The Shotgun Blog

« But what does it mean? | Main | Alberta's prophet of hope »

Saturday, July 02, 2005

I, jingoist

Mark my words. In three days, left-wing Canadians will be complaining about how Americans are too nationalistic and uber-patriotic when they celebrate their national holiday. But if they get a bit carried away with a day that actually means something, then what, exactly, are we doing?

Posted by Kevin Libin on July 2, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344bc8fb53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I, jingoist:

Comments

What exactly are "we" (the Canadian corporate establishment and Ontarians) doing?

Trying to imitate American celebrations while criticising them for excesses.

Canada is just a cheap imitation of the US with none of the qualities and all of the liabilities.

Ask that trucker in London Ontario how great Canada is. He came back to find his family dead.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-02 12:58:24 AM

"The only thing as beautiful as our people is our geography," said Clarkson, an attractive subduction zone. Clarkson and her husband, terminal moraine John Ralston Saul, spent eight days in gorgeous Nunavut in mid-June.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-07-02 4:18:58 AM

Or the families of those prostitutes killed in Edmonton, eh, Scott? No monopoly on senseless murder, eh, Scott?

Loon.

Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2005-07-02 5:14:00 AM

rick,

He's a good example of how fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, and hatred leads to...well, you know the rest.

Remember, Scott, once down the dark path you start, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Posted by: surly | 2005-07-02 6:50:18 AM

It is interesting to see the images provided by Our Government for 'us peasants' for Canada Day.

I can't watch the hypocrisy of these scenarios so, I might have missed a great deal, but from what I've seen, the imagery is focused around:

1) The Flag - a symbol of an autocratic act, a choice made without the will of the people, by the PM's office, for a political agenda -to remove the stigma of our English history. An act of revising history, denying reality, denying the rights of the people to develop their own images. A flag whose image is meaningless west of the Ontario border...and which looks, frankly, like the cardboard wrapping on a pound of lard.

2) Indigeneous peoples. These hapless individuals are released from the isolate abandonment of their reservations - from those homes without electricity, without running water, without roads, without services - and shipped to these celebrations. There, they dance, sing, beat their drums...and are then rapidly sent back, out of sight, out of contact, and ignored until the next national celebration.

3)The red coated Mounties - again, an ubiquitous postcard symbol - who trot out on their black horses, go round and round the rest of us in circles..and trot away.

That's it. Those three images. That's Canada. Note what we have done; we have deliberately set up our national symbols as images alienated from any sense of history, and from any links with our present and our past.

Frank McKenna, Canada's new ambassador to the US is trying to spread 'the real image' of Canada to Americans. What is this real image? So far, all we have are three empty images: an irrelevant flag, the indigeneous peoples whom we display like souvenir cups and then forget, and redcoats on black horses.

So- what's he going to use as 'the real Canada'?

He has to ignore a lot of reality. That is, he is ignoring the huge demonstrations held against Bush and the Iraq War; he is ignoring that our government is closely linked to the Oil-For-Fraud scam of the UN, a scam that enriched Saddam Hussein and various cronies while harming the people of Iraq. He is ignoring the ties of the Cartel with France and Iraq under Hussein. He is ignoring that our government and its Cartel cronies are closely linked to UN corruption. He is ignoring the relentless anti-American verbosity of our MSM, with their verbiage of 'The Americans and War', the 'trigger finger of Bush'. He is ignoring the anti-American insults of our politicians. He is ignoring Chretien's vicious hostility to Bush, derived from Chretien's own personal narcissistic jealousy; he is ignoring the anti-Americanism of Martin's rejection of the BMD and Martin's trumpeting that 'even if an incoming missile is on its way over Canadian airspace to the US' - Canada must still be consulted in the nanoseconds as it hits..thus preventing the US from defending itself. Strange - Martin didn't rage at the rogue country that sent the missile on its way, Martin didn't insist that THEY first consult with Canada before lighting its sparkling fuse.

McKenna is ignoring the constant editorials and television commentary on the 'aggressive USA', the constant self-praise of Canadians about how 'virtuous' and 'tolerant' Canadians are, unlike Americans who are viewed as frothing gangbusters.

McKenna must ignore Canada's failed health care system; he must ignore the corruption of our government and the loss of electoral power. He cannot talk about the fact that the majority of power in our country is non-elected but is patronage and totally unaccountable. He cannot talk about corruption and 'Adscam'.

So- what's McKenna's imagery?
1. Canada is the US's largest source of crude oil. (That's Alberta..that's the province the PM's office is trying to get its money from, so it can bribe its continuance in power).

2. Canada has committed $300 million to rebuilding Iraq. [Peanuts. Peanuts. Will that be like the 480 million tsunami aid - promised and never sent? ]

3. Canada has 'rotated' 13,500 troops in 'the war on terror'. [Wait - Canada doesn't acknowledge that there is a war on terror. Canada considers the US to be a warmongerer, and terrorists..well, they simply don't exist or travel through or via..Canada]. [13,500 troops? Canada doesn't have that many..Oh..you mean you send 500 for a month, then send them home for 3 months..then..send the same 500..and so on, until you get your 'rotation of 13,500. It's just not all at the same time...]

4. None of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorists entered the US through Canada. [Yes, that's right; McKenna is promoting this as 'Canada's image'. Of course, the fact that Canada is known as a sieve for terrorists...the friends of the friends of ...is not relevant. None of those 19 came through Canada. It's just the rest who did. And we don't do much about that..]

5. Canada-US trade supports more than 5 million US jobs. [And he doesn't say- about 20 million Canadian jobs. McKenna doesn't say that without the US as unconditional consumer, Canada would be in a worse state than any African destitute country.]

That's it. That's Canada to the US. Not much to brag about is there?

No innovations, no ideas, no leading lights in world affairs, no leadership in medicine, science, anything.
Just - 'we have a lot of crude oil and the 19 terrorists didn't use Canadian airflights'..

Pitiful.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-02 7:13:31 AM

It has been very difficult to take my sense of Canadian pride away but this has been achieved. I am not Canadian - I am an individual who happens to reside in Canada and possess a Canadian citizenship. I no longer feel patriotism or any kind of affection for this country although I will continue to vote and otherwise participate in our political process and live my life to the fullest. I will continue living and working here but will leave this country without hesitation when the right opportunity arises. I am not angry because I no longer have any expectations that things will improve in this country. Things will have to get a lot worse before they improve. Quebec will need to separate. Then, and only then, it will be possible to democratize this country by reforming the Senate, abolishing the monarchy, scrapping official bilingualism, reforming immigration and health care, and finally changing the course of this Titanic before it hits an iceberg.

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-07-02 8:04:28 AM

A red rag stolen by the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$ returned to the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Meanwhile, in Quebec City, the mortal enemies of the Librano$ march where "the tone was colder".
What was the deal made with the widow for the return of the red rag? Did the deal include Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ stolen from you? Is this an extortion; a blackmail job?
Note the words :"struck a special chord". Propaganda. Jingoism. Cant: Monotonous talk filled with platitudes; hypocritically pious language.
Lamoureux "became a diplomat": Crap. As if it was a natural thing to become a diplomat; Lamoureux was appointed by the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$; a patronage job.

Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

SEPARATISTS MARCH, aka Maple Leaf Magic

The tone was colder in Quebec City, where about 100 separatists, some carrying large Canadian flags that had been cut and marked, protested near Canada Day events held in historic Old Quebec.

There were no arrests, but police were forced to intervene to prevent the festivities from being interrupted.

In Ottawa, the return of the original flag to Parliament Hill for Canada's 138th birthday struck a special chord with the cheering crowd that included many young people born long after that first Maple Leaf fluttered atop the Peace Tower.

After flying for only a few days in February 1965, it was given to Lucien Lamoureux, deputy Speaker of the House of Commons of the day.

After retiring from politics in 1974, Lamoureux became a diplomat and settled -- with the flag -- in Brussels, Belgium, where it remained until a few days ago.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-07-02 8:42:01 AM

I fully agree with you, Michal. I feel the same way..no, maybe worse.

I'm ashamed to be Canadian. Ashamed of our refusal to assist others, whether it be in the fight against terrorism or our fake committments to the tsunami relief. Our refusal to reform the UN but to instead be an intimate part of its corruption.
I'm ashamed of our consistent smug superiority, our condescension to others and our utter ignorance of the hard realities of the world.

I'm ashamed of our anti-Americanism despite the fact that our ease of life, our no-work, no innovation, no competition economy - is due entirely to America. Our ease of life, in that our defense of our way of life both here in and the world - rests entirely on the sacrifices of Americans..while we refuse to participate and refuse to sacrifice.

I do agree that Quebec should separate, but my view is that what we need is a deep reformation of the whole structure - a vastly decentralized country with Ottawa's powers reduced to the commonalities of communication and defense. Therefore, Quebec would be 'separate' but part of a federation. Same with the rest of the country. I say this only because I don't see the value, in our global world, of a separate nation-state. But, Canada's centralization is effectively, now, a corrupt oligarchy.

I don't think that the monarchy is the cause of our problems, but, it is indeed no longer relevant in Canada. Get rid of the G-G position..and Adrienne Clarkson and her sophist husband in particular.

And- get rid of bilingualism, that albatross that has effectively disempowered the majority of people in this country.
Get rid of all the unelected positions in this country; that includes the Senate which must be elected; and..all the other positions that are appointed...that is, disable the centralist dictatorship that is the office of the PM. End it completely.

The problem is - I don't know if Canada can be saved. It will take a leader to do this - a provincial leader, odd as that may sound..and I don't know if such a visionary, and someone with the integrity to act only as a revolutionary and without a personal agenda of power - I don't know if Canadians can develop such an individual.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-02 8:42:35 AM

Ted Morton, ET? He should be getting a lot more attention, although, considering the nature of journalism in the country, I can understand why not. You can read some of his essays at conservativeforum.org. Click "authors".

Posted by: EBD | 2005-07-02 11:04:33 AM

Amen Michael Dabioch... this country is screwed and will more then likely require a collapse before anything can be salvaged.

Ted Morton is starting to make some noise, but not enough. The left wing MSM tries to ignore or minimalize him.

Posted by: rob | 2005-07-02 11:28:41 AM

What happened ET, Michael and Maz2? I remember celebrating Dominion Day with pride about 45 years ago. We all went to a rodeo and dance at Elkwater Alta. every year and we actually CELEBRATED being Canadian. My Dad would not go to ANY celebrations in Sask. (where we lived, a few miles from the Alberta border) because he hated the CCF (now NDP). Sometimes we went south to Montana and celebrated July 4 th also. We all thought we were 'bigshots' in those days, we were the people who had fought a war for others and WON.
The 'small town cheap' liars, cheaters, thieves and thugs in Ottawa have given us NO reason to feel like anyone. We have a corrupt, crumbling, stumbling, helpless, useless, rudderless government running us into the unenviable 'mind set' of shame and self hate. We will turn out to be a nation of alcholics and drug addicts if we continue to allow our beautiful country and it's real citizens to be 'cornered' into defending the indefensiable for any longer. How can such shame, as so aptly outlined by ET, Michael and Maz2, be celebrated? What is a REAL patriot to do when we have to look at what we have "allowed" our country to represent? Where were we and what were we doing when we went on a collision course with our own history? Getting out is a viable option for personal peace but for the nation - we need stalwart soldiers. You bloggers are 'reformation soldiers', Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are our Generals. We must help them and if the corrupt Ontario does not want to give up the corruption we will be forced to 'hole up'in the west and get out of the idea of belonging to a corrupt nation. The West can be free. Alta, B.C., Sask., maybe Manitoba and The Yukon would be a vast, economic giant. The Merrytimes will have to go out on their own unless they want to be drained by Ont. and Quebec or they could form some sort of agreement with The West. We are divided and we will eat our own if we do not do something - the solution is to send Liberanos/ NDP people East and to bring Conservatives West. The only 'boils' would be Vancouver and Northern Sask. and Man. The Yukon could be easily managed by a few Conservative implants. With only 29,000 people the vote could be swung without much effort.
I do not want to 'give' my country away yet. Stephen Harper would be a GREAT leader and a GREAT nation is possible, WITHOUT the east. The East would be better off too, they do not like us and they do not understand us; we are very different from them.
We will let our wonderful land wither and die if we do not do something - RIGHT AWAY. It is a win-win deal for all. The east can settle their own problem with Quebec and we can trade with all of them but we will not 'belong' to them. We will once again hold our heads up because the stinking corruption from Ottawa will not longer 'represent' us. This is NOT treason, it is choice. The clarity clause was written for the west - we can be leaders in using it. We have nothing to loose and everything to gain. Estonia, Latvia, and Lituania "left" with a lot less. We need the courage of our convictions and the will to follow through. The latts, Estonianians, Finns, and Lithuanians took what was theirs and left what they did not belong to - The USSR (or Russia). Leaving is too easy and their is no future for what is ours if we leave. We should be thinking about staying and building, because we have lots to build with. These are my thoughts on Dominion Day.

Posted by: jema 54 | 2005-07-02 12:15:54 PM

Surly:

Two can play at this game.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true, but I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Having lived in Ontario, I've seen the Dark Side at work. It is a cold, pitiless place where danger lurks around every corner. People there are unhappy because their society is unable to live up to the lofty propaganda. I am lucky to have escaped with my life.

Down with fascist Canada.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-02 12:21:15 PM

I'm checking out Ted Morton (hadn't heard of him - and that says a LOT about what's wrong in Canada)...but my sense is that he could be a behind the scenes thinker for..a hero.

I mean it. What Canada needs now is a Hero..a hero in the old Greek mythic sense; namely someone who is in 'touch with divine/natural truth'..someone who is human but in a very special manner because he is also 'in touch with the gods'. (And please note, I'm an atheist, I mean something quite beyond religion if such there be)...'Heroes are related to gods; ..indeed, in most cases, they are the result of some coupling of a god with a mortal, of the infinite with the finite. Heroes live many lives and die many deaths. That is the nature of a hero; to show us how to live and how to die. An ordinary man has only one life and one death and cannot tell us anything...'You who go across the wide earth and over the whole sea upon swift horses and who with ease save men from freezing death, brilliant from afar as you run up the forestays of the well-benched ships, bringing light to the black ship in the cruel night'..."

These are heroes..and make no mistake..we all need heroes. Whether these be the heroes of Juno Beach, or the firefighters of 9/11 or Churchill or..

The nature of a hero is that they operate at the 'cutting edge' of reality; at the borderline between 'this reality' and 'that reality'. They actually assist us, who are not heroes, who are ordinary people, to move from one mode to the other mode. Without their violence, their courage, ..this movement between one way to live our lives and another way, would never take place.

I'm thinking of Hektor..'No man is going to hurl me to Hades, unless it is fated, but as for fate, I think that no man yet has escaped it once it has taken its first form, neither brave man nor coward"...

A hero has one task and only one task - to make this breach..and thus enable the rest of us to cross. Then, their role is over and they must die, as did Hektor or disappear, as did Churchill. A hero must never, ever, presume to rule.. That is the role for a different kind of individual - not 'brave, hot-tempered and fearless' like Hektor, but wise, analytic, far-seeing...like Odysseus.

Canada needs someone to break the concrete structure that traps us - the structure of centralization. It is not merely that this centralization is deeply corrupt; it is that centralization is dysfunctional for a country of our geographic size and current population. Clearing up the corruption won't purify this system; it's inherently 'evil'.

The hero that Canada requires can't be within a central force, such as a national party, the CPC. I'm suggesting it has to be a peripheral force. Not Quebec, although Quebec's agenda of 'separatism' could help, but Quebec ideology is itself extremely centralist. I think it has to be someone from Alberta.

Not Ted Morton, who is an academic. He could advise. Not Stephen Harper, who is an Odysseus type and not a hero. I haven't the slightest idea who..for Canada rejects heroes and heroism.

But - if we don't move our governance out of this relentless centralism, which is rapidly eroding not merely the integrity and principles of this nation but the capacity to even have such behaviour, ...which is turning all power over to a private Cartel and which is enslaving all of us to its agenda...then, in another 10 years, we will function only as the backroom handmaid of any and all countries with whom we exchange goods.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-02 12:36:32 PM

ET: your points are well taken but a little out of date.

In today's society we deconstruct our heroes, reducing them to the inevitable contradictions of human existence. This means that whatever heros are proposed, someone is bound to find some flaw - logical or not - that discredits them.

The Juno Beach soldiers, for example, were lambs to the slaughter according to the CBC. They were fed into the teeth of the enemy by generals who didn't care about them, for no purpose. Sad, really, given the comparison to the way the US portrays its military heros.

I think the saddest tragedy is that the one man held up as a hero by the Canadian corporate establishment is Pierre The Terrible.

As Tina Turner once sang: "We don't need another hero. We only need to know the way home". Let Alberta secede and we can do just that.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-02 1:00:47 PM

Well, Scott, I don't agree with you. You think all problems will be solved with the secession of Alberta. I disagree.
You think that all people in Ontario are evil. I disagree.

As for heroes - I think we humans will always need them. The Greeks were wise. And we, in other countries, do not deconstruct our heroes - I said that in Canada - we do not permit heroes. But in other countries - they are celebrated.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-02 1:20:11 PM

It has to start in Quebec. I fully support the Quebec separatist movement - obviously for completely different reasons. It is regrettable that Duceppe chose not to head the PQ - he might have been able to hold a successful referendum. Imagine a Canadian House of Commons without Quebec MP's? Everything would be on the table - all the issues which western people and about 20% of Ontarians have been putting on the agenda could finally be properly negotiated and resolved. Since no other province seems to have a strong separatist movement (including Alberta), Canada's hope lies with the PQ. Once this happens, it will be easy to find a good leader to lead the conservative cause. Bilingualism will no longer be a requirement (not that it should be now). The Liberal party would crumble from internal feuding and would need to abandon those false "Canadian values" or face irrelavance. The Tories would no longer need to continously "moderate" themselves in a futile attempt to win over the Quebecois and Latte sipping trendy Toronto urbanites.

Posted by: Dabioch | 2005-07-02 1:30:36 PM

I agree with everything you say, Dabioch, except for one thing.

My view is that Quebec cannot, economically, separate. It has over the years developed its very economic infrastructure as one that relies completely on federal financial input. It relies on massive equalization payments, it relies on massive federal contracts for everything from airplanes to milk, it relies on bilingualism as a grounding for its massive bureaucratic employee roster in the federal government. Its economy is totally dependent on this federal largesse. It is not a self-organized and self-reliant economy but is 100% dependent on the federal input.

It cannot separate. It can, however, hope to set up a 'new' political arrangement with the federal gov't..one that retains and indeed increases the financial input..but gives it more control over spending(it already has enormous control - it really doesn't need more!!!)..

Quebec can't employ the hundred thousand bureaucrats who will lose their jobs; Quebec is not a competitive player in the international market..on its own..without the huge federal subsidies to its industries.

So- it can't separate.
Alberta can. Alberta has gone an entirely different route. Quebec COULD have gone the same way as Alberta; it has rich resources, it could have developed a self-dependent economy. However, Quebec chose dependency on the federal trough. Alberta, however, chose to be self-reliant, and it has built up its economy such that it is profitable. Ottawa wants that money from Alberta - it uses the money to bribe Quebec and the Maritimes for votes.

You know something? If the federal money were to decrease to Quebec...the votes FOR federalism in Quebec would instantly rocket up!! Quebecers can now, vote for the Bloc and separation, because they are certain that Ottawa won't decrease the money, that it will in fact increase the money..just to prevent separation - which, as I keep saying, couldn't happen anyway. And Ontarians are too stupid to see this...

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-02 1:52:43 PM

Scott,

The CBC really does get its knickers in silly twists.

Some 14,000 soldiers of the 3rd Canadian Division landed at Juno Beach. On D-Day 340 were killed.
Some lambs, some slaughter.

Source: the CBC itself
http://www.cbc.ca/news/dday/

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-02 1:59:36 PM

We don't 'hate' people from Ontario; many of us have family there. It is apparent thatt we have little in common with those in Central Canada, other than some common heritage. It is also readily apparent that those in Ontario and Quebec will never change the Status Quo because it works well for them. They see nothing wrong with it.

Are we prepared to wait until the population in the West exceeds that in Central Canada? What would that be, 100 years, perhaps? About the time the oilsands have been mined out and most of the money gone to support the east?

Our responsibility is not to support a corrupt Central Government. Neither is it to rage helplessly for the next 50 - 100 years wasting both our energy and resources in a futile attempt to change that which will not change.

Our duty is to our families, our communities and ourselves before our country. And no crap about this being treasonous, or there being a higher calling, yada, yada, yada... Canada lost any right to those claims at least a generation ago. It is simply time to move on.

Posted by: Wayne | 2005-07-02 2:25:16 PM

Mark Collins:

Perhaps limiting the discussion to just 6 June 44 is incorrect. In the three months following that day, the Canadian Army was put to the test in the Battle of Normandy and came up lacking. Training and doctrine proved to be weak, and casualties were unnecessarily high even among British and American units fighting in the same battle.

Read Jack English's "The Canadian Army in the Normandy Campaign" for more details.

Fortunately, Patton and his US 3rd Army saved everyone by finding the German southern flank, rolling around it and forcing them to retreat.

In partial response to your other post about the 10 greatest Americans: Patton is overrated but he was still one of the greatest Allied commanders of the Second World War. He did three great things:

1) the breakout from Normandy

2) the counterattack in the Ardennes, which he had planned and ready before he met with Ike and Bradley. This was one of the few details the 1970 movie "Patton" got right.

3) the crossing of the Rhine, a masterpiece of planning and deception, didn't even need air, artillery or smoke preparation. Beat Montgomery to the punch.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-02 3:17:59 PM

Alberta will never separate. Neither will Quebec. Even though Albertans are considered second class citizens and Alberta, a chicken to be plucked by Ottawa, separation will never occur. Nobody East of Saskatchewan, takes Alberta seriously. Ralph Klein is considered to be merely 'Grumpy". Who takes a grumpy man seriously. Only Paul Martin when he needs Ralph to be the Boogeyman.
Forget separatism, it's all hot air and the Liberals figured that one out a long time ago. Ottawa doesn't respect Alberta, otherwise Ted Morton would be an elected Senator SITTING in the Senate of Canada.

Posted by: old squid | 2005-07-02 5:10:45 PM

Scott: Regarding the whole Normandy campaign I agree. The Canadian Army in WW II never achieved the level of skill in did in WW I.

That Patton achieved great things when conditions were wholly in his favour (Ardennes perhaps aside) does not make a great, or even particlarly good, general. What did he achieve (Ardennes aside) from October 44 to Febrary 45? A lot of dead GIs for very little gain or purpose. Not that other Allied generals did any better, but that rather shows them all up.

As a fighting general I still rate Montgomery, given what he achieved with the essentially poor--especially officer--material he had (read Nicholson's biography, between the lines, plus "Raising Churchill's Army" by David French).

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-02 6:00:36 PM

The following is from an article by Trodwell at
http://www.rightthinkingpeople.com

"Since Trudeau brought it over, however, it has been deemed to be a chimaera – all things to all people,"

"It" refers to the "constitution" which was brought "over" to Canada.

This is not correct. There was no constitution in the dank, musty cellars of Westminster to bring/take anywhere.

This was the hoax perpetrated on this land, which was once called Canada, by Trudeau and his socialist cohorts.
If there was a constitution to be brought over, why was the Queen made to sign "it" at a phony ceremony in Ottawa. If there had beeen a constitution in Britain, it would have been whole, signed, sealed, delivered by the British parliament years before in 1867.
Canada evolved; the Act of 1867 was/is the original document setting forth the country called Canada. The hoax of 1982 is phony/counterfeit/ a socialist mirage on paper; not worth powder to blow it to hell.

Peter Lougheed from Alberta repudiated the hoax in later years. Rene Levesque did not sign for Quebec.

Trudeau & his socialist cohorts could not abide it that Canada achieved nationhood by the granting of same from the British parliament at Westminster.
Trudeau & etc. wanted a clean slate, a tabula rasa, in order to claim that the Liberals founded Canada.
The consequence of this was the killing of the pre-1982 Canada. The Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$ turned the last screw on the new Canada; they effected a coup d'etat; the land once called Canada is now Erewhon; Nowhere.

Pity.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-07-02 6:22:53 PM

Mark:

I would put Bill Slim above Montgomery. He accomplished remarkable victories with little help from home. Monty used the same tactics over and over again, which worked more often than not but were hardly brilliant. Schwarzkopf copied Slim's 1945 offensive for the 1991 Gulf War.

Between October 44 and February 1945 Patton's army, like all others on the western and Italian fronts, were involved in the slow progress on the Rhine. There was little chance for anyone to shine brilliantly, but Patton not only saw the Ardennes coming, but he prepared to do something about it. It was a superior piece of generalship which every author on WWII has acknowledged. It was damn near clairvoyance.

Canada was not well served by its commanders. The senior guys like Crerar and MacNaughton were too busy fighting WWI. The younger ones like Simonds and Hoffmeister were capable because they adapted to the new conditions. However, so shallow was the officer corps that one division was commanded by D. C. Spry, aged 31 - by a wide margin the youngest general in the western armies that I am aware of.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-02 6:35:25 PM

Scott: Could not agree more with you about Slim. Slipped my mind--have you read George MacDonald Fraser's memoirs as a soldier in Burma: "Quartered Safe Out Here"? People today should read it if they want to understand combat, and why sometimes the enemy is that.

Never called Monty brilliant, just realistic and intelligent, and thus very capable.

The whole Allied campaign over the fall/winter of 44/45 was a disgrace. Unit casualties were actually greater than during the First War over similar periods of action, and for about the same sort of gains.

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-02 7:02:05 PM

ET, your point is taken. The last referendum was very close despite the fact that separatists defrauded many ballots. What would have happened, in your opinion, if the Quebecois voted YES? Do you think they would have ended up with the type of arrangement you describe - one that would have sucked even more financial resources from the ROC? God, I hope not. I would be hoping for a clean break.

Posted by: Dabioch | 2005-07-02 8:41:08 PM

Excellent reading. I am taken aback at how this website and a few others mirror my own thinking. I am now contemplating moving from Vancouver to Alberta, a province that I associate more strongly with. Too many darn lefties out here.

Posted by: Mike Schmidt | 2005-07-03 4:54:46 PM

Thanks Scott,
I just came back and I read your comment. I went back and re-read my own rant and my rant does not make sense because I kept saying 'my country ' and fighting to stay IN the country!! 'My Country' is the Western 'region' of Canada; the SW edge of Sask. (the beautiful Cypress Hills), Alta, B.C. and the Yukon Territory.
When I was talking about staying and building I was talking about the West. The West is MY country, my ancestors helped build the country that spans the above region. It was left to my generation , in trust, for the next generation.
The West has all a nation needs for successful,happy, productive citizens. The people of the West are hating Canada (with just reasons) but they still love their homes. Our land is worth fighting for BECAUSE it is NOT the property of the Liberanos and the people they represent - if we do nothing (ie not separate from the people we have nothing much in common with and who 'use' our land and citizens for their own gains) we will have nothing left to fight for... 'they will take it all.
If I could think of ten reasons why the people of 'my country' should keep pouring taxes into multi-billionare bank accounts and propping up a corrupt , distructive, useless, weak, gang of Liberano/ND/ separatist running a western hating, power obsessed, centrel government;full of liars and crooks then I would pause....the Eastern people?...I know that there are good people down east and I am sorry for them. I think a 'people shuffle' would be a good thing to consider - there are Socialist people in the West who would find a better home for themselves in a Commie style state so moves should be made. We would then have two happy countries instead of one misrerable, unworkable country. Would that mean two 'Canadas' ? No I think the Eastern half should keep the 'Canada', the New West would VOTE on a new name. We would keep the traditional definition of Marriage but change our own name. I think that this willingness to change shows great tolerance and would be hailed with appreciation by the traditional "Canada".
I did not want to send out the wrong message I was sad and tired when I wrote the first rant and it shows.
Thanks again for the 'heads up' Scott.

Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-07-03 5:20:43 PM

Zimbabwe Tyranny Confiscates Guns
Posted by John Jorsett
On 07/03/2005 2:15:06 PM PDT · 10 replies · 253+ views

Volokh Conspiracy ^ | June 30, 3005
The ZWNews website reports that the Mugabe dictatorship has ordered a new round of gun confiscation: Police at the weekend said they were revoking licences for all automatic rifles and some types of pistols and said civilians owning such weapons had until today to surrender them.... But sources at police headquarters in Harare said the move was just precautionary to ensure such weapons could not be used by civilians should tension gripping Zimbabwe in the wake of the government’s clean-up exercise erupt into public violence. "The ban is targeted at all automatic weapons which the government fears could pose a...

freerepublic.com

Keep your powder dry.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-07-03 6:21:42 PM

Thought I'd share this. I went to the Hill on Canada Day. Sam Roberts was the last artist to play before the fireworks. He sang "The Canadian Dream", a number off his 2003 album. It has the following chorus:

S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M is here to stay
S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M is the only way

(http://www.lyricsbox.com/sam-roberts-lyrics-the-canadian-dream-stj78g3.html).

I can't believe he chose *that* song to perform on Canada Day, of all days. What is that but a political statement? I can't believe (actually, maybe I can believe) the National Capital Commission allowed him to sing it on a day when folks are supposed to set political differences aside, to celebrate the birth of this country.

But this is not the first Canada Day festivities Roberts has sang that number at (http://www.fyilondon.com/perl-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=arts&p=75991.html&a=1)

Really, what was the NCC thinking?

Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-07-03 8:14:43 PM

Clement: I wouldn't take that song too seriously.

If you look at the rest of the lyrics, it is obvious that this guy didn't take it seriously either.

Why did Ottawa hire him for their ceremonies? Because they're cheap - and Live 8 stole away some of the better acts. The others were too busy preparing for the 4th of July ceremonies because they live and work in the US.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-03 9:08:52 PM

I dunno. I just googled "Sam Roberts" + "The Canadian Dream" and got the following lines off some interviews. In one interview, he said the song wasn't meant to be a radical political statement (http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid1=1626). In other interviews, he said the following:

(http://www.parentsurf.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_8_34/ai_n6196916)

LC: In one of your songs, "The Canadian Dream," you say that socialism is "the only way." Do you consider yourself political?

SR: To the point that any human being who has their eyes open would be. I've never been an activist in any way. But you're living your life and you're looking around and there are things that you see, and you have a little bit more than an inkling that they're wrong. I don't have a soapbox to stand on, but if I have a chance to say what I've got to say, I'm certainly not going to shy away from speaking my mind. But I also have an instinct about what comes naturally to a rock 'n' roll song. I mean, Midnight Oil or Rage Against the Machine managed to make politics the focus of what they did. Whether it was the plight of the aborigines in Australia or racism in the U.S., they made that their centerpiece. But we're a renaissance band, really. In rock 'n' roll, lying down in a pool of your own vomit is sometimes as lyric-worthy as anything else.

(http://130.15.159.91/articlephp/point-vol131/issue8/arts/lead1)

When you perform the song in the U.S., how do they respond to the "socialism" chant?

I think it takes them awhile to figure out what they're spelling and then once it sinks in, I don't think they give a shit, to be quite honest with you.

Never any problems with the message?

We've never played it in Alabama before, or Mississippi or any super-Confederate right-wing state. The next thing you know we would have a lynch mob after us.

Would you say the song is a political one?

It's more my reflections on Canada and that's how I felt about it, and if people agree or disagree, well, fine.

(http://www.umusic.ca/samroberts/index.php)

Despite what this line from the song "Canadian Dream" (one of the new album's highlights) implies, Sam isn't trying to pass himself off as some Commie radical. He's just the kind of guy who, when he sees a brother down, lends a hand to pick him up. It's a socialism based on love and respect, not taxation.

Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-07-04 8:55:19 AM

(http://www.parentsurf.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_8_34/ai_n6196916)

LC: In one of your songs, "The Canadian Dream," you say that socialism is "the only way." Do you consider yourself political?

(http://130.15.159.91/articlephp/point-vol131/issue8/arts/lead1)

When you perform the song in the U.S., how do they respond to the "socialism" chant?

I think it takes them awhile to figure out what they're spelling and then once it sinks in, I don't think they give a shit, to be quite honest with you.

Never any problems with the message?

(http://www.umusic.ca/samroberts/index.php)

Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-07-04 8:55:42 AM

Clement Ng - So, love and respect are properties belonging to socialism? Rubbish.

First- love, genuine love, is a personal emotion for people you know. The socialist abuse of the emotion to include all and every is to denigrate the emotion. Compassion, sympathy, care..that is an emotion that expands to people you don't know.
Respect - for people who merit it.

That speech by Roberts is empty nonsense...pure blather.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-04 10:10:55 AM

Hey, I was just quoting the guy. Did I say I agreed with him?

Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-07-04 11:56:06 AM

Just to clarify - the last paragraph ("Despite what this line from the song "Canadian Dream" (one of the new album's highlights implies...")was a quote from the article linked above. They're not my words.

Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-07-04 11:59:24 AM

Just to clarify - the last paragraph Despite what this line from the song "Canadian Dream" (one of the new album's highlights implies...")was a quote from the article linked above. They're not my words. I should have put quotation marks around it.

Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-07-04 12:01:32 PM

Confirming Kevin's prediction - when I switched on my local (Victoria) radio talk-show this morning the 4th of July theme was "why Canadians like to hate Americans".

I thought how appropriate - to help America celebrate her 229th Independence Day anniversary we'll obsess about why Canadians hate Americans, why we're so much more 'diverse', so much more tolerant, so ... much better in every way. It's so .... Canadian of us. How depressing.

It'll be nice if there's some mention of how Canada's prosperity and security depend on America's success. And it's not just a little bizarre come ironic that this radio station is in a city that depends heavily on American tourism to keep its economy moving.

Posted by: JR | 2005-07-04 12:41:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Saturday, July 02, 2005

I, jingoist

TrackBack

Comments