Relevant Link

Henry Champ, a longtime reporter for various networks, and fellow Manitoban, gives a really good commentary on the inauguration of Obama.  He discusses how his victory was created by embracing the new media in the Internet, much the same way FDR embraced radio, and JFK with television.  As well as those two leaders, Obama comes in with America in crisis (FDR with the Great Depression, and JFK with the Cold War and space race).

The inauguration ceremony has turned into a huge event, none that has been seen in Washington since the civil rights era.  It is rather interesting to see this spectacle.  In Canada, the start of a new government is a rather tepid affair, and begins immediately after the election.  The only thing close is speech from the throne, which will happen for the second time in two months next week.  Still, the excessiveness of the inauguration seems rather odd considering the times we are in.  I guess the people in America who are very tired of the failed presidency of Bush are just excited and optimistic.  Having optimism may be key to get out of the financial crisis and failed military ventures.  Millions are descending on Washington, and aside from security (which will cost millions), this is totally funded by donations.

Still, it seems almost ironic to me that this is even going on, considering how the country was founded to escape the rule of a king.  The president is the king of the US, which might make George Washington put his nose up if he was alive.  If Obama were to reduce some of the powers that the president has, it would certainly undo some of the damage that the Bush presidency did to the democratic institution.

Indefinite Imprisonment

Relevant Link

Well, this Omar Khadr imprisonment just got thrown another anvil its way.  The United States does not seem intent on creating the conditions for a fair trial for these people, none the least Mr. Khadr, who was only 15 years old when he was captured.  I think it is pretty ridiculous to imprison someone that young that long, regardless of crime, especially when no trial has taken place, and with the sketchy evidence to which they hold him in the first place.  Of course, this problem with Khadr wouldn't have happened in the first place, were it not for our Conservative government, which has about as much compassion as a chuck of rock.

Barack Obama intends shut down Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office.  It seems almost like the last throws of a madman that would cause the proceedings to restart again, as was stated in the opening link.  The military presumably wants to keep Guantanamo open due to its leverage to the enemy.  However, our democratic system, as well as that in the US, is based on a constitution that applies to all citizens.  And to not look like a bunch of hypocrites, they should really apply it to those they imprison from other countries as well.  Khadr deserves a fair trial outside of the military organization, and he deserves to be released if that is not going to happen, as per our constitution.  Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

• 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

And section 11 part b states:

• 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right 
  (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

By refusing to push for these rights to be exercised, Stephen Harper has proven that he has no moral leadership to run this country.  The problem that in his circle it is popular to detain a so called "terrorist".  And it seems that now a days, grasping onto power is more important than protecting the individual rights of the citizen.

"There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave"

Relevant Link

Barry McGuire's classic 1965 song was one of the first protest songs of the Vietnam War-Cold War era.  It is bleak.  "You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction" goes the chorus.  The message is still applicable today.

As of now, the Israel army continues to march on into the heartland of the Gaza Strip.  Some might say this is a bit of an extreme reaction to a series of missile attacks, but really this conflict has been inevitable ever since Hamas took over control of Palestine.  Hamas continues to refuse to admit defeat, and I doubt they will until Israel hunts down and kills them all off.  Of course, genocide would be frowned upon as Israel has a lot of friends in the West who think that genocide is a bad idea.  Strangely enough, genocide was an option for the west only a short time ago.  Although I do doubt that genocide will happen in this case, some other areas of the world are not so lucky.

At present, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo continues to escalate, after several years of relative peace.  There have been millions killed in the Congo since the late 1990s, all in the desire of neighbouring nations such as Uganda lusting for their plentiful natural resources.  The war in the DRC makes the Palestine-Israel conflict look like a minor skirmish.  It doesn't help that China is in there stirring things up.

Africa is just full of bad things happening.  Zimbabwe's despair is not going away, though it is off the front page headlines.  Robert Mugabe's refusal to step down has amounted to the deaths of thousands of people, and the cholera outbreak is just the latest part of this.  I remember when the Iraq invasion was about to happen, Mugabe's forces were committing mass genocide, and it was just a footnote.  Don't forget that China's all up in there too.

Let's not forget Darfur.  Probably the largest genocide in recent history, just because there is a lull now does not mean that this battle is done.  As climate change forces nomads onto farmers' land, we have seen hundreds of thousands dead in ethnic conflicts.  I truly believe that the situation will continue to be tenuous for the year or 2009.

Afghanistan is another conflict that is escalating.  During my holiday, my uncle remarked that his son in law (who just got back from his third tour there) said that things are worse there than ever, and that they had translators quit because the people they were fighting did not speak the local languages.  Who are these so called insurgents?  Apparently they speak Russian.  Maybe Russia feels bullish about their ability to invade after the success in Georgia last summer?  Or perhaps they are Chechnyan rebels?  I really don't know as there is not much coverage on this.  At any rate, the mission in Afghanistan has been a failure for the West, as it was for the East previously.  The situation will most likely continue to degrade this year.

Iraq continues to be a hotbed of suicide attacks and other extreme acts.  The US intends to retreat, but ironically Iraq is probably more stable than the aforementioned Congo or Darfur.  Iraq does have the semblance of a government, which is more than can be said about Afghanistan.  Out of all the conflicts, I expect Iraq to be the one to be tempered the most this year.

And who can forget about Burma?  Well, I guess all of the rest of the world.  Burma is a full fledged Orwellian society where all political descent is jailed or executed.  There was a brief spell of interest after a cyclone killed off a bunch of people and a mockery of an election was held shortly after, but that has since gone away.

The biggest brewing conflict has to be the Pakistan-India conflict.  India has gone so far as to accuse Pakistan of being involved in the bombings in Mumbai.   This is all coming to a head right now, but the conflict between Pakistan and India has been happening ever since the Kashmir refused to join Pakistan after the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Look for this to become the big new war in the next year.

As you can see, there are lots of battles brewing for 2009.  And this doesn't even count nations with extreme governments like Iran or Venezuela, or countries that have growing instability such as Mexico or Ukraine, or the growing lust for power of countries like China or Russia.  The West has seen their considerable leverage erode since the the start of the decade, and the democratic ideal may be waining.  With poor turnouts in the last elections in the West (including in the US), maybe people just don't care anymore.

Senate Posts

Relevant Link

Well, finally Stephen Harper has given an early Christmas present to 18 people for the plush job of the Senate.  Long since Preston Manning held a fiesta for a senator long removed from Canada, Harper managed to fill the senate with a bunch of quiet-spoken backbenchers and backroom strategists who will most likely do as they are told.  The exceptions, of course, are former journalists Pamela Wallen and Mike Duffy.  I personally think the Duff is a great choice for the senate and probably knows more about the government of Canada than anyone.  How appropriate it is for a journalist to become a politician is up in the air.  Other than that, I think it is pretty telling how half of the appointments don't even have pages on Wikipedia.  Many commentators are wondering about the lack of Reformers on the list, such as Preston Manning, without realizing that Alberta had no vacancies.  A big WTF is the appointment of Nancy Greene Raine, but I suppose it is no worse than the appointment of former Leaf Frank Mahovlich.

Another thing most commentators don't realize is that Harper's vain attempts to reform the senate are futile and unconstitutional.  The only way senate reform will happen is if the provinces finally get their acts together and agree on a method to do it.  As of right now, Alberta and Saskatchewan are the only provinces pushing for senate elections, and I find it highly unlikely that at least one of Ontario or Quebec will go for it either.  Without one of the two most populous provinces, senate reform will not happen, as it requires reopening the constitution.  Of course, Harper could bring about a national referendum on this, but I doubt most people care that much.

One stipulation is that the senate terms are for 8 years, but I somehow doubt that it is binding.  Who wants to bet these senators will find it rather comfortable, and when the eight years are up and after failed attempts to make elections that they just stay there?  They are entitled to their entitlements, so they say.

Relevant Link

Perhaps of more concern is the low radar appointment of a federal judge.  By the article, it sounds like Thomas Cromwell is an agreeable choice, however it flies in the face of the vetting process that Harper himself set up at the start of his first term in government.

The Governor General should really look into how constitutional all of these appointments are.  Appointments during non-confidence times just doesn't seem right.  Although I fully agree that the senate is overly stacked with Liberals, I still don't see it as an excuse to ignore the wide variety of political opinions in this country.  A Stephen Harper of the opposition 6 years ago would have agreed.

Back to the start again

Relevant link

Well, with the excitement over the constitutional crisis over, and a new Liberal leader, the polls are indicating things are back to where they were after the election in 2006.  The polls are indicating that Ignatieff and Harper are essentially tied in terms of how "Prime Ministerial" they are.  I think this shows right away that the last election is less about hating the Liberals as it was hating of Dion.  Ignatieff is largely unknown to most of the public, and I think they are optimistic that things will be better organized in the opposition ranks with him.

Relevant Link

And in the big surprise of the week (that's sarcasm), a poll has found that Canadians don't really know how are government works.  In a democracy, it is incredibly important that the people voting know how the government works, otherwise we might as well just have a dictatorship.  With the responsibility of the vote, people should at a minimum realize some of the basic functions of how the leader is chosen and who the head of state is and what they do.

Relevant link

The story of the weekend is Auto Bailout.  I really don't see the reason to bail out an industry that has plenty of variety in the marketplace already.  The "Big 3" got to their position through a combination of overpayment to manual labour jobs that could cheaply be done in other countries, poor marketing of more fuel efficient lines, focusing on huge gas guzzlers that are no longer profitable, and large amounts of consolidation.

I have always had the opinion that having large corporations is bad for the economy, because if a single large corporation goes down, it has a huge ripple effect on the entire economy.  This is the fatal flaw of those who advocate for the free market, as it has shown that it leads to consolidation as companies do not want to compete against each other.  What would have happened if GM, for instance, was split up into individual companies that focused on different products, like small cars, trucks, and parts.  If one of those companies failed, then it would only have minor affects on the entire economy.

Even so, with the Hondas, Toyotas, Kias, etc., why do we even need to save the Big Three?  If the Big Three collapse, will that mean that people will stop buying cars?  That is silly.  The other companies might be foreign, but most of the cars are actually built in North America.  In Canada, those companies are putting their plants exactly where the closed Big Three plants are.

In the US, things are complicated by the fact that the foreign companies set up their plants in the south, where Republicans are dominated, while the Big Three are in the North, which is dominated by the Democrats.  There will be a bailout, but I don't see how it will end up saving these companies.  They are bleeding money from a combination of low sales and the inability to borrow money from banks due to the credit crunch.  They will not be able to all of the sudden make products that people will buy in just a few months, about the time that that 14 billion bailout would amount to.  Ultimately, the big three are done, and should be allowed to follow in the footsteps of Lehmann Bros.

Horray Hypocrisy

Relevant Link

Well, in the face of having difficulties in passing bills, Stephen Harper decided to pull a Mulroney and stack the senate with partisans (just as a note, Mulroney did this because the Liberals majority in the senate refused to pass the GST bill).  Before the end of the year, 18 new senators will be appointed by Conservative lackies, flying in the face of the throne speech for the failed first session 40th parliament, where Harper pledged senate reform.  Senate reform is something that I strongly agree with, but the way things are going, it will never happen.

Now you might say "well, the Liberals did the exact thing".  Well, I say two wrongs don't make a right.  Paul Martin at least tried to balance his appointments (though two of the "Conservative" appointments he made sat as PC members and refused to join the new Conservative party, and the NDP refused to let the NDP appointee in their caucus).  Simply put, Harper knows his days could be limited, and he needs to exert all the influence he can should a coalition government take his place.  The senate is the ultimate house of cronyism, and in its present form is almost completely useless.

I have always proposed that in lieu of standard elections for senators, that the senate be filled by proportional representation by party.  In a way, this will still lead to appointments, but at least they will be reserved for a particular party.  The senate was meant to balance out the power of densely populated areas, and I think it should stay that way, with the west, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes each getting the same amount of seats.  I think that 30 or so for each area would be appropriate (and maybe 2 for the North).  The senate should be elected every 6 years to give a little bit of stability compared to the House of Commons (6 years is the term for US Senators, just for a reference).  Floor crossing would not be allowed, and any renegade senator would be replaced by their party.

Of course, this is unlikely to be the system that the Conservatives had in mind, but I think it would be a way to balance things out, rather than having appointments be solely up to the Prime Minister.

Enter Ignatieff

Well, after a two year delay, Michael Ignatieff finally got his wish and became leader of the Liberal party.  I'm sure he is delighted that Stephane Dion dropped their seat count by 20 during the last election, but I guess it took a disaster to bring the Liberals together.  Already the Conservatives are calling this an undemocratic thing, carefully ignoring how they came to be.  Of course, the coronation of Paul Martin certainly failed, though things are a lot different than 2004.

Ignatieff became convinced that he could become the leader of the Liberals after a popular speech at the 2003 leadership convention.  Many Liberals were already trying to convince him to come back to Canada from his plumb post at his alma mater of Harvard.  Few people, including myself, took too much stock in his move to the University of Toronto as being sincere and I figured that he would pack his bags and leave should he lose his bid for a seat.  However, he did win that seat, and Paul Martin did lose the election, paving his way for frontrunner status in the leadship race that followed.  However, he had his share of gaffes, and a slight majority of the Liberals at the convention felt he was too much of a liablility, and instead chose the unknown Dion.  As for Ignatieff, I'm sure he initially considered going out of politics until it quickly became apparent that Dion would not last long.  And here we are.

Now, I admit that before the election, I considered voting Liberal.  Could I vote for an Ignatieff led party?  I am going to say no.  Although I consider him to be a much stronger leader than Dion, I think that his views will certainly take the Liberals to the social right, something I cannot support.  Or maybe it is his glowing support for the invasion of Iraq to "spread democracy", or his incredibly smug "apology" where he claimed that the Nobel winning people who opposed the war had less judgement than a bus driver.  Here is a man who's ego stretches out far and wide (much like Dion, but more eloquent).  Let the descent of Canadian politics continue, as we have a leader who has spent most of his professional life outside of Canada.