I'm glad to belatedly announce that I'll be blogging regularly at Politicususa, concentrating on ethics and the consequences of being led by and living next to those who lack them.
It's not difficult to find something to write about these days, the difficulty is not slitting one's wrists while doing the background research. But there's something even MORE difficult.
Keeping it under a thousand words; THAT is hard!
I have not been asked to moderate my viewpoint, and I'm a devoutly anti-authoritarian pragmatist. I'll admit to being nearly reflexively anti-authoritarian, but in large part that has come from a lifetime of seeing simplistic, authoritarian responses to complex social and economic issues - and seeing them fail catastrophically - from the Right AND the Left. That, and a few hundred less political and more personal examples led me to believe that you can't change what people are; you can only help them be whoever they are better.
In Canada - we pay lip service to authoritarians, often trying out such approaches - but then quietly and without much fanfare, simply adjusting our course toward the centre and to the benefit of the vast majority of Canadians. This is why our banks are properly regulated, our halt and lame are well-cared for and still considered valued members of our communities, and both of these things mean that we have a secure middle class, for they are less at risk from being robbed by the rich or the poor.
You Yanks - maybe you ought to think on what you wish others to see you as.
For, well, most of you ARE terribly concerned about "what people might think," but paradoxically, completely oblivious to what other people who are not actually subscribing to the same websites and attending the same churches really DO think of you.
It is neither complementary, nor is it without cause.
I went to check on Canada today, to see if we were doing anything at all interesting. But on the very eve of Canada day, during the Queen's Visit, and immediately subsequent to the 100th' birthday of the Canadian Navy.1 this is the top story.
Yes, there is the odd murder. Yes, we are still spilling blood in Afghanistan, our own and those of Afghanis. And yes, being Canadian, part of our contribution is a rather large contingent of medical professionals. Once someone HAS been shot and is unable to shoot back - if they were ever so inclined in the first place - we think that it is utterly unremarkable for us to be concerned about their well-being. This is quite aside from the fact that we are entirely sure that our soldiers are, man for man, twice as good as any Ahmurican, three times as good as any Frenchman, and five times as good as any person from Ireland, Wales or Scotland who is cognezant of his history and yet willing to take the Queen's schilling.
Oh, we will serve along side them, and gladly. It gives us an opportunity to prove which of the various Commonweath members can be smuggest under fire.
We are Canada. We are a people who are as ethical as we can afford to be. No more than that, Lord save us, but by the Lord Harry, not one whit less than that! We are a complacent, polite and rather dull people, who value being able to turn on the news and find out that certain things are as they should be, and whatever follies might have been committed, can be reasonably and properly blamed on having taken bad advice from Americans.
Sadly, like all partners in power-imbalanced relationships, we do that rather a lot. But being Canadian, we do regret it in the morning, and promise to never, ever do it again.
One of my favourite things about Canada is that we actually do something about our regrets. Although, I do suspect that at least half of the reason that our Royal Commissions actually do come to conclusions and our politicians actually do make sincere public statements of regret that are backed up with money and actual change is that it proves to the world that we are Canadian.
This does means that it takes us rather longer to do certain things. I clearly remember a time, just prior to Trudeau, in which we were a nation that was a client state to both the UK and the US, and damn proud of it. A nation in which poverty and disease and grinding toil were taken for granted. A time when many areas of British Columbia,one of the richest provinces in Canada today, resembled a third world nation and the worst areas resembled rural Tennessee. When you crossed the border, a superhighway changed into a two lane road.
In Canada, our history is what it is, and we did what we did in order to make do. We are neither proud nor embarrassed, but in the words of the famous Canadian marching song:
"We're here because we're here/
were here becaue were're here/
We don't give a damn that we're here!
We are here because we're here!.
This changed. Not suddenly. Not as a result of some radical upheaval by the terms of any other nation than our own. We didn't have a civil war. Nope. We had an election. The socialists came to power, changed a few things and then once they had had a chance to implement their rather good, overdue, and entirely unwelcome ideas, the Conservatives returned. But our conservatives did not repeal the changes. They respected the will of the people and therefore, were required to make sense of it all, put it all on a proper footing, and make it Canadian - that is to say, an idea that would be have been a completely Tory idea, had they only been capable of thinking of it in the first place.
It is not at ALL an accident that the US tried to get Canada to repeal it's entire social safety net as being an "unfair business subsidy." Of course it is. Bless you, dears, what part of "trade" implied "fair" to you? Isn't "fair trade" one of those sloppy-minded "libtard" ideas? No, we are Canadians. Fiscally conservative. That means that we we do indeed focus on the bottom line. That is to say, our Gross Domestic Product and our balance of trade. So whatever we can do to tip that bottom line in our favor... and more to the point, whatever you can be encouraged to do to tip YOUR balance of trade in our favor.. well thank you very much. And come again.
Canadian Conservatives, trained in the most exclusive and unforgiving prep schools, equally blessed with regular canings and training in the critical thinking that no doubt makes them question the necessity of it even as they add it to their repetoire of private sexual deviations are qualified to use spreadsheets, run the numbers and accept the results as being true, regardless of the answers their ideology says the answers should be.
If welfare and unemployment turn out to stimulate the economy, well, they do. A proper Conservative does not give an amputated rat's ass if that means that the money goes to an "unworthy person" as the first stop. Let us say that the "unworthy person spends all their money on drugs."
Being a Conservative, they know quite well that first, the drug operation was bankrolled by someone who votes Conservative, they know that regardless of who "deserves" the money, some of it was spent on toilet paper, which is made from Canadian trees owned by quite reliable Tories, unreliable people of COURSE buy McCain brand lunch meat, Hunky Bill's pyrogies and Top Ramen... and so it goes.
The less "reliable" and "worthy" the person it is, the less likely that money will be saved and the more likely it will immediate will pass into entrepreneurial, Conservative hands. For proper economic stimulus, it's not so much about the sheer amount of money, as the velocity - how many hands it passes though in what period of time on it's way back to the proper hands.
Like I say, we run the numbers and follow the money. And the numbers reflect reality as it is, not as some sorts would prefer it to be.
1.Via Skye News, who, due to their editorial slant, include two paragraphs of anti-monarchism, and being British, must relegate them to the last two paragraphs.) (See also here what a very precarious thing it was, in true Canadian form.
I've been gradually dragging myself out of a serious writer's block, arising out of a sense of utter futility. On any number of issues, I feel as if what I write is of no value and has influenced nobody who would not already agree with me.
Well, that's not true, of course. And not in the sense of bragging. It's literally impossible for anyone who communicates with other people to avoid some degree of influence. And as I climb slowly out of what now seems to have been a rather profound depression that eventually forced me to take some time off, I look back at what I've written.
And some of it doesn't suck at all. Some of what I've written is pretty good. Some of it continues to bring traffic. If it does have any influence at all, it looks like it will have the sort of influence I would like. Aside from a few spelling and grammatical errors, I see nothing I OUGHT to have been embarrassed to have said in public. Even when moved to use rather rude words in a very consciously offensive way.
Take this post about Bridget Keeney. My treatment of her was either more or less merciful than the rest of the blogosphere. I'm not entirely sure which, myself. But it's a wildly different way of looking at the situation, quite possibly unique, and refreshingly distinct from the partisan and ideological responses which, aside from the relative merits, we all should know by heart by now.
Here at Graphictruth, any day that I have the journalistic duty to link to outright pornography is a good day.
When the reason I must do it is that the author of said hardcore fapfesting textviles is a right wing, social conservative who presumes to tell other people what their publicly educated children must and must not learn while home-schooling her own, it is not just a good day, it's a frigging good day. Via Fitsnews: (H/T The Progressive Puppy)
.......
Let me quote my wife, in the moments in which I or someone else manages to unconsciously reveal Total Catastrophic Thought Failure.
"Oh, HONEY!"
She manages to covey the recognition that one has committed a cognitive act not at all unlike a sudden failure of toilet training, but without any sense of attempting to shame the puppy.
There is deep sympathy for how very humiliating the situation must be for the poor creature - and she will go get a towel. Further, should the puppy be blessed with thumbs - as Kerstin is - she will hand the towel to the puppy, with the expectation that it do something more productive that attempting to pretend that it did not happen. Sadly, Kirstin has tried to pretend it didn't happen - by deleting every instance of her writing but two - thereby proving that she had access to the author's account.
That's not an actual cover-up, it's even worse than a failed cover up. There was an allegation these writings were yours, but it was all gossip and conjecture - UNTIL they were deleted. Now it's not just gossip and conjecture, it's a fact in evidence.
Yep, I'm pretty happy with that. And I attribute my different viewpoint rather directly to my rather different brain.
I'm aspy, of course. A person who can be usefully described as being an Asperger's Autistic. That is to say, regardless of whether you believe it's primarily a disability, or a difference; if you want an illustration of what that set of traits looks like in every-day life, take a picture of me - an encouragement and a cautionary example, all at once, I think.
..here's another Asperger quotation that is perhaps more to the point of the month:
We are convinced, then, that autistic people have their place in the organism of the social community. They fulfil their role well, perhaps better than anyone else could, and we are talking of people who as children had the greatest difficulties and caused untold worries to their care-givers.[3]
Yeah. What he said. I perhaps might add that one's success may well be inversely proportional to the degree with which worry and difficulty translates into "interventions" designed to minimize autistic distinctions that serve our distinct social purpose.
What is that, you may well ask?
Well, I'd have to say, if I were forced to explain my own role and generalize based on other aspies I know, it would be reality checking and social criticism. (Or systems analysis, looking at all sorts of different systems and rules sets.)
As children, our expectation that rules, strictures and diktats should make sense often gets us into a great deal of trouble, and as adults we tend to look back and try to make sense of it all.
He [Asperger] followed one child, Fritz V., into adulthood. Fritz V. became a professor of astronomy and solved an error in Newton’s work he originally noticed as a child.
I can just imagine how well that went over in a properly Germanic pedagogical context.
Of course, this means that when you wave your flag and loudly proclaim a set of ideals, I genuinely expect you to do your damedest to live up to them, in your own person. You don't get to pick and choose, for instance, which parts of the US Constitution you like, or what sorts of people are not "granted rights" under it.
It doesn't apply to anyone if it doesn't apply to everyone. And if that really cannot be enforced outside of the US borders, it's not due to a lack of military ability - it's because other countries have the duty to protect the human and natural rights of their own people, and some do a better job than others. However, the Constitution recognizes and celebrates natural rights, drawing very narrow and conditional exceptions as required in the specific. If you want to trumpet something about what makes America great - or what made it great in the past tense - that would be it.
Now that your rights and mine as recognized under US law are considered conditional and exceptional - when citizens are asked for their papers and the president can reserve the right to imprison or kill anyone they choose - that's no different than any other statist nation. Well, then. It comes down to competence and execution, for there's no moral high ground left to note.
Nowhere in the commonwealth has anyone ever considered "inalienable human rights." We have, however, learned that when you do alienate someone's rights, there's usually some sort of unintended consequence, and one had best budget for the expense.
I used to consider myself rather lucky to be both a Canadian and a US Citizen by birth. Over the years - and you can track that evolution on this blog - I went from being somewhat optimistic and patriotic about my US citizenship to the point where I am now, where I will not cross the border. Not as a matter of principle. I simply consider the risk to my liberty and my dignity to be more than I'm willing to accept.
This following post pretty much marks the turning point for me, the time when I folded the flag up and threw in the back of the closet, along with a few other relics of mis-spent idealism.
Would I grow pot, smuggle meth, steal cars or participate in a gang, if the alternative was starving alone in an alleyway in a cardboard box? If course. So would you. And hell, we are speaking of the foundations of civilization. People "ganged together" to ensure their mutual survival. If you exclude people from belonging to the "Ahumurikin" gang - because "poor people" don't deserve to belong - they won't just starve politely. They will band together to mess you up, take your stuff and, ultimately, do unto y'all what the Vandals and Visigoths did to Rome. And you will deserve it.
Not that I've given up HOPE for the nation of my youth - but I now think of myself as Canadian. I was born here, after all. But more directly, all the things I truly value about Canada, the things that most of the world, and conspicuously all the things that US tourists marvel at when they visit; our courtesy, our clean and relatively non-violent culture, our stable economy and our lack of visible poverty and despair - all of these things come directly from the things that US conservatives revile as inherent evils leading directly to The Killing Fields, or worse. That is to say, that as a people, we give a damn about what happens to other people.
If this be "Socialism," make the most of it. And on this side of the line I shall stand against those who think we should remake ourselves in the image of the US. That is to say, a country that values a rich white, sociopathic thief over an honest, hard-working non-white taxpayer.
There's yet much to be done - but one by one by one, we must take back the organizations and structures that they have polluted, the school boards, the charities, the political organizations, the precincts - and I don't just mean "along partisan lines." They need to be taken away from the crazy people, by sane people of all political and religious persuasions.
From what I see out there, from the near absence of intelligable voices from the Right - when it used to be the core of political intellect, councelling against emotionalism and populism as the greatest enemies of democratic representative republics - there are a whole lot of utterly disgusted Conservatives trying to pretend it will all go away.
Well, it won't. Not without your help, ladies and gentlemen. And if you fear being called a Liberal or a "RINO" for your stances - remember, you are being called that by people capable of calling Obama a Communist and a Nazi in the same paragraph. What they really mean is "poopy-head," and all it shows is that they are simply not capable of behaving as functional, responsible adults in public places.
[I]ts purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10 per cent of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.
Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British". The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third largest navy and the fourth largest air force in the world.
The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign which the US had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.
So it is a general rule that actors and film-makers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer British. It is as if in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakeably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.
Think nothing of it. We're Canadians. That's what we do. Now, please; we maintain the secret identity for a reason.
West coast culture has some strange aspects, and Vancouver can be as strange as San Francisco with it's own twist of weird on top, as the CBC's telling of an obvious tale shows.
During a series of visits by police in uniform in 2008, Jarvie says officers witnessed sex acts, an overwhelming unpleasant pungent odour, puddles of body fluids and excrement, and even patrons smoking.
It's not the open prostitution, the casual sex, the piles of excrement or the "body fluids." No. It's the smoking! That's a serious matter!
Our dear CBC, always on the forefront of the matters critical to the evolution of our culture and consciousness. We adore you, even when you are silly.
Greg Gutfield, is host of Fox's "Red-Eye," an allegedly funny show. He's managed to get a lot of attention for his show by pissing off Canada. As a nation. On an official level. That takes some world-class offensiveness, folks. From CTV news:
In an interview with CTV Newsnet earlier on Monday, [Defense Minister Peter] MacKay expressed his anger over the comments and demanded an apology.
"It's crass, it's insensitive, it's in fact disgusting given the timing where Canada is just receiving back four fallen heroes here at CFB Trenton," MacKay said.
On Friday, Master Cpl. Scott Vernelli, 28, Cpl. Tyler Crooks, 24, Trooper Jack Bouthillier, 20, and Trooper Corey Joseph Hayes, 22, were killed in two separate IED blasts that injured another five soldiers.
The deaths bring the total number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan to 116.
MacKay said the Canadian government will be demanding an apology from the panel and from Fox.
The matter started with a segment that was perhaps born out of ennui regarding "Octomom" jokes or possibly a visible lack of persons with developmentally disabilities. It seized upon the fact that Canadian forces have been materially over-extended in their Afghanistan mission.
"Once their Afghan mission winds down sometime in 2011, certain members of the Canadian military are looking to take a much-deserved break. And by certain members I mean all of them," Gutfeld said.
"Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants."
It must be said that an apology was made. But there are apologies and there are "apologies." Greg's was of the latter sort.
Gutfeld issued an apology Monday afternoon saying, "I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize."
I have two questions. The first, is "How exactly could anyone possibly misunderstand your intent?"
The second is more fundamental. "How could you have ever thought that was funny?" I fail to see what's humorous about mocking soldiers for having fought hard and needing a rest, much less anyone on the single most bellicose American network suggesting that invading Canada - that "ridiculous nation" - would be a good idea.
In the four-minute segment, Gutfeld asked the other three members of his panel: "Isn't this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army!"
Panelist Doug Benson, a comedian, replied: "I didn't even know they were in the war. I thought that's where you go when you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada."
Doug, I suggest you cancel any Canadian engagements for the foreseeable future. Unless you really want to try and be funny with a front row filled with uniformed veterans of Afganistan, Cyprus, Korea and WWII. I'd enjoy watching that. Your genitailia might vary.
But while the insults of a fool say more about the fool than those they are trying to offend, those words say a great deal more about those who would put such a fool on the air. Greg Gutfield could be suffering from some sort of untreated personality disorder - a sort of moral Tourette's syndrome. Perhaps he does not really know that there is a line that is labeled "funny ends here." Fox COULD be seen as exploiting a man with an unfortunate disablity for whatever ratings it brings.
When the comedy fails and feelings are hurt to the point that you make yourself and your employer object of intense diplomatic disgust, it is at best clueless to respond with a legalistic variant of "what, can't you take a joke?"
"I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize."
Greg, I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding how you fucked up and embarrassed your network and your nation. You should pray someone cares enough about you to explain to you, personally and in small words, exactly where you crossed the line.
But frankly, I doubt that Fox gives a scintilla of a damn. Not when there are "male enhancement supplements" and 900 number chatline subscriptions to sell and you serve that sad, pathetic demographic so very well.
Good Conservatives Run The Numbers. (Maybe we should elect some.)
I am speaking as a former PC member who has just returned from the howling wilds of Reno, Nevada to find this sad state of affairs. It's just too sad and demeaning for words.
The Conservative Party of Canada Came Unto The People of Canada, Whining Thusly:
3,633,185 Liberal 2,515,565 NDP 1,379,991 Bloc 937,613 Green ------------------- 8,466,354 Total Non-Conservative Votes.
Versus 5,208,796 Total Conservative Votes
The numbers that this video claim to cinch a Conservative mandate add up to a very different message. 3 million MORE voters preferred a different party. The actual popular mandate is "somebody else."
But since there is no agreement on who "somebody else" would be, the leader with the greatest single block of seats supporting him is the leader. It's not a comfortable position to lead from, but the cure is simple: win more seats, or stop whining!
The last election was supposed to accomplish that, I understand. The effort seems to have fallen short of the mark, and one would do well to examine the cause, rather than whine about those about to make use of the effect.
Indeed, Steven Harper is trying to stave off a vote of confidence he would almost certainly lose, and has gone so far as to suspend Parliament in order to buy himself some time to come up with a plan.
The suspension comes during a time of political outrage in Canada. Less than two months ago on October 14, 2008, Stephen Harper was re-elected Prime Minister with a minority government that gained more seats in the House of Commons. Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party had received 37.63% of the elected seats in Parliament, while Stephane Dion of the Federal Liberal Party had accounted 26.24% elected seats, with Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party following up with 18.20%.
Though Dion is resigning from the Liberals in May 2009, he wanted to take one final attempt in a backdoor-like fashion to become Prime Minister of Canada, even if Canadians did not decisively elect him.
So earlier this week it was announced by both Stephane Dion and Jack Layton that a new coalition government was being formed between the Liberals and NDP, which would account a total of 44.44% elected seats under a unified party. That figure would be enough to overthrow Stephen Harper as Prime Minister with his 37.63% elected seats.
Dion, the leader of the new coalition, would ultimately become the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada come Monday, December 8, 2008, the official day where the confidence vote was to take place. It should also be noted that the Bloc Quebecois are also supporting the coalition with their 9.97% elected seats, ultimately making the coalition a majority government.
On Wednesday, during the Prime Minister’s televised address to the nation, Stephen Harper stated that he was going to do everything in his power within the legal helms of the constitution to ensure that the Conservative minority government that was elected by Canadians remains in power.
The Parliamentary suspension was an imperative key motion for Prime Minister Harper because after the forming of the coalition, it was projected that Harper was going to lose the confidence vote.
The confidence vote will still occur; however, not until the suspension is lifted in January. Prime Minister Harper has until then to diligently move forward with presenting a federal budget plan and an economic stimulus package to potentially sway votes of confidence for the Conservatives in January.
It saddens me that such a sharp mind could come to such a dull and predictable conclusion.
We know Prime Minister Harper is passionate with a plan on keeping our economy strong. However, if he has distractions of a coalition government trying to overthrow him, then that would no doubt take him off task of the all-more important work he would have been attending to.
This is where I do not see eye to eye with our Parliamentary system here in Canada. Such a system allows a coalition government to sprout and take a run at overthrowing the Prime Minister with a minority government.
But then, this was actually the first time he voted, and probably like most Canadians, he's got a better idea of how things don't work down there than how they don't work up here.
It is my hope that Stephen Harper remains in power as the Prime Minister of Canada. I voted for the Conservative Party on October 14, 2008 – which as a 19-year old, was my first time voting.
At his age, I was still arguing that Nixon should have burnt the tapes, so I kinda feel all warm and fuzzy. It took me a while to come to the more basic conclusion that having things to hide, that needing to resort to tricks and stratagems - as this most certainly is - is evidence of the level of failure that should disqualify you for leadership; irrespective of party or ideology.
One gains office based on what one may do - one keeps it based on what one has done. And that dynamic is particularly obvious within the Parliamentary Democracies.
Now, here's a single question Canadian Civics Quiz for you:
How many Canadians voted for Steven Harper in the last election?
A: 5,208,796 B: Zero
The Correct Answer: Zero. Zip. Nada. None! This is CANADA. We do not have a President. We have no democratically elected executive at all.
If you voted, you voted for a preferred Member of Parliament. That MP probably belongs to a political party. But that's not a legal requirement, so far as I know.
Generally, MP's remain aligned with a particular party - but crossing the floor is not unheard of, and sometimes political parties evaporate like water on Mars. You may or may not have heard of the Social Credit Party, or indeed, the Progressive Conservative Party. The usual kiss of death for a Canadian party is when they start believing that their party is more than a tenuous marriage of convenience between peers.
The only loyalty a Member of Parliament properly has is to their constituents.
Members of Parliament vote, act, breathe and believe this fact of life; that all Canadian politics are local.
Successful, ethical parliamentarians place person above party, and work their assets off for any constituent that asks for help, regardless of the stripes on their ties. The party that gets in the way of that duty - well read your newspaper. This is what happens. This is what is SUPPOSED to happen.
So back to our civics quiz. Who elects the Prime Minister? Well, nobody, really. Members of Parliament vote for their party leaders, and the leader of the party able to form a government is stuck with being Prime Minister. I mean, they are privileged to serve at the pleasure of the Queen.
According to the the very standards and traditions of Parliamentary Democracy that Conservatives treasure (save, of course, at times such as this, when American-Style democracy would be far more convenient), the numbers are clearly in favor of a coalition government, should anyone be able to put one together. That being the trick, of course.
In the normal order of affairs, Parliamentary democracy is not unlike trying to drop three hundred odd cats into a sack in the fond hope that the end result will be a cute puppy.
In fact, Parliament is not really about making laws or policy - it's much more a functional representation of the Canadian consensus. The person who is stuck with - I mean, privileged to serve as Prime Minister is as much potential scapegoat as leader of The Free World's Nicest Democracy.
They are the ones tasked with interpreting that consensus; it's a remarkable leader indeed that can stand up to Canada and impose their own vision. They have to make themselves an inspiration OF that consensus; they must be a Trudeau or a BrianMulroney to pull off that sort of stunt.
Steven Harper reminds me strongly of neither. And had any other leader reminded anyone of either in a positive sense - well, Steven Harper would perhaps be a Minority Leader.
The Conservatives may claim a greater mandate than any other single party. Certainly Steven Harper is still the Conservative Leader, but looking at the numbers, it seems rather like being damned with faint praise. If a vote of confidence is in the wind, a leadership review cannot be far behind.
One might more reasonably look at the election numbers as being relatively large support for all the parties - which could be argued as a mandate for centrist, coalition governance and the product of the various regional identities that make Canada the beaver-laden land of promise that we adore.
There's certainly no mandate for Conservatives to govern as if they DID have a mandate, and it's certainly not a time for an ad that can be summed up as "we won, you lost, neener neener neener!" Not because it's so very American, and not because it's wrong, not even because it's so very childish, but because it ain't true! Not in a parliamentary system. If you annoy all the other parties enough, they can join together against you and they can indeed command a mandate. That's not "anti-democratic," that's exactly how the system is designed to work.
Ordinarily it's a technical truth and a practical impossibility for parties with large differneces to make any lasting common cause, but while no opposition leader could inspire a coalition based upon their own policies, visions and merits, Steven Harper may well be reason enough. Because Steven Harper's "vision for Canadians" is a cheap Chinese knockoff of George Bush's vision for Americans.
Steven Harper's vision for Canadians seems to be to turn us all into Kansans. Or at least, it seems presumptive of that degree of smug ignorance of our own best social and economic issues. At a difficult and complex time in history, a time that may well force Canada into the very first rank of world powers whether we like it or not, we need to be offered more than what looks suspiciously like an Air Farce Graphic.
If Conservative policies create conditions wherein two or three party leaders feel they must set their own leadership ambitions aside for a time - Harper is toast. And he certainly seems fixated upon creating those conditions.
When I click through to the Conservative party page - I see a vision for Canada that has been obviously shaped by an out of work Republican political consultant. Now, when you hire a consultant - you really ought to think on why they ARE out of work.
Well, the same sort of advice gets you ads like the ones you see above and websites like this.
Were I inclined to create a parody site aimed at mocking the Conservative party - it would not appear greatly different. Indeed, not very different at all.
Considering the public relations climate and the sea-change down south, it doesn't seem to speak toward a realistic appreciation of political reality on the part of Conservative party leaders.
Do the math. Understand the facts the numbers tell you. Stop whining and do something about it.
Eight years ago, I was casually cynical about politics, but still had reason to think that most people (and politicians) were well intentioned and had some principles. In January 2001, I moved to the US and GWB took office. Since then, almost every news story has been of corruption and the destruction of civil liberties, environmental protections and the ability of the government to even function. Now that Obama has won, I am mostly relieved that we have averted another diaster...and starting to dare to hope for more. antijen | 11.05.08 - 1:39 am | #
I was inspired to do some thinking aloud, and realized that it had expanded to a point that I either needed to be actually blogging there, or post it here. And indeed, it would have been quite inappropriate to post it there as a comment.
----
antijen, that was a perfect summation of these last eight years for me. I moved to the US in 2000. My wife and I left in September fearing the consequences of what could happen, having been devastated by economic and medical issues that should never have become issues. And frankly, this fight for the soul of your nation has taken a toll upon me. Note that I say "your nation." I am a dual citizen in fact and law. But it's emotional truth has evaporated. In this fight I've lost my ability to really care about the fate of all citizens of the United States.
The fact is, as stupid as "My country, right or wrong" is as a slogan, it must be something you can abide by at the last ditch, if push comes to shove. And in that event, should push come to shove, I cannot honestly take that position.
Let the healing begin - and I hope and pray it can. But it will not be without some surgery and I do indeed fear that it will not come without violence and upheaval. There are outstanding moral and legal debts, international obligations to justice being done and amends to be made if this beautiful moment is to unfold in all it's seeming promise.
I personally believe that even the appearance of being willing to hold the Bush administration accountable for it's most literal and inarguable crimes could cause social upheaval. It will certainly earn legitimate worldwide contempt and distrust - and with that will come terrifying economic consequences.
Too many people have been raised for too long in total batshit denial of vital duties of citizenship and the requirements of participating in civil discourse. Too many people believe that linguistic, social or direct violence and oppression are the first and only appropriate responses to dissent. And the realization that this cancer infects the US as badly as it infects anywhere the Taliban raises it's banner with impunity is something no-one who can connect to the internet and is aware of geopolitics and the price of money is unaware of.
These people have been defeated in a crucial battle. The war will continue; complacency is not an option.
I do not think they will permit "reconciliation." Nor do I believe they deserve forgiveness for thirty years of conscious subversion and treason. Whatever happens will be remarkable and intensely interesting from an historical perspective. For that very reason, I choose to spend the remainder of my days in a far less "interesting" social matrix.
I find myself holding within my heart an implacable hatred of all these people stand for, a hatred that is refueled every day by every pinhead and would-be potentate who consciously lies or stupidly repeats lies intended to further the end of a Saudi-style religious dictatorship upon us all. And such levels of hatred and contept bring a price of bitterness that I did not care to pay more of.
I finally choose to return home. Canada earned my loyalty long ago; but in the US, it's been established to my satisfaction that there are people in places of power, great and small, that would cheerfully kill me and mine if they could get away with it, and had achieved a great deal to achieve that happy state of affairs - of being able to kill anyone they wanted to, with impunity, while terrifying the rest into mute compliance.
And at least a third of the US citizenry thinks that's a fine idea, devoutly to be wished. In eight years, a nation I loved abused and squandered my loyalty and my trust, while Canada muddled along, quite easily avoiding the worst pitfalls of being such a close ally of the US.
I wish all of you the best and I will continue, even redouble my efforts to be a small voice of reason, sanity and right action. But frankly, I'm a Canadian, by birth AND by choice. If it comes down to it, if push comes to shove, this is my country, and it is right far more often than it is wrong because it cares about being correct in hindsight; because being good and decent is something we value across the spectrum. Often - far too often - the recognition that we have made poor choices comes late; often far too late. But as a nation, I do believe we do not cling to our mistakes so grimly or deny consequences so irrationally as I have seen "down there."
There are exceptions of course; there are certainly people here that are hateful little pinheads - but by and large, they are recognized as being hateful little pinheads, even by those who think Canada is far, far too liberal about this and that.
Mostly, though, we argue about the most effective means of effectively giving a crap about our neighbors without becoming meddlesome busybodies. More importantly, as Canadians, that is actually how we tend to act as individuals. Our ideology generally arises from conscience, rather than the other way around.
I'm afraid that left and right and middle, the idea that "ah gawt a gawdamn right" to exercise power over others who are thereby defined as "Lusers" is a cultural matter that is far too likely to play out in tragic ways against a world background of rapid change, need and expectation. We can no longer afford that luxury, if we ever truly could; this world is now so tightly knit together that it's really not sane to let any nation, large or small, to wander off into dusty, desolite, self-indulgent idiocy. Consequnces trancesnd borders; we must at least find ways of defining a price for such willful disregard for the rights of one's neighbors and take it to the Allthing of public opinion.
More than fear, though, I have hope, and if I were a native born American I would suck up my gut, gird my aching loins and carry on. I expect, hope and pray that you who are in such a position will do so.
I have faith you will ultimately prevail; indeed, I expect you will. But it will not be without cost, and I can foresee circumstances that may bring our two nations into genuine dispute.
Well, this is my home, this is my choice and this society, this polite, civil and caring nation is where and for what I will choose to fight if, God Forbid, push comes to shove.
I finally got to see Chris Matthews pay out the rope for Rep. Bachmann. I'd seen transcripts, with nuggets such as this, but so many people were clogging the tubes, I had to wait my turn.
"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America,"
Gee whiz, I'd kinda thought we'd established that witch-hunts were a bad idea, even BEFORE Jefferson's time. I was obviously wrong in believing that "Have you no decency, Sir?" was a phrase that still resonated. Clearly, millions disagree. Fortunately, those millions do not include the honorable old warrior Colin Powell.
"Mr. McCain says that he's a washed up terrorist, but then why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have the robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for."
Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim.
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated [with] terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Now, that's the most diplomatic bitch-slapping I've heard in recent times. It will never be all that quotable; Mr. Powell is, I'm afraid, no master of the pithy catch-phrase. But he's certainly capable of pithing essentialist idiocies.
..Mr. Obama is now [called] a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate.
Powell has stated that he will be voting for Obama and that he still considers himself a Republican. I think it would be fair to assume that his conclusion is that people such as Mr. McCain and Ms. Bachmann do not meet his standards for probity and disciplined leadership.
Nor do I think Powell confuses reactionary social impositions with any sort of Conservatism, and while I might be wrong, I think he'd tend to guardedly agree with the next bit.
I personally think that the only decent position on matters of individual choice that should decently be considered to be private was best stated bluntly by one of the most contradictory, maddening and controversial politicians in North American history; one of the very few foreign leaders to ever be noticed by the American people - aside, of course, from Fidel Castro.
That's a very Libertarian idea, when you think about it. It's certainly widely quoted by Libertarians, though they tend to file off the serial numbers. And though he was a self-described Democratic Socialist, that was an economic, not a social position. I might add that he's been as much of an influence upon me as William F. Buckley - and for essentially the same reason; both men were far more interesting and useful when wrong than any two ordinary politically significant figures stumbling upon the right idea for the usual populist reasons.
I thought of Trudeau in reference to Mr. Powell, who has finally come to his parting of the ways with stupidity and who has taken the high ground as the only strategic and tactical option available.
He did not say it as eloquently as Trudeau on the eve of the FLQ crisis, but in essence we are seeing similar times and a similar impatience with those who think that violence and chaos are the proper response to political frustrations.
Pierre Trudeau - "There are very few times in the history of any country when all persons must take a stand on critical issues. This is one of these times; this is one of those issues. I am confident that those persons who unleashed this tragic sequence of events with the aim of destroying our society and dividing our country will find that the opposite will occur. The result of their acts will be a stronger society in a unified country. Those who would have divided us will have united us." - Announcing the War Measures Act to a national television audience, October 16, 1970
I hope very much that leaders and statesmen such as Colin Powell can indeed rise to this challenge, can indeed forestall what seems to me a crisis of spirit and a rising tide of intolerance. While it's not at all fashionable to equate the rhetoric of Palin and McCain with the actions of people responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, it's damn clear that they are not as far apart as any reasonable person might wish.
Reasonable and civilized leaders do not foment hatred, do not cultivate suspicion of their rivals, do not brandish the noose and the burning cross even in the subtlest and most deniable way. The reason why should be brutally obvious, but perhaps McCain and Palin are indeed willing to "rule in Hell rather than to serve in Heaven."
But as with all Faustian bargains, the devil is in the details. The telling details are, in both cases, those who are willing to do "whatever it takes" (Palin's infamous phrase) leave a swathe of destruction behind them - and that echoing emptiness, that conspicuous, Shermanesqe path of political arson and the rape of propriety leads unfailingly to those responsible.
The Karma comes due when such people meet principled opposition and act toward that opposition as if that person were their own mirror image, projecting on that other all the evils, all the spitefulness, all the shameful guilty reservations about their own progress to power that they believe to be known only to themselves.
With Palin, McCain and their few remaining apologists, it's simple to discern their mistakes, their failures, their regrets and their gaps of leadership and comprehension, for all those things are precisely what they accuse their opponents of. They are unused - sadly - to contestation with their betters.
They are sadly shallow people, quite apparently proud of their inability to deal intelligently with complex issues, or at least unwilling to be caught thinking in public, lest "Joe the Plumber" accuse them of being "elitist." As Obama has been pilloried for saying, "it's as if they are proud of being ignorant."
No "as if." They are proud of it. They celebrate it. And they persecute anyone and any thing that bodes even the slightest possiblity of penetrating their shells of willful parochialism. These are Palin's Patriotic Americans.
I'm quite sure that the majority of her supporters would enthusiastically agree that yes, they ARE "Good, patriotic, "God-Fearing Uhmurikins" with no discernment of why this condemns them as both Unchristian AND Unamerican in their abuse of both Christ and Constitution.
Aside from being wrong, it's the sort of dumb-as-dirt wrong that leads to the sort of mess the world is now in, thanks to George Bush and the half-smart and the fully stupified folks who put the crap-flinging Chimp in power.
Well, frankly, I think it's my damn right to expect the best and the brightest, and my responsiblity to support them whenever I can. Since and including Ronald Regan, and not sparing either Clinton or Carter, all successful presidential and indeed most congressional candidates have been or styled themselves as being "low bid candidates;" the champions of Joe Six-Pack and the true and natural representative of the dumb-ass wings of each party.
In this, they were not entirely disingenuous, in that they were as easily bribed with shiny trinkets and meaningless photo-ops as were their constituents. Can we say "Keating Five?" Can we say "Enron" and "Energy Policy?" Oooh, I KNEW that we could!
I'm not one to worship at the altar of Obama. I think him a skilled politician, a remarkably good speaker, certainly a potential statesman and certainly as smart as any cracker's whip - but I do not think him better than what we should ordinarily expect of our elected leaders. I think he is a good example of what sort of people we should consider our due. It's not that difficult to choose to be an honest broker, to choose to act according to principles and to try, as often as humanly possible, to achieve something worthwhile along the path of fulfilling one's own ambitions. That is my minimum standard for myself and for anyone I choose to associate with. I do not think that a particularly high standard.
And I think that it's a standard we - not as citizens of this country or that, but as civilized persons participating in our various cultures and societies - should realize we MUST live up to in order to have a civil society to prosper within.
But I have my doubts that the United States will survive that realization. It certainly will not, cannot and should not pass through this trial unchanged. It may not survive without violence, it may not survive in recognizable form. The irresponsible and unconscionable efforts by Right-Wing conservatives, the social subversions committed by traitorous theocrats have carved out rifts between people that could well be fatal to any meaningful resolution. More personally, I found myself less and less inclined to even wish to live in a society that included people who see nooses as "fair comment" and the conscious, deliberate and malicious bearing of false witness against their neighbor as being "their Christian duty."
Fuck 'em, said I, knowing that that would be the least worst fate they envisioned for me. It was all too easy to see me and mine shoved into a cattle car on a one-way trip to a nuclear-powered microwave incinerator.
I, personally, see no profit in trying to fight that good fight there when I could do as much here in Canada and, bluntly, for a Canadian society that has far less bad karma coming due. I make no apologies for the fact that I prefer to live in a culture, a nation and a society where none of the party leaders are people who's positions insult my intelligence or who think it proper to appeal to my most base instincts.
Je suis un Canadian! Vive la Confederation! Vive la Civilization! VIVE La Banquedu Canada!
It's not difficult to point to Ms. Bachmann as being an exemplar of all that is wrong with the United States in general. But in fact, Ms. Bachmann is the direct responsibility of those who elected her, those who contributed to her campaign and those colleagues in Congress that permit her to caucus with them, valuing political expediency over the consequences of tolerating such a poster child for petty partisan patronage.
It's inconceivable to me that such a lackwit could have gotten on a ballot by any fair, legitimate, intelligent process. The fruits and nuts point to the health of the tree and it's roots. Bachmann and her ilk in elected office at all levels are the bitter fruit of a poisoned tree.
I'm glad to belatedly announce that I'll be blogging regularly at Politicususa, concentrating on ethics and the consequences of being led by and living next to those who lack them.
