See here now

A couple of links on MSNBC concerning the soon-to-be-released "Good Night, and Good Luck" (couldn't have Clooney thought of a better title?) The first is about the typical Hollywood glossover you've come to expect, and the other is a little more positive. I was just relieved that McCarthy has no apologists in MSM worth talking about.

So What's So Hard About It?

Guess what, I've gone GREEN! I'm now an official member of the Green Party of Canada, basically because I don't much care for the other parties. The Liberals with their long-term institutionalized rot, the Conservatives under Harper (making promises it seems, even accusing the Libs of being soft on Americans! Really, what do you think would happen once the neo-Tories are elected?) And the NDP? Frankly, I think that they need more of an image makeover than Stephen Harper does (even some liberals think that they're too out there).

I think of the Green Party as a bit of a moderating influence, with a different vision, but not necessarily all-environmental. As I may have mentioned before, they are a long shot, but I've seen encouraging signs from quite a few people on the blogosphere (like Jim Elve and James Bow who have also become members). And I think that their fortunes can only get better, even though one of the next steps is to get someone a seat in Parliament. Yes, I'm thinking long-term, but I believe that the Green Party is going to leave its mark somehow.

The Robertson Question

What can be done about that guy? Should we just let him get away with condoning political assasination of heads of state? Well, I have the solution, one that should not get me into any kind of trouble (none worth talking about anyway). Let him talk! When people use their media clout to spout seemingly abhorrent opinions or ideas, the question I have to ask is "Why are we still listening about them and talking about them anyway?" I have this (likely naive) belief that if you ignore bad pundits, they will eventually go away, or at the very least become relegated to some (dare I say it) lunatic fringe. If enough people turn their back on people like the "Reverend" Pat Robertson, he will still talk, but no one will listen, or care. I hope that this means that he has "Jumped the Shark" (explained here). There are some other people I wonder why we are still talking about, but sadly we still are, like Pat Buchanan (anti-Semetic), Ann Coulter (she lost me forever after praising the communist witch-hunts), Bill O'Reilly (many reasons, take your pick), and Ward Churchill (thought I was just going after right-wingers, didn't you?). The thing is, there are not many people I feel this strongly about, these are special cases, ones that don't admit when they are wrong, much less apologize, even then, it's too late.


Memo to Washington
 
This is probably a huge leap of faith (which I don't really have anyway), that George W. Bush, the Republican party, and all the houses of government that they control will declare Robertson persona non grata, at least as long as this administration is holding office. That is the very least they should do, but I'm sure I'm expecting too much from them.

Keep It Simple, or Make It So

I finished "Does Canada Matter?" and it had quite a rousing conclusion. It nailed very well what I believe to be the main fault of our materialistic culture, in which he quotes Rick Salutin, "Individuals 'don't make ethical or political choices' but 'shopping choices,' where "life comes down to acquiring money and going shopping with the proceeds'" (Bolt, p.188, Salutin, "A Plea For Canada" Maclean's, 1 July, 1995)

Speaking about my own life, I came from a good Catholic family. We weren't poor, none of us ever recall having to skip any meals, but we started out with little, and my parents worked terribly hard raising me, my brother, and my sister. Dad, in short, never attained any executive position, and basically "worked for a living", but earned tremendous respect at work and some seniority. My parents, as the saying goes, "scrimped and saved" and almost never spent too much at once (in spite of Mom's love for shopping), and today have a deservedly comfortable retirement in what I believe to be a middle-middle class condominium, considering the standard of living here in Canada (in most parts of the world, they would probably be considered living like millionaires). But there are times that I get overwhelmed by how much "stuff" my parents have, even though their condo has room for it all.

I can still remember a time when our lives seemed so much simpler, but maybe it is just my child's eye view of the time. It was during the 1970s and 1980s which I believe to have been a socially less tense time than the 1960s. It was before the Information Revolution and the mass overload of "stuff" from all over the world that we have to choose from now because of globalization, which results in the loss of uniqueness of our individual selves and regions, not taking into account political boundaries at the moment, but just the distinctive flavours of the places we call home. As hard as our parents' lives were, did they have to deal with so many decisions and so much confusion? Also, does our national affluence mean that everyone here is having their basic needs met? And what's more, where do you think that most of the stuff we use comes from, our cars, computers, cell phones, satellite television and such? Most of the raw materials come from abroad, from regimes who are friendly to transnationals and enslave their own people. One way or another, it just can't go on for too much longer, and I dare anyone to tell me that it can. What irks me about the neo-con revolution and George W. Bush in particular is that they basically condone shopping as the answer to threats to their "way of life". You have to ask yourself how much longer we can keep up with the latest things, particularly since none of us are getting any younger.


I feel a bit hypocritical saying all that, considering that I have most of those things I was talking about (except a car, I don't know if I'll ever own one) but still, I'm trying to simplify my life as much as possible, shopping for little more than I consider necessary, and fighting my own small battles with Big Business (for example, I try to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart). Back to the book though, it should be interesting to note that this book was published in 1999, so naturally the political climate here and abroad today is radically different. If Mr. Bolt were writing the conclusion today, he would probably say that Canada would be in a unique position as a fairly wealthy Western nation to buck the trend of total free-market liberalism, and start trying to live simpler lives more centered around home and family, without so much choice and other baggage that many of us carry around at the present time. Of course, we have no hope of doing that under the present Liberal administration, and probably less under Harper's Tories. Even the NDP came out in support of bank mergers today, and people wonder why I don't support them. With certain conditions, but one can only conclude that they are willing participants in globalization as anyone. I think it's disappointing.

Lastly though, I believe it's a good idea that we can somehow free up more time to do the things that we should be doing, to think less about what we are going to get that we really don't need, to think more about how to improve our relationships with the people who matter most to us (and with other people in general), why we were put in this life, how we can prepare for the future, and how we are going to clean up the mess we have made of the planet. This prescription for our sick world does seem to be quite radical since it calls for a change of our collective lifestyle, but for our emotional and spiritual well-being, I can't see any other way. We need to revisit some values that most of us seem quaint and old-fashioned, a sort of return to collective innocence.

Wanted: Free Market Purists

I would like to address those people who believe that free-market liberalism is the ideal system. You seem to have a champion in, among others, Rick Santorum. If you also believe in God, you should feel right at home with him, since he believes that free enterprise is doing God's work. There are certainly some other examples, particularly among neo-conservatives, who believe that any government meddling in private industry is nothing short of blasphemy.

Instead of going off in an expected pro-environment, anti-business rant, I would like to refer you to this gentleman, who seems to have gone to the heart of the issue of what is wrong with Western Culture, and what has been wrong with it from the beginning, and how it simply cannot be sustained if the human race is to survive. The book, in case you haven't clicked on the link in this paragraph yet, is called "Does Canada Matter? Liberalism and the Illusion of Sovereignty". You would think from the cover that is about Canadian sovereignty, but it appears that our problems are much larger than that, and that it's a conservative polemic, it is, but not in the way you're thinking.

He states that right from Confederation, Canada was sort of the culmination of the liberal free-market dream of both Great Britain and the United States, and goes into the almost predatory practices that happened from coast to coast to make Canada the country it is today, particularly in the Victoria-Saanich region where the writer is from, and delves deeply into the anti-community, anti-democratic, and ultimately, anti-human aspects of growth, development, and community planning. It does not make you proud, if anything, it's all quite humbling. He really makes you question what we call progress, and wonder where we are going with it.

I haven't quite finished the book yet, but most of what I've read so far seems so true to life. I believe we are placing way to much emphasis on science, technology, and "progress", and losing our soul in the process. He expresses a need for the return of moderation, sustainability and, dare I say it, traditional values. So if you are like Mr. Santorum, a believer in neo-liberal, free-market, small government ideals, this book may be a cure for what ails you.

Throwing Good Money To Bad People

I did not pay much attention to the Live 8 shows on the weekend. From what I've heard, I missed out on quite a bit. But I'm more than skeptical, I'm cynical as to how much these shows and forgiving African debt really helps the most needy people in the world. I followed some reports in newspapers after the original Live Aid show in '85, and it seemed even then that African governments were making it as difficult as possible for aid to be distributed to the starving masses. In fact, there are some convincing arguments that too much charity does not help, but hurt the people who need it most. Some of these arguments are cited in this article on MSN Slate, but it does offer some solutions that the author hope will be adopted. The moral here is basically that Western governments should be able to decide how aid is distributed, and if they are not allowed, which has often been the case, the poorest of the poor will starve anyway, but the parasitic scum running these poor nations, be they local governments or transnationals, won't be pocketing any more of our hard-earned tax dollars and stealing the future of their nations and their people.

Seven Questions You Can't Ask In Canada

Last week when I came home I happened to tune in to "Countdown" with Mike Duffy on CTV Newsnet, and they were having a panel discussion of the title of this post. I didn't know where it came from, but thanks to BBB, I was able to find the source. So now, I would like to write down Ms. Wente's questions, and fill in my own answers.

1. Margaret Atwood writes some really awful books.

I recently finished "Surfacing", which in this light I could say that it was a meandering, boring book, but mercifully short. I've read only a few of her books but considering the volume of her work, even if she has written some all-time classics, she has probably written some stinkers as well. Even the best have their off-days, although I'm not qualified to say if she is or not.

2. Recycling is a waste of time and money.

Well, I keep hearing new things all the time, the latest being that you should just throw out the tops of cans, when for years I put them inside the cans after I washed them, because workers kept getting cut by the jagged edges, and also, the recycling triangle you see on most plastics, if the number is higher than two, they don't bother recycling it. I think of it as a work in progress, and I like to think that it is helping the problem with finding landfill space, unless someone would like to correct me. Also, seagulls don't hang around dumps anymore, it's a change, but is a sign of good change?

3. Only private enterprise can save health care.

Well, to a point, we already have some privatized health care, and I can definitely say that public health care simply can't go on the way it has been. Too much delay in service.

4. David Suzuki is bad for the environment.

It only goes to show, if a person or organization turns out to be wrong enough times, or wrong more times than he's right, then people will stop listening to this person, and in my opinion, people would be right to tune out. It's like those stories about Chicken Little, or more accurately, the Boy Who Cried Wolf. If Suzuki has been right a few times, it would not make up for all those times that his predictions turned out to be fallacious, and like that Boy, if he is right, no one will believe him. What I think the Green movement needs is more people like Julian Simon, someone who can inject a little healthy skepticism, so we could get to the ultimate truth as to what is wrong with the environment.

5. The Group of Seven are overexposed genre painters.

I have to admit here that I do not have strong, educated opinions about painted works. I do get prints from famous artists and photographers now and then (my favorites are from surrealists like Dali), and one year, I bought a Group of Seven calender. I can only say that very little stood out for me.

6. A national daycare program won't do anything to help poor kids.
I have to excuse myself from responding to this, because I really haven't a clue about this one way or the other.

7. The United States is the greatest force for good that the world has ever known.
I'll definitely agree that the US is the greatest force the world has ever known. I may even go out on a limb to say that the neocons and their world agenda have only the best of intentions. BUT... the questions that I would have is, do they really know what they're doing? Do they really have one iota of a clue about how foreign policy works? I would answer both of my questions with an emphatic NO! I believe that the Bush administration suffers from a form of what I consider to be a form of neo-hippie idealism, that if you offer someone freedom, they will gladly accept it and be eternally grateful to you. Part of the problem of this mindset is that "changing" or "saving" the world is a mostly narcissistic motivation, no matter who is doing it or why. It's one thing to try to make the world a better place, it is another to try to "save" everyone. And if their intentions are less than pure...

I think I understand where Harper's coming from

I wasn't looking to become sympathetic to Stephen Harper, but I have been suddenly overcome, to a point. On one hand, he has not been forthright about his platform, and I thought he has an unspoken agenda. On the other hand, according to an article in the Toronto Star (thanks to Andrew Spicer) by Chantal Hebert:

Reform was at the forefront of the defining debates of the '90s, calling for the elimination of the deficit, tax cuts, debt reduction, democratic reform and what is now known as the Clarity Act, long before they all became Liberal policies.

I believe that as far as the economy goes, the Chretien-Martin governments have been the most conservative in the last half-century, and going still further to the right, and takes credit for policies that the Reform/Alliance parties first proposed. Small wonder that the CPC is in no hurry to unveil its platform.

Then again, there is much talk about Mr. Harper's apparent lack of people skills. Even the people who would naturally seem to be on his side get the cold shoulder.  In some ways, he seems too forthright, but do we really need to have a nice person for a prime minister?  It would definitely matter in foreign policy, just as long as he doesn't antagonize all other countries and suck up to the US. However, if he could only be a competent replacement for the current government, and can restore some semblance of honour and moral authority in government, I would be able to put aside any reservations about him, be able to live with whatever goes with him, and still be satisfied. It should not be all about the candidate's image, that is a purely superficial thing.

Anyway, who in the CPC could replace him? Any knowledgeable, talented people hidden away in the caucus? What about Stockwell Day? No, what we need is an opposition leader to succeed where Day failed (in "Shawinigate" a few years ago) to be able to bring down the sitting government. I do believe that there is sufficient dirt out there about Martin. Is anyone in the Conservative party up to the task? It doesn't look like it. So for now we seem to be stuck, unless we can find some more sensible alternatives. Harper's politics may seem a bit extreme, but actual power does have a way of forcing leaders to abandon their more extreme tendencies. It does pain me to say it, but I do think that Harper would do a better job than the current prime minister.

Take THAT, Ben Stein!

To all those apologists for Richard Nixon and his regime, the Tiger found this fascinating article (no, this fascinating article, thanks Ben), on that lunatic, communist rag: The OpinionJournal. It dismissed whatever motives that Mr. Felt had for informing on his masters on Capitol Hill, but basically said that his actions helped America more that it hurt her. He helped to bring down a corrupt administration that seemed to be making a regular practice of skirting the rules, gave America some moral leverage back, and showed that the system basically works, particularly when it drove then-president Nixon to resign.

When you think about it, there are a few similarities between the Watergate and Sponsorship scandals. They both involved institutionalized rot, and both hearings included some new and shocking revelations almost every day (unlike the Iran-Contra hearings, does anyone know what they were about?). They are different in that our scandal was uncovered by the auditor-general, and not the press, and it remains to be seen if any changes will occur as a result of the Gomery Commission. Another significant difference is Deep Throat and Gurmant Grewal. Again, whatever reason that DT did what he did, Grewal has not helped, but hurt the effort to bring the sitting government down, and his reasons seem to be much less noble.

We could really use someone like Deep Throat in this country, since the press clearly has not been doing its job, the RCMP has been rendered a lame duck for the most part by government policies that are at best, questionable. We need a criminal probe and someone who "knows where the bodies are buried", also, a sensible alternative for a whole new regime in Ottawa, and mostly, we need more people to actually care what's been going on in government all these years.

The Week In Review

Lately, I've been finding American politics, well, not as sleazy and depressing as Canadian politics, so I'm going to start with them.

Ben, Ben, Ben...
 
The Tiger In Winter found this link to an article by Ben Stein linking Deep Throat and the genocide in Cambodia, among other things. Personally, I never fully understood the reason for the Watergate break-ins or the link to Richard Nixon, and he makes it sound like a victimless crime, which by itself probably was, but the line I've heard time and again was that "the cover-up was worse than the crime" which I heartily agree with. Also, Stein wrote a sequel to that article, and is threatening another one. The second article though condemns Felt for betraying his Jewish heritage, but the question I'd ask Stein is this, did you know how Nixon felt about Jews, even when you were working for him?

Hounding the Fox
 
Also last week, a friend lent me a copy of Outfoxed, and I'm grateful that he did. I was able to see some of it at my parents' house on satellite TV, and I could definitely detect some non-editorial bias, like when an anchorman said that soldiers were fighting for "our "freedom in Iraq. That is at best, debatable. And, I've just found this article on Slate where FoxNews London Bureau chief admits that his network falls short of its fair and "balanced" credo. Spilling a trade secret, what will they do with him?

For What It's Worth
 
Speaking of bureau chiefs, Newsweek's man in Baghdad is coming home. Yes, Newsweek, but there is absolutely no connection between that and what's been going on at Gitmo, he's been in Baghdad for two years. He has apparently changed his mind about the American occupation.

---

Now I'm ready to cover Canada again, but briefly; the Grewal tapes, how should I feel about that? Well, I like that cloak and dagger stuff as much as the next guy, but this stuff isn't pretty. The question here is, if he did edit the tape, did he just skip through the unnecessary bits, or deliberately obscure or change the context of the conversation? And is there any way to know for sure?

So Bernard Landry quit today as head of the Parti Quebecois, I can only assume that this is good news, unless someone would like to tell me otherwise. Apparently, 76.2% is not enough support from caucus, but a 50% + 1 vote in a referendum is good enough for separation.

Lastly, a bit of news I missed completely this week, here in Halifax (thanks again, BBB).

Some old news

A bit of bad news for the Green Party in Germany. It seems that their coalition with the ruling Social Democrats is over. I was hoping it would ultimately work, and be a force in this country; but as they say, never say "die", unless you're speaking German, which would be hard to avoid.

---

AA of BBB, among others, seem to have lambasted to an article in the Globe & Mail, concerning what is a perceived infiltration by some of the more extreme Christian evangelical right-wing elements in the federal Conservative Party. Actually, I agree with most of Andrew's points, but there may be a threat south of the border. More on that later.

---

Kudos to the Quebec National Assembly, yes THAT Quebec National Assembly, for spiking the Sharia, by unanimous decision no less.

---

I was getting ready to criticize the people of Labrador for voting Liberal, and even the guy who won the seat, who is Metis, for running on the Liberal ticket. But at the end of this article, I realized why he did not run for the Conservatives. It's the exact same (and only) reason why I don't become a member of the Conservative party: Stephen Harper (the latest reasons are here).

Strange Bedfellows In Extremus

Has anyone checked out "Inkless Wells" lately? As a matter of fact, I don't go there very often, but I just discovered this fascinating tidbit that I should pass on..., but apparently, Ian is all over this story,(see Ianism.com on the BANPC), particularly because of the connection to our old friend, Sinclair Stevens. I remember my late grandfather saying, while Stevens was still in office, that he was going to ruin the Progressive Conservative party (and he was an avid Liberal). Fortunately, he resigned before he could. Unfortunately, and quite unfairly in my opinion, Deputy Prime Minister Erik Nielsen took the blame for Stevens' shenanigans, apparantly being forced to be their sacrificial lamb.

---

Another link I have but seldom check is Points of Information, because I never understood what it is, but this list of people who crossed the floor in Ottawa should make for good discussion, as should this statement of Belinda skipping the bill.

---

Another blogging naysayer, but don't let him get you down. Also, don't you just hate people who answer their own questions? I sure do! ;-)

---

So what do you think? Is this money well spent? I think that the Gomery Commission will more than pay for itself.

---

What appears to be the latest salvo (whatever that is) in the softwood lumber war, which I believe started just after the original Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1989. What is it with those people anyway? They always seemed intent on using brute force to change trade laws, over and over again for years. Is that an unfair assessment?

---

Ending this post on a serious note, this story of that crash in Alberta, which took the life of four people, including former Cape Breton resident Stevie Batherson, who was the brother of, and used to be the road manager for, Matt Minglewood. I'm not sure how many people outside of Eastern Canada heard of him, or at least heard, of The Minglewood Band which was quite popular in the 70s, but here on the East Coast, particularly in Cape Breton, he is a living legend. I've seen a number of his performances in the last five or so years and he still puts on a terrific show. In fact, I watched him perform at Big Leagues in Cole Harbour last Saturday, which was scheduled a day after the crash. I would have understood if he had cancelled it, but he performed anyway. When he started, he said that Stevie's cardinal rule was "the show must go on", and still put on a kick-ass show. The words that come to mind: admirable and inspirational.

Advice To The Next Government

I keep wondering about that sordid mess regarding Belinda Stronach's defection. The question I would ask is "Is it a business thing, or a politics thing?" IMHO, it is much more of a business thing. In politics, loyalty is supposed to mean something, in business, people jump ship all the time and leave other people to clean up after their mess. Happens all the time, just one more reason why politics and Big Business should be kept some distance apart. We need someone like Theodore Roosevelt, who could bring corporations to heel. Anyone care to disagree?

Thy Sewer Runneth Over

I am conflicted by what happened, to say the least. On one hand, I wanted the budget to pass, and I did not want an election right now. On the other hand, we will have to put up with the Liberals a bit longer, but just a little bit, hopefully, then the next Liberal bill should fall and we could get rid of them, and Belinda along with them. The whole business with her leaves me with a sick feeling. It could be forgiven if her intent was purely for the country. If her actions hold it together, then it would fit in perfectly with the Machiavellian way of doing things, without morals or scruples. If it was just to gain power, then I guess we will all see her in Hell.

You have to feel for poor Peter MacKay, although he was clearly no babe in the political wilderness, he was apparently the last to know what was happening. She didn't even tell him when they had dinner on Sunday, how cruel and heartless was that? I think he could really use a vacation when this is all over.

So Harper is going to support the original budget right now. You think that would drive a wedge between the Liberals and the NDP, but apparently, one was already there. On Monday, I received some unsolicited mail from Jack Layton's office. It was just a form on cardboard stating that Martin is "no friend of public medicare" and gave me a couple of yes and no checkboxes to fill out, which I didn't, and don't intend to. The first question was to ask the government to stop "credit-card medicine" and the other was to hear about Layton's ideas of strengthening Medicare. Did anyone (or everyone) else get one?

Lastly, the STV vote failed by a slim margin in British Columbia. But Greg says that it's no great loss. The single-transferable vote is too complicated anyway, so apparently it's more of a victory than a loss.

Breaking All The Rules

Boy did I get a response to my question in yesterday's post. When I first saw the press conference on CBC Newsworld, I had to say out loud, "UN*&$#%^BELIEVABLE". So Belinda Stronach has defected, in the worst possible way. I didn't even know about her and Peter MacKay. If that doesn't attract international interest, whatever could?

It seems, first of all, that the Liberals have new life in them, that's the bad news. The good news though is that the budget is more likely to pass, perhaps I'm biased that way because it is good for Nova Scotia, and that we will get some funds that were promised to us. However, I think that this is very, very bad politics, the shift is way too fast and too sudden. Ms. Stronach is still quite new to public office, and seems blissfully ignorant as to how politics is supposed to work, assuming of course, she meant to stay in the long haul, which she probably didn't anyway.

So why did she run for public office in the first place? Was it to serve the country as she says, or was it purely ego gratification and ambition, as Mr. Harper says. If her intentions were indeed pure, then she is going about it completely the wrong way. Loyalty to her party and her constituents should at least be a consideration. If she did have a problem with Harper's leadership, she should have just left the Conservative caucus and sat as an independent. She was simply wrong to join the Liberals, and more so to accept a cabinet position. It is an unethical shortcut to leadership which throws the democratic process into virtual chaos.

The only good that could come out of this is that the budget passes, the election is held off, but when the government should inevitably fall, the Liberals should be defeated and Martin and Stronach will be out of office forever. Neither of them are particularly competent politicians anyway. You have to feel for Peter MacKay though, for the political and personal turmoil he must be feeling now. I wonder if he will even be in the country for Thursday's vote.

So who supports the Liberals now? (Besides the party members themselves)

There's a bit of good news for those of us in Nova Scotia, the minority government should survive. The budget should pass, because it seems because we are not in the mood for another provincial election, and we seem to be doing quite well without one.

However some of you may feel about Ezra Levant, he puts forth a fairly convincing argument about the infestation of organized crime in the federal government. Even if most of what he says is true, it is proof, if any more is needed, that we need an entirely new regime, and to purge ourselves of the old.

The latest polls (can't find the link, sorry) seem to say that the Liberals are holding their own in Ontario and I think even here in Atlantic Canada, too. Maybe I spoke a little too soon when I wrote something to the effect (or maybe I just thought it) that they're the walking dead. For those of you who still support them, what do you think about all of these deals that Martin & Co. are making with the provinces? Is it a principled effort to try to get the federal budget passed (rolling my eyes as I write this) or a cynical, desperate attempt to cling to power at any cost? One thing's for sure, if you're going to vote in the inevitable election, make sure that you are not voting for another minority government!

Les choses vous devez savoir

Have you read Polyscopique's May 9th post? It contains some interesting and important and important information from sources that matter (in the last part of the post). It should give anyone second thoughts about Quebec seperation.
I think that the fact that this site is run by Erik Sorenson throws a bit of cold water on the idea that the CBC is dominated by Liberals.

Oh, Winnie The Pooh (et al.), meet Peter Piper (you do like to dabble, don't you?). Two childhood of icons mine whom I know will get along famously. ;-)

For Those of You Who Didn't Vote In The Last Election...

you probably were not aware that you had more choices than you thought. When I voted in the last election, my riding (Dartmouth-Cole Harbor) had six, count 'em, 6 parties with canditates running. It wasn't just the three official parties, there were also the Green Party (more on them later), the Marxist-Leninist Party, and the Progressive Canadian Party. Did you read that right? Some people thought it was the defunct Progressive Conservative party, and voted accordingly, and became upset about it later, mainly because no one has ever heard from them before, or interestingly enough, since. Sadly though, in our last election, our turnout rate was the lowest in well over a century. Forty-six percent of people didn't even take the trouble to vote for any of the "fringe " parties on the ballot.

Anyway, if you feel the need to make a protest vote, you have some actual choices. You could vote for the Marxist-Leninists (I'll give them the benefit of any doubt, they don't call themselves Stalinists and/or Maoists, my main complaint about them would be that they're a painfully dull bunch) and the Communist Party (could someone explain to me what the difference is?), the Socialist Party, who make it clear that they are not communists, and are most likely utopian socialists, and for those of you who don't see a difference, the utopian socialists and the scientific socialists (a.k.a. the communists) are completely different and incompatable schools of thought.

Moving along, you have the Marijuana Party, who seem to run on an extremely narrow platform. And if you live in La Belle Province, you probably have the fewest options, either the Liberals (aargh!) or the Bloc Quebecois (ptuie!, if you do vote for the Bloc). Also, there's the Undecided Party, which is strictly a write-in party, and probably the closest thing at the moment we have to the old Rhinoceros Party. Also, it's the perfect choice if you if you still can't decide whom to vote for (and a far more realistic choice for write-in candidate than Alfred E. Neuman, well, I guess that's kind of old). Those are the only fringe parties I care to write about here, for more information you can go to BlogsCanada Political Index (see sidebar).

Creeping out from the fringes and into the mainstream is the Green Party, which in my humble opinion, are a sensible alternative to the New Democratic Party (hope I didn't offend any dippers ;-) The Green movement is actually gaining considerable strength, particularly in Europe where members of the Green Party helped to form a coalition government in Germany. The thing is though, the Green Party of Canada does not appear to be very closely linked to other Green Parties in the world, probably because they are a little more to the Right than most of them, but hey, if it works in this country, why not? Do you actually believe that they could sweep to power, just like that unprecedented fluke of the NDP sweeping to power in Ontario? No way, it's just not happening, not under the First-Past-The-Post system which we have now.

If you still think that your vote doesn't really count, you're probably right. The electoral system we have is still one of the most primal in the free world and there is plenty of room to make parliamentarians more accountable to their constituents. There are many different systems of electing governments that make politicians more representative of the voters' wishes, such as proportional representation, single transferable voting (which is a hot topic in British Columbia right now), and a mixed-member voting, among others that have been tried and been successful. As it is right now, most of our votes are pretty much wasted, as evidenced by Sinister Thoughts here, and here. A good start of making the system more equitable is to sign an online petition at the Fair Vote Canada website.

I sincerely believe that our entire country is in a state of transition right now, and with an increasing vacuum of power that is being left by the Liberal minority government, now is the time for as many average citizens to act as possible, because we do have the power to make positive changes now. If you're like me and love a good fight, now is the time to seriously get involved, because unlike previous years, we now have a fighting chance. When we appear to have only one alternative for the next government (or two, depending on who you talk to) and our only choice is between the bad party and the worse party, it's time for all citizens to get off their fat, lazy behinds and do something, anything, about that. We live in a democracy, which means that the people are in effect responsible for the system that we have, good or bad, by our actions or lack thereof. With an election coming along the horizon, it is time for you to get out, get informed, get involved, and at the very least, vote. If you don't, you're going to be a total outsider and miss out on what promises to be truckloads of fun!
(en francais)

Ne le croyez vous! Pas pour un moment!

I was alarmed to find this headline in Canoe.ca today. It was in fact quoting a study by the Parti Quebecois (suprise suprise). For those of you, French and English, who know even a bit about how it works, this could only be compared to an Enron/Arthur Andersen type of accounting. However, the troubling thing about that headline is that it seems to make the point for the separatists, or the fence sitters who speak either official language. Considering that the side is being run by Quebecor Media, it really makes you wonder on whose side they are on.


If I may address the people of Quebec, (en francais) I would just like to say that as far as language and cultural protection go, right now is as good as it could ever get, particularly when you factor in your current economic situation, which is known across the country as being not so rosy. It has apparently been all downhill since our Centennial Year, when we had Expo 67 and de Gaulle's infamous speech. Up till then, Montreal was Canada's cultural centre, but since separatism became popular, there has been nothing short of an exodus of non-francophones along with business, and even cultural values. Today, you are fast becoming a "have-not" province.

Also, since the '60s, you have had three prime ministerial regimes, and each one seemed bent on giving you everything that you ask for, or try to anyway, but for some of you, it's just never enough. Because of what I consider to be cowardly and incompetent policies of appeasement (particularly the long-standing practice of begging, and with the Sponsorship scandal, bribing you not to separate), there has been an ever widening gulf between French and English Canada. You act as if you can never be satisfied and we in English Canada are galled by what we perceive as the federal government being over-indulgent. Speaking on behalf of English Canada, you are already separate from us, particularly of you treat us as though we are the enemy.

However, it is my sincere hope that we will stop treating each other like we are inherently different, and realize that together, we have built a great nation, but that it is being undermined by a small percentage of people who are decidedly never satisfied and openly hostile to Canada as well as people who profess that they want to keep it together but end up doing the opposite. We need to work together to help Quebec regain the cultural and economic might that it once had so we could all be one people again. The only alternative to that is that you could separate, and finish the job of impoverishing and ultimately destroying both French and English Canada.

Lastly, the federal government has in the last few decades, unintentionally it would seem, given you the idea that you are too good for us, and in effect, making the separatist's argument for them. Some of you may believe it now, and it certainly does not make you want to stay in Canada at all. What I would like to say to you in closing is that I believe that we do deserve each other (make of that what you will), and that we can put up with and even embrace each other's differences, and put an end to all the squabbling that is creating all of the fear and uncertainty that is slowly but surely destroying us.

"I Dare You To Vote For Us"

US
 
So it looks like we're getting an election sooner rather than later. As I tried to explain to Ben in my last post, it's like the two main parties are in effect saying the title of this post. From the Right, Before Dawn has just about had it with Stephen Harper.

... and THEM
 
I caught a bit of George W. Bush's speech last night, and he really stands by John Bolton as their representative at the United Nations. He also said that he believes in the UN. So what are we to make of that? Does he want to save the UN, or does he want to destroy it? Forgetting much of what I've learned and written about him so far, maybe he is just what they need. More likely, it could be part of a neo-con design to make the UN a rubber stamp, a puppet organization that would act solely for the US government under the facade of international law. That would be a worst case scenario, I would much rather see them destroy the UN than to have that happen.

Open Up And Say ... AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, what would a dentist from Thousand Oaks (in the Bay area), California care about Canadian politics? Plenty it seems, particularly when it comes to socialized medicine. But in the last week, he's been writing about the publication ban that we had for a few days and the controversy surrounding the Captain's Quarters blog (beginning here). You may not know him now, but there is a good chance he has a link to your site. This guy writes at least one page every day, I wonder where he finds the time.

An Extreme Case Of The Drapes Clashing With The Carpet
 
So this is the guy that Bush appointed for America's representative at the UN, and according to some people, his nomination was out of spite. He seems to represent most of the American stereotypes. While I do not condone plain-and-simple America-bashing, those stereotypes, as any commonly held beliefs, have some basis in truth somewhere. The American government does have a somewhat deserved reputation for being overbearing and judging other nations by their own standards, and while it showed some improvement after the Cold War ended, it took off again in the current administration.

I am still willing to cut the Americans some slack, because they still represent democracy and freedom and are after all the most powerful nation on Earth, Bush's appointment of John Bolton does seem to give the message not just to the UN but to all other nations and basically everybody that it's either our way or nothing, and if you don't like it, then keep your trap shut! This does seem to fit in well with the neo-con's evangelical agenda of running the whole world by their own rules, with or without the UN. What words come to mind right now... geocentric, ethnocentric, well, you get the idea.

When will the bubble burst?

It could be as early as Wednesday when we find out what was revealed at the Gomery Inquiry. Well, I checked the Usenet last night, and heard from people who said that they had read excerpts from Jean Brault's testimony, and they said that little was revealed that most people did not already know, that basically, most fingers point to Cretien. They did not say anything about the sitting PM, but as I may have mentioned before, I do not think that he is innocent of very much. When the testimony is actually revealed, will it be anti-climactic? It would make for a rather dull scandal.

---

A last word on John Paul II
Some of you may not agree with everything he believed in. You don't have to, but you have to give him credit, though. He was able to spread the Christian message, completely without the use of force, and still governments feared him. All the Church has to work with at times is friendly persuasion and an irresistable moral force. That was how they ultimately took hold of the Roman Empire, and it also helped to bring down the Soviet Empire. He did not have any army divisions, as Stalin contemptuously pointed out, but who needs brute force anymore? It's like progression, or you could even call it evolution, but it just seems that the human race is increasingly able to effect change and progress without the use of violent force. John Paul is with God now, there can be little doubt of that. However, who could replace him? We probably won't see anyone like him on the papal throne for a while.

The Old Order Is Crashing Down!

OOOOOOOOH, THE SUSPENSE. So what did make Jean Brault break down and cry? I guess we'll find out at the trial. But then, who that is interested in politics at all not try to find out about the horrible secrets that were let out of the bag? And who among them could sit on a jury? I think that I'm one of those people who will try to find out what they are when (or if) the story should break internationally, so I would probably have to rule myself out of the last question. Also, this may make Canadian politics interesting, even outside of Canada. That would be a monumental achievement.

Back to the books
 
I have almost finished reading this book by Tommy Schnurmacher called "Canada Is Not A Real Country" which he wrote soon after the 1995 Referendum. Mr. Schnurmacher is a columninst for the West Island portal and has his own talk show on CJAD in Montreal from 9am to 12pm local time. Even if this guy turns out to be a pro-Bush conservative, I will not hold that against him. I really like his book so far, where he gives out advice which our federal government should have heeded, but continued to do what it had been doing, which was basically to beg and plead with Quebec separatists to stay in Canada, and as it turned out with the Sponsorship Program, tried bribe them.

The advice he offers is basically not to coddle and beg for mercy from the separatists, and instead, fight them, tooth and nail. Refuse to cooperate with them as they have refused to cooperate with us, in fact, stop letting them get away with everything and basically run our government, which they have been pretty much doing for years now. For this reason alone, we should get rid of the current Liberal government as soon as we have the opportunity to do so. I would much rather have the Conservatives in office, even though I have reservations about Harper, slapping down the separatist movement is long overdue.

This country is in trouble, and one of the main causes is Quebec separatism. It's time to basically put aside our differences and try to save this country. Schnurmacher is a little more rabid about it than I am, but I would be happy to work with people like him.

Wolf In Charge of the Flock?

Perhaps it's just my anti-neocon bias, but I'm worried about Paul Wolfowitz being appointed head of the World Bank. Newsweek has an interview with him, and what he says seems to be the opposite of what neo-cons stand for: "I am not a unilateralist."

---

So what has been said about the Terri Schiavo case that has not been said already? My thoughts and feelings, for what they're worth. Basically, I believe that her parents' intentions were pure, and her husband's were not. Also, she did not appear to be in a vegetative state in those videos that have been shown over and over again, but there is some speculation that they were around ten years old. Obviously, she suffered permanent brain damage, barring a miracle, she would have remained that way for as long as she lived. But I don't think that her parents were waiting for a miracle, they were willing to accept her as an infantile person with limited memory and no speech, and almost zero chance of ever getting better, but she still seemed concious, no matter what the doctors said.

Why didn't Michael Schiavo just divorce her? It seems highly unlikely that that conversation he had with her before she became incapacitated actually happpened. Who could really say for absolute certainty? We only have HIS word on it. My 2 cents here is, if he's really as scummy as I think he is, it's bound to come out sooner or later. It may come out sooner, if the autopsy provides any solid conclusions. Then again, it might not, but all in all, it just seemed that the husband was and still is acting on strictly his own interests, her family be damned.

Also, I extend my best wishes to His Holiness, John Paul II. Even though I have seldom agreed with him for a long time, even though I find much of what he said and did questionable, you cannot help but admire the strength of his convictions. He will be a hard, hard act to follow.

What's Your Hurry, Stephen?

My philosophy professor may have been right, according to Ben and Dean, among others. The Conservatives may bring down the government by using an amendment to the budget. He had mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, just when it was safe to believe that they were satisfied with the budget and would not try to force an election. While I do not object to bringing down the Liberals per se, the timing could not be worse.

Let's suppose an election is held a few months from now and the Conservatives win a majority, and they have confidence in their ability to run the country (justified or not) and can basically do whatever they want, because the masses just do not want another election for four years at least, and the Tories will believe, like the Liberals had for years, that no party can compete with them in the short or even long term; then we will have the same problem we have had for the last ten years: a ruling party that pretty much knows that they are "untouchable", and an electorate who feels that there are no real options, and this will most likely increase voter apathy.

What should the Tories do? First, they could at least wait until the Gomery inquiry wraps up, and if any serious revelations should come to light, the electorate would most likely to be ready and willing to throw the Liberals out anyway, and the Conservatives would probably win a majority. Even if no damning revelations come to light, the Grits currently have a minority government, and they will probably lose their support from the electorate if they are as corrupt and incompetent as most people think they are, the Tories would take office with a clear moral advantage, but would be more accountable to the electorate because there would be a stronger opposition (or just a better one, since the Libs will be where the Tories were in '93, and other parties could gain from it), and people would believe in the system better.

I guess this all sounds terribly naive, that the parties are not just in it to get elected ASAP and wield as much power as they possible can, and the people can be made to take an interest in what happens in Ottawa. Also, even though the Conservatives under Harper is the best option we have, it's all so depressing.

As loathe as I am of writing about Ann Coulter, much less providing a link to an article of hers, see believes, just as I do, that liberalism is dead. BUT, she actually misses them! So for that reason, I want to repeat what I said about burying the old Left (being in an advanced state of decomposition and stinking up political discouse), and giving birth to a new Left. It is my sincere hope that it comes to pass, and quickly, so Ms. Coulter can get her raison d'etre back. ;)

About the CPC
 
From what I gathered, Peter MacKay was all hot and bothered about Stephen Harper going back on his promise. Just out of curiosity, what the #&*% was Peter MacKay thinking? Having broken his promise to David Orchard, he is actually suprised that the Alliance broke theirs???

Any Economists Out Here?

I just finished reading that book by Paul Hellyer (see previous post). Has anyone heard of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) or have any idea what it is? Mr. Hellyer seems to think that if it is implemented (if it hasn't been already), it's the end of national sovereignty, for Canada and everywhere else, and corporations, particularly banks, will rule the world. That is his basic theme. Is it just the kind of scare mongering we've heard countless times before, or is there really something to what he is saying? I'm willing to hear out any viewpoint from anyone who knows what it is, particularly because it seems to be a well kept secret that the MSM WILL NOT TOUCH!

I don't even know if it's been signed into law anywhere or not, or if not, is it still being negotiated. Does anyone reading this know? Still on trade...

Nor... uh ... what did you say your name was?

A comment on the killing of the Mounties in Alberta, I left a comment (link provided to a previous post) on Sinister Thoughts' blog. The policies which I was alluding to from that book were about running police forces, both federal and municipal, like businesses. In other words, police for profit like a private business would. Does anyone see what is wrong with the whole idea of this? Anyone familiar with "Community-Based policing"? or "Police-Challenge 2000"

---

Lately, I have been reading a book by Paul Hellyer called The Evil Empire about the new wave of monetarism. He takes aim at Milton Friedman for what he believes to be an old-fashioned, purely laissez-faire approach to economics. Considering it was printed in 1998, much of what it says seems to ring true, and explains much of what neo-conservatives believe before the term became common. Does anyone know who or what I'm talking about? Feel free to answer, particularly if you are conservative, because I think that I've only been listening too much to the Left, and I crave balance.

Reaching the summit ... or not?

First, a piece that you wouldn't expect from a conservative writer from down South. Fascinating.

Back here in the somewhat frozen North, Jim Elve's latest post reflects much of what I've been saying all along about partisan and party politics. On a deadly serious note though...

Check out this thread by Don from TalkCanada (no link) also on BlogsCanada.ca. IMHO, it does sound like things are building up to a frenzied climax, and that the current Liberal government is trying to please all Canadians at the moment with his 5-year plan, probably because the federal government sees the inevitability of their mandate come crashing down once the hard facts of what the Chretien administration really did (which Martin would have been in the thick of as much as anyone) come out. This would appear to be a likely explanation for their last budget and their decision on BMD, because they don't have much of a future but want their last days to be remembered fondly.

On the positive side, maybe Canadians all over the country will get more involved, and 86 the dead wood from Ottawa. On the negative side, one huge stumbling block is the size of the nation with a proportionally small population, and the sheer distance in space between people as well as the differences between regions. We would probably have to rebuild from the ground up, which could take forever. Still, if the situation in Ottawa is as rotten as many fear, it needs to be exposed, and all the crimes punished. Assuming of course, the Gomery Commission does its job and any attempt at a cover-up is foiled.

Goodies

So how about that budget? So much good about it, but of course, you cannot please everyone. The main thing is, there should not be an election for a few months at least, because he was giving the Opposition much of what they wanted, just like Trudeau did in the early '70s. Perhaps after all those years of acting miserly, Martin is giving freely if not reluctantly. He can afford to do that at the moment, and it's probably cheaper than another election. My main reservation though, is the giving of tax breaks to Big Business, as much if not more than Harper would have wanted, well, they're mostly Martin's friends anyway.
Among the good points, first, he gave the military a desperately needed cash flow, more personnel and more equipment. Secondly, equalization payments, which are good if you're like me and live in one of the "have-not" provinces. 

 
On Monday, just after my last entry, I attended a "Town Hall Debate" on Ballistic Missile Defense. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out if I should love it or hate it, but some interesting points were made. Afterward, I picked up some literature from the Council of Canadians, who I think are trying to set up a Halifax chapter. Is anyone reading this a member? Or are you like Rambo and still live in the wilds somewhere, and have no idea that the Cold War is over, and think that they are all just a bunch of commies? They also talked about the idea that government has proposed of investing old age pensions (in Canada presumably) into the American military-industrial complex. Well, at least Martin has ruled out helping Americans with BMD, or so he says anyway.

Cutthroat capitalism
 
Also, I picked up some interesting information about one of your favorite vices. Just something to think about the next time you're buying a case of the good stuff. Kinda throws water on the "War On Drugs" doesn't it? Still on "legitimate" business, does anyone else dread the concept of complete economic integration with the U.S.? I am not the most ardent nationalist mind you, but the idea creeps me out.

Constitution? What constitution?

I guess I haven't been checking the right-wing blogs recently. I wasn't aware that the Tiger In Winter On Politics (see sidebar "Politics - Right") was in the midst of some serious political turmoil. He had apparently arrived in Nepal just before a coup temporarily overthrew the King. The main body of his blog was black for around a week, but I'm glad to hear that he's all right, because that sort of thing is notorious for spiralling out of control quickly. (Ever read "Bodily Harm" by Margaret Atwood?)

I've been reading Thomas Hobbes for the last couple of weeks, and my philosophy professor said something to the effect that constitutions are sometimes not worth the paper they're written on, and every so often, even democratic governments go bad, which is why people should be allowed to have guns. This makes sense actually, and in spite of gun control, most people could go out and get a gun, but down south, the availability of high-powered firearms and "cop-killer" bullets just doesn't make any sense to me. I guess in that respect, I'm a hopeless lefty.

Back to Ben's story, he seemed to be having a memorable vacation (how's that for an understatement). I would agree with him that the sovereign should not be allowed to suspend the Constitution at will, but I wonder, could just any government suspend constitutional rights for any reason? Ours has, although we did not have a written constitution of our own until 1982, the most recent time that civil rights were suspended I believe during the Quebec crisis in 1970. And what would happen if the Americans were hit by another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse? I don't think that people there or abroad would make too much of a fuss about the suspension of civil rights, we would probably all turn into willing Hobbesians, begging for the government to save us, no matter what it takes.

However, I think another terrorist strike is highly unlikely, my main point is: what keeps a government abiding by the Constitution even at the best of times? Could a government just stay on after it has lost the election and just refuse to go, and say "The hell with the Constitution" even if no catastrophe had striken? It could happen though...

The wrong way about it

Why do I feel the way I do? I watched Bush's State of the Union address last night and it's getting to the point I almost like the guy. Am I that gullible? It just seemed to me that he believes everything he is saying. He'd set so many lofty goals and noble promises. It will be interesting, though, to see how many he keeps, or is able to keep. Probably just being glib?

On one hand, some of his biggest critics are going too, too far. The Left can and should be better represented, and needs to be reined in, we can wait to rein in the Right.

On the other hand, Bush seems quite adept at manipulating the media, and in rather covert ways. Also, he seems to be in no hurry to leave the Middle East. While I don't think that the U.S. should leave Iraq until the situation there is reasonably stable, he still seems to rely on brute force to get his point across. Here is another person who may be a centrist, because we are increasingly in need of more of them.


Sudden Excitement
 
Should I thank Jean Carle for coming forward with what he believe is the truth? Of course, as long as it is the truth, the reasons don't matter. It may actually be interesting to watch if this isn't the apex of revelations. Could even bring down the Martin government and certainly tarnish Cretien's legacy. But a burning question is: who do we replace them with? 

Power to the People!

You have to give the people of Iraq credit, and yes, you have to give the Americans credit as well. I can't help but feel the election and turnout were amazing and wonderful. This has to be Bush and Blair's finest hour. They had better savor this moment, because it's going to be all downhill from here. Also, I wouldn't overestimate the gratitude from the people of Iraq, they're probably anxious for the Americans to leave, and I believe they will, by way of Iran.

I think the issue that many people, mostly on the Left, have with America is that it is the most powerful nation that ever was, and that it can and will take over everything by force. Well sorry, that simply could not happen. The world isn't that small and people can be pretty unwieldy no matter how friendly the territory is. If that is in fact what the NeoCons have in mind, they need to be stopped, because they are insane. One country cannot run the whole world, stupid.

OOOOOOOOH! THAT MAN!!

I'm not sure if I'm still a social liberal or an economic liberal. My position may be a little more clear by this article on MS-NBC about the Republican Party trying either to change, or dispense with, Social Security. If it is really about sticking it to FDR, the New Deal, or the Left in general, the kindest thing I can say about it is that it's pretty small-minded. I believe that the New Deal was a monumental achievement, but like most good ideas, it was taken too far, and it was necessary to scale back some of the social programs, but God forbid we should trash any and all social programs.

For me, the definition of classical laissez-faire liberalism was: no welfare, and the law simply did not apply to shop owners or even managers, and the government simply did not want to get involved in any way, financially or otherwise, in people's private lives (but could spy on them if they wanted). If that is what the NeoCons want to bring back, it's one more reason that they have to be stopped. Back to me, I am a little old-fashioned (for one thing, I would like a little restraint in public discourse as I did not say how I really felt about undoing Social Security), and some of my values are in agreement with the Right, but if they start talking about spiking all social programs altogether, I may lose my own sense of restraint.

About "The Fifth Estate"

Having watched the report called "Sticks and Stones", I can say that the CBC didn't really get it. It did appear biased in favor of leftists, simply because they didn't acknowledge the Left's role in slandering and shouting. While it's true that the Right runs most of the call-in shows, it did not indicate that the Left should watch what it says as well. Also, they focused too much on Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, people whom I consider to fall short of sensible, rational thought. And what about Al Franken? Was he really crying over what they said? Those people will say just about anything for the sake of shock value. The only thing that disturbs me about Bill and Ann is that anyone takes them seriously, for or against. People like Franken should not be concerned with what people like that say, learn to respond with "whatever." People in general should learn to chill out about politics.

A Sinister Thought
 
On today's episode of "Gaywatch", we out a character from "Arthur". As far as conspiracy theories go, this is getting more and more far-fetched. I was willing to give them Tinky-Winky, but I'm starting to think they're getting way off-track.

On Iraq
 
I believe the conventional wisdom is for this experiment to fail, and fail horribly. It's my sincere hope that this does not end in disaster. It is just not sporting to take joy in its ultimate failure, assuming it does hit the fan. Pray to God it doesn't.
I don't believe that you can simply "give" people freedom, it has to be earned. Yet, it seemed to work in Japan after the war. Could someone explain that?

Here, Bush is making sense.

Egad! What A Week!

I spent the last 3 days at my parents' place. I just intended to stay there overnight Saturday but as many of you know, we on the East coast were hit by our third snowstorm in less than a week. Even when we had "White Juan" last year, I think it was just two snowstorms.

Here is an interesting (4-part) article by Fareed Zakaria in this week's Newsweek, concerning the increasing likelihood that Bush Inc. is going to be smacked in the face by gravity eventually, and another article worth checking out about alternative lifestyles, sorry, not that.

I would agree with Bob and Dana that Paul Martin is overrated as far as managing the nation's finances, though I'm sure we would disagree in what ways.

Off topic entirely, you gotta love Dr. Seuss.

Still OT, more on Creationism.

I don't like Januarys

Home
 
Here on the East Coast, we've been hit with two snowstorms. Taking the bus can be a nightmare at the best of times, this week it's caused me unbearable stress. On the other hand, I have had more time to stay home and get things done.

Away
 
So what is Bound by Gravity doing tomorrow? He'll be attending a planning session for the Conservative Party Policy convention in March. It does need a formalized party policy, which it apparently lacked in the last election. And I'll venture to say that the proposed CPC platform for aboriginal rights and self-government does look very reasonable (look under "Making Policy"), but I won't speculate as to whether it will be considered enough or not. Instead, I'll question whether or not it will be taken at all seriously, and if it is, will they scrap it as soon as they are elected, as both federal parties seem fond of doing? (examples in chronological order, Trudeau "Zap! You're frozen!", Mulroney "No Free Trade", Chretien-Martin "The Red Book") I allude to a link to an earlier post as to what party leader Stephen Harper and his power-behind-the-throne Tom Flanagan really feel about aboriginal rights. On a positive note, some good news for Labrador Innu. It seems to be easier to resolve land claims with people living in the frozen north, but progress is progress.

Abroad
 
How many of you have seen the pictures on Steve Gillard's web site? I won't provide links to them, because they almost made me cry. I don't think that any proponent of the war would dare justify that sort of thing. I sincerely hope no one does.

So who saw Bush's inauguration speech. Did you see it condensed on The Daily Show? I think that the more people use certain words, like "freedom" and "liberty", the less meaning that they have.

Lastly, a word about the planned invasion of Iran. This will be the blow from which America will never recover, like Napoleon and Hitler's invasions of Russia. But no one should cheer that, it will bode horribly for the world to lose America as a superpower. That's my prediliction of doom for the day.

So who won last night?

Or for that matter, why does anyone care? I'm talking about the Golden Globes. A dubious award from a very secretive organization probably being run by someone named David Manning. Isn't it the Hollywood equivalent to professional wrestling? And still on the subject of ... what am I talking about? Dishonesty? So how about conservative commentators Armstrong Williams and Bill O'Reilly? I think this is Williams' first strike, but with the other guy, it's probably his third or fourth.

The Genesis War 

So where do you stand on the subject of where we came from? I have to admit, biosciences are not my specialty, but I do like to read up on it once in a while. On the subject of creationism, I say that it's possible, but the old Adam and Eve story is just one of many folk tales from different cultures trying to explain when and where the human race began. And about evolution, it is just another possibility. I would not be offended if the Missing Link was actually found and we were actually descended from apes, heck, I am willing to believe that we all started out as microbes in primordal soup, which is the conventional wisdom now. The thing is, we just don't know for sure. Darwin's theories are still just that. Theories. And the science is always changing. Most of what we know now may ultimately be proven wrong.

Local News

Judy Sgro has resigned, but apparently, her accuser is less than reputable. It's too early to say "Good riddance!"
 
Does anyone reading this watch French TV, even though like me, you only have high school French? There is this program on 7:30 ET Sunday nights on Radio-Canada called "...Et Dieu Crea LaFlaque", which is a computer animated news programme starring a Gerard LaFlaque, a fat, grumpy, middle-aged husband and father who interviews real personalities, both in CGI and in real life. As I said, my French is limited at best, but I still couldn't stop myself from laughing at times. It's sort of like Larry Sanders/Newsroom + Spitting Image (in a computer generated sort of way). It's really up on current events too, check it out.

Not for 30 and under

Don't you miss vinyl records? I do. This guy makes some really valid points. It does seem that in most cases, for everything gained, we lose something. It's one more reason I feel sorry for kids today. They don't experience art in any remotely pure form as we did. Don't I sould like an old fuddy-duddy? Not entirely, who misses 8-track tapes? Speaking of which, my father got an old-fashioned record player for Christmas. But on closer inspection, it does have some new features as well, and I bought him an old Catherine MacKinnon record that he used to have on 8-track. Again, who misses 8-tracks?

Please don't let me be misunderstood

The other day, I seemed to provoke outrage from The Tiger In Winter when I commented on how Canadians can dish it out, but can't seem to take it. I agreed with him on that point, but then I made some assertions, which he addressed, and I want to respond to his responses.

For the first issue, I seemed to imply that if we don't agree with America all the time, we're Public Enemy No. 3, behind Germany and France. Being ignored isn't an entirely bad thing. They could have been really nasty to us if they wanted, but overall have not been. On the yes-man issue, I believe that feeling prevailed throughout most of the Cold War, and if it is not true about the vast majority of Americans now (I don't believe), it is certainly true about their government, especially if you want to work for them. Thirdly, I made a reference about Canada becoming more Americanized. I won't speculate as to whether the Americans are in any way behind it, in fact, I would maintain my first assertion and look upon it as a positive. As I mentioned in a recent post, the last few governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have been making Canada more American, and I believe that the current PM, Paul Martin, is a lot more conservative than you think. It's almost like they're trying to annex us to the Americans.

Perhaps the tone of my queries was a bit inflammatory, if so I apologize. The last thing I want to do is add to the raving emotionalism and ill-feeling that seems to accompany political discourse these days. In response to the other things you were saying Tiger, I agree that most Canadians are being quite nasty, and in general being very unfair to the USA. I also believe that all those who profess that Americans are a lower form than the rest of us, whether here or abroad, are really ignorant and foolish people, and they need to be set straight about it quickly. You can refer them to my blog.

Look at it from their POV, if America thinks that the rest of the world hates them and can do no right, why should they listen to us, they do have feelings too, they are no less human than the rest of us.

It's not like the Americans have not made their share of mistakes, but I think that being one of two and now just the one superpower in the world, I think that for that reason, we should allow them a larger margin of error, and help try to save America from whom I feel are their biggest enemies, their own people.
And as for our military, I heartily agree that we are in desperate need of one, and the recent record of what little we have is at best spotty, and we need to change that post haste.

Globalization at its best and at its worst

So has anyone reading this not heard of David Holcberg's article yet? I don't think that it's online anymore, not on the original site anyway, but it reproduced the best bits in a Louisville, Kentucky newspaper, and I have seen it reported (presumably verbatim) in its entirety on Usenet, where I'm sure that it's been immortalized on Google. It that his real name? If so, he might want to change it.

In an age where we are swinging back to the classical liberal, free-market ideals of the 19th century, it appears that no one, not even the neo-cons, has the nerve to try to defend this point of view (but hopefully he won't be killed for it, I'm with Voltaire on that issue).

If any good can come out of the tsunami, it is the relatively quick response by governments who are able to do something about it. What is the point of acting like a global village if we don't act like good neighbors?

Back to the 19th century, it seemed to me that it was pure, free-market capitalism at its apex (with all the abuses and sheer inhumanity that went along with it), yet, there are those who say that it has never really been tried, which is what others say about communism. Anyone want to contribute a differing point of view?

The original article came from the Ayn Rand Institute, where they seem to be ard. As mentioned earlier, it's probably not there anymore.

Lastly, some news from CNN that you cannot be indifferent to, if you have any idea who Tucker Carlson is.

Time to shine a little light in your lives

Here's a link about Stephen Harper that illustrate some of what I was talking about in my previous post, thanks to Captain Flynn.

Here's another important history lesson, and another look at Lucrezia Borgia, and if you're thinking that the use of torture is acceptable in some cases, check this out.