|
|
Here They go Again
Is Canada less a country than it is a bunch of squabbling provinces flying in formation? Sometimes it sure does seem that way:
Canada is going through another spate of separation anxiety. Usually it’s the product of Quebec’s Parti Quebecois' cultural and political demands, but according to CNEWS, a chunk of Western Canadians have had it with the Maple Leaf. Disgust with the ruling Liberal Party's "Adscam" money-laundering scandal, elements of which reach to Canadian Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Paul Martin, has spurred some of the grumbling.
The last time I heard these sorts of grumblings around here (when people though California should be split into two to four states, about twenty years ago) the conventional wisdom was it would take something like three or four constitutional amendments to even make it possible. The Civil War placed a padlock on our states... they're not going anywhere.
It would appear Canada does not have this "problem", hence they seem to regularly and seriously discuss the hand-grenading of their own country.
Sometimes I wonder what it would take to break up the United States. It would pretty much require the citizens of at least one state to become wholly convinced that the citizens of another state were taking an action that would not only destroy themselves, not only destroy America, but destroy the entire world, and an immediate armed response is the only hope of salvation.
Then the reason for the constant shrieks of "worldwide ecological distaster" from one side of our political spectrum actually makes sense.
> Then the reason for the constant shrieks of
> "worldwide ecological distaster" from one side of
> our political spectrum actually makes sense.
...
So. People show evidence of global warming, show what they believe to be concrete models showing why this is a bad thing... and you think their only conceivable reason for doing so is to Destroy America(tm)? They couldn't *possibly* just want to stop a trend they see as destructive?
So, tell me, does Randall Terry hate abortion because he wants to Destroy America(tm)?
On the article itself:
> It would appear Canada does not have this
> "problem", hence they seem to regularly and
> seriously discuss the hand-grenading of their
> own country.
It's overblown. The guys out west who want to separate are a loonie minority, even in Alberta, and everyone but the ones actually saying "break up the country!" knows it. The guys in Quebec who want to separate get shot down by a majority every time they bring up the issue - the closest they came was in 1995, and they've lost ground every time since then.
Posted by: John on August 15, 2005 12:24 PMThey didn't get shot down by a majority in 95. It would seem they damned near made it. As far as "since then"... well, I'll concede the issue and hope for the best. Canadians as a whole seem to be quite decent folk, it would be a shame if they dismantled their own country.
Posted by: scott on August 15, 2005 12:45 PM> They didn't get shot down by a majority in 95.
Well, yeah, they did. 50.6% is a majority - a really, really narrow one, but a majority - and the numbers have dropped like a rock since then. Additionally, the wikipedia article contains one outright error and one misleading omission:
The error:
"The same night, Jacques Parizeau, then prime minister, mentioned that the lost was due to money and the ethnic vote."
Parizeau was *Premier of Quebec*, not Prime Minister of Canada. This is an error on an approximate scale of referring to the governor of California as "President Schwarzennegger".
The omission:
It lacks the details of the question. The link to the article on the 1995 referendum (here) contains a question that doesn't match my memory of the question at the time, but, then, that was a decade ago. Still, it never links the details of the agreement (and the comments about that agreement being "unclear" are 100% accurate) and it never addresses the Constitutional issues at all - that agreement comes from three separatists and does not address the government or the rest of the country.
Your comment about multiple amendments being required legally in the USA is an interesting one - but neither the Quebec separatists nor the Alberta separatists have ever adressed what it would take to legally separate. They've always focused their efforts on getting enough people to say "Yes, we want out", working on the perfectly reasonable assumption that how easy it will be will depend on their support. If 90% of Nova Scotia wants to go, that's a very different story than if 50.1% of Quebec (divided clearly along regional and racial lines) wants to separate.
Given how customarily the Provinces are tied tighter than your States are, I think Christian Exodus has a better chance at walking off with South Carolina than a few thousand would-be Klansmen have of convincing Alberta to separate.
One thing the guy you linked has right:
"The stage is set for a revitalizing Canadian political rebellion, led by Western Canada."
Yes. This is correct. It's not going to happen, however, as long as the only options are illiterate extremists, innumerate extremists, Quebec separatists, and the Liberal Party. As long as the Liberal corruption is sitting on the order of a hundred million dollars, it's *small potatoes* compared to the damage that the NPD and CPC platforms would do.
And the whole country knows it. We've got a white-french-supremacist party, a white-male-christian supremacist party, a completely loony *********[1] party, and The Alternative(TM) - and the nastiest thing the other three tend to be able to say about the Liberals is that they follow public opinion and change policy based on what people want, as long as the facts support it as a workable option.
Wow, man, making sure it's workable and then giving the people what they want. That's just TOTALLY not what anyone wants in a government - or, at least that's what Stephen Harper *tells* you you don't want in a government.
[1]: Your filter hates this word on the grounds that it contains the name of a commercial potency pill. The elided word is a form of government that describes the Canadian medical system.
Posted by: John on August 16, 2005 01:05 AMI was about to respond, but anything I said would be responded to with something as wordy as the above, and could probably be boiled down to the same single sentence: "Anyone who thinks different from me is a racist, and I have charts and graphs to prove it."
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on August 16, 2005 11:19 AMI could simplify it for you.
You apparently assume that the only reason someone might hold a conflicting position is that they secretly want to Destroy America(tm). You say it here, you say it up above in the Sheehan thread.
Simple question: Why do you think it's impossible for people to be honestly concerned with what they see to be alarming facts, and why aren't *YOUR* concerns with what *YOU* see as alarming facts equally evidence of *YOUR* having a terrifying hidden agenda?
Posted by: John on August 16, 2005 02:06 PMWell said John, I just can't seem to put it as well as you did in your last sentence.
Posted by: Pat on August 16, 2005 05:59 PMJohn - there may be a fallacy of argument in your statement. Not trying to flame you in any way, but consider human nature in this: IF I agree with you, I might post something just voicing general agreement. However, likely, I'll just tacitly agree. On the other hand, IF I disagree - I'm very likely to post something. Along with that, you're probably much more likely to notice my disagreement rather than my agreement.
Given that, it seems like everyone who has a different viewpoint is constantly attacking ours - when in reality, they're only going after the things that bother them.
Case in point: I think we both agree that someone cheating on someone is a Very Bad Thing. However, if either of us posted a story (unless it was memorable and/or unique in some new way), we're not likely to comment on it. However, if I post a story titled 'Canada Sucks', then it might raise your ire, and off to debating we go.
I could be wrong on this, but I wanted to try rationality for a change...
Posted by: ronaprhys on August 17, 2005 12:37 PMRon I am sure that makes sense on some level I am just too old to figure out what. ROTFLOL
Posted by: Pat on August 17, 2005 02:25 PMMakes perfect sense to me, but that doesn't really explain why T thinks that disagreeing with *him* is evidence of secret, calculated anti-American actions, and that you don't REALLY disagree with him at all, you're just claiming to because you hate America.
I don't get it.
Posted by: John on August 17, 2005 04:51 PMhmm - you've managed to lose me on two levels. First is that the link appears to go to another story, so I'm not sure if I can actually comment on the article. Secondly, am I reading you correcting in saying that I'm not disagreeing and that I hate America?
Then from there, it seems that we've got two different arguments going here. The first was the whole ecological debate issue, the second the secession within Canada one. Seems that T commented on both. You and Scott had some interesting constitutional points, but, to be honest, I'm not quite sure where T's comments come from.
So, on the ecological debate, my disagreement wouldn't so much be a destroy America argument, but a bad science arguement. To date, I've just not seen a reliable bit of science that can assign cause and effect to the global warming issue. That the mean temperature seems to be going up doesn't so much seem to be an issue, but was it going to rise naturally? Will there all of a sudden be a decrease for reasons we don't understand yet? Will there be a spike for reasons we don't understand? If we were able to suddenly stop using carbon-based fuels tomorrow, what affect - if any - would there be on the temperature?
This isn't to say that migrating from fossil to renewable fuels isn't the way to go. Personally, I like the idea for both ecological and economic reasons. I just want to make sure that we do so in a economically and ecologically viable manner.
Posted by: ronaprhys on August 17, 2005 08:37 PMOoops you just lost me completely John. Now if someone doesn't agree with you they hate America? That is absurd especisally when you say that about Ron, or Scott or even Tat.
Posted by: Pat on August 17, 2005 10:31 PMThere are two arguments going on here.
The first is on Canadian and American separatists. That one is done, as far as I know. It has nothing to do with the "hates America" thing.
The second is about what Tatterdemalian said in this thread:
It would pretty much require the citizens of at least one state to become wholly convinced that the citizens of another state were taking an action that would not only destroy themselves, not only destroy America, but destroy the entire world, and an immediate armed response is the only hope of salvation.
Then the reason for the constant shrieks of "worldwide ecological distaster" from one side of our political spectrum actually makes sense.(emphasis mine) In that comment, the first in this thread, he states outright that he thinks the only reason people are afraid of "worldwide ecological disaster" is that they're trying to break up the USA. He seems unable to believe that anyone might REALLY believe that there is a real problem - they're just lying to accomplish a sinister goal.
In the Cindy Sheehan thread, he says
The goal is to keep the president so tied down in meetings with sneering leftists, that he can no longer perform the duties of his office.- again, he says that they don't ACTUALLY believe what they're saying, they're just lying to accomplish a sinister goal.
Basically, I want to know why he thinks it's impossible to believe that global warming *could* be a problem, and why it's impossible to believe that people might protest the war because they really don't believe it's doing any good. He says that if you disagree with him, you obviously have a secret agenda to break up the country or stop the government from working at all.
I want to know why he thinks this, and what evidence he uses to support that position. I also want to know why the same reasoning doesn't apply to the things *he* believes.
Does that make more sense?
Posted by: John on August 18, 2005 04:23 PM