In recent years, mass media organisations in other Western countries have begun to make their daily offerings available over the internet. I have taken this opportunity to study first Canada, and then New Zealand, and now Australia. Learning another language is a big hurdle, and makes a deep assessment of other countries difficult, at first. My family has ties with Japan, and China. But I never have really explored those cultures as I might someday.

But it's stunning to me to see the different attitudes and perspectives on things that you find even in other english speaking countries. Now that I've studied a few other countries, I think of my nature as being very similar to New Zealand people. A lot of things in that society resonate with my own life, and my own perspective on things - from how I view children, to an appreciation of christian culture, to the attitude of working together with minority groups of folks. And I think it's really important that everybody finds their own people as they grow into adulthood. When I was a young man, the first town I moved to was a tourist/college town in the Rocky Mountains. And in later years, I moved back there, because the town tugged on my heartstrings. And now, I'm seeing an even better home for myself, perhaps, in Australasia.

Over the past several years, I've intently studied politics and society in the Usa. And these days it really irks me that academics in this country remain stuck within the narrative of the competition between the left wing and the right wing here in the Usa. The right wing in the Usa has had the seat of power forever. It's fascinating how that happens. It seems as if when the republicans get too far off the beam, members of their party defect to the democrats, but take their right wing ideology with them. And so, what happens, is that right wing ideology permeates both major political parties in Washington DC. And this means that there's really no chance for left wingers to ever succeed in winning the debate against the right wingers. To quote George Carlin: "The table is tilted, the game is rigged." And so one shouldn't spend all this time trying to change a country which is not going to change. It's better to vote with your feet. One thing I've seen as I've studied society and politics in other english-speaking nations, is that there really isn't ever any big ideological difference between members of the left wing party, and members of the right wing party. However, citizens of those countries imagine that there's a big difference, because dissidents are always trying to spark some changes of policies using the party that's out of power at the moment. It's tragic, though, that people don't know a way of seeing what's going on in the social and political dynamic of other countries. The real differences are between countries. New Zealand, for example, shows us a country where both the left wing and the right wing are what we, across the Pacific would call "progressive" parties. In Australia, the right wing party is the "Liberal Party," and the left wing party is "the Labour Party." Australasia really is governed primarily by the left wing. The left wing has a hegemony on politics, in the same way that the right wing has a corner on the market when it comes to government power in anglophone north america.

So, if you're a die-hard left-winger in north america... don't spend your life trying to fix the Usa. Move to Australasia, instead.

Or you might choose Canada. Canada is a country which really honours science, and it sees itself as a very rationalistic society. It has policies which we consider left-wing in the States - such as gay-marriage, and universal health care. However, in all honesty, these policies are tools in the hands of a society which wishes to remain very socially conservative. Canada's government policies keep order in the country. Whereas in the Usa, we believe in individuals deciding for themselves how to live their lives - and we trust that the consensus of all these individuals will create good communities and cities for us to live in.

One thing I have also seen - is that: As Canada is to the Usa - so New Zealand is to Australia. Canada is a dissident country. It guards against the problems it sees in the Usa, and so that contrariness kind of defines its national character. In the same manner, New Zealand is a dissident country - which wants to be different than Australia. There's a running joke about saints and sinners which relates to the history of how Australia started as a british prison colony - and New Zealand was founded by christian missionaries. In some sense, I think Canada and New Zealand don't always succeed as they would like to, only because they err on the side of idealism, rather than pragmatism.

Another thing I've seen is that there are a few serious problems that happen when left wing ideologies are employed in such a thorough way in a country.

• In New Zealand, for example... people don't sue. Left wingers in the Usa always shake their heads and sigh at the litigious nature of our society here. However, one sees problems in New Zealand where food safety and worker safety is not given the kind of fastiduous attention it is given in the States.

• Also, in New Zealand, small businesses don't seem to recognise the importance of seeking venture capital. I see stories in their television news of people starting small businesses which really won't be effective at profiting - but which are more done by a solitary person who had a little dream she or he wants to fulfill. For example, the other day there was a story of a guy who bought several brand new luxury sports cars, and is going to give people a chance to drive these things at high speeds on a private race track. That's all well and good - but it's not going to employ a lot of people... and it's not going to be effective at uplifting the economy in New Zealand. For some contrast, we can look at Tesla Motors and Aptera motors in the States. These companies have millions in venture capital, and are trying to reshape the auto industry altogether. Tesla is creating luxury electric cars which sell for $100,000 a piece. And Aptera is creating futuristic looking hyper-aerodynamic and efficient vehicles.

Recently, I've been watching the parliamentary proceedings in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada over the internet.

I see a very stark difference in the way people talk and promote policy changes in the various countries. Overall, I see very little difference between the main left and right wing parties in any given country. However, there is a very big difference between legislators in one country, as compared to the next. So what does it mean to have a perceived competition between left and right wing parties? Well... it seems to me that the minority party in the legislature tends to champion the cause of dissidents in the society. How do we see this in the Usa? Here, the democrats were the ones to offer a venue for dissent about the war over the last eight years. And the republicans today are the ones to offer a venue for dissent about financial imprudence. In both cases in the States, these gestures seem to not be undertaken honestly by the legislators. They are merely "pandering to their base" - trying to leverage support for the next election. However, there is slow progress over time, as the public themselves start weeding out those in the party who support the old policies, and replacing them with those that support the new policies. A presidential election in the Usa gives folks the chance to make a lot of headway all at once, because the one person, if elected to the office, will tend to mold the character of the party into the future.

Now, there seems to be a social disease in many legislatures where folks from various parties don't feel that they can be fair-minded about discussions regarding laws that are proposed. It seems as if they believe that the imperative is to get that majority vote on behalf of the law. And this imperative means that they steel themselves in the competition.

One country seems to have achieved a different social dynamic. New Zealand instituted Mixed Member Proportional Representation 12 years ago, and that means that there are more voices in parliament. Imagine if we in the Usa had a significant number of seats given to a "Native American" party, and another number of seats given to a "Green Party," and a Libertarian party. Once you have that multipolar environment, it seems as if the imperative becomes cooperation rather than competition. You can't get anything done without the cooperation of legislators from all the different interest groups.

Each of these countries has a parliamentary proceedings internet stream that can be viewed with windows media player.

You can watch the Australian parliament in Canberra here:

http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/asx1/hms1v_100K.asx

You can watch the New Zealand parliament in Wellington here:

http://www1.streaming.net.nz/meta/parlserv-house384.asx

You can watch a 24 hour station which is very much like a Canadian version of CSPAN, in covering events in Ottawa:

http://www.cpac.ca/asx/cpac1eh.asx

And of course, you can watch CSPAN's coverage of Washington DC, here:

http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=cspan/cspan/wmlive/cspan1v.asf&proto=mms?mswmext=.asx

Well... my affections are turning to yet a different country. Now it is Australia. Australia and New Zealand are two countries which really need to be understood in context with eachother.

I live right now in a tourist/college town in the Rocky Mountains, and I recognise how much my community benefits from the overarching culture of the plains states. The values that are imparted to my town - things like neighborliness, where people smile at their neighbors, including the children they pass on the street - are really nourishing for my community... even though my community is much more cosmopolitan than most of its neighbors. We have lots of ethnic restaurants, and art galleries, and festivals going on all summer.

Looking at Australia, I see that same wonderful culture I see on the plains around me. I see a friendliness, and a sensibility, which is really refreshing.

For any of you who have ever followed CSPAN in the Usa for any length of time, you might be interested in seeing the contrast with how parliament works in New Zealand. Here's a place you can watch it live over the internet.

Or you can cut and paste this url, into your windows media player's "Open url..." box:

http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/asx1/hms1v_100K.asx

The only real quibble I have is that they need to change the decor in their House of Representatives. I realise that green is a color which is used in the lower house of many parliaments in countries which still adhere in ceremony to the British monarchy tradition. But green really does terrible things to a person's skin tone.

One thing you will need to know when watching this... is that the "Liberal party" in Australia is the main right wing party. The "Labour party" is the left wing party. Another party you'll hear referred to is the "National party" - that's a smaller right wing group.

For anyone who is honestly interested in politics... here is a great resource. It's the Canadian equivalent of the CSPAN channel we have in the Usa.

This is called CPAC - and you can watch the proceedings of the federal government in Ottawa 24 hours a day.

It's incredibly refreshing to see how learned, and conscientious the government in Canada is when you compare them to the fools in Washington DC.

Remember, that Canada is a bilingual country from its core - with a big portion of the country - Quebec - speaking french as their main language. So all proceedings in parliament need to be translated in real time between the two languages. Usually parliamentarians will talk in the language they are most comfortable with. I think this kind of bilingualism is really good for the social dynamic in a government. Always to have multiculturalism front and center before your eyes is a really good thing for folks in government to think about.

• Watch CPAC here

You can also pull the broadcast at any time, directly into windows media player, by cutting and pasting this into the "Open url" box: http://www.cpac.ca/asx/cpac1eh.asx

This is a fascinating 20 minute video with Lawrence Lessig, who has been a very erudite campaigner for reforming the government in Washington DC. Here, he again shows how noble he is by refusing to play one side or the other in a debate. Instead, he wants to talk about his honest reasoning.

This is a very fascinating interview conducted by a woman by the name of Catherine Clark who is the daughter of a former Canadian Prime Minister: Joe Clark. She is interviewing another child of a Canadian prime minister - Justin Trudeau; Pierre Trudeau - Justin's father - was one of the most charismatic prime ministers Canada has had in recent decades. He was something like a Barack Obama figure, actually.

It's a very interesting interview to watch - because the social dynamic is pretty unusual - to have one of child of state interviewing another.

• Watch the interview at CPAC (as long as it is available)

The "New Democrats" in Canada are the political party which is the strongest progressive left-leaning party in the country. They seem to dominate ridings (what we in the Usa call "congressional districts") in British Columbia, for example... and they just got a parliamentary majority (and thus got the right to form the executive branch (governership) of Nova Scotia. They have 36 seats in the national parliament in Ottawa, where there are 308 total members. This is over half of what the Liberal party has (which is the most mainstream left-wing party). And this is enough seats to give the New Democrats significant leverage on parliament hill. Most recently, the New Democrats chose to prevent the Liberals from succeeding in a non-confidence motion which would have led Canada into a national election where the executive branch of government would be contested by all the major parties.

It may be that in order to really appreciate the humour in this video where Jack Layton pokes fun at himself and his own party, you need to have more of a sense of Canadian politics than you can get from that short synopsis above... but I want to share this video, anyway. This man's talent and humour is very refreshing... and I think that his attitude is a bellweather of good things on the horizon for Canadian government. I wish we had a person in congress in the Usa who had this much influence, and who was this progressive. Watching canadian politics is a refreshing change from watching the events in Washington DC.

Oh, one thing you will need to know for sure: The word "government" in many countries such as Canada means what we in the States call "the executive branch." This is formed by the party with the most seats in government after a national election. So theoretically, Jack Layton, as party leader, would become prime minister of Canada, if his party would ever achieve the most seats in parliament (an event which is highly unlikely in conservative Canada). Also, it's important to know that the word "grits" is slang for the Liberal party.

This is an excellent extended interview which shows a glimpse into the daily life of this man.

Go to 3news site to watch the video

• A link to a 3news video (adobe flash) about this name change.

New Zealand is a very unique kind of place. There is a big debate right now about changing the name of a city so that it's more faithful to the original native name which was used. The city is Wanganui... and the decision has been to change it to Whanganui. The extra "h" is significant because it effectively should change the pronunciation from a "W" sound to an "F" sound (although apparently it won't, for now).

There was a 77% vote of the citizens of the town in favor of keeping the original name. However, apparently the edict has come down from on high, that the name will be changed.

Imagine if the government of the state of Washington or the federal government of the Usa would order the city of Seattle to change its name to "Sealth" so that it is more faithful to the native name of the chief for whom the city was named.

The mayor of Wanganui (Michael Laws) has been adamantly opposed to the name change. New Zealand government policies seem to involve a lot of power vested in the federal goverment which tends to override the right for communities to have self-determination. For example, another big event happening currently is that Auckland is extending its boundaries to encompass a lot of outlying areas. Again, the citizens of those districts are not allowed to choose whether they will join Auckland or not. The federal government is making the decision for them.

I think a name change from Wanganui to Whanganui is really irrelevant when it comes to the interests of the Maori being served. If they honestly want to honour the treaty of Waitangi, the best way to do that in my view, would be to give a portion of land back to the Maori and make a separate nation - independent of New Zealand. But if you aren't going all the way and doing what needs to be done when it comes to righting the wrong of the europeans having stolen the land - I think that you need to generally honour the right of self-determination of the people who populate that area, today.

I decided to get most of my news coverage today on the inauguration of president Barack Obama from foreign sources (over the internet). An outsider's perspective is often more accurate. I loved the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's coverage of the event - they had journalists stationed all around the world - in Japan, China, Africa, Russia, France and Britain - getting footage of folks' reactions to the event. I compared the look of poignancy and emotion on folks' faces in other countries to that of the people on the cold streets of Washington DC; the faces of foreigners seemed to show a more clear-minded and thoughtful attitude. The tears of joy were profound, and not muddied by the confusion and the conflicted feelings which stained the faces of the folks in Washington DC. The CBC also had a segment on the idea that the beginning of an Obama presidency marked a moment of "truce" in the "culture war" of the hyperbolic and unreasonable heated debates we have here in the usa. A truce! Imagine that! You would never see a usa media organization making that their big story of the day. You can't speak clearly about what you observe here in the usa, lest people get offended that you are being insensitive to the sanctity of the moment or boorish in regards to the feelings of others.

I also watched an hour or two of the New Zealand TV3's news coverage of the event. As I have mentioned on this blog, I have come to really admire new zealand. And the social dynamic which I appreciate there seems to be powered by the way the mass media there treats their subjects. They are focused on the idea of nurturing the people of new zealand. And the effect they have on their country's zeitgeist is marvelous. I really like the rational and meaty coverage of the canadian press better, personally - but I realize that it has kind of the opposite effect on the ordinary person up in Canada. A news organization drawing up a constant picture of the world which is full of dramatic doom and gloom is going to really weigh people's spirits down. And that's visible in canadian folks' attitudes. I honestly think that the mass media should treat events with a light touch. If people like me want fodder for their critical thought processes - they should be able to get that elsewhere - using the internet, for example.

I did have a strong reaction to the New Zealand coverage of the inauguration, however... and it's one which happened after a certain peculiar realization slowly dawned on me as I watched. The TV3 coverage was very two dimensional. They put the whole event into the overly simple narrative of the timeline of a country where african american slaves built the white house, to the civil rights movement, to today when an african american governs the nation in Washington DC. That may be a gentle and nurturing perspective for new zealanders to look at things within, but it ignores all the complexity of the things in the usa which create these social dynamics which go awry on an ongoing basis. Even though the news anchors weren't intending it - it seemed to be an awfully condescending perspective to put things into. New Zealand, in my estimation, is the one anglophone country which really has it together, in a way that Australia, Canada, the usa, Britain and India do not. There are four million people there. If they set their minds together to the task, they could really help folks in the usa develop a better society for themselves. But no... New Zealand is like an parent who neglects her kids to go off every night to fun social events... until years later her kid grows up and takes a wrong course in life, because of lack of that quality time and quality nurture which she or he needed.