![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inaki(Pulled from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cargoweasel)
For AMERICANS:
Imagine if instead of the current deal, you voted for a Congressman only, and the leader of whatever party had the most seats in Congress became the President. So Ken Mehlman would be President if the Republicans had a majority in Congress and Howard Dean would be President if the Democrats did. And instead of two parties there were four: One moderate-right like Lincoln Chafee style Republicans, one center-left like Clinton Democrats, one fairly left like Kucinich Democrats but with all the union support, and one party that was the Texas Independence Party, a party whose goal was to gain independent advantages for Texas by threatening to secede if they didn't get their way. And to top it off imagine that Spanish was the dominant language of Texas and all governmental functions were in Spanish and English as a matter of course and through the years there had been many concessions paid to the Texas Independence people, and there was even nearly a civil war back in the 60s when Texan terrorists were blowing up mailboxes and kidnapping people, but they're quieter now. Since the President is just the leader of whatever party he is in, he doesn't campaign that hardcore, and can call an election whenever he wants (usually about once every five years) and he isn't that charismatic, being more of a top ranking bureaucrat than a major personality that people must vote directly for. And also, imagine the population of the blue states was much much higher than the red ones, so that the Chafee-type Republicans were almost always the minority party, but they did have a strong base in the West and South, and occasionally got their guys in and even hold slim majorities from time to time. Because there's four parties and not two, parties do not have a major dominance and must work together to get just about anything done, and that includes keeping the Texan Independence Party happy. Stuff gets worked out but it can take awhile. But people are a lot more relaxed about it and aren't as inclined to paint their opponents as vicious baby-murdering Communists or vicious theocratic fascists. Imagine American politics being like that and that's pretty much Canadian politics.
For CANADIANS:
Imagine if Alberta had five times its current population and in order to get anyone elected you had to land a lot of Alberta's seats. And instead of the NDP and the Liberals there was one party that was more like the Chretien liberals, with a vocal faction of NDP-style folks that nobody really listened to much. And the Canadian Alliance never had to merge with the PCs because they were always the big-C Conservatives, and Steven Harper was considered moderately conservative, because Alberta and the West has so much population and political leverage that they can push forward basically anyone they want, and they tend to favor the harder core dudes. And, the Maritimes is still economically depressed, but they consistently vote Conservative because of cultural and social issues (and still manage to get their government handouts as a reward). And Quebec's big push for independence was 150 years ago, so they're not all that sore about it but they still hold fast to a strong cultural identity, which used to vote Liberal but now is pretty consistently Conservative too. So it leaves basically Ontario and BC as Liberal/NDP strongholds, and it's not quite enough to form the majority (although it's close, and it does happen from time to time). And also imagine you voted for a prime minister in addition to your MP, and they could be of different parties so that the personality and leadership qualities of the prime minister became key electoral decisions. Also imagine that everyone took their political party affiliation and the statements and behaviour of their politicans very seriously, identifying with their chosen side to a degree where they might actually hate someone who voted differently or held different views. Also imagine that the Toronto Sun had a 24 hour cable news channel all to itself to put up whatever they wanted. That would pretty much be American politics.
cargoweasel)For AMERICANS:
Imagine if instead of the current deal, you voted for a Congressman only, and the leader of whatever party had the most seats in Congress became the President. So Ken Mehlman would be President if the Republicans had a majority in Congress and Howard Dean would be President if the Democrats did. And instead of two parties there were four: One moderate-right like Lincoln Chafee style Republicans, one center-left like Clinton Democrats, one fairly left like Kucinich Democrats but with all the union support, and one party that was the Texas Independence Party, a party whose goal was to gain independent advantages for Texas by threatening to secede if they didn't get their way. And to top it off imagine that Spanish was the dominant language of Texas and all governmental functions were in Spanish and English as a matter of course and through the years there had been many concessions paid to the Texas Independence people, and there was even nearly a civil war back in the 60s when Texan terrorists were blowing up mailboxes and kidnapping people, but they're quieter now. Since the President is just the leader of whatever party he is in, he doesn't campaign that hardcore, and can call an election whenever he wants (usually about once every five years) and he isn't that charismatic, being more of a top ranking bureaucrat than a major personality that people must vote directly for. And also, imagine the population of the blue states was much much higher than the red ones, so that the Chafee-type Republicans were almost always the minority party, but they did have a strong base in the West and South, and occasionally got their guys in and even hold slim majorities from time to time. Because there's four parties and not two, parties do not have a major dominance and must work together to get just about anything done, and that includes keeping the Texan Independence Party happy. Stuff gets worked out but it can take awhile. But people are a lot more relaxed about it and aren't as inclined to paint their opponents as vicious baby-murdering Communists or vicious theocratic fascists. Imagine American politics being like that and that's pretty much Canadian politics.
For CANADIANS:
Imagine if Alberta had five times its current population and in order to get anyone elected you had to land a lot of Alberta's seats. And instead of the NDP and the Liberals there was one party that was more like the Chretien liberals, with a vocal faction of NDP-style folks that nobody really listened to much. And the Canadian Alliance never had to merge with the PCs because they were always the big-C Conservatives, and Steven Harper was considered moderately conservative, because Alberta and the West has so much population and political leverage that they can push forward basically anyone they want, and they tend to favor the harder core dudes. And, the Maritimes is still economically depressed, but they consistently vote Conservative because of cultural and social issues (and still manage to get their government handouts as a reward). And Quebec's big push for independence was 150 years ago, so they're not all that sore about it but they still hold fast to a strong cultural identity, which used to vote Liberal but now is pretty consistently Conservative too. So it leaves basically Ontario and BC as Liberal/NDP strongholds, and it's not quite enough to form the majority (although it's close, and it does happen from time to time). And also imagine you voted for a prime minister in addition to your MP, and they could be of different parties so that the personality and leadership qualities of the prime minister became key electoral decisions. Also imagine that everyone took their political party affiliation and the statements and behaviour of their politicans very seriously, identifying with their chosen side to a degree where they might actually hate someone who voted differently or held different views. Also imagine that the Toronto Sun had a 24 hour cable news channel all to itself to put up whatever they wanted. That would pretty much be American politics.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-19 12:59 am (UTC)(Amusing and interesting, thanks!)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-19 04:34 am (UTC)Every time I go to Toronto's gay village I find myself feeling vaguely ill being surrounded by people who are their fetishes and culture. Please god, kill me.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-19 04:09 pm (UTC)I've done a little looking into fads, fandoms, and cultures some. More often than not, its people who are either new, or do not get as much social interaction in their fandom that tend to "Be" their fetish. Once people can learn to explore where they want to go, they tend to develop themselves more.
But really, It doesn't steal from my pocket nor do me injury for people to wear ears and tails, or leather, or latex, or do whatever all the time. Its their damn choice... anyone who attributes the most wild aspects of anything I might be involved in to me is a short sighted bozo. And I really could care less. If the gay village makes you ill, don't go. Who says you have to go there in the first place?
no subject
Date: 2005-08-19 04:48 pm (UTC)The thing is, I find it utterly astounding how many people I encounter who are literally nothing more than their fetish or culture or orientation. Gay people whose gayness is applied to everything they say, do or talk about. "Oh we went down to the gay village and had lunch." "I was looking at a billboard and it made me think of the gay rights struggle." "I prefer to shop only at gay-run businesses." "My job was hard today and I was thinking about gay artist whatshisname who sang about.." "I was reading books and came across one by gay author blah blah". Everything they do, say and are envelopes their sexuality in such a way that it has become an, if not the integral part of their whole life.
When you're immersed in gay culture, it becomes all to quick for "gay-neutral" to equate to "anti-gay" because activists cannot comprehend why it is that not everyone who doesn't care or is ok with something is an activist for it.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-19 07:00 pm (UTC)The activisim happens in any group, gay rights, rainforest, anti-corperate, anti-israel, anti-islamic, etc. Moderates piss them off because they're not extreme like they are. They work to devote all the energy they have into their movement, anything that puts the smallest ammount of money or stock into the thing they hate is seen as hurting them. Its the fierce devotion to their cause that can sometimes alienate moderates or people wanting to help out, but who don't want to live in mud huts, never buy a Heinz product, or eat never eat meat.
Its seen in the groups who attack anyone who portray gay people as anything else besides evil cold murdering sinners because they're "portraying homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle".
But really, when people are becoming their hobbies for themselves, its fine, they don't hurt anyone, and rarely ever hastle others. When they start to judge others about the hobby, thats when I feel its a problem.
I see people like cat (the fellow with all the surgery) and think, "hmm.. thats how he wants to be." I certianly don't feel the need to alter myself to be like any persona I play, but I just shrug it off and associate with the people I like to be around because they're interesting.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 08:48 am (UTC)Agreed on "people who are their fetishes", though.