Money in Politics

With all the recent elections and the money involved in running campaigns, I began to wonder just what it was we were spending all this money on, especially in the middle of a world-wide recession. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdyEPGiM7o. This strikes me as a monumental waste of money, and as vaguely undemocratic.

Our society is based around government for the people, by the people. In Canada, parties are only allowed to spend so much nationally and per riding, which allows all political parties to have an equal voice in each area of the country, meaning that voters are able to decide based on the merits of each candidate. Third party groups are also heavily restricted in order to ensure this equality in each view getting aired.
In America though, there aren't as many limits, the living proof being in the above video clip and the campaign of Barack Obama, who saturated an entire country with his policies and his positions for two years during both the primary and general election campaigns. Between President Obama, Senator McCain and Secretary of State Clinton, over one BILLION dollars was raised and spent to run advertisements, affix lawn signs and generally spread their messages to voters in order to persuade the electorate to vote for them. This kind of extreme spending prevents other points of view from being disseminated, and thus the voters don't get the whole story and cannot really make an objective decision on which person best reflects their views.

Perhaps this difference between the American and Canadian systems of election advertising is due to the systems of governance that each country has chosen to partake. Canada's multi party parliamentary system almost requires that people be allowed to see all options clearly and equally, as cooperation between the parties is more likely and outright majorities in Parliament are less common. Whereas in the American two-party system, there is a greater need for one party to reduce the other into a deep minority status, as it is guaranteed that at each level of Congress, there will be one party that controls a 50%+1 majority in each house, and larger majorities mean that less compromise with the opposition is required.

We have a choice; to allow freedom for ALL views to be heard, or to allow third parties and the wealthy to control who hears what information.

Blood banks lack blood, sanity

It seems that equality is not yet something that we can all take for a given, at least not when it comes to giving the gift of life.
First off, I am gay. I intend to have sex with my partner, whoever he ends up being. I don't do drugs, I believe in monogamous relationships and refuse to have sex with anyone who may even have a slight risk of being an STI carrier. I will not be allowed to donate either my blood or my organs when I die under the current rules. Why? Heterosexuals far less safe than myself don't even get a temporary deferral, and yet I will have a lifetime ban placed upon donations simply because of who I am and who I will share my bed with.

Statistics from both stats Canada and other sources show that male-male sexual activity only accounts for 35% of all new HIV infections, with heterosexual sexual contact also accounting for 35% and IV drug use approaching 10%. Neither IV drug users nor high-risk heterosexual persons are given lifetime deferrals, yet statistics taken by the very people in control of the blood donation laws show that those two groups present high risks of infection per capita, especially within the IV drug user community.

Its more than just a safety issue, I can understand safety. Its still discriminatory, particularly in light of facts brought to us by the US Center for Disease Control, showing that a staggering FIFTY-ONE percent of new HIV infections were among black people in America. Yet there's no ban on black people donating blood, holy hell would be unleashed if discrimination was enacted as law there. To recap, and this is using stats from the US CDC and not my own writings, it is ok to discriminate against an act (and sadly, a group) that provides 44% of HIV infections, but not one that provides 51% of new infections. There's something inherantly wrong with this, someone explain to me how one minority that constitutes approximately 10% of the population is discriminated against, but a different minority group with the same population size and a LARGER infection rate is allowed to do as it pleases with blood.

As a final statement, I would like to point out that many heterosexual men willingly partake in MSM activities, and that not all MSM people are homosexual. What would the rates of infection be if only homosexual or bisexual men in same-sex relationships were surveyed instead of all men who have MSM? Or do we all think that the MSM heterosexuals are being safe and bringing the infection rates down for that group?

Cited sources: http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm