Is Canada "back"? are the Liberals?


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Bookmark this site!

Is Canada "back"? are the Liberals?
08.16.07 (12:44 pm)   [edit]
 

A month ago Stephen Harper said this. “The news is spreading throughout the world: Canada’s back”. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/0 1/4305265-cp.html" title="http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/0 1/4305265-cp.html" target="_blank"http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/C... Where did we go and when did we leave? I am not quite sure how to answer either, but it has something to do with the US and a general unwillingness on are part. This kind of rhetoric from Harper is not new. For example, Harper said this is 2003, “We've just become increasingly irrelevant to a country [U.S.] that has a lot of priorities…” (CBC Newsworld, July 11, 2003).

 

Now, in so far, as the US is increasingly desperate to hang onto whatever military allies it has left, Canada is indeed “back”. However, pace Stephen Harper, a country’s standing is not in proportion to its willingness to absorb causalities in futile and expensive foreign adventures that serve only to increase the likelihood that the country will be attacked by terrorists. "It's certainly raising Canada's leadership role, once again, in the United Nations and in the world community where we used to have an important leadership role.” “I can tell you its certainly engaged our military. It's made them a better military, not withstanding and maybe because of the casualties.” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/1 9/harper-afghanistan.html" title="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/1 9/harper-afghanistan.html" target="_blank"http://www.cbc.ca/canada/stor... No, Canada is a middling country and our standing in the international community will rise in fall in proportion to our willingness to pass legislation that can serve as a model for other countries.

 

SSM is a great example. On no issue has Canada gotten more press and positive foreign press than on the issue of SSM. Canada was an important reference point for legislators and judges in Spain, South Africa, and Massachusetts. Moreover, Canada’s unprecedented decision to allow foreign same sex couples to marry promises to push the issue in countries across the globe. In an effort to have their marriages recognized, foreign same sex couples are opening up legal challenges in their countries of origin. Others need not even bother. Several US states, most notably New York, recognize the validity of such marriages, even though these states do not officially allow same sex couples to marry there.

 

This brings me to another point. Geographically, culturally, economically and linguistically Canada is uniquely positioned to mount an ideological challenge to US conservatism. At no time was this more apparent then in the lead up and immediate aftermath of George Bush’s 2004 re-election. Ann Coutlier threatened to have us “crushed”, O’ Reilly has threatened us with nuclear winter and the Western Standard’s Goldberg
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/i s_22_54/ai_94960947" title="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/i s_22_54/ai_94960947" target="_blank"http://www.findarticles.com/p... has said we should be “bombed” and his colleague Matt Labash http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articl es/000/000/005/349tpijp.asp?pg=1" title="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articl es/000/000/005/349tpijp.asp?pg=1" target="_blank"http://www.weeklystandard.com... seconded him. Thankfully all are only arm chair Lemays.

 

 

By far the most popular form of reproach, though, was to echo Harper and call us irrelevant. Tucker Carlson, for example, likened Canada without the US to Honduras “but colder and much less interesting”. http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011" target="_blank"http://mediamatters.org/items... The problem with such a train of thought is that it involves them in a kind of performative contradiction. In repeatedly talking about us and calling us irrelevant they helped entrench us as part of the public debate south of the border and so made us increasing relevant.

On the flip side of things, the New Yorker proclaimed as a “Northern light”
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/07/07/03 0707ta_talk_hertzberg" title="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/07/07/03 0707ta_talk_hertzberg" target="_blank"http://www.newyorker.com/arch... and the San Jose Mercury asked if there was room for another province. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1051/a1 0.html" title="http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1051/a1 0.html" target="_blank"http://www.mapinc.org/drugnew...

Both sides agreed that with Bill O’Reilly assessment. A “brave new progressive world is a possibility. That's what happened in Canada.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,140742,00.html
At a time when Karl Rove was making gay marriage a campaign issue, Canada was legalizing it. At a time when the Neo Cons were trumpeting the Iraq invasion as the beginnings of New American Century, Canada was beginning to realize just how lucky it was that we stayed out. At a time when the Bush administration was stepping up the war on drugs, Canada was glibly promising to decriminalize marijuana or even better legalize it. This explains why true blue Democrats where wanting to move to Canada and not, say, Germany following Bush’s re election. http://slate.com/id/2109300/" title="http://slate.com/id/2109300/" target="_blank"http://slate.com/id/2109300/ We were, if only by accident, the anti Bush.

Martin never realized what a god sent Bush was until to it was too late and he never did realize that words mean little. Only action counts. As a result, rather than pushing ahead with further socially liberal legislation, he rested on his laurels and stopped with SSM. Dion shares these same faults. The rhetoric is there. "I think the prime minister we have thinks he is a president and Mr. Bush is his American Idol”.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=582d8348-979a-4e3 6-856f-8fa4465ec3d0" title="http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=582d8348-979a-4e3 6-856f-8fa4465ec3d0" target="_blank"http://www.canada.com/topics/... However, Dion has continually failed to demonstrate a willingness challenge what conservative America holds near and dear. So long as that continues, the Liberals will remain “irrelevant to a country [U.S.] that has a lot of priorities” and by extension unable to tap into an important part of Canadian nationalism, viz., a pride in our ability to affect what is happening outside our borders, particularly south of border.
 

 

 


posted by: Oldschool (reply)
post date: 08.17.07 (1:36 pm)

As long as the left/progressives/socialists in Canada and the US continue their present course . . . they will thankfully be out of power forever. They have zero ideas, only critize, lie and babble. Look at the approval rating of the Dimmocrat Congress in the US . . . twenty-sum percent, much lower than that of Bush.
In Canada Dion is the french version of Turner . . . nuff said.
Gay marriage didn't even play in California, but in BC and Ontario its cool . . .
In the US illegals kill more people in a year than are killed in Iraq, but no one gets it. In Canada our largest cities resemble Detroit and LA for gang activity and crime, result of years of liberal neglect!!!



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 08.18.07 (6:11 pm)

Canada is so very tied to the US, especially economically as well as culturally/historically, that I would think a wise Canadian would want The US to prosper and be at peace. You give me the distinct impression of a jealous sibling with a low self image, trying hard to strike out at a big brother you unadmittedly admire. Stephen Harper gets it- we're not his enemy. We do not have to agree on everything to be good neighbours. That's probably why he was elected, and why liberals are on the run. Your illustration concerning gay marriage is interesting. By far, the majority of Americans are opposed to legalized gay marriage. It has served as a rallying point to bring about the defeat of liberals and Democrats. It's a losing issue. So you think other countries can ram an unagreeable morality down our throats? You had best hope we do not choose to respond with the same hostility. And, of course, the American people are of higher calibre than such pettiness. I've traveled to your country several times, and have a few Canadian friends now in America for economic reasons (which is interesting). They speak well of the US.



posted by: Koby (reply)
post date: 08.20.07 (7:23 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave

>>>> Your illustration concerning gay marriage is interesting. By far, the majority of Americans are opposed to legalized gay marriage. It has served as a rallying point to bring about the defeat of liberals and Democrats. It's a losing issue.

That was not point. No main stream presidential candidate in the States is going champion gay marriage anytime soon. However, the dominos are beginning to fall. Gay marriage is going to become a reality the way mixed raced marriages become a reality. It will happen first at the state level and only later federally. The Canadian decision helped set things in motion.

>>>> So you think other countries can ram an unagreeable morality down our throats? You had best hope we do not choose to respond with the same hostility.

Ha ha. A little uncomfortable with homosexuality are we? Look, history is on the side of those who support gay marriage. Do not shoot the messenger.





posted by: Koby (reply)
post date: 08.20.07 (7:25 pm)

Reply to: Old School

>>>> In Canada Dion is the french version of Turner . . . nuff said.

Old School you have continually demonstrated that you are an angry uneducated buffoon capable only of reciting conservative talk radio talking points verbatium.

>>>> In Canada our largest cities resemble Detroit and LA for gang activity and crime, result of years of liberal neglect!!!

Ha ha. Toronto’s murder rate is 1.5 and Detroit is 38. Care to take back that statement you dumb ignorant shit? As for “liberal neglect” the crime rate, the murder rate in particular, plummeted when the Liberals where in power.




posted by: Koby (reply)
post date: 08.20.07 (7:33 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave

>>>> You give me the distinct impression of a jealous sibling with a low self image, trying hard to strike out at a big brother you unadmittedly admire.

Not that you addressed anything relavant other than to say something on SSM, let me share my impression of you.

You strike me as older man completely incapable of justifying his absorbance of homosexuality. But hey, no matter. Your generation will pass into history soon enough and be rest assured we will be sure to piss on the corpse.




posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 08.20.07 (7:51 pm)

"absorbance of homosexuality"...- what does that mean? And, by the way, the younger generation here in the US is proving in many ways to be rather conservative about some of the pet liberal issues, like abortion and gay marriage. Hey, if you want to be gay, that's your personal choice. I'll not force my morality upon you. And, I expect the same.



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 08.20.07 (7:57 pm)

Reply to: koby
Uncomfortable with homosexuality? No. Do what you. My discomfort is not with your personal sexual behaviour. It is with your desire to force others to see it as right and acceptable. Most will tolerate it in the name of freedom, like many other issues of morality. It is when anyone tries to force his/her morality upon another that I become uncomfortable.




posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 08.21.07 (1:43 am)

Reply to: PastorDave

>>>>“the younger generation here in the US is proving in many ways to be rather conservative about some of the pet liberal issues, like abortion and gay marriage.

On abortion yes, there is not much of difference between younger folks and older. Gay marriage and homosexuality is entirely different manner. As with Canada, the older you are the less likely it is that you will support gay marriage. 18 to 29 year olds are much more supportive than 30 to 44 years and so on. , That said, support has gone up quite substantially in the one state that has gay marriage, viz., Mass. If this holds true as other states adopt gay marriage, perhaps the cleavage will not be as stark.

>>>> “Hey, if you want to be gay, that's your personal choice.”

I am not gay, but that is beside the point. Look beliefs and desires are not the things that are chosen. I do not choose to believe that there is a computer in front of me I just so believe. I do not choose to desire a glass of water I just so desire a glass of water. The mistake of many liberals in the States was to engage in a debate about the origins of homosexuality rather than simply pointing out how utterly absurd it is to say that any sub set of desires are chosen. They took the bait.

Just in case you are wondering based on identical twin studies and animal studies there does seem to be genetic component to homosexuality. However, environment, in particular the uterine environment, plays a role. For example, the more older brothers a man has the more likely he is to be gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. The dominant theory is that the mother’s immune system is activated by cells from a male fetus and attacks it as a foreign body. The more male children a woman has the more in tune her immune system is to these cells. Sexuality is not the only thing that is affected. Gay males with older brothers weigh less at birth than their older heterosexual brothers.

All and all, male sexuality seems more fixed than female sexuality. There are several interesting studies that suggest that self described male bisexuals, in terms of their physical responses to sexual stimuli, are either one or the other. By contrast, self described female bisexuals respond to both sets of stimuli.

>>>> “It is when anyone tries to force his/her morality upon another that I become uncomfortable.”

What I find funny is that social conservatives on the one hand bemoan moral relativism and on the other hand make liberal use of such arguments when their arguments inevitably fail on their own merits. I am not a moral relativist. Make no mistake, arguments purporting to show that homosexuality is immoral are dumb and as such deserve to be treated with disrespect. The same goes for arguments for intelligent design and most denials of global warming.

Abortion is a different matter altogether. Once you get past the extremes are both sides you encounter some fundamental philosophical questions.



Your Name:


Your Comment: