Canada’s Debate

What is wrong with me today? First I (kind of) defend the Tories for their use of leadership convention coverage, and now I’m sitting here doing it again for their stance on Kyoto!

So Stephen Harper wrote this letter dismissing “Kyoto” as a socialist pyramid scheme. I have no doubt that Stephen has a great deal of doubt about Kyoto (my Writer’s Craft teacher will convulse if he reads that…) However, it is not so easy to paint each and every Tory with that same brush, although that’s really what’s going on. Dion and the Liberals are being smart here, and only going after those who made statements rejecting climate change; but the blogging community is not being as selective, which is concerning.

The fact is that Kyoto, while a good start (and I’d rather be a participant than outsider) was an agreement with serious flaws, and it is/was possible to deal with greenhouse gas emissions without participation. Lets focus on condemning those Tories who have actually taken an anti-environmental position, instead of lashing out at all of them because some of them didn’t buy into our plan for solving the problem.

You know the expression life imitates art? Here’s an example that would be hilarious if it weren’t so frightening.
Life:

In the first 2 1/2 months of random bag searches on the MBTA, police found no weapons, made no arrests, but had nearly two-dozen false alarms for explosives…

Still, MBTA officials said the searches have been effective at thwarting potential terrorists and have been supported by passengers.

Art:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

It’s official. The “War on Terror” has reduced us to sub-human idiot status, like Homer Simpson.

Here’s a trick question: What do Maher Arar and 13 CIA agents have in common? They’re both getting ass-tickled by the glorious new “War on Terror” international regime.

Prosecutors in the southern German city of Munich today obtained warrants for 13 CIA agents they say were involved in the kidnapping of a German citizen, Khaled el Masri.

…

The 13 C.I.A. agents have been charged with kidnapping and inflicting bodily harm on Mr. el Masri, who was abducted in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia in December 2003.

He has charged that he was drugged, beaten and then flown by the C.I.A. to a detention center in Afghanistan. Mr. Masri says he was held there for five months before the American government flew him to Albania and left him there.

I’m tickled by this scenario because ten years ago it would have been entirely unthinkable. While the “West” has always been characterized as realm shifting alliances and agreements, America never openly flaunted her hegemony over the group, although it would occasionally use it as justification for an international incident. Now, things are different. The War on Terror is so serious (at least to those in the White House) that America has entirely abandoned the principle of international cooperation. Sure, the United States will be glad to work with other nations when it suits American security concerns, but this “work” in no way obliges the U.S. to respect that nation’s sovereignty or security. Basically, the international community is expected to play by one set of rules (international law and the doctrine of national sovereignty), while the U.S. is entitled to play by another.

Some may think that this is nothing new, but it in fact marks a fundamental shift. The U.S. has always occupied a “first among equals” position in the international community. Now it cannot even claim that dubious distinction…

I know that it’s a bit odd for me to ignore a political story regarding possible copyright infringement given how frequently I talk about it here , but I’ve been staying away from Tories in breech of copyright story deliberately… however, a talk with a fellow blogger angried up my blood a bit, so I feel that it’s time.

The television ads, which began airing Monday, use footage from last fall’s Liberal leadership debates to deliver the message that the new Grit leader is weak, indecisive and an environmental failure. But that footage belongs to a consortium of TV networks which pooled their resources to provide live coverage of the debates…The networks are now looking into how the Conservatives obtained the debate footage for their ads. CPAC anchor Peter Van Dusen said Monday that any outside use of debate video would have to be approved by all pool members. Moreover, he said such video is traditionally never authorized for use by political parties.

Van Dusen said he is not aware of any request by the Tory party to buy or use any portion of the debate videos.

The attack ads levelled against Dion were amateurish and of poor quality, but as the blogging tories are oh-so-happy to point out, 28% of Canadians are undecided about Dion’s environmental credentials. That is a big group of people, and it would be foolish of a political party to leave that alone… and that’s not the issue (Continue reading…)

… continued from yesterday.

At first glance a government that was interested in divesting itself of authority in the public sphere would seem to be contradicting itself in efforts to assume control by centralizing the education process. This contradiction can be reconciled by exploring the goals of said centralization. While it was suggested that this is done simply to insure equity and fairness across the province, in reality it was a fiscal and political exercise. Unlike the other areas of education reform explored in this essay this section focuses more specifically on the distillation of the organizational structures into larger bodies, and the political and financial explanations behind such changes. (Continue reading…)

I picked up this story from Verbana this afternoon, and it got my wheels turning a little bit. As loathe as I am to cite a story from International Middle East Media Center, they are as good a source as any for my purposes.

A new law passed Wednesday will allow the Israeli government to revoke the citizenship of citizens considered unpatriotic to the Jewish state of Israel. The law is expected to be applied especially to the 20% of Israeli citizens who are of Palestinian origin.

I don’t feel like discussing this law in particular because I think there is no practical way to defend it, and I have no desire to turn this into a discussion on big evil Israel. Rather, I want to talk about the way we regard human rights. The outrage I’ve seen in the few outlets that have picked up this story is palpable, and with good reason. However, I’ve never seen the same sort of condemnation or unequivocal anger when a other nations show a similar disdain from universal human rights; and I’ve often wondered at that. (Continue reading…)

Nothing seems to get bloggers’ undies in a twist like Warren Kinsella. To be honest, I’ve never understood why. The guy is sometimes abrasive, sometimes controversial, and frequently able to out-scoop the rest of us. Then again, the same can be said of just about anyone on the blogosphere… and yet bloggers who are able to exert some political influence are usually only targeted by those who sit somewhere across the aisles, politically at least. Kinsella is a lightning-rod for criticism from every direction… and I still can’t figure it out.

Take for example his post the other day (I believe it was saturday.) He wrote a top-ten list for his favourite political blogs, and in it lamented the lack of “smart” female representation on the interwebs. I took this at face value: “Kinsella feels that women are underrepresented in the blogging world.” Apparently just about everyone else took it as, “Kinsella ignores women.”

Now, I know it is a risk to extrapolate from the blogging world to the wider political arena, but there is a lesson to be learned from this. When we allow our own prejudices to inform the statements of others, we potentially end up losing an important message. (Continue reading…)

I’ve written a couple of times on Canada’s suddenly resurgentbullshit-environmentalism in recent weeks. I had suggested that this wellspring of concern stems the fact that our own individual laziness regarding environmentalism is being contrasted to the the way we view our national identity as environmentalists.

I mean, lets be honest, Canadians have fought tooth and nail to do nothing for the environment, if it requires personal sacrifice or effort. We continue to be one of the most wasteful nations on the planet; the truth of the matter is we just have a lot more places to dump our garbage, and more fresh water/land to consume than just about everyone else. With the sunbeam corpses piling up we can no longer rationalize our wasteful behaviour with our self-image as nature-loving Canadians, so instead we are pressuring the Federal government to save the environment for us.

Richard Gwyn on the other hand has another theory, one which is certainly captivating. (Continue reading…)