On The Impending "Coalition Government"

Well, it didn't take long for they boys in Ottawa to send things to Hell in a handbasket after spending some 300-million dollars on a an election campaign which resulted -- more or less -- in the same government in the House.

What has developed in the House of Commons in the last week or so is nothing short of amazing.

As for my thoughts on this "three-party coalition" set to topple the Harper government, I am unsure of what is the best alternative. It is clear to me that the democratic process in the House will be roadblocked until a majority is elected -- which could be 2 3, or 4 elections from now -- nobody knows. The Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP are thwarting to usurp the conservative party by 'joining forces' with one another -- these three parties in the past couldn't agree on a single thing. Even if they manage to obtain power in the house, infighting between the parties will ensure the 40th Parliament will be dead -- and we will be heading to the polls sooner, rather than later -- like the 2011 date proposed by the coalition.

This whole mess has left Canadians enraged, while our Governor General is decidedly out of the country. At least Her Excellency returns tomorrow to deal with the crisis. Sadly, come Monday, she's going to have to make a difficult choice: either accept the three-party coalition as the governing party, or dissolve Parliament and we head into another election campaign -- the second in almost as many months.

Following this story, I have read hundreds of comments from enraged Canadians, and many of them spouting nonsense, which, more or less, is why I felt compelled to write about this subject. Here are two of the most idiotic statements I have read -- and my editorial as to why these are so ridiculous.

Quote #1 (paraphrased): What's been happening this week in the House of Commons is appalling. The Members of Parliament are acting like kids in a schoolyard. We should send them another message as disgruntled citizens by NOT voting in the next election.

This is utter madness. The reason why we have this lousy excuse for a government this term is because of voter apathy -- the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history! If you vote or don't vote, the end result is the same: the votes are counted, and the ones with the most votes win. How is not voting going to make a difference? That's like trying to instigate Revolution by taking a nap. Now, sending a message by spoiling your ballot is a little more effective in a sense that you are at least sending a message. The end result is the same though -- the person with the most votes still wins.

Quote #2 (paraphrased): 60% of the population didn't vote for Harper. That means 60% of the population will be happy to see someone else in power. So the three-party coalition is probably a good thing.

Oooh, this one is a doozy. Don't get me started about "voting for Harper" -- under 1% of Canada's population voted for Harper -- only the majority those who reside in his riding did. We vote for a Member of Parliament. The person elected Prime Minister is most often the leader of the party with the most seats. But I digress -- this wasn't what I was getting at anyway.

Instead, let's replace "Harper" with "Conservative" in quote number two. While it is true that the Conservatives received only 40 percent of the vote, The Liberals, New Democrats, the Bloc, and the fringe parties received even less; if you sum them together you get something like 60 percent.

Whoever wrote quote number 2 above obviously thinks his/her world is black and white. The only way 60% of the population would be happy about Harper's government being toppled is if -- and only if -- 60 percent of all voters marked an X beside the checkbox that read: "Anyone but Harper" on their ballot. Last I checked, that option was not on my ballot -- or anyone else's.

So if you let Stephane Dion become Prime Minister, do you think 60-percent of the population is going to be happy about it? Absolutely not. Maybe 20 percent of the population will be happy about it -- those who are privy to Liberal ideology. And if Gilles Duceppe became the appointed Prime Minister (it would never happen anyway) would that mean that everyone in Quebec would be happy? Absolutely not. In fact, I would expect there are a number of people who voted conservative -- even though they don't like having Harper as the party leader. We can't do anything about that as citizens. Our duty is to elect the representative who will best serve our interests in Parliament. To vote by ideology -- or along party lines -- something I see way too often in Conservative Alberta -- I consider to be dangerous. I've seen so many unqualified, egomaniac, socially corrupt, power hungry, and greedy folk get elected because they ran for the "right party" -- it makes me question the intelligence of the public. But hey, that's why we love democracy: at least we had our say.

Now even though these "quotes" aren't verbatim, they are representative of a number of comments on news-stories published all over the web. Seriously. Go have a look, anywhere, and you'll see what I mean.

Nothing To See Here Folks, Move Along...

The result of today's election -- of the $300 million the Canadian Government spent on this election campaign, has been somewhat disappointing to many Canadians. In one light, I am glad that I contributed in my own way, even if the person I voted for was not elected, I at least had my say.

That being said, for the most part, the election results came in pretty much the way I had suspected they would.

Now, how would you know this? I would have made my prediction publicly on this website, but like so many of the public, I was not terribly excited about this election campaign. The only major issue (the economic meltdown) only came to light mid-way through the campaign. Just take my word for it -- this is what I predicted:

• The Conservatives would marginally increase their representation in Parliament, though only succeed in winning a minority. In truth, they gained 19 seats, which was more than I expected they would.
  
• The Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois would lose seats. In truth, the Bloc managed to maintain their representation; the Liberals lost a substantial 26 seats.
  
• The New Democrats would gain representation -- though not as much as leader Jack Layton would predict. I was very accurate in this prediction, as the New Democrats gained over 20% representation in the House.
  
• The Green Party would remain a fringe party.
  

What does this mean to the common Canadian citizen? Well, not much really. The face of parliament hasn't changed much since Parliament was dissolved last September. There was no major shift in the balance of power. I guess this is the reason why so many people feel that this election was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

I bet if you ask Jack Layton, he would feel that $300 million was money well spent. When you consider that his party (and his power in Parliament) grew by more than 20 percent tonight, he became the true winner of this evening's election.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, though gaining 19 seats in the House, becomes the first loser, as he was unsuccessful in clinching a majority government.

The bigger loser, of course was Stephane Dion. Losing 26 seats in the House will ensure his leadership will be cast into question in the coming days. I suspect we will see the Liberals spending all kinds of party money on leadership conventions, only to produce a new leader who will have the daunting task in attempting to repair a broken party.

The biggest losers of all, were the people of Canada. Roughly 56-percent of eligible voters cast a ballot -- the lowest in Canadian history. I consider this a major black mark for Canada, and for democracy as a whole. Voter apathy produces only one thing: Tyranny. If you consider that there were nearly ten-million voters in Canada that did not cast a ballot today, there was a distinct chance that those votes could have impacted the results of many ridings.

To protest by not voting (something I have been hearing about recently) is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is exactly how tyrants come to power.

All it Means is That I'm Earning Less and Less

Our illustrious Premier Ed Stalmach tossed us all a bone yesterday, raising the minimum wage in Alberta to 8 dollars per hour, up from the current rate of 7 dollars per hour. The change will come into effect in September. Furthermore, wages are to be re-evaluated annually in the future, and the minimum wage adjusted accordingly.

Now I would think raising the minimum wage should be a good thing, and I should be cheering on the Conservative government. Then, how can it be that I am about as tempered as a rabid dog right now, bent on biting the messenger?

Perhaps I can relate with a bit of history and personal experience. I am a [relatively] young punk. I am sure there are many of you who remember minimum wage being something like $1 per hour. Conversely, I began working when minimum wage was less than $5 per hour. When the minimum wage was raised to $5 per hour almost 15 years ago, was my salary adjusted accordingly? No.

Why? Because I was already making more than minimum wage. Not by much mind you, but enough for me to feel that sting from the realization that my salary was worth less, comparatively.

Obviously, I invested a great deal of my time and energy into earning a University degree, so I could get a "decent" job that would pay a "decent" salary, so that I could drive a "decent" car, and live in a "decent" house, raise a "decent" family, and if I was lucky, I could afford a "decent" pine box to put my ashes into at the end of it all.

In the five years since earning my Degree, I have yet to see any benefits from this "Economic Boom" that Alberta and (to a slightly lesser degree) the rest of the nation has endured. When I graduated I did get a job that showed potential. Sure, I took a salary hit due to my lack of experience, and settled on a training salary equivalent to twice that of the minimum wage offered at that time. It wasn't much, but it would allow me to gain some critical work experience, learn some skills, and as agreed with my employer, my salary would be adjusted as I gained experience.

What I have earned in wage adjustments over the years has hardly had any beneficiary effect on my standard of living. In fact, given the cost of living in this province, the rate of inflation, the prohibitive cost of housing, and the cost of fuel, I am actually earning considerably less than I did five years ago!

Minimum wage is completely arbitrary in Alberta, and has been for a couple years now. The employers that are offering minimum wage as a starting salary are obvious; just go to the job bank and see how many of these jobs are listed and relisted. Why? Because of two scenarios:

1. Nobody is applying for jobs that pay minimum wage, and
   
2. Whomever is earning minimum wage for unskilled labor are leaving their jobs for ones that are paying between $10 and $15 for similar duties.

What really gets my blood boiling is that there are high-school dropouts who are earning more than I, and all they have to do is ask "Would you like a donut with that large double-double?"

For $14 dollars an hour, I will ask unruly customers if they "want fries with that". It's a far easier job than what I currently put up with on a daily basis.

It blows my mind how the media thinks that there are all these "Big Money" jobs in Alberta. Unless you opt to risk your life and health in the Tar Sands or on a drilling rig, I haven't seen any good jobs being offered with equitable pay. With the average price of a home in Alberta approaching $400,000, I'd say that's an awful large amount of french fries to serve in order to pay off that mortgage.

So who are the true winners of this "Economic Boon" (misspelling intentional)? It's the wealthy. It's the business owners. It's those who hold property and the more they own, the more they are laughing their way to the bank. Liquid assets aren't paying off. Thanks to the high Canadian dollar, fueled by unprecedented economic growth, and the unstable price of oil, my Mutual Funds are in the tank. I'd get more out of my investment if I dropped it all into one of those Government-sponsored slot machines (thanks, Ralph!). At least it would pay out once in a thousand pulls.

So hats off to Ed Stalmach, for raising minimum wage in our province to $8.00 per hour. He'd better open up his eyes soon, as the least any of us are making over here is $10.00 per hour. But that could change tomorrow. It's not like it's going to affect my life any. My salary will not be adjusted accordingly, and when September rolls around, I can wake up knowing that the salary I earn is one step closer to what is better known as "unskilled labor".

While he's at it, maybe Ed can raise the minimum wage for working musicians in this province. We haven't seen a raise in over 25 years.

Little Mosque on the Prairie

It's about time that Muslims aren't portrayed on prime-time television as Christian-hating war-mongering radicals.

Now let's see how long it will take the American media conglomerate to start showing shows like this. Consider how long it took American television to portray African-Americans as successful, law-abiding citizens. Some might argue that even that hasn't happened yet.

Can You Say Martingate?

Okay, so Stronach crossed the floor yesterday to join the Grits. I thought this was a bit odd, but it occurred to me that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

What I think really happened, was that Paul Martin "bought" her, so she would defect to the Liberal party. Stronach, though new to politics, is popular, and seems to have a lot of influence with voters and other members of parliament.

It is obvious that Martin is worried about tomorrow's vote, that could potentially trigger a federal election.

Then this happens. Ooooh! Scandal! Can you say Martingate? If this is indeed true, Martin is buying votes, and paying opponents to abstain from voting. It may very well end up that the Liberal Government will remain in power after tomorrow's vote, as it sounds like it may wind up in the Liberals' favor, even if they had to play dirty to win the vote.

Frankly, I was hoping to see a Federal election in the next couple months.

As for Belinda Stronach, I'll tell you what she's got up her sleeve. She's a power-hungry woman. She ran for the leadership of the Conservatives, but didn't win. She was elected to Parliament in the interim, and she has been sitting with the opposition, quietly flirting with the Devil. As of yesterday, she crossed the floor and was immediately given a ministry position. If this doesn't say that Martin sold his soul to get her to defect to the Liberals, then my name's Chuck E Cheese.

I think Stronach wants to see an election in the coming weeks. And I'll tell you why. Though the Prime Minister is doing his best grant himself a stay of execution, I think his number is up. The Liberals polls are in the tank, but I still think that they are a better choice than the alternatives -- The Conservatives, the Bloc, or the NDP.

If an election is indeed called, I expect to see another minority government with the Liberals winning the most seats -- but I also expect them to lose a number of seats to the Bloc. I also believe that if the election is indeed held, I predict Prime Minister Paul Martin will lose his riding. If he does, I would bet money that there would be a new Liberal Leader and Prime Minister awaiting this country in the very near future.

I have little doubt if these events come to pass, that Stronach will be declaring her interest in obtaining the keys to 24 Sussex Drive. Like I said earlier, she's a power-hungry woman, whose got nothing to lose.

You heard it here first, folks.

The Captian And His Sinking Ship

Perhaps you caught Prime Minister Paul Martin's address to the nation this evening. If you didn't, he addressed the nation with his thoughts and feelings about the Sponsorship Scandal, the Gomery Inquiry, and the Liberal plan of action to rectify the situation.

I think the accompanying image pretty much sums up how I feel about Mr. Martin's address.

I find it incredible that the former Finance Minister had no knowledge of the misappropriation of countless millions of taxpayer dollars. I also find it convenient that he fired those he thought responsible for the scandal, on his first day as Prime Minister. I am further ashamed that Mr. Martin has not swallowed his pride and resigned -- yet. In the world of business, when something goes terribly wrong, the fault ultimately lies on the management; in this case, the former Finance Minister, Paul Martin. Why is he still trying to run this country, when he should have been shit-canned?

Canadian politics at the federal level has been a bloody mess since Jean Chrétien stepped down as Prime Minister in late 2003. In fact, things weren't even going so well at the time of his retirement. But since the election of a minority government last spring, no good has come out of Parliament Hill. No progress has been made on any major issue, including same-sex legislation, or the BSE crisis. Sure, the Liberals tried to re-introduce the marijuana bill, but not like that's going to do much good. We aren't all a bunch of lit hippies who wear mood rings, drive VW vans and listen to Simon and Garfunkel. While marijuana decriminalization will solve some societal problems, it will leave the door open to a whole pile of others.

It was quite apparent that Paul Martin's address to the nation was merely begging for a stay of execution. He promised he would call a federal election within thirty days of publication of the Gomery Report. Big Whoop. That report isn't due until December, which means the soonest we would see a federal election would be February 2006. Martin is obviously hoping that the smoke will clear by that time, and allow him to clear his name, and save the Liberal Party from near-extinction.

It was obvious by the responses from the leaders of the other political parties that they aren't buying Martin's shit-burger deal. I hope to see an election be called within the next month. I want Martin out of the PM's seat, out of Parliament, and out of politics.

What then? Prime Minister Stephen Harper? Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe? Prime Minister Jack Layton? Every one of these alternatives chill me to the bone. Perhaps that's how Paul Martin managed to squeak in the PM's seat the last time.

When you are in the polling booth, sometimes you have to choose the lesser of four evils.

Sovereignty?

I still believe I am suffering from kidney stones. My discomfort has been on and off during this past week, but I still think it's going to be a few more days before I know whether it's "going to be a boy or a girl". I am seeing a specialist this week in order to get some consultation on what it is exactly, that I have. When I made the appointment, the receptionist told me the doctor was booking well into April. I told her my predicament, and she moved me up to the earliest available spot. I really don't think I can wait another six weeks to find out what's wrong with me. This ordeal has been long enough already.

I wanted to comment on Canada's official decision to not participate in Missile Defence. Everything that has been needed to be said, has probably been already, but there were a few things this week that caught my attention. The US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci made a statement regarding Canada's decision to not participate in the Missile Defence program. He said:

"We will deploy. We will defend North America," he said. "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada." - Globe & Mail

I find this statement preposterous. Giving up our sovereignty by not participating in the missile defence program? It's like saying the most non-aggressive kid in the playground has all the rocks and sticks to intimidate all the rest of the kids in the playground. A non-aggressive kid has no need for rocks and sticks. In this case, the United States is using the Missile Defence program and it's Nuclear arsenal to intimidate and push around the other world powers. If we return to the playground analogy, United States foreign policy (specifically, Iraq and Afghanistan) is demonstrated by the big bully pushing around the weakest runts.

Instead, I would say that Canada demonstrated their sovereignty by not participating in missile defence.

It was also stated (sadly, I don't remember who said this) that if Canada wanted to be a ballistic missile target, then participation in the missile defence program would be required. I have stated this before, Canada is the missile shield. Ballistic missiles will likely be fired over the North Pole. If the missiles are shot down, where will they land but on Canadian soil? The Missile Defence program sounded like a sour deal to me from the very beginning.

I am proud that us Canadian citizens, including our representatives in Government, have taken a stand at very serious issue.

No Fire From Above

Ever wonder why the United States of America has been so adamant about getting Canada to fund their new Star Wars program? I have a theory.

For the uninitiated, this is a reborn attempt to put satellites into orbit with powerful lasers on them to neutralize an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) before it can reach its' target. Knowing the success rate of the US Patriot Missile (which was used in the Iraq wars to neutralize SCUD missiles), this makes me quite leery.

Studies have shown that Patriot missile system often did not neutralize the intercepted missile. They often missed completely, or at best, managed to knock the missile out of the sky. The intended target might have been missed, but then a live warhead fell to the ground, often striking a civilian target.

What does this have to do with the Missile Defense Program? Well, just about everything. You see, there is no such thing as 100% effectiveness when you are dealing with objects in motion, and targets that are thousands of kilometers away.

My next point is also crucial. If a nuclear assault were to be launched on the United States of America, the missile trajectory would almost certainly be across the north pole. If a missile defense satellite fired at such a missile, and only managed to knock it out of the sky, instead of neutralizing it entirely, where to you think the missile would fall? Surely, on Canadian soil. Sure the USA might escape a nuclear assault, but that doesn't prevent Canada from becoming the next Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I do not want to be a target. Say no to missile defense.

May The World Survive [Another] Four Years

Four years ago, in my final year of university, my friends and I were discussing the 2000 US Presidential Election Campaign over many weeks. Our many discussions focused on who was the better candidate for the Presidency, though we agreed there wasn't much to choose from. Al Gore or George W. Bush; who is the lesser of two evils?

Our observations of "Dubya" concluded that this man was a ticking time-bomb, much like his father, but even more volatile. We knew, if elected, this man would send the United States to war. We even figured that this man was maniacal enough to "push the button" himself. Even though we were not US citizens, we were sure that if elected, Dubya's actions would affect us north of the 49th parallel.

On the eve of the 2000 presidential election, we prayed long and hard that Al Gore would be elected president. Sure, Gore wasn't much of a candidate, but we felt that he would be a safer choice for the world community. You could imagine our dismay when we learned that the George Jr. called a re-count of the ballots in Florida, and found his way into the Oval Office. We immediately began repenting our sins.

I knew, as many others did, that all George W. Bush needed was an excuse to turn some foreign country into a moonscape. It didn't take long. When I woke to the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, I was convinced that World War III had begun, and Armageddon was nigh.

It didn't take long to see that the President, as well as the citizens of the United States were seeking revenge for the attack on US soil. A scapegoat was sought, and when none could be found (or evidence eradicating any reasonable doubt), Dubya took the next best thing. Afghanistan was invaded on a whim, because "The United States makes no distinction between terrorists, and the countries that harbor them". As we have seen, the war in Afghanistan was not much of a victory on the War on Terror. Al Qaida was not dismantled; nor was Osama Bin Laden captured.

Then there was the Patriot Act, intentionally ratified to provide protection/safety to the citizens of the United States, but it was nothing more than a bill to take away the human rights of the peoples of Islamic faith/descent. Pure racism. This legislation somehow makes it legal to arrest and detain anyone the government sees fit, and deny them access to a lawyer, among other things. These prisoners [arrested under the Patriot Act] may have well been arrested in Syria.

Then there was the invasion of Iraq, against the objections of the United Nations. The Iraq war was called an unjust war, as no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction were ever produced. Saddam Hussein may have been captured, but this has done little to quell the political unrest in the country. The United States military is targeted and attacked on what seems like a daily basis. It appears that the US occupation of Iraq is going to be a long and bloody one.

It is no wonder that international polls have cited George W. Bush as the number one contributor to geo-political instability, and the leading hindrance in the pursuit of world peace.

Now, the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is nothing more than Neo-Colonialism. This is a rather long topic, and I will have to reserve my discussion of it for a later entry, but this is no different than the occupation of the Americas by European Empires, and the systematic destruction of the Aboriginal American culture and peoples. It seems apparent that we (as a species) have not learned our lessons the first time around.

It seems apparent that George W. Bush has done little in the way of US foreign policy. After Mad Cow Disease was discovered in a single Canadian bovine, the United States border has remained closed to Canadian beef for eighteen months now -- with no sign of it re-opening soon. Bush has made no effort to establish negotiations with Canada to re-open the border.

As for the US domestic policy, Bush has done little in the last four years. The US economy is still in the tank, and the only thing the president has done is cut taxes for the wealthy and rack up a record-breaking deficit.

The 2004 election was the time for the civilians of the United States to raise their voices and elect a leader. John Kerry ran a good campaign, but in the end the outcome was the same as 2000. George W. Bush has squeaked into the Oval Office for four more years -- much to the chagrin of the international community.

I understand George Bush Jr. has a certain type of appeal to many citizens of the United States -- actually, it is more like the "Divided States of America". If you looked at a demographic map of the United States, you would see the two coastlines are Democratic; while a large red (Republican) rift ploughs through the central plains and the southern states. Knowing a bit about population density would make it easy to see that the areas of highest population density are polarized to the Democrat ideology, while the areas of lower population density are polarized to the Republican ideology. There are many other conclusions that could be made about voter ideology and demographics, but without access to a powerful GIS program and the raw data of the election results, I really don't want to make arguments I cannot substantially defend (I probably already have).

The re-election of George W. Bush is, in my opinion, bittersweet. I was rooting for John Kerry; crossing my fingers for a change in leadership, and perhaps a change in the domestic and foreign policies of the United States government. It looks like I am going to have to wait another four years -- if we are still around by then.

Long-time readers of this journal know that I am a bit of a history fanatic -- especially when it pertains to ancient civilzations. I am a firm believer that the past is the key to the future. The industrialized nations we live in today are not that much different than the Empires of times past. All the greatest dynasties have fallen, and they usually fell at times when they were in the lap of luxury. In my lifetime, I have witnessed the demise of the Soviet Union. In the last few centuries, the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire had fallen. Even Greece, Rome, Babylon, and the Egyptian dynasties have met untimely deaths.

If we examine the demise of the Roman Empire, it wasn't as catastrophic as historians make it out to be. The Roman Empire had conquered most of the known world, and Rome's armies were spread thin throughout Europe, parts of Asia, the Middle East and some of Africa. The Romans lived luxurious lives full of Gladiator games, concubines, and excessive food and drink. A full third of the Roman calendar were holidays. Soon, trade began to slow due to diminishing resources and great distances. It took a number of generations, but eventually, the Roman Empire was financially bankrupt. Without the financial backing, the Roman armies did not march. Trade between the colonies of the Empire soon halted. The once-powerful Roman Empire essentially died with but a whimper.

The debt load of the average American citizen is higher than it has ever been before. Each year there is a record number of personal and corporate bankruptcies in the US. Citizens are stretched to the limit financially, and they are further encouraged to spend more due to falling interest rates, and mass advertising. The US government's track record is not much better than the publics'. The Bush Administration has racked up the highest debt-load in history. I think it is quite possible that Dubya himself could outspend the United States so fast that it would be impossible for the United States to ever recover. Thus, much like the Roman Empire, the United States could collapse under their own debt. With no money, the US war machine would be rendered impotent, and a once-powerful nation could develop into one of the world's poorest. Civil war would be likely, and the USA could break into two (or more) nations.

First lesson in economics: There might not a better way to jump-start a dead economy than with a war, but wars are incredibly expensive. The costs of the war on Iraq and Afghanistan have far outweighed the economic benfits (if there were any).

Perhaps I am looking forward to seeing Mr. Bush's accomplishments in the next four years. It may have taken generations for Rome to fall; George W. Bush might be able to accomplish the same in eight years or less. Maybe I will get my wish for an upset in the balance of (world) power.

The Greatest Canadian

A new television series has been launched on CBC television this fall. Entitled "The Greatest Canadian", the show is a series of biographies on some of the most prominent and influential heroes of Canada's history.

Over the course of this past summer, viewers and listeners of CBC were asked to submit their nominations for the title of the Greatest Canadian. Last night's episode listed the top 50 candidates, which were reduced to ten finalists for the title. They are (in alphabetical order):

1. Frederick Banting - Scientist whom discovered insulin
   
2. Alexander Graham Bell - Inventor of the telephone
   
3. Don Cherry - Hockey coach and television personality
   
4. Tommy Douglas - Politician and "Father" of Medicare
   
5. Terry Fox - Athlete and activist for cancer research
   
6. Wayne Gretzky - Hockey legend
   
7. Sir John A. MacDonald - Canada's founding father and driving force behind a railway that stretched from coast to coast
   
8. Lester B. Pearson - Prime Minister and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
   
9. David Suzuki - Geneticist and television personality
   
10. Pierre Elliott Trudeau - Prime Minister and force behind Canada's new Constitution
    

While viewing last night's broadcast, I was generally pleased with the selection of the fifty honorable mentions. That being said, I also felt that there were many names mentioned that likely did not deserve to be on the list. Many on the list were celebrities or athletes, and although I cannot argue the fact that they are all "great" in their professions, I somehow cannot conclude that they be considered "Great Canadians".

Yes, they are all great at what they do, and they are Canadian citizens (in some cases were), but I think something has been overlooked in what CBC was trying to allude to in their definition of a "great Canadian".

The successful candidate should have done something noble and selfless, something of such magnitude that the effects are still felt today. This person, and his achievements, should give us a sense of pride; a sense of what it is to be Canadian. This person's crowning achievements should strike us with feelings of patriotism; to make us proud to have him as an icon and as an ambassador to Canada. Yes, they should have changed the world, but more importantly, they should have changed Canada, and be more than just a successful athlete, actor, comedian or musician.

By my criteria, this should knock the athletes off the list. This is in no means a way of being disrespectful to Misters Cherry and Gretzky (or any of the other athletes on the top 100), I have a lot of respect for them; I just don't think they are worthy of the title. Furthermore, I do understand that Hockey is about as Canadian as sports go; but there is more to Canadian pride than hockey. Terry Fox, on the other hand, did something selfless with his life that I would consider himself worthy of the title. His perseverance and determination in the face of cancer should evoke admiration and sympathy in all of us. If I were a young athlete whom lost a leg to cancer, I imagine that I would just give up on my dreams and wait to die. Terry fought to raise awareness for cancer and did so by running a marathon across the country. That is, he ran until he could no longer run, when cancer was discovered in his lungs. He died never completing his marathon, but his legacy lives on with the annual Terry Fox Run, which takes place in countries around the world. I would consider Terry a candidate for sainthood, and we could all learn a lesson from him. Whether or not he will win the title of the "Greatest Canadian" is yet to be seen.

Now for the scientists. Being one myself, I hold a certain kinship with them. I cannot deny the societal implications of such discoveries as genetic research, the discovery of insulin or the invention of the telephone -- these achievements have changed the world. These researchers have given us, and generations to come, a better, safer world to live in. I cannot deny their greatness; but they do not fit the criteria of what I define as a "Great Canadian". They are in a league all their own. They all deserve Nobel Prizes, if they do not have one already -- but I can't see myself giving them a title of "Greatest Canadian".

That unfortunately leaves the politicians left in my truncated list. Love them or hate them, the remaining candidates have done much for our great nation. Their achievements are as diverse as the times they held office. Choosing a winner out of the remaining four candidates will not be an easy task. To simplify things, I have been considering their crowning achievements if they took place today. What I mean by this (especially with respect to Sir John A. MacDonald), is consider the magnitude of their greatest achievements if they were Prime Minister today. First of all, to create a country in the first place is an accomplishment beyond my imagination. It must have been a huge fiscal undertaking in the very least, not even considering the uniting two cultures that have been at war for centuries. Second, consider the costs associated with creating a railway that stretches over 4000 kilometers across this country (east coast - west coast). If a railway of that magnitude was constructed today, the costs would be in the trillions of dollars, a cost that would be both incomprehensible and prohibitive.

The benefits of the Canadian Pacific Railway is beyond the initial liabilities. It helped unite a huge land mass, both physically and culturally. Even though other Prime Ministers have accomplished some commendable feats for the greater good of Canada, I don't think any of them have accomplished anything as massive as a cross-country railway.

I am not going to put any money on who I think will be crowned the "Greatest Canadian". But I would consider the following to be the two finalists: Sir John A. MacDonald and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Both were considered great leaders of our country, and both were immensely charismatic, liked by both the English and French citizens of our country.

If you would like to provide input into who you feel is worthy of the title of the Greatest Canadian, you may cast your vote over the course of the next six weeks. Episodes documenting the life, times and achievements of the ten finalists are being aired on CBC every Monday and Wednesday evening. I would suggest checking your local television listings for showtimes.

There can be only one Greatest Canadian Idol; let's all cast our votes intelligently.

Shameless Political Plug

This is not exactly what I wanted to discuss today, but I stumbled upon this site, and I felt like it was worth mentioning. The United States War Machine has contributed to more wars and political instability than I could possibly count. If the US is not fighting a war, they are often contributing weapons and supplies to countries that are.

I don't like to discuss political views on this blog, as everybody takes sides, and animosity quickly develops. As far as wars go, it doesn't matter what side you are on; there is no such thing as a definitive 'good' or 'evil' side. It's all propaganda. The world isn't black and white.

I don't want to go much further than the facts. The Israeli occupation of the Palestine territories is illegal due to UN Resolution 242 and the 4th Geneva Convention. The United States have been supplying weapons and supplies to an illegal occupation for over forty years. This contributes in increased resentment and hatred for the United States by Middle Eastern Nations.

It seems to me that in recent years, the way the United States has dealt with this hatred directed towards them is to stomp it out with their war machine (Iraq and Afghanistan). Turning crop fields into craters is no way to win over the hearts of the civilians you wish to govern. The question few people are asking is why did the United States invade Iraq and Afghanistan when those countries had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001? Over two-thirds of the hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Why did not the United States just turn the Saudi Arabia into a nuclear wasteland? The answers are rather geo-political, and oil has almost everything to do with it. Instead of going after the vigilant country, the US would rather bully a few neighborhood runts as a warning to "not piss us off". I still fail to see the logic in declaring war on undeveloped nations. Afghanistan and Iraq were nothing more than scapegoats to appease the angry and perplexed civilians of the world's richest nation.

If the United States ever wishes to end terrorism, they must stop it at the source. They will have to pull their forces out of Iraq, and Afghanistan (to name just two), and stop the funding of Israeli forces. Once this happens, I might be able to sleep better at night.

The Name Game

Minor revisions to this site are taking place at a slothlike tempo. Some code revisions I have been responsible for, others are happening at their own accord. You may undoubtedly notice that the ads at the top of the page are gone (for good, I hope), and is replaced with a search bar. I am hoping that the meta tags will soon reach the Google mainframe, and then this site will be searchable. This will prevent me from getting all frustrated when I am poring over code, and likely prevent a few headaches as well.

The other major revision to this site is that the comments feature has been enabled on a trial run. The benefits of having the ability to post and read comments are limited only by the imagination; it is unfortunate that comments are usually abused on sites that generate a lot of traffic. At least at this point in time, this site generates very little traffic. So all you readers, be forewarned, your comments will be moderated by yours truly. Any comments that I deem to be inappropriate or offensive will be deleted. "And that's all I have to say... About that."

Ok, now for the fun part. Now that this site has been up and running for nearly four months, it is beginning to develop a bit of its own personality. One thing that is really starting to bug me -- it has since the beginning of this site, is the title. MC Fro's Blog. How utterly boring, unmoving, and unoriginal. The time has come to change the name. Suggestions (if any) are welcome. You can email them directly to me, or provide them in the comments section of the post. By the way, I expect the "inherent psychobabble... etc," subtitle will remain. I think it's cute.

I am also entertaining the idea of a background image. Perhaps a modified photo of me; perhpas an abstract image. Something subtle. Greys and blacks. Not unlike a subliminal message. Oh the fun that could be had with one of those!

Links have been added to the sidebar. They are mostly links that I have discussed in previous posts. The only other link that I have not yet mentioned is the link to SETI@home, the site where everybody with a computer can download a little program that runs when you're not at your computer and searches for little green men. I have been a member since 1998 and have completed something ridiculous like 1100 work units. Still no sign of E.T. My old little 266 iMac just doesn't have to spunk anymore to chew through all the algorithms. It used to take about 8 hours for the computer to work through a workunit. Nowdays, it takes something like 23 hours to get through one. I guess my mandate is that if you are not at your computer, you may as well put it to good use. You may argue wether looking for extraterrestrials is putting your computer to good use.

On a completely different tangent, I found this article amusing: Alice slams anti-Bush rockers. The article has not been copied to this page due to copyright issues.

I found it rather unsettling that Alice Cooper, whom I view to be a highly inteligent individual, feels that all other members of his profession are lazy, uninformed, uneducated, illiterate, party animals whom have no interest in politics. I really don't care whom Alice Cooper is voting for in this fall's presidential election. As far as I am concerned, he can say anything he wants about Kerry or Bush -- it's his right as an American. It's also the right of any other celeberty (or person) to say what they want about the electoral candidates. So Alice, for the record, just shut up and do what you do best: put on concerts. If you haven't noticed, Rock and Roll has become a highly political arena since the advent of Punk Rock in the 1970's -- or were you too stoned at the time to care or remember?

Freedom, or Something Like It

I have been feeling rather melancholy today. My moodiness is one of the mysteries of the universe -- it is quite unpredictable, and once I am in "one of my moods", there is no way for me to get out of it. I often wallow in misery for days at a time.

I am generally not a happy person. I don't remember the last time I had a good hearty laugh. I am usually dwelling on something that bothers me; often I don't even know what it is anymore. It's everything, and nothing at the same time. That doesn't mean that I am a mean person -- I am actually quite polite. I have a lot of friends, and they understand (and accept) my moodiness as an integral part of who I am. I generally don't take out my anger and frustration out on them, though it has happened a couple of times, I regret to admit.

I am very tired. I don't ever get enough sleep, which aggravates my moodiness. Sleep is a luxury I don't have. I am far too busy working two jobs to get proper rest. Even if I had ample time for sleep, I would just end up laying awake for most of the night, dwelling on some trivial matter until it becomes the problem of the century. When my alarm goes off in the morning, I am so exhausted that it takes all my strength just to get out of bed and face the day. It doesn't matter if I get three hours' or nine hours' rest, I am still exhausted in the morning. Getting up in the morning is hardly a choice for me anymore. I am no longer a student. I don't have the choice whether or not to skip class. If I miss work, I may as well consider myself unemployed. I have bills like everyone else.

Have you ever woken up in the morning, not knowing what day of the week it was, since it seemed no different than the previous day? The last three years of my life has been a steady cycle of what seems to be the exact same thing. I am on a schedule that seems to never change. I only feel like I am spinning my wheels and not going anywhere. It's not unlike those nightmares where you are being chased by some faceless terror, but the harder you run, the slower you seem to go.

It often perplexes me how the majority of the population can go about their daily lives in apparent bliss. I see people like this on the way to work every day. These are people who are so predictable in their daily affairs that you could set your watch to them. These are the same people who have lost perspective on what it means to live in a free country. Sure, they live in a free country, but they are not free to do as they please.

It is my observation that the Capitalist world is riddled with tyranny. This is not a dictatorship by any definition, but instead, freedoms are lost in the greater interest of the economy. Thanks to commodities and taxes, everything in the capitalist world has a price. If you do not earn money, you do not survive. (This was not the case of nomadic peoples, as survival was the key element in their culture). Corporations are quite effective in telling the general population what is required for survival, and how to buy happiness. The advertising machine of the mega-corporations have blanketed (and branded) every possible square inch of space in order to encourage you to spend your hard-earned money on commodities you do not necessarily need. Multi-billion dollar advertising is in fact, so powerful that it can put the competitor out of business, leaving you the consumer, with little or no choice at all.

The true downfall of the Capitalist regime, is that it is not very different from the days of feudalism: 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. The rich still get richer, and the poor still get poorer, no matter how you slice the pie.

The only difference is that Capitalism appears to the general population that it is indeed a "free" state. The population are given the choice to elect who will lead the country. This is not true freedom, as only a few representatives are chosen to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents. The best interest of the constituents are often overlooked due to corruption. Humans are generally irrational, greedy, and easily corrupted. Who, in a capitalist regime, has the ability to influence the government in their own best interests? Why, the wealthy of course. It is ironic, that it is also the rich aristocrats who are elected to parliament in the first place.

I have just scratched the surface on what it means to be a free person, what defines a free country, as well as discuss the evils of a capitalist regime. The general population, if carefully observed, behave like zombies, mindless, misdirected, and completely self-absorbed in the trivial affairs of gaining material wealth. As far as the modern world is concerned, there are only a very select few of us who will ever have complete freedom. They are, have been, and always will be the very rich.