What is a nation?

The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, suggests we reconsider Quebec as a nation within Canada. To understand the latest incarnation in constitutional language, we go to the experts for some linguistic assistance:

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

nation, n.

1. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state.

2. A group of people having a single ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation, but without a separate or politically independent territory.

3. A North American Indian people. Also: the territory occupied by such a people, or (in pl.) by North American Indians generally.

Well, these three definitions help. But when it comes to Quebec's place in Canada, it's remarkable how politically incorrect a definition can be as it seems to be to Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe. The good news is that their definition is better than any Referendum question regarding Quebec Sovereignty.

In Ottawa, Harper introduced the following motion: [that] "this House recognize that the Québecois form a nation within a united Canada." Now wait a minute. Let’s consider this statement. I thought they already had a nation in Canada. To form one assumes that one does not exist and that the parts are there to be assembled into a nation. But Quebec has never suffered from an identity crisis. Their culture is strong and continues to be unique within the mosaic of Canada. So perhaps the PM is just playing with semantics.

Perhaps the question really isn't What is a nation? It's more like: What's in a word?

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

And just to add to the fun, from Roget's Thesaurus a few synonyms: body politic, colony, commonwealth, community, democracy, domain, dominion, empire, kingdom, land, monarchy, people, populace, population, principality, public, race, realm, republic, society, sovereignty, state, tribe.

Glow Ball Warming

When it comes to the issue of Global Warming it all depends on who's Crystal Ball is better and forecasting the future of our planet. On the one hand we have the Federal Government and the rather underwhelming Rona Ambrose. On the other the Scientific community. Trouble is, both parties argue over the fundamental issues of proof and whether Global Warming is happening at all.

As pointed out in a recent broadcast by the fifth estate on CBC See: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
the American and Canadian governments are playing a PR game now offering up their own brand of experts to either re-enforce the notion that out climate is changing or denying the exaggeration. When it comes to this kind of infighting you better do your own research, simply because it's going to get worse before it gets better in the battle for truth.

I side with scientists who are not affiliated with any government, corporation or private research group. Academics, we used to call them; interested only in getting to the root causes of environmental degradation and coming up with some startling facts. What I like best about their research, such as the stuff you can get by the experts at www.realclimate.org, are peer reviewed. That is, reviewed by scientists in the field, without a political bias, it is hoped.

But if a government abuses its science by hiring a PR firm to contradict the proven science out there, then we run into some serious difficulty as citizens. First, our money is being spent to put a negative spin on a problem that affects all of us. Second, our government fails to represent us and slowly favours the few usually in the guise of the highest corporate contributors.

So who's crystal ball will tell us the truth? The one with the fewest spin-doctors.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Nelson Mandela

Two weeks ago former South African President P.W. Botha died at the ripe old age of 90. I’m sure that there were a lot of people hoping he wouldn’t have lived that long. He was a staunch, heavy-handed defender of the Apartheid system in South Africa and he was never going to release Nelson Mandela because he knew it would mean his own political end. To the rest of the world and the Black South African, Botha was the face of systematic racism. He understood the political expediency of being a white leader and he understood that it was his responsibility to maintain the status quo. Consequently, releasing Nelson Mandela was never an option and recognizing the African National Congress an impossibility.

They say that revenge is a dish best served cold and one would be hard pressed to not hear negative statements from President Thabo Mbeki and Mandela about Botha and the “Old Crocodile’s” toughness. But no. It did not happen. Nelson Mandela was quick to offer words of condolence and respect: [his death] should serve as a reminder of South Africa's "horribly divided past." Mandela added, “we also remember him for the steps he took to pave the way toward the eventual peacefully negotiated settlement in our country.” High praise indeed, from a man imprisoned for 27 years for his political beliefs, most of which were during Botha’s political career.

Nelson Mandela's words say more about Mandela than they do about Botha and it’s a pity we don’t have more people like him in the world. Our human history is full of tyrants and peacemakers and it’s remarkable how often the former defeat the latter. Perhaps Mandela is right: the power of forgiveness is the greatest of all.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Wake Up Tour

The upcoming mid-term elections in the United States are going to be very important to the future of America’s grandchildren. The debt that the US has acquired by government “thrift” and a couple of major wars overseas, has put the country’s red ink as deep as $8.5 Trillion, according to David M. Walker, Comptroller of the United States at the General Accountancy Office in Washington.

Walker, who has been trying to bring the issue of debt to the election campaign, says that it isn’t a particularly sexy issue so most people are looking the other way. Well, maybe that’s what the Bush Gang wants: Pacify the population with phony rhetoric about the little successes while ignoring the big picture. Trouble is, the longer you ignore the problem the more difficult it will be to solve it. When it comes to debt, especially in the United States, you can’t find a bigger one. The debt is so high that the unborn grandchildren of the American family will be paying for it in a generation. Some legacy ain’t it?

Meanwhile, the housing market bubble, where families have taken out first, second and third mortgages to buy SUVs and High Definition TVs et al, due to low interest rates, is leaking. Based on my research, including a conversation with my economic expert in California, housing values are on the decline. That means the value of the house or condo, an American family has invested in is going to fall. If that’s the case then the value of the US dollar is going to fall. And that’s where fun begins as people start to sell off their declining assets and scoop up as much cash as they can to pay down their debts and keep their houses warm.

Regrettably, nobody is talking loudly about the growing U.S. debt and what it could mean for its economy and the world. Unless voters try to change Congress on Tuesday, the Great Depression will take on a whole new meaning. As the slogan for a famous oil filter once stated, “you can pay me now or pay me later”.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.