XML Feeds
It's official- YouTube commenters are responsible for the downfall of modern society. The stupid. It burns.
______
*edit: I can't embed video with b2evo, apparently. Or something. Well, that takes the fun right out of the post.
I know I'm hopping on the bandwagon late, but it's been a busy week with exams, end-of-the-season hockey (along with some tense nail-biting moments for my beloved habitants) and such. Anyway, now I feel like a schmuck (moreso!) for my previous postings on the womov/YLC amendment. It seems when you try to straddle the fence, you end up getting a picket wedged firmly between the buttocks.
First, I should have made it abundantly clear that I'm not attending the biennial in Vancouver, so what I say here as next to no value whatsoever on influencing peoples' decisions. I just like to see my name pop up more frequently when I google myself.
So, my original thoughts were essentially opposed to the amendment, and to the belief that should the amendment not pass, that Young Liberals should not pass the entire deal. That drew quite a bit of flak, both in the comments here and in emails, not to mention the blogosphere going bat-shit insane over the whole deal. But that's cool, because we need to have these discussions.
Now, it appears that the rules of order for the constitutional amendments have been modified, so that, at convention, the womov amendment will be voted on first, followed by the sub-amendments. This, of course, flies in the face of all logic, established procedure, and reason.
From what I can see, it's forcing the YLCs hand in all of this- do we support OMOV, knowing that the sub-amendment may not pass? Or do we vote against OMOV as a protest against the ludicrous procedure for voting on amendments?
This time, I just don't know. Good thing is, I don't have to know- I'm not at the convention. I only have a few friends going to the convention, all of which with stronger convictions on this subject than I. My sole firm resolution, then, is to oppose the rules of order here. You can't vote on an amendment when you don't know what the final damned product is going to be. That's why committee/report stage comes before Third Reading in the House, and that's why it's organized such in every single reputable rules of order system in existence. I don't know what the national executive had in mind when they enacted this change, but it just smacks of interference and heavy-handedness.
Not that I don't mind a bit of controversy, but if you were looking for a sure-fire way to piss off 30% of the convention, mission accomplished.
I'm relatively new to the whole partisan shtick. I joined the NLYL in Winter '08, and while I have been following politics for a long time, I never joined the NS Liberals back home, either. There are some down sides to this, primarily my lack of contacts within the party (I make up for it by wearing a killer hat.) The flip side, of course, is that there are times I am thankful to be free from the infighting, the drama, and the endless bickering that dominates the internal party politics.
I've been trying to keep track of the WOMOV blogging that's been taking place in the last couple of days, and aside from giving me a distraction from finals, it's given me an interesting insight into the party.
There are good arguments on both sides, and there are a number of duds (and complete pricks) as well. Being a Young Liberal, I obviously have a bit of a bias here, because I want to see the YLC strong and well represented, but I'm not convinced the 25% quota is the way to go.
Before I have Young Liberals jumping down my throat, here's my thoughts.
Do we need a quota to maintain a strong organization, with our traditional emphasis on pushing progressive policy (alliteration, whoo)? Why do we need a quota to make sure Young Liberals are heard? Dammit, why can't we just continue to be loud, ebullient, and vociferous? An artificial quota makes it seem like we need the help in pushing the senior party, and that isn't the case at all. Then again, perhaps I'm a tad naïve from having spent the majority of my life outside of party politics.
If we begin instituting quotas, where does it end? I've read some impassioned arguments against this slippery slope business, but I'm not convinced. Why not 50% female? Or a quota for Aboriginal Liberals? Why do the YLC need special protection?
Most importantly, why would we derail WOMOV if the amendment doesn't pass? I'm a bit disappointed to learn this has descended into a bit of a face-off between Sam Lavoie and John Lennard- I've not met either of these fine chaps, but I've heard good things about both. To me, OMOV is the most important step towards revitalizing the party right now, and to essentially hold the party hostage by saying if the amendment fails, so does OMOV, that sends the wrong message. Grow the membership, fund the Campus Clubs, and do all that wonderful stuff- before we get to the point of instituting quotas to artificially inflate our influence.
On the other hand, I've read a few comments along the lines of: "oh, those Young Liberals, they need to grow up and be mature! To be blunt, stick it out your ass. This isn't about maturity, about "those damned whining Young Liberals," and to castigate members of your own party for fighting what they believe in is asinine and counterproductive to the goals of the entire bloody convention. That's like chucking a gas can on the bonfire, telling a Young Liberal to grow up. It's stupid, and we should be better than that.
I'm hoping this gets a few comments, because I'd love to hear more about it all. Like I said, I'm new to the game, and I want to go into this with as few predilection and biases as possible. We're all on the same damn team here, folks, and the more we fight, the less united we are, the less of a chance we have at taking back Canada. This isn't the time to create artificial divisions between us, and it isn't the time to belittle the contributions of one group or another.
If the amendment passes, I think we risk some disenchantment from the senior party, and that's not going to help when we try to get policy passed. I also think, many arguments to the contrary, that we do indeed risk treading down the slippery slope. WOMOV needs to pass, regardless of whether or not we get our 25% cut, and that's what we should be focusing on. I understand the desire for the amendment, I understand the arguments behind it, and I'm not convinced- but we can't stand in the way of WOMOV.
Let's get this out of the way before the anger sets in again.
In the recent NL provincial government, the government eliminated the interest on provincial student loans. Credit where credit is due, this is a good policy, one that will help a lot of students in the province deal with their debt.
People have been lauding the government for initiative, and our student unions for successfully lobbying. This is where I take offence.
The Danny Williams government is not a friend to students, at least not when it comes to tiny matters like the ability of a university to choose its President. But that's okay, because we students have strong allies in the CFS-NL branch, and the MUN Student Union, right?
Nope, that's a crock too. Where was the CFS or MUNSU when Danny's minion, Joan Burke, was making a mockery of the presidential selection process, and running roughshod over the Board of Regents? Keeping mum- one can't bite the hand that feeds. Or how about the campaign to eliminate the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal federal record of supporting PSE across the country?
Again, I'm not so blinded by cynicism to see when good things happen. Instead of braying endlessly about the inane "free tuition" fantasy, the CFS-NL and MUNSU focused on a more reasonable goal, one with a much more tangible benefit. Wonderful. Hell, I'll even credit Danny's government for doing the right thing- mind you, they did it when there was no public outcry over increased deficit spending, and we're basically going into the red to pay for this measure, but that's okay. Just don't tell me it's because the CFS-NL, MUNSU, and Danny are allies of the students. All history points to the opposite.
Yes, they did the right thing- this time.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.
Stories like this just flat-out puzzle me. Given that my father served for years as a wildlife conservation enforcement officer (a number of those years unarmed, I believe,) I can certainly see how this situation is far too volatile for the officers to get involved in. A group of people + high powered hunting rifles = scary situation. I get that.
What I don't understand is how it's allowable. You have people charging government helicopters, threatening to take it down by interfering with the rotor blades, endangering the safety of the officers. I don't care how "volatile" the situation is, there's no justification for that behaviour, especially when the Quebec Innu are poaching a protected herd of caribou. Reducing the herd by 40% is not sustainable by any measure. If the conservation officers are endangered by the actions of the hunters, it's time to call in the RCMP, not wait around to press charges.
Again, perhaps I'm biased here because of family connections, but it's not like the officers are preventing the Innu from hunting at all- they're protecting an endangered herd of less than 100. Minister Dunderdale is doing one thing intelligently- the conservation officers are almost certainly under-manned and under-equipped to deal with the threat- but now is the time to call in the big boys. We wouldn't tolerate it if the Hells Angels charged at an RCMP chopper; why do we allow our conservation enforcement officers to have their lives similarly threatened?
I've been involved in politics since I was, oh, 6 years old. I don't mean that in the "I went to party engagements" sense, but my first decidedly political memory is waiting at the top of the stairs in October of '95, watching the referendum results come in. Mom and Dad were caught me- I was long past my bedtime- and I asked "who won?" My dad replied glibly "the Canadians, 3-2." I retreated to my bed like a good little boy.
That was it for me- I remember intensely the debate surrounding Jacques Parizeau's idiocy that night, the pictures of the massive pro-Canada rally, everything. I had become hooked. It helped that I was a huge Chrétien fan, of course.
I don't mean to imply that I was a well-versed political commentator at age 7; indeed, my grasp on politics was limited to the rudimentary items I could scour from listening to the radio every morning before school. But on it continued, through elementary school and into high school. Being from a rural town, there weren't a lot (read: none) options to get involved politically, so I stuck to watching and reading the news, and tuning into CPAC whenever the mood struck. In grade 12, I helped run Student Vote for our high school- part of that experience was going from class to class to inform people of the different candidates and policies of the major parties. I tried to remain as non-partisan as possible, but perhaps there's no small wonder it ended up being a three-horse race between the NDP, the Greens, and the Liberals.
The 2006 election was a terrible one all around. Occurring in January, I would be ever-so-close to being eligible to vote, but not quite old enough. What's a few months, anyway? Add to that the spectacular collapse of the Liberal government and, well, I was distraught to say the least (were it not for Scott Feschuk's Blackberry Blog, I may have perished.) Regardless, I remember being completely cheesed off that here I was, a politically engaged, socially active student, not yet of voting age but with more political interest than that of my collective extended family, and I could not vote. Sure, I could campaign if I really wanted to (although, again, a large rural riding is a daunting challenge to traverse for a poor student with no vehicle) but I couldn't mark my X. My friend turned 18 a mere two days before the election- he would get to vote, but I wouldn't be able to.
Society proscribes random and arbitrary age limits all the time. Can't drink, can't buy lottery tickets, can't drive, can't join the army- all of these and more come with completely arbitrary age restrictions. It's a regrettable but omnipresent part of modern life- some things, you just have to wait for. I understand that- I see a complete need for that in some cases. But for voting? I just don't see a tangible connection between age 18 and the ability to vote. Where's the logic behind 18? Why not 19? Why not 20?
What do you say to the 17-year-old who works like mad on a campaign, comes to the election office everyday for 36 straight days, has licked enough envelopes to have an appreciable weight gain, and has gorged him/herself on political knowledge since exiting the womb, but can't vote. Why don't we want to encourage these people from voting? Why must we tell these youth "no, you're just too young." What a load of crap!
There's no aptitude test for voting- I know dozens of people who won't pay attention to a single word of the campaign, to the issues, but by golly they've gotta get out and vote for this party. Why? Because their parents voted for this party, and their parents before them. They have no tangible connection to the party, nor to the political scene, but they're allowed to vote. Where's the justice?
It's an inherently ageist argument, I find, the case against lowering the voting age. 16 year olds are simply too young to undertake the grave task of voting, but the 18 year old nob with no political aptitude being told by his mother to go vote, that's acceptable?
I understand most 16 year olds won't want to vote. That's fine- if you've seen the statistics, most 25 year olds don't want to vote either. Perhaps it's a tad idealistic, but what's the harm? What do you say to the 16 year old who desperately wants to vote, wants to engage in the most basic form of political activism, but can't because she's not old enough? Even if we get one more young person to vote- not only to vote once, but to continue that engagement with the political process, isn't it worth it?
If you want more of a discussion, feel free to check out the CYA Forum thread on Voting Age. It's since gone stagnant, but it's still an important issue.
/cb
Permalink