This is a bit of a rant. I have been meaning to write about it for a while but for various reasons, I have not. Well, no more. This is a political rant and one that touches many countries.
I start of course with Canada, the country whose political landscape is most familiar to me. There has been this circus going on in Parliament of late which has bothered me enough to write now. Canada has a bicameral legislature with the House of Commons being the so called lower house and the Senate being the upper house. This is essentially the same as the British House of Commons and the House of Lords... except we have no hereditary peers or life peers. Now, there are usually at least 2 parties in the lower house. Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. In Canada's case, the Opposition consists of the Liberal party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois.
The circus I alluded to earlier is this: The *minority* Conservative government led by Stephen Harper has been governing and punching above their weight for some time now. When the Liberals lost the last election, their leader, Paul Martin left politics. As a result, the Liberals had a leadership race and had to decide between a staid and awkward policy man (the current leader) and a somewhat charismatic and controversial person (the deputy party leader, Michael Ignatieff). Now, the shadow cabinet has been screwing around trying to figure out what to do with themselves while Stephen Harper and his group of people have been governing.
So, what's the problem in that? Well, there seems to be this trend in Canadian politics of late. The Conservatives propose fairly crazy legislation. The Liberals (and the other parties for the most part) complain about it, propose amendments etc. But then something curious happens on voting day. The Liberals fall ill. En masse. Or they forget where they stand and support the bills anyway. The same bills they raged against in Parliament earlier. Why? Well, they don't want to go and face the Canadian populate in an election. At some level, I think that makes sense. You want to be shrewd. You may lose a battle or 10 but conserve energy and when the time is right, go and win the war.
The Conservatives seem to have caught on though. They have, of late, been proposing crazier legislation. Its a game of chicken if you will; how far can the Conservatives go before the Liberals stand up to them? Keep in mind that the Liberals and the NDP together can topple the Government on almost any given day. Keep in mind as well that the Bloc isn't really that friendly to the Conservatives. And yet, this set of leaders we as Canadians elected have done squat to firstly defend their causes and secondly to make the public believe in them.
The Consevatives are going to change Canadian immigration policy; they have already changed rules regarding how elections are called; they are going to an American model of set dates and set tenures. I don't like such policies. That's why I don't vote for the Conservatives. I am not sure I would vote for the Liberals either... after this round of bullshit, I don't feel like they deseve a vote. Perhaps they need to be decimated like the old Conservatives were before they get their house in order and start doing what Her Majesty's Official Opposition is supposed to do; ensure there are checks and balances to the ruling government's powers.
The other part of this 39th Parliament that bothers me is that despite the numerous screw-ups by various government officials, nothing of note has been done about it. The most recent screw-up is the former Foreign Affairs minister. He went to Afghanistan not too long ago and said stupid things like the need to replace the governor of Kandahar. It is an accepted statute of International cooperation and respect that one does not go into another country and talk openly to a hungry media about something negative about that country's government or policies. It is just not done. As a rule, we do not try and _appear_ to interfere in someone else's private business. Of course, that can get tricky. The Burmese government think that we are trying to interfere when we try and help the thousands affected by a typhoon, but that's when you say fuck you and get on with it. Not when you're in Afghanistan and your soldiers are working in Kandahar. Behind the scenes, if you wish to express such an opinion, that's okay, but not in front of the media.
He later went on to leave top level documents in his girl friend's home. She just so happened to have dealings with various biker gangs. He ended up resigning and the Liberals made proverbial hay in the sunshine, but really, nothing good has come of it. Canadian documents are no more secure than they were before. Nor is the full truth about her real intentions public knowlege. Now, I am not one that encourages the digging up of people's private lives. Politicians or not, everyone deserves privacy. But at some level, if people are trying to get access to airports and have links to organised crime, the mere optics of the situation warrant some kind of official investigation. A lot of times, if the public perceives that the government is incompetent, that is enough to increase their wariness and scepticism of government in general.
My second rant is aimed at my current country of residence. I admire the Americans. If you talk to me, you may think otherwise, but let me just say that I complain only because I care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother expressing an opinion. Something remarkable is going on right now in the United States. The general public, the vast majority of whom did not seem to care that much about anything political is fired up and interested in politics like I haven't seen since the early days of the Clinton presidency. I am actually surprised to see how interested people really are in politics these days. A series of things has been the cause of this renewed interest; the unpopularity of the Bush presidency, the faltering economy; the price of commodities like food and fuel and most importantly, the potential leadership; Obama and McCain (and Mrs. Clinton who is slowly fading away from public view).
What bugs me though is some of their foreign policies. Today, the outgoing Secretary of State warned a long-standing ally that one if their policies was having a negative effect on the middle-east peace process. That's like telling a little kid playing with open fire that he should not do that. Israel is an American ally. I am sure that in many circles, people want to see peace made in the middle east. Every President has tried to solve that problem. Clinton tried. Nothing happened. Bush has barely tried. And nothing has still happened. The world is a different place though today. The folks who signed the Oslo accord are dead. Rabin was killed, Arafat died (or was poisoned or what have you). Since then, the Palestinians have been separated by walls and militant governments. Gaza belongs to the thugs. The West Bank is run by a corrupt government. And one of their biggest complaints is settlement activity. Today, when the Israelis announced an increase in settlement activity in what is accepted internationally as occupied land, the best thing that the Secretary of State for the world's most powerful government could come up with was a 'warning' on the 'negative affect' to the peace process? That's bullshit.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the Americans would be up in arms. And rightly so. Every time a militant of any sort blows up anything in Israel or in their occupied lands, the Western World shakes their collective finger (with the Americans at the forefront) at the Palestinians. But for fuck sakes, what are you doing about this? Imagine if Osama bin Laden requested land at Ground Zero to build a shrine to the 18 hijackers to honour and commemorate their act? Of course, he would be laughed at, cursed at and what not, but what if he could make that happen? What if someone decided that a shrine to the 18 suicide bombers was appropriate at that location? One that is, I think fair to call, sacred land? Sacred but ready to go back to business soon... That would never happen in America. But what the Israelis are doing is not unlike that request. They are building houses for many of their citizenry on annexed land. Land that belongs rightly to the Palestinians. And the best that anyone from here can come up with is a warning about the negative effects to the peace process?
What bugs me more is that none of the leadership here, the current President or the hopefuls have had anything to say about it. Let me reiterate once more... for those who have forgotten. America is the most powerful country in the world. It needs to look outside of its own borders. It needs to be a force for good on earth. That's the responsibility of being a large superpower. And its not something new. The Romans did this back in the day. The British did it too, when the sun never set on their empire. And yes, they were all biased. They all did things that benefited them. But I think America is forgetting that tacit support for Israel in this case is actually hurting their cause. Imagine if they could wipe out the single biggest grievance many decent Muslims have in those lands where their young ones decide to hop on planes and fly into buildings here... You may not get rid of them all, but you will certainly neutralize the vast majority of them and make them see the world a little bit in your point of view.
This isn't the first time America has done such short-sighted things. They openly talk about democracy and freedom and what not and yet have not even thought of threatening countries like Burma or Zimbabwe where human rights don't exist in most cases. I mean, where else would one find a government that openly stops you from trying to help a devastated populace? Or one where if you vote the wrong way, you are beaten and killed?
To the average sceptic the first thing that comes to mind is the lack of oil in these impoverished areas. Why else would they not threaten force in Darfur or Zimbabwe? You have everything else that looks the same; a region in turmoil and instability due to a conflict; a leadership that is dictatorial and does harm to its own populace. They don't have any weapons of mass destruction... but really did Iraq? I haven't heard or seen of any that have actually been found. Have you? What's good for that goose should be good for the other geese too no? Again, the optics are all bad. But this does not seem to bother the American public or the media here for that matter. As far as they are concerned, Darfur is probably some exotic African spice and Zimbabwe, why that's just a made up word. It reminds me of the map someone once forwarded me.
I start of course with Canada, the country whose political landscape is most familiar to me. There has been this circus going on in Parliament of late which has bothered me enough to write now. Canada has a bicameral legislature with the House of Commons being the so called lower house and the Senate being the upper house. This is essentially the same as the British House of Commons and the House of Lords... except we have no hereditary peers or life peers. Now, there are usually at least 2 parties in the lower house. Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. In Canada's case, the Opposition consists of the Liberal party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois.
The circus I alluded to earlier is this: The *minority* Conservative government led by Stephen Harper has been governing and punching above their weight for some time now. When the Liberals lost the last election, their leader, Paul Martin left politics. As a result, the Liberals had a leadership race and had to decide between a staid and awkward policy man (the current leader) and a somewhat charismatic and controversial person (the deputy party leader, Michael Ignatieff). Now, the shadow cabinet has been screwing around trying to figure out what to do with themselves while Stephen Harper and his group of people have been governing.
So, what's the problem in that? Well, there seems to be this trend in Canadian politics of late. The Conservatives propose fairly crazy legislation. The Liberals (and the other parties for the most part) complain about it, propose amendments etc. But then something curious happens on voting day. The Liberals fall ill. En masse. Or they forget where they stand and support the bills anyway. The same bills they raged against in Parliament earlier. Why? Well, they don't want to go and face the Canadian populate in an election. At some level, I think that makes sense. You want to be shrewd. You may lose a battle or 10 but conserve energy and when the time is right, go and win the war.
The Conservatives seem to have caught on though. They have, of late, been proposing crazier legislation. Its a game of chicken if you will; how far can the Conservatives go before the Liberals stand up to them? Keep in mind that the Liberals and the NDP together can topple the Government on almost any given day. Keep in mind as well that the Bloc isn't really that friendly to the Conservatives. And yet, this set of leaders we as Canadians elected have done squat to firstly defend their causes and secondly to make the public believe in them.
The Consevatives are going to change Canadian immigration policy; they have already changed rules regarding how elections are called; they are going to an American model of set dates and set tenures. I don't like such policies. That's why I don't vote for the Conservatives. I am not sure I would vote for the Liberals either... after this round of bullshit, I don't feel like they deseve a vote. Perhaps they need to be decimated like the old Conservatives were before they get their house in order and start doing what Her Majesty's Official Opposition is supposed to do; ensure there are checks and balances to the ruling government's powers.
The other part of this 39th Parliament that bothers me is that despite the numerous screw-ups by various government officials, nothing of note has been done about it. The most recent screw-up is the former Foreign Affairs minister. He went to Afghanistan not too long ago and said stupid things like the need to replace the governor of Kandahar. It is an accepted statute of International cooperation and respect that one does not go into another country and talk openly to a hungry media about something negative about that country's government or policies. It is just not done. As a rule, we do not try and _appear_ to interfere in someone else's private business. Of course, that can get tricky. The Burmese government think that we are trying to interfere when we try and help the thousands affected by a typhoon, but that's when you say fuck you and get on with it. Not when you're in Afghanistan and your soldiers are working in Kandahar. Behind the scenes, if you wish to express such an opinion, that's okay, but not in front of the media.
He later went on to leave top level documents in his girl friend's home. She just so happened to have dealings with various biker gangs. He ended up resigning and the Liberals made proverbial hay in the sunshine, but really, nothing good has come of it. Canadian documents are no more secure than they were before. Nor is the full truth about her real intentions public knowlege. Now, I am not one that encourages the digging up of people's private lives. Politicians or not, everyone deserves privacy. But at some level, if people are trying to get access to airports and have links to organised crime, the mere optics of the situation warrant some kind of official investigation. A lot of times, if the public perceives that the government is incompetent, that is enough to increase their wariness and scepticism of government in general.
My second rant is aimed at my current country of residence. I admire the Americans. If you talk to me, you may think otherwise, but let me just say that I complain only because I care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother expressing an opinion. Something remarkable is going on right now in the United States. The general public, the vast majority of whom did not seem to care that much about anything political is fired up and interested in politics like I haven't seen since the early days of the Clinton presidency. I am actually surprised to see how interested people really are in politics these days. A series of things has been the cause of this renewed interest; the unpopularity of the Bush presidency, the faltering economy; the price of commodities like food and fuel and most importantly, the potential leadership; Obama and McCain (and Mrs. Clinton who is slowly fading away from public view).
What bugs me though is some of their foreign policies. Today, the outgoing Secretary of State warned a long-standing ally that one if their policies was having a negative effect on the middle-east peace process. That's like telling a little kid playing with open fire that he should not do that. Israel is an American ally. I am sure that in many circles, people want to see peace made in the middle east. Every President has tried to solve that problem. Clinton tried. Nothing happened. Bush has barely tried. And nothing has still happened. The world is a different place though today. The folks who signed the Oslo accord are dead. Rabin was killed, Arafat died (or was poisoned or what have you). Since then, the Palestinians have been separated by walls and militant governments. Gaza belongs to the thugs. The West Bank is run by a corrupt government. And one of their biggest complaints is settlement activity. Today, when the Israelis announced an increase in settlement activity in what is accepted internationally as occupied land, the best thing that the Secretary of State for the world's most powerful government could come up with was a 'warning' on the 'negative affect' to the peace process? That's bullshit.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the Americans would be up in arms. And rightly so. Every time a militant of any sort blows up anything in Israel or in their occupied lands, the Western World shakes their collective finger (with the Americans at the forefront) at the Palestinians. But for fuck sakes, what are you doing about this? Imagine if Osama bin Laden requested land at Ground Zero to build a shrine to the 18 hijackers to honour and commemorate their act? Of course, he would be laughed at, cursed at and what not, but what if he could make that happen? What if someone decided that a shrine to the 18 suicide bombers was appropriate at that location? One that is, I think fair to call, sacred land? Sacred but ready to go back to business soon... That would never happen in America. But what the Israelis are doing is not unlike that request. They are building houses for many of their citizenry on annexed land. Land that belongs rightly to the Palestinians. And the best that anyone from here can come up with is a warning about the negative effects to the peace process?
What bugs me more is that none of the leadership here, the current President or the hopefuls have had anything to say about it. Let me reiterate once more... for those who have forgotten. America is the most powerful country in the world. It needs to look outside of its own borders. It needs to be a force for good on earth. That's the responsibility of being a large superpower. And its not something new. The Romans did this back in the day. The British did it too, when the sun never set on their empire. And yes, they were all biased. They all did things that benefited them. But I think America is forgetting that tacit support for Israel in this case is actually hurting their cause. Imagine if they could wipe out the single biggest grievance many decent Muslims have in those lands where their young ones decide to hop on planes and fly into buildings here... You may not get rid of them all, but you will certainly neutralize the vast majority of them and make them see the world a little bit in your point of view.
This isn't the first time America has done such short-sighted things. They openly talk about democracy and freedom and what not and yet have not even thought of threatening countries like Burma or Zimbabwe where human rights don't exist in most cases. I mean, where else would one find a government that openly stops you from trying to help a devastated populace? Or one where if you vote the wrong way, you are beaten and killed?
To the average sceptic the first thing that comes to mind is the lack of oil in these impoverished areas. Why else would they not threaten force in Darfur or Zimbabwe? You have everything else that looks the same; a region in turmoil and instability due to a conflict; a leadership that is dictatorial and does harm to its own populace. They don't have any weapons of mass destruction... but really did Iraq? I haven't heard or seen of any that have actually been found. Have you? What's good for that goose should be good for the other geese too no? Again, the optics are all bad. But this does not seem to bother the American public or the media here for that matter. As far as they are concerned, Darfur is probably some exotic African spice and Zimbabwe, why that's just a made up word. It reminds me of the map someone once forwarded me.
Comments