Jocelyn McLean's POLI333 Blog

I made the decision recently to stop purchasing meat – though I do continue to purchase fish. To a certain extent, then, I am a pescetarian, though I hesitate to call myself that because I will eat meat that I do not purchase. For example, if I go to my aunt’s house for dinner and she cooks steak, I’ll eat it; but I won’t purchase it for myself, either in a restaurant or a grocery store. At first my instinct was to call myself a freegan, but upon further research I realized that is more in-tune with a politically-motivated dumpster-diving.

Unfortunately, I was not blessed with the gift of creativity: so the purpose of this post is for people to suggest possible names for this eating practice.

President Obama’s State of the Union address this week primarily addressed economic issues, briefly touching on foreign policy. Interestingly, with the unemployment rate still incredibly high, the president did not focus as much on an economic action plan to deal with the state of the economy, but rather addressed the significant income disparities within the state. It’s an interesting topic of choice, considering the widespread Occupy protests across not only the United States, but Canada as well. Obama stated that that those who make over $1 million a year (or as the Wall Street protesters call it, “the 1%”) should be paying a tax rate of at least 30%, and should be forgoing unneeded tax deductions.

For any of you who read my post on SOPA last week, I discuss the surprising power of protest. I never got fully on board with the Occupy protests, as I found them too vaguely targeted to understand how they would affect anything at all. While Obama’s inclusion of the idea in his speech was surely politically motivated more than ideologically so, it’s interesting to see political protest having much of an impact at all.

President Obama’s brief address of foreign policy included the plan to use $200 billion of the peace dividend to pay for the construction of much-needed infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in their post-war states. I’ll be interested to follow this further for the purpose of democratic analysis, as so-called “transitioning” democracies have been argued to be incredibly unstable and dangerous.

Collier and Levitsky introduce an interesting method of defining democracy through the use of adjectives, which allows for differentiation between types of democracy while “avoiding conceptual stretching”. They do so by using a minimalist definition of democracy, which will be addressed later on in the post, and placing it within Sartori’s “ladder of generality” in order to organize concepts. Theoretically speaking, if democracy is in the middle of this ladder, moving up on the ladder of generality would have less defining attributes (and therefore more generality), and moving down on the ladder would include more defining attributes. For the purpose of their analysis, they define democracy procedurally: that is, defining the necessary procedures of democracies rather than the outcomes. Their minimal definition includes the following procedural attributes: contested elections, full suffrage, and guarantee of civil liberties.

“Democracies with adjectives” are then types of democracies described with a specific adjective to differentiate between them, without stretching or changing the defining attributes of the concept of democracy itself. For example, parliamentary democracies and presidential democracies both have have the attributes necessary to be considered a democracy, but are undeniably different in structure. These would then be placed lower on the ladder of generality, as they have more specifically defining attributes. Collier and Levitsky refer to these as “classical subtypes”. The classical subtype of parliamentary democracy is discussed in this Winnipeg Free Press editorial, which is highly critical of the Canadian government’s intentions to put committee meetings “behind closed doors”. Her use of the term “parliamentary democracy” was specifically in reference to the proroguing of government in 2008.

Another level of differentiation is “diminished subtypes”. Unlike classical subtypes, these are democracies that are specifically defined by what aspect they are missing from the root concept of democracy. Illiberal democracies, for example, are characterized by missing the core attribute of civil liberties. This article in the news this week uses the diminished subtype of illiberal democracy as an example in defining where Turkey is heading. As the author argues, to a certain extent Turkey is getting more democratic (with “the power of ballots being consolidated”); on the other hand, journalists are being imprisoned, limiting civil liberties such as free speech.

The Golden Globe awards are often considered to be a ratings-grab. Every year, the HFPA nominates a variety of big names – some of which are deserving of nominations, some of which are not. Last year’s nomination of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie for the critically panned The Tourist is one example; this year’s nomination (and win) for Madonna is another. On the other hand, the Globes spark a debate amongst critics, Academy members, and pop-culture enthusiasts considering who is deserving and who is not, and by the time the winners are announced, a pretty clear picture appears of who will be nominated at the Academy Awards.

Every year, though, there are a few surprises. Last year I didn’t care too much about these dark horses, since I was too focused on my devout appreciation for The Social Network to care much about the other nominees. This year, however, I found myself more confused than affirmed when I read through the nomination list.

Actor In A Leading Role: If you had asked me on Monday evening who would be nominated, I would have said the following: Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Gary Oldman, Jean Dujardin, and Michael Fassbender. If I had guessed which one might be omitted, I would have said Gary Oldman – not because he’s undeserving, but because he wasn’t considered for the Golden Globes. I never would have guessed that Michael Fassbender would be cut for Demian Bichir of A Better Life. First of all, A Better Life wasn’t on anyone’s radar for awards season – meaning that Bichir must have done an impressive, but silent, Oscar campaign behind the scenes. Second of all, Michael Fassbender has been everywhere this year, with critically acclaimed performances left, right, and centre. I love Michael Fassbender, so, needless to say – I’m disappointed.

Actress In A Leading Role: The Academy seems to make it a habit these days to nominate one young person for either Best Actor or Best Actress. This year the fight was between Shailene Woodley and Rooney Mara – though, considering the Golden Globes, Woodley seemed to have the edge. I don’t think Mara is undeserving of a nomination based on her performance. I can’t say I’ve been impressed with her attitude, though. The real fight for this award comes down to Michelle Williams and Meryl Streep.

Directing: I was hoping that David Fincher might get a nomination after he (unfairly) lost to Tom Hooper last year, but, unfortunately not.

Best Picture: A lot of changes have happened at the Academy recently in terms of Best Picture nominations. A few years ago they jumped from 5 nominations to 10 nominations; this year they changed it to “up to 10”, without nominating anything that received less than five percent. That being said, the Academy seems to be a little confused this year, because apparently more than five percent of the Academy voted for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The movie was poorly received by critics, with my favourite review stating:

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is the kind of movie you want to punch in the nose.

So, needless to say, it’ll be another interesting year at the Academy Awards this year. I’m ready to see some good campaigning by the nominees – including a possible engagement between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

Wow. Americans love democracy. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, because the following is based on a not-so-recently read “Intro to American Government” textbook. This is what I understand: Americans go to the polls all the time. There are presidential elections every four years, the House of Representatives is elected every two years, and Senators are re-elected every six years, though they do one-third at a time so that again, there are elections every two years.

They do this all over again on a state-level.

Before any of the presidential elections happen, of course, there are presidential primaries for the parties in need of a candidate. I followed the Republican Primary debates pretty closely, partly for entertainment value (Rick Perry!), and partly out of genuine interest in Republican platforms (Ron Paul!). Primaries are where Americans, in my opinion, take democracy to the extreme. Registered voters in each state vote for for their candidate of choice. Those choices are then reflected in delegates who go to the National Convention to cast their vote for the leader of their party. Is this process necessary? I’m not sure. If there’s anyone in the class who has a better understanding of American government, and why there is a three-step process in which we basically elect delegates, to elect candidates, who then run in a general election – I would love to be enlightened.

It certainly makes for interesting politics, though. This GOP race seems to change so quickly with every state primary. With a close race in Iowa between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul, it seemed at that point to be anyone’s game. However, when Romney won by a huge margin in New Hampshire, he headed into South Carolina with a lot of momentum. Yesterday’s win for Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire, however, once again changes the game entirely. In this handy chart tracking the results of the primaries, it’s clear that Romney and Gingrich are neck and neck in projected delegates, and Gingrich has a significant lead in pledged delegates. If things stay this close it’ll be an exciting run.

@aviaaron: I read your intro-post (or rather, your Author page) and saw that you’re a big fan of Parks and Recreation. It is my favourite sitcom on TV right now – I think it’s so much better than a lot of the shows out there  because they manage to keep it funny while also making all of the characters so likeable. Anyways, I spend half of my time perusing YouTube for my favourite TV clips, and as Ron Swanson is one of my all-time favourite TV characters, this is my go-to playlist for his best clips.

@blairmotlukpoli333: I don’t know about you, but growing up in Winnipeg gave me a serious love/hate relationship with the city. In fact, it was mostly hate until I left, and I find myself getting homesick all the time. It especially happens in early December when I’m trying to get myself excited for Christmas but it is rainy, miserable, and green in Vancouver when the ground should be covered in snow. Anyways, this year I started looking for photos of Winnipeg Winters to satisfy my craving for nostalgia, and I stumbled upon this website. The tagline pretty much captures everything I feel about the city.

@jeffdemo: I am so glad there’s a fellow Homeland fan in the class! I honestly watched the entire first season in two days this week when I was sick. Without giving too much away to anyone else in the class who may be reading this, and may want to watch the show, I’ll say that I enjoyed the finale but I’m worried about a few things for next season. This article from New York Magazine kind of captures what I thought about the whole episode.

“The Hollywood Foreign Press have warned me that if I insult any of you, or any of them, or offend any viewers, or cause any controversy whatsoever, they’ll definitely invite me back next year as well.”

Generally, I am an avid follower of popular culture. I was especially obsessive about last year’s movie award season, as I had seen most of the nominated films and was a devout fan of The Social Network. When I tuned in to the 2011 Golden Globe Awards, then, it was entirely for the purpose of rooting for the film I had enjoyed so much. Ricky Gervais’ hosting gig ended up being a (very) pleasant surprise.

There was a lot of controversy surrounding his performance last year: stories about him being fired in the middle of the show, with celebrity guests polarized between giving praise and criticism. Needless to say, the talk of him being fired by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association was a publicity stunt, as Ricky Gervais was invited to host again this year, and most people (I imagine) were excited to tune in.

Actually, it’s pretty much the only reason I tuned in, as I have hardly seen any of the films nominated this year. I generally watch the Globes regardless of what’s nominated, simply for the sake of seeing a bunch of A-list celebrities making use of an open bar, only to later give lively, drunken acceptance speeches. But after Ricky’s monologue last year, which was significantly more “controversial” than his monologue the year before, I expected him to go big or go home  – to keep testing the HFPA until they refuse to invite him back again.

So, interestingly, when he made the joke (quoted at the beginning of this post) implying his imperviousness to censorship, and then provided a list of rules he had to follow, I expected him to break every one of them. I waited for the entire show. In the end, though, not only did the HFPA seem to successfully enforce a level of censorship, but they seemed to cut back on his screen time, as well. Of course, Ricky has since tweeted that it was his personal favourite hosting experience at the Golden Globes. Did he get paid more to keep his mouth shut? Will he be invited back next year? I guess we’ll find out.

One highlight of the show – though I didn’t know it at the time – was Homeland‘s win for Best TV Drama. I quickly spent the next two days watching the first 12-episode season, and as I said in my intro post, I am officially hooked. So I guess the Globes were good for something.

I suppose anyone with access to a computer is aware of the Stop Online Piracy Act that was introduced to the House in October – especially if you’re someone who uses Wikipedia as obsessively as I do. When I say obsessively, I mean obsessively – I probably look something up five times a day, and at least once of those five times, I’ll end up spending hours link-surfing Wikipedia pages.

Needless to say, Wednesday’s blackout was an effective way to get my attention. Every time I forgot about the blackout and searched for something on Wikipedia, only to find the highly frustrating image as featured in this post, I cursed SOPA and everything it stood for – and then attempted to look it up on Wikipedia.

It was, undeniably, an effective protest. My twitter-feed was abuzz, and Facebook was overloaded with political comments by friends I know would have trouble naming a local newspaper. The protest became an interesting reflection on democracy when Rep.  Smith announced that he was postponing action on the bill for the time-being. It was an exciting moment for a lot of people, I imagine, who may feel as jaded as I do about the limited impact that peaceful protest seems to have nowadays.

In a country where “lobbying” is a bad word, it seems to me that Wikipedia’s protest – and the similarly peaceful protest of many other websites – can be seen as democracy by a different definition. While there is no general election to give power to these websites, we do so by electing to use them on a regular basis. Without a constitution, or a charter, many of these websites chose to represent the wishes of their own “constituents”, and acted as delegates for a massive online community of people who would be negatively affected by the implications of SOPA and PIPA. It was a perfect example of E-Democracy, a fun term you can read all about on Wikipedia, for free, because the internet is a great and powerful thing.

Hi everyone,

I am a 4th year Sociology major, minoring in Political Science. I was born just outside of Toronto, but spend most of my life in Winnipeg, Manitoba, before heading out here for school. I hate the rain, and I would prefer the freezing cold (but sunny) weather of Winnipeg any day. I am graduating this year (fingers crossed), at which point I hope to move to Toronto to pursue a career in public relations.

As we have the opportunity to do one free-style post a week, I suppose I should give everyone in the class fair warning about my interests. I am an avid follower of popular culture, so as we are in the midst of awards season there will likely be a few posts about that. I try to keep up with a number of television shows, the most recent of which is Homeland, which I highly recommend to everyone.

That being said, I’m looking forward to this class and I will try to keep my posts as entertaining as possible for those of you who will be reading.