Aeneas the Younger

2009-06-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

God Bless the Prince of Wales !

It took a Prince to defray the French snub that was about to mar the memory of the sacrifice of The Commonwealth in liberating France in 1944.

The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth. She is Head of State of both the United Kingdom and Canada. She should have been the first person invited to the ceremonies marking the 65th Anniversay of the Normandy Landings.

Perhaps President Sarkozy should get his head out of President Obama's arse.

Just a suggestion.

2009-02-06T08:04:00.000-08:00

Canada lost 129,000 jobs in January: StatsCan

see here for the gory details

The economic crisis continues and is now mounting. What differentiates this particular downturn is the rapidity of the slow-down, the extent and size of individual Mortgage Debt, and the shared-pattern on a global scale.

This is NOT a recession. This is a deflationary spiral, and if we do not arrest it soon we are headed toward our first Depression in over 70 years.

To all of you ignorant economic neo-liberals of the CPC:

Recession and Deflation are two very different things.

More "free-market bullshit" will not help this time.

Unlike most of your Parents, my Parents lived through the 1930's.

They taught me to never forget, and I will never forget how it imprinted on them for the rest of their lives.

It was a pure trauma the they never got over in so many ways ... and their generation were a far hardier people than we currently are.

2008-12-15T06:28:00.000-08:00

Wall Street, or Las Vegas?

The American "Casino Capitalism" culture has claimed another series of victims.

And yet, there is no movement by American legislators or regulators to address the fundamental problem that is a wanton disregard for the sanctity of the common people's private wealth.

Which is a galling thing - given how the largest part of the pensions system over the last 25 years has been re-engineered to the notion of "self-directed investments." Canada got caught-up in the madness as well, which is not unsurprising as our economic elites only mimic the behaviour of Americans anyway.

This is a disaster in the making; a disaster which will afflict some of the most vulnerable in our society - the elderly. And it will hit hardest when the largest demographic the nation has ever known - "the Baby Boomers" - retires. It will impoverish us all.

2008-11-10T19:21:00.000-08:00

Lest We Forget ...

I took the Family to the Alberta Legislature tonight to see the Vigil: 1914-1918 exhibit.

We will remember them.

______________________________________________________

Can You Remember?

By Edmund Blunden. January, 1936.

Yes, I still remember

The whole thing in a way;

Edge and exactitude

Depend on the day.

Of all that prodigious scene

There seems scanty loss,

Though mists mainly float and screen

Canal, spire and fosse;

Though commonly I fail to name

That once obvious Hill,

And where we went and whence we came

To be killed, or kill.

Those mists are spiritual

And luminous-obscure,

Evolved of countless circumstance

Of which I am sure;

Of which, at the instance

Of sound, smell, change and stir,

New-old shapes for ever

Intensely recur.

And some are sparkling, laughing, singing,

Young, heroic, mild;

And some incurable, twisted,

Shrieking, dumb, defiled.

2008-10-14T12:08:00.000-07:00

I have gone Green - again!

Given that there are so many staunch republicans (and rednecks) & Republicans in the Conservative Party of Canada, and given that I will never vote for the treasonous and materialistic Liberal Party, and given further that I oppose the vehement republican orientation of the New Democratic Party with all of my being, I - here today - announce that this traditional tory feels that the only current option for Disraelian/Macdonaldian tories in Canada is to vote for the Green Party of Canada.

Yes, there are republicans in the GPC - but there are traitors in all of the main parties; until such time as there is a thing called "The Monarchist Party of Canada" I strongly feel that the only option for English-speaking nationalists is the Green Party.

That may change over time, but that is the way I feel today.

The CPC and the LPC are pro-American/anti-Canadian Free-Trade parties that care not one whit for the survival of a sovereign Canada in the continent of North America. To that end, they do not deserve my vote. Nor will I give it to them.

2008-07-07T19:14:00.000-07:00

On Honour

There was a time when it was a given that Citizenship implied ascription to the ideals of honesty, respect, & selflessness; men and women swore to truth on their HONOUR, and under the watchful eye of their Creator. They upheld to Fear God, Honour the Queen, Love Thy Neighbour, and Obey the Laws - ON THEIR HONOUR.

Acting honourably means to demonstrate, accept, ascribe, or evince:

1. allegiance to moral principles
2. a person's good reputation and the respect they are given by other people
3. a. fame or glory
b. a person who wins fame or glory for his or her country, school, etc.: he was an honour to his nation
4. great respect or esteem, or an outward sign of this
5. a privilege or pleasure: it was an honour to meet him

The concept essentially boils down to this: You bring credit to yourself by acting with decency, integrity and/or valour for the sake of others, or in bringing credit to others through a selfless or noble action. Inherent to this is a clear grasp of respect for others, self-respect, and self-control.

They keys are decency, integrity and selflessness.

The impetus for posting this is The Blogging Tories granting of a seat of honour (of sorts) to the so-named Bill Whatcott, a self-confessed "glue-sniffer, thief, rent boy, rusticated LPN, and evangelical Christian."

My issue with Whatcott comes from his claim that:

"I got an image of the Order of Canada, crapped on it, wrapped it up and mailed it to the Governor General to communicate my utter contempt of her office, her arrogance, her anti-Christian/anti-life bigotry and the now corrupted and irrelevant Order of Canada in general."

THIS is what the Blogging Tories consider Honourable behaviour?

Celebrating an act of idecency directed at the representative of Her Majesty The Queen?

Celebrating contempt for the Vice-Regal Office, and thus for the office and position of their Lawful Sovereign Lady?

Celebrating the actions of a man who can only presume to know what thoughts beat in the heart of Her Excellency the Governor-General?

Celebrating (and presuming to join) the disdain of a former Solvent-Huffer, Prostitute, disbarred Nurse, and Religious Charlatan for the repository of Canada's Honour?

If these people are conservatives, then I am the Man-on-the-Moon.

This is NOT the behaviour of honourable, decent, conservative people. At least NOT the people I have known personally - and shared the appellation "conservative" with - for the last 45 years.

These people demonstrate no knowledge, consciousness, or appreciation for 300 years of the English Tory tradition.

No conservatives they. Rednecks perhaps, but Tories - NO.

Perhaps civilisation is doomed; Edmund Burke realised this in 1793 when he wrote of the Revolutionary Mob rough-housing the Queen of France to her eventual death.

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like the morning star full of life and splendor and joy. 0h, what a revolution! and what a heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream, when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult."

"But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom! The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone. It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness."

If there ever was a time for Honour, it is now. Some people however, are incapable of such Nobility.

2008-05-26T15:41:00.000-07:00

A succinct overview of Toryism in Canada

I read this column by David Orchard in The Globe & Mail some years ago. The year 2000 in fact; despite David's ill-considered defection to the Liberal Party, this little column neatly summarises the difference between Toryism as it has been practised in Canada since before Confederation, and the US-style Republican thought that has triumphed in the Conservative Party of Canada under the Reform element.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Globe and Mail, March 6, 2000
What makes me a Conservative
by David Orchard

Preston Manning has decided who is a real Conservative. Joe Clark is not; neither is David Orchard. Judged by Mr. Manning's criteria neither is John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, R.B. Bennett, Robert Borden, Arthur Meighen, John A. Macdonald, Winston Churchill or Benjamin Disraeli.

My encyclopedia defines "conservative" as: "A political outlook that involves a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically, over radical innovations and blueprints for reshaping society."

Edmund Burke coined its classic definition: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve."

William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge further elaborated conservative sentiment. Once wholehearted supporters of the French Revolution, the terror in France changed their minds and both reacted against the ideology of liberalism. (Businessmen, wrote Coleridge, were often subversive, not conservative.)

In the 1830s, a youthful Jewish radical named Benjamin Disraeli thought the Tories, who had lost their traditions, could be purged of reaction and reinstalled as leaders of the people. In 1837, he was elected to Westminster as a rather different kind of Conservative MP. "The rights of labour are as sacred as those of property," he asserted and attacked the Poor Law for treating relief to the poor as a charity. "I maintain that it is a right," he said.

When Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel broke his campaign promise to oppose free trade, Disraeli condemned his betrayal in a speech that would become a classic in parliamentary history. The government fell and the party disintegrated. From its ruins, Disraeli built the modern Conservative Party. To outflank the Liberals with their merchant support, Disraeli reached out to the working class. Along with fellow Tory, Lord Shaftesbury, the great 19th century social reformer who led the long battle for the 10-hour workday, he championed the rights of workers.

Children at four were working in the mines. There were no limits to the hours of work. Life expectancy in working class areas was 21 years. The Liberals and factory owners argued against any regulation. Young people were learning a useful work ethic, they maintained.

In power, Disraeli regulated the hours of work and legislated protection for unions and the environment. "Power has only one duty," he declared, "to secure the social welfare of the people." According to Alex Macdonald, an early Labour MP, Disraeli did more for the working class in five years than the Liberals had in 50.

"The dream of my life," Disraeli explained, "was to re-establish Toryism on a national foundation." His guiding principles -- "to elevate the condition of the people" and "maintain the institutions of the country" -- stand in stark contrast to Manning's call to dismantle ever more national infrastructure.

In Canada, as in Britain, the Conservatives are the nation's oldest political party. Created by John A. Macdonald and George-Etienne Cartier, the party achieved Confederation against the vehement opposition of the Rouges, forerunners of the Liberal Party, some of whom argued for union with the United States.

The Conservatives refused to allow the entry of U.S. railways, and faced down a campaign by American rail owners to overthrow their government. The idea of building an all-Canadian railroad to British Columbia was vehemently opposed by the Liberals: How could a new country of four million inhabitants promise to build the world's greatest railway? they asked. If built, it should at least follow the cheaper, easier route south of the Great Lakes and the contracts be awarded to U.S. business.

"Never," replied Cartier, "will a damned American company have control of the CPR." Manitoba, then British Columbia and the entire northwest entered Canada and the railroad was built.

While Mr. Manning claims a conservative believes in wide-open borders, Canada's great Conservative leaders were adamant in their opposition to free trade with the United States. The idea was, Macdonald said, "sheer insanity" that would have "as its inevitable result, annexation." How could Canada keep its political independence after it had thrown away its economic independence, he asked.

Cartier was no less blunt. "What will be the consequences of industrial reciprocity?" he asked. "The factories of Canada will lose the advantages they now possess and eventually the largest manufacturing industries will be concentrated in the U.S." The end result would be union of the two countries, "that is to say, our annihilation as a nation."

In 1911, the Liberals, under Wilfrid Laurier, negotiated a free-trade agreement with the United States. The Conservatives, under Robert Borden, defeated it. "Laurier," Borden said, "was calling for a greater Canada, but it seemed to be a greater United States the Liberals had achieved."

Contrary to Mr. Manning's view that government's role is to stay out of the economy, Robert Borden and his interior minister, Arthur Meighen, nationalized five railway systems to create the CNR. Meighen's successor as Conservative leader, R.B. Bennett, likewise had no fear of government enterprises and believed they could be efficient. Corporations, he said, are creations of Parliament and Parliament can regulate them.

Kicking off his 1927 leadership campaign, Bennett said: "The first thing we must do in this country is build up a strong national consciousness -- a virile Canadianism -- we have suffered from an inferiority complex long enough."

In power from 1930 to 1935, Bennett introduced the CBC, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Bank of Canada, the institution that allowed Canada to finance its entire Second World War effort without borrowing abroad.

In direct opposition to Mr. Manning's postulation that a conservative believes smaller government is better government, Bennett said, "Reform means government intervention. It means government control and regulation. It means the end of laissez-faire." He described the Conservative Party as being "for the greatest good, for the greatest number of people," and was labelled "a Tory of the Left."

The Conservatives under John Bracken and George Drew moved right, adopted a business orientation and were largely unsuccessful at the polls. In 1956, however, John Diefenbaker won the leadership and moved the party sharply left -- and to victory. He called on Canadians "to take a clear stand in opposition to economic continentalism" and the "baneful effects of foreign ownership." Condemned as a "prairie Bolshevik," he replied: "To those who label me as some kind of party maverick and have claimed that I have been untrue to the great principles of the Conservative Party, I can only reply that they have forgotten the traditions of Disraeli and Shaftesbury in Britain and Macdonald in Canada."

In 1983, Brian Mulroney strongly opposed John Crosbie's proposal for free trade with the United States. He was swept to power. In office, however, Mr. Mulroney reversed his views, broke the Conservative Party's historic position and ushered in the North American free-trade agreement. In 1993, the party was dealt the most dramatic repudiation in a western democracy, and was reduced to two seats.

When the Conservative Party adheres to its people-come-first roots, its following is strong. Each time it loses its sense of nationhood, moves too far right and adopts a narrow business agenda -- exactly the stance being advocated by Preston Manning today -- the party itself loses, too.

Mr. Manning's affection for a survival-of-the-fittest society is not conservatism; it is classic liberalism.

The environmental movement, based upon the impulse to preserve, is a conservative idea. The liberal free-market model, which Mr. Manning preaches, ridicules and opposes this impulse, slashing national institutions, escalating the clear cutting of our forests, the genetic manipulation of our agriculture and food supply, recklessly revolutionizing without regard for the consequences. The Disraeli/Macdonald concept of preservation and the public good are polar opposites to this view, as is the very definition of conservatism.

Mr. Manning's so-called Canadian Alliance attempts to import directly from the United States a brand of right-wing evangelism, package it with a Canadian name and declare the product to be Canadian conservatism. But the United States has no conservative party -- its political tradition is an expressed reaction against conservatism -- and it doesn't belong here.

Preston Manning's movement falls well short of the values Canadian conservatvies cherish. The older, deeper pro-Canadian conservatism that elevates the condition of the people, as Disraeli put it, is tried and proven conservatism. It is the key to the victory of the Conservative Party at the polls and to our survival as a sovereign nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Orchard is the author of The Fight for Canada - Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism and was runner-up to Joe Clark in the 1998 federal Progressive Conservative leadership contest. He is a farmer in Borden, SK.

2008-05-18T10:31:00.000-07:00

Happy Victoria Day !

... and by that I do NOT mean "May Two-Four Weekend."

What an absurd lower-class & republican affectation! It IS VICTORIA DAY.

Here's a snippet from Sara Jeannette Duncan's The Imperialist which reminds us of what an event Victoria Day used to be in this Dominion:

It is hard to invest Mother Beggarlegs with importance, but the date helps me--the date I mean, of this chapter about Elgin; she was a person to be reckoned with on the twenty-fourth of May. I will say at once, for the reminder to persons living in England that the twenty-fourth of May was the Queen's Birthday. Nobody in Elgin can possibly have forgotten it. The Elgin children had a rhyme about it--

The twenty-fourth of May
Is the Queen's Birthday;
If you don't give us a holiday,
We'll all run away.

But Elgin was in Canada. In Canada the twenty-fourth of May WAS the Queen's Birthday; and these were times and regions far removed from the prescription that the anniversary "should be observed" on any of those various outlying dates which by now, must have produced in her immediate people such indecision as to the date upon which Her Majesty really did come into the world. That day, and that only, was the observed, the celebrated, a day with an essence in it, dawning more gloriously than other days and ending more regretfully, unless, indeed, it fell on a Sunday when it was "kept" on the Monday, with a slightly clouded feeling that it wasn't exactly the same thing. Travelled persons, who had spent the anniversary there, were apt to come back with a poor opinion of its celebration in "the old country"--a pleasant relish to the more-than-ever appreciated advantages of the new, the advantages that came out so by contrast. More space such persons indicated, more enterprise they boasted, and even more loyalty they would flourish, all with an affectionate reminiscent smile at the little ways of a grandmother. A "Bank" holiday, indeed! Here it was a real holiday, that woke you with bells and cannon--who has forgotten the time the ancient piece of ordnance in "the Square" blew out all the windows in the Methodist church?--and went on with squibs and crackers till you didn't know where to step on the sidewalks, and ended up splendidly with rockets and fire-balloons and drunken Indians vociferous on their way to the lock-up. Such a day for the hotels, with teams hitched three abreast in front of their aromatic barrooms; such a day for the circus, with half the farmers of Fox County agape before the posters--with all their chic and shock they cannot produce such posters nowadays, nor are there any vacant lots to form attractive backgrounds--such a day for Mother Beggarlegs! The hotels, and the shops and stalls for eating and drinking, were the only places in which business was done; the public sentiment put universal shutters up, but the public appetite insisted upon excepting the means to carnival. An air of ceremonial festivity those fastened shutters gave; the sunny little town sat round them, important and significant, and nobody was ever known to forget that they were up, and go on a fool's errand. No doubt they had an impressiveness for the young countryfolk that strolled up and down Main Street in their honest best, turning into Snow's for ice-cream when a youth was disposed to treat. (Gallantry exacted ten-cent dishes, but for young ladies alone, or family parties, Mrs Snow would bring five-cent quantities almost without asking, and for very small boys one dish and the requisite number of spoons.) There was discrimination, there was choice, in this matter of treating. A happy excitement accompanied it, which you could read in the way Corydon clapped his soft felt hat on his head as he pocketed the change. To be treated--to ten-cent dishes--three times in the course of the day by the same young man gave matter for private reflection and for public entertainment, expressed in the broad grins of less reckless people. I speak of a soft felt hat, but it might be more than that: it might be a dark green one, with a feather in it; and here was distinction, for such a hat indicated that its owner belonged to the Independent Order of Foresters, who Would leave their spring wheat for forty miles round to meet in Elgin and march in procession, wearing their hats, and dazzlingly scatter upon Main Street. They gave the day its touch of imagination, those green cocked hats; they were lyrical upon the highways; along the prosaic sidewalks by twos and threes they sang together. It is no great thing, a hat of any quality; but a small thing may ring dramatic on the right metal, and in the vivid idea of Lorne Murchison and his sister Advena a Robin Hood walked in every Independent Forester, especially in the procession. Which shows the risks you run if you, a person of honest livelihood and solicited vote, adopt any portion of a habit not familiar to you. and go marching about with a banner and a band. Two children may be standing at the first street corner, to whom your respectability and your property may at once become illusion and your outlawry the delightful fact.

As well, and despite its provenance, George Root's Just Before the Battle, Mother was sung every year at Victoria Day as an ode to The Queen, and as affirmation of the manifest Loyalty that Canada was founded upon.

Just before the battle, mother,
I am thinking most of you,
While upon the field we're watching
With the enemy in view.
Comrades brave are 'round me lying,
Filled with thoughts of home and God
For well they know that on the morrow,
Some will sleep beneath the sod.

CHORUS:
Farewell, mother, you may never
Press me to your heart again,
But, oh, you'll not forget me, mother,
If I'm numbered with the slain.

Oh, I long to see you, mother,
And the loving ones at home,
But I'll never leave our banner,
Till in honour I can come.
Tell the traitors all around you
That their cruel words we know,
In every battle kill our soldiers
By the help they give the foe.

CHORUS:
Farewell, mother, you may never
Press me to your heart again,
But, oh, you'll not forget me, mother,
If I'm numbered with the slain.

Hark! I hear the bugles sounding,
'Tis the signal for the fight,
Now, may God protect us, mother,
As He ever does the right.
Hear the "Battle-Cry of Freedom,"
How it swells upon the air,
Oh, yes, we'll rally 'round the standard,
Or we'll perish nobly there.

CHORUS:
Farewell, mother, you may never
Press me to your heart again,
But, oh, you'll not forget me, mother,
If I'm numbered with the slain.

A well-known song to our Ancestors, and the reasons for it were ever clear to them.

Ah, to have lived in those days!

God Save The Queen. Long May She Reign.

2008-04-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

The Tom Lukiwski Affair

I will confess that as a younger man, I was slightly homophobic. Part of this was basic ignorance - and part was certainly cultural and generational.

My opinion changed in the ensuing years, as I came to realise that homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of mankind. One can have an opinion on the matter one way or the other, but the fact remains that it has always been part of the human condition.

What people choose to do with their genitalia is really none of my business, as long as they are not knowingly spreading disease, applying coercion, or ignoring the obvious guideline of "conscious and fully-informed consent" in the procurement of sexual gratification.

Tom Lukiwski was an adult when he made his statements on the issue that he is now being roasted for; as well, he allowed the diatribe to be videotaped - and then kept the tape as a memento.

Tom Lukiwski's error here was not that he once retained a now-unpopular opinion on such matters; his error was an error in judgment. He can deny that he is currently a homophobe all he wants, but the question that begs asking is this: Why did he keep the tape? What kind of judgment does this show? What does this say about the man?

In the not-too-distant past of the US South, members of the KKK would take photographs of the lynchings of black men to keep as souvenirs. Some of these were turned into postcards and sold at Petrol Stations and Diners across the US South-East.

Does Tom's behaviour not seem somewhat derivative of this?

Edmund Burke wrote is his famous "Speech to the Electors of Bristol" in 1774 that as a Member of Parliament ...

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Normally, I trot this gem out as a means of pointing-out the we live in a "representative democracy," and not a "delegational democracy."

Today however, I make the point that - for an MP - the clear and consistent application of good judgment is paramount to retaining the confidence of the electorate.

Lukiwski's error was not in once holding an opinion on homosexuality that he now may or may not hold; rather, his error in this matter is one of exercising incredibly poor judgment in letting it be taped, and then in retaining it as some sort of keepsake.

The extension of civil rights to homosexuals is akin to the emancipation of people of colour in the United States, or the extension of Voting Rights to Aboriginals in Canada. It is not debatable anymore - it is the Law of the Land.

This man is guilty of poor judgment; as such he has lost the moral authority to exercise his judgment on behalf of the people of Regina Lumsden Lake-Centre.

He should resign - immediately. Honour demands no less.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update the 1st: A wise reader pointed to the fact that Lukiwski's statements are hate speech. To this I say: "I agree." That just serves to bolster my point: that this MP is sorely lacking in judgment, and that his continued presence in the House of Commons brings disrepute to that body.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update the 2nd: So, Lukiwksi did not retain the tape, but some idiots in the CPC/Saskatchewan Party Office did. What's the difference? Lukiwski was 41 years old at the time and occupying an Executive position in the Progressive Conservative Party. He should have known better than to voice such offensive crap for the benefit of posterity. "Once committed, forever admitted." Just like Blogs.

2008-03-23T08:39:00.000-07:00

Harper stumbles under US pressure

As if we needed more proof that he is a stooge for the US Right.

So terribly predictable.

Get ready for another round of your favourite Constitutional Game: Quebec Referandamania!

2008-02-18T06:35:00.000-08:00

Canada cannot recognise Kosovo

The reasons why are obvious. If Canada recognises Kosovo's independence, then we put our foot on that slippery slope when it comes to Quebec - which will embolden and reinvigorate the separatist movement in that Canadian province.

In fact, this has already happened:

In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois moved quickly to take advantage of the situation. "Quebecers continue to support in a significant way the idea of Quebec, like Kosovo, obtaining political sovereignty," PQ international relations spokesman Daniel Turp said in a statement Sunday. "The Parti Quebecois will follow closely Kosovo's declaration of independence, and particularly the declarations and other gestures of international recognition that will be made by other states of the international community, including Canada." (source)

Canada has no revolutionary tradition, and in fact has opposed revolutions throughout it's history. Canada has been an enemy of the revolutionary traditions of America, France, Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, and Iran - to name a few.

This nation was not forged on the anvil of revolution and disorder, as was the United States of America. Canada was formed on an organic and evolutionary path. At most, our tradition accepts the outcome of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but even in this case the intent was not to render the nation to bits, but to make it whole again. In this sense, we are a most English nation. And in the best sense of that tradition, we muddle on through to compromise. It is our way.

Having stated all of that, I have no doubt that the CPC government will come to recognise Kosovo. The reason I believe this is because this government has little sense of Canada's history and constitutional traditions. However, such a decision will be dangerous to our Federation and in fact, could facilitate the transportation of a "plague bacillus" back into Quebec.

Canada cannot recognise Kosovo.

2007-11-25T11:07:00.000-08:00

His Grace is quite correct ...

The Most Rev. and Rt Hon. The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has made the correct functional distinction between the British Empire and the current American hegemony.

Click here for the overview

I, for one, am very glad that Dr. Williams has chosen to speak-out in such a manner. We need to draw more distinctions between the British Empire, which I generally believe (in its later manifestation anyway ...) was a relatively benign and well-meaning hegemon - and the avaricious and self-interested American version that plagues us in the current day and age.

To the neo-fascist Right, I would point-out that Dr. Williams has strong words for Islam & Israel in addition to his well-considered position on the Iraq War. Read before you condemn. Assuming you can read ...

2007-11-23T17:45:00.000-08:00

The Commonwealth must not relent this time ...

Let us remember that Pakistan was suspended from The Commonwealth in 1999. I stand by my assertion that its readmittance in 2004 was premature and wrong-headed.

Pakistan's continuing slide into Dictatorship must not be tolerated. Having said that, if Islamist groups end-up in total control of Pakistan, then the relationship with The Commonwealth must be permanently severed.

General Pervez Musharraf is likely somewhat caught in the middle between the Radicals of Left and Right (as it is understood in that Country ...), but the fact remains that The Commonwealth cannot tolerate the emergence of such Dictatorships - which are anathema to the British Civic Values that bind the constituent nations together.

Kudos to The Commonwealth of Nations. It is my hope that such moral leadership will re-invigorate the Organisation and help it realise its potential as an effective counterweight to the American Empire, the invisible forces of Globalisation, and other nations and powers (such as Russia & China) who do not comprehend British values such as fair play and moderation.

I also acknowledge Stephen Harper's role in this decision. Having said that, until Harper demonstrates a consistent pro-Commonwealth disposition - rather than a consistent pro-US Empire inclination, then I cannot vote for his party.

2007-11-11T07:21:00.000-08:00

Remembrance Day, 2007.

Greater words have rarely been spoken in the annals of Canadian public life. The last paragraph embodies the heart of all that I believe and cherish.

Sir Robert Borden's appeal for National Service: Ottawa, October 23, 1916

To the People of Canada:

The worldwide struggle in which our Empire is fighting for its rights, its liberties, and its very existence has continued for more than two years. Every effort that could honourably be made on our part to avert war was put forth with the deepest earnestness and sincerity. There was no escape from the contest save in dishonour and ultimate disaster. The wonderful extent and thoroughness of the enemy's long and careful preparation was imperfectly understood at first, and the magnitude of the struggle has surpassed all anticipation. Great Britain's first expeditionary force has been increased more than twentyfold, and that of Canada more than twelvefold. The climax of the war is rapidly approaching. The last hundred thousand men that Canada will place in the fighting line may be the deciding factor in a struggle the issue of which will determine the destiny of this Dominion, of our Empire, and of the whole world.

The most eloquent tribute would fail to do fitting honour to the youth of Canada who have already rallied so splendidly to the colours and whose heroic valour and glorious achievements have crowned this Dominion with imperishable distinction before the world. Remembering the sacrifice by which that distinction was won, we recall with solemn pride the undying memory of those who have fallen.

In the history of every people there may come such a challenge to the spirit of its citizens as must be answered in service and devotion if the nation is to have an abiding peace in the future. The events of this war bring that challenge today to the manhood of Canada.

Since the war began, more than three hundred and seventy thousand men have enlisted in this Dominion. Two hundred and fifty-eight thousand have gone overseas, and more than one hundred thousand are now in the battle line. During the first ten months of the present year, the number sent forward will aggregate one hundred and forty-one thousand. From 1st January to April 15 of this year the enlistments were at the rate of nearly one thousand per day. Up to the present, our forces have been enlisted and organized more rapidly than facilities of transportation and accommodation in Great Britain could be provided. During the past four months the number of enlistments has greatly decreased, and having regard to future needs the time has come for this appeal.

Notwithstanding the success of the allied forces in various theatres during the past summer, there is reason to know that the enemy is still strong and determined. A mightier effort than may be imagined is necessary to secure a conclusive victory. This war must have so decisive a result that lasting peace can be secured. We are fighting, not for a truce but for victory.
In all mechanical appliances which have played so great a part in this war, the allied nations have almost if not quite overtaken the enemy's standard of preparation. Therefore, the result will depend upon the organization, of the man power of the allied nations. Canada must be strong and resolute in that great endeavour.

Our strength can be most effectively thrown into this conflict by utilizing, in all our national activities for sustaining the agricultural, industrial, and commercial stability of Canada, those who through age or by reason of physical condition are not available for service at the front; to the end that we may place in the battle line the greatest possible proportion of those fit for military service. With this view the Government has asked the Director General and the Directors of National Service to undertake duties of the highest importance and urgency. It is imperative that the men and women of Canada, individually and through their various organizations, shall serve the nation in those capacities in which their services may be of the most value. Thus, it is the urgent duty of the Canadian people to join with the Government in organizing the full power of the nation in terms of human energy.

Under the responsibilities with which I am invested, and in the name of the State which we are all bound to serve, it is my duty to appeal and I do now appeal most earnestly to the people of Canada that they assist and co-operate with the Government and the Directors of National Service in the endeavour for this purpose. To men of military age I make appeal that they place themselves at the service of the State for military duty. To all others I make appeal that they place themselves freely at the disposition of their country for such service as they are deemed best fitted to perform.

And to the women of Canada, whose spirit has been so splendid and so inspiring in this hour of devotion and sacrifice, I bid Godspeed in the manifold works of beneficence in which they are now engaged, and I pray them to aid still more in every field of national service for which they may feel themselves fitted.

Let us never forget the solemn truth that the nation is not constituted of the living alone. There are those as well who have passed away and those yet to be born. So this great responsibility comes to us as heirs of the past and trustees of the future. But with that responsibility there has come something greater still, the opportunity of proving ourselves worthy of it; and I pray that this may not be lost.

Source: Borden, Robert Laird. "The appeal for National Service." [Ottawa: Office of the Prime Minister], 1916.

2007-09-27T06:00:00.000-07:00

More NAFTA-driven insanity ...

All I can say today is: read this.

Some days I weep for this Country.

2007-09-16T07:40:00.000-07:00

More daggers for Dubya ...

Former US Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has made this "startling" revelation about the US War in Iraq:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about Oil."

So, there you have it.

The Bush Administration was/is so blinkered by corporate power that they turned the tragedy of 9/11 into a quest for profit.

I wonder how the families of those killed on 9/11 will feel about this?

ATY feels - yet again - exonerated by this revelation, and reminds all that while he supports/supported the Operations in Afghanistan, he was steadfastly opposed to the misadventure in Iraq from Day One.

I wonder how the neo-fascists will spin this little gem?

Let's watch Bush's poll numbers now shall we?

(more on the Greenspan revelations here)

2007-09-15T21:03:00.000-07:00

Summertime and the living is easy ...

Well, it has certainly been a while since I last posted on the blog. I have had a very hectic Summer - searching for a new home, selling the old home, and relocating to Alberta.

Our children had their first Summer at home, and we endeavoured to keep them busy each and every day. But ... now Autumn is upon us, the kids are in school, my Bride has found employment, and so now time to turn back to issues that are a great deal heavier than tooling around Alberta taking-in the sights, and fooling around on Facebook with old friends from so very long ago.

Not much has changed in Canadian political life, as the CPC and the LPC remained deadlocked in the polls (basically ...) and seem to have no ideas on how to break-out of the electoral doldrums. I know a way Harper could break-out, but it would go against every neo-liberal grain in his body ...

The War in Iraq trudges on, seemingly with no resolution in sight - as was expected by anyone familiar with the Middle-East. The Americans are surely getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, and as I predicted, the sideshow in Iraq is messing with the operation in Afghanistan, where now NATO is quivering at the thought of an extended mission. Again, another mess courtesy of the small-minds of the Bush Administration.

Oil prices remain high, which is good for my business - but surely remains a warning to all that our reliance on carbon-fuels is a most dangerous game. The US economy is in relatively rough shape, and there is no surprise in that - given how the Americans never plan for the future. As you sow, so shall ye reap ...

The shrill clash of "minds" continues over at my friend's site: Red Tory

It is good to see that Red still enjoys teasing and taunting the lumpenproletariat right.

He certainly has more endurance for this sort of thing than I do. I admire his profligacy. He is truly a "Legend of the Internets."

More to come, when I feel inspired.

2007-07-11T18:34:00.000-07:00

A dwindling breed ...

The person who gives more back than he takes is fast becoming a rare thing.

I salute the life and legacy of Ed Mirvish, MBE - businessman, impresario, and philanthropist.

Rest well - and thanks for a life rich in giving and good works.

2007-07-10T08:37:00.000-07:00

John Manley and the North American Union ...

I cannot stand John Manley.

To the casual or ignorant observer, it seems that my virulent dislike for him is based on his unabashed republicanism and his neo-liberalism. While this is very true, it is not my only reason - although the second reason is very connected to the first reason.

Manley is the leading advocate for the North American Union. To me this is a treasonous activity, and a denial of they very raison d'etre for Canada - established so long ago with the exodus of the Loyalists to British North America.

What is shocking to me is how little airplay the media have given to this movement. I am all over the blogosphere ridiculing the idea of MSM, but it seems to me that this has received less attention than it should.

The question is: WHY?

Am I the only one who cares about CANADA?

see: Treason on the Web

2007-07-05T07:31:00.000-07:00

Mulroney's Legacy ...

The eradication of the manufacturing sector in Canada continues with nary anyone outside of Ontario giving a damn. If this were happening in Alberta or BC, the whackos would be out stumping for separation.

In June 1983, then-PC Leadership Candidate Brian Mulroney was interviewed by John Gray of the Toronto Star - and this is what he said about the idea of free-trade with the United States:

"This country could never survive with the policy of unfettered free trade. I'm all in favour of eliminating unfair protectionism where it exists. This is a separate country. We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch plant economy in certain important sectors. All that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the US in bad times and shutting their branch plants in Canada. It's bad enough as it is.

And further as the PC Convention neared:

" ... it affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it."

The future Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, would then also chime in:

"Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally."

Does anyone remember why - in addition to these very good reasons - they opposed the idea of an FTA?

Because Tariff Reciprocity was always a Liberal policy and these men (then) considered themselves Conservatives.

By 1984 the transformation of the Conservative party into a neo-liberal party was complete.

... and so it goes. And so it has gone.

2007-04-05T15:59:00.000-07:00

90 Years on ...

I remember my first trip to Vimy Ridge. I can clearly recall the sound of my heart beating as we quietly walked along the Visitor's Pathway that approaches the back of Allward's Memorial.

As we walked through the light mist of mid-morning, we were struck by the little sign half-way up the pathway that read:

Silence - Respect

My eyes began to well-up upon seeing this, as my head and heart were overwhelmed by feelings of awe. Awe that we still cared so many years after the fact, and awed by the fact that we would have to remind others to show respect for the fallen in commanding such quietude.

The first thing that strikes you about the Memorial is its sheer scale. The only thing that exceeds it on the Western Front is the British Empire Memorial to the Missing at Thiepval (on The Somme).

There is an eerie Majesty to the structure that renders one speechless - all the more when you reach the front of the Memorial and see just how high-up the Ridge actually is/was. You realise then, just how magnificent an accomplishment this dearly-paid-for Victory was. You certainly then appreciate just how hard it was for the French and British forces to crack this particular stronghold.

Having said that, we must remember that while this was primarily a Canadian Victory, there was also a sizeable British contingent that fought alongside us on that fateful Monday in 1917. We should never forget that this was an Imperial effort and that we fought with English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and Chinese in a most real "Band of Brothers."

Like millions of others, I will be watching the 90th Anniversary Observances on Monday, April 9th. Not only will this take me back to my times on the Ridge, it will take me back to my tour of the Underground Tunnels beneath the Ridge (the existence, size, and scope of which most Canadians know nothing ...), and to the walk around the Ridge where portions of Trenches are still preserved - and of my tour around the Park where one can still see the lunar surface that represents the damage caused by the fearful artillery barrage on that day. All of this reminds one not just of the great victory, but more still of the tragedy and heroism that was fully exemplified on a minute-to-minute basis during the Great War.

Mostly, I will remember finding the grave (Canadian Cemetery #2) of a long-lost Family member who died on the Ridge on Easter Monday, 1917. As I recited Binyon's memoriam verse my eyes filled with tears, and my Wife put her arm around me. It was here that I reaffirmed my commitment to never forget these men, their sense of honour, and most importantly - their sacrifice.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

(... from Laurence Binyon's For the Fallen.)

2007-03-17T20:25:00.000-07:00

A Land of Milk & Honey ?

As some of you know, I am relocating to Edmonton during the second quarter of this year. The Alberta economy as a whole has been cresting ever higher of late, due in the largest part to the Oil & Gas boom of the last few years. This is expected to continue - barring the discovery of large, proven, and accessible reserves elsewhere.

The Transnational Oilcos have also recently announced that they expect to quintuple their investments in the Oilsands over the next decade - thereby heartening those of us who will be living there and seeking to benefit financially from this carbon lottery.

I have been travelling to Alberta on business for close to a half-decade now, and so am familiar with the chronic labour shortages that have been driving-up both wages, and, sadly for me, home prices. I have also been watching the economic trends there over the same period.
But somehow, this tidbit from 2005 escaped me.

How horrifically shocking !

What a terrible solution to the problem of labour market shortages.

But now, some would claim - good news.

But I guess how this is, and will be, interpreted is all relative.

I mean, they were considering allowing children as young as 12 years of age to work in the non-serving area of Bars !

How unbelievably Dickensian !

That Premier Stelmach was "not in favour of the idea" seems to me at least a very minor form of relief; but couldn't he have come out firmer against this idea?

As a Father and great admirer of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, I am truly appalled by the very idea. I truly wonder if we all fully understand that this is just what an unfettered marketplace can lead to. Do we really want to return to this kind of dark age?

2007-03-01T16:25:00.000-08:00

Have you seen your Mother Baby, standing in the shadow?

Although polling data is mutable and subject to changes down the road, the fact remains that Stephen Harper has enforced a high-level of discipline over the CPC caucus. Today's results seem to vindicate his approach.

I still stand by my contention that the LPC has miscalculated in selecting Dion as their Leader. Dion's appeal in Ontario is limited, and the Nationaliste plurality in Quebec dislike him. I personally hold hope for a minority government, but if Dion's bleeding in Ontario turns into a hemorrhage - then I just do not know ....

2007-02-24T04:56:00.000-08:00

"Master & Servant"

Remember this old Depeche Mode tune?

There's a new game

We like to play you see

A game with added reality

You treat me like a dog

Get me down on my knees

We call it master and servant

It's a lot like life

This play between the sheets

With you on top and me underneath

Forget all about equality

Let's play master and servant

It's a lot like life

And that's what's appealing

If you despise that throwaway feeling

From disposable fun

Then this is the one

Domination's the name of the game

In bed or in life

They're both just the same

Except in one you're fulfilled

At the end of the day

Let's play master and servant

Come on master and servant

.... so it appears the Peter MacKay and Condi Rice will just let bygones by bygones and "agree to disagree" over the Arar scandal. Isn't that special?

I guess that's just peachy. I mean why should the illegal US detainment of a Canadian National who is subsequently forcibly deported by the US to a third country without the knowledge of the Canadian Government and then tortured mercilessly based on faulty US intelligence by Authorities in that third Country (Syria, the most fun-loving Arab democracy of them all!) for a full year warrant any stiff diplomatic rebuke of the United States Government by the Government of Canada ?

We need to sell our beef don't 'ya know?

On top of it all, the secret conspiracy called "deep integration" continues against this sordid and disgusting backdrop.

2007-02-19T05:35:00.000-08:00

The Decline of the American Empire ?

A very interesting trend - and one that we have certainly noticed and followed.

Does anyone in America care that the world is turning their backs on them?

Do Americans really believe the neo-fascist fantasy that we will bend to their will at every turn?

The end days are coming. And the countdown started some time ago ...

2007-02-15T11:28:00.000-08:00

An Apology?

Our Anglo-American friend over at The Fifth Estate has labeled me as one "who argues like Plato." While I accept the tag as a compliment, I do wish to correct the error of perception.

Much of Plato's design was to use Socrates and his Method in various analogies as a way of castigating the Athenian Democracy for their condemnation of Socrates for the crime of "corrupting the youth of Athens." This comes out very clearly in The Republic, where we see Plato advocating (it would seem) the creation of a very undemocratic City. Much academic work has been concluded on the matter, and it seems clear that Plato's rancour towards the demos is based largely on the anger he felt toward them for the way they treated Socrates.

I accept this interpretation, but I also very much enjoy reading and re-reading The Republic, as I find it a continuing source of wonder through the very power of the emotion that underscores the entire dialectic. I also see the value Plato places on the existence of an educated elite - although I might disagree with him that this elite should always rule as Philosopher-Kings.

But, back to the point; I refer to myself as a Platonist because I accept to a varying degree the idea of virtue, the forms, and intellectual rigour. In reality however, I am actually a devotee of Socrates and his Method (propagated largely, but not entirely, by Plato).

If we examine how Socrates lived his life, we see this:

He went around pissing people off.

Always questioning, hectoring, lecturing, teasing, and puncturing the conventional and unconventional (il)logic of the day. It eventually lead to his demise at the hands of the very people he was trying to enlighten.

Given the customs and practices of the times, Socrates could have fled Athens after the Verdict condemning him. He chose to stay and face his accusers and the jury. During his whole lifetime, Socrates could have left Athens and sought refuge in another City-State.

Why did he stay then? Well, the answer is clear to me. For all of its faults, Athens was the one City-State with a rough commitment to liberty - as it was then conceived. He certainly would have been put to death very early in the game, had he chosen to live in, say, Sparta.

Socrates chose to live and die in Athens. That in no way mitigates his desire to make Athens a better place. That in no way dilutes his desire to educate the Athenian youth. That in no way tempers his impatience with rhetoric and sophistry.

By accepting his fate at the hands of the demos, Socrates at one and the same time condemns their stupidity and laziness and exalts the ideals and hope that is Athens. In the end, Athens stands as the last, best hope for mankind. That the last, best of hope of mankind condemns the greatest Athenian of them all, is an irony lost on the demos, but not to those who know and remember Socrates great maxim:

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

And it is in that spirit that that I choose to live my life.

It is because of this fundamental commitment that I have come to reject cant, hypocrisy, and political parties. It helps me reject the bullshit and blather of both the Left and the Right. It assists me in seeing that Big Business and Big Labour are both part of the problem. It has afforded me the freedom to condemn ideology - the falsest of all gods.

And for all this, I wander around the blogosphere pissing people off.

Except, I would rather term it "making them think."

Or - come to think. Or - open their eyes. Or - realise.

Some get it. Most don't. Kind of like ancient Athens, don't you think?

Now you know. Or do you?

2007-02-11T06:33:00.000-08:00

The Most Dangerous Game

Vladimir Putin of Russia makes the case that I have been making over the last two years:

Namely, that the Bush Foreign Policy is making the world a very dangerous place by forcing rogue states to undertake nuclear weapons programmes as a means of self-defence, which only serves to destabilise regional and national security arrangements.

Putin is no democrat, and I worry about Russia greatly, but he deserves tremendous credit for his candid comments yesterday.

2006-12-27T08:39:00.000-08:00

The Queen's Christmas Message

Follow this link

We watch this every year and are consistently impressed with our Head of State - who is truly a Head of State, and not a mere "politician." She has lived a life that permits her to take the long-view in the interests of her peoples. Whatever their Faith.

It is best that we heed her guidance.

Best of the Season to you all.

2006-11-29T09:45:00.000-08:00

Conservative or Tory - What's the Story?

I fully recognise that this Blog is not always accessible to the typical Canadian voter. I deal in high-concepts that are usually the preserve of Graduate Students and University Professors. I also have a hard time trying to popularise and colloquialise what I am trying to get across.

However, if you are a Canadian and you wish to understand what Stephen Harper stands for and what the CPC is trying to bring about in this country, then read this.

I very definitely could NOT have done better myself.

2006-11-27T19:59:00.000-08:00

In Defence of Civic Nationalism ...

Michael Chong resigns his Post over Harper's Quebec gambit citing his belief in Civic Nationalism - and not Ethnic Nationalism.

It's nice to see that there are some (real) tories in the CPC who have retained their conservative conscience and an understanding as to the values that Canada was founded upon.

Kudos to Mr. Chong!

2006-11-25T06:23:00.000-08:00

Harper's Gamble ...

Stephen Harper's declaration that the Quebecois constitute a nation within the Dominion of Canada is certainly a gamble and one in keeping with his Reform Party roots and inclinations.

It is also a gamble with the very idea of Canada that Sir John A. Macdonald put forth 139 years ago.

The Foreign Press and News Services are confused and reporting the semantics a little differently.

And now - of course - the separatists are moving quickly to stake out their spin prior to resparking the idea of another Referendum on Sovereignty.

And of course, now the Aboriginals are asking appropriate and dangerous questions.

What of the legal implications inherent in the motion ? The Political implications?

Roy Romanow weighs in here.

What do Canadians think of this gamble - prior to it being played ? See here ...

I like what Historian Michael Bliss has to say about this nonsense.

And finally, my Friend Beaverbrook over at THE MONARCHIST weaves in with his final and potent thoughts.

You will hear more from this old tory later on over the weekend.

Suffice it to say, Harper has really buggered-up this file ...

2006-11-07T10:19:00.000-08:00

In a Foreign Field ...

Most unfortunately, I will be away on our annual Golf Holiday during the Remembrance Day observation. This will be first time that I have not been in either Canada, England, or in Europe during this solemn time (we will observe the Silence however ...).

I have tried to be a little more interactive, inclusive, jocular, and perhaps even ribald lately, but this is one day and one topic I cannot make light of, on, and during ...

Our family lost three men in the Great War and one in the Second War. Remembrance Day has always been observed in my House, and as a Child we left one place setting open at the Supper table for the Fallen.

So once again we honour all those, living and dead, who at the call of Queen, Country and Empire-Commonwealth left all that was dear to them, endured hardness, faced danger, and finally passed out of the sight of men by the path of duty and self-sacrifice, giving up their own lives that others might live in freedom.

Let those who come after see to it that their names be not forgotten.

Update: Terry Kelly video - "A Pittance of Time" (please view ...)

2006-11-02T05:54:00.000-08:00

Plutocrats Unite !

The whole issue of reform of Income Trust allocations & distributions is a tempest in a teapot, and at the very least it shows that the current government - at least in its configuration as a minority - can govern in the national interest when it wants to.

As most of you now, I do not support the current CPC government because I find them insufficiently nationalist, too beholden to the United States - and too partial to the Republic of Alberta.

However, I laud them for this decision. The Dominion government must govern in the national interest. The necessary reform of Income Trust allocations and distributions is most clearly in the national interest. Good on you Mr. Harper !

2006-10-28T20:35:00.000-07:00

Dazed & Confused in Canada

It seems that some people in Canada cannot tell the difference between the NATO-sanctioned war in Afghanistan and the illegal American quest for booty in Iraq.

One confused Woman has stated (according to The Toronto Star):

" ... the Canadian armed forces, government and industry have no place in Afghanistan. It's an illegal war, it's a racist war and it's a greedy war. It should not be happening, plain and simple."

I guess she never heard of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and 9/11. I would also venture that she has never heard of, or read Article 5 of the NATO Treaty of which Canada was a founding signatory.

At any rate, for those of you who are still confused, here is Article 5 of the Treaty:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

All of this is quite simple really; since 9/11 is quite rightly viewed by the NATO membership as an attack on NATO, then NATO has the right to act until such time as the UN Security Council "has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

I for one, am still waiting.

The woman from the Star's article has most obviously confused Afghanistan with Iraq - and for that we can thank Bush, Cheney & Company. The illegal and illogical US operation in Iraq continues to undermine the correct response to the Taliban/Al Qaeda problem in Afghanistan.

Iraq has been, and continues to be, a stupid sideshow that has NOTHING to do with the very legitimate War on Terror.

Update: For now, it appears that saner heads are prevailing.

2006-10-22T08:45:00.000-07:00

Oh-Oh Condi !

This is not going very well at all, is it?

I have to say again that this US Administration is one of the most inept in the modern history of that Nation.

Ms. Rice is probably the worst Foreign Minister they have ever had as well. Do the Republicans really think this woman is made of Presidential stock? She is quite simply, overmatched by her position.

So there will be no Russian support on the Iranian file, as the Russians do not want "regime-change" blood on their hands.

I recall that I predicted that.

Whatever happened to the Coalition of the Willing?

Sorry Ollie ...

2006-10-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

Is Condi establishing a pre-text ?

It sure looks that way doesn't it ?

The US had better be pretty careful here, as China is due to make a power-statement of their own one of these days.

Perhaps the Chinese (in)action over the newest addition to the Atomic Gang is their statement.

I guess all those cheap Chinese goods we bought at Wal-Mart and the like are going to be pretty expensive after all ...

2006-10-17T05:22:00.000-07:00

The North Korea Quandry ...

Kim Jong-il continues on in his Merry Marxist Manner.

Meanwhile, the UN Security Council remains confused over how to confront this latest eruption from Pyongyang.

For an analysis on where the Security Council Members stand on the issue, see here.

As expected, the US will only be receiving "lip-service" support from China and Russia.

Another Fine Mess.

2006-10-12T20:04:00.000-07:00

The neverending mess that is "Bush's War" ...

The fissures are widening now

I guess if Blair will not stand-up for his Country, then Dannatt will.

Good on him. He is quite right you know; the long-range planning for the Iraq occupation was naive. Blair could have interviewed one of the many Arabologists in England in order to procure better guidance and advice. Someone needed to counter the American ignorance on such matters, and it should have been the British Prime Minister.

As well, as much as I think the young Princes should be able to serve in active theatres, I do not believe that potentially sacrificing them for the sake of Bush & Cheney is a particularly noble venture. It is not a good use of their nobility at all.

2006-10-11T06:03:00.000-07:00

A Fine Mess ...

I guess Bush is "Laurel" to Cheney's "Hardy"?

Here is the latest from Pyongyang.

I wonder if the Iranians are taking notes from Kim Jong-il?

One would suspect that Iran will tip-over its nuclear capability as soon as possible to make the point. And one could also suspect that the US will have no regional Allies to help pressure Iran to cease & desist.

"Sorry Ollie" ...

(with apologies to the great Silent Film Stars Laurel & Hardy)

2006-10-10T18:36:00.000-07:00

So North Korea has the Bomb ...

This is not terribly surprising as many in the Foreign Policy sections of the West have been predicting this for some time. The inability to forestall this occurrence is essentially another failure of the Bush Administration.

The geo-political facts of the last seven years have been thus:

* Al Qaeda masterminded the attacks of 9/11 with the full co-operation of the Taliban in Afghanistan;

* Iran and Syria are destabilising forces in the Middle-East;

* Saudi Arabian nationals have been providing financial support to Terror Groups that have been spreading mayhem in the Middle-East and in the West;

* North Korea is a rogue state and a disrupter of the strategic balance in Northern Asia.

Only in the matter of Afghanistan has the US acted/participated (along with NATO) in a meaningful mission to effect positive change. In the case of Iraq, the US Administration is not only "off-message," but off-course as well.

The American misadventure in Iraq has manifested itself completely, and predictably, in the detonation of a Nuclear Device in North Korea. By losing sight of reality and conducting the invasion of Iraq, the US has completely dropped the ball and allowed negative outcomes in almost every one of these cases.

Iraq was a non-factor and represented no threat to the domestic security of the United States and the Western Alliance. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea are threats in various ways - and by various means.

Iran and North Korea are now even more serious problems for the West. Syria and Saudi Arabia are still festering sores on the face of the Globe. Yet, the Bush Administration has not used its position as the lone Superpower to any efficacious end.

And now it appears that China and Russia will do nothing more than register a severe protest at the latest insanity to emerge from Pyongyang. If the USA, so mired in a useless and ill-advised campaign in Iraq, cannot negotiate an application of its will on China and Russia, then perhaps this is the first sign that the US is losing the grip on its hegemonic position across the Globe.

That didn't last long did it?

So much for PNAC ...

Postscript

Here is a nice overview of the US record on the North Korea file.

2006-09-28T05:12:00.000-07:00

"Hoodwinked" - I can't wait to see this ...

I have been waiting for the truth to come out.

I was part of this original battle and left the PC Party over the outcome.

See more here.

I strongly encourage all Loyal Canadians to see this Documentary.

I hate to ever say it is too late, but I really believe that we are at the Eleventh Hour in terms of this crisis. And no matter what else you may say about this, the fact that John Turner (a right-wing Liberal) was the only major politician who took the time to read the FTA, is quite chilling - and quite true.

I was there kids, and it was Mulroney's blind faith in Commerce and Simon Riesman that trumped any concern for Canada and our Sovereignty. It was always my impression that Brian Mulroney had a Quebecker's view of Canadian Sovereignty, and it was this "small-c" cavalier attitude that eventually turned me off. He was just not passionate about Canada. At least not in terms that were traditionally & classically conservative.

And before all you Liberals get indignant about this issue ...

REMEMBER THIS:

Jean Chretien maintained and extended the FTA into a even broader and more comprehensive trade regime. The Liberals - post-Turner - did NOTHING about this.

2006-09-25T04:56:00.000-07:00

The Case for the War in Afghanistan ...

is proven once again here.

Should we really abandon these people to the Taliban ? Which is essentially what the anti-Afghanistan movement wants ...

In a related note, it appears that the Iraq War continues to go badly for the US, which is not surprising as that conflict is NOT about fighting terrorism. Catch the winds of change here.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate things. Canada and New Zealand are right in being in Afghanistan and right again in not participating in Iraq.

2006-09-19T20:28:00.000-07:00

The end of a sad reign ...

The harsh wind from the west is finally abating.

Canada wins relief from bufoonery as of this day ...

I have never seen such strident megalomania in public life, and remember, I was there during the Mulroney years. I can also say that I have never seen one public figure take the credit for something so way beyond his control (the Oil Boom), and milk it over and over and over.

This man was a detriment to national unity and a destroyer of federalism.

No Peter Lougheed he ...

Good Riddance I Say.

2006-09-09T05:28:00.000-07:00

Vindication ! Not that any of us are surprised ...

It appears that the US has finally concluded that Saddam Hussein had NO (I repeat NO ...) ties to Al-Qaeda. Check out the News here

I was a fierce opponent of almost all the things that Jean Chretien did (over his career); yet I supported his decision not to join the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq.

I am for the War on Terror and think that it should be conducted in Afghanistan - and covertly applied against other regimes. I am against the War in Iraq however, and have been since Day One.

ANYONE who knows the politics of the Middle-East knew that Hussein and Al-Qaeda were fundamentally like "oil and water," and that any attempt at linking them was not only preposterous, but an obvious lie as well.

What a waste of men, resources, tactics and strategy. More dangerously, it has created a false link between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the public mind - and THAT could have a deleterious effect on long-term National Security.

2006-09-05T05:43:00.000-07:00

In what WWII Army should you have fought ?

This is a neat quiz.

I scored almost equally for the Polish Army and the British and Commonwealth Armies, with the distinguishing marker being my willingness to fight the enemy even after defeat and occupation - something the Empire would have done, but through God's Grace, never had to actually undertake.

Take the quiz here

And please tell us how you scored.

2006-08-31T05:03:00.000-07:00

The Silencing of the Lambs ...

In the many months leading up to the conclusion of the "Unite the Right" movement in Canadian politics, some Tories created a website called the "Red Tory Council," which was to be a place where Tories could e-congregate and sort out the many, many issues that could arise from the unification of the two parties, or the continuation of a separate PC party.

It is my understanding that the website was an asset of the PC Party, or at least affiliated with it in some official manner, and after unification in December 2003 the website continued as a sort of "ginger group" within the CPC world as an organised voice for Toryism and Red Toryism within the new party.

Sometime in the Summer of 2005, the Red Tory URL directed users to something called "The Conservative Council."

I decided to contact the administrators of the site for an explanation, and here is the correspondence (my real name x'ed out of course ...) :

14/08/05
Sir and/or Madam:

I am a Grantian Tory and not a Harper Conservative, the latter of which is clearly driven by the Americanophile Calgary School of thought. Your organisation is changing the name of our Website. So I ask you: Is this still the "Red Tory Council," or has it been co-opted by the neo-conservatives of the CPC Central Party organization? I would like to become more active in the backrooms of Political Discourse in the Dominion, but I am fundamentally opposed to the neo-conservative agenda.

I am a Canadian and an adherent of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Robert Borden, George Grant, John Farthing, Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Peter Lougheed, and E. Davie Fulton. Do I have a political home anymore ? Is that home here ? Or not ?

Respectfully yours,

xxxxx xxxxx
Manitoba

Here is the reply that I received the next day ...

15/08/05
XXXXX,

Thanks for your feedback. We simply changed the name from Red Tory Council to Conservative Council to show that we welcome input, ideas and suggestions from conservatives from all three legacy parties. Our membership includes former PC, former CA and former Reform supporters. Our agenda is one of moderation, fiscal responsibility, and tolerance on social issues. We believe the party must offer an alternative to Canadians that is not one with any specific ideological or social agenda - but is rather one of inclusion, responsibility and vision.

I hope you'll continue to support our efforts.

Thanks again for your interest.

Rick Peterson
Chair, Conservative Council

Nice "Motherhood" statement eh? Nice load of BS too, I might add. Also note, that good ol' Rick never answered my question, but instead hit me with a piece of platitude plywood.

Now, when you go to http://www.conservativecouncil.ca/ you find a website dedicated to spin in the hope of a Harper majority. They even discuss the idea and merits of privatised healthcare ... among other Harperista dogma.

And when you go to http://www.redtory.ca/ ??? Well try it out for yourself ...

Do you believe in symbolism? I certainly do.

2006-08-28T06:24:00.000-07:00

Hezbollah admits their error ...

Sheik Nasrallah has finally admitted that he made a serious miscalculation regarding Israel here, which only serves to vindicate ATY's position that Israel will use force to send the message that they will not be passive about their continuing right to exist.

I was not correct in my analysis because I am a clairvoyant, but because I understand the history of the Middle-East and can contextualise the position of Israel within that region. Too much of the common liberal/socialist and anti-Israel viewpoint is coloured by a predilection for the normative and a basic and simplistic knee-jerk anti-colonialism.

My ethical construct may be normative, but in terms of security, military and geo-strategic issues we can only analyse and make predictions based on positive reasoning. In the end, I do not eschew empiricism entirely, but merely want to bring it into counterbalance when we make public policy.

On a direct note, it is nice to see that the UN is now taking aim at problems in The Lebanon. It is too bad they are 30 years too late ...

2006-08-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

Beware of Deep Integration with the USA ... (a continuing series)

As if anyone needed to be reminded again of the perils of "deep integration" with the United States, we are given another reason right here.

The whole site is indicative of how pervasive neo-Nazism is in the lower reaches of the American culture. I only draw attention to it in the spirit of "shining light on dark corners."

Any Canadian that shares the views of the site owner (American Bill White) is a traitor to his Queen & Country - and unworthy of sharing citizenship and heritage with the Canadian men and women who sacrificed their all in the fight against Fascism.

2006-08-20T13:18:00.000-07:00

Ron Dart has got it right ...

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=15713

And that is why so many of us real Canadian conservatives do not like Harper and the CPC.

2006-08-16T06:03:00.000-07:00

It's not so simple ...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/16/un-peacekeeping.html

... is it?

2006-08-14T16:48:00.000-07:00

I told You so ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4791125.stm

2006-08-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

A Temporary Solution ...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/13/mideast-sunday.html

Unless the UN mission is permanent, that is.

2006-08-08T18:49:00.000-07:00

An Informed Citizenry ?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS07/608070350/1009

I apologise for the dearth of postings, but I have been on three week's vacation and took my Family to see the Grandparents out West. A fun time was had by all.

As to the subject at hand .... what can anyone say at this point?

The US is a sick culture; and perhaps a terminally ill one at that.

2006-07-15T09:40:00.000-07:00

On the current crisis in the Middle-East ...

... and believe me, it is a crisis. And perhaps one that precedes the beginning of the middle-chapters of this sad story. I would also point to my June 29th Post, as an indication of my prescience on the matter. So please pay attention ...

What we are in fact witnessing is a resolution of the 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 Wars in the region. The collapse of the Bi-Polar World 15 years ago made this inevitable. The existence (and not the rise ... for in fact the USA has been on the wane for 20 years now) of the USA as the only remaining hegemon virtually ensured the current state of events.

(Pearson's Liberals, of course, took the short-view and contributed mightily to the stasis that would lead to many more Wars in the region and bring the West into the matter much more bloodily - and most recently. For this, they gave him the Nobel Prize for Peace. Ironic, eh?)

The Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars were contained only be the existence of bi-polar tension and the necessity of Kennan's Containment Theory of the Cold War.

The biggest mistake the Islamists could have made, was the capture and murder of Russian diplomats in Iraq, for this ensured that the only possible, credible, and unpredictable force of containment - Putin's Russia - is now disinterested in countering the West in The Lebanon and Gaza. In fact, Russia is now actively interested in bringing the Islamists to justice for their crimes. Will Russian Troops now be far behind?

And this in and of itself, ensures that the US and its proxy - Israel - will seek to remake the region into one that is, if not secure, at least stable and neutered. But that eventuality is far from guaranteed, and we are looking at many more months (perhaps years) of incursions, bloodshed, reprisals, and terror.

In the end, the Islamists will lose. But they will lose and be punished severely not because they are evil - but rather more because they are unsophisticated in geo-politics; and that is because they have isolated themselves - spiritually, politically, philosophically, and economically - for too long from world opinion and indeed, the mass of humanity.

The (literally) ignorant always lose in the end.

As it Ever was, and Ever shall be.

2006-06-30T18:44:00.000-07:00

Happy Dominion Day ...

I lived in Hamilton, Ontario for two years when I was in Graduate School - and then one more year after Graduation. I met my Wife there, and it was there that we began our Life together.

There is a great statue of critical National importance outside the Hamilton Court House. I used to visit it quite regularly as it was at a key Bus Transfer point in the City.

Upon this Dominion Day, I think it behooves us all to remember just how and why this Country came into being; and that it grew from the soil of sacrifice of the millions who went before us. Upon their toil we owe our all.

Lest We Forget.

2006-06-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Israel mounting Troops near Gaza ....

Israeli land forces are massed along the border with northern Gaza. Earlier today, eight Palestinian cabinet ministers and 56 other officials of Hamas were rounded up by Israeli soldiers who crossed into the Gaza in the southern sector.

At this point-in-time, I would refer all of you to my post from May 10th entitled "Iran and the United States - 1979 Redux ?"

Tensions in the Middle-East are at an all-time high, and while I hold the United States responsible for mismanagement of the power politics in the region since the 1950's, the fact remains that Canada has no moral choice other than that of supporting NATO allies and Israel at this time. I am on record as far back as 1989-90 in foretelling that the future held nothing of greater peril to International Order & Security than the expansion of what we then called "Islamic" extremism, and what is now more properly referred to as Islamist extremism.

I also find it interesting that Russia is now aggressively in the mix - something that I foresaw back on May 10th. For more see the following:

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N29185600

and now this:

http://english.people.com.cn/200606/30/eng20060630_278698.html

It is going to get much worse before it gets much better, I'm afraid ...

2006-06-25T06:14:00.000-07:00

Some Thoughts at Mid-Year ...

It has been three weeks since my last posting; of course, I have been traveling on business for most of the last three weeks, so I do have an excuse. Nevertheless, I do feel somewhat guilty for not keeping a more regular commitment to my few regular readers. So I apologise. I just wish I had the time to be as prolific as the "other" Red Tory

Having wrote all that, let's review why I even created this Blog in the first place ...

I have seen many changes occur in my beloved Canada during the span of my lifetime. I am only 43, but I was an unusual child in that (1) I was very observant and highly interested in the "News", and (2) I was fundamentally conservative in a fundamentally Canadian way.

I was always a Tory. NOT a liberal. NOT an American-style Republican. NOT a "Market First" thinker. I am and always have been a Tory - but NOT as the sobriquet is used by many between the advent of Brian Mulroney and the rise of Stephen Harper. I instinctively and habitually cleaved to the older tradition, which placed a decided emphasis on the collective and on a national unity powered by adherence to our tradtional civic values, such as the Monarchy and POGG.

This does in no way indicate that I did not participate in the habits, customs, vernacular, and trends of my generation, which is strangely enough, that of Generation X. Those of us born between 1961 and 1971 were both cursed by, and benefited from, the radical social changes of the 1960's. By the 1970's we were the inheritors of an unparalleled amount of individual freedom. As most of Canada was still a relatively safe place then, this meant that we alone had the freedom and security to explore things that maybe we shouldn't have able to test at such a young age. But it was what it was, and it would come to a screeching halt by the late 1980's and mid 1990's - around the time the "Scarborough Rapist" and the "Downtown Eastside" abductions began.

My house was fairly typical for the 1960's. My parent were instinctively conservative. My Father's lineage was decidedly Tory. But they voted solidly for the NDP after Diefenbaker was ousted by what they considered the Bay Street "cabal." Mum and Dad would start to vote for the Progressive Conservatives again in 1974.

The Liberal party was a "swear word" in our house, and for many reasons - most of them dating back to the Second Great War, when Mackenzie King refused to increase Troop levels via Conscription. In my family this was seen as disloyal, cowardly, and unprincipled - which it was. The Liberals were seen as the "continental party" that was seeking to break Canada's ties with the Commonwealth and drive us into closer integration with the USA. This was heresy in our House. They were also the party of radical market economics, which again was seen as anathema to Macdonald's vision for our Dominion. We were not opposed to business in our family, but we were opposed to business at the expense of the Country and the Commonwealth.

We were part of an older tradition. That does not mean we were hostile to social innovation at all, but that such change should fit within a broad set of traditions and customs found in this Country. My parents accepted the necessity of liberalised divorce law, not because they would ever use them, but because they saw the misery inflicted on people who did not have access to such recourse. This is just one of many examples.

The point is, that "real" conservatism is not bound by ideology. It is driven by principles, custom, convention, and tradition in a broad sense. It is not hostile to reform and change, as long as such innovations fit within the political and cultural disposition of the nation. It seeks first the good of the nation. It tends toward the common good. It seeks peace and order. It is not driven by love of lucre, but rather a love of Queen and Country.

It does not seek to amalgamate our Nation with another State, in, and for, the interests of mere economics. The nation does not exist just as a unit of production. It is a collection of like-minded people, first and foremost.

Well, there you have it. A kind of rambling, stream-of-consciousness post - with a point. Draw your own conclusions, as you will. My intent is clear enough. There will be more posts soon enough, and more refined they will be.

2006-06-04T04:38:00.000-07:00

The (alleged) Toronto Terrorists ...

Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto;
Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.;
Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga;
Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga;
Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga;
Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.;
Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston;
Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto;
Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto;
Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur, 25, Toronto;
Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga;
Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga.

... and Five youths who cannot be named under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

That is: 15 out of 17 who are 25 years of age, or younger.

I guess these men are grateful that Canada is a "Cultural Mosaic."

2006-06-03T22:13:00.000-07:00

17 alleged Terrorists arrested in Greater Toronto Area ....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/03/terrorists-georgia.html

THIS is why we are in Afghanistan.

THIS is why we are not in Iraq.

While I do not condone the US War in Iraq, that does not mean I am a pacifist - by any means. The reality is that Islamist extremism is a threat to the Western Civilisation - imperfect as it is. And that threat must be met with a steely resolve.

Having said that, Canada now has to deal with the sad fact that the nihilist values heaped upon the Nation by all Governments since 1968 has become a tangible problem. Around 1968, we seemingly exchanged our British civic values in exchange for a form of American secularism that is/was based on nothing more than moral relativism.

We ceased to be a nation of free and orderly men who pledged allegiance to something greater than the individual (the Crown) , and instead chose to become a nation of materialistic relativists. And then we increased the levels of immigration into the Country. Now, I am not opposed to immigration in any concrete way, but I think that those who come to this Country should sign-on, accept, and live by OUR Civic Values.

Instead, some come here and - allegedly - want to kill us.

And liberals - of all stripes- call THAT progressive ?

2006-05-23T14:33:00.000-07:00

Latest Ipsos-Reid Political Poll

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0cad14a6-eaed-457b-bbb9-3c252bbc355b&k=78274

This finds that the Harper Government is currying great favour with the Canadian electorate. One has to wonder just what conclusions the government and caucus will draw from this positive reaction?

* Will they ascertain that their moderate tone and policy is the reason for the positive response?
* Or will they interpret this as validation and support for the entire policy-book of the CPC?

Rational people would recognise that the former is likely the reason for the nice bump in the numbers.

But are these rational people?

Their reaction to this poll is the first real test of their ability to govern from the broad Canadian centre - which is loyal, moderate, reasonable, and predominantly English-speaking.

My sources in Quebec tell me that the support for Harper is based on two things and two things only: Provincial-Rights and Tax-Relief. The problem here is that Harper can only appease the nationalist Quebecker so much, before he begins to turn-off the Canadian Federalist voter. That just leaves him with tax-relief - which, if he engages in too much, will further weaken federalism in Canada.

Quite a quandary isn't it?

Which is why successful governments in Canada govern from the centre. That is where compromise is to be found.

2006-05-22T07:03:00.000-07:00

Happy Victoria Day !

God Save The Queen! Long May She Reign.

http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=canadaonline&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadianheritage.gc.ca%2Fjubilee%2Fe-biography.htm

2006-05-16T04:38:00.000-07:00

The Militarisation of the Canada-US Border ?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/16/bush-speech-reax.html

There is no doubt that the US has the Right to put Troops at the Border, but it is truly necessary? Again, that decision is up to their government, but one has to one wonder just how desperate the Bush Administration is now after an astonishingly inept six years in Office.

In watching some CNN last night, I heard again (during the phone-in session with Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace) some more balderdash about "19 terrorists having come across the Canadian border." Neither Cooper of Grace corrected the caller with the facts.

So there you have it - the myth that Terrorists crossed the Canadian border into the USA continues to fester within the United States. (The only incident I can recall was in 1999, when authorities caught would-be Islamic terrorist Ahmed Ressam entering at Port Angeles with a trunkload of explosives. That is about two years previous to 9/11. Not one Terrorist associated with 9/11 came in from Canada.)

Again, the US Government can do as it wishes on their side of the border. I do not dispute that right one iota. However, it would be nice to see the Bush administration make a decision based on FACTS, rather than on urban myth, or a political calculus - at least once in a while.

Oh, I forgot, this is the SAME government that invaded Iraq with falsified evidence of WMDs.

2006-05-10T17:46:00.000-07:00

Iran and the United States - "1979 Redux?"

The re-emergence of tensions between Iran and the United States was perhaps inevitable. In reality the tensions never really abated that much, but one can certainly ascertain that the struggles in Iraq have much to do with the current sabre-rattling between the two.

The whole sad situation in the Middle-East is largely an American creation. And not just in terms of the recent events post-9/11. In reality, the maintenance of the Pahlavi regime by Anglo-American, but certainly a mostly American influence, has laid much of the groundwork for today's troubles in the besotted region.

I am generally a staunch supporter of Israel as a beacon of Western Civilisation in the Middle-East, but the tragic reality is the genie was really let out of the bottle (forgive the analogy ...) in 1956. For it was at Suez that the US Government and their Liberal minions in Canada dropped the ball. Had the US and Canada supported the Anglo-French Invasion it is very possible that two things could have evolved: (A) the Canal Zone would either be in Western Hands, or at least in the Hands of the United Nations, or (B) there would have been a region-wide War much earlier in history, that would likely have ended with some form of a Mandated settlement and occupation. Either way, the forces of modernisation and civilisation would have been implanted.

But No. The US and the United Nations beat back the Anglo-French force and put the region into a crisis - borne of isolation from civilising influences. Nasser seemingly won the day, and the forces of Islamist radicalism and nationalism were allowed to fester - thereby plunging the region into potentially greater chaos in 1967 and 1973, the latter year which saw Richard Nixon contemplating the use of Nuclear Arms in defence of Israel.

Six Years after the Yom Kippur War, the Shah's regime went down in flames. Fairly soon thereafter, Iran and Iraq were at War with one another. The United States, with a poor view to the future, again chose to support one of wrong sides and supplied Saddam Hussein with as much support as they could in that War. Of course, Hussein then thought he had a free-hand in the region and would later use that freedom to invade Kuwait. Which was opposed by Who ? The Americans of course ...

This fueled the Iranian flames of hatred for the USA even more, and would provide even more impetus for the Iranians to provide much financial and ideological support for the Palestinians throughout the 1980's & 1990's. This further destabilised the region and forced the Israelis to adopt harsher measures - which in turn fanned more flames of hatred throughout the Islamic world.

This is how we got to 9/11. And I am leaving out many more damning details ...

And now Iran is apparently trying to build a P2 Centrifuge, which can be used to develop Nuclear Weapons capability. Of course the US opposes this - as they must, but the fact remains that this is a bad situation that has been continually mismanaged by the US Government and US Intelligence for close to 60 years.

Could we finally be approaching the "end-game" in the region ? I see that China will no longer stand in the way of the US, with respect to Iran. That just leaves Russia now.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose ...

2006-04-29T23:28:00.000-07:00

John Kenneth Galbraith has died at age 97 ...

The lanky Economist from Iona Station, Ontario has passed from the sight of man. He will surely be seen as one of the Giants of his Time, and he was certainly - for a time in the 1960's and 1970's - the most famous Economist on the planet.

I found myself in general agreement with many of his theories, and most directly came to see the basic wisdom in his assertion that Government, Unions, Consumer Associations, and other collectivities must act - and be allowed and encouraged to act - as a countervailing powers to the overwhelming power of Capital in Democratic and Market-oriented societies. He surely had great difficulty accepting that the erosion of such counterbalances over the last 25 years was wise, or even desirable. History will prove him correct in this regard - but we will pay him his due on that one far too late to save ourselves, I fear. His insights on matters such as consumer sovereignty and political capture are ones that we again, ignore at our own peril.

His life - and his long list of accomplishments - say all that really needs to be said. On the other hand, I did cringe when he talked derisively of his Canadian heritage - something that he was not really very proud of, for the most part. Despite this heritage, he became a quintessentially "American success story" (in the best sense of the term). Could his Canadian background have had anything to do with that? I could only imagine so.

2006-04-01T05:41:00.000-08:00

One more week of Business Travel ....

and then ten straight days at home !

So, time for another Lame-O Quiz.

http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/

I scored as a Centrist. Which is where a Canadian Conservative should be.

2006-03-15T05:56:00.001-08:00

World's Smallest Political Quiz ...

This one suffers from a clear sense of American - or Classical Liberal - bias, but give it a try anyway:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Again, sorry for the lazy post, but I am in the midst of 5 weeks of Business Travel over the next 7 weeks of Life. My Wife is a Saint ! At least I am throwing out (or is it "up?") some content.

(By-the-way, I scored as an unreserved Statist on this quiz. Sheesh, I mean I am a Tory and all, so how can this be a surprise to anyone?)

2006-03-04T18:16:00.000-08:00

Enter the Matrix ...

I have found the "Moral Politics Matrix" to be a much better personal indicator and political axis charting tool than the popular "Political Compass" from few years back. Both evidence an American bias, although the Matrix does so to a lesser extent than the Compass - which is why I like it.

I actually corresponded with one of the Creators of the Matrix (who is a French Graduate Student), and he informed me that Canadian responses that tend toward a more right-wing American-style conservatism seem to come mostly from Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the BC Interior. No surprise there, but he was surprised to see how much more moderate conservative repsondents seem to be east of Saskatchewan. Again, no surprise there - but interesting to note nonetheless.

Why don't you try it?

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home

(Sorry for the lazy posts over the last week, but I have been extremely ill with a virus that became a bronchial infection. I am on low-ebb, and am faced with a ton of backlogged work - and a week-long business trip this week.)

2006-02-27T15:09:00.000-08:00

What Literature Classic are You?

I don't normally find these web-quizzes very accurate, or well-done. As well, how do we know how comprehensive the list of genre used is - deep down in the recesses of the quiz matrix?Having said that, I encourage you to try this one - and do let me know how accurate you found your "answer" to be. nb: I am in no way affiliated with the creator/owner of said quiz.

http://quizilla.com/users/firelite/quizzes/Which%20literature%20classic%20are%20you?

Here is my "answer." I found it to be fairly accurate. Or so I would like to think ...

"You are Umberto Eco: The Name of the Rose. You are a mystery novel dealing with theology, especially with catholic vs liberal issues. You search for wisdom and knowledge endlessly, feeling that learning is essential in life."

Many thanks to http://42yearoldloserorami.blogspot.com/ for bringing it to my attention.

2006-02-25T09:17:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gresham's law

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=19463

George W. Bush has fumbled and stumbled in a very serious way in the War on Terror. He has taken a necessary task - and perhaps doomed it, with his needless foray into Iraq. Of course, this is not a new observation on anyone's part, but it is a timely one for Canada - now that the Canadian Forces have taken-up the overall Command of Allied operations in Kandahar.

The fact that a clear majority of Canadians now seem to oppose the Canadian participation in Afghanistan is due in full part to Bush's incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq. Iraq was NOT part of the Al Qaeda network responsible for 9/11, and in fact, Saddam Hussein's regime was anathema to Bin Laden and the AQ leadership cadre. These are facts.

Because he has undertaken a highly dubious war in Iraq, the entire mission that is the "War on Terror" is now jeopardised. The average Canadian voter was generally supportive of our initial commitment to Afghanistan, but now that the waters have been muddied by the large sideshow in Iraq, they are confusing the two as being part of the whole unjust & sordid package.

But the truth remains: Afghanistan and the Taliban were fully integrated into the AQ network and were providing men, facilities, and safe haven for AQ terrorists. Thus Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the inherent and historic instability of Afghan society are a fair and just target in this War. We need to be there. We need to stay the course.

Canadians were murdered on 9/11. Canadian domestic security is at risk as long as AQ remains intact. We belong in Afghanistan. We also carry our share of the burden of the defence of Western Civilisation in participating in these Operations. Such participation - and even Leadership - is part of the Canadian tradition. We did not shy away from our duty in Flanders in 1914, nor in our obligations to the war against Fascism in 1939. We went to Korea to fight Communist expansionism. We are committed and founding members of NATO.

The war in Iraq is an unjust war - even though Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator in the mode of Joseph Stalin - and was the wrong direction to take after the initial action in Afghanistan. I despise Jean Chretien for many reasons, but he was right to keep us out of the morass in Mesopotamia.

The war in Afghanistan is a just war.

We need to make clear distinctions between the two wars - and quickly.

Bush's stupidity has confused the two actions, and is now endangering the entire mission. This is the most egregious of all of Bush's many blunders. History will judge him harshly on that basis. The Americans will get what they deserve out of all of this. It is just too damn bad that they will drag most of the West down with them.

2006-02-22T15:36:00.000-08:00

Team Canada Loses to the Russians in Ice Hockey

At the end-of-the day, Canadian Hockey fans expect their Olympians to win the Gold Medal in Ice Hockey. Silver and Bronze Medals are okay, but are generally perceived as failure when it comes to the National Game.

Of course, the navel-gazing is about to start, and in fact started 60 seconds after the conclusion of the game. My own contribution to the analysis will be seen by some as trite, but I contend that it is the real story behind the Team's failure to deliver.

We did not include young scoring stars like Sidney Crosby and Eric Staal on the team - something many of us do not quite understand. Team Canada lacked offensive punch, and also seemed to lack the "legs" required to excel on the larger Olympic ice surface. I guess Wayne Gretzky valued experience more so than Youth this time around, but the fact remains that the only way Crosby and Stall could gain the requisite experience would have been to include them on the Squad. They certainly would have provided the scoring punch that this Year's edition so sorely lacked.

Given that Gretzky was once a young scoring phenomenon himself, and was included in the 1981 Canada Cup at the tender age of 20, it astounds me to think that he thought of both of these Players as being too young to be a positive force in the drive for the Gold Medal.

Wayne Gretzky was one of the top five players of all-time, in my opinion, but I think his record as a Manager/Coach is proving to be a mixed one. Not too many Superstars make the grade as Managers/Coaches and I think that the very nature of athletic exceptionalism has something to do with this evolving record.

Kudos to Cindy Klassen however !

2006-02-21T05:50:00.000-08:00

The American Taliban

I picked-up on this link over a year ago, and while it is dangerous to always take statements out of total context, it remains that these statements are so over-the-top whacko that they deserve a public airing from time-to-time.

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

This Fascism in NO WAY should ever be equated with Conservatism.

These people are not conservatives ( and certainly not Tories).

They are neo-fascists.

2006-02-15T19:29:00.000-08:00

Ezra Levant and the "Western Standard"

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/15/western-standard-060215.html

This guy, is not my kind of guy.

Ezra Levant and the "Western Standard" are representative of the worst in Canadian public life - namely, the tendency of some to identify with American civic values rather than with Canadian civic values - in the interests of trying to edge us closer and closer to that republic.

If these types love America so much, then why the f**k don't they just move there?

Levant could not be more of an American neoconservative if he tried. Unless he changed his name to David Frum, that is. The fact is, I support Israel as a bulwark of civilisation and democracy in the Middle-East, so I cannot be accused of anything remotely anti-Semitic, but I have to say that he is not really helping the just Israeli cause in being so radical. And of course that is what he is - a radical.

And let me tell you something friends, you cannot be a conservative and a radical at the same time. If you're radical, fine - just don't call yourself conservative.

I am really quite sick of these neocons high-jacking the name of a political tradition that has existed in England and Canada since the late 17th Century.

My point at the end-of-the-day is not that Ezra Levant does not have the right to publish what he wants, or should live in fear of publishing what he feels he needs to. That is not my issue here at all. Freedom of the Press is just that, and it is more than valuable. It is essential.

What I object to is how tasteless this man and his agenda appear to be.

The fact is, even if some people say such things about Colleen Klein (and I am no fan of Ralph, believe me ...), then just explain this to me:

HOW and WHY is this Considered "NEWS?"

The short answer is merely this: It is not News. It is not meant to be news.

At best, it is merely muckraking; at worst - yellow journalism. It has no redeeming value.

Like his recent publication of the "Allah cartoons" from the Jutland Post, there is no point here - other than to tick people off. Well, I should really reconsider that statement for a second, because I do feel that while he has the right to reproduce the Jutland Post cartoons, he did not do so as an expression of his freedom of speech - but rather more in the interests of fanning the fires of conflict between Judaism and Islam in order to further his neoconservative agenda.

In my opinion, he is a tasteless boor.

2006-02-11T10:22:00.000-08:00

Emulating Nero ...

Canada is a wealthy country, but it is increasingly reliant on US trade & investment for its wealth. Of course this is not a revelation of great discovery, for we all know this to be a fact of our contemporary life. Of course, it was my reservations about increasing free-trade that led me to leave active political life in 1993-4, and since then I have watched Canada become more comfortable - and less sovereign - before my eyes. People like John Manley could not talk about things like "deep integration" back in 1980.

I got to thinking about this the other week when it came to light that Jerry Zucker had purchased the Hudson's Bay Company. I was a loyal Bay shopper in the same way that I always supported Eaton's - and in fact, I was probably more loyal to the Bay, as at least they kept quality goods on the shelf, for the most part.

Consider this:

"After 15 years of free-trade with the United States, fewer than a dozen major, widely held Canadian companies are left listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. More than 10,000 Canadian companies have been taken over by U.S. owners."

from: http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=779

You read that right - 10,000 Canadian Companies.

Perhaps some benefits are not worth the cost.

2006-02-11T00:12:00.000-08:00

On the David Emerson Affair ...

(I have been in Vancouver on business all week, and just arrived back home tonight ...)

The righteous indignation of those clamouring for David Emerson's scalp is pretty discouraging to those of us who understand how the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy functions. Emerson can, and should, cross the floor and join another party - or sit independently - if he feels he needs to.

His mistake - and he did make one here - was in crossing the floor so soon after the General Election. Tradition and Custom in such matters dictates that such a reassignment of party affiliation takes place after at least a month or so, and in the context of some sort of general disagreement within the original (in this case, Liberal ...) caucus. There should be some form of public break with the original party prior to crossing the floor. And of course, by switching parties so readily after the election, he opens himself up to charges of opportunism; and deservedly so I might add, but there is no doubting that he has the right to switch his political allegiance. For you see my friends, in Canada we elect members. We do not, and were never intended, to be casting our votes purely on the basis of party affiliation.

At any rate, the great thing about our system is that he will be held to judgment in the next election, and if he chooses to run in a "safer" seat to avoid facing his current constituents, then it will be up to the Electors of the other riding to decide his fate.

I think many out here have forgotten that we live in a Representative Democracy, and not a Republican Democracy. John Stuart Mill wrote about this very issue, and of course the contrast was drawn between the two forms of modern democracy much earlier, by Edmund Burke.

Here are some snippets of Burkean common-sense as it relates to our form of Parliamentary Democracy:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

"To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to consider. But authoritative instructions, mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest convictions of his judgment and conscience-these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our Constitution."

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest - that of the whole - where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament."

Feel free to replace Bristol with Vancouver-Kingsway ...

I don't like the CPC either, but this is a non-issue, or at most a breathtakingly bad example of poor-timing. To make it more than that, is just ridiculous.

2006-02-05T14:41:00.000-08:00

On Islamic Overreaction, and the Conflict with Modernity

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/05/cartoon-controversy060205.html

I should state up-front that I have a tortured relationship with modernity (I take "modernity" in the Grantian sense ...) which has seen Western man evolve from a social and political being into a mere medium of exchange within a technologically-driven world. Liberalism and technology go hand-in-hand - as it is individualism, a market-orientation, and secular-humanism that has driven us to a mere "existence" in the technological age.

To a large extent, I accept Grant's thesis on modernity, and one of the reasons I do so, is the fact that as a beneficiary of the technological age I have derived benefit from it, and continue to do so - even whilst recognising its inherent and problematic contradictions, and sense of moral chaos. In other words, I come to accept it as it demonstrates a worth that I can live within, and perhaps even thrive in - all while maintaining deep reservations about the very system that provides me with such comfort.

I have long been on record as stating the post-Cold War conflict would be between the Western Democracies and the Islamic world. I first made this connection back in 1990, while still a Graduate Student. With the destruction of the old bi-polar world, I had a strong sense that much of the terrorism I had observed - via the News, since 1970 - was not without a discernible pattern. If one zeroes in on the post-1948 history of Israel, one will see that its history has been one of a people under siege. In 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 Israel was attacked by neighbouring Islamic states. Terrorism has been used against Israel in every year of its existence. Think about that for a moment ...

So in light of all this, I have developed a certain empathy for "both sides of the issue." Or at least I hope that I have. 6,000,000 Jews were exterminated by the Nazis, and 47,000 Canadians died fighting that odious regime. I sympathise with Israel, and although I cannot agree with all of its positions, I respect them as the only working democracy in the Middle-East.

I have tried to have some empathy for Islam, which is - in theory - a very benign and communally-oriented theology. I try to tell myself that Islamo-Fascism is relegated to a minority within the Islamic world, and that this world is not monolithic. I try to accept that - rightly or wrongly - some Islamic people are resentful of their colonisation. I then remind myself that Africa, as a whole, got an even worse deal out of the "scramble for colonies." Despotism in Africa there may be, but the people of that continent do not seem to want to make war on us (not that they could).

So I have spent the last week observing the wild overreaction by many Muslims to the Editorial Cartoons published in the Jutland Post last September; while I can understand the religious sensitivity as regards the public breaking of the tenet on idolatry, I cannot accept, nor can I empathise with, the people who are offended. Especially if one has been exposed to the virulently anti-Semitic cartoons that appear all across the Islamic world.

Be that as it may, there are many things about liberalism and modernity that I do not like. I also derive great benefit from liberal-democracy and modernity. The pact that we all make consciously or not, is simply this:

If you live in a Western liberal democracy, you must subsume your
passions in the name of individualism, and the market.

Liberal-democracies are based on Individual Rights and the primacy of the Individual. Constitutionalism and Market-Economics mandate that we place rationality and exchange on a higher level than spirituality and command.

Hirschman wrote extensively about this in The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. It is one of the best books that I read in Grad School.

for more see: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5996.html

Orthodox Muslims and Islamo-Fascists are fooling themselves if they really think that the West will abide by Islamic mores, just because some of them may take offense. Just how unasimilated some of these groups are, is best indicated by the outrageous violence, property destruction, and ultimately the razing of the Danish Embassy today in the Lebanon.

Or are they fooling themselves?

There is an alternative tendency in the West with regard to the grievances of minority groups, and it has reared its head consistently over the last twenty years. On the one hand, many Western democracies limit the speech of racists, Nazis, Christian Fundamentalists and many other extremist groups, while at the same time placing the agenda of feminists, Homosexuals, atheists, and secularists into a protected status. We have come to label this tendency "political correctness." Much of its intentions are noble - in the liberal sense - as they seek to subsume belief and replace it with rationality, in the name of social peace and order. However, one man's rationality is another man's apostasy. It is the seeming one-sidedness of the PC approach that most angers its detractors. I see this one of the main contradictions of the liberal age.

So, how will the Western democracies respond to what is cleary an overreaction to what - after-all - are merely Political Cartoons? Will the West stand its ground and say that Freedom of Expression is a higher good? Or will the Journalistic organs of the West begin to self-regulate their content, lest they become the target for mass protest and arson? Which West will we be living in - in the aftermath of all of this?

Will the West seek to appease its Islamic citizens, or will it stand on liberal values and demand that they relegate their passions to the private sphere? Upon this issue, believe it or not, may hang the future balance of liberal-democracy itself.

Are we a liberal-democratic or a multi-cultural society? The two are - eventually - mutually exclusive.

2006-01-31T05:49:00.000-08:00

Stephen Harper and the "Noble Lie" ?

Much has been made recently in the Blogworld over Stephen Harper's apparently unprovoked statement that Canada will not cede her claims to Arctic Sovereignty in the face of American policy statements (this time by the US Ambassador to Canada) that stand contrary to those claims.

I lauded this move, and expressed the hope that such sentiments would colour the policies of the new government. Others has suggested that perhaps this was "set-up" for Harper by the US Administration, so that Harper could appear unaffiliated with certain aspects of US Foreign Policy. The argument is that the Bush Administration is so pleased to see a Harper Government in Ottawa, that they will conspire to help-out with the Public Image of that Government on issues of low import to the USA, but of high symbolic value in Canada.

There is perhaps, if not full merit to this accusation, at least a plausible fear empowering such views. Stephen Harper has a lot of atoning to do for his past statements - which place him out of the mainstream in Canadian political life. His many identifications with the US "conservative" movement are offensive to many Canadian Tories and many other Canadians of various political affiliation. Could he be engaging in a classic Straussian "noble lie" strategy? The Bush Administration has proven that they are not afraid to apply this gambit in the short-term.

"AS YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP."

NO TRUER WORDS WERE EVER UTTERED.

He has to earn the trust of the people in this regard, but my real fear here is that he will do so under the aegis and pressure of minority government, but when the times comes and the CPC grabs a clear majority, we may see something different.

The Harper Ministry may act quite differently if given a majority. A perfect example of this was Liberal Party of Canada, which was handed successive & large defeats in 1984 and 1988, and yet found enough within itself between 1993 and 2005 to become perhaps the most arrogant and corrupt government in modern Canadian history - despite their many efforts to paint Mulroney as a sleazy operator. They became that which they supposedly despised.

Majorities change parties. Look what happened to the PCs after 1984. They went from being the party of Canadian nationalism to a continentalist party within three years. It only took them 36 months to turn their back on over 100 years of party tradition and policy.

I personally hope that we have a succession of minority governments for the next few decades. It would keep them all in check. It would prevent radical changes in policy and law. It would best preserve what is left of Canada.

2006-01-29T06:12:00.000-08:00

American "Fascism" and Canadian "Cultural Marxism"?

You simply have to read this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/27/weyrich-harper060127.html

I could not make this up if I tried - I swear it.

American "conservative" Paul Weyrich claims that Stephen Harper is the best antidote to the Canadian malady of "Cultural Marxism."

As someone who has a Degree in Modern Greats, I can tell you that there is no such thing as "Cultural Marxism." Well, that is not quite true, there was one notable movement in modern history that tried to employ such a nonsensical term - and that was the NAZIS.

It is quite a coincidence that this came across the newswire just as I am finishing Richard Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich, for it was the direct aim of the newly-minted NAZI dictatorship in mid-1933 to counter what they termed "Cultural Bolshevism" through their radical policy of Co-ordination - which was merely a technical term for the total absorption of all private organisations into NAZI control. It was means of stifling any sense of privacy and any possible avenue for dissent. It infiltrated every area of German life: Art, Commerce, Sport, Sex, Trade-Unions etc ..... and was the means the regime used to make sure that they had total control of the populace. It was chillingly effective.

And so Weyrich uses this terminology. Should I be drawing any conclusions? How could I possibly avoid doing so?

My Toryism is the kind that values freedom, order, justice, and stability as primary virtues. I stand foursquare with Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, and English-Canadian Tories of the day - who saw that both Fascism and Communism were the greatest threats to western civilisation. I still believe that to be the case.

Bandy about fantasies of "Cultural Marxism" all you want Paul, but don't call it conservatism - for what you are really espousing is FASCISM.

You Sir, are the Enemy.

There I said it. I feel a whole lot better.

2006-01-27T08:02:00.000-08:00

Harper standing-up to the US Ambassador ?

Well, well .... this is interesting.

http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=12719

If he follows through in really defending Canadian interests and sovereignty, then he just may be able to gain the confidence of the people.

I mean, the Liberals were terrible at managing US-relations, taking the US on in immature ways (think Carolyn Parrish ...) , and hiding behind their cloaks over the real issues - such as Softwood Lumber, BSE, and Arctic Sovereignty.

It will be real interesting to see if this Toronto-boy remembers conservatism as it used to be, prior to it falling into the hands of "the Calgary School."

There is some hope folks!

2006-01-24T05:55:00.000-08:00

Minority Government is Good Government ...

... for many reasons; but perhaps the BEST reason this time around, as it will force the CPC to realise that there are benefits to being moderate, and balanced between Nationalism and Continentalism/Internationalism. By bringing some of the more reasonable (and unreasonable) Albertans into the system, they just may learn to accept that Canada is comprised of ten provinces and three territories, and drop the "Alberta First" mentality. Perhaps ...

I did not vote CPC. I could not. As spoiling the ballot is illegal, I held my nose and voted for the Green Party. I can live with that.

Overall, I am glad to see that there will be 24 or so CPC MPs from Ontario and Atlantic Canada - to perhaps act as a moderating influence on the Western radicals. Only time will tell however, for if the CPC cannot get along with Liberals and NDP for very long it may well sink their electoral hopes again.

To you Mr. Harper, I say this:

Congratulations on winning the most seats in the House of Commons. If you are as intelligent as some claim, you will begin to distance yourself from "the Calgary School," and punish radical MPs who stray too far to the Right, or make obviously intemperate remarks. You will realise that most Canadians live in the Loyal Centre of the Political spectrum, and that we do not want to be vassals to the USA, or cut-off from Great Britain, Europe, and the World. We support our Soldiers in Afghanistan, but we do not support the War in Iraq. The two operations have no relevance to each other. While we would like some tax relief, we would also like to know that the Social Safety Net is there to catch those who fall down.

It is time to deliver. It is time to Lead.

We are watching you - closely & carefully.

2006-01-19T14:12:00.000-08:00

"Perhaps the worst election campaign in modern Canadian History ..."

That's what I have to say about the Liberal Party campaign thus far. Don't believe me?

Check this out, hot off the wire:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10605

Paul Martin is just plain inept. He is also paying for the stink of Jean Chretien's corruption.

John Turner's 1984 campaign was not very good, but in reality, the odds were stacked against Turner and the Liberals as the Canadian electorate was tired of the arrogance and stagflation of the Trudeau years. I know - I was there.

Kim Campbell's 1993 campaign was brutal, but she was hung-out to dry by Mulroney. I voted Reform that year, not because I liked those louts, but because I was turned-off by Ms. Campbell and her inability to tell the truth. I know - I was there.

The Liberal's 1958 campaign was akin to Turner's in 1984. The same rationale was in play. I wasn't around for this one, but my Father told me that the final knock-out was a combination of Diefenbaker's hopeful vision married to the electorate's desire to punish Liberal arrogance.

The surprising thing to me, is how composed Stephen Harper has remained in this campaign. When I heard that Mulroney was in the background in the campaign, I suspected that the management of this drama would be undertaken with great care.

My hope for a CPC government is that there are enough Tories & Red Tories elected in Atlantic Canada and Ontario to keep the Alberta radicals in check. That would help me sleep better at night.

As to my voting intentions? I am still struggling with the issue, but since the CPC candidate is so very way ahead in my home riding, I may just stick with my plan to spoil my tender by writing:

"GEORGE PARKIN GRANT"

... across the ballot.

Yeah, that's it.

2006-01-16T09:58:00.000-08:00

How to REALLY Reform the Canadian Parliament

(from someone who really understands how these things work ...)

* reminder:

The Parliament of Canada consists of The Queen, The Senate, and The House of Commons.

There has been much talk of a "democratic deficit" in Canadian politics over the last few years. Unfortunately, most of the analysis and criticism comes from those who have a seemingly low-level of understanding about the nature and benefits of the Westminster model (such as the CPC), or come from groups with a self-interest in radical change (the NDP and the Greens), or come from groups that act on an ad hoc, or contingency, basis (the Liberals). Neither one of these perspectives can lead us to better decisions on the issue of Parliamentary reform.

Herewith, I propose the following three changes:

(A) Increase the number of MPs from 308 to 500 members;

* The parliamentary system works best - and in fact was intended to work - only when the Premier and his/her cabinet can hold the confidence of the House. If the House is too small, or if the Cabinet is too large, then too many members become beholden to the government for their mere existence. This tightens the control of the PMO over the governing party to too great a degree - and the resultant extreme party discipline means that the government controls the House, rather than the House controlling the government.

In our system, the House should determine which party forms the government. Increasing the size of the House would give more power to the MPs and ensure that the Government is responsive to the House, and its elected constituent elements - regardless of party.

(B) Retain the unelected nature of the Senate, but change the number, selection methodology, and apportionment of Senators;

* This is at once a more radical - and yet more traditional way - of reforming the Senate. The problem with the Senate is not that it is an appointed body, but rather the way in which the current number of Senators are appointed and apportioned in the current system. The Canadian system was intended to best mirror the British system, and thus nurture and maintain a different and separate political culture than that created by the the radically- democratic experiment in the USA.

The Canadian system was to be that of a mixed constitution, with a hereditary Monarch, an appointed Senate, and an elected Commons. In this way the Canadian system would be more balanced than the American system. We would have the non-partisan and unifying Crown, an appointed and thoughtful Upper Chamber, and a democratically elected and responsible House of Commons. Each body would balance the other, and ensure that the Dominion would not veer between various extremes in constant conflict (as is the case in the American system) with one another. Everyone who has spent some time on the Hill, knows that the Senate does some really great legislative work; they can act as a chamber of "sober second thought," because they are not constantly facing a fickle electorate. They have time to focus on all proposed legislation, and best ensure that the Common Good is protected.

Having said that, the sad reality is that we have problems with the amount, the selection, and the apportionment of Senators in this Country. Firstly, we now have roughly one Senator for every three MPs. This ratio should be changed. I would reduce the amount of Senators from the 105-109 level currently, down to about 88 in total. This would increase their overall profile, and make it imperative that only the highest quality candidates should be considered.

Secondly, the Prime Minister should not be the one to make recommendations to the Queen's representative as to who should sit in the Senate. That is a conflict-of-interest. I would rather see the Provincial Governments make these recommendations to the Governor-in-Council, via all-party legislative resolutions - in Assembly.

Thirdly, the Senators should be apportioned more equitably, but still on a divisional & regional basis. The West should receive more Senators as their share of the population has increased since the 1950's, but the Senate should not be based on "rep. by pop" considerations, as that is the proper role for the Commons.

All of this would serve to make the Senate more effective, and more fairly & regionally distributed. The appointed nature of the position would keep the Constitution mixed, and enable Senators to take the longer view on legislation - thereby ensuring that we do not live under a tyranny of the majority in Commons. The fact that these Senators would be appointed by all-party resolutions from the Provincial Governments, would mean that the best candidates - who best represent that part of the Division - could take their place as Senator, regardless of party affiliation. Each provincial party could establish lists of candidates for consideration by the Legislative Assemblies. Instead of "party hacks," you would see greater participation of civic-minded business leaders, academics, and other professionals with the talent & desire to serve their Country.

These reforms would create a more representative, professional, non-partisan body that would still follow the original intent of the BNA Act, 1867 - namely, that we in Canada retain "a system of government similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." Why import American concepts of government (radical democracy) when they have been shown to not work effectively? Just because someone is elected doesn't make them virtuous. Let us all remember that Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.

(C) Increase the Pay and Pension Packages for Senators and MPs;

* This is surely to be controversial, but the old adage remains: "If you pay Bananas, you end-up with Monkeys." If we really want to attract the best and brightest to Dominion politics, then we must remunerate them better. Why run for the Commons, when you can make more money and endure less hassle by working as a private citizen? The best stay away from Public Life because it is not worth the aggravation - as currently designed. As well, what of life after politics? Those who enter public life tend to give-up other opportunities in the service of their Country. Imagine sitting as an MP for ten years, losing an election, and then finding out that your public policy positions make you unemployable in the private and public sectors. How do you make a living now? Was your service worth such treatment?

If we want the best to serve, we must pay what the best earn. The Government of Canada is a large operation with a large budget, and we need the best and brightest to manage that operation. It only makes sense.

Three reforms. That is all. All of them retain the best of Canadian constitutional customs and conventions, maintain the mixed constitution, force the government-of-the-day to be accountable, and give the Senate the ability to shape and improve legislation for the Common Good. What could be so bad about all of that?

2006-01-13T06:16:00.000-08:00

The Sad State of Politics in Canada

Between the especially base political ineptitude of Paul Martin, the nasty and negative campaigning, and the air of corruption that emanates from the Liberal Party & and the radical neoconservatism, intemperance of Alberta candidates, and the horror of Stockwell Day emerging as a Senior Cabinet Minister - resides the poor Canadian voter.

Canadian political life is now dominated by special interests and ideologues of all stripes. The people have lost so much faith in the process, that the actual "best & brightest" shy-away from public service. As someone who was heavily involved with the PC Party for many years, I can confirm that party nominations in the various constituencies are entirely manipulated and controlled by money, money, money. I am not going to give real-life examples, but suffice it to say: I have personally witnessed it on many occasions.

Ideas and character do not matter. If you are a candidate, you merely spend what you need in order to sign-up enough people to party memberships to ensure that there will be enough "members" - to vote you in as the local Federal or Provincial candidate. The "members" typically disappear off the membership roll soon after the nomination election. You see, at that point there is nobody to pay their Membership Fee - until the next pre-election nomination contest, that is ...

This pattern of behaviour is replicated in all of the major party riding associations. It is a poorly-kept secret. When a local association really messes-up, the Party Leader usually steps-in and appoints his/her personal candidate. This is the only, and very poor, check on the nomination of defective candidates. It is used only sparingly, and is controversial - as we have all seen.

But there needs to be a check, I think. We may be nearing the day when it makes sense for Elections Canada to manage Riding Associations in the public interest. I read an Ed-Op in the National Post the other day that advocated this course of action, and I must say: I agree.

2006-01-09T20:40:00.000-08:00

Desperation Notwithstanding, Paul Martin has lost it (again) ...

Now he wants to change the Constitution by rescinding Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - which was proposed at the time of the protracted negotiations between Pierre Trudeau and the Premiers of the Provinces prior to repatriation, because there were still Tories and Social Democrats in Canada who believed in Parliamentary Supremacy ... aka "Democracy."

The Clause was seen as a compromise between those for, and those against an entrenched Charter of Rights. Those that believed in the supremacy of parliament were very distrustful of entrenching American-style "rights" into Canadian Law, because it would very likely lead to rule by judiciary - which is what has generally happened. As well, there was a real fear that MPs would refuse to deal with contentious issues, in the hope that the Courts would settle the issue - thereby handing legislative power to the High Court. Again, this is what has happened. The Charter has essentially abrogated democracy in this Nation.

Section 33 is critically important, and central, to not only the idea of parliamentary government, but to the idea of Canada as well. Remember people, this nation was founded by those who rejected the American Revolution - and rejected the idea of abstract rights and theories as they felt that such things would be precursors to instability, discord and disharmony.

If, in a moment of rash trendiness, the Courts read a new "right" into Canadian Law, the "notwithstanding clause" is the only means of overriding the "right" until such time as parliament, public opinion, and sober second thought can come to terms with it - or democratically rescind the "right" if the Communities (Commons) feels that the Judiciary has gone too far in establishing such a right. It is a communal check on the power of the Courts to act as the final legislator of Canadian Law. It is a check against radicalism.

Section 33 ensures that the will of people can be heard (via the Commons) and that numerical minorities cannot rule over the numerical majority. It balances the rule of the majority and the rule of the minority, so that we have laws that are moderate, and established in accordance with the common values of the people in this Dominion.

So, Martin wants to eradicate this important check on the rule of the judiciary.

I guess he is not a very good democrat after-all ...

Does he really believe the nonsense that he spews?

Does he have any conception of Canada other than that of "America-Lite?"

I guess if you consider who his Father was, then you have your answer.

He is a demagogue of the first order.

Speaking first, thinking later.

2006-01-06T10:00:00.000-08:00

How the CPC could win the election, and what it would really mean ...

As we head into the last two weeks, or so, of the Dominion Election, it appears that the CPC is now in the lead - according to some new opinion polls.

I would remind everyone that these polls have to be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt," as this Nations' politics are now highly regionalised. If the Conservatives have 36% support, then how much of that is massed in Alberta? If the CPC gets 60% of the total Alberta vote, that skews the national ordering of support, etc & etc .... We should be careful about reading a lot into them.

Regional polls are a better way of hacking into the current trends. Leger Marketing usually does a good job of this. They have released their polling data today, and show the CPC at 34% and the Liberals at 32% - a statistical dead heat.

http://www.legermarketing.com/eng/

Leger Marketing also notes that:

"Nearly one-third of those surveyed said they might still change their minds before Jan. 23, with the Prairies, Atlantic Canada and B.C. registering the most volatility."

The survey reveals CPC strength in MB, SK & AB.

It reveals tights races in ONT, BC & Atlantic Canada.

It reveals BQ dominance in QC.

What this is really showing us is that nothing has changed from the last election, save for the fact that the CPC is now being considered more favourably in Ontario and Atlantic Canada than it was last time around.

The end-result appears to be either a Liberal or CPC Minority Government - unless some new scandal or innovative policy serves to cause an uproar in Ontario, BC, or the Atlantic region.

What does this mean for Canada ?

What this means for the nation, is that some large voting blocs appear to identify more with the region they live in, than with the Federation as a whole. While this is not a new revelation, it appears to be more entrenched now than in the early 1990's.

The lines of demarcation are in Quebec and Alberta.

Quebec seems to believe that the best way to represent the community is via a nationalist party. Alberta seems to believe that the best way to represent the community is via a radical "provincial-rights" party. The rest of Canada - including the large bloc of voters in Ontario and BC are confused: Should they support a "Federalist party" or a "Provincial-rights party" ?

Over 100 years ago the party positions were reversed; Macdonald and the conservatives were propounding and defending a centralised Federation, and the liberal forces (such as Joseph Howe & Oliver Mowat) were advocating greater provincial autonomy. Such forces were in tension then - and it appears - they are in tension now.

This is the central fact & quandary in Canadian political culture. Are we Federalists who believe in a strong Nation and National Government, or are we provincialists, who seek only enough central authority to ensure domestic security? Or are we both?

I - for one - am a Sir John A. Macdonald Tory. This is why I cannot vote for the CPC. Their policies and inclinations are not sufficiently federalist enough for me. However, the Liberal party is the destroyer of Canadian nationalism - even though they have stronger Federalist credentials over the last 25 years. I cannot support them. The NDP are opposed to the traditions and institutions that have made Canada great. So much for them. The Greens appear too equalitarian for me. Good-bye to all that ...

The central conclusions are thus:

* Paul Martin is a poor leader for a Federal party. While some give him kudos for his work as MoF in the 1990's, the reality is that he is non-charismatic, a poor extemporaneous (or otherwise ...) speaker, and a bit of a political "stumblebum." As the Liberals did in 1957, he is carrying the baggage of corruption behind him as well;

* There is no longer a Federal Political party that can be considered a truly "National party;"

* The Liberals are about to learn that they did not win all those elections since 1993, but that they benefited from the regionalism of Canada in general, and the regionalism of Conservative values in particular;

* Alberta (and the Prairies south & west of Winnipeg ...) conservatism is classical liberalism of the American variety, supported by single-issue pressure groups, such as Western separatists, the gun lobby, anti-Wheat Board radicals, republicans, and US-style evangelical Christians;

* BC conservatism (such as it is ...) is badly split between American-style republicanism and Canadian loyalism (E. Davie Fulton must be turning over in his grave ...) ;

* Ontario conservatives are generally Red Tories being turned-off by both parties, holding their noses, and voting for the local candidate;

* Atlantic conservatives are voting for the local candidate - almost exclusively.

The next parliament is going to be a mess.

2005-12-31T20:41:00.000-08:00

The Latest "Free Dominion" Debacle ...

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=7f65d11d-f37b-4a33-a3d7-f911a50fb088&k=52072

Here we go again ! The John Birch Society (North) is at it again.

As if real Tories need even more reasons to not vote for the republican CPC ...

We now have the sad spectacle of Alberata Separatism rearing its very ugly head within that political party. This merely confirms what I have been detailing all along: The CPC is basically nothing more than the Reform Party, reconstituted. It is not representative of anything remotely - and traditionally - conservative in the Dominion.

It is controlled by the Americanophile "Calgary School" and an Alberta Legion of Festering Rednecks (ALFR) - most of whom have never been east of Saskatoon, I would venture. They have nothing in common with traditional Canadian Toryism, and are more dangerous in my opinion, than even the NDP. (Western separatists are merely the "flip-side of the same coin" as Quebec separatists, and this sad episode again proves the point. Both are enemies of the Federation - and traitors to their Queen and Country.)

The fact that Gordon Stamp was Peter Goldring's Campaign Manager speaks volumes about the company the Alberta Reformers keep - and keep too close, apparently. It is one thing if this person's neanderthal-like political musings came from the cake-hole of a low-level party functionary; but it is quite another thing entirely, if they come from someone in a high position of trust within the local party organisation.

This is quite another thing entirely.

Of course, Goldring and the CPC will point to the fact that Stamp has been rusticated and/or has resigned, as proof that the party will not put-up with such sentiments. Those of us with a long history in Conservative politics know better. This is the tip of the iceberg ...

2005-12-26T13:54:00.000-08:00

Quotes proving that Stephen Harper is not a Canadian Conservative:

(thus providing me with further reasons to not vote for his Party ...)

"Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it."

* I told you he wasn't a Tory;

"I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome."

* Where is his proof for this statement?

"Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country."

* It trails the Country simply because it is sparsely populated and has not won the Carbon-Lottery, in widespread fashion. I guess we should just abandon the unlucky blighters eh ?

"But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people."

* Liberatarian ideology is an amalgam of French and American anarchist theory - it is foreign to Canada, and is dangerous to the Common Good;

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."

* I contend that we are a Nation of the First-Rank. In 2005, the UN and OECD agreed. Stephen doesn't like facts that get in the way of making us the 51st State;

"In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass."

* He shows good instincts for the National Mood - again;

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."

* Where would he have stood in 1911?

"I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it."

* He is proud of his Country, ain't he?

"It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. "

* He believes US propaganda and seemingly, would send Canadian Soldiers to die for it;

"On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction."

* He reads from the same Prayer-Book as "Dubya";

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters."

* I detested Jean Chretien more than most, but he was right about Iraq;

"I will strive to make this not the highest-spending country in the world, but instead the lowest taxing one."

* What about our obligations to our fellow Countrymen? Isn't that more important than reducing our quality of life to below that of the United States ? And one more thing Stephen: Equalisation is enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982;

"It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

* Tories were the creators of a centralised Federal System. I guess Harper is an "Oliver Mowat Conservative" which is a non sequitur, as Mowat was a Liberal;

"The nature of our constitution is that everyone is supposed to be able to do their own thing in their own area of jurisdiction."

* No - the nature of the Canadian Consitution is that the Dominion has a "Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" and that it is "... lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order and good Government of Canada";

"There is a Canadian culture that is in some ways unique to Canada, but I don't think Canadian culture coincides neatly with borders. "

* What does this mean? I would guess that he would not defend Canadian culture in a trade-dispute with the United States? What about water that courses its way outside of our Borders? hmmmmmmmm?

"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."

* This would appear to be anathema to traditional Conservative thought on the Constitution and Canadian Federalism;

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."

* I was born, raised and lived in Ontario until 1995. I now live in the West. I don't live in a ghetto. And what exactly is western Canadian society? I live in Canada - purely and simply. When I travel this land, I am constantly amazed by the similarity in values from East to West (with the exception of Quebecois' language policy ...) - with the lone exception of those who want us to become Americans !

2005-12-24T07:48:00.000-08:00

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them:

"Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David - a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

2005-12-16T05:01:00.000-08:00

re: Dominion Election Campaign and Issues

Does ANYONE remember this Man ?

Does anyone recall what he created?

Does anyone recall what his principles stood for?

Does anyone care?

Has anyone under 40 even been taught any Canadian History?

Or are they all too busy reading People Magazine or the (US) National Review?

"A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the 'veiled treason' which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance." Sir John A. Macdonald, 1891.

2005-12-15T06:09:00.000-08:00

More reasons why I will not tolerate Stephen Harper as Prime Minister ...

see this link about his latest contempt for Canada:

http://www.liberal.ca/images/dir/PDFs/harper_speech_txt_only.pdf

Will this man ever convey a Love of Country to the electorate?

We have shown evidence of many good qualities over our History.

* Loyalty to the Crown and Empire - despite much privation - in the face of American republicanism;

* Carving a Great Nation out an utter and sheer wilderness;

* Construction of a "Ribbon of Steel" through the barrens to unite this Dominion;

* The incorporation of more territory in building the second largest country on earth;

* Innovative use of tariffs to build an industrial economy;

* Imperial Glory-in-Arms in South-Africa;

* Uncommon, and many times - untold, Deeds of Valour at Ypres, the Somme, Vimy Ridge, and "the Last 100 Days;"

* Imperial Leadership on many occasions, culminating in the Statute of Westminster;

* Superhuman Courage and Sacrifice in fighting alone with the Empire, and eventually defeating both Hitlerism and Japanese militarism;

* Co-founding both the United Nations and NATO;

* Building a tolerant, wealthy, and generous nation in the aftermath of War;

* Scoring high in the UN Human Development Index on a consistent basis;

* Eradicating the deficit and paying down our National debt in the 1990's - and beyond.

THESE are just some of the things that I am proud of Canada for doing.

I LOVE my Country and would DIE for it.

I Honour and respect Her Majesty the Queen - Our most gracious Lord and Sovereign.

I admire and respect my Countrymen.

I honour and salute the sacrifices of my Ancestors, Grandparents, and Parents.

THEY built this Canada. It is my inheritance. I shall defend Her. I will respect Her.

Stephen Harper evidences none of this respect, or appreciation.

He loves America, and that inhumane liberalism they call their "conservatism."

He will not get my Vote.

2005-12-12T13:17:00.000-08:00

Paul Martin and the Olde Liberal Party "Game" of Obfuscation ...

Recently, the sitting Prime Minister has been plying the old Liberal trade of obfuscation. Oxford defines obfuscate as communicating in a way "to make unclear or unintelligible."I would argue that the Liberal Party of Canada has used this tactic consistently, and throughout its History.

Reciprocity. The War in South Africa. Reciprocity again. Conscription. King-Byng Affair. Empire Free-Trade. The Great Depression. The Second World War. Conscription again. Welfare State. Korean War. The Pipeline Debate. The Nuclear Arms Crisis of 1963. The Flag Debate. Canada Health Act. Economic Nationalism. The FLQ Crisis. Wage & Price Controls. The National Economic Policy. The farewell Peace Crusade of Pierre Trudeau. The Liberal Manifesto of 1993. Daycare Policy. The repeal of the GST. The Gun Registry.

And now we have - Daycare Policy, Handgun Bans, and the Kyoto Protocol! On most issues of National importance, the Liberal Party obfuscates. The lean right and/or left, or both ways - if they can slice and serve it that way, and get away with it.

Mackenzie King - which was a swear word in our House - summed up the Liberal method perfectly when in talking about the possibility of Conscription in the Second War he said:

"Conscription if Necessary, but not Necessarily Conscription"

This constant tweaking of the language in order to confuse the people, is undertaken for one reason only - to give the Party sufficient "wiggle-room" in case they have to back-track on an election promise. Case in point: Daycare Policy. The Liberal Redbook of 1993 promised that a Liberal Federal Government would fund up to 150,000 new Daycare spaces across Canada. Of course this never happened, and it is a real point of debate for all of us, as to how it should happen. (There can be no debate that the issue is real, pressing, and cause for concern ...) . Apprarently, it is now on the front-burner. Sure Paul ...

Another case in point - repeal of the GST. Pledged in 1993, yet nothing has happened in 12 years of Liberal Government. We can debate whether or not repealing the GST is foolhardy or wise all we want, but the fact remains that the Liberals pledged to repeal the consumption tax, and the fact further remains that they did not repeal the tax. No explanations were given, but they sure liked to crow about all their budgetary surpluses didn't they?

And now we have the issue of handguns. Paul Martin says that a Liberal Government would ban handguns in Canada. What could this possibly accomplish? The fact that 90% of all handguns used in Crime are sourced illegally, and often from the United States, would mean that such a ban would not only be ineffective - but illogical as well. Ban handguns in Canada all you want Paul, but that would not mean any reduction in handgun crime. Better to press the Americans for better gun control on their side of the border, better inderdiction of the smuggling of US arms into this Dominion, and tougher measures and sentences for those who use handguns in the commission of crime in Canada. That could work, eh?!

But there are votes to be had - via such obfuscation - in the urban Tornonto and "905 Belt," isn't there Paul?

Better to make misleading promises, fracture the electorate over single-issue policies, and count on the Stephen Harper and the CPC to fumble in English-Canada, than to defend the indefensible (the Sponsorhip Scandal) in Quebec. If we had better alternatives, we could make the Liberals pay for all the obfuscation. But we don't have better choices do we?

Vote Conservative (they are not Tories ...) and watch them give everything to the Americans?

Vote NDP, and watch the Special Interests & Radicals take over?

Vote Bloq Quebecois, and watch nothing happen?

Vote Green and ?

(The most tragic thing I have seen in my life in politics was the mess the Brian Mulroney made of the Conservative Party between 1984 and 1993. By not facing the electorate in 1993, he left the Party to twist in the wind. Not only that, he single-handedly allowed for the rise of the Reform Party, and fed it all kinds of fertilizer in its early years. In the end, the Conservative vote was fractured in Canada, the neconservatives (neoliberals proper...) were empowered to feed on the carrion he left behind, and the Liberals were handed an extra eight years in power. The Liberals did not win these elections. The necoservatives handed them to the Liberals. Only a Tory party could win them, and the neocons ensured that it could not breathe.)

Despite all of this, the Liberals continue on with their obfuscations and arrogance. Now Liberal spokseman Scott Reid has offended everyone in taking-on Harper's useless daycare tax concession. That Harper's plan is insufficient to help deal with the real issue that the provision of Daycare represents, is beyond debate; that Reid's attempt at confusing the issue was inelegantly handled, is also beyond question. Inelegantly handled on purpose, I submit, which has handed the issue over to Harper and the CPC - who do not care a wit about this pressing issue that affects millions of Canadians on a daily basis. The CPC is now distracted by this sideshow. They cannot get "on message" now, because the Liberals have succeeded in blurring the issue into a melange of confusion.

See how it works?

The dangerous thing about all of this, is the fact that Paul Martin has now scored points with the electorate over Kyoto, painting Harper and the CPC into a corner on the issue; on one hand, Harper can back the Protocol and support the Canadian position as it stands (unlikely, as he is beholden to "Big Oil"), or he can defend the Bush administration (as he did blindly & foolishly on the Iraq War) - and appear once again as "bootlick" to America. In the course of all of this obfuscation, we move further and further away from dreams of Liberal accountability for the Sponsorship debacle.

In achieving this, the Liberals have now guaranteed that the issue starts to move away from the Sponsorship Scandal, and toward single-issue policies; amongst them: Daycare, handguns, and the Kyoto Accord.

More are coming, I am sure.

Obfuscate on!

2005-11-30T14:02:00.000-08:00

Who Will Speak for Canada ?

Now that we are in the throes of a Winter Election Campaign, the question begs an answer.

The Liberals are the Party of Economic Continentalism, par excellence:
- they play with Nationalism when it suits their agenda
- they are lukewarm to the Commonwealth
- they are the Party of Moral & Political Relativism
- they are obsessed with Power, for Power's sake

I guess that rules them out ...

The Conservatives (such as they "call" themselves ...) have been taken OVER by the Continentalists, and are for greater and deeper integration with the USA:
- their leaders are lukewarm to Canadian traditions and institutions (Monarchy, CBC etc ...)
- they are manipulated via Harper and his "Calgary School" sell-outs
(see: http://wrf.ca/comment/article.cfm?ID=137)
- they are hypnotised by Free-Market ideology

I guess that rules them out ...

The New Democrats are Socialists:
- they hate Canadian traditions and institutions (Monarchy, the Armed Services etc ...)
- they propagate class warfare and envy
- the live for racial identity politics
- they are blinkered by Socialist ideology

I never saw them as an alternative anyway.

Perhaps the Progressive Canadian Party (see link to the right side of page) is the one we should all be taking a second look at. I have never heard of their Leaders and Leadership. I don't know if David Orchard is affiliated with them. All I know about them, is that they are Tories who do not like Harper's CPC, and the Calgary School. They are seemingly moderate about Canada's many policy options. They seem respectful of our Customs and Traditions.

They tried to register the name "Tory Party" with Elections Canada, but EC thought that it would confuse too many voters. How allowing the CPC a claim to the term Tory, when they are most obviously not Tories seems more confusing to me, than allowing a reassignation of the name/term.

Hopefully, they will gain some publicity in this election. Hopefully, they are the "real-deal." It would be nice to be able to vote for Candidates who speak for Canada - and her Traditions.

2005-11-26T09:49:00.000-08:00

I see that Stephen Harper - leader of the neoconservative CPC has accused the Governing Liberal Party of having ties to Organised Crime.

Dear Reader: I, like most Canadians am appalled and ashamed at what has happened with the Sponsorship Scandal in Quebec. Further, I find it entirely believable that Jean Chretien was involved to some degree in the Scandal. I have never liked Chretien, and found him to be an old Pol of the "Machine" type. I won't be surprised if he is fingered as the author (explicit or implicit...) of the whole mess.

So, none of that surprised me.

What does continually surprise me is how radical and extreme Stephen Harper appears to be. Through his words, actions, and pratfalls I find him to be most distasteful and vulgar.

In my opinion, he is NOT a gentleman.

And I expect the leader of a "conservative party" to be one.

By using this smear in the House of Commons, we can now see that Harper is not a man of magnanimity, moderation, or honour. Inferring ties to Organised Crime when they cannot be proven is not only unfair, but a smear on all Canadians of Honour and Good Faith who support the Liberal Party. I have never voted Liberal in my life, and I opposed most of the Trudeau Policies with every fibre of my being, but I would NEVER support the use of such McCarthyite smear on anyone - even the Liberal Party of Canada.

Yet another example of how the CPC is not "conservative."

It certainly isn't a Tory Party anymore.

They have no hope of recalling the Tories back into supporting them in the next Dominion Election. We do not like the man, his carriage, or his neoconservatism.

Some will Vote Liberal. Some NDP. As for me and my House, I am at a Loss.

2005-11-12T05:11:00.000-08:00

"The Old Flag. The Old Policy. The Old Leader."
Conservative Election Platform, 1891.

November 12-21, 2005

I am off to the heartland of Neoconservatism, or really, let's just admit it, Liberalism (in its truest sense and meaning) - the US Southeast.

Why would I venture into such philosophically hostile territory?

Well the answer is simple: It is time for the annual Golf Tournament.

Every Year we pack-up 6-10 men of varying age and skill and head down to South Carolina for four rounds of golf and low-stakes golf wagering.

Now, before I come under charge that I am a hypocrite for traveling to the USA, let me remind all that I am NOT anti-American.

I am Pro-Canadian, in the most historically-correct sense of that term.

I place my Country's needs and desires ahead of the USA's.

I just wish that the larger part of modern Canadian Neoconservatives would do the same ...

The American people are basically decent people - although more than a tad bit misinformed, and kept that way by their mass commercial media.

They have some nice Golf Courses too.

Aeneas the Younger

"A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the 'veiled treason' which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance."
Sir John A. Macdonald, 1891.

2005-11-10T18:32:00.000-08:00

Remembrance Day, 2005

For all of my Life, my heroes were the Soldiers of the British Empire - and particularly, the Men & Women of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in both The Great War and the Second World War.

Four of my Kin Passed from the Sight of Man and into Glory in these two Wars. We have never forgotten them, and every Remembrance Day we Honour their Memory.

While it is true that they died for Peace and Freedom, it is also a fact of their Lives, that they died in direct service of King, Country & Empire as well.

These were the Men and Women who built modern Canada. These were the people who gave their all to keep Canada TRUE, NORTH, STRONG & FREE.

They were not Americans. They were Canadians - and proudly So. They fought the King's enemies, and engaged the foe a total of 5.5 years (in both Wars) before the Americans saw fit to rise to the defence of Civilisation.

All served Honourably.

Some were wasted in reckless charges. Some were sacrificed prematurely for the greater good. Some never felt death envelop them. Some suffered grievously, before they were called to Eternal Rest. Some demonstrated Uncommon Valour in the face of grave danger. Others were found wanting in that Department.

All served Honourably.

They were true Canadians - and We shall never see their Like again.

For the Fallen

With proud thanksgiving, a Mother for her Children,
England mourns for her Dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

2005-11-06T07:45:00.000-08:00

Today's Top Story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4412316.stm

The reality of Life in Western Nations is sometimes too much for Immigrant Communities - lured to the West in the hope of a better life, only to discover that they are a new pool of cheap labour for the ravenous marketplace. While markets are a very good mechanism for the pricing and distribution of goods & services, they do not make for a very good social system. (This recognition and understanding is what separates the true Conservative from the Neo-Conservative.)

Thus, when people themselves are reduced to mere commodities, is there any surprise they they do not like it? Why are we continually surprised?

And yet - and yet, we continually seek to trade-away Jobs that people need to places like China, where living wages are not part of the deal. We eliminate positions in Our Nation, and drive down the wages in Others - all so we can "save" 10% on purchases by shopping at Wal-Mart.

Do we really expect that people will accept and resign themselves to their status as mere "commodities?"

We have all been put on notice ...

Is anybody listening?

2005-11-05T15:20:00.000-08:00

Latest Economic News:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BB6DAAD98-AE2C-4A9A-A183-DCCCE28418F8%7D&siteid=google

It appears that the new American drive for hegemony in Central and South America is "hitting the wall." I would suspect that entering into a Trade Pact with a hegemon who refuses to play by the rules - and treat trading partners fairly, just may have something to do with the refusal to knuckle under ?

The Bush Administration really needs to consider something other than pure, naked self-interest from time-to-time, if they truly wish to rebuild the image of America across the Globe.

It appears that Canada's Premier, Paul Martin - is taking the correct stance vis-a-vis Bush and "Unfair Free Trade" in the last few weeks, and more so as of today:

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/11/05/1293364-sun.html

Does he have the intestinal fortitude to "stick it out ?"

2005-11-05T14:14:00.000-08:00

This new weblog - under construction - will strive to provoke discussion on the subject of traditional English-Canadian Nationalism, whether it be grounded in the Tory, Liberal, or Social-Democratic tradition; further, this weblog will seek out dialogue with those English-Canadian Nationalists who "seek a better Country," and who desire a better fate than the current subjugation within the New American Empire. It will also opine on the issues of the day - Political, Economic, Cultural - Domestic and International.

I seek the attention of traditional Canadian (red or blue) Tories, and not the Neo-Conservatives of Stephen Harper - and the so-called "Calgary School." They are anathema to me, and my fellow Tories and Nationalists. I welcome moderate Nationalists from the Liberal and Social-Democratic camps. Fascists and Communists are not welcome here ...

The inspiration and muse for this site is the late George Parkin Grant - most famously the author of that seminal work: Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism.

Other heroes in our pantheon are Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Robert Borden, Harold Adams Innis, Donald Creighton, John Farthing, E. Davie Fulton, The Rt. Honourable Robert Stanfield, and at times, the late Rt. Honourable John G. Diefenbaker.

With great love and admiration for Richard Hooker, William Pitt the Elder & William Pitt the Younger, William Wilberforce, Edmund Burke, the First, Third & Seventh Earls of Shaftesbury, Robert Peel, Benjamin Disraeli, Sir Winston Churchill, The First Earl of Stockton, and Michael Oakeshott. In and through them, we will remember a different, and much more humane conservatism than that emanating from the bowels of contemporary Washington, DC.

David Frum would be well-advised to stay away from here. The rest of you are quite welcome.