I really love the show Humans.
This isn't an obsession thing. This isn't a "I will think about this every day and get too invested in the characters and rant about plot twists until I get sick of it" thing. This is a, "This is actually a really intelligent and compelling story with really good acting and awesome visuals and all in all is pretty great television" kinda thing.
It baffles me that anyone could watch it without seeing what I see in it.
And yet, people ask me why I love it so much.
And, as demonstrated by my sorely unappreciative mother, I guess not everyone gets it? She doesn't seem to see anything besides a generic, slow-moving sci-fi thing. So I'm going to come here and lay out all the reasons why I think everyone should watch this and love this and appreciate this and think it's as great as I think it is. And, most importantly, I'm going to attempt to do this without spoiling anything.
A) Alternate present
This is a device that is very easily taken for granted, but I think it's very smart. Because the risk you run by setting something in the near future is having people taken out of the story by breaking the suspension of disbelief, making it, y'know... a generic sci-fi show with quickly decaying realism.
By setting this show in an "alternate present" rather than the near future, it allows them to, firstly, not have to work on a "futuristic" aesthetic or develop fictional futuristic technology, aside from the robots (or Synths, as they're called), which helps on the suspension of disbelief front. And because the realism doesn't decay so rapidly, it's much easier to take its serious moments seriously. The emotional tone isn't jeopardized by its fundamentally sci-fi origins.
B) Backstory
LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO
Whew. Sorry about that. The character Leo has a particularly, hm, notable backstory.
But, yeah, backstory is a big thing on this show. The one with the most question marks hovering around him is Leo, but everyone has something going on. Laura's hiding something, and that's making her husband suspicious. Dr. Millican is really weirdly attached to his Synth, but clearly knows what it is. We don't know much about Karen at all, either. And Niska's pretty grim from the moment we meet her, what's up with that? Anita's pretty shady for a machine, as well, isn't she?
A lot of the show is about teasing people's backstories out into the open, but it does so in a, I don't know, a tasteful way. It knows how to withhold enough information to make people want more, without withholding so much that nothing the characters do make any sense. Basically, backstory isn't key to understanding everything - except, arguably, for Leo, I suppose, but Leo's the exception to many things - but it does add a meaty layer to everything, and that's nice to be able to dig into.
Basically, the characters are all very planned straight from the beginning, and so it isn't a matter of piecing together half-baked clues. The writers know exactly what they're giving you and how much they're giving you, and so it's like just watching a present unwrap in front of you. It's very skillful, and it adds so much to the show.
C) Perspectives
So, as suggested fairly blatantly by the title, the show is basically about what constitutes a "real" human (this is even more blatant in the original Swedish version, which was called, you guessed it, Real Humans), and by nature of the show, which involves multiple intersecting storylines, a lot of characters have a lot of different answers.
For instance, in the Hawkins family, Laura is uncomfortable with getting a Synth for fear it'll "confuse" the kids into thinking it is a real person rather than a machine, and she ends up holding a lot of conversations with the Synth they get, Anita, about whether or not she can react in human ways, asking questions like, "Do you ever get scared?" and "What do you think of the music?", etcetera. Her husband is all for getting a Synth, and is much more convinced that Anita is nothing more than a machine made to serve them, hardly any different than a, I don't know, some inanimate device like a toaster or something. Their daughter, Matilda, hates Synths because, as an extremely smart girl, she resents them and predicts that for all her intelligence, she'll be rendered basically obsolete by these machines.
So already we've got at least three different points of view.
Moving out of the Hawkins family, there's Dr. Millican, who is quite willing to treat his Synths as if they're people (whether or not that means he treats them well depends on how well he likes the Synth in question, but he arguably treats them like people nevertheless), or at least, people who are supposed to do as he says. His Synth Vera brings up a whole other thing unto itself.
There's also Pete, whose job is to investigate crimes committed in relation to Synths. So I guess it really shouldn't surprise anyone that he really deeply resents Synths in general, seeing as he witnesses them causing problems every day of his life.
And, of course, there's Leo, but, well, I'm not going to go into that right now. It's complicated.
Point is, we've got like five different perspectives right there alone, and that's not even all the characters. It makes the show really rich. Which is why I don't understand my mother when she complains the show moves too slowly - I'd say the pacing is perfect. The show wouldn't be nearly as good if we didn't come to understand the characters so thoroughly as we do.
D) Acting
I don't talk about this enough, but the acting on this show is actually, like, really impressive.
Aside from Leo being played by the ever-talented Colin Morgan (whom I first knew as Merlin, and whose acting has always impressed me - he's what sold me on the show Merlin to begin with), you have to give props to the people who play the Synths, especially, but not limited to, Anita and Odi.
The Synths are not just robots that look like people. They move in a very specific way, and speak in a very specific way, and react to things in a very specific way. Apparently the actors playing Synths on this show had to go to Synth school to learn how to play these characters properly, and the commitment is really obvious and, I think, really admirable. It totally makes the show.
The ones playing humans also do a wonderful job, obviously, I just think it's necessary to point out the level of commitment inherent in having to play a non-human. And it's pulled off really really well.
E) Leo
What? How did that get in there? Silly Megan, Leo can't be a reason unto himself.
I really have a thing for Leo, okay?
E.1) Fascinating characters
There, that's somewhat more general, right?
All the characters are really complex and are never going in any one direction. Even what would be, on a different show, throwaway characters, like the mom and dad of the Hawkins, or their middle son who doesn't have any super important storylines around him, they're all very well-rounded characters who the writers clearly understand fully. And this is true of all the characters, and it makes a show with so many of them just wonderful, because it means that they're all very distinct in their voices and their perspectives and opinions. They're all... wait for it... quite human. Laura, especially, surprised me with how fleshed out she became, as well as the son, Toby, and Leo's sidekick, Max.
F) Motherhood
Not usually a topic to be explored on television all that much, or at least, not without the weird stigma of "if motherhood's being talked about on TV it's probably because some anti-hero had terrible mommy issues".
Humans doesn't do it like that, which is nice since motherhood is such a big deal on this show.
Because, of course, Laura's main issue with buying Anita is that Anita ends up usurping some of Laura's motherly duties, such as reading to her kid before she goes to bed, and playing games with her kids, and making their lunches. Basically all the scenes that take place in the Hawkins house for the first, I don't know, three or four episodes - it all has to do with how Laura sees herself as a mother, and where Anita fits into that.
There's also other mother-discussion that happens on the show that I really can't talk about without it being incredibly spoilery, so I won't, but know that it's a topic that comes up again and again, and it comes up tastefully and compellingly.
G) Family
I suppose this goes hand-in-hand with motherhood, but. Well.
See, what I find interesting and unique about this show is that it takes a concept that's inherently sci-fi-esque - robots serving people, and the question of, as they put it, "true artificial intelligence" - but surrounds it with storylines and themes that are inherently and necessarily about, well, humans. And people. Family and motherhood are two of the biggest of these.
Family is the one thing on this show that surrounds every single storyline, and involves every single character. From the dynamic of the Hawkins family, to Dr. Millican's love for his wife, to Pete's steadily worsening marriage, and I don't think it's a spoiler to say that even Leo (arguably the most detached character) is all about family. Like I mentioned before, the cornucopia of characters necessitates a cornucopia of perspectives, and that isn't limited to the ethics of robotics. They utilize the vastly different perspectives on this point as well.
See, when people talk about science fiction being used as an allegory for real life, I imagine that this is the quintessential example. Especially because the Synths, rather than distracting from the points that various characters make, instead serve to make their points clearer.
It's just really well done.
H) Realism
Oooh.
The realism in this show is sort of painfully on track at times.
It's very brutally honest about - hahaha - human nature.
(I physically cannot stop myself at this point, human is the only word to describe Humans, why am I a writer again?)
But just - the details. This alternate present is very believable, knowing what we do about, well, people. The "We Are People" group protesting the existence of Synths (based on a similar view to Laura - that having Synths blurs the lines between machines and people). And the idea of people using Synth maids for sex. And the Synth brothel thing. It's just... too realistic for comfort at times.
But it's that realism that the show is set in that makes it so great. If it didn't have that foundation of reality to build on, then nothing about it would make any sense at all. It makes the show what it is - a masterpiece of science fiction acknowledging every aspect, good and bad, of human nature, and calling it nothing more or less than exactly that. It isn't about good and evil (as much as I loathe one of the characters with a fiery passion). It's about people being people, for good or ill.
And I just think that's so cool.
In conclusion:
Yeah, I've talked a lot about the individual pieces here that make it great, and they all do apply. But I also find it necessary to reiterate that, like, the plot is actually compelling. And, because it is about human nature, you end up feeling affection for every character despite the mistakes they make (except one in particular, but he has the least development so...) because you understand their motivations, and their flaws and natures that led them there. And it has its moments of stunningly beautiful visuals (the major scene with the tree in Episode 8 comes to mind - and that's the least spoilery way I can put it). So if that's your thing, you can feel secure that it's in Humans' repertoire.
Even if sci-fi isn't your thing, I strongly recommend you give this show a try. The first season is just eight episodes long. They're all on Youtube. It's worth every second and more.
I love this show so much.
No, that isn't really the word.
Admire. I really admire this show, and everything it manages to pull off.
Hopefully this was a decent explanation of why that is.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
And Thus Change Begins
As someone who literally can't remember a time when Stephen Harper was not prime minister (seeing as I wasn't exactly the most political at the age of seven), it's pretty significant for me that all of a sudden our prime minister is Justin Trudeau.
For me, this represents so many good things. On a personal level, it means I won't have to listen to my mother's "Stephen Harper is literally Satan" rants (why, yes, she is a bit more left than right, how did you guess?) but on a less personal level, it means that I'm probably going to start seeing actual change. And that'll be an interesting experience.
This is probably not the best way to prelude a post about the younger Trudeau, but I have to say it, so that people know how I'm politically bent: I really admire Pierre Trudeau. From what I learned in Socials 11, Pierre Trudeau was a pretty cool dude who implemented a lot of positive change for the country (including, but not limited to, patriating the Constitution, putting way more women in positions of government, making Canada an officially bilingual country, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and, if I recall correctly, it was he who introduced the concept of multiculturalism. I have to say this because people around have often asked, "Name one good thing he ever did." Hopefully that clears that up). I can't, for the life of me, understand people who dislike Pierre Trudeau or what he did while in government. (That said, I was only given a crash course of his political career in a Socials course - seeing as I wasn't alive at the time, I could be missing pieces of the story).
Big shoes for his son to fill, perhaps, but I definitely have faith in Justin Trudeau. Without going into too much detail on every single issue, of which, it turns out, there are a few, let's just say that my ideas align fairly well with his, and the Liberal party's.
And, in all honesty, just having a change from how the Conservative party was running the country will be good. The Conservatives did nothing for the environment at all (it was almost to the point of, "if I can't see it it can't see me" put your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalala" kind of denial), and their stance on the niqab was getting really hard to take. (There are issues around the niqab - mainly whether or not they'd be willing to show their faces if it came to an issue of security - but turning it into a women's rights issue is just not the way to go, here. How are you advocating for women's rights if you're telling them how to dress? How are you upholding the Canadian multiculturalism which is, in my experience, a pillar of our particular society? HOW IS IT "MORE CANADIAN" TO INFRINGE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION???)
I am really surprised, not unpleasantly so, that we ended up with a Liberal majority. My original prediction had been that we'd have a Liberal government, but a minority. To go from a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority is a fairly radical change, and one that I'm quite ready for.
I'm glad this has happened, and I can't wait to see what changes happen as a result.
P.S "You young people only like Justin Trudeau because he's going to legalize marijuana!"
Yeah, because I, a straight-edge introvert whose most rebellious action of my high school years thus far has been to trick-or-treat on Halloween when my Dad told me I was too old, am totally going to have a really strong opinion about whether or not I get to smoke weed. My support of Trudeau and the Liberals definitely has nothing to do with my general ideological stance.
But, for the record:
"Is that really our biggest issue right now?" asks the anti-Trudeau "nice hair though" commercial.
No, it quite clearly is not, but isn't it rather hypocritical for you to point that out, Conservatives, having put so much effort into arresting those who use marijuana?
And, one last thing: no, marijuana still isn't our biggest issue. But there are a lot of good arguments to legalize it, regardless. Basically, what it amounts to is this: if you take the power away from the drug-dealers, than the country will be a safer place. Regulate the drug, and it won't be laced, and people who choose to use it will be safer. Collect the tax money from the sales and use it for something worthwhile. Put laws around who gets to use it - for example, an age limit. I really don't see a particularly strong downside to this course of action.
Fight me, Conservatives.
For me, this represents so many good things. On a personal level, it means I won't have to listen to my mother's "Stephen Harper is literally Satan" rants (why, yes, she is a bit more left than right, how did you guess?) but on a less personal level, it means that I'm probably going to start seeing actual change. And that'll be an interesting experience.
This is probably not the best way to prelude a post about the younger Trudeau, but I have to say it, so that people know how I'm politically bent: I really admire Pierre Trudeau. From what I learned in Socials 11, Pierre Trudeau was a pretty cool dude who implemented a lot of positive change for the country (including, but not limited to, patriating the Constitution, putting way more women in positions of government, making Canada an officially bilingual country, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and, if I recall correctly, it was he who introduced the concept of multiculturalism. I have to say this because people around have often asked, "Name one good thing he ever did." Hopefully that clears that up). I can't, for the life of me, understand people who dislike Pierre Trudeau or what he did while in government. (That said, I was only given a crash course of his political career in a Socials course - seeing as I wasn't alive at the time, I could be missing pieces of the story).
Big shoes for his son to fill, perhaps, but I definitely have faith in Justin Trudeau. Without going into too much detail on every single issue, of which, it turns out, there are a few, let's just say that my ideas align fairly well with his, and the Liberal party's.
And, in all honesty, just having a change from how the Conservative party was running the country will be good. The Conservatives did nothing for the environment at all (it was almost to the point of, "if I can't see it it can't see me" put your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalala" kind of denial), and their stance on the niqab was getting really hard to take. (There are issues around the niqab - mainly whether or not they'd be willing to show their faces if it came to an issue of security - but turning it into a women's rights issue is just not the way to go, here. How are you advocating for women's rights if you're telling them how to dress? How are you upholding the Canadian multiculturalism which is, in my experience, a pillar of our particular society? HOW IS IT "MORE CANADIAN" TO INFRINGE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION???)
I am really surprised, not unpleasantly so, that we ended up with a Liberal majority. My original prediction had been that we'd have a Liberal government, but a minority. To go from a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority is a fairly radical change, and one that I'm quite ready for.
I'm glad this has happened, and I can't wait to see what changes happen as a result.
P.S "You young people only like Justin Trudeau because he's going to legalize marijuana!"
Yeah, because I, a straight-edge introvert whose most rebellious action of my high school years thus far has been to trick-or-treat on Halloween when my Dad told me I was too old, am totally going to have a really strong opinion about whether or not I get to smoke weed. My support of Trudeau and the Liberals definitely has nothing to do with my general ideological stance.
But, for the record:
"Is that really our biggest issue right now?" asks the anti-Trudeau "nice hair though" commercial.
No, it quite clearly is not, but isn't it rather hypocritical for you to point that out, Conservatives, having put so much effort into arresting those who use marijuana?
And, one last thing: no, marijuana still isn't our biggest issue. But there are a lot of good arguments to legalize it, regardless. Basically, what it amounts to is this: if you take the power away from the drug-dealers, than the country will be a safer place. Regulate the drug, and it won't be laced, and people who choose to use it will be safer. Collect the tax money from the sales and use it for something worthwhile. Put laws around who gets to use it - for example, an age limit. I really don't see a particularly strong downside to this course of action.
Fight me, Conservatives.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
So, I Watched a Political Debate
So tonight my mom dragged me to a political debate.
It wasn't for the prime minister candidates, just for the candidates we vote for in our riding, which meant that most of the issues talked about were mainly municipal. I actually understood a lot more about what they were talking about than I expected to (thank you, Socials 11. Good class. Actual useful information, there). It helped that they preceded each question with some supplementary information, but still, it was nice to know that I'm actually not as politics-dumb as I thought I was.
Anyway, there were five debaters there, which surprised me: MP candidates from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Green Party were a given. I wasn't expecting to see someone representing the Libertarian Party.
As it turns out, that was for good reason.
If you'll allow me to describe his side of the debate in metaphor, I'd say that it was basically like watching someone have their back turned the entire time because they thought the camera was behind them. "Look this way!" call the other candidates onstage. "The camera's over here!" "No," he says in return, "you're wrong, it's here. I know it is, even though you all are telling me and the audience is telling me, but I know I'm right."
It was amusing at first. Then it wasn't so much.
But, good Lord. The way he was talking, you'd think we live in an Orwell novel. "The government is imposing its decisions on us without our consent!" "The government is stealing our money and we never get it back!" I'm not sure if he ever actually used the word "totalitarian" or if my brain self-inserted that into his monologues, but either way, it was sort of like giving that crazy guy with the "The end is nigh!" sign two minutes to say his piece into a microphone.
And when he wasn't going on about how the government is screwing us over every chance it gets, he was completely off-base on all the issues. "What would you do to advocate for aboriginal people?" asks the mediator. "I think I'd leave them alone. We've done enough to them."
Fun fact of the day: advocating for people actually necessitates acknowledging them, and doing nothing will change nothing about their station.
"Would you advocate to have municipal governments recognized in the Constitution?" asks the mediator. "Oh good," I think to myself, "I learned all about this in Law class already, what an interesting question! I never really thought of the implications of not having municipal governments constitutionally recognized, but surely it must complicate jurisdiction issues and the like."
"I never heard that municipal governments weren't in the constitution until now," says Libertarian Guy.
I don't know, I feel like a high school student three weeks into a Law course shouldn't know more about the Constitution than someone who calls themselves a politician.
"What would you do to help the environment?"
"Well, I think that global warming is just silly nonsense."
Oh, yes.
And when the crowd booed, he accused everyone of being ignorant.
He later complained about it being a "hostile crowd".
I WONDER WHY.
Anyway, I've said enough about him. He was just annoying, but it's not like he matters in the scheme of things.
So, the Conservative MP candidate.
Boy, can this guy talk. On and on and on he talks, until I start to zone out. Eventually, I start noticing this. "Don't zone out," I think to myself. "That's what he wants you to do. Listen. Form an opinion. As Jon Stewart has trained me to do, pick out the bull." So I started making more of an effort to pay attention.
First of all, he starts off every one of his things with, "This is a very important issue." Yes, we know it is. If it wasn't important, I'm sure we wouldn't be asking you about your position on it.
And then he talks. For a long time. Without really saying anything, though, that's important. He reiterates, in a lot of different and varying fashions, that the issue is important. He states, in very general terms, sort of what the Conservative party can do and/or is doing about it. He brings up local examples, which usually fall apart as soon as open discussion starts and the NDP starts ripping him. I'll get to her later, though.
I didn't learn anything about the Conservative party I didn't already know. I get the impression that he was trying to appeal to a mostly Liberal/NDP leaning audience without ever actually saying anything his party wouldn't approve of, leading him to very general statements with a distinct lack of actual substance.
Basically, think of a kid writing a two thousand word essay about a book they didn't read. Long, well-written, proof-read, certainly; but does it say anything worthwhile? Probably not.
Next we come to the Liberal MP candidate.
I forgot he was there half the time, to be honest, and that's something, considering he was literally in the center of the stage. He could have been invisible for how much I noticed him. I'm sure he was saying things that were decent, but could I tell you any of it? Not really.
I hate to reduce politics to this, but as it turns out, charisma is important for politicians, and, well, anyone who does public speaking as part of their job. This guy did not have any, and therefore I can't think of a single notable thing he said. Call me shallow, but it does seem important.
Next up, Green Party.
This guy. This guy was smart. This guy was well-spoken. He was also quite involved in our local community, which he wasted no time in pointing out, but that's okay. He talked about the issues properly, actually proposing solutions and stances on subjects that I found other candidates dancing around.
The other thing, of course, that really earned my respect, was him cutting through one of Conservative Guy's monologues with a, "Sorry, what's your point?"
Good. Challenge that dude. I, as the audience, don't want to hear a long-winded anecdote designed to appear to supplement the argument but actually distract from the lack thereof.
Yeah, if I thought the Green Party had a chance, (and if I could vote yet) I might be voting for him, because he seemed to understand what was going on, and how to answer things in a way that seemed authentic without seeming arrogant.
And finally, the NDP, with the only woman candidate! Represent!
Whew. She was killing it.
She was well educated in her opinions, well spoken in her positions concerning them, and was not afraid to point out that her experiences (as a younger woman) were sometimes more relevant to the issues being discussed than the others. It definitely showed. She was also very vocal during the open discussion, challenging people's opinions and forcing them to answer for themselves.
Two things that turned me off: first of all, I heard a lot about how the NDP had a plan for that. They're proposing a plan for this. We're going to fund this, and that, and everything. I found myself asking "How?" a lot of the time. However, I find it hard to fault her for this, because I assume that these are complicated things that take more than thirty seconds to explain.
The other thing is that she, especially near the end, started talking about how much the Conservative government was doing wrong, a lot of which was met with a reply from Conservative Guy, "That's just not true!"
Now, due to my personal biases, I'm more inclined to take her word for it because she didn't beat around the bush like Conservative Guy, and because she has good credentials as a journalist, meaning she's probably pretty good when it comes to things like information. I realized after a while, though, that objectively, it was essentially her word against Conservative Guy's.
And when you think of it like that, you realize that it was sort of like reading a Wikipedia article - I want to trust it, and often do, but at the same time, I need sources. Because the thing is, she could have said, "The Conservatives are killing puppies, isn't that terrible!" Yes, of course that's wrong, and I don't want to support people who do that. But how do I know that what you said is actually true? I don't, basically, not in that moment, and she didn't give anything about how she knew what she knew.
Which, again, is hard to fault her for, as they were very short segments of time to pack in some substantial stuff, but it still read as a little bit... off.
But let's make this clear - her answers did have substance. In contrast to Conservative Guy, who would talk endlessly without saying anything, her answers were short and sweet and answered the question directly.
Basically, NDP gal was slaying.
And, all in all, it was a really interesting experience, and actually rather satisfying. It was nice to discover that I actually understood the issues being discussed, and had an opinion about how to go about them. It was also really interesting because, in Socials 11 (which, as I've mentioned, was an extremely useful class), the course straight-up outlines clear-cut, useful solutions to some of these problems, mostly environmental issues, and it's interesting to see some people dance around them while others - mainly Green Guy - say, "This isn't possible now but we will take steps so that it is possible and in place by 2020" or whatever. It never before occurred to me how much politics is simply a mixture of education and ideology.
Anyway, it was nice to find out that I knew enough to disagree with people on issues and agree with others. It's also interesting because I never really thought of MPs as meaning much except personifying votes for the Prime Minister. However, it became more clear than ever for me that MPs, as being actually part of Parliament, do have a certain amount of power regardless of whether their party wins Prime Minister, and that voting with an MP in mind instead of the leader of their party isn't actually as ridiculous a course of action as I had originally perceived it.
Basically, I learned a lot about Canadian politics that day - a lot of stuff that I knew in theory but had never completely understood in practise. And I'm really glad I did.
It wasn't for the prime minister candidates, just for the candidates we vote for in our riding, which meant that most of the issues talked about were mainly municipal. I actually understood a lot more about what they were talking about than I expected to (thank you, Socials 11. Good class. Actual useful information, there). It helped that they preceded each question with some supplementary information, but still, it was nice to know that I'm actually not as politics-dumb as I thought I was.
Anyway, there were five debaters there, which surprised me: MP candidates from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Green Party were a given. I wasn't expecting to see someone representing the Libertarian Party.
As it turns out, that was for good reason.
If you'll allow me to describe his side of the debate in metaphor, I'd say that it was basically like watching someone have their back turned the entire time because they thought the camera was behind them. "Look this way!" call the other candidates onstage. "The camera's over here!" "No," he says in return, "you're wrong, it's here. I know it is, even though you all are telling me and the audience is telling me, but I know I'm right."
It was amusing at first. Then it wasn't so much.
But, good Lord. The way he was talking, you'd think we live in an Orwell novel. "The government is imposing its decisions on us without our consent!" "The government is stealing our money and we never get it back!" I'm not sure if he ever actually used the word "totalitarian" or if my brain self-inserted that into his monologues, but either way, it was sort of like giving that crazy guy with the "The end is nigh!" sign two minutes to say his piece into a microphone.
And when he wasn't going on about how the government is screwing us over every chance it gets, he was completely off-base on all the issues. "What would you do to advocate for aboriginal people?" asks the mediator. "I think I'd leave them alone. We've done enough to them."
Fun fact of the day: advocating for people actually necessitates acknowledging them, and doing nothing will change nothing about their station.
"Would you advocate to have municipal governments recognized in the Constitution?" asks the mediator. "Oh good," I think to myself, "I learned all about this in Law class already, what an interesting question! I never really thought of the implications of not having municipal governments constitutionally recognized, but surely it must complicate jurisdiction issues and the like."
"I never heard that municipal governments weren't in the constitution until now," says Libertarian Guy.
I don't know, I feel like a high school student three weeks into a Law course shouldn't know more about the Constitution than someone who calls themselves a politician.
"What would you do to help the environment?"
"Well, I think that global warming is just silly nonsense."
Oh, yes.
And when the crowd booed, he accused everyone of being ignorant.
He later complained about it being a "hostile crowd".
I WONDER WHY.
Anyway, I've said enough about him. He was just annoying, but it's not like he matters in the scheme of things.
So, the Conservative MP candidate.
Boy, can this guy talk. On and on and on he talks, until I start to zone out. Eventually, I start noticing this. "Don't zone out," I think to myself. "That's what he wants you to do. Listen. Form an opinion. As Jon Stewart has trained me to do, pick out the bull." So I started making more of an effort to pay attention.
First of all, he starts off every one of his things with, "This is a very important issue." Yes, we know it is. If it wasn't important, I'm sure we wouldn't be asking you about your position on it.
And then he talks. For a long time. Without really saying anything, though, that's important. He reiterates, in a lot of different and varying fashions, that the issue is important. He states, in very general terms, sort of what the Conservative party can do and/or is doing about it. He brings up local examples, which usually fall apart as soon as open discussion starts and the NDP starts ripping him. I'll get to her later, though.
I didn't learn anything about the Conservative party I didn't already know. I get the impression that he was trying to appeal to a mostly Liberal/NDP leaning audience without ever actually saying anything his party wouldn't approve of, leading him to very general statements with a distinct lack of actual substance.
Basically, think of a kid writing a two thousand word essay about a book they didn't read. Long, well-written, proof-read, certainly; but does it say anything worthwhile? Probably not.
Next we come to the Liberal MP candidate.
I forgot he was there half the time, to be honest, and that's something, considering he was literally in the center of the stage. He could have been invisible for how much I noticed him. I'm sure he was saying things that were decent, but could I tell you any of it? Not really.
I hate to reduce politics to this, but as it turns out, charisma is important for politicians, and, well, anyone who does public speaking as part of their job. This guy did not have any, and therefore I can't think of a single notable thing he said. Call me shallow, but it does seem important.
Next up, Green Party.
This guy. This guy was smart. This guy was well-spoken. He was also quite involved in our local community, which he wasted no time in pointing out, but that's okay. He talked about the issues properly, actually proposing solutions and stances on subjects that I found other candidates dancing around.
The other thing, of course, that really earned my respect, was him cutting through one of Conservative Guy's monologues with a, "Sorry, what's your point?"
Good. Challenge that dude. I, as the audience, don't want to hear a long-winded anecdote designed to appear to supplement the argument but actually distract from the lack thereof.
Yeah, if I thought the Green Party had a chance, (and if I could vote yet) I might be voting for him, because he seemed to understand what was going on, and how to answer things in a way that seemed authentic without seeming arrogant.
And finally, the NDP, with the only woman candidate! Represent!
Whew. She was killing it.
She was well educated in her opinions, well spoken in her positions concerning them, and was not afraid to point out that her experiences (as a younger woman) were sometimes more relevant to the issues being discussed than the others. It definitely showed. She was also very vocal during the open discussion, challenging people's opinions and forcing them to answer for themselves.
Two things that turned me off: first of all, I heard a lot about how the NDP had a plan for that. They're proposing a plan for this. We're going to fund this, and that, and everything. I found myself asking "How?" a lot of the time. However, I find it hard to fault her for this, because I assume that these are complicated things that take more than thirty seconds to explain.
The other thing is that she, especially near the end, started talking about how much the Conservative government was doing wrong, a lot of which was met with a reply from Conservative Guy, "That's just not true!"
Now, due to my personal biases, I'm more inclined to take her word for it because she didn't beat around the bush like Conservative Guy, and because she has good credentials as a journalist, meaning she's probably pretty good when it comes to things like information. I realized after a while, though, that objectively, it was essentially her word against Conservative Guy's.
And when you think of it like that, you realize that it was sort of like reading a Wikipedia article - I want to trust it, and often do, but at the same time, I need sources. Because the thing is, she could have said, "The Conservatives are killing puppies, isn't that terrible!" Yes, of course that's wrong, and I don't want to support people who do that. But how do I know that what you said is actually true? I don't, basically, not in that moment, and she didn't give anything about how she knew what she knew.
Which, again, is hard to fault her for, as they were very short segments of time to pack in some substantial stuff, but it still read as a little bit... off.
But let's make this clear - her answers did have substance. In contrast to Conservative Guy, who would talk endlessly without saying anything, her answers were short and sweet and answered the question directly.
Basically, NDP gal was slaying.
And, all in all, it was a really interesting experience, and actually rather satisfying. It was nice to discover that I actually understood the issues being discussed, and had an opinion about how to go about them. It was also really interesting because, in Socials 11 (which, as I've mentioned, was an extremely useful class), the course straight-up outlines clear-cut, useful solutions to some of these problems, mostly environmental issues, and it's interesting to see some people dance around them while others - mainly Green Guy - say, "This isn't possible now but we will take steps so that it is possible and in place by 2020" or whatever. It never before occurred to me how much politics is simply a mixture of education and ideology.
Anyway, it was nice to find out that I knew enough to disagree with people on issues and agree with others. It's also interesting because I never really thought of MPs as meaning much except personifying votes for the Prime Minister. However, it became more clear than ever for me that MPs, as being actually part of Parliament, do have a certain amount of power regardless of whether their party wins Prime Minister, and that voting with an MP in mind instead of the leader of their party isn't actually as ridiculous a course of action as I had originally perceived it.
Basically, I learned a lot about Canadian politics that day - a lot of stuff that I knew in theory but had never completely understood in practise. And I'm really glad I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)