CUPE And the Truth -- Not a Good Combination

It's been difficult to escape a batch of recent ads released by the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

In the ads an interviewer talks to people who are made out to be random passers-by in public places. If not for the atrocious acting on the part of the interviewees, it might even be believable.

The least believable of these ads is one in which a woman sings some undue praise for Canadian health care. This isn't to say that Canada's public health care system isn't due any praise, but rather that the ad in question intentionally skates over some serious deficiencies in Canada's public health care system.

In the ad, the woman recounts a story in which her daughter breaks her ankle while skating at a local ice rink. In her story, the rink staff call 911, promptly receive ambulance service, and her daughter is home in a couple of hours.

In no way is this an accurate portrayal of Canada's public health care system.

Anyone calling 911 for someone with a broken limb -- unless it was a serious compound fracture -- would simply be advised to help the victim to get to a hospital.

911 services wouldn't send an ambulance for such an injury. Even if they did, the individual in question would be considered an extremely low-priority patient. Any patients suffering from life-threatening conditions or injuries would be helped well in advance of this patient, inevitably resulting in a wait of several hours for that ambulance.

Moreover, ambulance services aren't covered by the Canada health act. Some provinces pay for ambulance services in cases where the patient's condition justifies the use of the service -- an ankle break wouldn't qualify.

When the patient finally arrived in the emergency room, she could wait more than seven hours for treatment.

Given the evident differences between the tale recounted in the CUPE ad and a little thing the rest of Canada likes to refer to as "reality", it would seem that some questions for CUPE are in order.

But as it turns out, CUPE doesn't accept any comments that question the messaging of their advertising.

Which is rather unfortunate. CUPE itself tends to obstruct any efforts to cut the costs of middle- and upper- management in Canada's public health care systems. The costs saved, if diverted to front-line service, in the form of additional doctors and nurses, would solve a great many problems.

But CUPE is far too interested in preserving redundant bureaucracy than improving Canadian health care -- or even allowing the truth about this to be told.

China: Destroying it's support one chunk at a time

Following their achievement in Copenhagen of being credited with stonewalling the conference, China has managed to now piss off Google.

After getting the agreement with Google that the company would censor it's searches for Chinese users, Google Announced it would be suspending it's policy of self censorship in China. Why would Google do this even though it knows this action could likely end it's contract in China. Because of consistent attacks by Chinese based hackers on the gmail accounts of Chinese Human Rights Activists.

For a while now, China has been scoring several important victories. It had managed to paint itself as a "Green Country" moving towards a non-carbon future. It had gotten Google to self-censor itself against anti-government material from China based users. Now it's own greed and need for control seem to be nixing these past victories.

Harper Needs a Better Explanation

Prime Minister claims proroguement necessary for economic work

Speaking to reporters about the recent proroguement of Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended the increasingly-controversial move on the basis of the need to prepare his economic agenda.

Harper accused the opposition parties of being obstructive in Parliament, and distracting his government from the important work ahead of it -- something that Harper doesn't expect to change when Parliament resumes.

"The games begin when Parliament returns," Harper said. "The government can take our time now to do the important work to prepare the economic agenda ahead."

"That said, as soon as Parliament comes back ... the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there'll be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," Harper continued. "That's the kind of instability markets are actually worried about."

Many of the Canadians who are following the story legitimately believe Harper, that numerous factors -- including the diplomatic opportunity offered by the presence of numerous foreign dignitaries in Vancouver during the Olympics, and his need to prepare his new economic agenda -- have made the proroguation of Parliament necessary. Others are supporting his proroguation out of sheer partisan fervour.

For Harper, the problem is that many Canadians don't seem to believe him. A recent poll indicated that, of the 67% of Canadians who are following the proroguation story, 58% opposed the move.

Included in this were a significant portion of Conservative supporters.

Among those Conservative Party supporters, one will find an unexpected figure -- none other than Tom Flanagan.

“The governments talking points don’t have much credibility," Flanagan said. "Everybody knows that Parliament was prorogued in order to shut down the Afghan inquiry, and the trouble is that the government doesn’t want to explain why that was necessary. I personally think it was a highly defensible action but instead of having an adult defense of it the government comes up with these childish talking points.“

The thing about the controversy is that, considering all of the facts surrounding the issue, few Canadians could be blamed for believing the worst about Harper's proroguement.

In the Afghan torture allegations the Conservative Party has handled what is actually a low-value scandal -- the revelation that failures in the chain of command may have obscured the torture of Afghan detainees from the government -- very poorly.

Considering the way in which Harper has handled the issue -- a better response would have been to call a complete inquiry into the entire timeline of Canada's operations in Afghanistan, including the period prior to 2006 -- and present the full reality of the matter: that the pre-2006 Liberal government was actually responsible for the state of affairs in the first place.

Instead, Harper and the Conservatives flailed clumsily, and executed what was very likely a long-planned proroguation of Parliament when opposition pressure just happened to be most intense.

No one could blame so many Canadians for believing that Harper prorogued Parliament to escape the pressure.

Among the Canadians who oppose the proroguement on a principled of basis are those who oppose it on partisan grounds. Murray Dobbin seems to firmly understand that stage two of Harper's economic plan is at the centre of the proroguement (and considers it unthinkable that the government would ever want to reduce government spending).

Stephen Harper needs a better explanation for his actions. For every reason that a Canadian may hear Harper's explanation and believe it, there are just as many reasons to not believe him.

Right now, the opposition is telling a better story.

Not That We Needed Any Proof, But...

...When one addresses any member of the Clowncar Brigade, it's not too hard to figure out what their purpose is.

These are individuals who have given every ounce of their being over to a team-oriented view of the world. Their team is the progressives, and they want to win -- no matter what. Their opponents are the conservatives, and they want them to lose -- no matter what.

If anyone needed any proof of this, they need to look no futher than this comment, in which Sparky, one of the most masochistic members of the Clowncar Brigade, makes his view of the world crystal clear:

As some may recall, the topic of conversation in the thread in question was whether or not it's hypocritical for a left-wing blogger to celebrate a thug who pushes a 69-year-old man off the roof of a car being allowed to stand trial for a charge that is lesser than the act he committed -- the act he committed being the crime of aggravated assault -- only to turn around and complain when another individual is allowed to stand trial for a charge that is lesser than the act he committed -- the act he committed being a terrorist assasination.

Rational and civilized people know a few things about the question at hand.

Rational and civilized people know that Dr George Tiller's assailant shouldn't be allowed to get away with murder, just as they know that someone who pushes a 69-year-old man off the roof of a car shouldn't be allowed to get away with that, either.

Rational and civilized people know full well that each individual should pay for the crime they committed -- no more, and no less.

But not people like Sparky. Oh, no.

For people like Sparky, what matters most is that they consider people like the man who pushed Ed Snell off of the roof of his car to be on their team. Furthermore, they want their team to win, regardless of the virtue under which that victory is obtained.

Likewise, people like Scott Roeder are on the other team, and they want that team to lose. Again, the virtue under which that victory is obtained is irrelevant (although, for the record, it would require a significant travesty -- a la manufactured evidence or the like, to impugn the virtue of a Roeder conviction).

Meanwhile, rational and civilized people -- and Sparky is neither rational nor truly civilized -- understand that, when it comes to the matter of criminal justice, there are no political teams. Those who break commit acts such as these must be dealt with properly.

Those like Sparky and Lulu who wrap these matters up in their own personal politics show that, when choosing between their ideological agenda and western civilization, exactly which is more important to them.

Attention Britain: Dr Who Wants to Tell You How to Vote

David Cameron 'scary', according to David Tennant

Looking ahead to the coming British election, David Tennant, the outgoing Dr Who, is apparently very, very frightened at will very likely be the result.

With David Cameron and the British Conservative Party gearing up for an election in which they'll most likely win a majority government, Tennant is beginning to experience night terrors at the very prospect of it.

"David Cameron is a terrifying prospect," Tennant insisted. "He's a regional newsreader who will jump on whatever bandwagon flies past. I get quite panicked that people are buying his rhetoric, because it seems very manipulative to me."

It's become a traditional campaign method of the far left -- fear mongering about any candidate or party that seems even remotely conservative.

Tennant mixes this method with a traditional talking point of the soon-to-be-defeated leftist: that their party is in some trouble, but that they should be allowed to sort the matter out from the government benches.

"Clearly, the Labour Party is not without some issues right now," Tennant admitted. "I do get frustrated - you know, they need to sort some stuff out. But they're still a better bet than the Tories."

"I would still rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron," he added. "I would rather have a Prime Minister who is the cleverest person in the room than a Prime Minister who looks good in a suit.

Of course if Gordon Brown truly is the cleverest person in any room, one could be forgiven for not seeing it.

With his recent attempts at stirring up a narrative of class warfare -- criticizing Cameron for where he and his fellow Tories went to school -- evidently backfiring on him, Brown doesn't seem terribly "clever" at all.

But Tennant seems to think that the average Briton could be forgiven for not understanding such things the way he does. After all, he is an actor.

"It's very weird that you can work in the arts, which tends to be about understanding the human condition and hopefully feeling some kind of sympathy for your fellow man, and still vote for the Tories," Tennant muttered. "I do find that inconceivable. I don't get it."

If one found Tennant's comments to be reminiscent of some of the actors portrayed in Team America: World Police, one should quickly be forgiven.

The idea that simply being an actor privileges one to some special brand of wisdom that would prod them to vote Labour is a bit of laughable concept. Not to mention the idea that reading Shakespeare privileges one to some special brand of wisdom on the topic of immigration.

"I meet actors who buy the Daily Telegraph and talk about this terrible wave of immigrants," Tennant complianed. "You just think, 'Where did that come from? Have you read King Lear? Have you read Hamlet?'"

Although, whatever great wisdom Hamlet or King Lear imparts on the topic of immigration may remain a mystery to many of those who have read them.

Othello seems like a more sensible fit.

But even if David Cameron and the Tories do manage to deliver the victory that seems so firmly within theier fingers, Tennant need worry not.

He can always just step back into his Time Machine and travel back to the glory days of 2003.

Creepy, But I'll Do Ya One Better

With Canada's progressive blogosphere ever-so-slowly turning away from the edits of King Robert the Bacon-Fisted, the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink's resident answer to Paul Walker has apparently decided that dedicating music videos to people is the proper response.

It's creepy, but two can play at that game.

So in honour of bad actors everywhere, here's a little something to think about the next time someone happens to be experiencing the misfortune of reading a blogpost by Mr I-was-in-a-bad-movie-with-Angelina-Jolie-for-30-seconds-and-now-my-career-is-over.

January 2010 Book Club Selection: Reconciliation, Benazir Bhutto

Slain Former Pakistani Prime Minister offers vital message of hope & peace

When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, a crucial ray of light in the Islamic world was snuffed out.

Bhutto's party, the Pakistani People's Party, was on the verge of an electoral victory, and an opportunity to form the government after numerous efforts by General Pervez Musharrif to thwart that.

Reconciliation provided a vision of Islam that was needed vitally not only at the time of its publishing, but especially today.

If the central arguments of Bhutto's book -- that Islam actually bestows inalienable rights upon Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that Islam mandates democracy, and that Islam is mandated to be religiously inclusive -- can take firmer hold in the Muslim world, it could prove to be the "killer app" that defeats militant Islam on a global scale.

Bhutto's message seems to be needed just as much now, in the wake of failed terrorist attacks that have directed the eyes of reactionary elements toward Islam as a whole. An understanding that the violent political ideology followed by individuals such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab does not represent Islam as a whole is need now as much as it ever has been.

Benazir Bhutto not only offers that message but, sadly, she also died for it.

Winning a Just Victory

In part two of The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis digs a little deeper into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States' move to fund and support the Mujahideen groups resisting them, and the aftermath of the war.

In the aftermath of the Soviet expulsion from Afghanistan, Curtis notes that both the United States and the Mujahideen believed they had defeated the Soviet Union. When the Berlin wall fell, each side rushed to claim credit for what would, in time, be the end of the Eastern bloc and the USSR.

No real peace emerged from the Afghan-Soviet War, despite the fact that many considered it to be an entirely just war.

Much like a just war has to be fought for just purposes, a just peace has to be maintained for just purposes.

But in order for a just war to lead to a just peace, it requires one important element: a just victory.

In this case, a just victory shouldn't necessarily be defined solely by whether the side whose violence was justified wins. It should also take into account the means by which they won.

For example, the Second World War is considered to be the most just war ever fought. It was a war to prevent Nazi dominion over the continent of Europe, and Japanese dominion over Asia and the Pacific ocean. In time, the world even came to learn of Adolph Hitler's genocidal enterprise in Europe. Stopping the Holocaust is often referred to as the fundamental justification for the war.

Yet winning the war for the allies -- the justified party -- required some acts that would be considered unthinkable today. The firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden, as well as the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki consistute acts which some historians argue were war crimes. While the nature of the total war fought by both sides the war calls into question whether or not modern notions should be considered truly applicable to the acts, they have led many to wonder if the victory won by the allies in WWII was truly a just victory.

In the end, perhaps the definitive element of a just victory is whether or not it results in a just peace.

The general criteria for defining a just peace, as defined by Pierre Allan and Alexis Keller, require that each side recognize the autonomy of the other, that each side needs to recognize the identity of the other, that concessions need to be made by each side, and that rules need to be in place to ensure that such a peace is sustainable.

In Afghanistan, the Soviet Union simply withdrew when the cost of occupying the country became too high. No peace was mediated between the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government led by Mohammad Najibullah and the Mujahideen who had driven the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. A civil war ensued, and Najibullah was eventually executed after the Taliban took control of Kabul.

Not only had no peace process taken place, no peace process had taken place involving all of the parties involved. One oc the consequences for this is that no one could agree precisely who had won the conflict, leaving each of the victorious paries -- the United States and the diffuse collection Mujahideen -- with no agreement regarding who had won, and who was responsible for that victory.

As Curtis notes, the Islamist movement that had spawned the Mujahideen claimed credit for the victory went on to declare its right to dictate the course of Muslim society as a whole. The actions that they undertook were fundamentally unjust.

Meanwhile, the United States -- particularly the small ideological cohort that had worked so hard to promote the American role in the conflict -- also claimed credit for the victory, and went on to assert its right to dictate American foreign policy. The actions that they undertook are more reasonably debatable.

Either way, the lack of a just peace led each side -- benefactor and client -- back into conflict with one another, as figures such as Osama Bin Laden began to target the United States as a method of intimidating its allies among the governments of coutnries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The United States and the Mujahideen failed to win a just victory in Afghanistan because they had never agreed on what the purpose of their victory would be. Whether or not both sides could ever have agreed on the purpose of that victory, considering the course each followed after, is probably unlikely.

Huh. So That's What It Is

Murray Dobbin loses all contact with reality

More than three years after Elizabeth May became leader of the Green Party, the party has elected no members -- but pulled out all the stops to elect one -- May herself -- and is continually nursing a deteriorating reputation.

Rabble.ca columnist Murray Dobbin has a word for this: "master plan". Elizabeth May's master plan.

It's the kind of phrase that brings to mind cartoonish images of comic book villains toiling away in secret laboratories, just waiting for the day they can rise up and take over the world. If only it weren't for the interference of interlopers.

In May and Dobbin's case, the "interlopers" seem to be the Canadian voters who won't support the party enough for them to win a seat in so much as a single riding. And, predictably, May believes she has the answer.

When asked "What has to happen to ensure that the Conservatives do not get a majority in the next election?", May resorts to a rather predictable answer: proportional representation and coalition government.

"The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a multi-party society in a two-party voting system," May insists. "We either have to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are going to make them work."

"I still feel that the aborted coalition was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the political stage," May continues. "I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper continuing his government."

As it turned out, Canadians didn't share May's assessment of the situation, and preferred an election -- an opportunity to decide themselves who would govern the country -- to the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition simply taking over power after a Parliamentary defeat of the government.

Moreover, Canadians have also rejected a transition to proportional representation on many occasions. During referenda on the topic in BC and Ontario, voters rejected proportional representation.

Canadians, as it turns out, aren't willing to sacrifice effective local representation in favour of a system that will only empower political parties.

Nor do Canadians seem to think that simply defeating Stephen Harper is worth such fundamental and detrimental re-designs of our political systems.

But if anyone thinks that May's words have been sheer ideological lunacy, they have yet to contend with this little nugget. When asked "Do you think Harper has deliberately set out to discourage people from voting?" (itself a lunatic question), May responds affirmatively.

"Absolutely," May says. "People thought that Harper had become more popular between the 2006 and 2008 elections but not so: 170,000 fewer people voted for a Conservative candidate in 2008 than in 2006. His larger seat count is a tribute to his ability to discourage people from voting. The 700,000 fewer people voting for the Liberals did so on the basis of attack ads. None of what the attack ads do is to make people like the Conservatives more -- it's a question of framing, first Stephane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff in the worst possible terms based on the most sophisticated marketing genius of the Karl Rove variety."

Now, if the Conservative Party had run nothing but attack ads during the 2008 election campaign, May would have a valid point. She could even make her point if the Conservatives had run more attack ads than their opponents. But the truth of the matter is that the Liberal party launched no less than eleven attack ads during the 2008 election (more if one includes advertising by local candidates), whereas the Conservatives used only six.

But this is the kind of ideological fantasy world Elizabeth May and Murray Dobbin live together in. Dobbin even describes May -- a woman who once said that she agrees that all Canadians are stupid, even though it's actually clear that she never meant to -- as
"articulate".

One would wonder if the Canadians who watched her and George Monbiot lose their Munk Debate to Bjorn Lomberg and Lord Christopher Monckton would agree that May is "articulate".

If Elizabeth May's political strategy is a "master plan", a lot of Canadians would be forgiven for not recognizing it.

The Quiet Canadian

Peter Stoffer accuses Michael Ignatieff of poor leadership

NDP MP Peter Stoffer has recently taken issue with Liberal Leader -- and Leader of the Opposition -- Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff, Stoffer insisted, has been so very, very quiet. Too quiet.

Moreover, Stoffer credits Ignatieff's reluctance to take Prime Minister Stephen Harper on in a more aggressive fashion.

"They’ve been very, very quiet," Stoffer said. "This is one of the reasons why Harper gets to do what he gets to do, because he doesn’t have an Opposition leader breathing down his neck. If you had someone like a Frank McKenna there facing him, I think it would be a different story all together."

Whether or not McKenna -- the former Premier of New Brunswick -- knows how to be a good opposition leader may be a matter many Canadians would question. Between 1987 and 1991, Mckenna faced no opposition in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, having won every single seat after a spectacular collapse on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick.

This aside, Stoffer suggested that Harper has been his own best opposition -- the throne in his own side, and that an effective opposition leader would have pressed the advantage.

"I don’t think, to be honest with you, if Iggy knows how to be a politician," Stoffer continued. "I don’t even know if he likes it. I just don’t know. All these things have come to him on a silver platter, when you think about it, as an opposition politician. You’ve got the detainee issue. You’ve got a massive debt and deficit. You’ve got all kinds of things that the Conservatives have completely reversed themselves on ... which is perfect for the opposition to go after them."

"They don’t seem to be taking advantage of Conservative flip-flops and mistakes," Stoffer concluded. "It’s almost like he doesn’t want the job."

Looking back over Canadian politics over the past four years, there's little question that Harper has received soft treatment from Canada's opposition leaders. And while Stoffer can point to the kid gloves that Ignatieff seems to have handled the Prime Minister with -- as well as the kid gloves that Stephane Dion handled him with -- he seems to have forgotten that his own leader has handled Harper in much the same way.

In fact, the only occasion on which the opposition showed any grit in its handling of Harper was when they proposed a coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois in December 2008. And on that occasion, they managed to turn Canadians -- who recognized the governmental coalition with a separatist party as grossly irresponsible -- largely against them.

Liberal MP Scott Brison insists that Canadians will get to know Ignatieff better in the coming months.

"The toughest political leadership is Opposition leadership," Brison insisted. "And as Canadians get to know Michael Ignatieff in the coming months, and as he tours the country in January and meets with Canadians in town halls across the country, he’ll engage in an important debate."

Ignatieff's tour of university campuses may start Ignatieff on the road to winning Canadians over.

But if Michael Ignatieff plans to get tougher on Stephen Harper -- as he pledged to do, but failed to deliver -- he'd better start speaking up.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Walker Morrow - "Is It Just Me?"

BC Blue - "Peter 'Faker' Stoffer Wants Iffy to do a Better Job of Holding Conservatives to Account?"

Blue Like You - "Rumblings of Discontent From the Coalition Rank and File"

ETP's Audrey: A Permanent Epic Fail

There's something about the arrogance of fools that makes them oddly compelling to watch. Kind of like an inept clown. One wonders how such folks are going to fuck themselves up next.

An interesting case in point is Audrey II, the proprietor of Enormous Thriving Plants -- or, as Maria Nunes calls her, "jungle lady".

People like Audrey are often eager to dress their shenanigans up in the garb of arrogance, and like to pretend that will cover up their general indeptitude. Take, for example, an edit to a recent ill-conceived jab from those parts, wherein Audrey basically argues that she should be able to lose an argument and still be able to nitpick at other people.

But if Audrey's inability to win an argument over the difference between political theory and political reality is amusing, one only needs to remember that it's basically part of an ongoing campaign at ETP, wherein she thinks she can nitpick and slime her way to prominence in Canada's left-wing blogosphere.

Take, for example, the "Golden Puddle awards", wherein Audrey attempted to smear any conservative blogger who so much as spoke of the Christmas Day terror attempt.

Not only was the response to Audrey's bit extremely tepid, but it turned out that her hero fundamentally disagreed with her on this topic.

Simply put, Audrey's award sent the message that she didn't think the Christmas Day terror attempt was a big deal in its own regard -- and that she could mock those who simply spoke about the attacks right along with those who responded to it by proprosing reactionary measures.

Meanwhile, her idol -- the individual whom she so pathetically wishes to emulate -- understood that the attack itself was actually a very serious matter, and the only thing that saved the lives of those aboard that Detroit-bound airliner was the terrorist's own ineptitude.

In short, Audrey was also wrong about the Christmas Day terror attack, and still thought she should be able to mock other people for it.

("Soft on terror" doesn't at all seem like an unfair label to apply in this particular case.)

Frankly, these are the kinds of things that Audrey seems to fail to comprehend on an ongoing basis. She fails to understand that her pig-headed demands that Canadians adhere to 19th century political theory (despite the passing from an era of aristocratic government to an era of democratic government) suggests that she her nostalgia for political antiquity extends far beyond the function of the Governor General in Canadian politics. Just like she fails to understand that her treatment of a terror attack averted only by the terrorist's incompetence suggests that she doesn't take terrorism seriously.

(Some would say "suggests". Others would say "makes it obvious".)

It must be a hard reality to wake up one day and realize one's entire blog should be set to the tune of "yakity sax". But when one aspires to be nothing more than another ideological clown, one shouldn't be shocked to find out that they've succeeded.

Senate Reform or Busted

Stephen Harper must act to restore faith in Senate reform

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper set to appoint five new Conservative Senators before the beginning of March -- thus finally attaining his much-sought-after Senate majority -- many Canadians are very justifiably beginning to wonder if he's serious about Senate reform at all.

Among those who seem to be beginning to doubt Harper's commitment to Senate reform is Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.

After passing the Senate Nominee Election Act, which would allow for the nomination of Senators-in-waiting during provincial or federal elections. But now Wall is beginning to doubt whether Saskatchewan electing Senators will make a difference.

"We can elect all of the senators from Alberta and Saskatchewan that we wanted, but if we're the only ones and Senate reform is never going to happen ... where are we?" Wall asked.

Wall seemed to closely share Harper's previously-voiced conviction that if the Senate can't be reformed due to fierce opposition, perhaps it should be abolished.

"Are we pushing a rope uphill here in Saskatchewan?" he asked. "Maybe the time has come for everyone to realize, if [the Senate] can't be fixed, is it useful?"

It would be unfortunate for Wall to be dissuaded from electing a slate of Senators-in-waiting. Considering that an elected Senate -- even if not necessarily along the lines of the Triple-E (Elected, Equal, Effective) format -- seems to be part of Harper's favoured agenda, this would be quite a loss for Harper.

If Harper doesn't want to have to face up to this loss, there's only one thing he can do: act decisively on Senate reform as soon as he has his Senate majority.

Harper has promised to act promptly on Senate reform, and expressed frustration at the blocking of his to-date efforts. “I thought we'd get at least something,” Harper said in a recent interview. “We're not there yet. What the Senate is blocking isn't just government crime legislation, it's blocking Senate reform legislation.”

Marjory LeBreton, the leader of the government in Senate, has publicly promised that Senate reform will be among the government's plans once it has its vaunted majority.

“Senate reform will definitely be back as part of the government agenda,” she insisted.

Unfortunately, the extent of reform won't be uniform across all of Canada's provinces. While BC still has a Senate election act on the books, it has yet to elect any Senators. Moreover, Ontario Conservative MPP Bob Runciman has had his efforts to institute such legislation there thwarted on what are actually rather inexplicable terms.

With Pamela Wallin ready to stand for election as a Senator in Saskatchewan, it would be a shame if the Senate Reform agenda came off the rails as a result of Stephen Harper's inaction.

Prime Minister Harper will need to act decisively on Senate reform at his next opportunity. If he doesn't, Canadians will know for certain that he was never serious in the first place.

Alas, The Arrogance of Fools

"Progressive" pushes outdated concept of Canadian politics

In yet another ill-conceived jab at anyone who dares disagree with her, Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II evidently wishes to take issue with the ideas expressed in a not-so-recent video published here at the Nexus.

(Ironically, her true quarrel is with John Ibbitson, but we'll overlook that for the moment.)

Audrey apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, despite the fact that the realities of Canadian politics -- even if not the theory -- demonstrate it to be the case.

Audrey has a tendency to appeal to the theory of Responsible Government -- the notion that, in Canada, the Governor General, and not the people, decides who the government shall be. After an election, the Governor General invites a Member of Parliament to become Prime Minister, and form a government that can hold Parliament's confidence.

As it appears on paper, this is precisely how Canadian politics is said to function. But unfortunately for Audrey, it isn't the way Canadian politics has functioned in real life.

It's amazing that Audrey would evidently appeal to Canadian political theory as it appears on paper, and so blatantly ignore how it has actually worked in real life. In order to reveal how this is the case, one only requires a perfunctory examination of Canadian history. Moreover, one simply needs to ask themselves this question:

Of all the people who have served as Canadian Prime Minister, how many of them were not the leader of a political party?

The answer, as it turns out, is zero.

Certainly, Audrey could argue that, under the concept of responsible government, as it appears on paper, the Governor General could invite anyone he or she wished to become Prime Minister and lead the government of Canada -- even an Independent MP. Under the theoretical concept of responsible government, as it appears on paper, all that would be necessary is that this individual and their cabinet be able to maintain the confidence of Parliament.

Unfortunately for Audrey, the Parliament of Canada doesn't merely exist on paper. It has to exist and function in a place the rest of us like to call "the real world", and as it turns out, this is a place that Audrey is fundamentally unfamiliar with.

It's the functioning of Parliament and government within "the real world" that separates the realities of Canadian politics from its theoretical foundation, and Audrey's fantasies from that reality.

Seeing as how the long-standing tradition of Canadian politics has been for the Governor General to invite the party that wins a plurality of seats to form the government -- a tradition violated only once, and only briefly, in 1925, after then-Liberal leader William Lyon Mackenzie King and Progressive Party leader Robert Forke formed a coalition government immediately after the general election, and thus before then-Governor General Lord Bing had chosen Canada's Prime Minister -- Audrey has willfully overlooked a basic functional truth of Canada's political system.

Canadians vote for their Prime Minister through the parties they vote for. The marketplace-styled mode of Canadian politics -- especially in the modern era, in which the news media tends to direct voters' attention toward party leaders and a small band of elite personalities within each party -- drives Canadian voters toward choosing parties over local candidates.

In most cases, it requires a major misstep or political scandal for a local candidate to attract any significant national media attention. Except to the politically engaged, local candidates tend to toil in anonymity.

In many cases in Canada, most Canadians could not name any of their local candidates on the day before an election day, although they would be able to identify the party -- and party leader -- they intended to vote in favour of. This shouldn't be mistaken for an affirmative comment on the virtue of this state of affairs -- just a statement of reality.

In other words, most Canadians do not vote with their local candidates in mind. They vote with party brand identity and leadership in mind.

Canadians very much do vote for Prime Minister -- they merely do so indirectly.

Audrey appeals to long-outdated notions of Canadian politics in order to avoid admitting that:

1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and

2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and

3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:

Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be.

It's a simple three-step self-indulgent failure in pragmatic political cognition that has led Audrey into a land of folly into which virtually any anti-democratic attitude can be justified -- including Stephane Dion's ill-fated Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition.

It's rather amusing that a so-called "progressive" wants to push a self-serving conceptualization of "responsible government" that not only appeals to long-outdated elements of the Canadian system, but also appeals to a manner in which the Canadian political system has not functioned, and likely never could function.

In being a "progressive", Audrey has evidently forgotten about the key functional word of that concept: notably, "progress".

Moreover, it's actually extremely amusing that Audrey would dare bandy about the very notion of "responsible government", considering what her idea of responsible is:

In Audrey's fantasy world, the Governor General could appoint anyone they personally wished as Prime Minister, regardless of how Canadians voted, or the expectations of Canadian citizens. There is nothing responsible about this, just like there is nothing responsible about mortgaging the Canadian government to a separatist party -- all while concealing the terms of the deal in question from the Canadian public.

In the real world, we have things we call "elections", and Canadians expect Canada's political parties -- not to mention the Governor General -- to respect them. If one needs proof of this, one needs look no further than the public response to Dion's coalition proposal.

A poll taken after Dion's proposal indicated that only 37% of Canadians favoured allowing that coalition to take power immediately. 32% of Canadians preferred holding a federal election, while 24% of Canadians were uncertain.

In other words, whatever Canadians wanted moving forward from the then-potential defeat of the Conservative government, the majority of Canadians did not want the coalition.

When one considers the argument that 63% of Canadians had voted for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party combined, it points to what should amount, for Audrey, to be a very startling reality: just short of half of the Canadians who voted for those three parties wouldn't support a coalition hastily implemented after a defeat of the sitting government.

In other words, Canadians recognized that the election had been contested, that the Conservative Party had won, that the Conservative Party formed the government of Canada, and expected that if that government were defeated, they would have the opportunity to vote on who will form the government -- again, even if indirectly -- in a new election.

Naturally, this notion offends Audrey's nostalgia for the pure concept of a political system formulated in the 19th century -- when women and non-property owning men couldn't vote, and Canada was still a Dominion of the British Empire. Britain is now a foreign country, and Canada is a sovereign state.

In the end, it's all terribly conservative of Audrey. Conservative in the most extreme. Conservative in the sense that it is less progressive, and more regressive.

Which is actually ironic from someone who so obviously hates conservatives, hates conservatism, and hates each to the extent that she's willing to ignore the realities of Canadian politics so that she may attack it.

But little details like this, amusingly enough, are lost on people who are so arrogant that they believe their willful ignorance of these realities is actually a virtue.

David Cameron Jump-Starts 2010 Election Campaign

Cameron releases "draft manifesto"

Fortunately for British Conservative Party leader David Cameron, politics doesn't disqualify contestants for leaving the blocks early.

With Prime Minister Gordon Brown's planned election date still a secret known only to himself and a few insiders, Cameron clearly jumped the election gun recently, when he released the first chapter of his party's election manifesto.

Hailing the document as an "open document", open to the influences of public opinion.

The first chapter addresses the fiscal state of Britain, pledging to conquer Britain's debt without making any cuts to the National Health Service -- a feat that he insists the Labour Party cannot match.

“There is only one way out of this mess and that is through massive change," Cameron insisted. "The most urgent task is to bring the deficit down.”

He insisted that his party would return greater power over their lives to the British people. “We need to give people real power and control over their lives so we can have a political system to be proud of.”

Cameron clearly intends to run an election campaign deeply infused with a healthy (or perhaps not-so-healthy, depending upon one's political tastes) of populism. His "open manifesto" is one of the most brilliant -- but also most risky -- populist ventures in recent memory.

Some may recall Howard Dean's innovative campaign for the Democratic nomination for the 2004 Presidential election. Running a campaign with little money and few volunteers, Dean used the internet to launch an "open source" campaign, in which supporters were empowered to organize their own campaign events, and even produce their own campaign material.

The British Tories' Open Manifesto takes open source politics one step further. It allows British citizens to use the internet to help write the policy of a contending political party -- even if indirectly.

David Cameron's Open Manifesto has launched a brave new world for populist politics. Whether it yields the kind of results Cameron and the Tories would like is something that will have to wait for Gordon Brown's election call.

The Road to Fascism Can Be Paved With Good Intentions

Warning: the following post contains significant spoilers about the movie Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day. Those still interested in seeing this film should consider themselves forewarned.

Then again, due to the shortisightedness of film studio executives, you aren't going to get the opportunity to see this movie unless you live in a major urban centre. If that's the case, let's face it -- you're waiting for the DVD. Just hit that close button right now, and come back in a couple of hours. There'll be something good for you to read then.

Oh, this post will also spoil Boondock Saints. Consider yourself doubly warned.



As far as unlikely sequels go, Boondock Saints 2 is about as unlikely as they get.

It may not seem this way considering how the first Boondock Saints ending -- with Connor MacMannus (Sean Patrick Flannery), Murphy MacMannus (Norman Reedus) and Il Duce (Billy Connolly) declaring war on the criminal element of Boston, then executing the head of a major crime syndicate -- at his own trial, no less.

When it took ten years after the original Boondock Saints to produce a sequel, the odds should have seemed further off.

In Boondock Saints 2, the MacMannus brothers hastily retired from the vigilante business, and are living in rural Ireland as sheep farmers. But when the Catholic Bishop responsible for inspiring their vigilante mission in the original film is murdered by a hitman with a Napoleon complex, the brothers are drawn back to Boston in order to set things straight.

It quickly becomes clear that the MacMannus brothers never achieved the goal of eliminating Boston's criminal element. The reasons for their retreat to Ireland are actually left unclear.

The public response to the MacMannus brothers' framing for the crime indicates that the memory of the Saints is alive and well in Boston. The feeling of betrayal many interviewed individuals express indicates the high level of regard at least some of Boston's citizens held the Saints in.

Whether or not the MacMannus brothers themselves recognize the social power of the Saints' notoriety remains unknown. But FBI Special Agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz), the protoege of Paul Smecker, seems to recognize that power, and takes on the reportedly-deceased Smecker's role as a facilitator for the Saints' violence.

Even though the MacMannus brothers have very little interest in the institutionalization of their violence, there are other elements at play that very much are.

If the Saints' vigilantism could be identified as a potential force for fascism, the eagerness of these elements to institutionalize it and use it for their own social ends -- no matter how well-intentioned -- would be doubly so.

It may not be unreasonable to wonder how many of those who participated in the rise of fascism in countries like Germany, Italy or Spain had anything but the most benevolent of intents. Certainly, those aiding the dangerous institutionalization of the Saints' violence have no malevolent intent.

It's said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of Eunice Bloom and her contemporaries, their potential road to fascism is paved with good intentions.

For some, it must have been easy to be seduced by the many promises of fascism. That doesn't make fascism -- or the road to it -- any less dangerous.

Brown, Labour Gearing Up for the Fight of Their Lives

Gordon Brown to fight for his political life in 2010

No matter what 2010 brings for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, one can remain assured that there is one certainty:

Gordon Brown will face an election in 2010.

Although Brown has the power to decide the timeline of this election, there is no question that it will happen on or before 3 June. Moreover, his principal opponent has already begun campaigning.

Cameron has promised a bold new economic direction not only for Britain, but for his party as well.

"If we win this year's election Britain will be under new economic management," Cameron announced. "We will send out the loudest signal that this country is back open for business and ready for investment."

He's certainly set the stage well. Early in 2009 David Freud, a prized welfare policy advisor for the Labour Party, defected to the Conservatives (a workfare advocate), Ken Clarke has publicly mused about some uncharacteristic options, and Cameron is new Parliamentary offices to help ensure fiscal discipline.

Whether Brown and the Labour Party are ready for a 2010 election against the Tories is one thing. No matter what, they're as ready as they'll ever be.

To date, the Labour Party's best answer to David Cameron and the Conservative Party has been the thinly-veiled vestiges of class warfare.

That will be a very poor panacea for the ills of a party besieged by a poor economy and a Parliamentary Inquiry into the extremely unpopular Iraq War.

Even as the Labour Party trumpets itself as ready for an election, one simply must assume that their search for answers will continue.

CUPE Ads a Good Deal (Of Goods)

Few Canadians watching any amount of TV right now can escape the Canadian Union of Public Employee's "Good Deal For Canadians" ads, in which an interviewer (read: actor) asks an assortment of people-on-the-street (read: worse actors) whether or not they think Canada's public services are a "good deal for Canadians".

Unsurprisingly, all of the actors in the ad agree that Canada's public services are a good deal for Canadians.

For the most part, they're right. But the CUPE ads themselves are selling Canadians a deal of goods. (This is a painfully mixed metaphor, but there's a point to be made.)



Many of the services the ads allude to: water treatment, sanitation, libraries and health care, are indeed necessary and valuable services for Canadians.

But not all of Canada's Public Employees provide valuable services for Canadians.

Many of the "services" offered by Canada's Public Employees are little more than the appendages of the embedded state, and that state's embedded ideology. "Services" like the funding of advocacy (read: activism) by groups funded by the Status of Women, for example, provided very little in terms of service to Canadians -- unless they shared the state's embedded ideology.

Predictably, CUPE itself opposed changing the Status of Women's mandate from "advocating equality" to providing actual services of value for Canadians.

"Services" like the Status of Women's advocacy certainly had very little value for Canadians who are indifferent to, or opposed to, what had become the state's embedded ideology. It was difficult to support services like that on a logical basis.

But where CUPE can't appeal to logic, it chooses to appeal to emotion and vanity. The first CUPE ad closes with a subtle bit of branding, when the "interviewee" declares Canadians who support Canada's public services to be "awesome".

If this had come up with a legitimate person-on-the-street interview, that would be one thing. But in an ad that is scripted -- and scripted badly -- it's simply contrived.



In the second ad, CUPE touts the economic value of Canada's public services. Indeed, some of them have a tremendous economic value. The economic value of health care, for example, is obvious. Employers in Canada are compelled to spend far less on health insurance for their employees than employers in the United States.

Libraries help our youth advance their education, and encourage literacy later in life -- both of which are of inestimable economic value.

But then, there is what Brian Lee Crowley deems to be "pseudo-work". In his book Fearful Symmetry, Crowley recounts how the baby boom compelled the government to set up entire social programs in order to absorb baby boomers entering the job market -- worried that the free market would be unable to accomodate them -- and how needs that would otherwise be satisfied by part-time work were expanded into full-time jobs, or how needs that required full-time work were expanded to require an extra multitude of full-time workers.

These public services -- found in crown corporations like CN, Via Rail and HydroQuebec -- aren't merely of limited economic value. They're actually of negative economic value. Not only do they suck the funds necessary to pay these employees out of the economy, but they also suck the skills of these employees out of the free market, where they could be applied much more efficiently.



In the third ad, the interviewer talks to a woman who simply has to be the worst actor in all of these ads, who gushes about Canada's health care.

Canadian public health care is indeed a good deal for Canadians. But not nearly as good as this woman insists as it is.

The woman recounts a (fictional) story about her daughter breaking her ankle at a local arena. The arena staff call 911 (unlikely for a broken ankle) who then sends an ambulance (also unlikely for a broken ankle).

But a visit to a Canadian emergency room would quickly dissuade anyone from believing this woman's story. Seven hour waits don't tend to inspire Canadians with absolute confidence in health care.

Of course, this is not the fault of the employees working in the emergency room. They make do with the resources they are given.

However, a great deal of the resources pumped into Canadian health care are sucked up by a surplus of middle management. Whenever a provincial government in Canada makes a move to divert more resources to front-line services by laying off middle managers, CUPE or one of its provincial equivalents fires up a panicked campaign accusing that government of "attacking health care".

Moreover, some of the limits the unions themselves place upon their employees prevent them from working extra hours in order to serve Canadians. The impact of this on Canadian health care becomes most pronounced when one looks at diagnostic medicine.

Ironically, diagnostic health care in Canada would be of better quality without the unions. But CUPE won't tell you that.



In the final ad, the interviewer talks to an unemployed worker, who appreciates the support unemployment insurance offers to struggling Canadians -- particularly at a time of global recession.

No argument is necessary to this particular ad. Unemployment insurance has a tremendous value to the Canadian economy, particularly local economies. It prevents workers -- who often possess extremely valuable skills -- from leaving local communities, provinces, or even the country to seek work elsewhere, by providing them with aid to get them through tough times.

But aside from this, the CUPE ads go to great lengths to conceal the fact that many of the "services" -- appendages of the embedded state's embedded ideology and pseudo-work -- the ad is intended to defend either provide little value to Canadians, or are actually encumbered by the union itself.

To envoke a far less tortured metaphor, the CUPE ads are trying to sell Canadians a bill of goods. Canadians should continue to buy the ones that offer value, and reject the ones that do not.

John Major's Revenge

Sir Major calls out Tony Blair on Iraq War

Revenge, when executed most masterfully, is often executed over a very long period of time.

More than 12 years after being defeated by Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister Sir John Major may be very close to having his revenge. And he's waited a very long time indeed for it.

When Sir John Major took power as the British Prime Minister, it was in relief of Margaret Thatcher, a leader whose autocratic tendencies had made her increasingly unpopular with the British public and increasingly at risk of sparking an outright revolution within her own party.

Likewise, when current British Prime Minister Gordon Brown took power as Prime Minister, it was in relief of Blair, a leader whose foreign policy missteps and the use of Prime Ministerial power that facilitated them had made him increasingly unpopular with the British public and increasingly at risk of sparking an outright revolution within his own party.

As has been the case for Brown, Sir Major's tenure as Prime Minister seemed ultimately doomed from the very beginning. Much of this was due to his predecessor's actions.

Considering the declining state of Thatcher's mental health, time -- and human decency -- have sorely limited Sir Major's opportunities to seek retribution on his Prime Ministerial predecessor.

But there's always the next best thing: seeking retribution against the man who defeated him.

Sir Major -- who was the Prime Minister during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War -- recently weighed in on the events swirling around Britain's Iraq War Inquiry. Sir Major has joined the growing ranks of those who are suggesting that Blair deceived them in order to gain their support for the war.

"I had myself been prime minister in the first Gulf War, and I knew when I said something I was utterly certain that it was correct, and I said less than I knew," Sir Major said. "I assumed the same thing had happened and on that basis I supported reluctantly the second Iraq war."

And while Sir Major would very likely agree that the removal of Saddam Hussein as the President of Iraq was a good thing, he doesn't feel it was sufficient justification for the war.

"The argument that someone is a bad man is an inadequate argument for war and certainly an inadequate and unacceptable argument for regime change," Sir Major insisted. "There are many bad men around the world who run countries and we don't topple them, and indeed in earlier years we had actually supported Saddam Hussein when he was fighting against Iran."

To call the developments coming out of Britain's Iraq War Inquiry "revelations" would be in error. As a matter of fact, many British commentators have been suggesting for yers that Blair deceived Brits in order to make the case for the war, and that the Inquiry is really only confirming those suspicions.

With Labour MPs like Ken Purchase suggesting publicly that Tony Blair left no legacy, and left Gordon Brown with little opportunity to leave one of his own, Sir John Major knows full well that Tony Blair's historical legacy will very much be decided by the Iraq War Inquiry.

Sir John Major has waited a long time -- nearly 13 years, in fact -- to get his revenge on Tony Blair.

After all these years, he may finally have it.

The Patron Saints of Fascism?

When The Boondock Saints was released in 1999, it was largely to critical derision.

In time, the film would grow into a cult classic. In ten years time, the film would finally merit a sequel. While the film has garnered itself a considerable following, there are messages at the core of the film that, while actually quite common in films of its genre, can actually be rather troubling.

In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg writes about the fascist messages that can be detected in vigilante movies like Dirty Harry and Death Wish.

Boondock Saints contains many of the core themes of other vigilante movies: the corrupting power of outsiders to a society (in this case, the Russian Mafia) and the corrupting influence of the state's weakness.

Boondock Saints takes these messages even further.

In the film, the McMannus brothers (Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus) find themselves the targets of the Russian mob when they get into a fight with enforcers trying to close down their favourite watering hole.

After killing the mobsters in self-defence, the two highly-religious brothers receive a vision and a mission from God. They're declared to be the new protectors of the innocent in Boston. They're to liquidate the Russian mob.

The film generously mixes religious iconography with a message regarding the inadequacies of the state to deal with dangerous, external, and often alien enemies.

More interesting still is the eventual decision of FBI Special Agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), the forensic detective assigned to catch the Saints, to become an accomplice of the Saints. Like many citizens portrayed in interview at the end of the film, Smecker views the state as ill-prepared to handle the criminal element in Boston.

However, even as an agent of the state, Smecker has begun to have more faith in the McMannus brothers' ability to deal with crime, and has thusly decided to join them.

Smecker thus facilitates one of the elements necessary to the development of a fascist state -- the subversion of the state by fascist elements.

In its closing credits, the film also reveals one of the more troubling elements of this particular brand of vigilantism: its tendency to evoke these kinds of sympathies among individuals who, like Smecker, have lost faith in the state's ability to manage these challenges.

These sympathies can make fascism oddly appealing, and therein lies the greatest danger of vigilantism.

Films like Boondock Saints make for splendid entertainment, and there very much is some value in the message of these films. But the value in the films must be carefully weighed against the deeper implications of the film, and those implications must be considered accordingly.

New Decade, Old Canada?

Brian Lee Crowley predicts a return to Canada's founding values

Four days into 2010, many Canadians are likely growing tired of predictions for the new decade.

But in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Brian Lee Crowley offers one that Canadian conservatives should find encouraging, and will likely leave Canadian progressives worried indeed.

"Canada stands at a hinge of history," Crowley says. "Many of the things we have regarded as settled about Canada since 1960 will be called into question."

As Crowley opines in Fearful Symmetry, issues of employment have been key to the rise of a progressive character in Canadian politics, and employment will be key to turning the tide. Writing about the notion of "pseudo-work" -- the implementation of what was essentially part-time work as full-time jobs in order to employ individuals that the government was worried the free market couldn't employ -- Crowley predicts the return of labour shortages, and the need to restructure Canadian policy in order to account for a situation in which a large population of pensioneers will need to be cared for by younger Canadians.

Immigration will provide Canada with the opportunity to fill jobs that would otherwise remain vacant, but a lack of suitable immigrants could force economic retraction.

"Every Canadian who wants to work will be able to do so," Crowley predicts. "Growth in the economy will slow because we won’t be able to find enough workers. Unemployment in places like Nova Scotia will be negligible and we will be desperately recruiting new workers wherever we can find them."

Crowley argues that Nova Scotia will be particularly well-positioned to take advantage of the historical opportunity.

"If we reduce the size of government, make our taxes competitive (as New Brunswick has been working hard to do for several years), discourage premature retirement, and make ourselves more welcoming to immigrants, I think that the region will fare quite well, and the image Canadians have in other parts of the country will quickly change."

"If, on the other hand, we refuse to change our own behaviour, wring our hands, claim that the rest of the country must bail us out from the difficult circumstances headed our way, we will not get the benefits that these changes could bring."

What Crowley says about Nova Scotia will apply to all of Canada's Provinces -- including Quebec and Ontario.

Crowley's words should also temper many of the Canadians who continually provoke hostility toward the United States as an ideological ploy. He suggests that the differences between the founding values of the United States are not so different from the founding values of Canada.

"We have been sold a bill of goods about the nature of the differences," he says. "For our first century, Canada as a society was more committed than America to the ideals of personal freedom and individual responsibility."

If Crowley's prediction comes true, it will end the days in which left-wing ideologues believes they could treat conservative Canadians as if they were less Canadian. Some ideologues like Michael Byers have suggested drastic action in the present to prevent such a re-transformation from manifesting electorally.

"Most Canadians will feel vindicated and encouraged that the things they have believed in all these years in fact have an impeccable Canadian pedigree," he explains. "Returning to those values will make us more Canadian, not less."

The very notion of that could prove to be a nightmare for Canada's varying left-wing demagogues.