the making of a monster

So there I am innocently reading the news when a headline catches my eye: The Making of a Monster. Automatically I link the article to Sarah Palin. I was wrong of course; the piece had nothing to do with the elections. But the image was ingrained in my mind. Suddenly the whole Republican VP selection process seemed analogous to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Okay so I'm being a little dramatic, but there are some humorous parallels if we outline the main plot of the two tales:

1) In a daring attempt to produce the perfect human, Victor Frankenstein creates an unknown being who brings great power.

In a daring attempt to select the perfect VP candidate, John McCain chooses an unknown entity who brings great power to the Republican ticket.

2) Frankenstein realizes he made a mistake and is disgusted at the hideous monster. He runs away from it.

McCain realizes he might have made a mistake. Palin is incompetent and her interviews hideous. McCain locks her away and muzzles her.

3) Monster tries to succeed at friendship, but fails over and over again.

Palin tries not to make a fool of herself when speaking, but fails over and over again.

4) Monster is angry and realizes his power and ability to make demands.

Palin realizes her power with the far right, so with regained confidence she demands to be free.

5) Monster ruins Frankenstein's dreams by killing the doctor's friends. The ultimate betrayal occurs.

Palin helps ruin McCain's dreams by disregarding advisers, contradicting her running mate and going 'rogue.' The ultimate betrayal is alleged by insiders claiming she's after the Whitehouse in 2012.

6) Frankenstein's life goal becomes to save humanity from the menace. But then he dies and the monster cries for forgiveness. Monster runs away to the North Pole never to be heard from again.

Okay, I guess the end has yet to be written. So no assumptions will be made about McCain going after Palin's career to save humanity, nor about her eventual surrender and retreat to the North.

a duplicitous eloquence?

I hate to bring everything back to politics, but my train of thought originates from presidential debate number three. McCain all but equated eloquence with duplicity. Eloquence was manipulation in disguise. Yet I can’t help but see eloquence as a great quality--one that North American leaders have noticeably lacked in recent years.

For example, shortly after the war in Iraq began I heard George Bush and Tony Blair give their war rationale on the radio. In my opinion, Bush sounded polarizing, reckless and simple minded. On the other hand Blair sounded rational, thoughtful and intelligent. Yet both speeches had similar content and were justifying the same actions. Now I didn't agree with either of them, but at least I could somewhat respect where the latter was coming from. Blair’s eloquence didn't change or manipulate my opinion on the war, but rather than cringe at his words at least I could value his perspective.

voter surprise

It’s hard not to feel a little politically hopeless when you live in a right-wing mecca. Conservative supremacy reigned following the last federal election and every single seat in Alberta was handed to the Tories. While not surprising, it’s still disturbing--not on account of my political views, but because it seems dangerous that a dominant ideology is so pervasive that leaders don’t bother addressing the province and conservatives can take their seats for granted.

In view of that, today was a very good day in my riding. The incumbent was confident enough to give his victory speech before the final results were in. But shortly afterward, his supporters were forced to yank him off stage. A dramatic surge had brought his NDP rival within range. And by the end of an agonizing night, he became the only conservative in the province to lose his seat. By a mere 442 votes.

While I’m happy with the result, it's almost as satisfying to have witnessed a rare race rather than the typical landslide in Alberta's sea of blue.

a racial discovery

I think the US elections are making me racist.

As I tuned in for round two of the presidential debate my heart inexplicably started pounding and my hands got clammy. Obviously I'm getting way too involved in another country's politics.

But as the camera swept from Brokaw to McCain and then to Obama, I had a sudden rush of heightened racial awareness. Brokaw and McCain suddenly seemed very white. I noticed the first question came from an older white man, while the second came from a young black man. I wondered if their race would affect their choice.

Then there was McCain who was oddly rude toward his fellow candidate. The lack of eye contact, the disdain in accusations, the referral to Obama as 'that one'--lots of fodder for political analysts. But I couldn't help question McCain's strong dislike of his opponent considering he preaches about his ability to reach out to Democrats and his record of bipartisanship. I wondered...is it because of race? In all likelihood I don't think it is, or more accurately I really have no idea. But that's irrelevant. The point is at every turn I was not only thinking about race, but it suddenly seemed like a big deal.

Twenty years of growing up in a small town and being the only non-white kid in the class never made me this aware of race. At first I was shocked (perhaps naively) at how big a deal it was for the US to have an African American running for president. Now I realize how my own thinking started to shift after immersing myself in American media and politics over the past few months. Their history has obviously created a much different dynamic than we have as their northerly neighbors. But it's a bit scary how innocuously these thoughts of race can come in and dominate your mind. I do have to say I am a little relieved that while my heart would never start pounding when I look toward our own upcoming elections, at least race is the last thing on my mind.

another political paradox

The American brand of Christianity continues to grow even more paradoxical to me. Why are Christians (or at least the ones we hear about) so typically and deeply entrenched on the right wing?

The infuriating and equally mind boggling phenomenon that is Palin-mania brings about my latest round of questioning on the matter. She was brought in to lock-in the far right, largely to reinvigorate those Republicans who felt John McCain was a little too moderate for their liking. Her strong family values and adamant stance against abortion made her an instant hit. Fine, I suppose I can understand that. But what about the other 99% of issues?

When I see Christianity at its best, I see love, peace, grace and forgiveness. When I see Republican ideology and tactics I see the complete opposite. If you are against killing, why is war the answer and worse yet, why is it called God's will? (Attributing war to God sounds a little too Taliban-esque if you ask me). If you believe God created the Earth, how can you ravage what little is left of the pristine wilderness and ignore devastating warnings of climate change? If you believe in helping the less fortunate, how can you be adamantly against universal health care and believe in gifting the biggest tax cuts to corporations like Exxon Mobil rather than providing for the homeless and the poor?

I'm ignoring key concepts like the protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism and a million other philosophical and historical issues that I won't pretend to know about. And yes, I'm taking a rather simplistic view. But how tough can it be to identify love, and sadly, to recognize its striking absence?

welcome to my blog

In theory I sometimes agree with people who label blogging as cathartic narcissism, but at the same time it's also an addition to the collective thought. And honestly I like reading what people have to say regardless of its significance in the grand scheme of the universe. There can never be too much thought out there, even if no one ever reads it. So here's my inconsequential contribution of thoughts.