Friday, May 13, 2005
Denim Revolution?
Something is happening in Canada, which may result in a fundamental shift in the political makeup of the Canadian Parliament. The governing body remained deadlocked today, as they again voted to shut down early. The opposition is gathering support for a vote of no confidence, and it is believed that defeating the budget would result in the fall of the current administration (Sound like Episode I to anyone else or what?)
Where is this coming from? The answer is the much publicized (at least up north) Adscam scandal, which involved the Liberal party's misallocation and misuse of millions of dollars intended for Government advertising. Captain's Quarters blog first revealed the extent of the scandal when it published this blog that contervened a Canadian block on reporting on the testimony of one John Brault, president of a Canadian Advertising group called GroupAction. Once his testimony became public, the public opinion shifted dramatically against the liberal ruling government.
So, what will happen now? It appears that the upcoming vote on the budget will act as a vote of confidence in the current administration, with a rejection signaling the fall of the liberal minority. You know its bad when:
Who knows, maybe this will be known as the denim revolution, and join the ranks of Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and others as the Canadians shake off their own brand of corruption, in favor of a rule reflecting the will of the people. Perhaps Canada would even return to its place as a stalwart supporter of the US and Anglosphere Allies Australia, and Britain. Here's hoping.
[Edit: Welcome Instapundit Readers. Have a look around while you're here]
The division in the House is so close that every vote will count on Thursday's budget motion, which would bring down the government if it's defeated.
...
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper called on Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson to step in - although she can't force an election on her own.
However, the Governor General can summon the prime minister to Rideau Hall and advise him to dissolve Parliament and call an election
Where is this coming from? The answer is the much publicized (at least up north) Adscam scandal, which involved the Liberal party's misallocation and misuse of millions of dollars intended for Government advertising. Captain's Quarters blog first revealed the extent of the scandal when it published this blog that contervened a Canadian block on reporting on the testimony of one John Brault, president of a Canadian Advertising group called GroupAction. Once his testimony became public, the public opinion shifted dramatically against the liberal ruling government.
So, what will happen now? It appears that the upcoming vote on the budget will act as a vote of confidence in the current administration, with a rejection signaling the fall of the liberal minority. You know its bad when:
"several Tory MPs wore blue jeans to the Commons in a work-to-rule protest."
Who knows, maybe this will be known as the denim revolution, and join the ranks of Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and others as the Canadians shake off their own brand of corruption, in favor of a rule reflecting the will of the people. Perhaps Canada would even return to its place as a stalwart supporter of the US and Anglosphere Allies Australia, and Britain. Here's hoping.
[Edit: Welcome Instapundit Readers. Have a look around while you're here]
Comments:
Heh, so I guess we're reduced to reading news about our country in electronic dispatches from the south... Nice analysis, in one blog post you bested all the Canadian media coverage.
# posted by 
: 4:33 PM
: 4:33 PM
Living in Canuckistan, I have a good sense of the mood here. I can tell you that I think the Liberals will be re-elected regardless of this scandal. The hate-on for Conservatives and conservative values is large in this country. It is a wannabe nanny state in the style of a France for instance. Most Canadians want the government to do everything for them. Everything. Alberta is an exception to this rule. They have a more American, self-sufficient attitude which is why they are always at odds with Ottawa. My prediction is more of the same... a minority, corrupt, undemocratic Liberal government.
# posted by : 4:44 PM
: 4:44 PM
Denim Revolution? Great name.
More at:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com
http://www.westernstandard.blogs.com
http://www.andrewcoyne.com
More at:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com
http://www.westernstandard.blogs.com
http://www.andrewcoyne.com
# posted by : 5:11 PM
: 5:11 PM
Our American neighbours should become aware of what happens in a country when the mainstream media turns blind eyes to corruption within the governing party.
The left leaning media is hostile to Stephen Harper and conservatism. The CBC is a virtual mouthpiece for the Liberals and has been for at least fifty years that I can tell.
Finally the blogging community is getting the message out especially to the bloggers in the U.S and hopefully Fox News which has finally gained access to Canadians legitimately.
The left leaning media is hostile to Stephen Harper and conservatism. The CBC is a virtual mouthpiece for the Liberals and has been for at least fifty years that I can tell.
Finally the blogging community is getting the message out especially to the bloggers in the U.S and hopefully Fox News which has finally gained access to Canadians legitimately.
# posted by : 5:23 PM
: 5:23 PM
I think it's overstating it a bit to say the CBC is a mouthpiece for the Liberal party. They're more of a mouthpiece for a typical laundry list of left leaning policy positions, and many of those happen to coincide, more or less, with Liberal party policy, which makes it seem like the CBC is a mouthpiece for the Liberals. I think the other aspect is that the CBC is afraid of the Liberal party because they know that Canada, federally at least, is virtually a one party state, and the Liberals are that party. Attack that party too aggressively, and the party retaliates, either through budget cuts, or appointing hard core partisan hacks to the CBC governing board (as opposed to the usual do-nothing partisan hacks) or any number of other techniques perfected by successive generations of the Liberal party. I'm sure many of them regard the resources of the Canadian government as indistinguishable from those of the Liberal party (Adscam certainly suggests that mindset). And who can blame them? Canadians are about to demonstrate that they'll re-elect the Liberals no matter how utterly corrupt they demonstrate themselves to be. Even if they Conservatives win, it will be a short-lived minority government, which will then be replaced by another Liberal government.
Why is that? Probably a few reasons. First, the Conservatives can't win any seats in Quebec, which makes it difficult (though not impossible) to form a majority government. Second, the Atlantic states are largely addicted to the big government nanny-state, which naturally inclines them towards Liberals and Red Tories. Third, Ontario is freaked out by social conservatives who are, let's face it, largely electable only in Alberta. Solve any one of these problems, and the Conservatives can form a minority government.
Hence Steven Harper's strategy. The Atlantic provinces don't have that many seats, and there's not much he can do to displace the Bloc in Quebec. But if he can paper over the more fire breathing social conservative elements of his party enough to appeal (or more accurately, just not repel) Ontario voters, then he's got his majority government.
Why is that? Probably a few reasons. First, the Conservatives can't win any seats in Quebec, which makes it difficult (though not impossible) to form a majority government. Second, the Atlantic states are largely addicted to the big government nanny-state, which naturally inclines them towards Liberals and Red Tories. Third, Ontario is freaked out by social conservatives who are, let's face it, largely electable only in Alberta. Solve any one of these problems, and the Conservatives can form a minority government.
Hence Steven Harper's strategy. The Atlantic provinces don't have that many seats, and there's not much he can do to displace the Bloc in Quebec. But if he can paper over the more fire breathing social conservative elements of his party enough to appeal (or more accurately, just not repel) Ontario voters, then he's got his majority government.
# posted by : 6:12 PM
: 6:12 PM
Apart from climate, is there any substantive difference between Canada and the hemisphere's other one-party state, Cuba?
# posted by : 6:51 PM
: 6:51 PM
Alberta is an exception to this rule.
Would you say that it's Alberta only, or would there be other provinces? I live in the US, and I really don't have a good feel for that.
Apart from climate, is there any substantive difference between Canada and the hemisphere's other one-party state, Cuba?
As reprehensible as many of the actions of Canada's current government are, they really don't compare with putting people in prison for decades for voicing dissenting opinions. Canada remains a democracy that observes the rule of law and preserves the freedom of its citizens, albeit it doesn't do the last to the extent that I would desire.
Would you say that it's Alberta only, or would there be other provinces? I live in the US, and I really don't have a good feel for that.
Apart from climate, is there any substantive difference between Canada and the hemisphere's other one-party state, Cuba?
As reprehensible as many of the actions of Canada's current government are, they really don't compare with putting people in prison for decades for voicing dissenting opinions. Canada remains a democracy that observes the rule of law and preserves the freedom of its citizens, albeit it doesn't do the last to the extent that I would desire.
# posted by : 7:05 PM
: 7:05 PM
Alberta has a long history of fighting with the central government, mostly over provincial rights. Our American friends may not be completely aware of the original, highly decentralized nature of the Canadian federation circa 1867. In the founding document (the British North America Act 1867) of the country the central government was only responsible for border issues, the army, and monetary policy. Most everything else was the purview of the provinces.
Ottawa has been attempting to usurp additional rights ever since. An example; even though health care is specifically and clearly a provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa was able to bribe the provinces into signing the Canada Health Act in the mid-1980's, giving themselves a say in how provinces deliver health services to their populations.
The country does not currently have a strong champion of provincial rights. Ralph Klein, the current and sooon-to-retire Alberta Premier, is ideologically much closer to the federal Liberal party than he is to any sort of fiscal or social conservatism. Only his powerful rural Alberta (conservative) power base saves us from Ralph's more egregious liberal tendencies. It is widely expected that the ruling Progressive Conservative party in Alberta will choose a new leader this fall. Here's hoping that a true warrior for provincial rights will emerge.
Ottawa has been attempting to usurp additional rights ever since. An example; even though health care is specifically and clearly a provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa was able to bribe the provinces into signing the Canada Health Act in the mid-1980's, giving themselves a say in how provinces deliver health services to their populations.
The country does not currently have a strong champion of provincial rights. Ralph Klein, the current and sooon-to-retire Alberta Premier, is ideologically much closer to the federal Liberal party than he is to any sort of fiscal or social conservatism. Only his powerful rural Alberta (conservative) power base saves us from Ralph's more egregious liberal tendencies. It is widely expected that the ruling Progressive Conservative party in Alberta will choose a new leader this fall. Here's hoping that a true warrior for provincial rights will emerge.
# posted by : 7:52 PM
: 7:52 PM
The whole problem here, and more likely then not, is that if the Librano$(liberals) win in the next election, your going to witness the break up of Canada. Quebec has been blaimed for all this and has surged to 54% for separation, and there will be a massive shift in Alberta towards the separtist party there before the next provincial election. The implications of a Liberal win are far more serious then if they loss.
If the conservatives win and don't decentralize government, then the same result will just be delayed by x number of years.
A lot of people are underestimating the anger level of the so called "average" canadian in these areas which is at an all time high.
A double whamy for Alberta is the Kyoto protocol, this in combination with a liberal win will insure a split.
If the conservatives win and don't decentralize government, then the same result will just be delayed by x number of years.
A lot of people are underestimating the anger level of the so called "average" canadian in these areas which is at an all time high.
A double whamy for Alberta is the Kyoto protocol, this in combination with a liberal win will insure a split.
# posted by : 8:14 PM
: 8:14 PM
Reuters is calling the vote of confidence all but lost. Onward the Denim Revolution!
LINK
LINK
# posted by : 9:13 PM
: 9:13 PM
I am a Yank and this is a highly amatuer insight. I have been hopping around many canadian blogs and the general perception I get from liberal supporters is first denial, then even when they are convinced of the corruption their first response seems to be "yes they are corrupt but we can never let Harper and the conservatives in so we are going to vote Liberal anyway." They have given up trying to argue innocence and they have settled into a I might vote NDP but I am afraid of Harper winning so I will keep voting Liberal. the interesting outcome from the scandal might be the Bloc getting their long sought goal of independence. If Quebec goes the possibilities are endless on what our neighbors to the north will become.
# posted by : 11:14 PM
: 11:14 PM
Perhaps Canada would even return to its place as a stalwart supporter of the US and Anglosphere Allies Australia, and Britain. Here's hoping.
Americans generally have a high opinion of Canadians. However this is due to total lack of coverage we receive about Canadian true feelings about the US. Comments by high ranking Canadian officials like “Americans, I hate those bastards” (Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish) and “Let's embarrass the hell out of the Americans” (Liberal MP Marlene Jennings) leave the informed American little choice but to believe that Canada has turned into the Fredo Corleone of the Anglosphere.
Canada has let its insecurities and lack of strength morph into unmitigated jealously. Canada was the British Empire’s most faithful daughter. And, who does the UK love the most? Its prodigal son, the US. And, now that the British Empire has crumbled, Canada has transferred their Elektra complex to the UN. “Love me, daddy. Love Me.”
Fredo Corleone: I'm your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!
Michael Corleone: That's the way Pop wanted it.
Fredo Corleone: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!
Canada so desperately wants respect. They so desperate do not want to be thought of as worthless, not like everyone says they are.
Canada feels that regardless of how rude and antagonistic it acts towards America, that because we are family the US will be nice to Canada. They have already effectively disbanded their military (i.e. their ability to defend their sovereignty) because they assume America will never let them be invaded. I have no doubt that like a jealous Fredo allied with the enemies of his brother and tried to have him killed, Canada would gleefully ally with America’s enemies and let them use Canada as a staging ground for attacks on the US.
I say this as someone who misses Hockey Night in Canada with Don Cherry & Ron MacLean , and who regularly vacations in Victoria, BC.
Americans generally have a high opinion of Canadians. However this is due to total lack of coverage we receive about Canadian true feelings about the US. Comments by high ranking Canadian officials like “Americans, I hate those bastards” (Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish) and “Let's embarrass the hell out of the Americans” (Liberal MP Marlene Jennings) leave the informed American little choice but to believe that Canada has turned into the Fredo Corleone of the Anglosphere.
Canada has let its insecurities and lack of strength morph into unmitigated jealously. Canada was the British Empire’s most faithful daughter. And, who does the UK love the most? Its prodigal son, the US. And, now that the British Empire has crumbled, Canada has transferred their Elektra complex to the UN. “Love me, daddy. Love Me.”
Fredo Corleone: I'm your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!
Michael Corleone: That's the way Pop wanted it.
Fredo Corleone: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!
Canada so desperately wants respect. They so desperate do not want to be thought of as worthless, not like everyone says they are.
Canada feels that regardless of how rude and antagonistic it acts towards America, that because we are family the US will be nice to Canada. They have already effectively disbanded their military (i.e. their ability to defend their sovereignty) because they assume America will never let them be invaded. I have no doubt that like a jealous Fredo allied with the enemies of his brother and tried to have him killed, Canada would gleefully ally with America’s enemies and let them use Canada as a staging ground for attacks on the US.
I say this as someone who misses Hockey Night in Canada with Don Cherry & Ron MacLean , and who regularly vacations in Victoria, BC.
# posted by : 11:37 PM
: 11:37 PM
Actually, Canada is already just about the most decentralized country in the Western world. The U.S. federal government is vastly more powerful, vis-a-vis the states, than the Canadian federal government is, vis-a-vis the provinces. The problem isn't that the federal government has too much jurisdiction, the problem is the bad things it does with the limited jurisdiction that it has. More fundamentally, the problem is a political climate that sees the Liberals re-elected federally over and over again, almost in perpetuity, giving them ample opportunity (e.g. with Adscam) that power corrupts.
And the Bloc winning the majority of seats in Quebec in the next federal election (which seems very likely) will have zero impact on Quebec separatism. The Bloc caucus will have zero power to do anything about it directly and the presence of more, rather than fewer Bloc MP's in the Commons isn't going to have any noticeable impact on public support for separatism in Quebec. To the extent that separatism is alive (barely) in Quebec, that's largely a function of Liberal corruption making the federalist alternative look relatively bad.
And the Bloc winning the majority of seats in Quebec in the next federal election (which seems very likely) will have zero impact on Quebec separatism. The Bloc caucus will have zero power to do anything about it directly and the presence of more, rather than fewer Bloc MP's in the Commons isn't going to have any noticeable impact on public support for separatism in Quebec. To the extent that separatism is alive (barely) in Quebec, that's largely a function of Liberal corruption making the federalist alternative look relatively bad.
# posted by : 11:41 PM
: 11:41 PM
Thanks to blogging, more Americans are becoming aware of the Canadian view toward their neighbor to the south. It is every bit as hostile as the French. When this sinks in more generally, I expect it will have the same effect on American attitudes toward Canadians and their products.
# posted by : 11:44 PM
: 11:44 PM
Carolyn Parrish was not a "high ranking official". She wasn't even an official (in the sense of holding an executive branch position). She was an MP, a completely insignificant backbencher at that, and later got kicked out of the Liberal caucus. In Canada, that means she'll be gone in the next election, since independents virtually never get elected.
There's certainly some degree of Anti-American sentiment in Canada, but that shouldn't be overstated. I lived there for years, and I wouldn't describe it as that much different than a small town might have towards a big city in the same state, or that a rural midwestern state might have towards New York. Each tends to perceive the larger neighbor as "too big for his britches". As for Canada allowing some foreign entity to use Canada as a staging ground for attacks against the U.S., that's laughable. Canadians are neither that bad, nor that dumb.
There's certainly some degree of Anti-American sentiment in Canada, but that shouldn't be overstated. I lived there for years, and I wouldn't describe it as that much different than a small town might have towards a big city in the same state, or that a rural midwestern state might have towards New York. Each tends to perceive the larger neighbor as "too big for his britches". As for Canada allowing some foreign entity to use Canada as a staging ground for attacks against the U.S., that's laughable. Canadians are neither that bad, nor that dumb.
# posted by : 11:48 PM
: 11:48 PM
Yes. There certainly is an anti-American wing of the Liberal Party, represented by Carolyn Parrish and her ilk, but this is by no means representative of Canadian's view of Americans generally.
I believe the majority of anti-American sentiment in Canada comes out of Quebec and a few Ontario MP's. People in Atlantic Canada, Alberta, and most of the West, all continue to poll with high opinion levels of Americans. Quebec polls much differently, as does urban Ontario.
I believe the majority of anti-American sentiment in Canada comes out of Quebec and a few Ontario MP's. People in Atlantic Canada, Alberta, and most of the West, all continue to poll with high opinion levels of Americans. Quebec polls much differently, as does urban Ontario.
As for Canada allowing some foreign entity to use Canada as a staging ground for attacks against the U.S., that's laughable.
Oh, I am not suggesting that Canada will allow the PRC to set up a landing strip in BC.
But, I do think it is plausible that the Liberal government will refuse to do anything about a terrorist group based in, say, Montreal, that recruits, trains, and plans strikes against the US. I am sure they will first turn a blind eye to the problem. Then they will deny it exists. Then they will claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents them from doing anything about it. And of course during all of this, if it is even reported, the CBC will spin the story about how evil and fascist the US is, and how Martin is boldly standing up for Canada’s sovereignty.
The same scenario plays out for spies and other foreign operatives (be they government, NGOs, or foreign “businesses”)..
Oh, I am not suggesting that Canada will allow the PRC to set up a landing strip in BC.
But, I do think it is plausible that the Liberal government will refuse to do anything about a terrorist group based in, say, Montreal, that recruits, trains, and plans strikes against the US. I am sure they will first turn a blind eye to the problem. Then they will deny it exists. Then they will claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents them from doing anything about it. And of course during all of this, if it is even reported, the CBC will spin the story about how evil and fascist the US is, and how Martin is boldly standing up for Canada’s sovereignty.
The same scenario plays out for spies and other foreign operatives (be they government, NGOs, or foreign “businesses”)..
# posted by : 1:25 AM
: 1:25 AM
Re contributions to world culture, you may have heard of Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen or Mike Myers. There are quite a lot of them. Canada certainly has a problem with defining itself otherwise than by contrast to the US, but that's an entirely different issue.
# posted by : 3:36 AM
: 3:36 AM
Considerably more plausible, but in that regard, it's not much different than a significant chunk of the Democratic party in the US. Heck, it's not much different than the reason why the Republican party won't lift a finger to secure our border with Mexico. In all 3 cases, the organization in question will act only upon being forced to act by some further terrorist act, or at least the capture of a terrorist who has entered the country through the means in question, whether that be crossing a porous border or, in the case of Canada, destroying your ID during your flight, then saying the magic word "refugee" once you arrive at Canadian customs.
===============================
Oh, I am not suggesting that Canada will allow the PRC to set up a landing strip in BC.
But, I do think it is plausible that the Liberal government will refuse to do anything about a terrorist group based in, say, Montreal, that recruits, trains, and plans strikes against the US. I am sure they will first turn a blind eye to the problem. Then they will deny it exists. Then they will claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents them from doing anything about it. And of course during all of this, if it is even reported, the CBC will spin the story about how evil and fascist the US is, and how Martin is boldly standing up for Canada’s sovereignty.
===============================
Oh, I am not suggesting that Canada will allow the PRC to set up a landing strip in BC.
But, I do think it is plausible that the Liberal government will refuse to do anything about a terrorist group based in, say, Montreal, that recruits, trains, and plans strikes against the US. I am sure they will first turn a blind eye to the problem. Then they will deny it exists. Then they will claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents them from doing anything about it. And of course during all of this, if it is even reported, the CBC will spin the story about how evil and fascist the US is, and how Martin is boldly standing up for Canada’s sovereignty.
# posted by : 3:42 AM
: 3:42 AM
Perhaps the greatest wake up call for Canada would be for Alberta to have a referrendum on separation. No one really cares if Quebec separates except for the Ontario liberals, for if Quebec left there would go their absolute lock on the government.
Alberta would be a shock and a blow. A shock because it isn't the Francophones doing it and a blow because all except the most brain dead LLL whackjob realises how the loss of Alberta would kill the economy and thus all their nanny state programs.
Memo to Anonymous: I would consider none of those people you listed as "contributors to world culture". If you mentioned people such as Oscar Peterson or Glenn Gould then I would have to agree.
Alberta would be a shock and a blow. A shock because it isn't the Francophones doing it and a blow because all except the most brain dead LLL whackjob realises how the loss of Alberta would kill the economy and thus all their nanny state programs.
Memo to Anonymous: I would consider none of those people you listed as "contributors to world culture". If you mentioned people such as Oscar Peterson or Glenn Gould then I would have to agree.
# posted by : 6:08 AM
: 6:08 AM
Other poster:
Re contributions to world culture, you may have heard of Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen or Mike Myers. There are quite a lot of them. Canada certainly has a problem with defining itself otherwise than by contrast to the US, but that's an entirely different issue.
Yeah, I've heard of them, but the thing they all have in comment is that they're Canadians who became successful in the US, not Canada. Why don't there seem to be any Canadians who achieve a comparable level of success without going to the US at some point?
==================
Quite true, but the original point was that Canadians hadn't made any contribution to world culture. Canadians have made lots of contributions, they just have to move to the United States to do it. Lack of cultural vitality in Canada might be one of the reasons for that, though there could be others. Having a much smaller market comes to mind. One probably sees a similar effect with Australia, where all the famous people are ones who moved to the U.S.. Canada is next door and doesn't even have a distinctive accent (at least for an educated Canadian) so one would expect an even greater effect.
=====================
Yet another poster:
The break-up of Canada can't come soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. What a smug country. I'm tired of the astonishingly misplaced sense of superiority eminating from Our Neighbor to the North.
Dunno about a breakup being a good thing, but yeah, sanctimony is not an endearing trait.
=======================
Breakup wouldn't necessarily work to the benefit of the U.S. Their sense of superiority is actually a thinly disguised sense of insecurity, and overt, obnoxious anti-americanism in Canada is largely found only among the typical left leaning suspects, none of whom are any worse (and for the most part are much less insane) than a guy like Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky. Every country has its national myths which it continues (and has to) believe regardless of reality. Canada's is that it is a more caring society (debatable), has a strong central government (it doesn't) and that national health care (actually provincial, partly federally funded) makes it a more caring and therefore better than the U.S. It's a pretty thin reed to base a political culture on, but they haven't got much else.
Re contributions to world culture, you may have heard of Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen or Mike Myers. There are quite a lot of them. Canada certainly has a problem with defining itself otherwise than by contrast to the US, but that's an entirely different issue.
Yeah, I've heard of them, but the thing they all have in comment is that they're Canadians who became successful in the US, not Canada. Why don't there seem to be any Canadians who achieve a comparable level of success without going to the US at some point?
==================
Quite true, but the original point was that Canadians hadn't made any contribution to world culture. Canadians have made lots of contributions, they just have to move to the United States to do it. Lack of cultural vitality in Canada might be one of the reasons for that, though there could be others. Having a much smaller market comes to mind. One probably sees a similar effect with Australia, where all the famous people are ones who moved to the U.S.. Canada is next door and doesn't even have a distinctive accent (at least for an educated Canadian) so one would expect an even greater effect.
=====================
Yet another poster:
The break-up of Canada can't come soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. What a smug country. I'm tired of the astonishingly misplaced sense of superiority eminating from Our Neighbor to the North.
Dunno about a breakup being a good thing, but yeah, sanctimony is not an endearing trait.
=======================
Breakup wouldn't necessarily work to the benefit of the U.S. Their sense of superiority is actually a thinly disguised sense of insecurity, and overt, obnoxious anti-americanism in Canada is largely found only among the typical left leaning suspects, none of whom are any worse (and for the most part are much less insane) than a guy like Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky. Every country has its national myths which it continues (and has to) believe regardless of reality. Canada's is that it is a more caring society (debatable), has a strong central government (it doesn't) and that national health care (actually provincial, partly federally funded) makes it a more caring and therefore better than the U.S. It's a pretty thin reed to base a political culture on, but they haven't got much else.
# posted by : 9:09 AM
: 9:09 AM
retrofuturistic
Re: "its only contributions to world culture Bryan Adams and Dan Aykroyd"
How true - unlike the U.S. contribution of Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, 50 Cent, Mariah Carrey, Jerry Lewis, - well you get the point. Such a galaxy of stars.
Jim Thompson
Re: "Alberta is an exception to this rule. They have a more American, self-sufficient attitude which is why they are always at odds with Ottawa."
You are right, Alberta is the exception - it's called oil. You know, second largest reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia (including the oil sands). It's easy to be smug when you've won the lottery.
rosignol
Re: "Why don't there seem to be any Canadians who achieve a comparable level of success without going to the US at some point? "
Easy answer - because the U.S. is the biggest market in the world by far, it's right next door and Canadians "get" U.S. culture since they've lived with it all their lives. It's no different than someone from Minnesota or Vermont heading to New York or Hollywood. That's where the market is. BTW Leonard Cohen and Joni Mitchell were well known locally before they headed to the U.S. As for actors like Carrey and Fox - well they make movies and television in Los Angeles don't they?
As for the people dumping on Carolyn Parrish - good for you but note that she was (and is) a nobody. She was a backbench MP who got her 15 minutes of fame by being an idiot. If you want an American analogue try Cynthia McKinney - now there is a real barking moonbat.
Re: "its only contributions to world culture Bryan Adams and Dan Aykroyd"
How true - unlike the U.S. contribution of Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, 50 Cent, Mariah Carrey, Jerry Lewis, - well you get the point. Such a galaxy of stars.
Jim Thompson
Re: "Alberta is an exception to this rule. They have a more American, self-sufficient attitude which is why they are always at odds with Ottawa."
You are right, Alberta is the exception - it's called oil. You know, second largest reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia (including the oil sands). It's easy to be smug when you've won the lottery.
rosignol
Re: "Why don't there seem to be any Canadians who achieve a comparable level of success without going to the US at some point? "
Easy answer - because the U.S. is the biggest market in the world by far, it's right next door and Canadians "get" U.S. culture since they've lived with it all their lives. It's no different than someone from Minnesota or Vermont heading to New York or Hollywood. That's where the market is. BTW Leonard Cohen and Joni Mitchell were well known locally before they headed to the U.S. As for actors like Carrey and Fox - well they make movies and television in Los Angeles don't they?
As for the people dumping on Carolyn Parrish - good for you but note that she was (and is) a nobody. She was a backbench MP who got her 15 minutes of fame by being an idiot. If you want an American analogue try Cynthia McKinney - now there is a real barking moonbat.
# posted by : 9:27 AM
: 9:27 AM
A Canadian invented garbage bags, so there. As for those Canadian-born entertainment figures, I believe they all live in the U.S. now and some have taken American citizenship.
# posted by : 10:09 AM
: 10:09 AM
As a former Canadian with a BAsc from UofT who joined the California Silicon revolution, I am disgusted with how my former country has lost the respect of the U.S. About the only thing that I can point to with pride is the ability of Canadians to consume more beer than Americans; from there, it is all downhill.
# posted by : 11:42 AM
: 11:42 AM
Just posted a new Update: link
Feel free to continue your discussion, and thanks for the reading and the input.
Feel free to continue your discussion, and thanks for the reading and the input.
Alberta is smug? Lottery? Albertans work hard, make sacrafices, and we pay our bills instead of running on credit. I'm a Albertan, single parent. I work overtime and part time jobs(and I am still considered low income) to give my kids some kind of a future lower income and $2000 dollars of my income went to federal taxes, or perhaps brown envelopes for the Liberal party to but your vote. And then a lot of Canadians want to vote the Liberal party back in, and you wonder why I'm angry. I don't hold the US to blame for closing their borders to Canadian beef. I think Canadian should be looking out for Canadians...give me my $2000.00 back, I want to give it to a beef farmer!
# posted by : 4:27 PM
: 4:27 PM
To Anonymous above:
I appreciate your situation and my comment wasn’t directed at individual Albertans. Perhaps this background will be helpful.
After oil was discovered in Alberta in the late 1940’s and production gradually ramped up and the requisite infrastructure was built, a market was needed. The Diefenbaker government formulated the National Oil Policy that mandated Alberta oil supply the country east to the Ottawa Valley (i.e. Quebec border). East of this boundary, less expensive imported oil was used. The refineries in Montreal I believe were supplied with Venezuelan oil via a pipeline through Maine. Up until the 1970’s oil crisis Ontario residents were subsidizing Alberta oil producers.
As an Albertan you will know that during the 1970’s and very early 1980’s oil boom the Alberta government established the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund which was massively funded by oil revenues. After the post 1982 recession when oil prices fell the new Getty government I believe spent the billions in the Heritage fund and the province went into debt. The subsequent Klein government continued with the cutbacks until oil prices started to pick up during the late 1990’s. Now that oil prices are in excess of $50 per barrel, Alberta is swimming in cash and has paid off its provincial debt. Good for Alberta but please don’t tell us that it was the result of hard work – it’s the oil revenue spilling into the treasury that is responsible. If the oil were located several hundred miles to the east, the socialists in Saskatchewan would be rolling in the money and not Alberta.
“With the discovery of a major oil and gas field at Leduc in 1947 , oil and gas exploration was greatly stimulated in Western Canada. Additional major oil and gas fields were discovered in the late 1940s and 1950s. Canada was in the midst of a post-World War II oil boom, expanding both its commercial oil industry and proven reserves. For the first time in its modern history, Canada found itself less dependent on imported oil. Reflecting this, the National Oil Policy (NOP), adopted in February 1961, was a result of the federal government’s determination to help shape the growth of Canada’s ‘oil patch.’ It established a protected market for Canadian crude oil producers at prices that were linked to international prices.
The NOP had three goals. The first was the target of 640,000 barrels per day average production for the first year, and 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil and natural gas by 1963. The second was to exclude from the Ontario market petroleum products refined in Montreal from imported foreign crude. The third was to increase Canadian oil exports to the United States.”
Source: http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1961National_Oil_Policy.html
I appreciate your situation and my comment wasn’t directed at individual Albertans. Perhaps this background will be helpful.
After oil was discovered in Alberta in the late 1940’s and production gradually ramped up and the requisite infrastructure was built, a market was needed. The Diefenbaker government formulated the National Oil Policy that mandated Alberta oil supply the country east to the Ottawa Valley (i.e. Quebec border). East of this boundary, less expensive imported oil was used. The refineries in Montreal I believe were supplied with Venezuelan oil via a pipeline through Maine. Up until the 1970’s oil crisis Ontario residents were subsidizing Alberta oil producers.
As an Albertan you will know that during the 1970’s and very early 1980’s oil boom the Alberta government established the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund which was massively funded by oil revenues. After the post 1982 recession when oil prices fell the new Getty government I believe spent the billions in the Heritage fund and the province went into debt. The subsequent Klein government continued with the cutbacks until oil prices started to pick up during the late 1990’s. Now that oil prices are in excess of $50 per barrel, Alberta is swimming in cash and has paid off its provincial debt. Good for Alberta but please don’t tell us that it was the result of hard work – it’s the oil revenue spilling into the treasury that is responsible. If the oil were located several hundred miles to the east, the socialists in Saskatchewan would be rolling in the money and not Alberta.
“With the discovery of a major oil and gas field at Leduc in 1947 , oil and gas exploration was greatly stimulated in Western Canada. Additional major oil and gas fields were discovered in the late 1940s and 1950s. Canada was in the midst of a post-World War II oil boom, expanding both its commercial oil industry and proven reserves. For the first time in its modern history, Canada found itself less dependent on imported oil. Reflecting this, the National Oil Policy (NOP), adopted in February 1961, was a result of the federal government’s determination to help shape the growth of Canada’s ‘oil patch.’ It established a protected market for Canadian crude oil producers at prices that were linked to international prices.
The NOP had three goals. The first was the target of 640,000 barrels per day average production for the first year, and 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil and natural gas by 1963. The second was to exclude from the Ontario market petroleum products refined in Montreal from imported foreign crude. The third was to increase Canadian oil exports to the United States.”
Source: http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1961National_Oil_Policy.html
# posted by : 7:14 PM
: 7:14 PM
Saskatchewan has extensive natural resources -- oil, potash, uranium, timber, hydropower and much more. The reason it is in recession with a shrinking population while Alberta is booming is the comparatively pro-entrepreneurial culture and politics of Alberta. These places are as different as West Virginia and Connecticut. British Columbia has gone from bust to boom by exchanging a Saskatchewan-type social democrat government for an Alberta-type government. The idea that anybody would succeed in Alberta just because there is oil there does not stand up to scrutiny. What about Mexico and Venezuela and most of the oil-producing states of the Middle East? Why aren't they just like Calgary?
# posted by : 5:09 AM
: 5:09 AM
Not a comment, but a question: From where in Shakespeare do you find your quote underneath the title on this blog? I know this is an e-mail question, not a comment, but I couldn't find an e-mail address anywhere. Apologies on taking up comment space.
Kirk
Kirk
# posted by : 10:03 AM
: 10:03 AM
But, I do think it is plausible that the Liberal government will refuse to do anything about a terrorist group based in, say, Montreal, that recruits, trains, and plans strikes against the US.
Given the Government's track record with groups like the Tamil Tigers, this sadly isn't too much of a stretch.
There are plenty of Canadian entertainment figures that have found success mainly in Canada. Of course they are less "successful" financially than those who have broken into the US because of the difference in market size.
I don't think Canada as a whole leans left much more than the US. But the few extra percentage points combined with Canada's Parliamentary system and more fragmented party system means that we do tend to elect more left-leaning governments. That, plus the lack of alternative, right-leaning media in Canada, could easily leave Amercian observers with the impression that we are the France of the Western Hemisphere.
...we have to live with the fact that the geekiest, pimpliest girl in class has a huge crush on us that she demonstrates by repeatedly and obsessively telling us how much she hates us.
That's not fair. Belgium is way pimplier than we are. You suck! (Call me).
Given the Government's track record with groups like the Tamil Tigers, this sadly isn't too much of a stretch.
There are plenty of Canadian entertainment figures that have found success mainly in Canada. Of course they are less "successful" financially than those who have broken into the US because of the difference in market size.
I don't think Canada as a whole leans left much more than the US. But the few extra percentage points combined with Canada's Parliamentary system and more fragmented party system means that we do tend to elect more left-leaning governments. That, plus the lack of alternative, right-leaning media in Canada, could easily leave Amercian observers with the impression that we are the France of the Western Hemisphere.
...we have to live with the fact that the geekiest, pimpliest girl in class has a huge crush on us that she demonstrates by repeatedly and obsessively telling us how much she hates us.
That's not fair. Belgium is way pimplier than we are. You suck! (Call me).
# posted by : 1:16 PM
: 1:16 PM
I love your blog! I also have a site about Wake Board Shops
. You can check it out at Wake Board Shops
.
Also, as a special bonus for your visitors, i want to tell you about a site that is giving away a FREE Sony DVD Handycam! Just click the link below and enter your Zipcode to see if you qualify.
FREE Sony DVD Handycam
Post a Comment
. You can check it out at Wake Board Shops
.
Also, as a special bonus for your visitors, i want to tell you about a site that is giving away a FREE Sony DVD Handycam! Just click the link below and enter your Zipcode to see if you qualify.
FREE Sony DVD Handycam
# posted by : 4:14 PM
: 4:14 PM
