My political cynism goes a lot further than I lead on.

Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust. The workers cry out, "let's put an end to this shameful, animal exploitation" - and we'll see to it mainly that they don't feel ashamed anymore, as long as they keep on being exploited. They would like not to get killed in the factory any longer, so we'll install a few more protectice devices, raise the survivor's benefits a little more. They want to see class society eliminated - and we'll work things out so that class differences aren't so huge; or rather, they won't be so visible! They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them with promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones, either!! [...]
scandals are the fertilizer of Western democracy. Let me say more. Scandal is the antidote to an even worse poison: namely, people's gaining political consciousness. If people become too conscious we are screwed. For example, has the American government, a real democracy, ever imposed any censorship to keep people from finging out about the murder of all the leaders of the black movement, or the massacre of thousands of helpless Vietnamese? Not at all. They don't even hide the fact that they've manufactured enough nerve gas to destroy the population of the world ten times over. They don't censor these scandals. And rightly so. Because in this way people have the possibility of becoming indignant. Horrified. 'What kind of government is this? Disgusting generals. Assassins.' And they become indignant. And out of the indignation comes a burp. A liberating burp. It's like Alka-Seltzer. But nothing changes.
-exerpts from Accidental Death of an Anarchist by Dario Fo (written in 1984)

I'll go take my shot now.

The bulk of my entries on the election are on my stealth journal but I want to put this one here

First a little nugget from an article on www.cbc.ca:
The Nova Scotia Citizens' Health Care Network invited all Halifax-area political candidates to its breakfast meeting on Thursday at St. Matthews Church in the city. [...]
Conservative campaign spokesman Rob Batherson said Conservative candidates are focusing their attention on getting to "actual voters rather than interest groups."

Health care advocates are now an interest group? So what exactly isn't an "interest group" then?

I would like you to consider the following: while Harper says that he won't pass legislation to criminilize abortion, he has instead suggested they become "out of pocket" procedures. 1. Provinces are in charge of health care coverage, how hypocritical of the man who insists provinces need greater autonomy. 2. Many women "choose" to have abortions when they realise they cannot afford a child. Making them fiscally pay for the abortion would render it greatly innaccessible and this is just as problematic IMO as criminilizing it.
This short article from www.cbc.ca "Harper would set back rights, Martin warns"

Liberal Leader Paul Martin accused Stephen Harper of having the most extreme right-wing agenda in the history of Canada and warned that a Tory government could set back the rights of Canadians, particularly women. He said the Conservative leader wants to limit the power of the courts and reopen debates over same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
"You add it all up and you see why Mr. Harper regards the courts with such suspicion because they stand between him and the most socially conservative agenda that has ever been this close to forming a government," Martin said. ( Read more... )