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).