It's Amazing What Can Happen While Your Attention Is Diverted Elsewhere.

In my particular case, I became an uncle.

Y'know, aside from fatherhood, achieving unclehood really gets you to start thinking--especially when it's your sister who used to play "house" with you when you were kids having the baby.

You really start to think about what your role is in life, and what you owe from your parents and to your posterity.

In my case, I believe that it will be my role to educate the little tyke on how to play sick from school (both her parents are high-powered professionals so it'll be fun to see who gets to stay home), how best to appreciate a fine cigar--or a cheap stogie, and which stores will sell beer to teenagers (seeing as the rules in her home country are illogical and oppressive).

On the same subject. Boy--musta been a boring week.

My god! It just hit me that my Canadian sister (born right here--well actually about three thousand miles east of here) and her Kiwi husband have managed to give birth to an American!

(Why d'you think that company bought Kiwi? Perhaps it was just the icing on the cake?)

Like the various Misses America throughout history, I "shall carry out my duties, aware at all times of the dignity of my high calling".

But only if the brat refers to me (as stipulated in my Contract of Unclehood Acceptance) as "Your Uncleness" and presents me with a bowl of warm lentil stew and a new hat each Beavermas (new Canadian holiday, date to be determined).

But Enough of This Gay Bunting--On with the Politics!

Okay, so I was trying to help you decide who to vote for or against. Let's look at the possible options:


Forseth, Paul--Conservative Party of Canada
Haggard, Dave--Liberal Party of Canada
Hummelman, Jack--Christian Heritage Party
McClurg, Steve--New Democratic Party
Travers, Carli--Green Party of Canada

In my riding there are, unfortunately, no Rhino party candidates--indeed, in Canada, Rhinos are extinct. There is also no Marijuana Party candidate, but I want to address them--they've campainged for so long at the provincial level on a Federal issue that they should be examined. It'll also be interesting to see whether they sound any better than the classic parties in this race.

I won't pay any attention to the individuals involved. Regardless of who they are or what I might feel about them I'm actually trying to get stuff accomplished in this country over the next five years, so I'm voting the party rather than the personality.

Let's start with the true lunatic fringe: Mr. Jack Hummelman of the Christian Heritage Party (leader Ron Gray). Somehow--before I actually investigate their platform, I'm guessing theirs won't be the sort of Christianity practised by Mother Theresa. Probably more like that of GWB, or Betty Bowers.

Hmmm.

"The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life, pro-family federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the principles of the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution: 'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.'"

With this first paragraph I already have problems:

I'm not especially "pro-life" though I can't say I'm especially anti-. Neither am I pro-death (especially my own). Certainly I don't think (since I can't get pregnant anyway) that I should be the one deciding what should happen to a parasitic group of cells occupying someone else's body. Would you like me to decide whether you're allowed to seek cancer treatment, too?

The principles etc etc of the Canadian Constitution.
Our constitution is a johnny-come-lately slap-together piece of poetry. When the British North America Act ceased to apply and we became a truly independant nation, some whiners insisted that we needed to have a constitution that would guarantee us the freedom we already have as British subjects (the British Constitution is as yet unwritten--hence the near-feudalism of England in 2004).
So in 1980 or so we got one, will we or nill we. Like monster cookies it contained as much of what everyone thought was good that could fit.
It's only organizations like the CHP that make it necessary to keep having one, in my 'umble.

{By the way--we're not choosing a head of state here--she was chosen for us some time ago, and I'm dead glad we have her. She reminds me of my Mum, who would no doubt be doing a fine job were she in that job.}

. . .founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. . .
Did anyone notice that two-for-one sneak? By binding the two nonrelated phrases, the speaker hopes to convey to the listener that the ideas "supremacy of God" and "rule of law" are inextricably interwined. Not so. In many countries governments are famously atheistic in attitude, yet many of these nations are not foundering in anarchy. On the other hand, it seems as though states whose religion comes first are to say the least probelematic in application of the rule of law.
By the way--when you say "God", which particular deity do you mean? Jehovah of the Jews, Allah of the Muslims, or the Catholic, Protestant, Baptist. . .which?

I was raised Catholic--a much kinder and gentler religion than some--even if you include the Inquisition (the Crusades weren't really wars of religion--they were political with a light frosting of Jesus). My question then is: what sort of theology do these people espouse? Could I, a lapsed Catholic, get along with them (provided I ignore their bigger flaws)?

Let's looka the site: They have a "vision for Canada".

The first item seems to be demanding that we do away with the socialized medical system that separates us from the apes. It also uses the word "unnatural".

They seem to want small governement, and fewer "regulations, commissions, tribunals and their 'target goals' and ‘quotas’" which "always interfere with the right of the people to attain happiness when those bodies abuse their power and try to engineer social change"

Like writing a constitution? Oh--I forgot, that defends my right to freedom of religion. Yeah, we oughta get rid of that particular bit of social engineering.

"Canada must always be prepared to defend her citizens' freedom — at any time, against all comers, however mighty; domestic or foreign; and to provide emergency aid to our citizens and others in times of natural disaster."

So since we couldn't defend our multi-million-kilometres of borders even if we drafted every adult, child, and grandmother in the country, I assume you're talking tech. What tech have you that'll stop everyone?

They claim that "During Canada’s first century, by the application of proven Biblical principles — which our Constitution asserts are supreme — Canadians built a society that made this richly-endowed land one of the most desirable places on earth to live; and if governments refrain from hindering adherence to those proven principles, we can do it again."

The Canadian Constitution included "God" as a sop to people like this. And he gets real short billing. In fact, we only keep him in there to piss off Svend Robinson.

By the way--are the CHP insinuating that Canada is no longer a desireable place to live? Until a couple of years ago we had the #1 standard of living in the world. And how exactly does our governement stop people from living by Biblical principles should they choose to do so?

Oh. I see--you want to make me live by them.
Uh, no?

But what's most important about this page is that the great vision is somewhat blurred, fuzzy, lacking in detail. Nowhere does it say:

What changes will be made in our government and social structure?
How will such changes be made?
Given that this party seems to place such faith in our Constitution, how do they propose to make these changes without infringing on the rights and freedoms guaranteed therin?

Oh--and how can they support "rule of law" when what they really want to do is realign the wheels of the judiciary? Next they'll be calling for elected judges. Another article.

I have lots of other questions, but aside from the above it basically boils down to this: As an ex-trucker, I couldn't possibly vote for the CHP. Too many bad memories.


By the way, I'm not sure, but it looks like these people want to take the current winner-takes-all system which elects one MP per voting district and replace it with something that could conceivably give us two or three per. At an annual cost of some $200,000 plus, are they nuts?

First Lunatic Fringe, Next: The Fringe Lunatique.