"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.