Friday, April 29, 2005
Bustin loose - No Canada
Washington Times Columnist Austin Bay is calling Canada the specter of the world's next failed state. Bay clearly has no love lose for a nation of beer drinkers, peaceniks, Mounties and socialists - his charming words not mine.
Bay lowers the bar and brings in this gem: "If you don't know about Canada's crooked politicians, you're not alone." Earth to Bay, you live in a country where political money buys everything (big oil, big unions, big business, etc), logrolling is common place and you continue to hand pick dictators around the globe to support US interests. I think enjoying a Molson now and then is ok.
He also claims that democracy and free speech are breaking out in Beirut, but they're both taking a beating in Ontario and that the Canadian government has a press clamp on an investigation into the ruling Liberal Party's "Adscam" kickback scheme. Get your facts straight scribe. The ban was in place to protect some of the witnesses who are facing criminal charges. Plus, ask Paul Martin or his colleagues if they wanted or benefited from the ban.
Finally he concludes with his version of a New Canada without Quebec. It goes like this: Say Quebec becomes a separate European-style nation-state -- a "people" with cultural, linguistic, religious and historical identity (never mind the objections of Mohawk and Cree Indians in Quebec). Quebec has the people and resources to make a go of it, though the economic price for its egotism will be stiff.
British Columbia also has "nation-state" assets: access to the sea, strong industrial base, raw materials and an educated population. This would be attractive real estate for the US, but Bay is too dense to figure that out.
Oil-producing Alberta might join the United States and instantly find common political ground with Alaska, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. I quite like Alberta and have lots of friends and family there. They would little in common with the backwoods states of Louisiana, Oklahoma or Texas. It could be part of Bush's push for energy independence - take over Alberta and make it the 51st.
Canada's struggling Atlantic provinces might find statehood economically attractive and extend the New England coastline. Not likely.
A rump Canada consisting of "Greater Ontario" -- with remaining provinces as appendages -- might keep the Maple Leaf flag aloft. Ont-ask-atobia - it has a lovely ring to it.
As for poor, isolated Newfoundland: Would Great Britain like to reacquire a North American colony?
What about the north? There are resources there and hmmm... people too.
As stated in a previous column, all of this could be solved if the progressive US states (and the real economic engine of the country) looked north and decided to get out of the Bushes. Maybe someday the people there will be sick of posting massive deficits to fund costly illegal wars or maybe not.
Bay lowers the bar and brings in this gem: "If you don't know about Canada's crooked politicians, you're not alone." Earth to Bay, you live in a country where political money buys everything (big oil, big unions, big business, etc), logrolling is common place and you continue to hand pick dictators around the globe to support US interests. I think enjoying a Molson now and then is ok.
He also claims that democracy and free speech are breaking out in Beirut, but they're both taking a beating in Ontario and that the Canadian government has a press clamp on an investigation into the ruling Liberal Party's "Adscam" kickback scheme. Get your facts straight scribe. The ban was in place to protect some of the witnesses who are facing criminal charges. Plus, ask Paul Martin or his colleagues if they wanted or benefited from the ban.
Finally he concludes with his version of a New Canada without Quebec. It goes like this: Say Quebec becomes a separate European-style nation-state -- a "people" with cultural, linguistic, religious and historical identity (never mind the objections of Mohawk and Cree Indians in Quebec). Quebec has the people and resources to make a go of it, though the economic price for its egotism will be stiff.
British Columbia also has "nation-state" assets: access to the sea, strong industrial base, raw materials and an educated population. This would be attractive real estate for the US, but Bay is too dense to figure that out.
Oil-producing Alberta might join the United States and instantly find common political ground with Alaska, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. I quite like Alberta and have lots of friends and family there. They would little in common with the backwoods states of Louisiana, Oklahoma or Texas. It could be part of Bush's push for energy independence - take over Alberta and make it the 51st.
Canada's struggling Atlantic provinces might find statehood economically attractive and extend the New England coastline. Not likely.
A rump Canada consisting of "Greater Ontario" -- with remaining provinces as appendages -- might keep the Maple Leaf flag aloft. Ont-ask-atobia - it has a lovely ring to it.
As for poor, isolated Newfoundland: Would Great Britain like to reacquire a North American colony?
What about the north? There are resources there and hmmm... people too.
As stated in a previous column, all of this could be solved if the progressive US states (and the real economic engine of the country) looked north and decided to get out of the Bushes. Maybe someday the people there will be sick of posting massive deficits to fund costly illegal wars or maybe not.
# posted by Shaky @ 8:38 a.m. 
