WHY WE BLOG

The blogosphere is a rather lonely space with navelgazing egomaniacs pasting their words and photos detailing lives and happening that no one but themselves and perhaps the immeditate family and/or friends care about.

For the most part bloggers are somewhat egocentric and narcisistic,they sometimes look in the mirror and think they see genious.Some have strange obsessions and peculiar interests.

Just to keep humble, I also write letters to the editor of newspapers and magazines. Since they are fairly regularily printing my missives, I must conclude that I am not totally delusional and that I do make some sense -- at least occasionally. The problem with blogs is that there are no editors and thus little feed-back. Consequently we could go on babbling to ourselves and not communicating anything of value. So there -- I got it off my chest!Lucid and clearly stated, and totally irrelevant! :) :(

The Biography of Pierre Berton

I have enjoyed reading M.C. McKillop’s biography of Berton.

Over the years, I have been a fan of the Oracle from Kleinburgh –a Canadian iconoclast as well as a great icon. From his writings in Maclean’s to his columns for the Star; his radio talk show with Charles Templeton on CFRB in the sixties and his TV interview show, I followed him ardently. I read his Canadian history volumes –every one of them, as well as his social commentaries like The Comfortable Pew and The Smug Society. While not an academic historian like Harold A. Innis; Pierre Berton made the reading of Canadian history interesting and alive. I didn’t always agree with his views on religion and politics, and I told him so in a couple of missives (to which he politely replied), but overall, he is one of my favourite Canadians –up there with Lester Pearson and Tommy Douglas.

Pierre Berton was a prolific and wide ranging writer, from the flippant to the ironic to the sublime; from heavy tomes like The War of 1912 and Vimy, to lighter fare like Fast Fast Fast Relief (1962) and Cats I Have Known and Loved (2002). Anyone who loves cats has to be a good man in my books. And who else would have the audacity to define a Canadian as someone who could make love in a canoe?

He spoke his mind, and it was voluminous. In an age of suffocating political correctness, he was a breeze of fresh air.

“Ignatieff, Rae reach deal to keep leadership run civil” Star Oct.22/08

It is sadly ironic that the two individuals, who brought us Stephane Dion and Steven Harper, are now making a pact: not to throw stones at their glass houses.

These two super-egos are going to have at it again, albeit in a “civilized fashion”. Why don’t they just flip a coin –say a toonie? If their intellects come with any kind of sensibilities and regards for the common good of the party, they better decide beforehand who will be the leader hopeful, or they might again be seated in the second row.

I sincerely hope that Mssrs. Manley and McKenna will decide to run this time, thus making the Rae/Ignatieff –Ignatieff/ Rae conundrum moot.

Lester Pearson’s lessons for today’s defeated Liberals”. Andrew Cohen, Star, Oct 22nd

Your story was a timely & evocative piece on Lester B. Pearson and the Liberals of his time. Yes, the times were different, but there is little similarities between Pearson and Dion. Pearson was a diplomat who surrounded himself with ambitious and able people, and readily took advice. He also courageously forged ahead with controversial and even divisive platforms; e.g. the Canadian Flag, and Medicare, well knowing the fight Saskatchewan’s Tommy Douglas had in introducing Medicare there a few years earlier.

Dion’s Green Shift was somewhat contrived; too abstract, and did not appeal to the average person.


Person (as opposed to Dion) was a patient tactician and a superb strategist, and even more important: a real DIPLOMAT.. He left a legacy of social good and honourable politics. The Liberals have still a reservoir of talents, perhaps too many, and their future success will depend on their ability to put the common good before personal ambition. In fact, Stephen Harper is in a similar situation that was Pearson in 1958. And he has some of the same personal traits. Whether he can learn from Pearson’s story, and set a social agenda that will leave him with positive legacy, is another question. Only time will tell, but at this point in time, I do have my doubts.

Post-election pontifications

Voter apathy seems rampant in Canada these days, with just overhalf the eligiblevoters casting a ballot. Why? Does the average voter feel indifferent? Impotent? Or are we just too complaisant and comfortable?

And why did the Conservatives fail in Quebec? Why, after Harper's dalliance with the separatist sentiments and “a Nation within a Nation” –whatever that means –did they lose big in Quebec. Harper's subsidy reduction and careless comments about the average person supporting the arts elite cannot be the whole story.

Have majority governments become next to impossible? Why did so many people not bother to vote? Is the system is broken? Well, it might not be broken, but it is in need of a little remodelling, or dare I say, repairs.

The proliferation of parties is especially bothersome in a federal state such as ours. You have one-issue organizations and special interest groups gravitating to marginal parties, making if difficult for any party to get a majority. The confluence of interest groups and regional/provincial differences make political cohesiveness and solidarity much more difficult, or nearly impossible to achieve.

There are many countries, especially in Europe, that manage a multi-party system quite well. Norway, for example, has seven or eight political parties, and most of the time, they can only manage a coalition government. However, it is also a very centralized system, with a rather homogeneous society and a tradition of compromise and adjustments to regional differences. Canada, if anything is moving away from cultural cohesiveness, and this will make it ever harder to obtain the political consensus needed for a majority government.

Harper better make hay while the sun is shining, for after Dion the Liberals will, or should, have learned from their past mistakes and dip into their still substantial well of effective leadership potential. People like Bob Rae or John Manley will bring the intelligence, strategy, experience and eloquence needed to regain their party’s political ascendancy. Unless, of course, the party has a collective death wish and chose someone like Michael Ignatieff –an English-speaking Stephane Dion.

ELECTION Post Mortem

Dion had three MAJOR problems:
1. His language skills.2. His demanour (personality challenged). When he smiled - occasionally - it was with closed lips.3. "Green Shit" - sorry, "Green Shift". It was a suicidal mission to make that his main platform. While really a better method than "cap & trade", he could not sell it, and it should never have been his number one issue. He could have keept it under the table - like the conservatives did. They were never made to explain theirs, because they knew it was a losing issue, and took full advantage of Dion's blunder.
I am sure Mr. Dion is a fine fellow - in the college crowd. But most voters are not college professors or PhD's. Joe Lunchbucket - the plebians - had no idea what he was talking about, they just heard the word TAX. Hopefully, he has enougth grace to exit quickly and not add insult to injury by hanging on until he is forced out!
There is another professor waiting in the wings. His name is Michael Ignatieff, and he is a carbon copy of Dion except he speaks English.He is the one that said Isreal was commiting ethnic cleansing in Palestine. If the Libverals are stupid enough to go for another egghead, they deserve to go the way of the DODO.
There is a couple of other fellows that might do the trick: Bob Rae is also erudite, eloquent, and does not require a personality transplant.Then there is John Manley: likable, intelligent and very experienced; holding posts in the Chretien government, like Finance, Foreign Affairs and Depety PM. He also headed a bi - partisan commission on Afghanistan last winter. He might be their best choise of all!
If the Liberals don't get a life and make a sensible choise this time, they will be a long time in opposition and possibly share the faith of the old Progressive Conservatives - remember, the Conservatives with Progressive in their name?

The other election (American)

Because it is important to the rest of the world, and Canada in particular, I have been following the American electioneering as intently as our own Canadian one. What exiting times for political aficionados such as I.

Watching Sara Palin is like seeing a deadpan comedian performing, except she is really earnest in her histrionics. What we are really experiencing here is a “dumbing down” of American politics, the likes of which we haven’t seen before, except on reruns of “All In the Family”. Indeed, to quote Cynthia Harrison: “the founders of the American republic were hoping that Americans would agree to be governed not by an inherited aristocracy but an aristocracy of merit” or a meritocracy (italics are mine). Fat chance. What we have here is a race to the bottom, but the plebeians who wish to see one of theirs in the presidency, might rue their choice when they find that their emperor has no clothes.

Maclean's wins third round of hate fight

Inevitably, common sense prevailed with the BC HRC. It is a case that would never see daylight in an Islamic theocracy so eagerly propounded by the Islamists.

With an incredible arrogance and contemptible behaviour bordering on treason, Faisal Joseph, the lawyer for the Canadian Islamic Congress, called Canada a “deranged dominion”. He is not furthering his case by such inflammatory language and profanity.
I cannot help but wonder what would become him had he been spouting this drivel in and against an Islamic state, say Iran. No, I take that back –I don’t wonder, I know. He would be on top of a flatbed truck with a rope around his neck, with another dozen or so condemned, and a crowd of compatriots cheering on the proceedings.

If as he says, “his problem is Canada”, there are Islamic theocratic havens awaiting him whence he came. No one is forcing him to stay in this “beguiling totalitarianism”. Good riddance.

THE ELECTION

It becomes well night impossible to ignore anti-Harper criticism when it comes from a former PC cabinet minister. Also, Andrew Coyne of Maclean’s in his column, defended Dion’s Carbon Tax Plan as superior to the Conservative one, and no one can accuse Coyne (or Maclean’s) of being a Liberal hack. The biggest problem for Dion has been a rather poorly presented plan –the Carbon tax is a rather difficult concept and too easily associated with the negative word TAXATION. This allowed Harper to attack it as an expensive tax, and ignoring the fact that his cap & trade plan is no less expensive; in fact more so, according to Andrew Coyne & co.The Conservative criticism of Dion’s performance in the CBC interview with Peter Mansbridge recalls the PC’s ridicule of Jean Chretien’s drooping lip. It backfired severely, as I think this one, to a lesser degree, will also backfire, and in fact, help Dion.
Let me now make a confession: I was a card carrying Conservative when Harper & Jim Flaherty abruptly about-faced and announced the tax on Income Trusts. Overnight, I lost 35% of my investment –an investment that was monies from the sale of my small business and was intended to supplement my Canada Pension in my retirement, as I had no Company pension. This after Harper solemnly pledged to not tax “senior’s nest egg”! One can argue that all politicians overpromise and then break promises – following the dictum that a politician’s has to do what is needed to be elected –which apparently includes lying. Jean Chretien promised to cancel the GST and NAFTA, and then recanted. So did Pierre Trudeau regarding taxes and deficits. However, theirs were a general promise, applying to everyone. What Harper’s did, was punish a small minority of citizens, seniors and their retirement savings. They were not major constituency, and not as important as the large corporations putting pressure on him to “level the playing field”. It was a cynical and heartless decision!Then he retracted his promise to his fellow Conservative in Newfoundland, Danny Williams. And finally, he broke his on election law. This shows a cynicism and opportunism worthy of the Jesuits postulatum that the end justifies the means, or as Ignatius Loyola stated in the Thirteenth Rule: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it.
I have come to believe something that I have never before believed about any Canadian party leader: that Harper is a clever, pragmatic, callous and calculating scoundrel, who if in a majority position would try to remake Canada in his right-wing, reactionary image.

THE DEBATE

Well, Dion didn't deliver any knockout punches last night, but neither did he flameout. While he did mention the Income Trust debacle, and did so quite well, he failed to nail Harper on the Conservative (old) cap & trade plan that will cost as much overall and be less effective and more economically distorting. He could have referred to Andrew Coyne's article in Maclean's this week ( and neither Coyne nor Maclean's can be accused of being Liberal hacks) defending the "Green Shift" as superior to the Conservatives rather ineffectual "plan", which they now seem to be downplaying.
Elizabeth May came out on top; she was eloquent, intelligent and effective. Perhaps she should be the leader of the opposition.