Give our Canadian politicians - particularly the Conservatives, but obviously including the Liberals in the past - they give good results when properly paid for their services. You are right though, its merely in imitation of the US model for effective (Corporate) Government:(
Plus of course there is the fact that he has ALREADY BEEN INTERVIEWED after being required to stay in Sweden for a month. Then the charges were dropped because there was insufficient evidence of a crime, and he was told he was free to go.
Then another prosecutor comes out of the blue and decides to start the whole thing up again with no apparent new evidence for motivation. Apparently one of the women involved has ties to the CIA. The extradition for questioning back to Sweden is rather unusual given he isn't even charged with anything.
Despite all the people saying its nothing but tinfoil hat time if you think the US is going to grab him when he gets to Sweden, its a whole host of unusual circumstances all associated with an individual the US Government wants badly. I don't think much tinfoil is required honestly.
Now Assange can enjoy a short flight to Sweden, a longer flight to Guantanamo bay in restraints and with a bag over his head, followed by a quick execution, and then a lengthy trial.:(
Maybe the destruction of the economy and the fear of the future has shocked enough people into realizing that the Republican Way (tm) isn't actually delivering what they claim it will and is in fact only serving to make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful. Obama is pretty rightwing (from my Canadian perspective) but he's closer to being rational than anyone else on the field. Plus of course, you folks south of the border do have a huge racism problem that always amazes a lot of Canadians (not that we don't have a bias up here, but its more directed at our Indigenous population).
Yes, not watching is always an option. For most TV, this is exactly the option I choose these days. Not only is it very poorly made for the most part, but the bombardment of advertisements every 10 mins is beyond irritating. However, should the people at HBO be surprised when they make a top end TV series, market the hell out of it to create great demand, then distribute it in a manner that costs far too much to be possible, let alone practical for most potential viewers, and of course impossible for a vast number of potential viewers. If GOT is the most "pirated" TV show at the moment, it has been caused by HBO and its marketing deals, and almost no one else. If I could pay $1 an episode and watch it online I would probably do that. It is not an option though, the cost to me using my available options is to spend hundreds of dollars - which I cannot afford. Yet I want to watch the series.
Don't ignore the fact that there was a considerable effort made to paint the Occupy movement in a bad light. With corporate/Right Wing political pressure (same thing in many ways) on the police to end the protesting, it wasn't quite the same situation. The Tea Party "protestors" were in fact supporting the political right, supporting corporations and corporate power etc. When you support the ruling elite, they usually don't mind if you are quite visible. They leave you alone. When you protest those in power, you tend to get crushed by the system. That said, its very unfortunate that all of the serious protestors in the Occupy movement got subsumed by so many people who were more about protesting and less about the issues being protested.
In general, the Military does not start wars, Politicians start wars by telling the military who to attack. "War is the extension of politics by use of force" or words to that effect. I have tremendous respect for the US Military, its members etc. I have a lot less respect for the rich and powerful who get their politician underlings to order the invasion of a country so they can secure oil and make big profits off of the support contracts for all the troops that get sent. Anyone US soldier who died in Iraq did so not only because the enemy killed them, but also in part because they were sent there by people seeking economic gain. Almost every war is economic at heart, and the soldiers sent to fight it are merely tools used by Politicians to achieve their goals. This does not in any way denigrate the dedication of those troops who get sent to the war IMHO.
If you can determine a way to make it outrageously profitable for the rich, and big corporations without threatening the profits of Big Pharma and other key financial interests that hold all the power at the moment, then legalization might have a chance, but until those who control^H^H own the reins of government are satisfied they aren't missing out on a potential money source, it ain't gonna happen. Prohibition doesn't work, that has been made very obvious, but its going to continue until it suits the rich and powerful to change it. Personally I would like to see Marijuana legalized, so that the authorities can try to enforce restrictions on more hazardous substances. I don't smoke it, but I recognize the fact that many people under 40 seem to do so, and nothing is going to stop it when a vast majority think its harmless. Its certainly far more harmless than alcohol. As for the new chemical drugs being developed, I don't know what you can do about that other than offering a simple and legal solution (like legalized pot) and hoping that people will choose that instead to remove the demand for the harsher and riskier stuff like Bath Salts etc.
New Analogy: There's this tough thug in the neighborhood. He has a LOT of guns. He has used them to kill a LOT of people he disagreed with. Oh, sure, he claims to have a morale imperative to keep the neighborhood safe, but every time he uses his guns there is usually something in it for him too - stuff he can pick up cheap and give to his friends or keep for himself. Oh, many of his friends have a few guns too, but they are all his friends so there is no conflict over the fact that they are all armed - and are the only people who are armed. Now along comes someone new who decides they want a gun. True, the new arrival is a raving lunatic who is a bully that claims he wants to murder the local Jewish kid - so most people don't feel comfortable with him having a gun either, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest bully locally is still armed to the teeth and the only one who has ever actually fired a gun at someone and killed them.
I am not comfortable with Iran developing Nuclear Weapons, I am not comfortable with North Korea developing them either. I am not comfortable with the major superpowers like the US, Russia or China having them either. I just know that the bullies in charge are not going to let anyone new into the club, and they aren't going to get rid of their weapons either.
And does anyone think that all the US Presidents since Nixon have been completely free of political corruption in some form or another? Nixon got caught. All the US Presidents since then that have done anything questionable have simply gotten away with it. There have been lots of shenanigans since then, lots of scandals, but the blame has always been shifted to someone lower down the totem pole. Nixon was guilty of being unable to shift the blame.
Well considering the women dropped the charges, this is a lot of trouble for the Swedish government to go through to just ask some questions. Couldn't they have sent a prosecutor over to England to just ask questions? I don't think you can dismiss it all as "conspiracy thinking" when it IS highly likely that he will be whisked off to the US the moment he lands on US soil.
Up here in Canada we used crypto gear we got from the US, but that was for a very practical reason: we had to be compatible with US military communications if we were in the field. As far as I know the equipment we used was identical to that being used by the US military at the time. I have no doubt they had more secure gear they only used internally, but its not like the stuff we used was substandard AFAIK. I was a Communications Specialist in the Canadian Army and trained to use this gear.
I would love to see a movie made about this sort of behaviour, it might be able to convey the *wrongness* of this sort of situation to the general public. Sadly it would get squashed rather quickly by the MPAA:P
The reason they get away with BS like this is simply that the average person doesn't understand or care whats going on - until they find themselves on the wrong side of corporate blackmail of course.
Never going to happen. The people in government are too busy plugging their ears - with corporate dollars - to hear anything you say. The Rich *own* the common people. You who were so anti-nobility have simply replaced it with a social class based on wealth instead of birth (and of course a lot of the very wealthy inherited that wealth in the first place). In the meantime you have an illusion of democracy to give you the impression that anything can change - but nothing really does or ever will.
I agree it would be a nightmare to try to simultaneously broadcast a show on all the networks everywhere at the same time. The question that comes to mind is, why exactly do we need those TV Stations again? Put each episode of a series up on the web, make it legally downloadable and watchable for say $1 US per episode. Make the regional ones for markets where the economy is considerably worse available with dubbing in the local language or subtitles available for a comparable amount in that economy. No TV Station required, just an internet connection and some device that can download it. I would rather pay $1 per week for the 2 or 3 shows I consider watchable at any point in time than shell out $50 more for a cable connection that allows me to watch reams of mindless shit that the TV stations are throwing at us - or spend another $30 per month to get the 2-3 channels that offer quality programming. Its not worth it. Until the Entertainment industry realizes that people might be willing to pay for things if they were offered at a very affordable rate, in a very convenient manner, and that while some people will still pirate stuff, the majority would be willing to pay quite willingly if it was convenient to them, delivered in a format that was easily accessed, and available when they want it, without ads. I *DO NOT* watch TV shows at all on cable. I refuse to be inundated with 5 mins of advertising every 15 mins - particularly when they have to edit the content and cut out bits to make room for it. Piracy will cease to be a factor of any concern, when the Entertainment industry realizes it needs to design its delivery services to reflect the customers preferences. Once its as easy to download and watch something legally (but pay a nominal fee for it) as it to download it and watch it illegally (via piracy), I bet most people will pay. As long as the Entertainment industry continues to put major obstacles and very expensive limits on the availability of the content consumers want to watch, piracy will thrive, because a lot of people don't think its a big deal to download something. I think we are at the point where TV Stations are an anachronism we could do without. I wouldn't miss any of them for even a second. I get all my entertainment online and most of my TV content from Netflix.
My banking site insists I change my password every few months. It must have a capital letter, it must have a numerical character - and worst of all - it cannot be any of the last 5 passwords I chose. It is only one of about 20 websites I have passwords for (not to mention a half dozen MMORPGs I play from time to time). I cannot remember all of those passwords easily so when I am forced to cycle through 6 different passwords by one single website its a bit fucking irritating. Not only that but I highly doubt it increases my security significantly, and of course my bank account seldom has much money in it in the first place.
Well "Nazi Totalitarians" isn't that far off from our current Conservatives. Harper executes pretty strong control over all his followers, he is restricting free speech, attacking the environmental movement, supporting big business regardless of the effects on Canada or the cost to the public, organizing a police like state (with training at the G8/G20 session, minimum penalties for crimes, eliminating the concept of personal privacy for the citizenry, etc).
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/27/g20-rioters-toronto-protests (Note that the video attached to this article is now unavailable because the Guardian "no longer has rights to it". Isn't that another lame example of DRM?). Note the law concerning coming within 5m of the fence mentioned at the bottom of the article never existed, and was a fabrication of the Toronto Police Dept.
Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxuYOoNk7U
Notice that most of the people are really there to watch the spectacle and take pictures on their cellphones. Only a handful stand up at the police line and passively protest. The police presence here (almost 1Bn spent on security for this event - although a lot of that was misappropriated pork-barreling by politicians as well) is a bit overboard.
So you are saying developers might consider creating titles that are oriented towards the maturity of an audience? That young teenagers will accept the latest FPS clone because its new to them or they are less critical and more adrenaline driven, but that older gamers might want something with more plot, character development, complexity etc. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Developers will never build games for anything other than the target audience though, as designing for a niche audience won't have as much profit potential and they need to get it approved by the marketing people etc. The first computer game I played was on a VAX back in university (ASCII type graphics of a flip-book WWI aerial combat game someone patiently programmed in). Next it was stuff on the TRS80, TI99, and finally Apple II, along with a lot of time in arcades. I have been playing PC games since then more or less steadily. I don't do consoles, I can't stand the lack of control with the controller over mouse/keyboard. Mostly I play MMOs these days but my gaming has run the full gamut of things over time. I would love more convoluted, challenging titles that offered something new and were enjoyable in their own way. I don't need better graphics or sound. I want better gameplay. Sadly that is the hardest thing to create, the hardest thing to change if things go wrong, and the most nebulous thing to develop. I suspect the game development industry needs to spend more money and time on the writers who create the storyline, dialog etc. I worked on the edge of the industry on a couple of projects and that seemed to be very low priority for most of the developers.
Oh so it merely raises it from $9 billion US as a penalty to only $45 billion US. In other words the penalty they can try to extract will equal a substantial cost of the war itself. Yeah, its totally reasonable as a penalty:P
As a Canadian, I can't really comment on Ron Paul. I know nothing of him except he is a Libertarian - but then I am not sure what that means as well. I am sure he believes in his platform. Lots of posters here seem to think so. I don't know if I agree with anything he stands for though. Watching the US political scene from our perspective up here north of the border you folks down in the US seem insanely divided between 2 political camps that appear to be more or less the same to me. Of the two candidates for the next election, I favor Obama - but to me he is very right wing politically (and the Republicans seem batshit-rightwing to me). Up here Obama would be a conservative if he ran for office I think. US politics is a baffling subject mostly.
The last great politician we had up here in Canada in my opinion, was Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I didn't always agree with him but he had policies that he stuck to and he always spoke in earnest and stated the truth as he saw it - and a majority of Canadians seemingly believed him, myself included. I haven't seen his like since at that level of politics, although I had high hopes for Jack Layton before he died.
Slashdot Mirror
Give our Canadian politicians - particularly the Conservatives, but obviously including the Liberals in the past - they give good results when properly paid for their services. :(
You are right though, its merely in imitation of the US model for effective (Corporate) Government
Plus of course there is the fact that he has ALREADY BEEN INTERVIEWED after being required to stay in Sweden for a month. Then the charges were dropped because there was insufficient evidence of a crime, and he was told he was free to go.
Then another prosecutor comes out of the blue and decides to start the whole thing up again with no apparent new evidence for motivation. Apparently one of the women involved has ties to the CIA. The extradition for questioning back to Sweden is rather unusual given he isn't even charged with anything.
Despite all the people saying its nothing but tinfoil hat time if you think the US is going to grab him when he gets to Sweden, its a whole host of unusual circumstances all associated with an individual the US Government wants badly. I don't think much tinfoil is required honestly.
Now Assange can enjoy a short flight to Sweden, a longer flight to Guantanamo bay in restraints and with a bag over his head, followed by a quick execution, and then a lengthy trial. :(
Maybe the destruction of the economy and the fear of the future has shocked enough people into realizing that the Republican Way (tm) isn't actually delivering what they claim it will and is in fact only serving to make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful.
Obama is pretty rightwing (from my Canadian perspective) but he's closer to being rational than anyone else on the field.
Plus of course, you folks south of the border do have a huge racism problem that always amazes a lot of Canadians (not that we don't have a bias up here, but its more directed at our Indigenous population).
Yes, not watching is always an option. For most TV, this is exactly the option I choose these days. Not only is it very poorly made for the most part, but the bombardment of advertisements every 10 mins is beyond irritating.
However, should the people at HBO be surprised when they make a top end TV series, market the hell out of it to create great demand, then distribute it in a manner that costs far too much to be possible, let alone practical for most potential viewers, and of course impossible for a vast number of potential viewers. If GOT is the most "pirated" TV show at the moment, it has been caused by HBO and its marketing deals, and almost no one else.
If I could pay $1 an episode and watch it online I would probably do that. It is not an option though, the cost to me using my available options is to spend hundreds of dollars - which I cannot afford. Yet I want to watch the series.
Don't ignore the fact that there was a considerable effort made to paint the Occupy movement in a bad light. With corporate/Right Wing political pressure (same thing in many ways) on the police to end the protesting, it wasn't quite the same situation. The Tea Party "protestors" were in fact supporting the political right, supporting corporations and corporate power etc. When you support the ruling elite, they usually don't mind if you are quite visible. They leave you alone.
When you protest those in power, you tend to get crushed by the system.
That said, its very unfortunate that all of the serious protestors in the Occupy movement got subsumed by so many people who were more about protesting and less about the issues being protested.
So nothings changed then. In my HS the guys with all the girls paying attention to them were the biggest and stupidest assholes :P
Wow, I finally have a reason to want to go to Nashville, thanks.
In general, the Military does not start wars, Politicians start wars by telling the military who to attack. "War is the extension of politics by use of force" or words to that effect.
I have tremendous respect for the US Military, its members etc. I have a lot less respect for the rich and powerful who get their politician underlings to order the invasion of a country so they can secure oil and make big profits off of the support contracts for all the troops that get sent. Anyone US soldier who died in Iraq did so not only because the enemy killed them, but also in part because they were sent there by people seeking economic gain.
Almost every war is economic at heart, and the soldiers sent to fight it are merely tools used by Politicians to achieve their goals. This does not in any way denigrate the dedication of those troops who get sent to the war IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars
If you can determine a way to make it outrageously profitable for the rich, and big corporations without threatening the profits of Big Pharma and other key financial interests that hold all the power at the moment, then legalization might have a chance, but until those who control^H^H own the reins of government are satisfied they aren't missing out on a potential money source, it ain't gonna happen.
Prohibition doesn't work, that has been made very obvious, but its going to continue until it suits the rich and powerful to change it.
Personally I would like to see Marijuana legalized, so that the authorities can try to enforce restrictions on more hazardous substances. I don't smoke it, but I recognize the fact that many people under 40 seem to do so, and nothing is going to stop it when a vast majority think its harmless. Its certainly far more harmless than alcohol.
As for the new chemical drugs being developed, I don't know what you can do about that other than offering a simple and legal solution (like legalized pot) and hoping that people will choose that instead to remove the demand for the harsher and riskier stuff like Bath Salts etc.
New Analogy: There's this tough thug in the neighborhood. He has a LOT of guns. He has used them to kill a LOT of people he disagreed with. Oh, sure, he claims to have a morale imperative to keep the neighborhood safe, but every time he uses his guns there is usually something in it for him too - stuff he can pick up cheap and give to his friends or keep for himself. Oh, many of his friends have a few guns too, but they are all his friends so there is no conflict over the fact that they are all armed - and are the only people who are armed.
Now along comes someone new who decides they want a gun. True, the new arrival is a raving lunatic who is a bully that claims he wants to murder the local Jewish kid - so most people don't feel comfortable with him having a gun either, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest bully locally is still armed to the teeth and the only one who has ever actually fired a gun at someone and killed them.
I am not comfortable with Iran developing Nuclear Weapons, I am not comfortable with North Korea developing them either. I am not comfortable with the major superpowers like the US, Russia or China having them either. I just know that the bullies in charge are not going to let anyone new into the club, and they aren't going to get rid of their weapons either.
And does anyone think that all the US Presidents since Nixon have been completely free of political corruption in some form or another? Nixon got caught. All the US Presidents since then that have done anything questionable have simply gotten away with it. There have been lots of shenanigans since then, lots of scandals, but the blame has always been shifted to someone lower down the totem pole. Nixon was guilty of being unable to shift the blame.
Well considering the women dropped the charges, this is a lot of trouble for the Swedish government to go through to just ask some questions. Couldn't they have sent a prosecutor over to England to just ask questions?
I don't think you can dismiss it all as "conspiracy thinking" when it IS highly likely that he will be whisked off to the US the moment he lands on US soil.
Up here in Canada we used crypto gear we got from the US, but that was for a very practical reason: we had to be compatible with US military communications if we were in the field. As far as I know the equipment we used was identical to that being used by the US military at the time. I have no doubt they had more secure gear they only used internally, but its not like the stuff we used was substandard AFAIK.
I was a Communications Specialist in the Canadian Army and trained to use this gear.
I would love to see a movie made about this sort of behaviour, it might be able to convey the *wrongness* of this sort of situation to the general public. Sadly it would get squashed rather quickly by the MPAA :P
The reason they get away with BS like this is simply that the average person doesn't understand or care whats going on - until they find themselves on the wrong side of corporate blackmail of course.
Never going to happen. The people in government are too busy plugging their ears - with corporate dollars - to hear anything you say.
The Rich *own* the common people. You who were so anti-nobility have simply replaced it with a social class based on wealth instead of birth (and of course a lot of the very wealthy inherited that wealth in the first place).
In the meantime you have an illusion of democracy to give you the impression that anything can change - but nothing really does or ever will.
After he runs it by his corporate sponsors...
I agree it would be a nightmare to try to simultaneously broadcast a show on all the networks everywhere at the same time. The question that comes to mind is, why exactly do we need those TV Stations again?
Put each episode of a series up on the web, make it legally downloadable and watchable for say $1 US per episode. Make the regional ones for markets where the economy is considerably worse available with dubbing in the local language or subtitles available for a comparable amount in that economy. No TV Station required, just an internet connection and some device that can download it.
I would rather pay $1 per week for the 2 or 3 shows I consider watchable at any point in time than shell out $50 more for a cable connection that allows me to watch reams of mindless shit that the TV stations are throwing at us - or spend another $30 per month to get the 2-3 channels that offer quality programming. Its not worth it.
Until the Entertainment industry realizes that people might be willing to pay for things if they were offered at a very affordable rate, in a very convenient manner, and that while some people will still pirate stuff, the majority would be willing to pay quite willingly if it was convenient to them, delivered in a format that was easily accessed, and available when they want it, without ads.
I *DO NOT* watch TV shows at all on cable. I refuse to be inundated with 5 mins of advertising every 15 mins - particularly when they have to edit the content and cut out bits to make room for it.
Piracy will cease to be a factor of any concern, when the Entertainment industry realizes it needs to design its delivery services to reflect the customers preferences. Once its as easy to download and watch something legally (but pay a nominal fee for it) as it to download it and watch it illegally (via piracy), I bet most people will pay. As long as the Entertainment industry continues to put major obstacles and very expensive limits on the availability of the content consumers want to watch, piracy will thrive, because a lot of people don't think its a big deal to download something.
I think we are at the point where TV Stations are an anachronism we could do without. I wouldn't miss any of them for even a second. I get all my entertainment online and most of my TV content from Netflix.
My banking site insists I change my password every few months. It must have a capital letter, it must have a numerical character - and worst of all - it cannot be any of the last 5 passwords I chose. It is only one of about 20 websites I have passwords for (not to mention a half dozen MMORPGs I play from time to time). I cannot remember all of those passwords easily so when I am forced to cycle through 6 different passwords by one single website its a bit fucking irritating. Not only that but I highly doubt it increases my security significantly, and of course my bank account seldom has much money in it in the first place.
Well "Nazi Totalitarians" isn't that far off from our current Conservatives. Harper executes pretty strong control over all his followers, he is restricting free speech, attacking the environmental movement, supporting big business regardless of the effects on Canada or the cost to the public, organizing a police like state (with training at the G8/G20 session, minimum penalties for crimes, eliminating the concept of personal privacy for the citizenry, etc).
G8/G20 Summit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit
McLean's article: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/06/27/torontos-g20-summit-a-failure-all-around/
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/27/g20-rioters-toronto-protests (Note that the video attached to this article is now unavailable because the Guardian "no longer has rights to it". Isn't that another lame example of DRM?). Note the law concerning coming within 5m of the fence mentioned at the bottom of the article never existed, and was a fabrication of the Toronto Police Dept.
Police assaulting a reporter: http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/902236--toronto-journalist-witnessed-police-brutality-at-toronto-g20
Parliamentary Committee Slams Police Brutality during the Summit: http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/03/parliamentary-committee-slams-g20-police-brutality.shtml
Amnesty International: http://rabble.ca/news/2010/06/amnesty-international-wants-g8-g20-security-reviewed
Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxuYOoNk7U
Notice that most of the people are really there to watch the spectacle and take pictures on their cellphones. Only a handful stand up at the police line and passively protest. The police presence here (almost 1Bn spent on security for this event - although a lot of that was misappropriated pork-barreling by politicians as well) is a bit overboard.
Police as Agents Provocateur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo
Just some quick grabs from the Interwebs.
So you are saying developers might consider creating titles that are oriented towards the maturity of an audience? That young teenagers will accept the latest FPS clone because its new to them or they are less critical and more adrenaline driven, but that older gamers might want something with more plot, character development, complexity etc. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Developers will never build games for anything other than the target audience though, as designing for a niche audience won't have as much profit potential and they need to get it approved by the marketing people etc.
The first computer game I played was on a VAX back in university (ASCII type graphics of a flip-book WWI aerial combat game someone patiently programmed in). Next it was stuff on the TRS80, TI99, and finally Apple II, along with a lot of time in arcades. I have been playing PC games since then more or less steadily. I don't do consoles, I can't stand the lack of control with the controller over mouse/keyboard. Mostly I play MMOs these days but my gaming has run the full gamut of things over time.
I would love more convoluted, challenging titles that offered something new and were enjoyable in their own way. I don't need better graphics or sound. I want better gameplay. Sadly that is the hardest thing to create, the hardest thing to change if things go wrong, and the most nebulous thing to develop.
I suspect the game development industry needs to spend more money and time on the writers who create the storyline, dialog etc. I worked on the edge of the industry on a couple of projects and that seemed to be very low priority for most of the developers.
Oh so it merely raises it from $9 billion US as a penalty to only $45 billion US. In other words the penalty they can try to extract will equal a substantial cost of the war itself. Yeah, its totally reasonable as a penalty :P
As a Canadian, I can't really comment on Ron Paul. I know nothing of him except he is a Libertarian - but then I am not sure what that means as well. I am sure he believes in his platform. Lots of posters here seem to think so. I don't know if I agree with anything he stands for though. Watching the US political scene from our perspective up here north of the border you folks down in the US seem insanely divided between 2 political camps that appear to be more or less the same to me. Of the two candidates for the next election, I favor Obama - but to me he is very right wing politically (and the Republicans seem batshit-rightwing to me). Up here Obama would be a conservative if he ran for office I think. US politics is a baffling subject mostly.
The last great politician we had up here in Canada in my opinion, was Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I didn't always agree with him but he had policies that he stuck to and he always spoke in earnest and stated the truth as he saw it - and a majority of Canadians seemingly believed him, myself included. I haven't seen his like since at that level of politics, although I had high hopes for Jack Layton before he died.