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).