letter to The Sisterhood's Central DNA-Crosslinked mailing list expressing my disappointment in the female sex being forced, by our natures, to vote Republican én masse now, so that one of us can become sort of like First Lady except that she gets to take the blame for everything the First Man does wrong. Huzzah!

Hey, I don't know if I'm the first to point this out, but given what happened in Toronto on Sunday what with the fireballs and the failures of multiple safety and backup systems, aren't we all feeling safer about Harper's ordering the restarting of the Chalk River Reactor against the advice of the Nuclear Safety Commission in January, and subsequent firing of Linda Keen, the person who dared implement the recommendations of people slightly more qualified than the Prime Minister in the area of high-energy particle physics?

I know I am.

This just gives me chills:

... Deregulation brought us miseries in finance, transport, energy and the climate. Free trade agreements dole out favors to big farmers and big pharma. The financial crisis finished off what was left of monetarism, the idea that the Fed should only worry about inflation. And everyone has given up on waiting for low taxes to unleash the creativity of the ultra rich.

Under Bush, oil and gas, drug companies and defense contractors, insurers and usurers control the government of the United States and it does what they want. This is the predator state. The wisdom of free markets? The President gave his own verdict in Houston the other day: "Wall Street got drunk." True enough, but where were the grownups when the party went wild? - James Galbraith

And in case anybody was going to ask me (I know you weren't, but I'll tell you anyway), I am of the strong opinion that Canada should boycott the Beijing Olympics. We should refuse to take part in this exercise in totalitarian maneuvering and vast suppression of human rights.

Obviously, I do not buy the IOC's claims that holding the Olympics in China will wrench the Chinese government into the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries. I do not buy their explanation that the games will bring much-needed economic stimulus, nor that the IOC will have some kind of bargaining power to assure an increase in human rights* in Beijing proper for the duration of the games (which will miraculously outlast the games themselves.) They obviously do not, to judge from the ongoing cencorship of the web, to take a recent example. The IOC seems to have forgotten that they now need China as much as China needs them - what are they going to do, cancel the games if China is naughty? Unlikely.

* For non-Chinese citizens, that is. Chinese citizens can go fly a kite. Or not, if they haven't received permission from the government to do so, of course.