Unkie Herb

Well, after a long absence, I’m back for a good cause.

As you may have noticed, I take something of an interest in American politics. This election is all about John McCain vs. Barack Obama. I may or may not be something of a left-leaner, and might or might not support Obama.

But what i do support is google bombing. What’s google bombing, you ask?

For the uninitiated, Google is a search engine that dominates the North American market. The algorithms that guide the results of your search query look for websites that have many links from other sites pointing to it. So if McCain’s wikipedia page has the most links from other sites, it will be the first result when you search for McCain.

A google bomb is an intentional action to shift the results of a certain search in a certain direction. In this case, news items that produce anti-McCain reactions are linked to by bloggers and writers in an attempt to have those stories climb the John McCain or McCain results list. You may have noticed that every time I’ve written McCain or John McCain, I’ve added a link to a news story. If you were to go and read those stories, you’d notice a pattern.

The pattern, of course, is that none of those headlines look very good. Most of them tie McCain to Bush, and they all just make John McCain look bad. The key, of course, is that nine McCain-focused articles were chosen, and the millions of left-wing online writers and bloggers will all focus on these same stories, enhancing the effect.

With enough of an effort by enough people, these stories will climb their way up the results until an undecided voter will find several unappealing references to John McCain right at the top of the list. While many voters don’t read their news online, and many others don’t read the news at all, every vote counts and so every swayed opinion counts.

Every vote taken away from John McCain slims the chances that McCain will take the White House and we all sit through four more years of bullshit.

Join the party, ya’ll! Especially John McCain. You’re definitely invited, McCain.

John McCain.

The original Searching for John McCain story is here.

Share This

The Obama-train is proving difficult to stop. As more folks hop on, it’s inertia grows. Will it doesn’t run out of fuel before November?

On a side note, there is a discrepancy between the demographics of the Dem race and the criticisms being tossed around.

Hilldog, McCain and media types love pointing to the “vacuousness” of Obama’s campaign. That he is short on policy, detail, and concrete elucidations of his ideas. I want to point out that it doesn’t take much more than an a fourth grade education to read policy proposals on websites. Yet, in answer to the jabs, Obama is responding with more detail in his speeches.

What is interesting is that these same critics mention repeatedly that Obama only does well with the well-educated, the college grad professionals. Hilldog, on the other hand, seems to resonate with the lower-income, blue collar crowd.

Maybe I’m wrong, or classist, or deluded, but isn’t there something backward there? Don’t the less educated, the less informed, the “I have no time to pay attention so I make up my mind from the headlines” voters tend to vote based on personality and character? I always thought it was us number crunching elitists who stuck to strength of policy proposals…

Perhaps, instead, those who have done their homework trust Obama’s ideas, along with his vision and character. Hillary’s supporters, speculatively, work with name recognition.

Anyone?

For an interesting, unexpected, and humbling clip of an Obama supporter explaining his decision, watch this.

Share This

In an analogy that works despite the regionalism, the underdog wins it all.

New York, Clinton’s senate seat home, beat the nearly perfect New England team to win the Superbowl. It was a sluggish but eventually entertaining affair. The political parallel, with the establishment team losing the biggest event to the unheralded little guy, is a metaphor sure to be exploited.

All I want to say is this: American progressives should follow suit.

Obama has Canada’s support, no doubt.

Share This

So the Times, the English paper that New Yorkers refer to as ‘of London,’ reports on the celebrity endorsements of presidental candidates. Everyone expected it to be entertaining… No one expected it to be so one sided.

Springer. Jameson. Fiddy. All for Hilldog.

Check it here.

Cheers.

Share This

The mastermind behind George Bush’s two victories in Presidential elections wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal. In it, he is startlingly one-sided.

Just not for the side you’d expect.

No, Rove supports Clinton in his piece, a surprising development considering his scathing criticisms of her in the past. He compliments her campaign and her newfound emotion. He asserts that the oh so smoothly delivered tears in Manchester, N.H. (a town she went on to win by a large margin) were “humanizing and appealing. And unlike her often contrived and calculated attempts to appear down-to-earth, this was real.”

As he moves on to her criticisms of Obama, Rove joins in the fray: “He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”

Why support Hilldog, Karl? Could it have been a genuine analysis of the Dem race? No… Surely this was a calculating move by a man who understands electoral politics way too well.

So what’s the ploy?

Perhaps he realizes that Clinton will be easier to swing independents and perhaps even some Democrats away from. Perhaps Obama scares him. So he encourages her victory with a supporting op-ed piece.

But that seems too simple for a man of Rove’s conniving genius.

Maybe its reverse psychology. Maybe he really hates Hillary and worries about the Republican candidate’s chances against her. Maybe he knows that Karl Rove’s support is a gut shot in Democratic politics - it won’t kill you right away, but it could lead to some internal bleeding. If Obama’s people pick up on it, couldn’t they use it against her?

Either way, interesting stuff from a usually ‘behind the curtains’ fella.

Share This

It’s sort of like a dramatic comedy. There are moments of seriousness, of thoughtfulness, but whatever tension arises is constantly broken by bouts of comic relief. It’s like Rain Man. Yeah, just like Rain Man.

To be a Canadian watching the monstrous cacophony that is U.S. federal politics is fun and exciting. As I don’t have the option of voting, it’s really just entertainment. While it’s true that American policy decisions have huge reverberations in Canada, other than making donations there is really little I can do to sway things south of the border.

And so I watch, and laugh, and shake my head.

I’m particularly fond of Obama, which should come as no surprise, though it’s easy to see his downside. When you cut away his oratorical abilities, his demeanor and his passion, what have you? To be honest, I don’t know. I like to think that while short on experience he is long on intelligence. One of a rare breed of politician who is beyond partisanship and can understand both left and right arguments on issues. Able to make decisions that serve the public interest, instead of the demands of his party’s base.

But there is little to justify that sentiment. His speech after his caucus win in Iowa, however, was downright moving.

Is he just pomp and circumstance? Is he peaking in the public consciousness now, only to have his shortcomings illuminated and his star fall before the crucial date in November?

But, just as pressing, is there another Democratic candidate with enough crossover appeal to beat a McCain or a Guiliani?

It is this mindset, the cold-hearted strategic slant, that American primary voters will focus upon. It is leading to McCain’s boost - he is the only Republican to poll well head-to-head with the Dem big 3 - and Romney’s dropoff. It is propelling Obama beyond Clinton, who has more negative appeal than any other serious candidate, because despite his race Obama speaks a language that independents and even some Republicans are flocking toward.

But, again, I must temper myself. For while the world changes when Americans vote, I still have no say.

Except that you’ve read this. I’ve done my part.

Share This

I recently had an interesting argument with my father.

He wondered at the disproportionate number of women in the Canadian Parliament (Congress). Of 308 representatives, or members, only 65 are women. That amounts to just over 21 percent of the seats, which (according to Wikipedia) ranks Canada 45th in the world in terms of lower house female representation. The US Congress is at 16.6 percent, with 90 women in office; 74 in the House, 16 in the Senate.

My dad’s logic was that since only a small portion of House members are women, women’s interests are not being properly represented by our government.

Does this make sense? Is it impossible for someone, even a politician, to see beyond their own perspective?

Naturally (him being my father) I disagreed. Not that more women in government isn’t a good thing, but I don’t think men are necessarily unable to appreciate women’s interests (where they differ).

While I will never fully understand the institutionalized sexism that occurs in our society - in terms of directly experiencing it - I can appreciate its existence and try to make changes. Men everywhere, thanks to our historical (and continuing) lack of respect, owe it to society to open our minds and understand other perspectives.

The same argument can be made about ethnic representation. A small portion of Canadians (13%) identify themselves as minorities yet an even slimmer percentage of House members would also do so. The population of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, is now over half visible minorities. Yet of 44 City Councillors only 3 represent this.

Yet, both in Toronto and Canada overall, the government does a fairly good job of representing ethnic minorities, women and other groups. This despite the fact that power continues to be concentrated with men of European origin.

What this illustrates to me is the effectiveness with which democracy can operate. Even with a bunch of old white guys running the show, they are unable to ignore the interests of demographics even without belonging to them. They are forced to learn new perspectives or else they don’t get elected. Many recent immigrants to Canada have come from places without effective democracy (China, Vietnam, Pakistan) and, out of appreciation for the value of the system, are very active citizens.

Returning to the female representation point, one can find instances where high levels of female representation doesn’t result in gender equality. My favourite resource, the Economist, argues that Argentina’s more evenly proportioned government is doing little for its women.

The point I’m making here is not that we shouldn’t have a demographically accurate government, but rather that one isn’t necessary for equality amongst different groups. Policy is shaped through compromise, discussion and, yes, the wire-walk of self-preservation. The women in our government, despite being only a fifth of total members, tend to punch above their weight.

Even groups with little or no direct representation are taken into consideration. While only a few prominent Canadian politicians are homosexuals, gay marriage remains a legal option in Canada.

Share This

Time Magazine, in it’s infinite wisdom, has named Russian President Vladimir Putin as it’s 2007 Person of the Year. Now I’m going to do my best to look at this objectively, as my criticisms of Putin (see here, here and here) have been, well, somewhat one sided.

First of all, I’ve never regarded Time Magazine as much of a pure journalistic source. They have the despicable habit of printing stories that promote other brands owned by their parent company, AOL-Time-Warner. The latest issue, for example, features a story about Will Smith’s I Am Legend, a Warner film. Time, in all honesty, is as much a promotional tool as it is a newspaper. I’ve always regarded it as the Readers Digest of news magazines.

That said, it is a respected magazine worldwide and its Person of the Year “award” is generally taken seriously. As such, I have read the Time article as well as their column justifying their selection. A few things have come to mind.

I’ll begin with Time’s defensive explanation of their decision:

TIME’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership.

When I read this, I found myself nodding. Putin does represent this selection making process. His power over Russia is nearly absolute and Russia’s power on the world is severely underestimated by the general public.

Looking back over the last few choices, however, and I find myself doubting Time’s sincerity. Last year the winner was “You” as in me and everyone else who uses and contributes to the Internet. Wow. Previously, we had Bono and the Gates family for their humanitarian work, two years earlier (in 2003) it was The American Soldier. Between them, in ‘04, was my main man Dubya. While Bush definitely represents the same global leadership traits as Putin (right down to the sacrifice of freedoms to advance his deeply felt mission), how do American Soldiers or internet users fit in? Surely US troops, for all their noble sacrifice, are followers in the world game. Am I wrong?

All of this makes me think that Time’s annual selection is based on one thing: selling magazines. By making this selection they have turned me, a critic, into a reader. Granted I read the articles online, but readership is readership. As well, they have managed to secure a rare treat - an exclusive interview with Putin. The multinational that is AOL-Time-Warner now has some serious connections in a country where who you know is the only thing that matters.

Despite all this, Putin is indeed a man who demands respect and receives it. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t in awe of the man. What he has done for Russia’s stability cannot be denied and I applaud his work in this regard. What I cannot abide, however, is his Machiavellian approach to achieving it. His disregard for his own people is deplorable. He is and will continue to be an obstacle to global humanitarian efforts. His use of his UN veto on issues such as Burma and North Korea is vexing. As well, the possibility of outright aggression cannot be ignored - he’s already invaded Chechnya and installed a puppet government.

Yet Time’s justification, if taken at face value, still rings true. Looking further back at other winners, however, a sense of foreshadowing emerges.

In 1938 a man had taken an unstable, down-trodden former world power and inspired it. He had the massive support of his people, and after free elections set himself up as supreme leader. He reinvigorated his country’s economy and its citizens. In that year, he was selected Time’s Person of the Year.

His name was Adolf Hitler.

Share This