Woe Canada...
Today is election day for Prime Minister in Canada. Martin's rule looks like it'll finally come to and end and the Liberal party will most likely lose control of the Parliament. Perhaps after 25 years, it's time for a change in government, anyway. People tire of seeing the same old face on TV making speeches or reading of the same old name making policies, etc. Fine. It's time to get someone new. But someone, ANYONE other than Stephen Harper!
Two big issues that Harper wanted to accomplish was 1) build up the Canadian military (there's such a thing?) and 2) create closer ties with Washington. First of all, does Harper even remember what the Canadian slogan is? Because if he does, he sure as hell doesn't understand it. Peace, order, and good government. Okay Stephen, maybe you missed that. PEACE, order, and good government. Building up the military does not bring peace; our spoiled neighbors are the perfect example of that. The U.S. has the most advanced and one of the largest if not THE largest military and armed forces in the world. And yet everytime there's a political squabble somewhere, usually in the Middle East, the U.S. military men and women are there fighting.
Now, fellow Canucks, don't be so naive to think that these American troops are fighting for freedom, democracy, blah, blah, blah. Because there are nations all over the world where social injustice reigns. It's oil that the Americans want and the Middle East has lots of it and that's the ONLY reason why American troops are there. The fact that extremists are there just provides the U.S. an excuse to go in there and start a war.
But I digress. Fellow Canadians, this is not the example to take. Spend that government budget on restructuring and financing the social services and facilities, like the POSTAL SERVICE, the WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, and police services (and this way there won't be a bloody strike every other month). Improve the government and society before creating a military, unless military conquest is the ultimate goal (Canada? Military conquest?). Building up the military and spending money on that before taking care of domestic problems is the ass-backwards method that the United States is so adroit at. Aren't ya learning anything from your bumbling neighbors?
The second issue, creating stronger ties with Washington D.C. will be in hopes of what? So that Canada will be the U.S.'s pet dog? The U.S. is already one of the most hated nations in the world. Why o' why would Harper want a stronger association with that? So that terrorists and religious extremists can start picking targets in the United States AND Canada, now? If Canada wants a new Prime Minister, that's fine. But picking G.W. Bush's wannabe Canadian counterpart isn't the answer to Canada's problems. Now, Bush's approval ratings dropped to 39%, a record low for any president, I believe. What does that say about him as a leader and the nation's government? Again, I ask why would Harper want stronger ties to someone like that, leading a government like that?
Looks like the whole continent is going down the tubes.
Two big issues that Harper wanted to accomplish was 1) build up the Canadian military (there's such a thing?) and 2) create closer ties with Washington. First of all, does Harper even remember what the Canadian slogan is? Because if he does, he sure as hell doesn't understand it. Peace, order, and good government. Okay Stephen, maybe you missed that. PEACE, order, and good government. Building up the military does not bring peace; our spoiled neighbors are the perfect example of that. The U.S. has the most advanced and one of the largest if not THE largest military and armed forces in the world. And yet everytime there's a political squabble somewhere, usually in the Middle East, the U.S. military men and women are there fighting.
Now, fellow Canucks, don't be so naive to think that these American troops are fighting for freedom, democracy, blah, blah, blah. Because there are nations all over the world where social injustice reigns. It's oil that the Americans want and the Middle East has lots of it and that's the ONLY reason why American troops are there. The fact that extremists are there just provides the U.S. an excuse to go in there and start a war.
But I digress. Fellow Canadians, this is not the example to take. Spend that government budget on restructuring and financing the social services and facilities, like the POSTAL SERVICE, the WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, and police services (and this way there won't be a bloody strike every other month). Improve the government and society before creating a military, unless military conquest is the ultimate goal (Canada? Military conquest?). Building up the military and spending money on that before taking care of domestic problems is the ass-backwards method that the United States is so adroit at. Aren't ya learning anything from your bumbling neighbors?
The second issue, creating stronger ties with Washington D.C. will be in hopes of what? So that Canada will be the U.S.'s pet dog? The U.S. is already one of the most hated nations in the world. Why o' why would Harper want a stronger association with that? So that terrorists and religious extremists can start picking targets in the United States AND Canada, now? If Canada wants a new Prime Minister, that's fine. But picking G.W. Bush's wannabe Canadian counterpart isn't the answer to Canada's problems. Now, Bush's approval ratings dropped to 39%, a record low for any president, I believe. What does that say about him as a leader and the nation's government? Again, I ask why would Harper want stronger ties to someone like that, leading a government like that?
Looks like the whole continent is going down the tubes.
posted by V-Hume at 4:59 PM
4 Comments:
Too bad. Did you know Mario Lemieux retired today? Also, I think I read your blog too much because I'm starting to write like you now.
Hi Wei,
Do you mean you are starting to write like your angry, cynical and critical uncle? :p
Auntie Richel
Hi Wei,
Yeah, Mario retired for the 4th time. It's getting old. Actually, it got old after the 2nd time.
As far as writing like I do, that means you're on your way to becoming a well-versed intellectual with critical-thinking skills and objectivity; something your high school English teacher is not. But I learned to be like this from talking with Daddy all the time. So...I guess, in a way, it IS angry, cynical and critical. But at the same time, it's all true!
I'm not in high school yet. But I'm not to angry, cynical, and critical yet.:)
Post a Comment
<< Home