Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Grrrrrrrrrl Power!

Kudos to Edelweiss D'Andrea!


Well, it's been four days rather than four years, and I can already give you the good news I so desperately desired to deliver: The too-timid NDP candidate from the all-candidates meeting made an appearance on a televised debate just this evening...and this time she has won my vote for "best showing". In the face of an overbearing Family Coalition Party candidate (Who, in retrospect, makes me think of an evil version of myself: loud, prone to interrupting and hogging the mic, but with a POLAR OPPOSITE IDEOLOGY) stood up for the right of a woman to a safe, affordable abortion! Further talkings-over were met with a stern "excuse me!", although not always to great effect. The reason that she outshone John Ford of the Green Party in my eyes is that he was a great deal more timid. Ford did manage to edge in a few excellent quips, but did not seem to take as much time to speak as he was due. Richard Raymond answered every question by explaining the evils of Dalton McGuinty as compared to the shining, nigh-saintly character of John Tory. Dalton himself was absent, which both the Tory-Avatar and Ford made note of. The FCP candidate was the real winner, talking over the others' answers, embarking on many a tirade against abortion. I was most disgusted with his blatant lies about the public school sexual education program, which he asserted was working under the assumption that schoolgirls would "get laid with every Tom, Dick, and Harry". FURTHERMORE, he argued that teens couldn't use condoms correctly or effectively. The same old lies that the abstinence advocates use, over and over again. Interestingly enough, he made a very David Warren-esque comment, the gist of which is that our secular society has been censoring more traditional views (in his case, "pro-life", in Warren's creationism).


Where was this guy when the separation of Church and State was established? It doesn't help his cause that his so-called "censorship" is a lie. In my Grade 12 Philosophy class, the most my teacher did was question students' assertions, which is what teachers are supposed to do: help a student strengthen their skills, and perhaps cause them to revisit that which they had previously taken for absolute truth. Clearly, it is not censorship, but free and rational inquiry that the FCP fears! Perhaps I am being unfair, but I will make my bias plain in recompense: Teaching creationism, or intelligent design, or pro-life viewpoints which are all Fundamentalist-Christian in origin should not happen in school. In the former two cases, it places UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEF on par with a scientific theory, when in reality they aren't at all equal in acceptance or proof. In the second case, I think that schools should teach what is in the law, and not take a stance for or against. Teachers may have opinions, but those should only be presented in the context of rational debate. As John Ford said of religions schooling "They get enough [of it] on Saturday morning"


John Ford gets third place, because he allowed the FCP candidate to interrupt him on at least one occasion. He didn't fight hard enough for his say, as I saw it, when his say would have been vastly preferable to that of fully half of the candidates present. Also, he has increasingly followed the dark path that is circumlocution: several of the questions posed to him were not given terribly direct answers. This is not a good direction for the Green Party; although it is working hard to be recognized as a serious political party, that shouldn't mean adopting the worst customs of the established order. FCP gets a reluctant second because he staged an effective coup, and made a commendable effort to cleave the general ear with horrid speech (while preventing meaningful debate). BUT hateful philosophies spouted by hateful mouths are unworthy (to say the least!) of recommendation. Edelweiss D'Andrea, delivering solid answers and holding her ground won the Lioness' share of my respect. She could very well win my vote, although I'm very happy with the Green Party policies on education, taxation, and energy. If nothing else, this is why MMP appeals to me: it separates the candidates from the parties, thus permitting me to vote for both PEOPLE and POLICY separately. Alternatively, D'Andrea could join the Green Party. She talks about the environment more than enough as it is!


Anyhow, KUDOS on the much-improved performance; I now have an actual decision to make on the 10th!

3 comments:

Daydream Believer said...

Loud, I'm disappointed in you. Are you implying that by virtue of her femininity, Ms. Andrea is somehow unworthy of the lion's share of your respect? Or are you just forgetting that in actuality, the lioness' share is all the work and very little of the reward. (Look it up, it's true.)

Anyways, that little admonishment aside, the way to decrease crime rates is NOT to make more things illegal! Sorry, that was my minirant against those "family" people... I have to wonder though, how many of them realize how what they're trying to do is going to effect everyone else outside their tidy little bubble of existence.

CheeseLikeSubstance said...

That's brilliant! Make everything legal, suddenly there's no more crime!

I agree with you completely, though.

Loud said...

@ Daydream Believer:

Argh, you've got me on detail I should have caught! I was using the "Lioness' share" line as a more gender-appropriate twist on the "Loin's share" whilst forgetting the fact that nature is often just as unfair as we. I need to get my head back in the game.

I thought Ms D'Andrea was worthy of a lot of respect, she just gave a poor showing at the in-person all candidates meeting. All things considered, she deserves a lot of respect: She's improved her game markedly since then, she signed up for the election perhaps 2 weeks (I heard) before the campaign started, she's running in a riding that invariably goes to Dalton McGuinty...

This has everything and nothing to do with the virtue of a candidate's femininity: I'm terribly depressed by the under-representation of women in politics, but the only way I can help to rectify it is if there is a female candidate that I feel confident voting for. This isn't to say that I apply this rule ONLY to female candidates: I wouldn't feel confident voting for Richard Raymond (CON), or Dalton McGuinty (LIB), and I won't.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I won't NOT vote for someone based on gender, but I won't do the opposite: Ms D'Andrea won my respect for standing up for her speaking time, and I think she's a candidate I could vote for.

My vote is going Green this election because I agree with their policies, and I happen to like our local candidate. That being said, I think that if Ms. D'Andrea runs again in the next election with a little more notice & subsequent preparation, I would have a very difficult choice to make

Some Rights Reserved

Creative Commons License
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.