Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Ambassadorial progress
For anyone planning a career in leading a country (and I know there are so many of you out there), here's a tip: when you're appointing an ambassador, make sure it's someone who doesn't hate the government in the country you're sending him to!
It might sound simple, but whoever picked Frank McKenna as Canada's ambassador to the US obviously hadn't picked that one up. Oh, McKenna wasn't that bad, I suppose, but it may not be a good idea to call a foreign government "dysfunctional" if you're going to be working with them.
But McKenna's gone, and in his place we now have Michael Wilson, a man who helped negotiate the FTA with Ronald Reagan and had quite a good relationship with George H.W. Bush. This is a man who knows what he's doing in dealing with Washington.
On another ambassadorial note, Allan Rock has been fired as our representative in the United Nations. If you weren't aware, Rock's past accomplishments include imagining the two billion-dollar monument to stupidity we commonly refer to as the gun registry. He's also one of these types that think we all need to be nice and friendly to the authoritarian regimes of the world, which I suppose made him popular at the UN, but didn't exactly demonstrate an excess of principles.
And I know somebody's probably going to say that we should just get out of the UN altogether, but I'm more of the opinion that if it's going to be there, I'd rather be on the inside than not.
It might sound simple, but whoever picked Frank McKenna as Canada's ambassador to the US obviously hadn't picked that one up. Oh, McKenna wasn't that bad, I suppose, but it may not be a good idea to call a foreign government "dysfunctional" if you're going to be working with them.
But McKenna's gone, and in his place we now have Michael Wilson, a man who helped negotiate the FTA with Ronald Reagan and had quite a good relationship with George H.W. Bush. This is a man who knows what he's doing in dealing with Washington.
On another ambassadorial note, Allan Rock has been fired as our representative in the United Nations. If you weren't aware, Rock's past accomplishments include imagining the two billion-dollar monument to stupidity we commonly refer to as the gun registry. He's also one of these types that think we all need to be nice and friendly to the authoritarian regimes of the world, which I suppose made him popular at the UN, but didn't exactly demonstrate an excess of principles.
And I know somebody's probably going to say that we should just get out of the UN altogether, but I'm more of the opinion that if it's going to be there, I'd rather be on the inside than not.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
It's that time of every-two-years again
I feel compelled to say something about the Olypmics, so here it is: I can't stand them. I've never been a sports fan, I'll admit, but it's more than that. It's the fact that these games, which are supposed to foster international goodwill, are in fact just a biannual opportunity for the various countries of the world to get together at the coliseum, send in the gladiators, and sit back in the stands arguing with each other while the bloodsport continues. Or sometimes, the spectators get into bloodsport while the athletes keep it civil. Just depends on the year.
Take, for example, the recent outrage over the fact that a Canadian athlete won a medal under the Aussie banner. Another example of Canadian nationalism taken to one of its more ridiculous extremes. If the Aussies needed a skier, and Dale Begg-Smith needed a country, then what's the big problem? Oh, right. We lost. Moral objection for the sake of expedience...sounds familiar. I guess for a second I forgot I was dealing with Canadians.
And don't try to tell me that ridiculous hypernationalism at the Olympics is a rare occurance. Whether it's blood-filled water after a polo game during the Cold War or figure-skating scoring debates that seemed to take longer than building the Olympic Village (or the Tower of Babel), there's rarely a Winter or Summer Games that goes by without some subsection of idiots getting their knickers in a knot over something.
The Olympics are a great idea, in principle. Then again, so were socialism, the Edsel, building a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, and the Charge of the Light Brigade.
If you're going to have an event intended to make the nations of the world hold hands and skip merrily, then don't make a nationalistic fuss over it all, that's all I'm saying.
But nobody ever listens to me. So enjoy the Olympics. "Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, all in the Valley of Death..."
Take, for example, the recent outrage over the fact that a Canadian athlete won a medal under the Aussie banner. Another example of Canadian nationalism taken to one of its more ridiculous extremes. If the Aussies needed a skier, and Dale Begg-Smith needed a country, then what's the big problem? Oh, right. We lost. Moral objection for the sake of expedience...sounds familiar. I guess for a second I forgot I was dealing with Canadians.
And don't try to tell me that ridiculous hypernationalism at the Olympics is a rare occurance. Whether it's blood-filled water after a polo game during the Cold War or figure-skating scoring debates that seemed to take longer than building the Olympic Village (or the Tower of Babel), there's rarely a Winter or Summer Games that goes by without some subsection of idiots getting their knickers in a knot over something.
The Olympics are a great idea, in principle. Then again, so were socialism, the Edsel, building a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, and the Charge of the Light Brigade.
If you're going to have an event intended to make the nations of the world hold hands and skip merrily, then don't make a nationalistic fuss over it all, that's all I'm saying.
But nobody ever listens to me. So enjoy the Olympics. "Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, all in the Valley of Death..."
Monday, February 20, 2006
Cartoons don't kill people, rioters do
One of the greatest quotes to live by I ever found was "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". That certainly seems to be true in the Muslim world these days. Ever since these "offensive" cartoons were published, large groups of stupid people have been congregating at a good number of embassies and the like, blowing things up and basically making a nuisance of themselves.
Today, they reached a new low in intelligence. Several newspapers here in London announced that 16 Americans have been killed in riots, and one showed a picture of a rather badly-made American flag (with about fifty stripes on it) being burned by a mob. May I ask how the US, a country where the cartoons have not even been republished, got to be the villain in all this? Oh, right. Propaganda. That whole using religion to your political advantage thing. So uncommon in most of those Muslim countries.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against Islam as a religion. But it seems to have this ability to create a small but dangerous number of violently fanatical followers, which is bloody terrifying at times. Take, for example, these thousands of people who are engaging in riots against all Christians and half the democratic world because some rag of a Danish newspaper made a somewhat riskly publishing decision.
It is a ridiculous argument, frankly. How many days go by when someone on TV or in the paper or on the radio doesn't say something that Christians would consider blasphemous? And sure, some fundamentalist worms crawl out of the woodwork to complain, but nobody gets blown up. Do people bomb buildings when someone makes fun of the Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama? How many Jews go Timothy McVay when someone says something that's frowned upon in the Tanakh?
This is why Muslims have such a hard lot in the world these days: because so many of their own number are intent on destruction.
In the nations where these riots are happening, the governments need do only one thing to gain my respect: arrest the violent protestors and string them up by their tonsils (or some other threatening, yet anatomically impossible method of capital punishment).
By the way, Pakistan has already made over a hundred arrests. It's a start.
Today, they reached a new low in intelligence. Several newspapers here in London announced that 16 Americans have been killed in riots, and one showed a picture of a rather badly-made American flag (with about fifty stripes on it) being burned by a mob. May I ask how the US, a country where the cartoons have not even been republished, got to be the villain in all this? Oh, right. Propaganda. That whole using religion to your political advantage thing. So uncommon in most of those Muslim countries.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against Islam as a religion. But it seems to have this ability to create a small but dangerous number of violently fanatical followers, which is bloody terrifying at times. Take, for example, these thousands of people who are engaging in riots against all Christians and half the democratic world because some rag of a Danish newspaper made a somewhat riskly publishing decision.
It is a ridiculous argument, frankly. How many days go by when someone on TV or in the paper or on the radio doesn't say something that Christians would consider blasphemous? And sure, some fundamentalist worms crawl out of the woodwork to complain, but nobody gets blown up. Do people bomb buildings when someone makes fun of the Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama? How many Jews go Timothy McVay when someone says something that's frowned upon in the Tanakh?
This is why Muslims have such a hard lot in the world these days: because so many of their own number are intent on destruction.
In the nations where these riots are happening, the governments need do only one thing to gain my respect: arrest the violent protestors and string them up by their tonsils (or some other threatening, yet anatomically impossible method of capital punishment).
By the way, Pakistan has already made over a hundred arrests. It's a start.
Now even Conservatives can take their very own Belinda home!
This one slipped through my radar until the other day and is now a couple of weeks old, but I had to mention it. David Emerson, a Vancouver MP elected under the Liberal banner, crossed the floor to the Tories on February 6 and got himself appointed Minister for International Trade.
Sound familiar? Maybe we've all seen this episode before, but with a female in the leading role? Yep, that's right: the Tories have a Stronach on board.
There are a few baffling things about this. First: why would Harper let his party take this guy in? It doesn't bring him noticably closer to a majority. There have to be others just as qualified who could have been appointed to the cabinet - and maybe they could have been people who actually supported the current government, who have now been passed over in favor of Emerson. And another question: if Emerson is, as he claims, "non-partisan" and only interested in representing his constituents, then why didn't he just run as an independent?
There's definitely something odd going on here, and I can't make head or tail of it, but one thing's for certain: by allowing this deal to happen, Harper has made the first step toward demolishing his party's moral superiority over the Liberals, and though he still has a lot of room in that department, we can't let him take any more steps in that direction.
Red Tories will not solve Canada's problems. I have the feeling that Harper is going to teach us this lesson over and over again in the coming years.
Sound familiar? Maybe we've all seen this episode before, but with a female in the leading role? Yep, that's right: the Tories have a Stronach on board.
There are a few baffling things about this. First: why would Harper let his party take this guy in? It doesn't bring him noticably closer to a majority. There have to be others just as qualified who could have been appointed to the cabinet - and maybe they could have been people who actually supported the current government, who have now been passed over in favor of Emerson. And another question: if Emerson is, as he claims, "non-partisan" and only interested in representing his constituents, then why didn't he just run as an independent?
There's definitely something odd going on here, and I can't make head or tail of it, but one thing's for certain: by allowing this deal to happen, Harper has made the first step toward demolishing his party's moral superiority over the Liberals, and though he still has a lot of room in that department, we can't let him take any more steps in that direction.
Red Tories will not solve Canada's problems. I have the feeling that Harper is going to teach us this lesson over and over again in the coming years.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Tony Blair kills his own bill
As major embarrassments in British political circles go, the past few weeks have been rather impressive. First, a leading Liberal Democrat resigns following revelations of his affair with a male prostitute. Now, Blair's Labour government is facing a different sort of humiliation.
The so-called Religious Hatred Bill, which was being pushed by the Prime Minister's Office, came up for a vote in the British House of Commons yesterday, was defeated by one vote.
That vote was Tony Blair's.
Party discipline has been failing in the British Labour Party for some time now. Unfortunately for Blair, the Opposition still has their MPs on their leashes. The result: 21 Labour MPs voted against Blair, 40 abstained, and the Opposition walked away with the vote when a miscount by one of the Labour Party whips lead Blair to the conclusion that he could leave early for dinner, before the votes were counted. In actuality, the vote was so close that his one vote would have passed the bill; without him, it was voted down.
The Political Editor of the Times of London refers to the whole snafu simply as a "cock-up". I call it more of a flashing neon sign, constantly strobing the words "something's not right".
We need to take this as a signal in Canada to reexamine this critical aspect of our system. Already we've had MPs break with the party over Martin's more infamous decisions. Will we see more and more rebellions in the House of Commons? If opposition parties are more able to control their members than the ruling party, will the House be incapacitated? And what will this mean for the practice of non-confidence votes?
My regular readers will already know how I feel about party discipline. MPs need to be able to represent their constituents, not act as powerless yes-robots for their party leaders. But if half of them make this change for themselves and half don't - as Blair is experiencing with his party - it will lead to more and more confusion in the Houses of Parliament.
And the occasional embarrassing "cock-up".
The so-called Religious Hatred Bill, which was being pushed by the Prime Minister's Office, came up for a vote in the British House of Commons yesterday, was defeated by one vote.
That vote was Tony Blair's.
Party discipline has been failing in the British Labour Party for some time now. Unfortunately for Blair, the Opposition still has their MPs on their leashes. The result: 21 Labour MPs voted against Blair, 40 abstained, and the Opposition walked away with the vote when a miscount by one of the Labour Party whips lead Blair to the conclusion that he could leave early for dinner, before the votes were counted. In actuality, the vote was so close that his one vote would have passed the bill; without him, it was voted down.
The Political Editor of the Times of London refers to the whole snafu simply as a "cock-up". I call it more of a flashing neon sign, constantly strobing the words "something's not right".
We need to take this as a signal in Canada to reexamine this critical aspect of our system. Already we've had MPs break with the party over Martin's more infamous decisions. Will we see more and more rebellions in the House of Commons? If opposition parties are more able to control their members than the ruling party, will the House be incapacitated? And what will this mean for the practice of non-confidence votes?
My regular readers will already know how I feel about party discipline. MPs need to be able to represent their constituents, not act as powerless yes-robots for their party leaders. But if half of them make this change for themselves and half don't - as Blair is experiencing with his party - it will lead to more and more confusion in the Houses of Parliament.
And the occasional embarrassing "cock-up".
Pres. Bush: "Freedom is on the march."
I'll admit it: President Bush is far from being the perfect public speaker. He hasn't got the inspirational quality of John F. Kennedy, nor the charisma of Stockwell Day, nor the sheer force of Winston Churchill. But neither is he the incompetent many liberals would tell you he is. In this week's State of the Union address, he had the following to say about his commitment to support the spread freedom and democracy to the far corners of the world:
Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government - with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half - in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran - because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well.The term "democracy" is used here loosely, but no matter what your watermark, the number has improved in the past sixty years. Slowly, so slowly, we are forging a better world.
subscribe
