X Marks the Spot

How much time do I spend following the U.S. Presidential Election?

The primaries and caucuses (not sure what the difference is between a primary and a caucus) begin (since I'm writing this at 12:25 a.m.) today.

The first is Iowa. And it all leads up to Super Duper Tuesday on Feb. 5 (that's actually what they call it), when there are primaries or caucuses in 19 states. By the time that's over, we'll know who the presidential candidates for the two political parties will be.

Then, those two candidates slander each other for nine months until November 4, when the people of the great country of the United States of America cast their ballots.

Then we wait. Then there will be some sort of hysteria on the cable news channels, and eventually a winner will be decided. Then, a new neighbour.

My under-informed predictions:

Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nod

Mike Huckabee will be the Republican contender

Hillary Clinton will win the White House.

Personally, I want to see Barack Obama win, but I'm told, in terms of organization, he's simply outmatched by Clinton. Hopefully what I'm told is wrong.

PHOTO: Chuck Norris is supporting Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination. While Huckabee was giving his victory speech tonight, over the left shoulder of Huckabee was a smiling Chuck Norris.

Wow. Maybe Barack Obama can do it. I hope he does. He destroyed Edwards and Clinton, to the surprise of everyone.

And, wow, Huckabee, the Iowa winner for the Republicans, is awesome. I had never really listened to him speak before. And I have never seen a candidate backed up by Chuck Norris before. That was pretty cool.

Next up, New Hampshire in five days.

To honour Huckabee's victory, here are some of the infamous Chuck Norris Facts:

-Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

-Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

-Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

-There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

-Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.

Interesting.

Remember the provincial election back in October, and the month-long fight leading up to that about whether or not proportional representation would be a good idea for the provincial legislature.

Many people who didn't like the idea of changing our system said it would lead to minority governments and nothing would get done.

Yet, when polled recently, people across the country said they'd like to keep a minority government in Ottawa.

From the Star's article: "The Canadian Press Harris/Decima survey asked respondents to choose the kind of split they'd ideally like to see in a hypothetical Parliament of 100 seats. The results, on average, gave 36 seats to the Liberals, 31 to the Conservatives, 15 to the NDP, 10 to the Bloc Québécois and eight to the Green party."

As a reporter, I'd rather have minority governments because that means there are more elections, and I enjoy elections. As a citizen, however, I'd rather have the stability of a majority government, though only if it's in favour of my party of my choice.

PHOTO: The Ipod, a device that has completely changed the way we listen to music now changes the way we listen to the radio

I had never been a fan of podcasts. I had never really understood the point of them.

For the uninitiated, a podcast is a radio show, but instead of being on the radio, it's on the Internet, and you can download it and listen to it whenever you like.

So, it's radio on demand.

People make a radio show, they post it online, and then you can access it whenever you want, instead of whenever they want.

As someone who has never actually paid attention to radio schedules, and, therefore, never really listened to shows except when I'm in my car, the podcast seemed like a dumb idea.

Until last week, when, after not doing so for a couple of years, I went through the podcast offerings on ITunes.

It is impressive, and addictive.

The Agenda, the brilliant TVO show hosted by the brilliant Steve Paikin, is available for download, and, once you subscribe, your ITunes automatically downloads the new ones for you. And you can access the old episodes, too.

Then, the show goes onto the Ipod, and the Ipod plugs into the car radio, and you get to listen to the Agenda on the way to or home from work.

My second favourite podcast so far, and this will make me seem like a sappy 60-year-old woman, is The Vinyl Cafe with Stuart McLean. To be clear, I don't like the fact that I like this show. I'm too pragmatic and modern to like the sweet, old-fashioned tales McLean spins, yet if it's on the radio when I turn my car on, I'm incapable of turning the show off. And, so, when I saw it listed on ITunes as a podcast, I could not summon the strength to not subscribe.

There are also great history podcasts, with biographies of U.S. Presidents and quickie art history classes.

CBC Radio 3 is offering up in-studio sessions with some great, young bands, mixed in with interviews of band members.

The time of the podcast has arrived, for me, at least, because the technology is ready. If I didn't have an Ipod, I would not listen to podcasts (because I'd be chained to my computer in order to hear them). If I hadn't bought a new car late last year, a car with an easily-accessible "auxiliary in" port specifically added to the stereo for Ipods, I would not listen to podcasts. And, if all they had were newspapers turned into radio news (which are still available; though I can't imagine who, other than deaf people, would listen to them), I would not listen to podcasts.

The trick is the technology. And, of course, the content. Both are now ready. And the podcast has arrived, even though it appears to have a while to go before it reaches greatness.

Warning: this is not going to be easy.

In fact, nothing about the U.S. primaries and caucuses is going to be easy. It's confusing. It's crazy. It's mayhem. And it hurts my brain.

Here's what the primaries and caucuses are: they are meetings in which people in a given state assign delegates to the national conventions of the two political parties. At the national conventions, the parties, through these delegates, chose who their leaders will be. And then those two, one from each party, try to destroy each other's reputations and lives in the hopes of becoming, as the lesser of two evils, the president of the United States of America.

So, the Republicans and the Democrats had their Iowa caucuses on January 3.

Of the 45 delegates up for grabs at the Democratic caucuses, Barack Obama got 16, John Edwards got 14, and Hillary Clinton got 15 (even though she had less support than Edwards - I told you it wouldn't be easy to understand).
(There will also be 12 "superdelegates" from Iowa at the Democratic National Convention, though I don't know what superdelegates are or how or when they're chosen. I do know they're not chosen yet.)

Of the 37 delegates up for grabs at the Republic caucuses, Mike Huckabee got 17, Mitt Romney got 12, Fred Thompson got three, John McCain got three, and Ron Paul got two. (There will also be three "unpledged RNC member delegates" from Iowa at the Republican National Convention, though I don't know what unpledged RNC member delegates are or how or when they're chosen. I do know they're not chosen yet.)

On January 5, the Republicans held their Wyoming caucuses (though the Democrats won't hold theirs until March 8).

Of the 12 delegates assigned from Wyoming, Romney got eight, Thompson got three, and Hunter (wait, who is this Hunter guy? I've never even heard of him; Duncan Hunter is his name and he's a California Congressman) got one delegate. (Two more delegates will be chosen at a state convention in May. I don't know why.)

One thing to remember: the Democratic National Convention (in August) will have 4,049 delegates; the Republic National Convention (in September) will have 2,380 delegates. It's also worth pointing out that just because it says Obama, or anyone else, has a certain number of delegates, not all of those delegates have to vote for him at the national convention. You know why? Because this system is crazier than Charles Manson!

So, the Republicans:
Mitt Romney - 20
Mike Huckabee - 17
Fred Thompson - 6
John McCain - 3
Ron Paul - 2
Duncan Hunter - 1

And the Democrats:
Barack Obama - 16
Hillary Clinton - 15
John Edwards - 14

And, of course, tonight: New Hampshire, which is a primary, not a caucus. Then, a long way to go.

Does anyone know why Peter Fonseca's website says he's the MPP for Mississauga East? Does he know the riding of Mississauga East no longer exists and that he's actually the MPP for Mississauga East-Cooksville?

Or how about Kuldip Kular, who appears to think he's the MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, when he's actually the MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton.

Am I just expecting too much of our local reps?

Charles Sousa doesn't even appear to have a website yet. You'd think that'd be the first order of business, since I'm sure that if anyone is looking to contact or learn about their MPP, they will first try the Internet.

Amrit Mangat, in Mississauga-Brampton South, has a website come up if you google her name, but if you click on www.amritmangat.ca, nothing happens.

It has been three months since E-day. Maybe everyone should do what Mississauga-Erindale MPP Harinder Takhar did: hold a competition for high school kids and get the winner to design your website. Everybody wins.

Takhar -- who has branded himself as "Takhar - Experience. Leadership. Results." -- has his strange website, designed by the high school student contest winner. It's actually a good website, it's just different than other political websites. And the best part, it has the correct riding on it!

As does the website of Bob Delaney, Mississauga-Streetsville MPP.

Today is John A. Macdonald's birthday.

Have a drink for him.

Our old friend Liberal leader Stephane Dion will be in town on Friday. Sadly, I don't work Fridays so won't be attending.

He's here to talk about manufacturing jobs. Apparently the jobs, at least the ones that are left, are in jeopardy.

The big man will be at Vic Johnston Hall at 6 p.m. for a roundtable.

Basically, he'll listen to people complain for an hour, and then probably spend 15 minutes telling them their concerns will be addressed if only they vote Liberal in the next election, which most of them will probably do anyway since this is, after all, Mississauga.

Sad I'll miss it.

PHOTO: Saskatchewan. At least, what I imagine Saskatchewan looks like.

"Saskatchewan is back."

The Prime Minister himself said so yesterday, standing in the town (city?) that gave us Dief the Chief.

Saskatchewan's back and it's...well, it's back. It's definitely back. Back from where? Back from the have-not list onto the have list. This is good news for everyone. It means the have provinces have one less province to give money to. Which means it will cost us all less money. Wait, what? It doesn't mean that? Nobody can actually understand how the equalization process works? Hmm.

Well, it's still nice to hear that our friend, Saskatchewan, is back on her feet. Thank Corner Gas for that.

In other news, from the Saskatoon Star Pheonix, Saskatchewan is back in the 1-million people club. (The article's actually from Dec. 21, hence the Christmas references, but it's the first I've heard this news.)

The article reads, in part, "...Statistics Canada, in confirming Saskatchewan is back in the one-million club, also describes our population's growth rate as the highest in Canada during the last three months.

"With an estimated 1,003,300 people now living here, we've bounced back from the 25-year low two years ago of 986,000."

Fun fact: Saskatchewan is the only province with straight lines for all its borders.

Fun fact #2: The title of this blog entry - The Strength of Many Peoples - is the motto of Saskatchewan. Who knew that provinces had mottos?

PHOTO: The flag of British Columbia. See the end of this post for the winners of the flag contest.

Our motto: Loyal she began, loyal she remains.

Nova Scotia's motto: One defends and the other conquers.
I have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe there are only two people in Nova Scotia, and one of them defends and the other conquers. Maybe they're talking about an old-fashioned style of hockey, in which only two players per team take the ice, one of them defending and one attempting to conquer.

Prince Edward Island: The small protected by the great.
I guess they're the small, and the rest of Canada is the great. That's very gracious of them to acknowledge our role in protecting them in their motto.

New Brunswick: Hope Restored
This was the prequel to the movie Hope Floats, starring Sandra Bullock.

Newfoundland and Labrador: Seek ye first the kingdom of God.
And if you don't find it, well, you'll have to settle for the brutal climate of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Quebec: Je me souviens (I remember)
I'm scared of Quebec, so I'll not make fun of their motto.

Manitoba: Glorious and Free
Free? I'm sure you could get something for all that land.

Alberta: Strong and Free
Free? I'm sure you could get something for all that...never mind.

British Columbia: Splendour without diminishment
Umm...what? Darn hippies.

BONUS FEATURE: Flag contest.
B.C. wins. I know the flag is a bit busy, but there's a balance to it that I really like. (See above)

Saskatchewan's flag, which is simple and beautiful, and pretty much the opposite of B.C.'s flag, gets an honourable mention. (See below)

CARTOON: This weekend's Steve Nease cartoon

When I worked at The Oakville Beaver for two years, I knew Steve Nease. I even wrote a profile of him once for The Beav, on the occasion of a particularly impressive anniversary (though I can't remember what the anniversary was).

Even after knowing him, and interviewing him, I have no idea how he does what he does. I suppose you'd have to be a fellow cartoonist to get it. He is brilliant. Not only that, he's consistent. How he manages to be consistently brilliant, I'm not sure.

Anyway, this weekend's cartoon (the cartoon above) is perfect, and should be spread as widely as possible.

In my nearly three years at The Mississauga News, I have never received as much mail as I have this weekend, about a story that was published Friday. The story was about the fair representation of Christianity in public schools.

I'm afraid I can't find the article on our website, but it was in the newspaper on Friday, back on page six. I'll paste it here:

Trustee wants more Christianity in schools

Staff is looking into the matter and will respond at an upcoming board meeting.

All the emails I've received on this story are sane. That might not seem surprising, but, trust me, it is. When a reporter writes about religion, the nutcases come out of the woodwork, many of them blatantly racist.

Not this week, though.

It might have something to do with the tone Stephens has taken in explaining his concern. He's not blaming anyone, and he's not saying that there is a plot to suppress Christianity. He's just saying that there isn't enough representation of the Christian faith in schools.

I don't know if what he says is right or not, but I appreciate how he's saying it, and I appreciate the sanity of the emails.

There is only one thing I don't like about the argument.

When Stephens presented his concern at a school board meeting earlier this month, he said, "...there is a gap across numerous schools in regard to the major religion of Canada, which is the Christian faith."

He is correct; the main religion across the country remains Christianity. But he didn't need to mention it. The fact that it is a religion is enough of an argument. The numbers supporting the religion shouldn't matter.

One reader wrote: "This country was founded on the principals (sic) of the Christian Faith (sic) and I believe we are doing all our children a great disservice by not including this teaching in our schools."

The reader is correct. Christian principles were part of the country when Canada became Canada. Countries evolve, though, as they should. Canada is no longer a Christian country, though more citizens self-identify as Christians than they do as followers of any other religion. Today it is a country based on the tenets of common sense and enlightened self-interest. I'm not a religious scholar, but it's also worth noting that the rules of all religions I know of appear to be based on common sense and enlightened self-interest. The world would be a better place if religious leaders and their followers would follow those rules (has anyone ever mentioned to George W. Bush that 'thou shalt not kill' is a commandment?).

The debate initiated by Stephens is a fair debate to have, and if the Christian faith isn't getting the respect other faiths are getting, the problem should be remedied. But there's no need to talk about Christianity being the dominant faith in Canada, and there's definitely no need to talk about Canada as a Christian country.

PHOTO: Scottish poet Robbie Burns. Burns suppers will be held across Canada on Friday, despite the fact that he's not Canadian. For reasons incomprehensible to at least one reader, us immigrants just won't let go of our history and adopt the customs of our new country.

Reader D. Rowlison writes: "In letting in so many immigrants over the years, they need to adopt to OUR land - NOT the other way around." (Emphasis in original.)

If that's the logic we're going by, then when the British and the French arrived in Canada, instead of importing our own religions and customs, we should have simply conformed to those already followed by the people who lived here, the people we now refer to as the aboriginal people.

Also, if D. Rowlison is correct, I, as an immigrant who moved here at the age of one, should leave behind the customs of my old country. I should not, this Friday, drink whisky, eat haggis, and listen to burly men with near-incomprehensible accents recite poetry, all as a part of Robbie Burns Day, celebrating the life and work of the greatest Scottish poet.

I apologize to D. Rowlison for my unwillingness to drop Robbie Burns for Al Purdy (though I do love Al Purdy), and for wearing the traditional dress of my people, the kilt, to several events in the past. Us immigrants, I now understand, should certainly have adopted the customs of this land.

PHOTO: Tejas Aivalli, vice-president of the Political Science Association at UTM, tries to conceal his anger after losing a game of rock-paper-scissors to Mississauga-Erindale MP Omar Alghabra, who repeatedly cheated by using both hands. "This is how everyone plays in Ottawa," said Alghabra, unapologetic.

I'm just kidding. There was no rock-paper-scissors tournament. Alghabra, who actually made two stops at the University of Toronto Mississauga last week, was on hand to answer questions about Afghanistan, nuclear isotopes, copyright law, post-secondary education tuition, and pretty much everything else.

He also mentioned that it was the two-year anniversary (on Wednesday) of him being elected to represent Mississauga-Erindale. That also meant it was the two-year anniversary of Stephen Harper becoming prime minister. Two years is forever with a minority government. Surely Harper's itching for an election, and a chance at the majority. Unless, of course, he's scared he can't secure a majority.

Another season, another round of election speculation.

MPs return to the House of Commons this week. Police are asking everyone to contain their excitement.

I know it wasn't surprising, but Rudy Guiliani was trounced in Florida tonight. A couple of months ago, had you told someone Guiliani would be out of the race, no one would have believed you. He had money. He had star power. Now he has just 13 per cent of the vote in the state that was supposed to bump him to the top of the Republican pack. It is his own, or his advisers', fault. He didn't even take part in the previous primaries. He was going to win Florida, and build from there to Super Tuesday. I think there might be a saying, some wise words, once uttered about that strategy. Something about eggs and baskets, and if one has multiple eggs one might be well-advised to also have multiple baskets.

*I did not make up this saying. It, reportedly, was being used in Florida before Guiliani even lost the primary tonight.

Here's a story I wrote for the paper earlier today. It was an interesting discussion.

***

Four of the University of Toronto's brightest minds on matters of U.S. politics could only come up with one conclusion at a lunchtime discussion at the Mississauga campus Wednesday: no one knows who will be running for president.

With the primaries and caucuses for the two U.S. political parties concluding with Super Tuesday next week, the two who were meant to be front-runners are fighting for their political lives.

In fact one, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was running to lead the Republican Party into November's election, has already dropped out of the race after a horrendous showing in Florida Tuesday (Jan. 29).

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, whose nomination to lead the party was once thought of as inevitable, is now fighting, tooth and nail, the young and hyper-charismatic Barack Obama.

The professors gathered at the University of Toronto Mississauga to discuss where the races are going, who will eventually win them, and what it all means.

Mark Lippincott was the most forthright with the audience of about 100.

"The most honest thing I can say is that I don't have the faintest clue what is going on," he said. "This is unprecedented terrain. There's never been a primary and caucus season like this...All of the talking heads, all of the pundits, all of the experts, have no idea what's going on here. They're caught off guard all the time."

Even without knowing what's going on, Lippincott couldn't resist making a cautioned prediction.

"If you're betting on U.S. politics, bet on the big money," he said, pointing to Clinton for the Democrats and Mitt Romney for the Republicans.

Arnd Jurgensen, a professor of foreign policy, isn't surprised Giuliani is out of the race, but thinks it was probably bad for the Republican Party.

"Giuliani was going to have a hard time because he's so far out of step with the conservative Republicans," he said. "He's quite clearly on a different page but quite well-positioned to get swing voters in the actual election."

To win the nomination, a candidate must swing to the left or right of the political spectrum. To win the presidential election, the two candidates both have to swing back to the middle, explained Jurgensen, and fight it out for the undecided, and for each other's, voters.