Looney Canuck

Don't Eat American!

2025-02-27T23:01:00.004-04:00

This has been on my mind just after Donald Trump has retaken the office of President, and he and Elon Musk have been gutting consumer, worker, and safety programs right and left. The U.S. has gone from close ally and our best trading partner to a corporate raider, threatening us with 25% tariffs on imports!

Tomorrow, February 28th, is Buy Nothing American day and I fully intend to participate in that, as anyone who cares anything about Canada and Canadians should. However, I intend to restrict my diet to nothing American produced permanently, but of course, I cannot do it all at once. That will require some research on my part. I have nothing against Americans personally (I have a dear friend who is American, and she just passed her Canadian citizenship test. Kudos!), but it is basically for the same reason that the standard advice on vacationing in Mexico is "don't drink the water."

This video by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow explains why, quite clearly.

Trump is replacing the Cavalry with The Four Horsemen.

The Triumph of Apathy

2017-02-07T01:26:00.007-04:00

I want to believe in people, that the human race is capable to taking care of itself and cleaning up after our own messes. I want to believe in democracy, or at least a responsible, representative government. It just seems now that the prevailing sentiment is "every man for himself". It's all about the individual, everyone looking out for No. 1. There seems to be this cynical, anti-government, arch-reactionary movement that seems to have taken over the conservative mindset, which would be tolerable if they hadn't elected someone like Donald Trump to the highest political office in the world.

Yes, the American Revolution is generally considered to be a conservative revolution, but their Founding Fathers had some ingenious ideas about how to keep government from becoming too powerful (keeping government branches separate and independent of each other being just two examples). Of course, there were times that different levels of government knowingly violated the Constitution, denied doing so, and tried to cover it up, but for over 200 years, law, order, and justice did prevail overall. The Republic is still standing; the biggest question now is: for how much longer?

How did it come to this? How was it possible for a man like this to be elected president? The common thread that I can see is sheer stupidity. How did so many middle and working-class Americans become so stupid, so politically illiterate, and in effect, voting against their own interests, not even counting the interests of people abroad? (Please note: there is plenty of stupidity to go around in the Western world, here in Canada, and England [cough: Brexit]) We have SO many people and things to blame for this (in no particular order).

Television (particularly so-called "reality TV")
neo-conservatives/neo-liberals
liberals
the Internet

When I first saw the Robert Redford directed film "Quiz Show" about the TV game show fixes of the 1950s, John Tutorro's character Herb Stempel said something near the end about how television was "going to get us", I had no idea how that was possible. Yes, I know that that particular medium has made people stupider over time, and I even think I watched that movie just as "Survivor" became a thing (I only watched the second season in the Australian Outback just out of curiosity) and was somewhat aware that that and so-called "reality TV" in general is mostly fakery and as scripted as professional wrestling, but who could have foreseen that it would make everyone so much stupider and easier to deceive and mislead? This is what government and corporate interests have tried to do for so long, and it would appear that they have ultimately succeeded. And of course, the fact that just about everyone who has been around since the late 1980s and has had access to a TV knows who Donald Trump is.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks seemed to unleash a volcanic eruption of anger that had been building up for years among the American people. The conservative movement seemed to have had tempered their collective rage until then, and when George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq, the conservative movement became hyper-defensive; they were finally raging back at all the America-bashing that had been going on throughout the world for decades, among allied countries as well as communist countries. This time though, the ruling American conservatives seemed so completely full of themselves like I had never seen before, and I had lived through the Reagan years. Their stated goals were to basically establish free-market liberal democracies all over the world starting in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the American way was the best way (not a direct quote, but that in a nutshell was the ethos they were operating under). Basically, it was 'freedom and capitalism for all races, religions and creeds, and if you disagree with us, you hate freedom and are guilty of the soft bigotry of lower expectations' (again, I'm paraphrasing).

After the Iraq invasion, things did not go as the allies had hoped. Even though the U.S. and England overthrew a brutal dictator, the situation in Iraq did not improve overall in spite of some apparent turns of good fortune earlier on. Some have even said that the current situation is worse than it ever was under Saddam Hussein. The American Right has seemed to react in a sort of indignation towards helping anyone anymore. These days, they stress individualism and national sovereignty, and have a deep-seated loathing for government and all things political, taking to heart an extreme and new-fangled form of libertarianism where anyone who works for any level of government is automatically tainted with corruption. But people who run their own businesses, particularly if they're successful, are not nearly as bad; and some conservatives would rather be governed by them than actual politicians. In fact, one of the surest ways for anyone wanting to get elected to public office these days is if they express sheer contempt for not just the current administration, but for politics in general. It's like people want to vote people into office who will basically shut down the government altogether. The best thing to be for someone these days, who wants to run for President, is someone who had never run for public office before and is a "successful" businessman. Someone who is completely untainted by politics, and is a living testament to everything we can hope for in a capitalist society. The conservative movement, even those who profess to be religious, seem to have lowered their standards for people who run for office, just as long as they do not fit the current political mode, and willfully overlook his blatant rudeness, thin-skin, and generally sleazy ways.

Liberals themselves have little to be proud of. All they could offer against Trump was Hilary Clinton. Putting aside for a moment that she seems to embody everything wrong with politics, I like to think that if the Democrats had chosen anyone else who did not have all the baggage that Mrs. Clinton had, the world would be a much safer, saner place today. Liberals also need to heighten their standards as well. The fact that her husband Bill definitely had sexual relations with "that woman" while he was in office was not the worst part of that sordid affair, but the fact that he had lied to Congress about it under oath, and to the American people in a televised address as well. That was a major contributor to the cynicism we are seeing today for politics and politicians. Nobody's word is good for anything anymore. We expect people to swear to things up and down and know that they're lying. Also, there is the issue of "political correctness". It was a good idea at the time, but like any good idea, it was taken too far, and people were tainted with accusations of racism if they disagreed with liberals on certain points.Remember that old fable about the Boy Who Cried Wolf? It seems that these days, the wolves have come out of hiding and have taken control of the entire farm.

On a side note, you know liberal California? There seems to be some serious talk about them seceding from the Union, but how soon have we forgotten? They had elected their own non-politician as governor. You know, that guy who was a movie star (ok, it had worked before), who was foreign-born, but had married into the Kennedy family, and was an "alleged" serial groper? You had voted him in TWICE.

Then there is this: the thing where you are most likely reading this post from. The Internet. Where people get most of their 'information' these days. You can pretty much look up anything that corresponds with your point of view, and find "proof" that it is true. First we had "alternative science", particularly when it comes to medicine, now we have "alternative facts". It's all there online, and you can find "proof" of just about anything you can imagine. If the official word is that thing you believe in is false, then it's some kind of conspiracy, either by government, Big Pharma, or George Soros. There are so many different interpretations of facts and outright disinformation out there, it seems impossible to know where to start. People these days seem to have given up on independent verification of facts, or even if anything is true. So we may as well elect that guy who was on TV because we are familiar with his face (particularly the hair).

As I said in the beginning, I want to believe that people en masse are able to take care of themselves; and I want to add that people do not need to be ruled by any kind of dictatorship or have everything we do regulated and monitored, and have all of our important decisions made for us by an unaccountable or possibly hidden body. For over 200 years, the United States of America has come as close as any nation ever has to achieving what I thought until recently were relatively modest goals. But when enough people have become so ill-educated and easily fooled, have given up on the search for truth and watch people tell blatant lies with total impunity, think that "no one's word is good for nothin'", and lose the ability to care about anything outside their own country, city, or even outside themselves: life will turn into a survivalist Hobbesian free-for-all ruled by the stupid and ignorant. It seems to be happening throughout the Western world, civilization is crumbling at an accelerated pace. Is it too late for people to smarten up? It would be wonderful if there were actually a "cure for stupid".

Buddy, Can You Spare Me A Cabinet Post?

2006-05-25T15:19:00.000-03:00

Did all of you catch "The National" yesterday? If you didn't, you missed a fascinating piece on Gurmant Grewal, some of the dealings that he's had in the past, and what those who were close to him think of him now. Couldn't find any links about that story, but I remember a couple of Sikhs in the Vancouver area say that Grewal is finished in the Sikh community.

In my last post I asked how the tape was edited. What I should have asked was "is there an original copy? And if so, was it tampered with?" The answers should have been "yes" and "no" respectively, but as a result of last night's telecast, I am ready to believe the worst in Grewal, that he did have his hand out, and only turned over the tapes after he did not get the deal he wanted. Assuming though, that he did approach Murphy and Donsanjh first, it does not in any way alleviate their guilt, and they should either resign from their jobs, their party, and/or be brought up on corruption related charges. And also, Grewal should resign from the Conservative caucus, but I doubt that any resignations are soon forthcoming. But right now, I'm going to read "Buckets of Grewal" (in the BANPC, it started recently, but his posts are long and detailed).

See here now

2005-10-11T18:55:00.001-03:00

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?

2005-09-08T14:05:00.001-03:00

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

2005-08-24T20:36:00.001-03:00

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

2005-08-10T20:18:00.002-03:00

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

2005-08-04T17:30:00.002-03:00

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

2005-07-04T18:35:00.001-03:00

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

2005-06-20T19:39:00.001-03:00

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

2005-06-16T19:23:00.011-03:00

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!

2005-06-09T17:55:00.003-03:00

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

2005-06-05T21:50:00.006-03:00

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

2005-05-28T21:11:00.003-03:00

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

2005-05-24T20:15:00.001-03:00

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

2005-05-21T11:10:00.002-03:00

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

2005-05-19T14:07:00.001-03:00

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

2005-05-17T13:32:00.005-03:00

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)

2005-05-16T15:14:00.001-03:00

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

2005-05-13T15:40:00.001-03:00

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...

2005-05-11T19:28:00.005-03:00

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!

2005-05-06T15:42:00.007-03:00

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"

2005-04-29T14:55:00.003-03:00

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2005-04-11T15:22:00.006-03:00

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?

2005-04-04T21:59:00.001-03:00

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.