Independent/Alternative Candidates

So I've started volunteering with TV Cogeco in my explorations of the journalism field, and last night I helped cover the Muskoka-Parry Sound candidate debate. It was a lot more interesting than the Huntsville town council meeting I'd helped with in the past to say the least...

All six candidates were present, including a Marxist-Leninist candidate. (Yeah, I had no idea we had a local Marxist-Leninist represenetative here either), and an independent whose main focus is on health care issues. Personally I appreciate the need for discussions, and alternative view points when it comes to politics, so I was happy to see these candidates running and presenting their cases to the general public. But I did hear people questioning why anyone would waste their time and money running, without a hope of winning. Are these people actually crazy enough to believe that they have a chance of winning a seat? Probably not. In fact they're not as crazy as you might think. The sad part, however, is that these people who "have no chance of winning" could arguably make some of the best representatives.

It might sound crazy, when you think about what that person would be able to accomplish as one stand alone voice in the house of commons. But don't you think someone who is so passionate about the state of this country that they would invest their time and money into something they know they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, would be a passionate representative of the people they are supposed to represent? We're talking about someone who cares so deeply about politics, that they will put their "hard-earned money" where their mouths are, knowing full well that that money is leading only to public discourse. But they realize that discussion is needed, and so they make it their responsibility to bring that discussion to the fore. Now that, to me, shows that they truly care. Unfortunately, the specific issues they are channeling that passion into are perhaps not the types of things most people can get behind.

The Marxist-Leninists chose specifically to run a candidate in this area because of the high profile of our current representative. Check out this article to get a better understanding of their position, and why they're running in Parry Sound-Muskoka. Say what you will about Marxism, but as an ideology I've always found it to be attractive and sensible. Who wouldn't want to live in a state of equality, where all of our needs are met, instead of some people having gold letters on their private jets, while others are starving? Unfortunately, it (like all other ideologies) has never actually been achieved in practice. And the examples of Marxism gone wrong are all too rampant to be ignored. It seems the people of this world are not ready to handle the responsibilities associated with the Marxist ideology, and realistically the people of this country would not adjust well to such a dramatic switch at this point in time. But I do respect and appreciate the fact that they are there to challenge the current state of affairs, and remind people that things have not always been, and will not always be, the way they are now.

The truly independent candidate is a little more difficult to figure out. His issue is so specific, that it is downright confusing. His focus is on health care, but more distinctly, the toxic side effects of prescription drugs. In fact, if you check out his website here you will discover that he actually killed his own son, and it was determined to be a result of severe mental health problems, which were exacerbated by his prescription medication. (I'm pretty sure he failed to mention this at the debate however... unless I was in the washroom at the time). He is probably the most passionate candidate up there, but his case is so specific to his own life struggles that it is somewhat difficult to see why he is running in this position. Again, he knows, I'm sure, that he will not win this election. But he obviously feels so strongly about this one issue - likely as a result of his unimaginable guilt - that he has dedicated himself to bringing attention to it in the best way he could come up with. It's a difficult situation to wrap your head around in some ways. The pharmaceutical industry has such a stranglehold in this country, and most doctors don't care enough to even attempt to avoid doling out prescription drugs (in my experience - though luckily my own doctor is an exception to this). But to attempt to make an election about such a specific cause is perhaps not the best way to achieve change. Then again, it could be effective at getting people talking about the issue in greater detail... but not if the candidate himself avoids bringing it up at public forums like last night's debate! (I hope he didn't mention it while I was in the bathroom or I will be making myself look really stupid right now, but I really don't think he did). Plus, I think he would find the Green Party to be in line with the issue he is championing here, but perhaps he didn't feel that was good enough, or that it was getting the attention it needed. I do think the side effects of prescription drugs should be a serious concern in this country, and the world today. Whether or not he is going about his fight in the right way is a matter of opinion, but at least he is doing something. And that is what this country needs more of.

Too many people are content to just complain about life, accept it, and move on. We need the passionate, independent people to continue stepping up so that we don't become so complacent with the state of things that laws being broken by government in parliament that "the Canadian people don't care about" don't become laws being broken in the rest of the country, or world, that the Canadian people don't care about. Seriously, the apathy and acceptance in this country (which I blame partially on everyone having Seasonal Affective Disorder) can be downright scary, and consuming all at the same time. But that's another topic in itself.

Addendum: I left out the obvious point that perhaps electing someone who murdered someone else - whether he was acquitted or not - might not be a wise thing to do. I mean, what's to say he's completely stable now, or forever will be? But, I figured the argument for not electing a murderer was obvious enough on its own that it need not be mentioned.

Join the Protest...or Don't.

Something that has bothered me, ever since I was a teenager, was the state of protests in this country. I was VERY political in high school, and under the influence of some very socialist/anarchic music, so, like many others, the prospect of joining the ranks of those who inspired me through protest was exciting. Yet from my very first march, I started questioning what the hell we were all doing.

Aside from the fact that most big "political protests" in this country accomplish nothing, the argument of showing solidarity through "protest" is not a good one. Now, don't get me wrong; I think showing solidarity with different people from around the world is important. I just don't believe that the current state of protests in this country do a good job of accomplishing this.

Having just begun my second year of high school in September of 2001, my first protest (and many subsequent) was, of course, related to the war in Afghanistan. It was exciting, and it probably gave me my first sense of being a global citizen. Now, if I remember correctly this was one of those nation-wide organized protests which took place in communities all across the country.This was a great introduction to the protest movement for someone such as myself, because it showed country-wide solidarity, and drove home a message to the world that the people of Canada did not uniformly agree with what it's government was doing. Did it bring home the troops? No. But it was still somewhat effective at conveying a message. Having said that, this was the only time that I have felt any march I've participated in was worth the effort.

Having since participated in a few "protest" rallies and marches, I'm afraid I have lost faith in this country's protests. The sensationalized aspects of the Seattle protests of 1999 seem to influence a lot of people to come out, just because it's "cool" and makes people pay attention to you. But for what? During a provincial, high-school student led walk-out, I had the embarrassing displeasure of standing next to someone the principal decided to question. He wanted to know what it was we were all leaving class for. A fair question that, if answered appropriately would have garnered a lot of respect from him I'm sure. Unfortunately, the bumbling idiot he chose to ask rambled about nonsense. So I spoke up, and began discussing with him the issues that I, myself was concerned about - only to be interrupted and spoken over by the dumbass beside me, who I guess hadn't made herself out to be enough of an idiot just yet. If someone is that determined to make an ass of themselves I will let them, so I just stood there shaking my head. Later, moving to Toronto for University, and attending York, which is known to be a little more of a "leftist" school, I had the opportunity to participate in a great number of rallies and events. And with each one, I became more and more disheartened by the idiotic antics of those who only came out for the sake of satisfying their Freudian destructive instinct. Stirring the pot just because it looks cool and makes you feel important, takes away from any message those who are actually concerned are trying to send. Much like the protests in Seattle, if you give the media something sensational to focus on, like violence and their miss-interpretations of anarchy, they aren't going to spend time talking to the "boring", non-violent people with the real messages. Causing a violent scene just because your country gives you the freedom to do so, does nothing for your cause, and only confuses people. You just look like a crazy person who lacks the ability to reason.

Now, with the recent political uprisings in Egypt, Libya, etc. etc. we see the place for those violent acts of defiance. When people have to risk their lives to have their voices heard, violent protests are called for, and have my full respect. When you have to kill or be killed, and when you are so oppressed by your government that any rational approach to political dissent is met with violence, then your retaliatory violence is valid, and sends a clear message. When the day comes that people in this country are shot at and beaten solely for declaring their dissatisfaction with the government, I will get my ass down to Toronto or Ottawa and fight back. But while irrational sensationalists are running around ruining the chances of sending a clear message in this country, I will not participate in a political-based march. That being said, there are still protest lines and rallies that are important, make sense, and send clear messages in this country. Labour disputes, as an example, are important times and places for protest marches. The recent "Slut Walk" in Toronto sent a clear message too (although I'm sure it likely attracted some attention seeking "I protest because it's cool" types as well).

My point is, if you aren't angry, if you don't know why people are protesting, and if you can't articulate what it is you're trying to accomplish, do everyone a favour and avoid the rally. There may be strength in numbers, but if you're watering down a real message you're hurting more than you're helping. If you're just looking for attention, or to destroy something, try finding a more productive outlet. Hell, go to the Middle East and join forces with the people who are dying for their causes. Because when you start destroying small businesses here, and terrifying the members of the population who have no idea what's going on, or why you're so angry, you are not going to gain anything but enemies.

Don't try to pigeon-hole my statements here.

I stopped sharing my views on politics and other things a few years ago for a few different reasons. First and foremost, I was tired. I was tired of only being half-listened to, and half-heard, and having people focus on one minute thing I said instead of the message I was trying to convey. I was tired of taking on the world with views that can't be pigeon-holed, yet made people label me one thing or another, which I am not. And I was tired of having people think they were on the same page as me, only to find that I did not agree with everything they agreed with. I was tired of trying to have a serious conversation about issues with people who would only regurgitate something they'd read, and taken on as their own, without fully considering every aspect of it. So, after graduating from university, I stopped having conversations about these types of issues. If all I was going to get out of my fellow graduates was something they'd read in a book required by their courses, why would I want to hear it from them instead of reading the book myself?

Now, as I am considering pursuing journalism as a career path, I've been told multiple times to "start a blog". So when I started thinking about what it was I would blog about exactly, it didn't take long for me to come up with a concept. What better place to share my opinion, in full, without interruption? Here I can lay out my entire argument without going off topic. And if someone doesn't like what I have to say, it isn't being shoved in their face - they can just stop reading it. So, what follows will be my best attempt at articulating the different perspective I have on the issues I've taken the most time to consider.

Also, I like debates, so if you feel you have a valid argument to something I've said, I'd love to hear it. It's how we all learn, and grow.