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.