Onwards and Edwards

As I've indicated, I'm not following the US primaries very closely, but I couldn't help noticing yesterday that John Edwards has publicly come out in support of Barrack Obama. It ain't over till it's over, as Yogi Berra said, but I think this really is the coup de grace for Hillary Clinton's run at the presidency in 2008. From what I understand, Edwards's support brings a lot of the elements Obama was lacking, particularly the white working class voters. I'd imagine that Edwards has been offered the vice presidency behind the scenes. I'm encouraged by this. Not that I have strong opinions on the matter, but if I'd had my druthers (and the vote in the US), I'd have wanted Edwards for president.

So, now, if the Democratic ticket winds up Obama-Edwards, they're looking pretty good. A politically-moderate northerner who's half African-American and has Muslim ancestry, and a left-leaning southern white guy (who personally reminds me quite a bit of Jimmy Carter, whom I still favour). Now, if one of them would just get a sex change, and the other convert to Judaism, they'd be utterly unstoppable. :)

I'd say "Wake me up when it's over..."

...but even Rip Van Winkle doesn't sleep that long.

I've probably said this somewhere before, but I'm not following the US primaries very closely. It's for a few reasons... one, it's not my country, and in the abstract, I don't care that much. Two, to me, it largely looks like just more of the same. Bush wants to nuke Iran. Cheney wants to nuke Iran. McCain sings about nuking Iran. Hillary just said she'd nuke Iran. What's the difference which of these inhuman talking heads actually fronts the global hegemon-factory when the product is always the same? Three, they drag this shit out for so colossally long every four years that's it pretty much boring before it's even really under way. Jesus, it doesn't take this long to elect a pope, and he gets the job of God's (ostensible) representative on Earth, for life. Come on, folks. Pick a town, hold a fucking convention, and get it over with in six weeks, not eighteen months.

Anyway, I notice that whenever I think the news is good, it's bad, and vice versa. Obama won a state last night, lost a state last night, but apparently it's such good news he's taking the day off. From what I read, even if he wins every single remaining delegate, he still can't win without the "superdelegates". Oh, that's democracy, alright. A year and a half of giving the same speech, mud-slinging, disavowing old friends, billions spent on basically nothing... and it comes down to the hands of a few dozen tenured plutocrats anyway. Why the fuck are they letting it drag on? Why don't they get it over with so the Democrats can cobble together some kind of united front before the election rather than bombing their own bridges and saving the Republicans the effort? Why, if they must have these 50 needless primaries, don't they have them all at the same time so I don't hear stuff like "ordinarily, the people of North Carolina's votes don't count for much because the candidacy has already been decided by the time of their primaries..." Who the fuck considers THAT a shot in the arm for democracy?

And let's not forget, all this pointless, mind-numbing, wasteful lunacy is just the lead-up to an election that, itself, is not decided by a nation of equal men and women each casting an identical vote for the one office in their nation they all share, but by that gigantic Cuisinart of democracy called the Electoral College in which the vote of a Wyomingite carries four times the weight of that of a Californian (and that's taking population into account, too)... unless, of course, the Wyomingite votes for the losing party in his state, in which case his vote counts for... nothing.

Hard to get really excited about a contest with this many handicaps.

The proof of the pudding...

...is in the eating, as they say. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost his referendum bid to expand his powers and remove term limitations. The vote was 49.3% yes, 50.7% no. Chavez has appeared on television to acknowledge the defeat.

The people have spoken. Now is crunch time for democracy in Venezuela. Will Chavez sincerely honour the result, or try to find some sly way to circumvent it? Will democracy survive in fact, or will Chavez simply dispense with it now in the "best interests" of Venezuela — especially when the result was so close? We'll see.

Personally, I've largely supported Chavez and his aims and most of this actions. He's been strong and bold and gone a little beyond the Pale on occasion, but he's still upheld the democratic ideal and has, in my opinion, done an excellent job focusing on leftist principles of improving the lot of the people. So long as he's willing to bow to their expressed wisdom in these matters here, I'm willing to elect him to my personal pantheon of tough fighters for what's right in the developing world... there've been all too few of them in history.

Please, Mr. President... don't let us down now.

Thin edge of a very fat wedge

On the heels of Sicko hitting the screens of North America, The Globe and Mail reports this morning that the Canadian Medical Association has forwarded a proposal that Canada should have a two-tiered health system in which doctors can practice in both the private and public systems.

To his eternal credit, Prime Minister Harper has replied that this paradigm would provide doctors with an incentive to stream their patients into the for-profit side of the system.

Good for the Prime Minister. What we need to concentrate on is finding ways and means to improve a system that guarantees us all the same access to health and care we're due as human beings, regardless of how well fate and circumstance have favoured or failed us. Returning to a system of greedy doctors and pampered rich patients is not the way for a modern, democratic, civilized nation. Who will this system benefit? First and foremost, the health insurance industry. They will take the cream and decide who gets the milk. The doctors will benefit too, though they'll have to be scrappy, and the lawyers they inevitably have to employ to sue for recompense will be pleased. Less so the rich, who assume they'll get better and instant access, but forget that this will be at the behest of HMOs, who will be selfish and stingy and reject their claims whenever they're legally able. Worst of all will be those who can't afford to promote themselves to the for-profit side, as the inclination in society will be, over time, to starve that system since it only serves the poorest and meekest.

No way. Stick to your guns, Stephen. You've made the right call.