crazed monkey

I was just flipping through the channels on TV and caught the tail-end of Brian Mulroney reminiscing Ronald Reagan on Larry King Live. When Mulroney was done, Larry King signed him off as “the former Prime Minister of Great Britain.” Ouch.

Update: CNN keeps transcripts of all Larry King Live shows and, thankfully, they do not revise them to correct errors. The transcript for the show aired yesterday contains the above error:

MULRONEY: Good to see you, Larry. Thank you for having me and delighted to be with you.

KING: My pleasure. Good guy. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister of Great Britain (sic).

Posted on June 6th, 2004 in canada, politics - No Comments »

From The Globe And Mail:

Mr. Arron said he tried to get Mr. Harper to give a clear answer [on whether he would use the notwithstanding clause to take away the Charter rights of gay and lesbian Canadians] at a rally in Guelph, which he was attending with volunteer Bob Smyth.

Mr. Arron was shouted down by cries of “shut up, shut up.”

Tory supporters then hit Mr. Smyth with signs and an elderly man punched him in the face before police intervened.

This is the level to which social activism in Canada has been reduced: heckles from the left and punches from the right. Those who scream the loudest and shrillest will win. Animals, all of you!

Posted on June 3rd, 2004 in canada, politics - No Comments »

If the Toronto election was so exciting, why did less than 40% of eligible voters show up at the polls? Andrew Spicer cites lousy voting hours and poor distribution of voting cards. I tend to agree on Andrew’s latter point, but I’d have to disagree with the former. The hours for voting in this year’s municipal election were largely the same as those for the provincial election.

Poor voter turnout in municipal elections can be largely attributed to voter perception, or rather misperception, of their importance. Ask most people to order the three levels of government in order of importance from highest to lowest and most will probably cite the federal level as the most important, followed by provincial and finally municipal. The perception is that municipal politics is boring, doesn’t matter and that the larger issues are at the provincial and federal levels. That could not be more wrong.

Our municipal government is the level of government which affects us the most. If the federal government were somehow wiped out tomorrow, how long would its absence go unnoticed? Those receiving EI payments would notice within two weeks, but most of us probably wouldn’t miss the federal level of government for months. The same goes for provincial. The absence of a municipal government, however, would be noted almost immediately: there would be no garbage collection, no building permits, or no parking permits, among other things.

Because of the low level of interest in local politics, municipal government lends itself more easily to corruption. It is much easier to broker shady deals when nobody is looking. (No doubt the lack of a scrutinising opposition party also increases the likelihood of corruption.) We need voters to pay more attention to local politics so that corruption may be avoided. However, people often cite government corruption as a cause of voter apathy.

It’s a catch-22. How do we get people interested in local politics so that corruption is avoided, when the corruption is what repels them? I don’t have the answers, but I hope that it starts with an election like the one we saw in Toronto earlier this week. David Miller’s promise to clean up City Hall seemed to attract a lot of attention. If he is successful, it could rekindle interest in participation at the local level and, hopefully, increase voter turnout to non-abysmal levels.

Posted on November 13th, 2003 in canada, politics - No Comments »

Something which looks like a letter to the National Post (via Smuggy) has been making the rounds of a few weblogs. It concerns David Collenette’s plans to investigate the feasibility of future El Al flights to Toronto should a terror threat remain:

That wannabe terrorists in Toronto could be planning to shoot down a civilian aircraft is disturbing news indeed. But just as disturbing was Mr. Collenette’s weak-kneed response — a case study of exactly how not to respond to threats of terrorism. Instead of questioning the future of El Al’s presence in Toronto, the Minister should have expressed his resolve to eradicate any threat.

Certainly, if the threat is real then all leads should be followed and investigated. However, until the threat disappears it would be irresponsible to allow subsequent flights to land at the Toronto airport. Doing so would be placing the passengers of El Al flights, not to mention people on the ground, in jeopardy. In a perfect world, we could eradicate this threat in an instant. Unfortunately, investigations take time.

The threat to El Al flights is not like the Los Angeles airport incident which the letter mentions — that could have been avoided through better airport security. This threat may not even come from within the airport itself; it could come from anywhere along the landing or takeoff path of an El Al flight.

Despite what some people may believe, acting with temporary precaution does not mean that the terrorists have won. The terrorists win when they successfully kill people or cause damage, thereby increasing fear. Rest assured that if El Al flights are temporarily diverted from Toronto, terrorists will not be jumping up and down and cheering. They will, however, be jubilant if they successfully down an El Al flight over Toronto simply because we did not take precautions.

Posted on November 5th, 2003 in canada, politics - No Comments »

I’m siding with The G Spot against the US drug czar and his perception that Canadians are ashamed of Chrétien’s jokes about smoking pot once he retires. Sure, it was a bad joke, but so is the wisdom behind our current anti-drug legislation.

I am, however, ashamed of Canadians who post to right-wing American comment forums and beg Americans to invade and “liberate” Canada. In many other countries, such talk would land you behind bars on charges of treason. Me, I’ll be civil and offer some advice. If you people dislike Canada so much, perhaps it would be best for your cause if you coordinated the attack from outside its borders. The rest of us will even help you pack your bags. Hell, we’ll even hide some prime BC bud in your luggage as a surprise to share with your friends at the Immigration and Naturalization Service¹!

¹Now a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

Posted on October 12th, 2003 in canada, politics - No Comments »