Home / Culture and Society / Gavin Newsom: The Epitome of What Every Man Should Aspire To Be

Gavin Newsom: The Epitome of What Every Man Should Aspire To Be

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Gavin Christopher Newsom, a fourth generation San Franciscan, former wine shop owner, and youngest mayor of San Francisco since John W. Geary back in the mid 1800’s, is a great human being and an even better politician.

Graduating from Santa Clara University with a bachelors degree in Political Science, he knew he would one day make a difference for not only people in his small community, but others around the United States as well. His early campaigning for Mayor Willie Brown in the mid 1990’s set the stage for what would become the first step towards a great political career.

Supplying the homeless with assisted living care, fighting for gay rights and equality, and supporting the rights of business owners all throughout the state are just some of what Gavin Newsom was able to accomplish in his short political career so far.  Garnering seventy-two percent of the vote in his re-election proved to everyone just how popular he not only is but will continue to be in the future.

Now that Jerry Brown is running for Governor of the state of California, Newsom has his eyes set on Brown’s old position of Lieutenant Governor and if he maintains the beliefs and principles that he has relied on up to this point in his career, he will run away with the election just like he ran away with the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor.

Now he is on Jerry Brown’s campaign and together they are proving that a small business owner that turned her business into big business Meg Whitman is just that, a business tycoon with no political sense whatsoever. With Newsom and Brown working together, who knows how much better our state will be, but if one had to think, our state is better off with both of them in office.

Finally a liberal to like and to admire, and one that truly knows what he is doing. Newsom is not only the epitome of what every man should aspire to be like, but a man who everyone should take notes from and admire. Good riddance Republicans, we do not need you in office any longer. It is about time a real man’s man and woman’s man comes to town and tells it like it is and fights for all rights. Look out California, there seems to be a new sheriff and deputy alike coming to town, Republicans beware!

Powered by

About DannyVollmer84

  • Although I initially mistook this piece for satire, I rather enjoyed publishing it as a model testament to the delusional mindset which dominates the political left in California.

    It’s hard to pick which of the arguments here I like better. Should I support Newsom because he’s a career political hack or because he’s tall and good looking. Oh wait, I live in Texas – Rick Perry qualifies on both counts.


  • Then let me be the first to vote that this piece is satire. And just the kind I like, too: so thoroughly deadpan tongue-in-cheek that it fooled BC’s politics editor. Good going, Danny!

  • Danny Vollmer

    Thanks Alan, exactly what I was going for πŸ™‚ glad you noticed.

  • Well it’s brilliant, then. Am I still supposed to put the stupid “satire” tag in the title? Kind of takes all the fun out of it.

    Good job.


  • Danny Vollmer

    I like your posts Dave…I like how our posts and thoughts can be debated. Not all of my work is satire but sometimes I can’t help myself. I have one coming up on Meg Whitman.

  • I look forward to it. My satire when I write it tends to be so heavily laden with sarcasm that it’s not possible to mistake it for anything else.


  • Shouldn’t satire have, like, er, a punchline or something?

  • Danny Vollmer

    well thats up to you..i prefer to have the reader get stumped. Do I like this person? Do I follow their beliefs? Or am I being sarcastic and really can’t stand this person? its all left to the reader’s imagination. MY goal entirely.

  • Satire is its own punch line. Only dolts need to be told that it’s satire.

  • Well, when you set your goals low, you are likely to reach them, so congratulations.

    But I guess if I were writing an ambiguously ‘satirical’ piece, I might drop some hint at a possible chink in Mr Perfect’s armor. [In the piece itself, not in the comments section.]

    If only for his gay-marriage stance [not just words but action], I find Newsom easy to admire. He’s also smart, a sharp-witted defender of some pretty far-left positions. And, yes, easy on the eyes.

  • Satire is its own punchline when it’s funny. Not when it just sits there resembling a vanilla press release from the Brown-Newsom campaign.

  • Danny Vollmer

    Glad we are talking about it. I did my job…On to the next one now..good luck everyone.

  • Well, I thought it was funny even without realizing it was satire, and that’s even better. I thought it was hilarious that someone could write something like this serious or not.


  • Absolutely hilarious, yet frightening at the same time.

    If Gavin Newsom, who crusaded for the well being of his constituents by banning the sale of soft drinks on San Francisco city property earlier this year, is anyone’s idea of anything other than a petulant child with a yearning for power over the lives of others, then they deserve him as their lieutenant governor.

  • Danny Vollmer

    ha ha awesome Joseph..glad you saw it as that…i love hearing people’s opinions of the guy.

  • Not to interrupt all the back-slapping but is the false info that Brown was ever Lieutenant Governor supposed to be part of the satire?

  • Jordan Richardson

    This is “hilarious?” I guess you had to be there…

  • Danny Vollmer

    yes…most of it was false and some of it was truthful..just trying to get a reaction.

  • hmm, not really sure why you would purposely get something like that wrong. Are you satirizing a naive liberal new to politics or are you satirizing a conservative who think this is what a naive liberal new to politics sounds like? Could go either way considering the reactions your getting

  • The more you analyze a joke, the less funny it becomes. This thread has already passed the point of no return in that regard. Let it be.

  • Danny Vollmer

    i’m a liberal and it seems as though you’re thinking about it too much. it is just an article…if you didn’t like it that is fine. its everyone’s opinion what they write. I thought it was pretty clever.

  • Have you read Freud’s Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious (1905). Incredibly analytical, and not one measly laugh in the entire goddamn book.

  • Danny Vollmer

    exactly, let it be, no one has the same humor…it is what it is, i’m proud of it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m just glad you love to writing, Danny.

  • I bet your mom likes it too. Trust me, I am not putting any more thought into it than you did. My comments may be real or they may be sarcastic.

  • Danny Vollmer

    thanks…i have more stuff coming so keep your eyes peeled, wouldn’t mind reading everybody else’s stuff too.

  • I’m certain that Mr. Nalle and Mr. Kurtz are already salivating at the very thought. Not to mention you brought Mr. Cotto out of the woodwork.

  • Clavos

    Not to mention you brought Mr. Cotto out of the woodwork.

    And indeed, even the redoubtable Mr. Nowosielski…

  • STM

    “Then let me be the first to vote that this piece is satire. And just the kind I like, too: so thoroughly deadpan tongue-in-cheek that it fooled BC’s politics editor.”

    There’s another side of the argument that says if you have to explain why or how something’s humorous, then it’s not really that funny.

    I suppose if you’re a genius that doesn’t apply.

  • “There’s another side of the argument that says if you have to explain why or how something’s humorous, then it’s not really that funny.”

    We have a winner

  • Actually, we have two losers. There’s a third side of the argument that says guys without a sense of humor have no business opining on what is or is not funny.

  • STM

    Because of course, Al will be the sole arbiter in regard to who on here has a sense of humour, and what on this site is funny.

  • I don’t know who this “Al” is you keep referring to, but he must be one smart fella.

  • Cannonshop

    Okay, so I guess I’m just not up on the Kalifornia Political Scene-without a point to reference, it just looks like a typical puff-piece in state politics to me.

  • Clavos

    I don’t know who this “Al” is you keep referring to, but he must be one smart fella.

    Not really. More of a poseur…

  • A poseur who, as my mom has said of myself and others, “would argue with a fence post.”
    [And, possibly, lose.]

  • Arch Conservative

    “Look out California, there seems to be a new sheriff and deputy alike coming to town, Republicans beware!”

    A new sheriff clad in assless chaps. Newsome wouldn’t be able to win an election anywhere outside of San Fransisco.

    I think that botht the kooks the inhabit the city as well of the rest of the nation would be happier if an earthquake completely sheared SF from the rest of the nation, sending it adrift at sea to be it’s own sovereign state for the rest of time.

  • Zedd

    How about the people on the right start working on real solutions. It’s not enough to be snarky. Its actually lazy and destructive. Your leadership has absolutely no solutions and that doesn’t seem to bother you. They’ve put together these packaged SORRY declarations to keep your tiny minds pleased yet they have no substance, they say nothing and have no intention to make improvements to our nation. In the mean time, the economy keeps eroding and you blame the Dems??

    Having no solution is bad. Wake up.

  • Cannonshop

    Zedd, I think you’re wrong, and it’s basically the difference between the Left, and the Right in HOW they approach problems that you’re not understanding.

    The Left is all about “Grand Plans” and central-control, top-down direction and trying to IMPOSE ‘solutions’.

    I give you, as example, every single “Solution” pursued into law in teh current administration as a demonstrator, as well as policy items like Carbon-Trading, “Universal” health-care, etc. etc.

    Centralized control works pretty well for fighting wars, but it does not work particularly well for dealing with the problems of the every-day. (if Central Economic Planning worked, the Soviet Union would have beaten the U.S. during the cold war, North Korea would be a paradise, and we’d be begging CASTRO for his secrets of prosperity.)

    So, of COURSE the LEADERSHIP of the right don’t have “A Plan”-the plan is to allow the PEOPLE to solve their problems instead of relying on a Czar, or a King, or a Presidential Finding.

    When I occasionally snark that the Left is in love with Power above all else, it’s because of this basic difference in their approach to ALL problems.

    What’s really funny, is that a Lefty saying from a couple decades ago seems to have been lost on your side…

    “Think Globally, but ACT locally”. It isn’t WalMart that undermines local business, it’s the CUSTOMERS, it’s not Wall-Street that has a problem with the Economy-if it were Wall-Street, then the series of Bailouts from the end of Bush’s term through this presidency, would have fixed the unemployment problem-the problem in the economy has to do with the view, not from Wall Street or Chicago’s trading floors, it’s from down here, where the real solutions to problems arise-and with every new mandate from above, and every restriction imposed universally to solve some minor local issue, those solutions become harder for the people who really make the differences-which are not the Billionaires or the Celebrities, or the Politicians, to actually put forward real solutions.

    It’s not ONE solution-what solves MY problem won’t solve YOUR problem, but it’s MANY solutions-your side has forgotten this, in its entirety, because it’s EASIER to jaw out and promote “One Size to fit all” as the cure to all that ails, your side is the side that talks about coercion to force people to fit your version of “morality”-from San Francisco banning happy-meal-toys to speech codes on university campuses, to individual mandates on Health care.

    ONE size does NOT fit all, and what you’re seeing and failing to understand in this latest election? is that people are getting tired of your efforts to fit them to your procrustean bed. social and societal trends that work in Central Seattle don’t work even as close as Marysville-and those are places in the exact SAME STATE. California’s problems aren’t Colorado’s, or Utah’s, or Florida’s, making national regulations to fit California just imposes un-necessarily on the others.

    This is the essence of WHY the founders chose a federation instead of an Empire.

    This isn’t to say that there are NO broad solutions-granting freedom to more people is always better than restricting it in terms of solving problems and promoting prosperity-the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Act, were absolutely necessary, worthy uses of government power. one ended slavery, one reaffirmed the rights of ALL citizens-but those are the rare types of cases where broad action does not have more negative consequences than positive outcomes.

    Above All else, I have noted that the Left will sacrifice freedom-for all time- to obtain the illusion of Safety, or the illusion of cleanliness, neatness, order…

    while at the same time, often in the same person, demonstrating why the benefit is temporary or illusory at BEST. When, for example, a Democrat announces he is not taxed sufficiently, I look to the examples of his leaders, who love to raise taxes-yet refuse to pay the taxes they raise, and I look to his brothers-in-arms, who, feeling they are not taxed enough, fail to volunteer to pay more of their own income unless they can coerce others, who do not wish to be taxed more, to join them.

    Penn Gillette said it pretty well in one of his stage shows- “In a Tyranny, they don’t care what you believe, as long as you all believe it TOGETHER…”

    well, it turns out a lot of people don’t “believe it together” with your side.

    Back to the topic: “Real Solutions” are not directed from above, they arise from below-energy crisis? well, people buy insulation, invent solar panels, build their homes passive-solar. I’m working on a plan to get my home (once I’ve bought one-I’m in the market now) “off the grid” in terms of being energy independent. Lots of those pieces are things Environmentalists chatter about-but I see zero benefit in forcing my neighbours to conform to my desires for myself. I drive an efficient car because I like being able to pass a gas-station, not because the EPA will harass me if I do not, I re-use containers because it’s handier than buying new ones to keep the leftovers, not because it’s “Green”. Cloth shopping bags, because I have to pay for garbage service and it lowers my bills, get the picture? I stay out of debt not to “help the Economy”, but to avoid a PERSONAL economic crisis.

    People tend to try to avoid anything that requires a permit-there is a reaosn for this, so the more Permits you require, the less often solutions will arise…at least, solutions that WORK.

    That is MY belief, I am CERTAIN (having read your posts and such over a fairly long period of time) that it is the polar opposite of what YOU believe.

    But I would oppose using force and coercion to make you believe things MY way.
    Unfortunately, I can not say the same of you, or Glenn Contrarian, or any of the left-wing posters (or the ones that do not post) here or in this country.

  • Jordan Richardson

    So Cannonshop, when “the right” invades another country and promotes the invasion relentlessly, in what way are they “allowing the PEOPLE to solve their own problems?”

    Or when they prohibit things like gay marriage and abortion, how does that allow the PEOPLE to solve their own problems? Or how about the promotion of traditional social orders? Or family values in general?

    The problem with this approach, Cannonshop, is that we’re not just a bunch of individuals. We live in a society and our actions, like it or not, create reactions the world over.

    You are right to say that real solutions don’t come from the top, though. But they also don’t come from thinking this world is constructed from a strand of individuals only looking out for number one.

  • Cannonshop

    Military action is neither “Right” nor “Left”, Jordan. as for the Religious “Right”, they’re more Left in character than they tend to admit-historically, they’ve been aligned with elements such as the Temperance Movement that imposed a Nanny-State “Solution” on the entire nation (19th Amendment-Prohibition).

    The “Religious Right”… They’re the same amusing side-show that the “Worker’s World” party is on the Left, and just as poisoned by their ideology that they can’t solve a problem.

    Jordan, “Collective” solutions have NOT WORKED. Central Planned “Fixes”, when they “work” (Term used loosely) generally create MORE problems than the problem they were trying to solve. There is a place for group solutions, but where we differ, is that the Left sees Collective Solutions as the ONLY solution-even when it fails, their refrain is always “You didn’t give us enough power/money/authority/etc.”

    It’s like the guy who insists that putting a supercharger on the engine will solve the knock from the failing valve-train.

    There comes a point, where you have to take the power AWAY from the central authorities/government and give it back to those to whom it truly belongs-the individual citizens.

    People who are never allowed to make their own decisions, rarely make good decisions, and an excess of Laws leads to Contempt for the rule of law. We HAVE sufficient laws, more than sufficient impositions, an excess of rules, regulations, Permit-issuers and…well, an excess of Government. More doesn’t fix the problem, it’s time to try LESS for a while.

  • Cannonshop

    One more little comment, Jordan:
    Your lot screams when the U.S. uses military force against people who don’t like Americans, yet you are silent, or even laudatory, when Military-Scale force is used by YOUR government on AMERICAN citizens.

    Waco is a prime example of this-what should have taken a sherriff’s deputy about an hour, turned into a 51 day seige that killed most of the witnesses and suspects, destroyed or corrupted any evidence of wrongdoing, all on a warrant that was about to expire because insufficient evidence had been gathered to follow normal procedure.
    (For christ’s sake, the targets of the RAID called the COPS first!)

    For further evidence:

    The War on Drugs (a Collectivist operation) has resulted in the creation of super-powerful and extremely dangerous criminal cartels operating with the capabilities of well-trained PMC’s (i.e. several armies) and generated side-business criminal nightmares in the southwestern U.S., as well as lawlessness and ultra-violence in northern mexico, as well as spurring illegal immigration and the use of illegal immigrants as drug-mules to support this. The problem it was supposed to solve pales into insignificance compared to the danger it has created. Social Welfare programmes encourage and even create mandates to poverty, Permit-issuing self-regulating agencies stifle local economic growth while leaving international business free to pursue its abuse and profit from the stagnation, Multinationals do not obey local laws-except with lip-service, and as we see with Senator Kerry, it’s ridiculously easy to avoid paying a luxury tax by shifting the registered ownership (or docking your yacht in the next state.)

    Why was Chuck Rangel’s resort (that he got into some tax trouble over) offshore? because he wouldn’t have to pay taxes, comply with labor laws, or function under OSHA regulations-and he’s a major proponent of taxes, labor laws, and agencies like OSHA-and he sat on the ways and means committee before he chaired it-he KNOWS (or OUGHT to know) what is in the tax code he promotes.

    These are symptoms of the problem-the problem is, put simply, that the more authority you give to the central government, the less competently it will manage that authority, and the more damage it will tend to do.

    We have enough regulations-we have more than enough, we have enough laws-we have MORE than enough, the Government has sufficient powers-it needs no more, and in point of fact, it needs FEWER powers, fewer resources, fewer agencies, fewer rules, fewer laws, fewer officials, smaller resources, more tightly defined missions, deadlines after which those missions end, and less over-all power.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I didn’t say military action was “right” or “left,” Cannonshop. Your comment presents the idea that the “left” ALWAYS does things a certain way, while the “right” lets the people decide what to do for themselves.

    So again, how does military action work within this construct when perpetrated by those on the “right?” When Republican presidents invade other countries, how exactly are they letting “the people” have a say?

    You are also attempting to fragment the “right,” but you do not offer such courtesy to the “left.” There’s a “Religious Right,” in your construct, but there’s nothing to the left: no diversity, no difference of views, no approach differences, etc. The “left,” in your mind, appears a homogeneous mass of people who just want to control your life.

    You suggest that collective solutions “have not worked.” That’s a pretty general statement and one that I’m not particularly comfortable approaching. Collective solutions in terms of what? Do you deny that we live in a society in which our existence is spent, in large part, relating to other human beings? I kind of assumed this was a fundamental truth, but perhaps you see things a different way.

    Again you venture into absolute terminology: the “left always” does such and such. I wonder how you’ve managed to compartmentalize your worldview, Cannonshop. I find it absolutely tragic.

    It is also quite foreign to me, as my own experiences as a Canadian lie on somewhat different ground. We aren’t as concerned with “right” or “left,” it seems. We appear to actually be able to function as a society (“collective” solutions and all) without the need to rely on these distinctions. Of course, that’s not always the case. Not every American is as stubbornly partisan as you.

    There comes a point, where you have to take the power AWAY from the central authorities/government and give it back to those to whom it truly belongs-the individual citizens.

    Agree 100%. It seems to me, though, that you are suggesting that the “right” is more likely to accomplish that for you. Am I misrepresenting your view here?

    More doesn’t fix the problem, it’s time to try LESS for a while.

    Again, very general. More or less of what specifically? More good laws? Less laws period? Less taxes? Less social services? Less public works programs? Less jobs? More jobs? More benefits? Less benefits?

    What about instead of this ridiculous push and pull between “more” and “less” you construct a society that relies on standards of justice, effective policy, compassion, and so forth? Maybe then instead of having the largest prison population on the planet, you’d have some decent social programs that would help prevent creating lifetime criminals, for instance. Or maybe then instead of invading other countries for resources, you’d have people creating from within. And maybe then instead of erecting an erroneously named “free trade” agreement, you’d actually operate openly on the market where possible.

    See, I think “left” and “right” are useless terms. Just like I find it foolish to think of one economic system or political system as adequately serving a diverse society, I find it stupid to think of people in terms of political affiliations. Most of my in-laws vote Republican, but I don’t think any less of them. My parents vote Conservative up here and I don’t think any less of them. But you seem to think less of me because I side with more “left-oriented” policies and that has me quite curious.

    Your lot screams when the U.S. uses military force against people who don’t like Americans, yet you are silent, or even laudatory, when Military-Scale force is used by YOUR government on AMERICAN citizens.

    You make two incorrect assumptions, unsurprisingly. For starters, you assume I have a “lot.” Second, you assume that all of the members of this fictional lot have no issue with American government violence on American citizens.

    Because I absolutely think differently from my apparent “lot,” I’d guess I’d have to spit in the face of your “theory.” I absolutely disagree with the amount of force used in the Waco situation by government agents. I disagree, too, with the war on drugs.

    But I disagree that damage done by the “central government” is symptomatic of one side having the power over another. It is symptomatic, purely, of the type of control politics at play here by both political parties. And it is, more importantly, symptomatic of a hypnotized culture that both give the government more credit and more blame for problems and solutions in their society.

    You are your government, Cannonshop. They serve you, not the other way around. The fact that so many Americans fear their government rather than having things the other way around comes because of multiple causes, but it’s not a “left” or “right” issue in the end. And that seems to escape your reasoning about the world, Cannonshop, which tells me that the cycle will never end. You have to break out of this traditional thinking because it’s just flat-out incorrect. People don’t fit into those boxes anymore, like it or not.

  • “yet you are silent, or even laudatory, when Military-Scale force is used by YOUR government on AMERICAN citizens.”

    When did the Canadian government use Military-Scale force on AMERICAN citizens? Admittedly I haven’t been keeping up with the newspapers.

  • Cannonshop

    #44 (Embarrassed cough) forgot, Jordan’s a Canadian. My apologies.

  • Cannonshop

    #43 In a way, you’re right, Jordan-the terms ARE obselete to a large degree, esp. since we have Democrats (Hard Left) and Republicans (A little less Hard Left), both of them are achingly statist. There is a joke that if the Democrats voted to shred the Constitution, the Republicans would fight for a compromise to spread the shredding over six months.

    In order to TRY to communicate, however, I’m forced to use less precise terms than I would like to have available-Generally (and we have now seen it since 2006) Democrats don’t like the idea of repealing laws that grant the government MORE power (PATRIOT ACT being a prime example-indeed, instead of letting the more grievous sections lapse as they were set to do, the Party on the left side of the aisle voted to renew them-after running in part against it!).

    “Family Values” legislation is an oxymoron-the government can not even adequately define what a “Family” consists of. It’s idiotic to assume Uncle Sam can handle the job if Joe and Jane Citizen can not on this front. “Community Standards” only work inside a community-they can’t be effectively legislated in-which puts me at opposition with the “Religious Right” and their pointless “Culture Wars”.

    Values are taught inside the home and within the family, Government can’t do this effectively-if it could, then there would be no school bullying, and crime would not be a problem (or drug use, for that matter).

    At the same time, how many things MUST be licensed? I actually asked one of our Progressive posters a few months ago to tell me where she’d say “Stop!” on this-she wouldn’t answer, and I will posit that…she can’t. This helps me to define where the line is-if you can’t find a new regulation (or current one) that you think goes too far…

    I guess it comes down to “What IS freedom? where does it start, where does it end?”

    What is the line that defines “Enough” versus “Excessive?”

    I think Uncle Sam needs to hit the reset-button and repeal a bunch of laws-possibly whole bodies of law, and devolve back to a “MORE” constitutional size and structure, with more responsibilities given back to the States, Counties and Local levels, and less overburden from D.C.-that’s my view, in part it means that if Chicago or San Francisco want to regulate Happy Meal toys and carb-counts in their fast food, or New York wants to put a tax on Bagels, that’s their business-but I don’t want to match their regulatory model where I live. If Arizona wants to spend the money running Background checks on suspected Illegals who’ve been caught breaking another law, that’s their business and not California’s, or New York’s, or anyone else’s. Their tax-payers who elected their governor and legislature to do this, should bear the burden themselves, if Louisiana wants to build foot-ball stadiums instead of maintaining their flood-controls, well…that’s their choice, they SHOULD face the consequences when the weather doesn’t cooperate (which does not mean I won’t make my own choice and send money and help through a trust-worthy non-profit like the Red Cross, or volunteer to help if I have the time to take off in the event of such a disaster.)

    Government is, like Corporations, effectively an amoral creature, one should not expect an amoral creature to act morally, or to put another way (using a very old saw)
    “A PERSON is moral, decent, Generous and Intelligent. PEOPLE(as in groups) devolve to the lowest common denominator and are stupid.”

    which defines the difference between letting individuals make those choices (A Person) and Centralized decision making (aka Statism or governing top-down.)

    It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans works for some level of government currently-that’s too few Producers supporting too many…what, “Regulators”? Parasites? Sybiotes? when you have an overpopulation of non-producers, you have a problem-even symbiotic creatures become parasitic when they overpopulate a given host.

    By the by, Jordan-how long IS the wait to see an actual Doctor in Canada?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cannonshop, I honestly don’t disagree with any of that. I just think we come at it from different angles here in terms of what we “think” peoples’ expectations of government are. Perhaps that’s cultural, as Canadians don’t typically expect their governments to do much by way of competent actions. Ironically, you’d probably think that Canada’s government offers too much by way of social services.

    By the by, Jordan-how long IS the wait to see an actual Doctor in Canada?

    I can only speak from my own experiences and I’ve never had a problem seeing a doctor. My dad’s been in and out of hospital for various tests and crap over prostate problems over the last several months and he, too, has never experienced much by way of wait times. Dad and I have the same GP and we pretty much can just call up and go, unless he’s on vacation. No problems, no horror stories to report, no nothing.

    I’m sure some other Canadians will have different experiences, though. It’s not a perfect system. My wife’s lived in America for 25 years prior to becoming a permanent resident. She immensely prefers the level and standard of care in Canada, but again that’s her opinion.

  • Jordan Richardson

    As to the state laws and so forth, I agree to a point. We have provincial laws and provincial governments that typically function in similar ways, but the parties are different. For instance, the provincial libs in my province are far more to the right of the national libs. In this respect, you see a lot less allegiance to a particular party. You’re more likely to find allegiance to an individual leader.

    What I find really interesting about U.S. elections is how much power people have over other peoples’ lives. My wife receives her voting information and ballot in the mail so that she can vote in Washington state elections. Now on her ballot, she has a number of options on various pieces of legislation that she can vote on. Bear in mind that she’s a Canadian resident now and almost never goes to Washington state.

    She gets to vote on whether or not a certain sector of workers gets to have a union, for instance, and on stuff like bridges and financing for schools. Now when you talk about control over people via government, this is the type of shit I think of. If a set of workers in a field that my wife is completely unrelated to wants to unionize, why does my wife get a say? Why do people across the state get a say?

    My dad’s a trucker and I don’t think he’d like it much if somebody from northern B.C. or even a B.C. resident living abroad got to vote on whether or not he should have health care benefits through his job.

    We don’t have this sort of thing in Canada, at least not much. I think we had a referendum over whether or not we wanted to bring gay marriage back into the public debate a few years ago and our province is getting set to have a vote over the H.S.T. soon, but other than that we don’t vote over every single little aspect that could possibly come up. Now would you consider Canadians “less free” or “less democratic” because of this?

    Agree, too, on the lack of producers in America. It’s unfortunate to see a nation that’s fallen into consumption so much. This is coming back to bite everyday Americans in the ass, sadly, and they often have had nothing to do with the really big decisions that govern THEIR lives.

    Those decisions are often in the hands of others who might live hundreds of miles away and just want a damn tax break. One of the questions on my wife’s ballots pertained to whether or not there should be state liquor stores in a certain area. People voted on their morals and on their likes and dislikes and, in the end, the outcome could’ve cost hundreds of people their jobs because a group of unassociated, uninvolved people had their “say.” Doesn’t seem fair to me, especially after the various lobbyists and interest groups get their hooks in. I can’t imagine losing my job or my benefits or my protection because people somewhere else had a vote on it and decided, for whatever reason, to take that away from me.

    It’s a web more than it is a single problem, though. Governments, corporations, special interest groups, and corrupt unions are all seemingly wrapped up in each other these days and nobody cares about the workers or the people whose lives depend on these jobs. It’s all about cutting back and stripping away so that people have more money to consume.

  • Cannonshop

    I wouldn’t say Canada is “more” or “Less” democratic for not having a Citizens’ Initiative process on the books, Jordan-the majority of U.S. states don’t have one either.

    The Initiatives you referred to (there were two of them) both failed, by the way-and probably rightly so, given that WA. has no state Income Tax, and relies on sales taxes and liquor sales along with a Lottery, business tax, and various land-use allocations to make its bills-and over the last four years, those bills have driven the state into a massive deficit from a prior position of a 2,000,000,000 dollar surplus. (yeah, I probably should’ve used the written “Billion” but people forget how big that number IS.)

    Notably this happened after the Legislature over-rode a prior initiative that required the State Legislature to balance its budgets-the Legislature filed a lawsuit, and got 601 overturned…

    In general, I’ve noted that the Courts down here will strike down most anything that the Legislature doesn’t like, but the Voters do…and like good little sheeple, the voters keep putting the same people who file those suits…back in office.

    So, really, the system only works when the officialdom lets it. (Means that your wife’s vote…well, it really doesn’t mean a whole lot beyond saying “it would be nice if…”)

    local elections have more teeth than state-wide elections, and I suspect that’s true just about everywhere, and not just here-at least in terms of generating POSITIVE outcomes. Negative repercussions on the other hand, like any destruction, are so easy to cause that even state-wide, they can do damage in spite of the best intentions of the people doing them.

    For instance, 601 and 602 certainly would have put a damper on getting pro-sports-teams their new stadiums, had those balanced-budget initiatives been allowed to remain in force, which would have, no doubt, made Paul Allen and the dozens of people who actually gave a shit if the Seahawks left the state a reason to be sad… (considering that the jobs at those places are part-time, mostly minimum-wage except for the very small permanent staff, losing a couple sports-teams and their out-of-state billionaire owners wouldn’t have made a ripple in real terms. Nevertheless, the state overrode the voters TWICE to build play-pens for the millionaire Jocks and their Billionaire bosses…with the Kingdome still debt-outstanding and unpaid for AFTER its demolition…)

    But Canada’s system is fine…for Canadians. I just don’t want to live under it-nothing on you guys, I like Tim Hortons’ (and got north to beyond-bellingham at least once a year to find one…) and I watch the Canucks and the Oilers occasionally (either on Cable, or the internet-though I really prefer to pop for the tickets to see the Silvertips when I can get the time off-AAA hockey, you can actually to to the game and get good seats for less than the parking to see an NHL franchise-and still pick up dinner at a place that doesn’t serve greaseburgers wrapped in dubious plasticky-waxed-foil-paper-like product.)

    But, yeah, I think you canadians pay way too much out on social welfare, and you have too many restrictions on what you’re allowed to do for my tastes-then again, we have too many down here as well, it’s just a matter of degree.

    But all of this in a weird way loops back on what I was trying to say from the get-go.

    I think people who want to live in a Canadian system, should absolutely sell the house, the car, and the stuff, and move there to pursue their dreams, instead of trying to impose those dreams on me and people like me. I’d move if there was somewhere for people like me TO move to-see?

    There isn’t. So it’s stay-and-fight.

  • I have a suggestion: Why don’t you and your friends secede to Texas?

    There you can all live in denial and enjoy your little self-absorbed lives and the rest of the real world, America, Canada, ET AL will move forward.

    One good thing about your power purchase disguised as an election, all the money in the world can’t buy real crazy. We will never have a Senator Angle…

    πŸ˜€ See ya, Cannon Watch out fer them furiners! lol

  • Cannonshop

    #50 why should I move? “I” am not the one trying to impose their ideological me-tooism on someone else. If you want to emulate “The Rest of the World”, why do you not go where the system you desire is already in place? I’m sure you MUST have some kind of skill that is in demand in Canada, right? (If I were ideologically more akin to your side, it would be REALLY easy for me-I DO have a skill in-demand in Canada, as well as the U.S. and several other countries. An A&P is portable, and AWS certifications when the aviation market’s down are darned useful things…)

    The thing is, Jeannie, that your folks won’t leave ANYONE alone-including Texas. if it starts prospering, you’ll all show up to parasite off that place after sucking the life out of what you have-which is why the Canadians probably wouldn’t take you in either (difference being, they actually CAN refuse to take you in-just as they’ve done recently with Deserters from U.S. military service.)

  • Cannon,

    The parasite that is destroying this country is the GOP.

  • Cannon,

    Open up your mind if it’s possible…

    Fact: Immigration is good for this country.

    Your foolish party didn’t even exist when this country was founded. In fact, maybe we should claim that the existence of ANY political party is UN-Constitutional. After all it’s not in the original, is it?

  • Arch Conservative

    Cannon apparently Jeannie only believes that if your views differ from hers you’re only allowed to express them while in the state of Texas.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • πŸ˜€ Thanks comments editor!

    I’ll repeat myself for the benefit of Archie.

    Who says that the national debt and all the resources necessary to pull us up in-order to prosper as a nation and pay off the debt is in the complete control of the GOP?

    For people who are really afraid of the word socialism, the GOP sure doesn’t mind socializing the national debt.

    It’s time for social justice!

    Obama is still our President, and he’s doing great or you wouldn’t be flipping out all the time.