Roseth's Blog

It is ironic; the Liberals finally do what they should have done two leaders ago: put Bob Rae in charge. Having been rejected twice, he is graciously taking on the unenviable challenge of straightening out the mess made by his predecessors and their supporters, with the condition that he does not seek the job permanently. Not that he should want it either. Good luck to him. As he said, quoting Phil Givens, "In politics, you don’t get what you deserve; you get what’s coming to you.”

For anyone interested in Bob Rae, I highly recommend his 1998 book (Viking, 203 pages) "THE THREE QUESTIONS."He writes as well as he speaks. Had the Liberals enough common sense to pick him over Dion and Ignatieff, they would be in power now.

This whole argument is an exercise in absurdities, but if I had to take sides, it would be with the people who set boundraries for their children. The world is confusing enough to a toddler, without having to engage in “self-discovery” at an early age! Human development is part nature and part nurture –probably about 50/50. Human evolution is a result of genes and memes, and society moulds its members to become part of the human tribe, without which we would still be savages.

I suspect the parents of this child are more interested in self-promotion than their child’s needs and wants.

I have always been a staunch supporter of Israel and its reason d’être, but the petulant and disrespectful outburst of Benjamin Netanyahu crosses my red line. Mr. Netanyahu is “the dog that bites the hand that feeds him”, and Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic is right in sardonically asking if he will cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S. or cease to fight for the U.S in the United Nations.

It is true that the haphazard and indefensible border that would ensue by adhering to the pre-1967 demarcations would require adjustment on both sides, even major relocations, and President Obama qualified his support by suggesting just that, and also stating that the Arab states and Palestinians would have to accept Israel’s right to exist.

The adage was never truer than here: Mr. Netanyahu, “you cannot have your cake and eat it too”.

N.B. The Toronto Star published this May 26th (Letter to the editor).

Here we go again. A former Iranian national with a Canadian passport decides to visit the “lion’s den” in the turbulent Middle East, and ends up detained in Iran. Of course, the Canadian government is implored to help.

The issue of multiple citizenships is a particular problem in these unstable countries, but other countries also do not allow dual or multiple citizenships. They do, however, allow their citizens to adopt another country’s citizenship, as long as they give up the original one. I personally feel that one should choose one and not hedge ones bets by holding multiple citizenships, though more and more countries seem to be adopting the multi-citizenship policy.

It was not always thus. During the American-British/Canadian war of 1812, the issue of citizenship were of uppermost concern, as the British law did not allow native British to accept another country citizenship. Britain considered anyone born in Britain forever British and American naturalization defied the British concept of the perpetual subject. British citizens, and in particular Irish immigrants who served in the American army, even though naturalized Americans, were considered deserters if captured by the British, and sent back to Britain to face trial and possible death sentences as deserters. Naturalized American sailors, deemed “natural born” British subjects, if caught, were impressed in the British navy.

So here we are, two hundred years later, with the same dilemma but different protagonists. There is no easy answer to this problem, but there is a way of mitigating it. Do not allow Canadians to carry another country’s passport; or if they do, make it clear that they are on their own if they get in trouble. It would give Canada the moral ground, internationally, to come to the aid of its citizens, whether or not a country like Iran accepts it.

There are too many people –“new” Canadians – abusing their Canadian citizenships, by using it as a safety valve; working and living in their native country, and then expect Canada to come to their rescue things go awry in their homeland.

The Star's editorial cartoons usually evoke a smile; even a chuckle; but today it was more like a frown. Depicting Manitoba as a swimming pool, replete with diving board; is not only in bad taste, it is insensitive; considering that hundreds of people are on the verge of losing their homes, and farmers their land and livelihood well.

The Chretien government was, indeed, a “lost decade”, if one disregard the one major achievement of eliminating the deficit, which major credit accrue to Paul Martin. Chretien came in on promises he never intended to keep, like eliminating the GST and the Free Trade Agreement with the US. He held on for ten years, mainly due to division in the rightist ranks, and the rather ineffectual leadership of the NDP. Stephen Harper also made promises not kept; in particular, his broken promise to “not tax the savings of seniors” and then doing just that by eliminating the tax exemption of Income Trusts which was a vehicle for regular revenue distributions for retired people without a company pension.

As to his centralized control and secretive behaviour, it might well be tempered by his strong showing in Ontario, making him less dependent and beholden to his western and right wing base.

I am less concerned about the F-35 jets, or even about building more jails. Most NATO countries have signed on to the F-35’s, and there is something to say for uniformity of weapons within the western alliances. Furthermore, some of our older jails need replacement in any case.

Other issues highlighted are more important:
 Getting rid of the wasteful and economically distorting corporate subsidies.
 Concluding the free trade deals with the EU, and the completing the DOHA rounds, including getting rid of the farm supply management (this could be easier now that he is less beholden to Quebec voters and their dairy farm lobby).
 Free trade at home –between provinces –long overdue; either through negotiation with the provinces, or unilaterally by invoking the Constitutions “trade and commerce” powers.
 Push through Senate reform, also long promised; and make it “real” reform, preferably an elected senate.
 Clean up party nominations, ensuring their riding associations choose them; not dictated by the party leader.

If the “Harper Government” can make the above changes, it might well convince me to rejoin the Conservative Party, in spite of the broken promise on Income Trusts. One can always hope.

The spectacle of people celebrating in Times Square, Ground Zero and the White House, might be offensive to some and in poor taste for many, but it is also understandable. After all, this was not an ordinary criminal. Bin Laden is responsible for thousands of lives taken in the most brutal and hideous ways. I would certainly not blame the survivors of the 9/11 victims for celebrating, but it was not them, but rather the more raffish, base citizens who were expressing their joy.

Mr. Siddiqui’s criticism of these bacchanalian celebrations would be more credible if they did not come from a professional Muslim apologist. He did not lose family or friends at Ground Zero. For a more thoughtful and balanced approach, I highly recommend watching Michael Moore’s interview with Piers Morgan, available on YouTube or at CNN.com.

His criticism, that, Obama “evolved into a warrior president and doled out justice the American way” is both impertinent and inane. Let us consider a couple of alternatives:
• Osama is brought to America for trial. An international circus ensues, with demonstrations for and against; jihadists and suicidal terrorists on American soils; a hugely expensive trial, and the inevitable execution, on TV no doubt.
• Osama is brought before the International Court in The Hague. See above.

Meanwhile, whatever the options; with Osama alive there would be chaos and pandemonium; with Muslim extremist wannabe jihadists and “martyrs” falling all over each other clamouring for worldly fame and eternal bliss .

Haroon Siddiqui’s criticism of Obama and the US is unwarranted and base; but not surprising, considering the source.

Well, it has been an interesting week. First, the excitement and hullabaloo about the Royal wedding, then the ongoing battle for the Canadian voter, and in-between Obama got Osama! Soon,the polls will close and Canadians will know what kind of government we shall have. One thing seems clear from the polling pundits: it will be different.

Much will depend on the youth vote; usually sadly absent in past elections, it appears this election have engaged the younger minds. That should help the NDP in particular. The Quebec electoral map is sure to be redrawn with the Block Quebecois in a smaller picture. That is well and good.

So, this is my last chance to make a prediction, though it is less of a prediction than a statement of facts, if the polls are reasonably correct. What we will see tomorrow is this:

A minority Conservative government with a chastened Prime Minister Harper. Jack Layton and his good looking wife, Olivia Chow, will move into Stornoway, the official residence of the opposition, and Michael Ignatieff will bid farewell as leader of the opposition and probably, after some face-saving time, the Liberal Party. He fought a good fight, but the war was lost before he began. The Liberals will need a thorough housecleaning and a reorientation of their people and policies. This will take time, and while Ignatieff could be the interim caretaker; it is more likely it will be Bob Rae. There is a new Trudeau “king in waiting”, who will need time and experience before taking over the helm of his father’s party. Meanwhile, there will be rumblings of a Liberal-NDP marriage, but it is more likely to be a temporary cohabitation while the Liberals reorganize.

Not that a new Left party (shall I say it: “New Democratic Liberal Party”?) would be such a bad idea. It would coalesce around the Right and the Left. It could also, unfortunately, polarize politics, as we have seen in the US two-party system. Thus, that medicine might be worse than the malady. We will probably muddle through with three parties, which are a lot better than what the Scandinavian countries have –seven or eight parties, one for every conceivable interest group. It might work in placid Scandinavia, but it would be chaos here. We been there, done that.

And King Harper, and the “Harper Conservatives”? Well, though he is still young, he might find it convenient to exit politics soon. Perhaps he could become a concert pianist. Or an economic oracle. After all, he saved our economy from total collapse –all by himself.