Oh, Canada

Canada must be concerned that the previous Administration had tilted so far to the left that the country was in danger of tumbling off the continental shelf. That's the only explanation for the sudden extreme surge to the right, with the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the banning of veils at the oath of citizenship ceremonies.

Of course, one might ask if I can criticize them over Kyoto when the US doesn't even adhere to the protocol. Of course I can; I am not my government, and I've criticized the US too.

The gist of it is that Canada says the Kyoto Protocol does not successfully solve the problem of climate change, at least not to the extent that it offsets the economic costs to industry. The implication is that the Kyoto Protocol is just a bunch of words, just pomp and circumstance.

If they are making this argument, then why would they stress the importance of being able to see the face of someone taking the oath of citizenship? If Oaths and Accords do not have inherent value guaranteeing success, why make the oath of citizenship sacrosanct enough to request someone sacrifice an important element of their personal religion? Do they ask Christians to make some sacrifice acknowledging Canada over Jesus?

A couple clarifying points: I do not agree that women should have to wear veils; I think it is also quite reasonable that they need to verify their identity at some point in the application process, to remove the veil so it can be confirmed they are who they say they are. But during the public ceremony, when they are simply saying words to signify the completion of the application process, what difference does it make?

If your ceremony is about the values of openness and equality, if you are asking Muslims to sacrifice their veil, what are you asking other applicants to sacrifice? You know, to keep things equal.

From The Papers: An Amateur's Reaction To Politics

So, the Chronicle this morning carried an article stating that interim Mayor Ed Lee is most likely going to announce that he will, in fact, run for a full term. This comes on the heels of a very visible 'Run, Ed, Run' campaign--think 'Run Lola Run' but without the funky German techno-soundtrack, although both Lola and Ed have distinctive hair, Lola on top of her head, and Ed on his upper lip.

The reason for the campaign is that when Ed Lee accepted the position of interim mayor when Gavin Newsom emigrated to Sacramento as Lt. Governor, he said he would not run for the full term. This apparently helped secure him some support on the Board of Supervisors, several of whom are now planning to run themselves.

Let's assume that the promise not to run was sincere at the time, and not an example of the old bait-and-switch. The fact that he has changed his mind is controversial. Or at least it is controversial among those who are running for mayor against him. Supervisor David Chiu is quoted as saying, "Our successes this year have been based on trust, and many San Franciscans share the widespread disappointment that Ed Lee has broken his promise to our city."

Widespread disappointment? I want names of those disappointed. I have not seen anybody worrying, wailing, or gnashing their teeth over this. I like a lot of what I know about David Chiu, but this seems like sour grapes to me.

So he changed his mind. Who cares? He still has to run. He still has to be elected, and the reports I have seen during his interim stint show that he has been productive and beneficial to the city. How dare he want to continue if he thinks he can do good work? I'm more bothered by the fact that the 'Run, Ed, Run' campaign was apparently run by people with links to former Mayor Willie Brown and Rose Pak, the head of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce excludes practitioners of the Falun Gong from cultural events. I didn't directly experience Willie Brown as mayor, but his column in the Chronicle strikes me as smug and self-aggrandizing. Lee says he has no involvement with the 'Run, Ed, Run' group.

The promise not to run seems irrelevant to me. It reminds me of a somewhat petty dispute among friends of mine one time, where Female Friend A made Female Friend B promise not to date Male Friend C, even though Male Friend C would have driven Female Friend A crazy if they had ever dated, which they never did. Female Friend B made such a promise, but later did date Male Friend C for a time. Outrage? Hardly. Maybe Female Friend B shouldn't have made such a promise, because things change, such as with Ed Lee's perspective on the mayoral race. But Female Friend A shouldn't have asked her to make that promise, because that promise is silly.

For people to get their feathers ruffled over Ed Lee deciding to run after all is a waste of time and energy. There are more important matters. Let the voters decide if Ed Lee should be mayor, or if one of the other candidates can present themselves as a better option.