Another letter to the Edmonton Sun

Dear editor,

 

Your "un-electable candidates" and "unrealistic alternatives" discourse reveals more about your ideological stance than you might think. Tell the people in Linda Duncan's riding and the people of Manitoba and Nova Scotia that they didn't elect NDP and explain to them why.You cannot fool all the people all the time. Social-democracy is more popular, more realistic and more electable than the Tories, Liberals and Edmonton Sun want us to believe.

 

Artem Medvedev

Edmonton-Leduc

A letter to the Edmonton Sun

Dear editor(s),

It seems that the Letters to the Editor section isn't used by you appropriately.

First of all, many letters appear to be edited in such a fashion that sentences no longer make any sense grammatically or meaning-wise.

Secondly, your comments following each letter leave much to be desired in terms of reader-friendly and objective journalism. Just recently, you wrote in response to my letter regarding Harper's Orwellian hypocricy in the Bev Oda case that "the NDP are an anachronism, not a realistic alternative". Fortunately, the 2,5 million Canadians that supported New Democrats in 2008 didn't share this view. If saying something against governmental fraud and lies is an anachronism to you, perhaps you should consider a career change.

Artem Medvedev

Edmonton-Leduc NDP

I need your help, people!

Yes, this is a shameless call for volunteers sent out by means of the blog. Blame me if you need to, but first - please join our team here in Edmonton-Leduc. You don't need to be actually living here, as there are a lot of projects, such as research and online media help, that we could use a hand in. You don't have to spend a lot of time on the campaign - even an hour a week would be appreciated. You don't even have to be a 100% NDP supporter - just a positive person wishing to make a difference.

The list of available work is not exhausted by the following:

• canvassers
• phone canvassers
• volunteer recruiters
• advertising director
• canvassing director
• online media helpers
• researchers
• area contacts
• literature distributors
• designers
• webmaster

Please email me at amedvedev@ualberta.ca , call me at 780-421-4821 or contact me through Facebook or Twitter. I look forward to hearing from you!
Artem Medvedev, NDP Candidate for Edmonton-Leduc
www.artemmedvedev.ca

Well said, Mr. Dobbin

I don't remember the last time I had read something online that struck me as so well-phrased and well-argumented: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/01/message-pre-election-ndp-trust-people-be-bold-take-risk
The way to move us from apathy of the most and activism by a few to a truly open democratic society indicated here is clear. Let's be bold, let's be different, let's win, friends!

Are there really "losers" in a democracy?

Harper's constant "loser parties" discourse, repeated once again this week in the 5-year-summary interview for CBC, really got me thinking whether he understands how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work (no doubt, he does understand how he makes it work for his and his banks/corporations advantage).
Does a party really "win" if they get less than half of the votes? To follow the same line of thought, does the party really "win" if it gets 100% minus 1 vote? I'm really sorry for Stephen Harper (and Michael Ignatieff, for that matter), as one day the truth will manifest itself to them, the fact that unless we are in a 2-party system or a 1-party system, both of which are made specifically for those rulers and groups that cannot stand to be called or considered "losers", there are, actually, no "losers" in a truly democratic and equal and fair parliamentary system. A party that gets 1% of the vote is a winner as much as the party that gets 45% or, however unlikely, 60%.
If each Canadian's vote is of equal value and we all build this country together, then why would the opinions expressed by groups be evaluated only on the basis of numbers, percentages, seats?

Civilized political discourse is still possible

With the persistent Harper-Ignatieff "coalition partners" and "boutique parties" discourse picking up within their parties and splashing over into the language of the media, it is difficult to see a different way in which we could hold discussions of what is happening to Canada and how we see the steps necessary in the future. It seems sometimes that this Us vs. Them or Us vs. Losers or Liberal vs. Boutique or Tory vs. Non-Canadians discourse is the only way to go. The reasons for that are understandable - it's easy to split the world into dichotomies that don't really ring true and don't really last, but work for the beauty of one's phraseology or the value of one's self-appreciation. Harper and Ignatieff's tragedy is, perhaps, that they appear to honestly (erm... what's the word? "Sincerely"? No, that's not it either...) think that this kind of kindergarten talk in politics does them and their parties a favor or that it's even good for Canada. I beg to differ. Yes, with these two bully-like individuals around it's becoming increasingly tough to stay within the boundaries of civilized, respectful, reasonable conversation. Does that mean we should all give up trying?

What do you get when you vote for Ignatieff, Mr. Ignatieff?

In his wonderful quote on "If you vote for Elizabeth May, you get Stephen Harper, if you vote for Jack Layton, you get Stephen Harper etc.", Michael Ignatieff appears to be out of touch with the feeling even within his own party that if Canadians really did vote for party leaders and not for individual MPs, the Liberal party would face a disaster even worse than in the previous election, judging by the fact that the majority of Canadians and even the majority of Liberals want Ignatieff out.
The arrogance of Ignatieff's new "boutique parties" discourse is akin to Harper's "you can't beat me so you're stuck with me" general line. Maybe it's time to send both of them into political retirement, so they can continue this kindergarten battle outside of the public arena.

Discussing WikiLeaks, the Tory stimulus plan, and other issues on Leduc Radio

Looking forward to your feedback on last week's radio show  here in Edmonton-Leduc. If you have ideas for future shows/guests, please contact me.

What do you call this without swearing?

Taking into account the fact that the Afghan government has the dubious prestige of being repeatedly named one of the three most corrupt governments in the world, what are the Tories and the Liberals prepared to send Canadian troops to do?

If Rick Mercer is an accurate source, then Laurie Hawn just said that Canadian soldiers will be so safe in Aghanistan they won't need flak jackets. Are you aware of what exactly you are saying, Mr. Hawn? Do you have any idea of what you'll do if proven wrong? Disgusting.

When you go on air, they will listen in

The number of listeners tuning in to our weekly show on Leduc Radio has been increasing with each week and has been well above the 500 mark since end of August. Many thanks to everyone making this show a success!