Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The One | Main | Party Principles »

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Trudeau and the Women

Trudeau Elastic Band

So maybe it wasn't all that socialist bunk he picked up at LSE. Maybe he was just trying to get laid.

When Trudeau approved testing of cruise missiles over Canadian territory in 1983, one of his paramours at that time – Margot Kidder, an actress and peace activist – took it upon herself to persuade him to reconsider.

While he maintained that Canada had no choice as a member of NATO, Trudeau nevertheless invited Kidder to a dinner during a visit to Washington, in which she "argued vehemently with senior Reagan administration officials while he urged her on by squeezing her thigh each time she scored a point," English writes.

Kidder pressed Trudeau to meet with anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott. She taunted him about being on "the other side" but, as she put it in one letter, "You're a potential ally. I'll get you on our side if it kills me."

"Slowly," writes English, "Pierre began to shift to her side."

So, literally, like a teenager, Trudeau tried to impress his girlfriend by doing something incredibly stupid. In this case it wasn't shoplifting liquor or driving at a reckless speed, it was trying to convince the five official nuclear powers to engage in disarmament talks. Herein lies the ultimate mystery of Canada's longest serving post-war Prime Minister. A man of high education, intelligence and cultural sophistication who was playing Peter Pan well into his sixties. He never grew up. Never grew out of the adolescent fantasies about a socialist utopia. He never grasped that leaders of totalitarian states are never persuaded by reason or argument, only by strength. Ronald Reagan understood this, so did Mrs Thatcher. One of the "wise men" of the Liberal Party was a foolish sophomore trying to look cool.  All so he could get past third base with the hot cheerleader. 

Posted by Richard Anderson on October 25, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

Easily the worst PM Canada ever had. The only one who could be malevolent and malicious towards his office and the people. He should have been put on trial for his crimes, namely the 1970 invasion of Quebec (there were no terrorists, just a handful of kidnappers) and the 1980 attack on Albertans. The world should be grateful that he was not born in Europe - he would have found a place among the fascist, communist and Nazi dictatorships of the age.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-25 6:00:15 PM


> He never grasped that leaders of totalitarian states are never persuaded by reason or argument, only by strength

Some of the high ranking government officials in in rwanda were trained in Canadian universities before that shitstorm -- Same is probably true for more than a couple tyrants and despots or at least their officers(who do influence policy).

They can be reasoned with, they just don't always have the incentive to be.

Posted by: themusicgod1 | 2009-10-25 7:23:32 PM


Trudeau and girl friend in the same sentence, you must be joking.

His preferences lay elsewhere.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-10-25 8:17:58 PM


@ Publius:

Reason rarely informed Reagan's foreign policy particularly where the Soviet Union was concerned.

While the USSR's collapse was inevitable, the arms race did indeed hasten their bankruptcy and collapse.

But at what cost to the US/West?

The deficits and debt Reagan laid down formed the foundation for the debt monster that is leading to the collapse of the American Empire.

Reagan's US victory over the USSR was an IRRATIONAL pyrrhic victory... a slow motion murder-suicide.

Which is why I am grateful for Reagan's presidency ;-)

Meanwhile, Trudeau's shift -- for whatever reason -- toward the so-called peacenik camp was one of his few redeeming moments as PM.

Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-25 9:23:00 PM


Pathetic, a blight on Canadian history if ever there was one.
Bomb the CBC (meh, if ya gotta bomb sumthin)

Posted by: Cid the Cidious | 2009-10-25 9:25:59 PM


John C., didn't like Reagan standing up to communists in the 1980's. He doesn't like standing up to radical islamists now. He gives lip service to radical aboriginals. It seems that he only takes on right-leaning Canadians and Americans! Gee, John are you sure that you wouldn't feel more comfortable in the NDP?

Posted by: Jack | 2009-10-25 9:47:01 PM


@ Jack

You're an idiot. And I am not sure that is being fair to idiots.

Communism was destined to fail, and effectively did, of its own accord, as predicted by, among others, Mises and Rothbard. To believe otherwise makes you a, a.... communist. Without even realizing it. As only a communist could believe that the Communist system was capable of continuing on. Granted you're an UNconscious communist, but its up to you to figure out how and why you became brainwashed into believing in the power of Communism. CBC, perhaps?

Meanwhile, because it is the lingua franca of idiot conservatives I will play along with your "radical Islamist" bait.

Please define your terms, starting with "radical islamist". Then, define "standing up to". While your at it, please lay out your many fears about dark skinned muslim "terrist" bogeymen, and why they frighten you so much that you turn to Great Leaders to protect you.

More fun, show where I even talk about "radical islamists", dumb ass.

Ditto "lip service to radical aboriginals". I realize you are quite upset now, as your preferred targets of hate are at issue. But feel free to clarify what you are frothing at the mouth about.

And -- this is already getting old -- please show where I "take on Americans". Considering I have a greater affinity for America than for Canada, this ought to be enlightening.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to my central and repeated objection to SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATS. Why, o thinker of deep thoughts, would I feel at home in the NDP? Oh wait -- is it cuz cartoon characters like yourself can only conceive of a world broken down to political party affiliations?

Jack, old sock, you are the portrait of everything wrong with conservatism.

I'll give you credit on one thing, hwvr: I certainly do object to "right wing" both as a term and to most of what is identified as such.

Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-26 12:47:51 AM


'I have been called worse by better people.'

Pierre Elliott Trudeau replying to the statement of disgraced/ drunken USA President Richard Nixon who referred to Mr. Trudeau as 'that asshole.'

A Disgraced/Drunken USA President whose actions continue to reverberate around the world with his Failed War on Drugs.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-26 6:52:54 AM


Wait, didn't Pierre the Terrible have to go to President Nixon to beg him to restore Canada's trade status? Who's the bitch now?

Trudeau was THE WORST OF ALL TIME. He's the Pinochet of Canada.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-26 8:00:08 AM


"Pierre Elliott Trudeau replying to the statement of disgraced/ drunken USA President Richard Nixon who referred to Mr. Trudeau as 'that asshole.'"

In the Commons shortly after that statement, Diefenbaker, Leader of the Opposition, rose to say that while Nixon didn't know much about diplomacy, he certainly knew his anatomy. In the sixties oratory skills didn't count for much at the polls (Dief was a Red Tory anyway). Trudeau's success was a product of hormonal voting. On Trudeau, I have always agreed with Nixon.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-10-26 11:18:24 AM


Margot Kidder AKA Lois Lane was found hiding behind a garbage bin in an Alley a few years ago in some kind of schizophrenic delusion.

I think she has been delusional for a very long time. A perfect fit to Trudeau's Leftist lunacy.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20142326,00.html

Posted by: Momar | 2009-10-26 12:10:55 PM


All so he could get past third base with the hot cheerleader.

That's not the worst of it. The hot cheerleader was, and is, a mental case. Seriously. Not so many years afterward she was found incoherent in somebody's yard and diagnosed with bipolar disorder. So it can be argued that we owe much of our third-rate status on the world stage today thanks to lunatic ravings of Superman's girlfriend.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 8:24:36 AM


Reason rarely informed Reagan's foreign policy particularly where the Soviet Union was concerned.

Yes, unlike Trudeau's, whose idea of savvy foreign policy was to amuse himself by poking the Americans in the eye by cozying up to communists. Among the mourners at PET's funeral was none other than Fidel Castro.

While the USSR's collapse was inevitable, the arms race did indeed hasten their bankruptcy and collapse.

The USSR's collapse was not inevitable; it was engineered, admittedly on a somewhat ad-hoc basis, by several people, including Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and even Pope John Paul II. The USSR's own policies hastened the decline, thanks in large part to the Politburo's monumental ego.

The deficits and debt Reagan laid down formed the foundation for the debt monster that is leading to the collapse of the American Empire.

Actually, that debt is small potatoes compared to what is being racked up now. What is costing the US is maintaining its hyperpower status, a status begrudgingly conceded to it by an increasingly indolent, soporific, and stingy Europe and U.N. The U.S is essentially doing the U.N.'s job.

Reagan's US victory over the USSR was an IRRATIONAL pyrrhic victory... a slow motion murder-suicide.

Sound the death-knell and prepare the beir...America is dying. Again.

Meanwhile, Trudeau's shift -- for whatever reason -- toward the so-called peacenik camp was one of his few redeeming moments as PM.

Anything for an argument, eh, John? By the way, what shift? In the 1970s, he welcomed draft-dodgers with open arms. He refused to send troops to help in Vietnam, even though it was widely feared that the increased foothold Communism was gaining in Asia might tip the balance in favour of the Soviets and hasten a nuclear war. Trudeau couldn't have cared less, so long as he could snarl at the masses and hump the girls. Even Clinton had more class than that dirty old man.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 8:36:15 AM


A Disgraced/Drunken USA President whose actions continue to reverberate around the world with his Failed War on Drugs.

It's not a war, he didn't inaugurate it, and it isn't failing. And the optics of someone who defends the right to get stoned on psychotropic hallucinogens but attacks people for drinking wine are poor indeed.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 9:08:32 AM


'I have been called worse by better people.'

Translation: I'm an asshole and proud of it. That's pretty much PET in a nutshell.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 9:09:42 AM



The Puritanical Prohibitionist posits:

'It's not a war, he didn't inagurate it and it isn't failing.'

If it's not a war, how can we be winning or failing?

Nixon didn't inagurate the Drug War??

Can a Puritanical Prohibitionist be that obtuse?

@7,000 Dead Mexicans for 2009 may disagree.

Or the recently dead 4 DEA agents in Afghanistan who were being helicoptered out of a recent drug lab raid.

Or the @ 800,000 Americans who were arrrested in 2008 for Cannabis Possession/Trafficking.

Tricky Dicky preferred Gin to Wine but no matter, more people than ever are making the switch to a much more safer, non toxic, non lethal alternative than Alcohol.

Cannabis.


The Puritanical Prohibitionist posits:

'I'm an asshole and proud of it.'

Something we both can agree on there.

Harry J Anslinger, Rush Limbaugh and a Puritanical Prohibitionist are Big Fat Liars.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-27 12:21:27 PM


Hey isn't Emery soon to be extradited?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-27 2:01:46 PM


How did you guess, Zeb? Stay tuned for another flurry of pro-Emery, pro-pot diatribes from his Western Standard scribbler pals.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 2:12:56 PM


Well he was jailed at the end of September prior to his extradition, as per Canadian law. We're reaching the end of his 30 days now. I wondered if anyone forgot about him - drugs make people forget things.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-27 2:22:12 PM


If it's not a war, how can we be winning or failing?

Because it is possible to win at, lose at, succeed at, or fail at just about everything, not just wars, or even things certain low types style thus.

Nixon didn't inagurate the Drug War??

No war to inaugurate. And these drugs were outlawed around the world at the turn of the century. Canadian history did not begin with Pierre Trudeau, and the history of drug laws did not begin with Richard Nixon.

7,000 Dead Mexicans for 2009 may disagree.

If you can produce a corpse in a condition to disagree with anything, I'll be suitably impressed. Mexico's problem is corruption, not the fact that drugs are illegal. In a country where cops moonlight as kidnappers, you're bound to have problems. As they say in Latin America, plato o plomo: "silver or lead."

Tricky Dicky preferred Gin to Wine but no matter, more people than ever are making the switch to a much more safer, non toxic, non lethal alternative than Alcohol. Cannabis.

Cannabis use is dropping in the United States. And it will probably flatline once the boomers begin to fade from the picture. How many of the pro-pot cabal on this board are Emery's age, or even older?

Or the recently dead 4 DEA agents in Afghanistan who were being helicoptered out of a recent drug lab raid.

OK, Jeff, so if cops are killed (and they are) enforcing traffic laws, we should call writing speeding tickets a war too?

Or the @ 800,000 Americans who were arrrested in 2008 for Cannabis Possession/Trafficking.

How many of them were executed? For that matter, how many of them spent more than night in jail? By the way, there are only two "r's" in "arrested," and the symbol for "about" is the tilde (~), not the at sign (@), you moron.

The Puritanical Prohibitionist posits: 'I'm an asshole and proud of it.' Something we both can agree on there.

I get this from a troll who brings his personal peeves to any blog he sees fit regardless of the topic, with the manners of a stoat and the brains of a frog, who couldn't find his own ass if he were spotted the hole.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 2:23:27 PM


Good grief. How did this post become a debate about drugs?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-27 2:27:05 PM


Charles,

Because some people insist on making every post a debate about drugs.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-10-27 2:56:54 PM



Oh dear, the Puritanical Prohibitionist has got his knickers all knotted.

Perhaps Mommy Matthews had one too many whilst Shane was in utero and Shane now suffers the effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Take Heart Shane, you are not alone, and I don't care what they say.

You are Edson AB's most improved Cow Tipper!

Just say Fuddle Duddle to a Puritanical Prohibitionist and his inane meanderings.

Arrrrested.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-27 4:35:14 PM


Oh dear, the Puritanical Prohibitionist has got his knickers all knotted.

Not I, Jeff; not this kid. Cool as the storied cucumber.

Perhaps Mommy Matthews had one too many whilst Shane was in utero and Shane now suffers the effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Perhaps Jeff misses his fellating partner. Buck up, me hearty. You can always move in on his wife; I understand she'll be lonely for the next five years or so.

You are Edson AB's most improved Cow Tipper!

You're the cow.

Just say Fuddle Duddle to a Puritanical Prohibitionist and his inane meanderings.

Don't look now, Jeff, but most of the disapproval on this thread is directed at you.

Arrrrested.

Yes...you probably have been.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 6:27:49 PM


@Shane
The USSR's collapse was BEYOND inevitable. To believe otherwise is to betray a profound economic illiteracy and to cop to having internalized the Soviets' own propaganda.

Criticizing Reagan's foreign policy, Shane does not = praising Trudeau's. Put your straw man away.

Reagan's deficits were precedent setting, Shane. He changed the culture of statonomics in the US forever. You might also want to adjust Reagan's numbers for inlation.

Your irrational belief in America's immortality has all the logic of a belief in Santa. Run the numbers, Shane, and even you would be forced to conclude that Americas' insolvency is not reparable in this or any other life time. Debt men run no empires, dude.

The only way out is repudiation, and that, fortunately, means deconfederation and devolution.

Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-27 8:22:21 PM


The USSR's collapse was BEYOND inevitable. To believe otherwise is to betray a profound economic illiteracy and to cop to having internalized the Soviets' own propaganda.

If by "collapse" you mean "demise of communism," then yeah, I believe you. However, as Communist China's example proves, the disappearance of communism in favour of a more open market economy need not be a spectacular implosion but can occur in stages, without bankrupting the country.

Criticizing Reagan's foreign policy, Shane does not = praising Trudeau's. Put your straw man away.

You haven't criticized Reagan's foreign policy; you've merely dumped on it. You haven't said what he did wrong, what he could have done right, or really done anything but wipe your snot on his sleeve.

Reagan's deficits were precedent setting, Shane. He changed the culture of statonomics in the US forever. You might also want to adjust Reagan's numbers for inlation.

Precedent-setting does not mean record-setting. The largest deficits ever incurred by the U.S., both adjusted for inflation and in sharpness of spike, were incurred during World War Two.

Your irrational belief in America's immortality has all the logic of a belief in Santa.

Your irrational belief that any country that makes policy mistakes is immediately beyond any hope of recovery or rejuvenation drips with the scorn of the hater and the cynic.

Run the numbers, Shane, and even you would be forced to conclude that Americas' insolvency is not reparable in this or any other life time. Debt men run no empires, dude. The only way out is repudiation, and that, fortunately, means deconfederation and devolution.

You're talking out of the top of your ass. The national debt as a percentage of GDP today is slightly more than 70%. In 1945, it was over 120%. America recovered quite dandily from that, thank you, and went on to lead the world for the remainder of the 20th century. Here we are in the first decade of the 21st with no heir-apparent. So much for your doomsday scenario.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-27 9:07:36 PM


I must admit that I find this debate between Shane and John rather interesting and find myself incapable of staying out of it ;)

There seems to be this inescapable tendency in Canada to blame deficits on Presidents. The reality is that, in the U.S., it simply does not work that way. Reagan essentially made a compromise. He wanted tax cuts and the Dems wanted to spend. So Reagan made a deal and he got his cuts and the Dems got their spending. Unfortunately, at that point, we were on the "left side" of the Laffer Curve and deficits spiked through the roof.

Another very interesting phenomena that occurred in the 1980's also helps explain why the ratio of debt to GDP increased ... Volcker killed inflation. If you look carefully at the numbers, it is very hard to detect a significant rise in spending. In fact, spending has been rising at an impressive clip since the 1930's. A big reason the ratio increased was that nominal GDP growth slowed dramatically. In fact, you could argue that since Volcker temporarily stopped inflating the money supply, the out of control nature of spending in the U.S. was exposed. This really helps to put a light on the fraudulent nature of the use of debt to GDP ratios.

As for debt to GDP falling from its highs in 1945 to 1980; well that's very simple. The FED monetized the debt. The consequences were far from a "dandy recovery". Americans suffered through 2 decades of inflation; which hurt their savings and purchasing power and made them poorer. In other words, the government solved their debt problem not by taxing more (which during those days would not have raised revenues anyway), or spending less; but by inflating the money supply (which is essentially a regressive, and devastating tax on the middle class and poor).

Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-28 9:37:20 AM


I worry that a lot of the western powers sacrificed true military strength to feed the beast of nuclear armaments.

You only need so many nukes. But when the going gets tough, you still need the tanks.

Just a merely tangentially related thought.

Posted by: Kirstin | 2009-10-28 9:55:05 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.