Basil Expo ([info]basil_expo) wrote,
  • Mood: nostalgic
  • Music: Kaiser Chiefs - You Can Have It All

Reality is slowly settling back in

Well, contrary to my expectations, the sun did rise this morning to usher in a new chapter in Canadian politics - one I can't say I'm looking forward to.

I suppose one of my gravest concerns for the future is what will happen to Canada's place in the world, an issue that was tragically overlooked in the debates and the campaign in general. I wonder if our role as a middle power in the world and our lead-by-ideas approach will be lost as the rest of the world throws us in with Australia (who also elected a conservative pro-Bush government). I suppose now documents like "The Responsibility to Protect" will have to make way for missile defence blueprints.

Anyway, before I went to bed last night I said a little prayer for Canada. Although I don't think any of the parties would be able to realise my dream of what this country could be, I really hope our new government doesn't depart from the progress we have made thus far.

On a personal note, I would have to say that yesterday was probably the most hectic production night I've ever had the pleasure of enduring at my time at the paper... that damned election supplement better be worth all the time and effort it's cost us.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 11 comments

[info]monkeybutlers

January 25 2006, 03:15:14 UTC 6 years ago

RtP is a good document but then there's other Martin attempts like the L20 which went nowhere. People had no idea what he wanted from the July G8 meeting. And even in terms of RtP, there's an implicit promise to actually back it up which does require things like a more effective military.

And let's not forget what BMD actually involved. It involved an investment of $0 from Canada in exchange for putting it under NORAAD control. As flawed as the system is (on numerous levels) I still don't see what it would have cost Canada.

[info]basil_expo

January 25 2006, 04:20:10 UTC 6 years ago

Dignity.

[info]bk_runner

January 25 2006, 04:48:52 UTC 6 years ago

dignity and a sack of potatoes is worth the sack....or something like that i think....ya whatever

[info]monkeybutlers

January 25 2006, 05:14:39 UTC 6 years ago

What about the slow degradation of the authority of NORAAD and the shutting out of Canada from continental security decisions in the minds of the United States?

Dignity is great [high school debater] but at what cost??? [/high school debater]

[info]davetallguy

January 25 2006, 06:18:21 UTC 6 years ago

I don't think that there was any dignity to be lost in committing to a program that costs the country nothing and is something that is basically going to be done anyway that helps us maintain our incredibly important relationship with the most powerful country in the world.

Independence is great, but it can't be ignored that the one of the largest reasons we can be independent and free and all that wonderful stuff is the proximity and relationship with the United States.

Missile defense was a stupid thing to take a stand on. I have no problem with not sending troops to Iraq because that cause was questionable and there was an obvious cost in troops safety and money. However, to continue to damage our relationship with the US over something that literally cost us nothing is ridiculous.

[info]basil_expo

January 25 2006, 06:46:42 UTC 6 years ago

I think the stand on missile defence was an important one to take. Sure it would have been easy and relatively cheap to go along with it, but then we would be condoning the development of missile defence, a technology that threatens to jeopordise MADD. I'm sure you've been to Allen Sens' lectures on what would happen when one side thinks it can fight and win a nuclear war.

If the Americans want to piss off the Russians and Chinese then they can do it without us.

[info]bk_runner

January 25 2006, 08:58:32 UTC 6 years ago

We sure don't want to piss off those Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I hear they have a huge nuclear stockpile stashed away in the Caucasus somewhere.

[info]basil_expo

January 25 2006, 09:49:11 UTC 6 years ago

Well technically my argument is correct. If there were to be a nuclear war, I'm sure the organisation Mothers Against Drunk Driving wouldn't survive. That was point all along, and any suggestions of a typo are completely groundless.

[info]funky_violet

January 25 2006, 06:18:31 UTC 6 years ago

WOW. All I can say is WOW. I have a feeling this post came from a pretty deep serious place inside you. WOW. Also do you really honestly think Harper is going to turn us into the US as it is under Bush - cause (& I hope I'm not being optimistic) but really that type of extreme right wingism can only happen in certain political environments, & I don't think Canada will ever be the type of environment to accept right winging it that far.

[info]basil_expo

January 25 2006, 07:01:23 UTC 6 years ago

I'm sure you're right that Canada would not be willing to accept a lot of what Harper would like to do... which makes me wonder why we elected him. If you don't share a politician's vision, why vote for them?

Say you're allergic to peanut butter. So you go out and buy a tub of peanut butter and put it in you house, but you keep it in it's tub and don't ever open it. Sure it probably won't harm you, but it's still kind of dumb.

Anyway, we elect people to represent our views in Parliament and I think it only logical that the people we vote for actually do.

And yes, I suppose that did come from within and that my concerns are more grounded in worry than what is likely to happen.

[info]funky_violet

January 29 2006, 02:18:19 UTC 6 years ago

maybe some people actually agree with some of the views of Harper - maybe not all the people & maybe not all of his views... but lotsa people voted for him. Accept it!
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…