BS: Wild Canadian Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 03:30 AM

Had a lovely Christmas with the family.
Two new members this year.
A new daughter-in-law. They were married last week and my first grand daughter, due to be born in early March.
Your album is on rotation.
Thank You.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:25 PM

Sorry for twisting this a bit, Peace, BUT....

"I like you.", but, "...fuck you and the horse you rode in on..."

Now... if there was ever a demostrative example of what Canuck character truly is, there it is.

It's has shown itself more than a few times on this thread, in similar and akin ways.

A proud tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:28 PM

Well, I see no reason to insult a horse on account of its rider... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bee
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:04 PM

Personally, though I don't like his politics and don't care for the man's vengeful attitudes, Harper right now has the appearance (to me, and I may be misjudging hugely) of a man who has learned some hard truths recently. One of those truths being that you can't run Canada like some ideal myth spawned from the right wing think tanks that have informed his politics and his style of governance. I'd like to think he's capable of rethinking his belief system rather than ripping the country apart to suit his faded and bankrupt (too literally) ideals. Remains to be seen, and I just had that rosy little hope. There have been good Conservative leaders in the distant past, before the Reform Party raised it's thin squeaking whine from the West (sorry, Westerners, but could you not have gone for a party with less hatred of the poor, the non-religious, the non-traditionally oriented, etc?)

Ignatieff IMO will be another Harper in a prettier suit, one of the most right leaning Liberals I've seen, and with opinions on governance that leave out half the country, to judge by what he's said publically so far.

I foresee several years of chaotic politics and lame governance for Canada, until this lot (a pox on all their houses!) all retire or are driven out in disgrace, at which point one of the competent people who wisely, if selfishly kept their noses clean out of this mess offers to serve this good country as she should be served by her leaders.

I could slap the lot of 'em right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bee
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:08 PM

In fact, if things aren't better by the time I turn sixty, I think I'll run for PM myself. Or Queen, whichever works for the restayez. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:09 PM

Yes, B. Testify!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 02:16 PM

Queen Bee?

Ya got my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:06 PM

A synchronicity--while I was reading today's exchange between Jim Lad and Peace, there was a discussion on CBC about how Canada isn't completely useless because we serve as an example to the You-alls of how to conduct discourse along civilised lines like Kierans, Camp, and Lewis used to do on the Gzowski show. Or like Jim and Bruce on Mudcat! I'm not sure where that quintessential Canadian institution the bench-clearing brawl fits into this scenario though.

Anyway, re politics, here's a theory of mine which fell flat at the family dinner table the other day. I'm curious to see what you folks might have to say about it.

My idea is that we now have a coalition government after all--a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberals. And Ignatieff is in charge, although he lets Harper sit behind the big shiny desk, partly to humour the little man, but partly so that Harper can take the blame for the pro-American policies Ignatieff wants to see implemented just as much as Harper does. The coalition will last until Harper gets sick and tired of being Ignatieff's bitch, at which time there will be an election which will install Ignatieff in power for the next dozen years or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:15 PM

Ha! A Liberal-Conservative coalition would be amusing...and it could work rather well for a time if they could both swallow their pride and unite in their common greed and self-interest. They have so much in common in that respect, after all. It would also give the NDP a chance to sieze the moral high ground again for a bit, and what a heady tonic that would be for them in these demoralized times. ;-)

You know what's really scrambled the old Canadian party system of checks and balances that Canada knew in the past? The fact that a Quebec nationalist party has deprived both the Liberals and the Conservatives of the powerful and monolithic bloc of votes that normally comes from Quebec. It has hurt the Liberals by far the worst, because they could usually count on the Quebecois to back them, but it has hurt the Conservatives too. It's like they are both trying to fight for a national majority, but with one hand tied behind their backs.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:42 PM

And why not? I will say it again. True Quebecers are more Canuck than many Canadians.... lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:02 PM

Well, I'd far rather see a coalition of two or more parties than have one party in a majority position, anyway. Why? Because it's harder for a coalition to ram through bad legislation (not in the interests of the public) than it is for a majority, which is a de facto (albeit a temporary) dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:09 PM

Happily, the chances of Harper forming a majority are now nil. He lost his chance with Quebec (no new seats there, ever, and he will lose most of those he got), and everyone else is warned that if he gets a majority, Attila the Hun will return. This is actually quite a good outcome of last month's smashup.

Harper will do everything in his power not to hold an election, and the Liberals will do the same.

You read these predictions here first.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:17 PM

I hope you are right, Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 08:12 AM

And yet the polls are showing that the Conservative party has lost nothing in Quebec over this last brawl.
I'll suggest to you again that a) Quebecers who considered that the Bloc was a safe place to park their vote were shocked to discover that separatism really is still on the agenda and will move towards the Liberals and Conservatives. and b) We have yet to discover how the next generation feels about isolating themselves in such a way.

Regardless of opinions on separatism (You wouldn't agree with mine. Trust me) there is something absolutely selfish about voting for a provincial party in a national election. I can see no good in that at all.

Some interesting stuff about Michael Ignatieff up there. Methinks that had the Conservatives not had such a strong leader in place, he would have chosen to run for that position himself. He seriously needs to cut back on the rhetoric though. He's beginning to sound a lot like Jack Layton. A little humility will get him a lot further both with the voters and with the conservative Government.

As for bench clearing brawls... I would have walked away before having one with Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bee
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 10:04 AM

JimLad, you could accuse Newfoundlanders of voting in the last federal election in an even more directly provincial manner, given the success of Danny Williams' ABC campaign.

If it ever came down to Quebecois people deciding to bite the bullet and actually vote to separate, I doubt it would turn out to be the desperate event many people seem to expect. It would certainly be messy, likely moreso for Quebecois than for the rest of Canada. There is a significant and in their own way powerful First Nations presence in Quebec, with enormous land claims and a mandate to remain within the Canadian federal system. This is a can of worms Quebec is aware of and has been reluctant to talk about much when sovereignty is discussed.

It might take some time, but a separate Quebec would swing a lot of Canadian federal power to the West, making it attractive to the Atlantic provinces to possibly throw in their lot with Quebec - there's enough Francophone and ancestrally French people here to make it not unreasonable to Quebec, especially given their likely need to expand their tax base.

I personally doubt it will ever happen - Quebec is too tied to Canada to extricate itself successfully.

And by the way, Atlantic Canadians have heard far more direct insults from politicians at all levels of government in the West (particularly Alberta and BC) and Ontario than we've ever heard from politicians in Quebec. Even in the last decade, when Alberta desperately needs our skilled tradespeople, the attitude towards us out there can be unpleasant. Few Maritimers away to work come home without a few stories of native Albertans casting aspersions their way.

As for Ignatieff, I doubt there's a humble bone in his body. He'd be a one man band were it not for the star-struck bunch of powerful liberals who seem to think he might hold the possibilities of another PET. But he doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:32 PM

there was also talk awhile back by folks like Marc Lalonde that Montreal could split from an independent Quebec to become a city state.... with half the entire population of the province...
I think these ideas will keep brewing for generations to come while the holy city of Westmount keeps sending five gallons of Maple syrup to the Queen every year.... what a place..

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:35 AM

It's January 26......

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:55 AM

Here we go again.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 08:32 AM

Today, Her Excellency the Governor General will open the Second Session of the 40th Parliament at 1:30 p.m. with a Speech from the Throne in the Senate Chamber. The text of the Throne Speech will be available in the Senate and House of Commons Debates for January 26, 2009. The Debates will be posted on the Web site the following day and can be found under Chamber Business.

The live webcast of the Speech from the Throne will be available at approximately 1:30 p.m. EST.

Got that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:20 PM

Awright!!! Let the game begin. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:24 PM

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how these carnivores desperately advocate for vegetarianism. (Their heart is not in this stuff at all).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM

CBC Radio reporter has just said that today's throne speech rhetoric was borrowed from Igger. "Borrowed from"? "Insisted on by" would be my guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:03 AM

I was a tad disappointed. Three pages? A lot of which was bullshit.

And, the media can't think of anything better to ask Tres Hombres than if they intend to bring the government down? They said the budget, some of which was leaked by Harpie on the weekend (what?), is supposedly 250 pages. I hope they all took sped reddin corses... even then, we're talking weeks... even then, I assume they will support it, more or less, and keep an eye on things, reserving the right to non-confident his ass if he gets up to his old tricks.

Maybe even an extra trip home to consult the ridings?

Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Charmion
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:53 PM

Yes, dear gnu, you're missing something. Nobody -- not the Liberals, who could win but are exhausted and in disarray, nor the Conservatives, ditto -- really wants an election. The journalists know it, but if they write that the narrative changes to a totally banal Parliament Gets Back To Work, or Move Along -- Nothing To See Here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:06 PM

Election? Who said anything about an election?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:56 PM

How often is it really necessary to hold an erection? How often is it desirable? How often is it advantageous? Harper and Ignatieff are probably asking themselves those very questions right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:03 PM

Hahahahaaa.... Harper, yes. The dumb bastard made a law about EXACTLY when and then broke his own law.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 04:49 PM

WTF? Gilles says NO immediately? Period? Power at ANY cost?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

Gilles says that he doesn't trust Harper, PERIOD.

Can't say that I disagree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:18 PM

Well, no, but, let's get the budget passed and spend some coin and worry about that asshole later.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM

$350 million dollars to support nuclear power? What a complete waste of money. Dinosaurs supporting dinosaurs.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:19 AM

The decline in the level of schoolboy sniggering on Mudcat is much to be lamented. Nobody has taken the bait so blatantly cast by LH in the post of 27 Jan 09 - 02:56 PM. One might allude to Harper and Ignatieff holding one another's, for instance, but no, we're too refined for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 04:36 PM

like Charmion said......

(wild Canadian politics is now officially over)
yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

So it ends with a fizzle?   (And I had my popcorn ready and everything... )

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM

The only place where it may continue and not fizzle out is right here.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:01 PM

You are a sensitive and perceptive soul, Bob, to have commented on that. We need more people like you in this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:20 PM

I saw that post as a lily that was not in need of any gilding.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:47 PM

gelding, perhaps.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM

All is going according to plan. Thank goodness! Maybe some of us who depend on moving money will get a sniff.

BTW, for you Canucks that underatsand (this wouldn't play in modern day UAS) and remember, here's a BLAST from the past.

I dunno if it's germain to this thread, but, maybe... in a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:26 PM

My goodness! He should've gone down to the USA and got a key job there. He talks their line of propaganda better than anyone except for maybe Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Good find Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM

You know, the Romans once went all over Europe and the entire Mediterranean world also spending vast amounts of their money to build new roads, aqueducts, urban projects, baths, coliseums for gladiatorial combats, theatres, and all kinds of wonderful stuff like that.....but when something went wrong in Rome nobody else in the empire sent aid to the Romans (unless they had no choice about it)! Ask yourself why.

For one thing: They figured the Romans were filthy rich already off the spoils of the ancient world which they had gained through their military prowess by conquering everybody or forcing them to become client states in the empire.

For another: they Romans just weren't all that well liked. They were respected for their ability, but not liked. Ask yourself why.

The world didn't send aid to Britain either when Great Britain was running the biggest and wealthiest empire the world had ever seen...nor did the world send aid to Napoleon when he was successfully conquering most of Europe.

Ask yourself why.

However, Canada has sent aid to the USA in recent disasters such as the New England ice storms and the hurricane in New Orleans. So I think Gordon Sinclair's exuberant indignation over no one "sending aid to the USA" and everyone criticizing the USA despite all the USA has done, is both misleading and off the mark, and it has nothing to do with legitimate criticism of US foreign policy when that criticism is deserved. I think he doth protest too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:26 PM

A lot of things were different in the US and in the world in 1973, when Gordon made that rant. Although at that time a lot of the criticism leveled at the US from other countries had to do with our illegal war of aggression in Vietnam, and it was well deserved criticism, in my opinion, we also still looked like we were the most altruistic country to a lot of people. But at that point in time, most people didn't know about our many (often violent) interferences in other countries' democracies, and the other self-serving things we have done around the world that have harmed a lot of people and a lot of societies. Now that we know about those kinds of things, it does kind of make Gordon's rant look a little ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:06 PM

So then out side of Canada and maybe Mexico, has any other country helped the United States in times of disasters? Gordon Sinclair's film clip maybe out of touch but is he correct in saying that really no body has helped the U.S.?
I can't think of any. I'm probably wrong. I'm sure Russia, England, France and others have offered. But have they?
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 12:05 AM

I think the general perception in the world is that the USA is already big enough and strong enough to adequately help itself in an emergency, whereas that is not the case with more impoverished countries. Wouldn't that be normal? That's the part of the point I was making when I said that others did not rush in to help Imperial Rome...or the British at their height of power...or Napoleon at his height of power...because of the same perception that "they are big enough to take care of it themselves".

The normal assumption is that impoverished countries or countries that have just been devastated by a lost war or that simply don't have the monetary or material resources required to handle a disaster...those are the countries where the most aid is sent by other countries.

And is that surprising? We provide shelters in our cities for the homeless and unemployed poor. We do not provide shelters to house temporarily homeless millionaires, because they can already afford to rent a hotel room!

***

What Gordon Sinclair was drawing attention to (while overstating his case) was that some people simply use the USA as their fulltime whipping boy, and in so doing they are merely indulging themselves in the self-righteous joy of their favorite prejudice...anti-Americanism. Fine. Some people do that, for sure, and it's often unfair to the USA when they do. It does not, however, mean that everybody should keep their mouths shut when the USA flaunts international law and wages unjustifiable wars of aggression and occupation...as they did in Vietnam and as they have done more recently in Iraq.

He was drawing attention to someone else's prejudice...but mainly just because it was a different prejudice than his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:19 AM

We are like Gaul or some minor but essential province in the Roman empire. That is why this Obama thing to me is like sitting around wondering whether Claudius is going to be better than Caligula. Well, yes, but does it change the underlying dynamic -- no. Under Obama, the Americans are still invading other countries whenever they feel like it (ask the Pakistanis what they think about the last week). They still think they are morally superior to everyone, and therefore have a right to do what they please.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:49 PM

Exactly. And that is the aspect that seems to have eluded Gordon Sinclair... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM

Ahhhh... scuse me? It was a blast from the past. Nothing eluded Gordy. If you are gonna take it out of the context of history, as I alluded to in my post, well, you are a Canuck that doesn't understand.

Odd that nobody has crapped on me for changing the name of our neighbours. Maybe there are no Yanks reading this thread, which might be a good thing.

Oh.... CC (CD??? hehehe) is an honourary Canuck and does not count... in the CONTEXT of my de-allusions.

Where is JimLad? His take is always soooo, interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

"Nothing eluded Gordy." Naw, naw...that's Don Cherry you're thinking of! ;-) Nothing eludes Don Cherry.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:53 PM

Yes, Gordon is long dead. He was part of an era that thought, wrongly, that Canadian culture was always going to be strong enough to withstand the winds of Americana, so he could afford to be generous.   He was in the ebbtide of the British empire, and in the aftermath of the extraordinary contribution of Canada to World War II, so he had some excuse.....

yours,

Peter T.