AGAIN ! No More Pro-War Videos


I hate to have to say this again (third time) but obviously I do…

Recently I have had more people email and send me pro-war videos under the guise of supporting the troops.

I support the troops I think if they have to be in harms way give them the best weapons the best food and the highest respect, then bring them home, with honour and with flag waving. Name streets after them and build monuments to them the live and the dead. The images of all those proud Canadians with flags along the highway of heroes chokes me up.

As for the war there is NO DAMN WAY you will ever get me to support it, so PLEASE STOP TRYING, and stop equating anti-war with disrespect for the troops that is propagandist crap, and entirely wrong.

I do not have to agree with you I do not have to explain myself to anyone.

All I have to say is if we insist on sending brave men and women to a war that is neither necessary or ours then SHAME ON US.

Stop sending me these videos that blame the lack of support for the troops on war protesters blame the real problem the cheap-assed politicians that send men and women to die without enough air support and with armored vehicles that are made of tin foil. Yes we now have better gear for our military but not until after soldiers died.

This war is a corpse making machine That’s it…

Advertisements

Pffft….Head Of State Debate?


big_arms
Recently, Steve-O chastised Her Excellency, Governor General Michelle Jean for referring to herself as Canada’s Head Of State. Apparently, he reminded her that Canada’s Head Of State is in fact, Queen Elizabeth II.

I am making a face.

The Canadian Press seems totally confused about this issue. I wasn’t able to track down a single article that had a clear answer other than the ones that thought that this incident was embarrassing to Her Excellency. Sorry kids, but there is nothing embarrassing about this to Her Excellency other than her association with Harper. He even had someone in Ottawa call Buckingham Palace for the answer, but the Queen wouldn’t come to the phone. Hmmmmm. The Governor General wouldn’t have had that problem. No sirree, the Governor General has a direct line to the Queen and can get ahold of her anytime day or night. Wonder why that is……

It’s actually not that difficult to figure out. Here’s my 2 cents on how it works. Don’t bother doubting me either, I double checked with Daddy about this, and he says I am exactly right.

The Governor General is The Queen’s representative and Head Of State in Canada, unless the Queen is in residence. (ie: In Canada herself) If the Queen is here, then she wouldn’t need to be represented because she would be here and the Queen would be Head Of State in Canada. Get it?

This was much more confusing before 1982 of course, so that’s the most likely reason as to why Harper doesn’t know the scoop. He had no interest in politics back then, did he? He was probably just trying to get his Beatles tribute band going and worrying about his paper route.

In 1982, Trudeau repatriated the Constitution of Canada. Before 1982, Canada was governed by a constitution that was a British law and could be changed only by an Act of the British Parliament. Repatriation gave Canada full sovereignty. Bringing home the Constitution was a pretty big deal at the time. If you are old enough, you will remember this being all over the news.

Remember when Dion put together that coalition to remove Harper from office? Right, it wasn’t all that long ago. We were all on pins and needles waiting to hear what the Governor General had to say when Harper asked for more time to save his government. He didn’t ask the Queen, so that should be another good clue as to who the real Head Of State is in Canada.

Really, Michelle Jean is not new here, she didn’t just step into office last week. Don’t you think that if the Queen was offended that Michelle Jean was going around referring to herself as Canada’s Head Of State, that she would have given her a quick call to say so by now?

If Harper doesn’t know how Canadian Government works, then maybe he shouldn’t be Prime Minister.

The New Canada – Blue States We Want You


The New Canada

Just a quick note. Recently The Brookings Institution* a prestigious U.S. think-tank proposed a common market for the Great lakes area of North America. It noted that
“If it stood alone as a country . . . it would be the second biggest economic unit on Earth, second only to the U.S. economy as a whole and larger than Japan, the rising powers of China and India, and the traditional heavyweights of Germany and the U.K.”

Canada.com went so far as to say that the “Think-tank call[ed] for a United States of Great Lakes.” This is a gross exaggeration of the Think Tank’s position but it is not a bad idea.

I would take this one step further and say, that since many of the states that border the great lakes tend to be Democrat blue states and the Democrats tend to resemble Canadians politically, that rather than forming a new United States of Great Lakes, why not just have them join Canada. Hey, universal health care, improved welfare and stronger beer (not to mention better hockey)

Come join the True North Strong and Free eh?

*The Brookings Institution is a non-profit public policy research organization based in Washington, D.C.

The latest revolution in Quebec politics


In politics, as in every other matter, the province of Quebec marches to a different beat. Quebec has a history of political parties that spring up from nowhere to become a dominant force for two or three decades.

This year’s big winner is Mario Dumont of the Action Démocratique du Québec. The results aren’t in yet — Quebecers vote today — but Dumont is going to steal a lot of votes. The three-way split makes it unlikely that either the Liberal Party of Quebec or the Parti Québécois will manage to form a majority government.

Dumont is only the latest example of the volatility of politics in Quebec. Consider this table of provincial election results.

From 1867 until 1931, only two political parties won seats in Quebec: the Liberals and the Conservatives. In 1936, the Conservative Party vanished, replaced by the Union Nationale. In 1976, the Parti Québécois emerged as the new alternative to the Liberals. Indeed, it formed the government in that year (having won a handful of seats in the previous two elections).

Always, Quebec voters are polarized between two alternatives: Liberals / Conservatives; Liberals / Union Nationale; Liberals / Parti Québécois.

Federally, we saw a similar phenomenon in 1993. Support for the Progressive Conservative Party collapsed in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois became the federal alternative to the Liberals. (The Conservative Party made a modest return to the scene in the most recent federal election, primarily at the Liberals’ expense.)

In the print edition of today’s Globe and Mail, Lysiane Gagnon summarizes the election campaign:

Premier Jean Charest was supposed to be a formidable campaigner. He wasn’t. His campaign was dull and erratic. Parti Québécois Leader André Boisclair was supposed to lose his temper, and his nerve. He didn’t. His performance, while not stellar, greatly exceeded expectations. And Mario Dumont? Well, little Mario … was the star of the campaign.

And the result may well be something Quebec has not had in more than a century — a minority government. The parties are in a dead heat and the pollsters will not venture to say whether the winner will be the Liberal Party or the PQ.

What is sure is that Mr. Dumont’s Action Démocratique du Québéc is a force to reckon with, and the likelihood of having another referendum on sovereignty is weaker than ever. Even if the PQ manage to form a minority government the party would be unable to pursue its sovereigntist agenda for lack of support from the other two parties.

As other observers have noted, the rise of the ADQ spells the end of the simple federalist / sovereignist split among voters. The ADQ is strongly nationalist, but then so is the Liberal Party of Quebec.

Here I am calling on the subtle distinction between nationalist and sovereignist. It is impossible to attract votes in the province without explicitly putting Quebec’s interests first. Hence the federalist leader, Jean Charest, has championed the cause of the “fiscal imbalance”.

The ADQ are attracting the “soft” nationalist vote:  a vote which typically has swung from the Liberals to the PQ and back again. The three-way split makes it difficult to achieve a majority government; but it also presents a formidable obstacle in the path of the hard-core sovereignists.

For that, the rest of Canada can heave a big sigh of relief. Until the next revolution in Quebec politics. Who knows what that will bring?!