No Legitimate Democracy on the Horizon

So George W. Bush is pushing for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians? Interesting. The man who called himself "a war president" is perhaps trying to build himself a legacy for historians to chew on... Because let's be honest: since none of the Republican candidates set to replace him as party leader has dared endorsing the actions of George W. Bush, it is not impossible to envision what Bush's legacy might look like a few decades from now.

The Lazy President who was on vacation for more than a month during the summer that preceded 9/11; the Goofball President who attacked the wrong country after 9/11 and polarized world opinion on the United States; the former drunk coke-head President who spent more during his presidency that any of his 'Liberal' predecessors; the President who accelerated the decline of the American Empire; the President who managed to beat Ronald Reagan in the amount of debt he plunged his country into.

How's that for a legacy?

The two-party system in the United States is so retarded that there can be no hope for a legitimate democracy in that country. The amount of money required to be able to run for President in 2008 has surpassed any other election in the past, and signs point towards longer and more expensive presidential campaigns in the future.

In 2009, when President Clinton or Giuliani or Romney is introduced, the race for 2012 will already get underway. It has been estimated that candidates must amass about 25 million dollars per month for their campaigns. This money is spent in advertising, organizing events, travelling and such... And it's not going to change anytime soon. Already the campaigns have taken pages out of shows such as American Idol and the analysis from the media resembles NFL Countdown with Chris Berman. Politics, just like professional sports, is not a multi-billion dollar industry. Elections are the Superbowls of politics.

Capitalism is what America does best. To believe that the United States are in a position to export their views of democracy around the world is a disturbing thought to say the least.
All the world can do is sigh in desperation and hope other countries don't follow America's steps.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org

Let's disenfranchise those who don't know grammar

The Parti québécois has fallen off the map of reason. How else can we explain Pauline Marois shameful attempt to deny rights to a marginalized segment of society for pure political gain?

Last weekend, Marois proposed bill 195, entitled 'Quebec Identity Act', which includes a clause stating that the roughly 40 per cent of Canadian citizens and foreigners who arrive each year and don't speak French would be denied 'Quebec citizenship'. Those non-Quebec citizens would be barred from running for the National Assembly, munipal council and school board posts. "Last year, this would have disenfranchised 18,000 of the 45,000 people who settled in Quebec." (1)

As I watched Radio-Canada's coverage of the PQ national council last weekend, I could not believe that no one among PQ ranks dared to utter these words: 'This bill is grossly unconstitutional.' Instead, the PQ parrots were already suggesting that the bill was just common sense. How could someone who doesn't speak the language of the province possibly represent 'us' in the legislature?

Good question. How could it happen? Answer? It can't happen. Even the handful of anglo MNA's from Montreal's West-Island can speak French. It would not happen. Therefore, this is a non-issue!

That the PQ tries to revive nationalist hatred throughtout francophone Quebec through fear is nothing new, but that they actually believe that such coercive action would actually encourage immigrants and anglo-Canadians to learn French is beyond me. Obviously, the PQ is trying to pick a fight. It's trying to be rejected by Liberals and federals parties. It is hoping to be rejected by the Supreme Court. How else can the PQ possibly win an election? When Quebeckers feel like victims, the PQ thrives. That's what they are banking on.

And it's a shame, because they reflect the worst of Quebeckers. They are showing the rest of Canada and the world that they are ready to deny fondamental rights to minorities in order to promote their agenda of ignorance and xenophobia.

We thought Mario Dumont and his ADQ were the best at demagoguery and whatever-the-cost-populism. We now see that Pauline Marois is just as intolerant and ignorant of the law as anybody else.

Nobody in Quebec would argue with the fact that the promotion of the French language is vital to protect Quebec culture, but not at any price. Promotion is the way, not coercion.

Marois' Bill 195 is a non issue (no one who can't speak French would be ever elected), it is unconstitutional and would not help in any way, shape or form the promotion of the French language.

It is but a shameful attempt to pick a fight. The PQ was once the political party that embodied the Quiet Revolution, but the wine is turning into vinegar. If the nationalist lunatics at the PQ want to plunge Quebec society into a witch hunt against non-francophones, they better leave the Montreal nation out of it.

Here's a compromise: instead of just testing immigrants, let's test every single Quebecker. Let's deny the rights of those who can't spell. Let's disenfranchise those who don't know grammar. As crazy as it seems, this would actually be fairer than what the PQ has laid on the table.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org

References
(1) Toronto Star, Inflamed Quebec debate, October 25th 2007

Militarization Only serves corporate Interests

Unaccountable mercenaries have taken over security in Iraq. The Blackwater incident is but a mere exemple of corporatism gone insane. In their twisted vision of the world, the Bush Republicans have managed to push an agenda of privatization that has gone beyond what the State can afford. Without getting into conspiracy theories, Republicans are working into insuring that their long-term goal is achieved: bankrupting the government so that it has no other option than reducing its size and its spending power in the future.

Two years ago, a study from the Stockholm Institute informed the world that the US military was spending half of the world military spending, and since then the american army might not have grown exponentially, but spending for "private security officials" has gone through the roof. These mercenaries earn many times the salary of ordinary soldiers and they are not accountable for their actions. The government hires them. If they fuck up, legal action has to be taken against the corporation, not against trigger-happy individuals with automatic weapons.

Soldiers that defend people, and not a country, are called mercenaries. The difference, and the irony in this case, is that they are still paid by the american government! Yes, taxpayer money is now not only used to fund the military, but also to buy off corporations to hire their own armed goons. Blackwater has found a new way of funneling tax dollars into its coffers in the name of national security.

And the Bush Administration has decided to send the bill to the unborn children of America, by plunging the country so far into debt that the light at the end of the tunnel is now an on-coming train.

The problem with militarization is that if left unchecked for a few years, it takes a life of its own. It infects social discourse and even manages to change the very foundations of "common sense". Canadians should be careful not to let happen to them. Already, shamelessly partisan Rick Hillier has elevated himself from being an icon for the military to a lobbyist, wrapping himself up in the maple leaf, surrounding himself with populist empty-headed rednecks such as Don Cherry and making sure politicians who oppose inflating military spending be labelled "uncanadian", whatever that means.

"Support the Troops", they say, waving miniature flags, "they are heroes who fight for our freedoms."

No, they are not. My freedoms are not protected by tanks and machine guns ten thousand miles away. No. They are just making sure the West has enough enemies to force governments to increase military spending. "Our soldiers support the mission. They believe they're doing important work." Of course they are. They are trained to think so. There is no critical thinking going on within the military. That's just not the game they're in.

The military might on occasion defend us, the population, from an "enemy" - but chances are, this "enemy" spawned from the actions of our military in the first place. Militarization creates more problems than it solves. In fact, militarization does not benefit anyone but the already wealthy, like weapon contractors.

Now Stephen Harper says we need military presence in the Arctic. If he does go ahead with his plans (surely the opposition won't let him, will it?), he better promise Canadians that they will reap the benefits of a militarized Arctic. Because if the plan is to spend tax dollars on military bases so that oil companies can safely drill out our national wealth, we (the people) better get our money's worth. Otherwise, the canadian military will have been used for private corporate interests - and not for the good of the population.

Militarization only serves corporate interests using our tax dollars.

This is criminal. Well, no... as of today it is not. But it most definitely should be.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org

I don't Support the Troops

Parlement Hill has become a ground for cheerleader-like "I support the troops" slogans. Lately, this childish display of political opportunism has been elevated to "I support the troops more than you do" status. This week, it got a little crazier: Ontario premier Dalton McGinty is apparently considering renaming busy highways, such as the 401, after fallen soldiers. (1)

Losing a child or a brother must be devastating and I send my sincere sympaties to the fallen ones' families. However, as much as I feel compassion for them, I would like to remind them joining the army is giving up your body and your brains to the service of your government. It's not a joyride nor was it intended to be. The army is the business of weapons, combat and death.

Army generals support the mission in Afghanistan more firmly than the electorate. Their message to the population is that the mission's success is important for our way of life. Fallen soldiers do not die in vain, they add, because they died fighting for a just cause. The problem is: of course they support the mission. Otherwise, they would need to get a new job. What army officier thinks the military should be reduced to inland rescue operations? What army general would think the defense budget is just fine as it is?

They always want more. Their job is to convince governments to always expand the military. That's the business they're in.

Yves Boisvert wrote an insightful editoral defending the Afghan mission and praising those who do not change their position the instant casualties occur in this moonscape shithole of the world. He writes: "Need we repeat it for the thousandth time? Afghanistan is not Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is 'legal' and the war Iraq is not." (2) He then reminds readers that the war in Afghanistan has the support of the UN, unlike Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. Thirty-seven other countries have soldiers in Afghanistan. It's a global effort.

As soldiers die, public support for the war plunges. It's like clockwork; no surprises there. Military officials, who of course do not want politicians to pull the plug on the mission, quickly remind the population that the soldiers who were killed died strongly believing in the mission. "Some [...] fellow soldiers in the Van Doos 3rd Battalion have appealed to Quebecers to be 'better informed' about the objectives of the mission before passing judgment, adding that they believe in it and want to carry on the work." (3)

Here is the fundamental problem: I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the soldiers "believe" in the mission... That is not their call! They are not trained to think rationally and to make such decisions.

Obviously, a government could not go to war without its army's support. However, if such a case was to occur, it would just show how bad of a job the government is doing training its own soldiers. I'm sorry to use such blunt language, but the army is a tool. It's not a think tank. Far from it, actually.

These soldiers are brave and courageous, sure, I agree. Let's give credit where credit is due. But to be frank, I would not trust any of them to run a Burger King, let alone deciding what our national foreign policy should be. According to an article published in La Presse, the Canadian Forces recruit mostly poor, uneducated and unemployed kids. "Not because they wish to fight more than others, but because they have little hope of getting a job or having a career within civilian life." (4) I am not saying that their opinions do not matter; but these kids support the mission because they are told to support the mission.

The government trained them to follow orders, to fire rifles and to drive tanks. No offense, but since when do we seek the opinion of soldiers? Soldiers are government hitmen. That they are fighting 'eviler' people in Afghanistan (the Taliban) does not alter that fact.

I have come to this. I don't care about the political incorrectness of this following sentence: I don't support the troops. Nothing personal.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org

References
(1) Canadian Press, To honour the soldiers, The Globe and Mail, August 23rd 2007
(2) Boisvert Y., Le fond des choses afghanes, La Presse, August 20th 2007
(3) Babbage, M., Soldier's body arrives in Trenton, Toronto Star, August 22nd 2007
(4) Noël, A., Jeunes chômeurs recherchés, La Presse, August 21 2007

The Ball and Chain of the Montreal Nation

What defines a nation? According to Ernest Gellner, anthropologist and philosopher, a nation is an "imagined community", which creates within oneself feelings of belonging towards people one doesn't know. A nation, as opposed to a state, doesn't have well defined boundaries and may be populated in part by people who do not belong in this "imagined community".

Last November, the Harper government submitted a motion which stated that "this House recognizes that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." As subtle and clever as it may have seemed, the motion did not recognize Québec as a nation, but the Québécois - referring to the pure laine; les Québécois de souche. This motion, although criticized as fueling ethnic nationalism in Québec, went through with the support of most Conservatives and Liberals, the Bloc québécois and the NDP.

The reason why this motion was a tough pill to swallow for hardcore Québec nationalists is that Mr Harper and his minions were right on the mark. For all the blunders his government got into during its first year in power - tearing apart Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol, cutting taxes for the wealthiest and allowing Big Oil to destroy Alberta's landscape and pollute its fresh water, etc. - Mr Harper understood that Gilles Duceppe's vision of the Québec nation does not apply to the whole province, but rather to a specific electorate.

The Québécois pure laine may form a nation - many of them envision themselves as a community - but the province of Québec is not a nation; it is an agglomeration of nations, that are rarely on par with each other.

During the last Québec election campaign, we have witnessed rather dark facets of the Québécois nation: shock radio host Louis Champagne calling the PQ "a club of faggets"; Jean-François Plante of the ADQ ranting on woman issues: "there's an aparteid towards men in Québec", adding that violence towards women was unfairly exagerated; Christian Raymond, also of the ADQ, declaring during a radio interview: "Immigrants come here and we have to let them wear a turban and kiss the alsphalt... we must encourage [white francophone] child births, otherwise aliens will invade us."

All of these comments (and so many more), either homophobic, misogynistic and/or xenophobic, were uttered by pure laine citizens of the proud Québécois nation. A story that particularly made my eyes roll was the "crisis" propagated through the always insightful Journal de Montréal, which denounced a sugar shack from Varenne that had ajusted its menu - for a day - to please a group of Muslims who had asked beforehand that no pork be served to them. A few poor minds were truly angered: "they come over here from abroad, they're the ones who should follow our traditions." Nobody seemed to really care that the sugar shack owner said: "I didn't mind. It's just good business."

The Québecois nation, which pretends to be as tolerant as any other, is diametrically opposed to the multiculturalist nature of the Montreal nation. In contrast, the Montreal nation by and large perceives its multiculturalism as part of its cultural heritage; not to mention its history.

Recent polls have shown that Quebec was the province which perceived multiculturalism with the highest contempt throughout Canada. The Québécois nation, wanting to distinguish itself from the Montreal nation, seems to wish to tighten its borders to immigrants - while still believing that it can prosper in the long run with the lowest birthrate in North America.

A renewed wave of montrealism should act towards Québec City the same way Québec nationalists did towards Ottawa since the 1970s. Why should we concentrate our efforts to decentralize Ottawa if we are going to recentralize everything in Québec City? How is the National Assembly more reliable/efficient as the House of Commons? I once heard Lucien Bouchard ask to a partisan crowd why Québec should be told what to do by people from Toronto, Winnipeg or Calgary when it can govern itself instead...

Therefore, I have a question of my own: why should Montreal be led by people from Québec City, Beauce, Jonquière or Abitibi? These people do not give a rat's ass whether our metropolis flourishes! Rural conservatism of the Québécois nation is the ball and chain of the Montreal nation.

Gilles Duceppe himself declared on many occasions: "Why does Québec have to consistantly beg Ottawa for money? It's our money!" Well, then why does Montreal have to consistantly beg Québec City for money? It's our money! Why does Montreal send its wealth to the regions, considering that our trains our breaking down, our water-supply systems are leaking and our roads are falling apart?

The Montreal nation is in desperate need for public funds. Don't think it's going to get any better once the ADQ takes over next election.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org

Références
Cyberpresse.ca, Boisclair dénonce l'homophobie d'un animateur de radio, 1er mars 2007
CBC, Sharper scrutiny of ADQ candidates exposes unsavoury opinions, 5 mars 2007
YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJrCcRUsrM
Radio-Canada, Un deuxième candidat congédié, 10 mars 2007
National Post, Sugar like salt in Quebec's wound, 20 mars 2007

How to Show Greenness

Those who criticized Harper and the non-progressive conservative Party of Canada for being too rural-minded, redneck and anti-intellectual have something to roll their eyes at once again.

Indeed, in order to reach out to a new base (?), Harper's Conservatives decided to show the world how green their policies had become since they took power.

But how could they do that?

Perhaps new fuel efficient trains for the urbans centres of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto? Perhaps they could have introduced a new coast to coast bicycle race - an all-Canadian version of the Tour de France?

Or here's an idea: the Conservatives could sponsor newly planted trees! Every tree planted/grown during Harper's reign could bear the blue 'C' logo on biodegradable stickers. The sticker who say: "Want more of these on Canadian soil? Vote Conservative!"

Rumours that they had considered filling the Great Lakes with windmills were never confirmed. Some suggested they should install electric generators at roulette tables in Niagara Falls in order to feed the millions of neon signs in the city.

In Alberta, genetic engineers working for Harper have worked on new species of cows and bisons that would eat grass and fart oxygen. The plans are still in blueprints. Others have considered selling the land containing the oils sand to America. Although we would still breath the same air, Canada's official CO2 emissions would then plummet.

Instead, the Conservatives decided to sponsor a NASCAR vehicule, a car that burns a gallon of gasoline every five miles and turns in a circle for hours at the time, at the pleasure of hot-dog eating, supermodel-drooling and Budweiser-drinking rednecks. "The big blue Conservative C will also be on the car at NASCAR Canadian Tire Series races in Edmonton in July and Trois-Rivières in August." [1]

According to the Globe and Mail, "A Conservative source said the goal is to reach middle-class voters who don't like current Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion," an electorate the source describes as "the Canadian Tire voter."

Because every NASCAR racing fan will tell you: Intellectuals are stupid.

The Conservatives are trying to broaden their base, and it's oh so sad.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org

References
[1] Globe and Mail, Opposition parties blast Conservatives over support of NASCAR vehicle, June 19, 2007

Capitalism is winning

What if democracy was just a phase? Just a glimmer in mankind's history? The ancient Greeks invented it, but, as the Roman Empire grew bigger and stronger and more militarized, all this democracy talk of "power to the people" non-sense was trown out the window. In a the blink of an eye, mankind lost democracy.

And it took two thousand years to come back! Monarchy and absolutism have been the dominating form of government since then. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have witnessed slavery being gradually replaced by la classe ouvrière, and the civil rights movement has helped (and forced) governments throughout the world to obey the liberal principals of equality upon wich constitutions were signed .

(When George W. Bush declared in a speech that America had been a beacon of freedom since its very foundations, his advisors should have reminded him that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of wealthy white slave owners.)

Today there are signs as numerous as unfortunate that democracy is losing ground to the new religion of the wealthiest: pathological capitalism. There are no better proof of this democratic decline than the current ideological debate about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. Those who believe otherwise have either joined the ranks of partisan hacks or are simply ignorant.

South of the border, the unjustly labelled "liberal" media have managed to let the Republican Party get away with bankrupting the children and grand-children of America. The country the next few generations will inherit will have to suffer the consequences of having a government both 1) despised throughout the world - for their inhuman torture and abuse of terror suspects - and 2) heavily in debt.

Considering that the current admisnistration was allowed, somehow, to spend about two billion dollars (US) per week since the beginning of the war, one has to wonder whether there are any limits to this partisan folly. How much will be too much? How many more bodies until they realize that it was one too many? According to the senseless rhetoric we've heard over and over from the Bush Administration, there are no such limits.

The question begs to be asked: How long will the American public stand for this?

Observers and political analysts claimed that Americans are not, in fact, standing for this and have expressed it last November at the mid-term elections. I couldn't disagree more.

True, Republicans lost their majority both in the Senate and in Congress, but by how much? Republicans, led by their racist, homophobic, and bigotted base, have screwed everything up since they took up power. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands Iraqis were killed for their war for oil. The conservative think-tanks (Heritage Foundation, Project for a new American Century) have been wrong on everything they had predicted (WMDs, Americans greeted as liberators, insurgents are in their last troes, etc.) and yet they manage to make millions believe that, should Americans retreat from Iraq now, the Terrorists will follow them home.

The Terrorists will follow them home? What is this nonsense? The Terrorists don't know their geography? They are waiting for American soldiers to go home so they can follow them?

And yet, despite all these fuck-ups, the Democrats only managed to win a razor thin, 51-49, majority of the Senate last November. I still can't believe it. What the hell would it take for them to win a landslide? Could the Republicans do even worse?

The art of politics and democracy is lost in the United States. It sadly has been replaced by partisan politics and blind loyalty to the Party - not to the country nor to the common good.

Politics in the 21st century is now the art of winning elections. It is about feeding media outlets with knee-jerk reactionary stories that have nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy.

In the constant struggle between capitalism - the ultimate source of partisanship - and democracy - the rule by the ruled -, what lies at the fulcrum is civil society. Only a strong civil society can tilt the balance away from those pathologically thirsty for power.

However, right now, one is forced to admit that capitalism is winning.

* * *

Questions? Comments?

phil.fournier@theMontrealer.org