Day: November 8, 2004

It seems that since November 2nd, that Canada's main immigration website had recieved nearly 5 times as many hits from the United States as is typical.

When I first heard this I naturally assumed that NetZero's "Candidate Zero" advertising compain had really paid off. Really, what other explaination could there possibly be for both Ginandtacos and the Canadian immigration website to get an increase in hits? We have nothing in common… or do we?

No, upon reading the article it became clear that no, 5 times as many people did not obtain internet access in the United States in the last week. This is just another pathetic example of distraught democrats thinking about expatriation.

It is kind of sad really. Over 100,000 people decided they wanted to look into moving to Canada. Yes, you know, because its better there. What with the not having George Bush and all.

I have one question for all of you potential expatriates. Is Canada really the best you can do?

Ginandtacos.com would like to offer some alternatives

First of all lets look at all the old European standbys.

Follow in Ernest Hemmingway's footsteps, move to France!

French Embassy in the United States

I am not going to lie to you. Getting a visa for a long stay and employment in France is one of the hardest you are going to find. Of course, and this is going to apply to any country you go to the more educated (beyond just a bachelor's degree) you are, or the more specialized your skill set, the better your chances. Considering the fact that all of us liberals are highly educated intellectuals we should have no problem….right? More to the point, French immigration gives special consideration to scientists and scholars looking to work in higher education.

That said, think of the rewards! If true America hating is your passion, there is no better recourse than moving to france. Honestly though, the country has an expectionally relevant green and socialist party (former prime minister Lionel Jospin for example). They are a country with legalized civil unions, and get this…a 35 hour work week. Good times.

Add on to this a passion for food, wine, and cycling and you have yourself a far superior option to Canada.

So maybe you are afraid to learn a new language. Try this, move to the UK.

workpermit.com

Although the UK may outwardly seem like the are allied with Mr. Bush, that is really quite far from the truth. If you have any doubt, look here. Truth is, far fewer of them support all these aburd goings on that our goverments have been conspiring on than we do.

On the downside, their food sucks, it is generally cold and rainy, and you would need to learn the rules to Cricket.

However, there are some positives. Even when preaching the same insane rhetoric is George Bush, for some reason Tony Blair left me with less of a feeling of impending doom. Oh, and let us not forget that their beer is pretty damn good and, to aid in its consumption, they have a far more liberal definition of the term "alcoholic" over there.

From the research that I have done, it looks like you might actually have a chance of getting in as well. They have a new "points based system" for highly skilled labor and another system, sector based, system that allows working into specific sectors where a need has arisen. Looks like a pretty good option to me. Plus, I kind of like British food.

Looking for something More exotic?

Try immigrating to New Zealand.

"new Kiwi.com"
New Zealand Immigration

This would not have been my first choice, but hey, its good enough for Peter Jackson. They are pretty fucking close to Australia, speak English, make some fantastic wine, and word on the street is that they have already gotten 10,000 new visa aplications from americans since November 2nd. Who knows? New Zealand might be the new mecca for American expatriats.

But don't be limited by what you see here, the sky is the limit. What about Argentina, Morroco or Mongolia… East Timor. All of these might prove better options then living another 4 years with George Bush.

Oh, but remember to come back or cast an absentee ballot in 2006.

With some time to cool down and reflect, here are my humble thoughts on the events of this election. First off, I take some solace that we are not the first Americans to deal with the red state-blue state divide. From John Updike’s introduction to this collection:

The [American literature of the] 1920s…are a decade with a distinct personality…the urban minority of Americans that produced most of the writing felt superior, if not hostile, to what H.L. Hencken called the “booboisie”, whose votes had brought on Prohibition, puritanical censorship, the Scopes Trial, and Calvin Coolidge.

How little has changed! Here we are, 80 years later, watching counties with cities go blue and the rural/exurbs go red, trying to convince people that we shouldn't be teaching Creationism in a science classroom!

It’s also important to remember that this isn't the second time this trick was pulled. The only campaign platform I can think of that is more outright cynical in it's manipulating people's values, fears and concerns was Nixon's "Law and Order" platform. "Law and Order'! Like "moral values", it's a nice way to convince white people that their way of life is under seige and only the Republican party can save them.

As Kerry was a prosecutor and Bush was elected in Texas on a platform of capital punishment and throwing teenagers in prison, I was surprised during the debates to not see any of the normal bullshit posturing of who is the most tough on crime. Little did I know that it was probably because the Bush team found a new urban minority population to terrorize suburban and rural (and sadly, increasing numbers of blacks and latinos) with.

Now do the numbers bear this out? We’ve had some time to crunch number and find new data, and by far Kerry’s biggest hit was among working class white people (where they are defined by white adults who do not have a four year degree from college). Clinton carried this group during his terms; Gore lost ground in 2000, the Democrats lost even more in 2002, and it looks like they all went rushing to the right in 2004.

The thing that really carried this group for Bush, I believe, is that the term ‘moral issues’ was not only gay marriage and abortion. These issues were major parts of energizing the base, but for Bush everything is a moral issue. Why reduce capital gains taxes? Because it is wrong to tax income twice. That simple. Is it good for the economy? Bad? It doesn’t matter – it’s a wrong thing to do.

Kerry is a legislator. I thought he ran a good campaign and was right on many issues, but at the end of the day he proposed what he did because he thought that they were good policy. His ideas weren't values as much as they were tools to create good policy (How un-French is that!) – Why did he want to roll back the capital gain taxes? To fund dock searches. In other words: to enact policy. The idea that it is Right or Wrong in and of itself, a notion crucial to the working-class vote, is never conveyed.

Question: Who was the only person to say that we should roll back the capital gains tax cut because it was the right thing to do? Bill Clinton, during the DNC convention.

From now on, no more Senators running for office. Democrats need people who will talk about their beliefs in social justice as the most important personal thing they feel, and not just a series of good policy measures. This may not help, but it's the best hope we have. No matter what we will continue to watch the burden of funding our country falling upon work instead of wealth. Americans who depend on wages to survive (ie most of us) are getting screwed, and this is one of the most moral of issues we face. Here’s hoping that the Democrats can find someone to explain that to the people.