Video from yesterday’s heated question period.

Also, a story that’s been overlooked that’s of import.

As one might expect, I have been flooded with emails regarding the coalition government initiative being pursued by the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc.

First, let me say that the use of the term ‘coup d’état’ in this instance is entirely ridiculous. That doesn’t mean that I support the initiative, just that this move is not illegal under our system of government, thus labeling it a coup attempt is idiotic at best.

As for the initiative itself – I think it nothing more than business as usual in Ottawa, a representation of the never ending partisan nonsense that has turned the House into an alternate universe in which the interests of ordinary Canadians are routinely sidetracked.

I’m well aware that groups with which I am affiliated are backing the move, but from my chair I only see this leading to another federal election in 18 months, and another waste of tens of millions of dollars so that Canadians can, once again, be faced with having to choose from a group of lackluster candidates seeking this nation’s highest office.

If a coalition government were to seriously address the issues of climate change, the war in Afghanistan, and nuclear policy in an aggressive fashion then I might be persuaded to support the move. But I have this sneaking suspicion that if they do succeed in toppling the current government, infighting will simply replace the contention already prevalent on the floor of the House and such issues will simply be bogged down by conflicting policy positions.

Just because something is animated is doesn’t automatically mean that it’s for kids. Fritz The Cat is certainly not material for youths, neither is Heavy Metal or American Pop. As far as I am concerned, South park fits into that category – it is not a show meant for young viewers.

It is easy enough in this day and age to blame shows such as South Park for the actions of kids, especially when those actions lead to violence, but the truth is that parents are the ones at fault for allowing their children access to it, or, at the very least, not taking a serious role in monitoring what their kids are being exposed to. If parents see no problem with their kids watching South Park then it is their responsibility to put its content into context for them so that there is no confusion. Equally, it is also a parent’s responsibility to determine if their child grasps their explanation of the content of the show and, if they don’t, to ensure that they are not exposed to it until such a time that they do understand its humour.

If you are a fan of the series, and have followed its development over the last twelve years, then you’re aware that it has taken very risqué shots at everything from religion to race, stardom to war. That said, its satirical commentary is not something that can be dismissed as petty because of the “who killed Kenny” phenomenon that first swept North America when the show first premiered. The show has, since those early seasons, grown into something entirely different – a pop culture watchdog of sorts that isn’t afraid to confront issues that most will not. For that, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have to be given credit.

My reason for mentioning this has to do with a Facebook page run by a 14-year-old boy on Vancouver Island that promoted November 20th as “National Kick A Ginger Day”. The page resulted in widespread assaults on children with red hair who were confronted and kicked by fellow students repeatedly without warning. One student in Nanaimo, BC, was kicked an estimated 80 times throughout the day.

The episode of South Park that influenced this idiotic scheme, entitled “Ginger Kids”, is about Eric Cartman being taught a lesson by Stan and Kyle after giving a presentation during show and tell about what he refers to as “Ginger Kids”. During the presentation Cartman claims that Ginger Kids don’t have souls, can’t walk in the daylight, and are inherently evil. That night, to make a point, Stan and Kyle sneak into Cartman’s bedroom, dye his hair red, and use Henna to give him freckles. This all leads to Cartman hypocritically embarking on a twisted campaign to see “Gingers” rule the world. At the finale of the episode, just as Cartman’s “Ginger Kid” followers are set to dispose of “non-Gingers” by dumping them into lava, he’s told about the prank and has to quickly go about convincing them not to go through with his master plan. Thus, while the very beginning of the episode singles “Ginger Kids” out, the majority of it is about Cartman, who believes that he has become a “Ginger Kid”, attempting to persecute everyone who isn’t one – a theme that is actually prevalent in numerous episodes in which the character of Cartman is used as a contradictory or subversive device.

That said, the fact that a Facebook group was established to promote the kicking of “Ginger Kids” only speaks to how many youths completely misconstrued the actual intent of the episode itself. In short, it was completely over their heads.

Ultimately, are Matt Stone and Trey Parker responsible for the actions of moronic kids? Absolutely not. The moronic kids of moronic or disassociated parents are. End of story.

The Eurozone is now officially in a state of recession. Germany has declared that it has officially entered a state of recession, and more nations around the world are sure to follow. The implications of the financial crisis in the Third World will be overlooked and, of course, completely under reported, but it is there that the hammer blow will fall the hardest.

The Canadian dollar has also taken a nose dive, primarily because of the liquidation of foreign investments in Canadian industry and the decreasing price of oil. The process used to exploit the Albertan oil sands is an expensive one, and one that benefited from high oil prices, making the process itself more economically realistic.

Beyond that, Canwest suffered a 1 billion dollar loss in the fourth quarter. And while that is sure to affect the lives of its employees, you can bet your bottom dollar that it won’t affect the lives of the Asper family all that much.

And finally, real estate sales dropped 14% nationally in October alone, the most significant drop since 1994. Here in Vancouver, sales have fallen some 50% over the last year, while property prices have only fallen slightly. Take a look on Craigslist and you’ll find a plethora of owners that bought on margin trying to rent postage stamp real estate in the downtown core for astronomical prices in an attempt to cover their mortgages. It would seem the days of the buy and flip have come to a painful end.

With regards to the situation in the United States, where the financial crisis began, it looks as if golden parachutes aren’t going to be needed. As Naomi Klein explains, it seems that the package itself was built with a silver lining already in place…

“The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington’s handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal.

In a moment of high panic in late September, the US Treasury unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are taxed—a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that “Treasury had no authority to issue the [tax change] notice.”

Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has negotiated with many of the country’s banks. According to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables the deals, “Any use of these funds for any purpose other than lending—for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc.—is a violation of the act.” Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used.

Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure.”

Meanwhile, President Bush has defended the free market system, claiming that it is not responsible for the crisis. He’s right, it isn’t. Greed is.

First, I’d like to direct readers to Roy Jurgens new blog, Harbinger Of Doom. As always, Roy’s writing is excellent and it’s a blog that’s certainly worth bookmarking, maybe even more so than this one.

A few days ago, Dimitri Vassilaros of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote something regarding Remembrance Day that I found very poignant. An excerpt…

“When remembering the brave Americans on Tuesday who served this republic — especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice — remember the people who put them in harm’s way.

Veterans Day, which was known as Armistice Day until 1954, honors American veterans of all wars on Nov. 11.

What many of them experienced doing their duty is almost incomprehensible. Sing their praises to the heavens. Shower them with all the glory they so richly deserve. Thank God so many put their lives on the line to help make this the greatest nation in history. But after the parade bands stop marching, the bunting is decommissioned and the bystanders stop waving those little American flags, consider why so many have been wounded or lost — and if anything can be done to lessen the need for more rehab hospitals and national cemeteries.

The public should ask itself if it’s ever done a disservice to its service men and women when expedience trumped the U.S. Constitution. And if so, how many in our military paid — and how dearly.

Congress has formally declared war during five conflicts: with Great Britain in 1812, Mexico in 1846, Spain in 1898 and the two world wars.

However, this nation has used its armed forces abroad in situations of military or potential conflict (or for other than normal peacetime purposes) more than 420 times, according to a report by Richard F. Grimmett, a congressional research service defense specialist at the Library of Congress.

U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan to Zaire, the Fiji Islands, Hawaiian Islands and Falkland Islands, Samoa, Sumatra and, yes, even Soviet Russia. The U.S. battled Barbary pirates and Mexican bandits but also deployed troops to protect American interests in foreign lands — too many times and in too many places (like Korea and Vietnam) — to fight and maybe die.”

In Response

In the comments regarding my last entry a reader wrote…

“The gates of Auschwitz were not opened with peace talks. Holland was not liberated by peacekeepers and fascism was not defeated with a deft pen. Time and time again men and women in uniform have laid down their lives in just causes and in an effort to free others from oppression.”

There is no questioning the fact that the Second World War is difficult to confront when commenting on the virtues of peace. Throughout history there have been those that have acted criminally and that have had no regard for it unless attained through the use of arms to secure a self serving state of peace. The Third Reich is one such example, but it is certainly not the only one, and certainly not the most infamous.

As we’re all aware, Auschwitz-Birkenau was physically discovered by the Red Army, but the existence of the camp was made known to the Allied powers by the Polish underground as early as 1941. While the extent of what took place at the camps was beyond imagination, it should not be forgotten than IBM, acting through foreign subsidiaries, provided the Third Reich with the punch card machines that helped them track down and identify Jews in Europe. Thomas J. Watson, then the CEO of IBM, was a known Nazi sympathizer who lobbied as the head of the International Chamber of Commerce to have the economic sanctions implemented against Germany lifted. He personally travelled to Germany numerous times in the 1930’s, was awarded The Eagle with Star medal from Hitler, and dined with the Nazi elite while Jews, and others, were being systematically rounded up.

While IBM has always denied that their assistance significantly aided the Third Reich, as the Germans would eventually take control of the operation and were unable to reproduce the punch cards themselves, Thomas J. Watson was never tried for treason, nor held accountable for his actions. He returned the medal that Hitler presented him after Germany declared war on the United States and remained IBM’s CEO. One of his masterstrokes, one made unquestionably either to cover his own ass or as the result of pressure from the US government given the dirt that they no doubt had on him, was the implemented the 1% Doctrine, which meant that IBM would not receive more than 1% profit from the sale of military equipment to the US government.

Watson is just one example of an American businessman that not only supported the Third Reich, but profited from his relationship with them. And those profits did not evaporate while young Americans were dying on the beaches of Normandy or at Anzio.

War has many faces, we look for the just ones, but the truth is that even the Second World War is replete with criminality on both sides. Of course, the dedication and sacrifice of those men and women that did their duty cannot be questioned. But the truth of the matter is that war remains war and peace remains nowhere near as exalted an enterprise in the annals of human history. For even in the aftermath of the most justifiable of conflicts, new conflicts arise out of their ashes, as was the case at the end of the Second World War. And because of that reality, atomic weapons were used on two Japanese cities to make a political point at Potsdam, one which only fueled the fire. That’s what happens when the likes of Dean Acheson are whispering in your ear.

The men and women of this nation that served in the Second World War certainly deserve our praise and gratitude for their sacrifice. Many members of my own family served, so it is something that has certainly never been lost on me. We are a nation that is commonly overlooked when it comes to out contribution in foreign wars, and World War 2 is certainly no exception. Our actions at Juno Beach on D-Day were exemplary, though they have been completely overshadowed by the accomplishments of others. That would be why I personally donated more money to the construction of the Juno Beach Memorial Centre than many Canadian corporations did.

The point of my last entry was to not to claim that peace should be ignorantly sought, but rather that we must safeguard ourselves in this current day and age against the wanton use of force and the wholly disrespectful use of the past to play on our perceptions and emotions to justify it. Afghanistan is not World War 2. Those that have been lost in Afghanistan are, in my opinion, victims of policy, and therefore their loss is extremely disconcerting. This nation has paid a greater cost in Afghanistan than any other when the size of the contingents involved are taken into account. And to me, that is simply unacceptable.

Defeating the Germans in the Second World War was something that certainly had to be done. Then again, so was the toppling of Rome given that it waged unrestrained wars of conquest for centuries and enslaved and killed millions over the course of its imperial domination. And yet, in the annals of history, the Roman civilization is considered one of humanity’s bright spots.

Leave your opinions in the comments.

Updates:

- CBC calls election - Conservative minority government.
- Conservatives gain slightly larger minority.
- Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, loses her seat.
- Conservatives fail to make gains in Quebec.
- Voter turnout may be one of the lowest in Canadian history.
- Past election stats.
- Twitter Tweet traffic used during CBC’s election coverage.
- Libby Davies re-elected in Vancouver East. Congrats Libby!
- Bloc retains its position in Parliament.
- Election cost $300 million dollars.
- Blackout was broken online.
- Election could produce most women in Parliament in Canadian history.

That’s It

Well, that does it for me this evening. So, do you feel like you got your $300 million dollars worth? There are those that will argue that you can’t put a price tag on democracy. In this instance I disagree. The Prime Minister broke his own election law in an attempt to gain a majority. He failed and nothing has really changed. In the process we lost hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been used to bolster any number of social programs. As far as I’m concerned, that is the price we’ve paid for political vanity.

Today marks the third time in four years that Canadians have gone to the polls. Of course, we won’t know anything for hours, so this entry is rather pointless. I will say one thing – there is the possibility that tonight’s outcome could result in the ability for a coalition government to be formed - not that I think it will happen, but you never know. Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canadian history, that being the Union Government of 1917-1920 - so, historically speaking, odds are against it.

All of that said, I’m going to stick with my initial prediction that this entire venture will have been a waste of time and will simply produce another Conservative minority.

I’m not one for attempting to predict the future when it comes to Canadian politics. That said, I am prepared to go out on a bit of a limb and say that I think the outcome of tomorrow’s federal election will produce another Conservative minority government.

Having said that, I find it very interesting that the Prime Minister believes that such an outcome would represent a ‘clear mandate’ from the Canadian people. Were the Canadian people to give the Conservatives a ‘clear mandate’ then it only stands to reason that the Tories would secure a significant majority, having already led a minority government. If a Conservative minority is the outcome tomorrow, this snap election will have failed to produce the results the Tories were hoping for, not to mention being a waste of tens of millions of dollars.

In truth, I don’t think Mr. Harper should be surprised if he finds himself in a relatively unchanged landscape come Wednesday morning. During this campaign his party has failed to even outline a platform, focusing almost exclusively on the promotion of why others party leaders should be feared – as was demonstrated by the commercials run by the Conservatives during Hockey Night In Canada on Saturday which presented no ideas, nor solutions to anything, only why Mr. Dion should worry Canadians.

None of this is to say that I support the Liberal party, or any other party for that matter, because I don’t. But one thing must be said. If the outcome of tomorrow’s election produces another minority government then it’s high time that Canadian politicians put partisan politics aside and worked together for a change for the betterment of the this nation. In many respects, minority governments are a good thing, but that entirely depends on whether those that have been elected to office can put aside their differences and actually achieve something unique rather than continuing to disenfranchise the people of this nation by conducting business as usual.

I first want to make a statement regarding tonight’s debate that has nothing to do with the issues discussed. All Canadians should take a moment and digest the fact that we live in one of the only countries in the world in which political engagements are conducted bilingually. No matter where you happen to come from in this country, that is a point of pride that all Canadians should identify with.

That said; if it were possible to take everyone at that table tonight and somehow combine them into a single person, this county would be in good hands. Unfortunately, being that that’s an impossibility, my opinion of the five party leaders wasn’t altered this evening.

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised that the debate wasn’t entirely focused on the current economic crisis and the participants didn’t employ it as a political fear tactic. It was wide ranging and covered numerous issues, though I found it unfortunate that the war in Afghanistan did not receive more attention given that we are, after all, a nation at war – one that, when the size of our force is put into context with regards to the sizes of other NATO forces involved in combat operations, we have the highest casualty rate.

One definite positive about tonight’s debate was its moderation. Hopefully Jim Lehrer was taking notes.

There are those that will argue that the controversy regarding Mr. Harper and the speech that he gave in Parliament in 2003 that plagiarized a speech given by Australia’s then Prime Minister, John Howard, is little more than a political move on the part of the Liberals, who are waning in the polls.

Given that we’re in the midst of a federal election, I’ll certainly not deny that this revelation is incredibly timely, especially given the fact that the speech was made five years ago.

That said; as an independent observer, and someone that does not support the Liberal Party, nor any other party for that matter, confronting the actual issue behind the plagiarism is something I feel highly relevant.

The speech that Mr. Harper gave in 2003 was one in which he urged this country to join the ‘coalition of the willing’, and thus involve us in the US led invasion of Iraq. One therefore has to ask several fundamental questions.

1) Were the Prime Minister to gain a majority, would there be a reversal of policy regarding Iraq, even if such an alteration did not promise the inclusion of Canadian combat assistance?

2) Does the Prime Minister still hold to the belief that Canada should have supported the invasion of Iraq?

3) Given what has occurred since, would he have supported Canadian involvement in the occupation of that country?

These are fundamental questions that I feel are highly relevant.

Then there is the act of plagiarism itself. Obviously, Owen Lippert, the individual that wrote the speech given by Mr. Harper, has now resigned. Having done so, Lippert has claimed that neither Mr. Harper, nor his superiors, were aware that he had plagiarized Howard’s speech.

This is where the Prime Minister’s continual promotion of ethical government must be questioned. No matter who was responsible for writing the speech, it was one that Mr. Harper gave in the House, and therefore exists within the Parliamentary record as his own. Despite the fact that it was written by Lippert, for the Prime Minister to now claim that he cannot be held to account is entirely hypocritical given his steadfast promotion of government accountability and transparency. Five years have passed since the speech was made, and yet it is only now, after the truth was uncovered, that Lippert has resigned.

That, in and of itself, should say something to Canadians with regards to how Mr. Harper runs his shop.