Wow, I Am Actually Paying Attention!

I do not usually blog about Canadian politics. The reason for this is simple - it's BORING!

Face facts folks. The French language "leaders" debate was actually moved because it conflicted with a hockey game. (We in Canada do not actually vote for our "leader"; but that's a different story). In Alberta, the same party has been in power for almost forty years. The Federal Liberal party was in power for nearly 70 years in the 20th century. We are now having our third Federal election in the past five years, with no great movement occurring in that time period. The country seems happy with the status quo - our economy is strong, our "loonie" is strong, our housing market is strong, separatism is a dormant issue.. you get the picture. So forgive me for yawning.

But wait! Things might be happening. The latest polls apparently show that our perennial last place party, the New Democratic Party, under its leader Jack Layton, (who has been the leader for 8 years despite the fact that his party comes in last every time) has surged in the polls, doubling its support from 14% to 28% in the last few days. It has overtaken the Liberals, who under its leader Michael Ignatieff, have taken over the last place spot. What does this mean? Well, I do not know for sure. But it could mean that the governing Conservative party will win but only with a minority government, and the three opposition parties (one of which is actually dedicated to the break up of Canada, but that's another story) will defeat the minority government and form a "coalition" government under, you guessed it, Jack Layton. Canada will have a "socialist (sort of) Prime Minister.

So now I am paying attention! I await May 2 with great anticipation. I may even try to get early election results from the East, by phoning my son, which I believe I am legally entitled to do. But I cannot blog about it until the polls close in Vancouver, sorry.

Ah, Canada. You got to love it!

Okay. Here is a problem.

Canada is a big country. We have several time zones. So on May 2, 2011, the polls in Eastern Canada will close hours before the polls are closed in Western Canada. Once the polls are closed in a region, vote counting will begin there and results will be announced there. But, oh my God, what happens if people in the West hear about the election results in the East before their polls close? They may be "influenced" by the results! They may not even vote!!! So, what do Canadians do about that?

Choices:

A. Do nothing. Let free speech prevail. Be like the Americans ( who also have time zones) and suck it up.

B. Have staggered closings so that all polls close at the same time no matter where you live.

C. Do not start counting anywhere until all polls are closed.

D. Make it illegal to transmit results from one part of the country to another part, even by tweeting.

So.. what did Canada decide?

New York Times and Goldstone

You would think that an op-ed by internationally recognized jurist Richard Goldstone would be of interest to New York Times readers.

I guess not.

Explaining broken promises

As I noted in an earlier posting, an interesting aspect of the upcoming 2012 Presidential campaign will be how President Obama explains a string of about faces. The latest one involves the use of military trials in Guantanamo. Of course, the dilemma for the Republican nominee is that it will be hard to criticize the President for breaking a promise when he ends up doing something favoured by Republicans. Should be tricky.

By the way, there is a Canadian Federal election happening now. When something interesting happens there, I will let you know.

Turning a blind eye to atrocities

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different".

So said President Obama in his Libyan speech to the American people. American exceptionalism; a concept now seemingly embraced by President Obama. As I heard this line, I wondered which nations the President had in mind. Not Canada, I hoped. I also found it an odd comment coming as it did from a person who considers himself a citizen of the world.

And as I read the news reported every day concerning the terrible atrocities being committed elsewhere, for example, in the Ivory Coast, I think back upon that comment and wonder why in the world the President bothered to make it.

The Goldstone Report Part 2

Some of you might be interested in the U.N. Goldstone Report, Part 2.

Iraq and Libya: Striking Similarities

Is it just me or does it also appear to you that the U.S. (i.e. Obama) led invasion of Libya is strikingly similar to the U.S. (i.e. George Bush) led invasion of Iraq. Both were originally justified on grounds which were soon departed from. In Iraq, when it became clear that there were no WMD's, the rationale for the war became "regime change". In Libya, the war originally was justified on the "no fly" zone premise - i.e. make sure that the Libyan air force could not be used to attack civilians. When that was quickly accomplished, the West began blowing up Libyan tanks and armor on the ground in order to assist the opposition in their desire for "regime change". Thus in both cases the removal of brutal dictators from power became the raison d'etre for the intervention, although in neither case did it start out that way.

Another similarity is that neither country posed an immediate and direct threat to American or western interests. Yes, both dictators funded and supported terrorists, who did pose a threat. If anything, Iraq posed a greater threat to Western interests and the interests of its neighbors than did Libya. (Remember the invasion of Kuwait?) Libya, in fact, has in recent years shifted somewhat towards assisting the West in fighting Al Quaeda, much more so than one could say of Saddam. Thus, if this was the basis for either of the wars, the invasion of Iraq was more justifiable than the Libyan adventure.

Both countries had repressive and cruel dictators. Although it is difficult to place them on a cruelty scale, if one did, it seems to be that Hussein would best Gaddafi on this scale. After all, he massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, using chemical weapons to do so. And if one were to use the removal of oppressive dictators as the justification for a foreign intervention, it would be impossible for the West to stop at either Iraq or Libya.

There is one difference. George W. actually sought and obtained Congressional approval for his war. President Obama did not. He was not even around for his war, deciding to go on his South American trade trip instead.

Now do not get me wrong. I am glad that Saddam Hussein was deposed, and I will be glad if Gaddafi is. The fact that we cannot and do not get rid of all repressive dictators is no reason not to get rid of some of them. What bothers me, as it always does, is the hypocrisy of those who were so quick to condemn George W for Iraq, but who now describe the Libyan intervention as a "just war". At least those on the far left who want Obama impeached are consistent.

George W. must be chuckling to himself right now. It will be very interesting to hear what President Obama has to say tonight and what the reaction will be.