Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Lebanon Stands Up! | Main | Bettman must go »

Sunday, February 20, 2005

NORMAN'S SPECTATOR

From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.

TOP STORY

Overtime talks fail: No 2004-05 NHL season

MOST UNDER-REPORTED STORY

Paul Martin leaves Ottawa this morning for Belgium

(In fact, though he and George Bush are attending the same NATO meeting on Tuesday, I can't find a single report of the PM's trip in today's Canadian newspapers.)

TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES

Bush Seeks to Begin a Thaw in a Europe Still Cool to Him

L'Union européenne cherche à s'imposer face à George Bush

What's US policy on Europe? No giggling (Mark Steyn)

Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense

Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers

Deep Roots Hold Syrian Influence in Lebanon

'Cynical' UK media may lose Olympics for London

Flirting with Armageddon: welcome to a new arms race

Churchgoers ordered to pray for Camilla

Posted by Norman Spector on February 20, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8347156c269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NORMAN'S SPECTATOR:

Comments

Today, Rudyard Griffiths says Québec is to blame; frankly, I'm surprised the Star would publish this simplistic--indeed bigoted--analysis of a complex subject.Why simplistic or bigoted? The position Griffiths outlines is apparent to any serious student of Canadian history. Quebec's sympathies for the Boers, disdain of agnostic Protestant Anglo-Saxon commercialism re: conscription WWI; King's reticence during the two wars; Quebec's subsequent sympathies for Italian fascism and Vichy France.

He applauds Quebec's stance: "And on balance, this domestic reality check served Canadian foreign policy well. It influenced our rejection of U.S. nuclear missiles, the sending of troops to Vietnam, and, most recently, participating in the invasion of Iraq."

His only beef is the lack of debate on the issue - "Regardless of whether it is a good idea or not to opt into missile defence or send a paltry 40 trainers to Iraq, there is no meaningful public debate of these issues and what, at the end of the day, is in Canada's national interest."

Posted by: DJ | 2005-02-21 12:14:46 AM


The explanation is right there in the quotation you truncated:

"Opposition to missile defence and involvement in Iraq is particularly strong among women, for example--from coast-to-coast-to coast. As is the case in British Columbia, where the Liberals hope to double their seats in the next election.

Moreover, Griffiths completely overlooks the strain of anti-Americanism in Ontario, which the Toronto Star has long championed."

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-21 1:34:58 AM


I agree with the focus on the isolationism of Quebec and its long-standing rejection of collaboration with non-francophone nations; which is to say - with most of the world.

It is this focus that acts, in the most fundamental manner, as the ideological base of Canada; it is this focus that has, since bilingualism, gradually come to dominate the mindset of Canadians. What is important to realize is that the perception, the focus, has become alienated from its roots (Quebec as a francophone history) and has emerged as a 'meme' that exists in and for itself. It no longer requires any home base in Quebec. Rejection of collaboration, rejection of participation, anti-American (the extension of anti-England) - are all values that have moved, as rootless 'memes' across Canada.

Therefore, it is not relevant to say that 'women are against missile involvement; and to note the 'anti-Americanism' in Ontario, fueled by the Toronto Star. The point is, with this fog-ideology obscuring intellect, limiting and inhibiting discussion of these issues - the Canadian population, cannot see, hear or speak, about issues. There is essentially no discussion, most people have no idea what missile defence is about and only hear, within the smog, Layton screaming about 'Star Wars'. The gov't doesn't discuss it; our MSM are heavily socialist and socialists preach; they don't discuss. Same with Iraq. So, the Canadian population remain passive; they just breath the smog.

Posted by: ET | 2005-02-21 6:03:03 AM


Women and an anti-American 'strain', unlike the massive racial voting block in Quebec, do not a Liberal Party make. The dominance of the Liberal Party over the last century is directly due to that racial voting block.

How else do you explain Kosovo? It was a NATO venture, w/o UN support that received majority support in Quebec, according to the polls. Canada, it appears beat the drums for a Kosovo intervention.

However, that's not to say that isolationism is a negative foreign policy objective. English Canada would have saved the huge loss of blood and treasure if it had not engaged in European wars. The 'memes' are not rootless but found even amongst America's founding Fathers.

The commies and fellow travellers who riddled FDR's "progressive" regime in the 1930s (the former Soviet archives are still throwing up the ratfinks' names) gave him the impetus to seek war with Japan, as a back door to war with Nazi Germany; total US casualties (including the Pacific) were one million; total British casualties (including the Dominions) 1,015,000.

The isolationist Herbert Hoover resisted war with Japan and decried US involvement in the Korean War.

"On October 19, 1950, former President Herbert Hoover spoke on CBS radio, giving a pessimistic assessment of the situation. [Intervention into Korea] While no clear alternative "line" emerged from his speech, he did stress the high costs and sheer futility of Cold War interventionism as presented by the administration. We had squandered millions of dollars on containment and he doubted that any powers, besides the United States and Britain, were serious about it. Before we exhausted ourselves in this way, "we had better reconsider our whole relation to the problem. In that event, we had better quit talking and paying, and consider holding the Atlantic Ocean with Britain (if they wish) as one frontier, and the Pacific Ocean with an armed Japan and other islands as the other frontier."

Sage advice that still applies today.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-02-21 12:36:23 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.