Come Tuesday December 9th, 2008, there might just be a new government in place without an election.
There is something very odd going in on Canada this week, Canadian politics are exciting. Normally politics in Canada are about as predictable as watching paint dry, you know what the result is going to be well in advance, no matter how much anyone says otherwise. So what's been going on over the past week, and what will come to a head in another week's time on Monday December 8th, is really quite incredible as its something that has almost never happened before in Canadian history.…
Article comments
26 - Dr Dreadful
After mid-September, however, almost all the polls showed Obama far ahead, so RJ felt there was little point in continuing to post them.
Oh dear, RJ. I was hoping* you wouldn't make me do this, but...
Posted the day before the election.
* Actually, that's not true.
27 - Jet
Ah yes Doc, but give him props for allowing me to coanchor the night on his article. That was the ultimate in "fair and balance"
I even failed to rub it in that my prediction of the ultimate results were much closer to reality than his...
28 - STM
This why I think some Americans are dopey, RJ, when it comes to trying to understand even a smidgeon of how things work outside their own country ... people like yourself can't get their heads around the idea that a) Canada has chosen the system it has, and b) that the governor-general is actually NOT interfering in the legitimate process of government, no matter how odd it might seem to you and how unusual a process it is in Ottawa right now.
As for me being anti-American, I'm anti-stupidity and anti-arrogance, but I guess it must seem like anti-Americanism sometimes. Tough titties. Someone has to tell you the unpalatable truth.
Problem with a certain type of your countryman is that you're as comfortable as pigs in shit tipping the bucket on everyone else, but you don't like it when anyone fires back ... because you can't look at anything except from an americentric point of view, and from where I stand, what you've got these days is way worse.
It's sham democracy at best. Government by lobby group and cash donation, and way too much power invested in the hands of one person ... as you're all saying in regard to that bogeyman president-elect.
Canada has a constitutional monarchy. If Canadians wanted to have another system, they'd have chosen it. They're free to do so. But being a sovereign country, they chosen the system they have because it contains a whole lot of checks and balances, of which this is one ... or did you forget that they're not part of your country.
Just because the elephant in the lounge room south of the border can't - or won't - be bothered trying to understand how it works without putting it down doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't make it worse.
And no, I don't believe the militia myth. Nor do I believe Americans should believe the grade-school status-quo myth they learned in skewed history 101. One of the main American goals of that war was to oust the British from North America. The fact Canada exists today should be the only clue anyone with even half a brain needs in regard to the outcome of that conflict.
One of the reasons I'm so interested in it is because of the myths that go with it, especially on the American side. It's a classic example of an inability to admit that America can come second at anything, or ever do anything wrong, which is one of the things that pisses the rest of us so mightily.
Inability to take criticism of any kind is another.
There's another myth floating around, too: the myth of American exceptionalism.
29 - Deano
Couple of minor points...
1). Yes, it's "much fairer" and "far more representative" to have an unelected official who is appointed by a foreign government deciding which political party gets to control government. LOL...
The GG is NOT appointed by a foreign government. The GG is appointed by the Queen (who, as head of state of Canada is not a foreign government) but is selected by the Prime Minister of Canada. The Queen gives the appointment, the selection is entirely Canadian.
The GG does not decide which party controls government, the electorate does that. In the event a party does not control 50% of the parliamentary seats, it is a minority government. It forms the government as it is the largest collective group of seats however it holds power only with the confidence of the majority of Parliament. Lose the majority, you get turfed and an election ensues. The GG doesn't decide one way or the other.
2). "I guess the definition of "legitimate request" is kinda ambiguous though, amiright? Just ask Stéphane Dion!
The GG acceded to Harper's request to prorogue Parliament. Generally unless the PM is engaged in a barbaroous departure from acceptable behavior, the GG will give the benefit of the doubt to the PM.
3). Yes, a "rubber stamp" who occasionally gets to decide which party controls the federal government!
Again - no. It is decided by the electorate. If Harper had received a majority, then the opposition could froth at the mouth all day long and go nowhere. He didn't. He received a minority government. Consequently, it is perfectly legitimate for the opposition to turf him out and try to either form a new government or force another election. That is the heart of the parliamentary system. The GG isn't deciding" one way or the other, the voters are.
4). It looks almost as if no one is capable of governing Canada!
Canadians may be fairly polite, mild middle-of-the-roaders outside the hockey rink but bear in mind parliamentary politics is a bare-knuckled bloodsport, far more ruthless, twisted and backstabbing then you would expect.
5). A week ago, it appeared "almost certain" that the Conservative government would fall, and be replaced by a coalition government. But then that unelected official who was appointed by a foreign government stepped in and said "not so fast." Ain't sovereignty grand?
Yeah and a week before that noone expected any fireworks prior to the holidays. Welcome to Parliament - long stretches of boredom interspersed with vicious backroom dealing. It takes a certain grand level of ineptitude on Harper's part escalate this one in such a short time frame.
6). And it's interesting to note that the "wishes of the people" seemed to indicate that they approved of the Conservatives, since that party GAINED seats in the election that was held less than two months ago. How can a six-week old government be a "lame duck?"
Actually the wishes of the people are what insured the Conservatives didn't get the carte-blanche majority they wanted. Most people were less than enamoured of Dion and the Liberals but weren't prepared to give Harper free rein as they didn't trust him to work and play nicely with others, so they hobbled him with another minority. He's a lame duck because he managed to blow himself up so throughly in such a short time. The Tories gained seats, mostly on the back of a piss-poor Liberal leadership, not because of any Conservative popularity.
7). Canadians weren't Canadians then. They were British subjects until 1947. (And one could make the case, based on recent developments, that they still are!)
Actually the Dominion of Canada was established in 1867, so Canadians have been Canadians for 141 years.
8) Also, it's interesting that despite the alleged "belting" the United States received, the result of the war was status quo ante bellum - with the exception of the end of impressment of American sailors by the British, of course.
If I recall correct Thomas Jefferson bragged that the conquest of Canada would be merely a matter of marching. The war of 1812 was about a great deal more than just impressment, even though that was the self-righteous justification cited by American politicos. The fact that Canada remains Canada strongly suggests that the US did, indeed, get "belted".
9). Most interesting of all is that an Australian has such a hard-on over a war fought between the "Canadians" and the United States 190+ years ago. I'll bet you still believe the "militia myth" too.
Well, blood runs thicker than water and the Australians and the Canucks have fought side-by-side enough that there is a certain affection and mutual shared heritage of sticking it to someone much bigger and stronger. You could call it a mutual admiration society based on the cultural and historical experience of the Commonwealth.
30 - U S A
Canada is barely a country. It's populated primarily by moose-fucking left-wing hockey players. You just hate the USA because we're richer than you and we have a real military and our citizens have more rights.
31 - Richard Marcus
Excuse me.
But this was about Canadian politics, not what people think of Americans, or what people think of other people's political opinions - I think RJ's first comment was a perfectly legitimate reaction to a system he is unfamiliar with. A constitutional monarchy is a rathe difficult concept to understand if you've not studied it -ad nausem - like those of us who grew up in the British Commonwealth were forced to.
As to the the point about being a soverign nation - while the Dominon of Canada came into being in 1867, it wasn't until WW2 that we actually had control over our own foreign affairs - we entered WW1 and The Boer War as British subjects. In fact until 1980 our constitution was still a British act of parliament - The British North America Act which dated back to the late 18th century.
cheers
32 - Jordan Richardson
Canada is barely a country. It's populated primarily by moose-fucking left-wing hockey players. You just hate the USA because we're richer than you and we have a real military and our citizens have more rights.
LOL.
33 - STM
I take it you're a republican then, Richard? Tsk tsk
RJ thinks that the Queen is lording it over her subjects. He doesn't understand it's the other way around.
It's also perfectly legitimate for people to suggest to Americans that they are armed with knowledge before commenting.
Nothing worse - or more foolish - than contempt prior to investigation.
And Deano's right on every score. Thumbs up mate!
34 - Jordan Richardson
I think one of the key differences between Canadians and Americans - and of course I'm generalizing - is how seriously the people take themselves. Canadians tend to be more humble and less overtly patriotic, unless we're talking about hockey, whereas Americans tend to take every single minuscule process soooooo damn seriously. Like when American news outlets kept trumpeting the idea that the Obama presidential election could "only happen in America," for instance. We think it's funny that Americans think we have less rights, less freedom, and so forth.
In terms of politics, Canadians have a distrust for government largely based on indifference and ignorance, whereas Americans want to vote in a president they can relate to as a father figure/big brother/guy they can have a beer with. If you ask most people what they think about this coalition, you'll get a lot of confusion and a lot of "meh" answers. In Canada, our governments don't control our lives and we simply don't care as much as Americans tend to. I've never heard anyone say "well, I better get to the gun store and stock up if the Liberals get in" or "I'm leaving if Harper gets re-elected."
Also, when people make fun of us, we usually laugh too. We know that we have floppy heads on South Park, we know people consider us "not a real country," we know people think we live in igloos and have no TVs or computers. And guess what? We think it's fucking hilarious!
A lot of Americans could really learn something if they figured out how to laugh at themselves.
35 - STM
Jordan: "A lot of Americans could really learn something if they figured out how to laugh at themselves."
Hooray to that.
I always think it's funny when Americans are talking about rights and freedoms, but I'm not the one getting up every morning wondering what my government's going to do to me.
Of course, the most bizarre thing about this discourse with RJ is that if he lived in Oz, Canada or NZ, he'd probably be a monarchist rather than a republican - like most conservatives.
I am certainly not a conservative, but I believe in constitutional monarchy, rule of law and representative parliamentary democracy as the best guarantor of personal freedoms and liberties for one reason and one reason only - it has worked uninterrupted for 300 years.
Richard: the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which stopped Britain making laws on behalf of the Dominions without their consent? The only thing is, and you know as well as I, that Canada and Australia were running their own affairs without interference from Britain long before Acts of Parliament made it a finality and that the British wouldn't have dared tell us how to run our own affairs.
It was a formality, that's all. Both also made their own declarations of war, as soverign nations, against Germany in two world wars.
Blood thicker than water, Deano ... yep. But I've always laboured under what I'm now starting to think was a misconception that Americans were our kith and kin too.
Since I've been on blogcritics, I've realised that a large proportion of them couldn't care less about that. Thank God for the ones who do care.
The ones who don't care don't want to be friends, they think they're our betters and couldn't care less what anyone thinks, which is part of the problem in terms of how Americans are viewed in that very big world outside their borders.
Finally, nice one USA. But I don't think you should insult Canadians by suggesting they're all hockey players.
36 - Ruvy
Problem with a certain type of your countryman is that you're as comfortable as pigs in shit tipping the bucket on everyone else, but you don't like it when anyone fires back ... because you can't look at anything except from an Americentric point of view,...
Quoted for truth, Stan. Explain that to Jet - a few times over.
I stand corrected on the British history lesson. It had been my impression that the British monarch played a far more active role in governance during the 1700's, in spite of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 - but that the role was limited, and that those limits were understood.
HOWEVER. When I lived in the States, I thought that the parliamentary system was superior to that of the American presidential system, system qua system (in other words with each system working uncorrupted). Having lived under such a "regime" for the last seven years, one that does not have a written constitution, by the way, and having seen how it been made a mockery of both by it participants, and by foreign powers like the United States, I'm forced to conclude that a system of checks and balances WITH A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION is superior.
Having said that though, the rise of the corporatist state, where every congressmaggot, state governor and most state legislators are for sale to the highest corporate bidder, has perverted what was supposed to be a balanced system of government beyond all recognition.
And now, even the courts have been bought off, refusing to look at whether Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii as he claims. I'd not even raise the issue except that Obama has muscled the State of Hawaii and the schools he attended into silence, and he looks a hell of a lot like a liar to me.
But the Americans did choose the prick, and I cheered that choice on, and lo and behold, the scumbag's name is even found encoded in the Book of Ezekiel right after Gog.
So, as Heloise likes to say, "bling him on!"
Oh, by the way, Jet, I'm stilling aiming that boulder at the beehive to knock it out of the tree. I'll deal with the bees and their damned stingers later.
37 - STM
Thanks for the comment Ruve. You are right of course, the monarch did have slightly more of a role to play but essentially, parliament had the power and George's real problem was his meddling in parliament.
I understand your concerns about Israel. I know the situation is similar in terms of the system to ours, but it does help having a totally independent judiciary and a monarch instead of a president who as head of state and of the executive branch can't (these days) meddle in politics.
What's the story with the bees?
38 - Richard Marcus
Umm
Actually as much as I believe in any form of government I far prefer the British styled federalist parliamentary system that Canada has over the French styled Republic the Americans use. I don't like the cult of personality that develops when you directly elect one person to be president as they become far more important than their office.
Jordon, I really think that when Britain declared war in 1914 we were included in that decleration - could be wrong on that though - it's been close to thirty years since I took a course in Canadian history...I do know that until sometime after that Canada's supreme court was still the British Privy Council - my Grandfather's brother was one of the last Canadian lawyers to argue a case in front of them and I think that was after WW2.
cheers
39 - STM
Richard,
We have a Republican debate going on here. The premise is that it won't be any different. The PM will still be the head of government and the president the head of state - simply taking the place of the Queen's representative. So you can be a republican and still prefer the style of government you have up there.
BTW, the Queen isn't the Queen of England here. Although we do have our own G-G, the Queen's officially known as the Queen of Australia, so she's not a foreigner at all.
She's fair dinkum.
40 - STM
"I really think that when Britain declared war in 1914 we were included in that decleration".
I think how it went down here in 1914 was along the lines of "Britain is at War with Germany, therefore we are at War with Germany". It's still a declaration.
41 - Richard Marcus
Well yeah,
She's the Queen of Canada too when it comes to that. I can't see us in Canada ever having giving up the Queen - hell even the separatists dig her - even if it's only because she's a symbol of thier so "repression" ...he he.
You know what I think is really cool... this has to be the most activity ever generated by an article on Canadian politics...
Thanks.
42 - STM
I love it all too ... and I'd have to describe myself as a leftie. A conservative leftie though.
I'd hate to see us lose the constitutional monarchy and become a republic.
The flag is a big issue here too. Sadly, we didn't have anything as cool as a maple leaf to whack in the middle of a nice new flag.
I'm happy with the Union Jack and the southern cross and the big commonwealth star of federation. It's now come to mean something, describes perfectly the torrid origins of the modern nation so I'll be voting for it to stay.
Heck, if the Hawaiians can keep the Union Jack in their official state flag when they're part of the US, why can't we?
43 - Ruvy
Actually as much as I believe in any form of government I far prefer the British styled federalist parliamentary system that Canada has over the French styled Republic the Americans use.
Well, we can see that political science is not your strong point, Richard. That is not meant as an insult. Please don't take it that way.
The constitution of the French Fifth Republic attempts to combine the better points of both a parliamentary regime and presidential one, and if it is modeled on anything, it is the government of the German Empire that preceded the Weimar Republic. The French president has powers akin to those of the German emperor, and the prime minister is a creature of both the parliament and the president. The chief difference between the two forms of government is the way the power of the legislative branch is arranged; la assemblé nationale is a powerful body, and the senate is relatively weak, whereas in the German Empire, the upper house representing the kings, grand dukes and princes, was the powerful body and the Reichstag, representing the citizenry, was weak and relatively powerless.
The philosophical underpinnings of the American federal government are the writings of Montesquieu, a French philosopher who wrote of the ideal government having a king, a parliament, and judicature with equal power. The American president is an elected king, a chief magistrate above the political fray, and it was never meant that his election be democratic at all. The only democratic element of the American regime was to be the house of representatives, elected directly by the people. The senate was originally elected by state legislatures, and the electoral college was originally designed to be an independent body, almost. Time has changed much of this, of course.
The genius of the American system was to build into this a series of checks and balances that forced the chief magistrate to act like a chief magistrate and not a tin-pot tyrant, and which balanced powers in the regime so that nobody could grab them all. This is the real difference between the system in the United States and that in Britain, New Zealand, Canada and Israel. In all of these countries there is a formal concentration of power (sovereignty) - in Britain, Canada and New Zealand, this formal concentration is in the Crown (the sovereign) or its representatives. In Israel, this formal concentration of power is in the Knesset.
Bit by bit, this balanced system in America has all collapsed. While the first thing to be obvious was the takeover of the federal government by a bunch of thieves after the American civil war, the way had been led by a seizure of power by the supreme court, an attempt to force a national bank on the country in the early 1800's, and by way the curse of slavery was not eliminated, culminating in the aforesaid civil war.
The "democratization" of the American polity was accompanied by the erection of a powerful and rich corporate class that was able to buy up the new more democratic polity, people known as "robber barons". So, while political life seemed more democratic, life outside of politics became more dominated by a rich autocracy of factory owners who told the average joe what time to get up, what time to go to sleep, what time to go to church, etc. etc. and the worker was paid a pittance and lived in a slum as a reward.
In Europe, this brutal economic dictatorship was sweetened by the governments enacting legislation protecting workers; it was the conservative Bismarck who initiated ideas like social security, workmen's compensation, a limit on the number of hours one could work, etc., etc. Other European states followed suit when they could. Their populations were voting with their feet, leaving their home countries to go where there were vast tracts of land in America stolen from the Indians.
But Americans, at least in the States, never figured out that it would pay to enact compulsory health insurance, (first proposed in 1904 by a New York congressman), workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, a national pension plan, and other poverty mitigating measures until revolution was in the air in 1932. They still do not have decent health insurance in the States, and at least one of our writers can testify to the disaster that can work on a not overrich man.
The robber barons, the Rockefellers and others, were stopped from their rape of America temporarily by the anti-trust laws, and invested overseas. They lost lots of money in the Great War, and decided they did not wish this to happen again. So, they put together a think tank, to be filled with respectable types, to make sure this would not occur again. The respectable types they hired were to infiltrate the government of the States and to see to it that American foreign policy favored them.
This is the Council of Foreign Relations. And it has done an admirable job of the task assigned it. American foreign policy since has favored the small coterie of oil-men and bankers who are at its core, and woe to he who does not tow the line of the CFR. He will never get higher than congressmaggot, and will be stymied by the CFR's respectable "experts" wherever he turns - in the media, in business and anywhere else. The CFR's corporatist agenda has entirely distorted the balanced government the American polity was to be, and now it is a mere tool of the "experts" of super-rich.
And these experts have proven their expertise, inflicting at least one recession on the States, this one, and nearly bankrupting not only the political process there but the economy as well.
44 - Dr Dreadful
I think part of the problem Americans have in understanding the role of the English monarchy - and George III in particular - stems from the language of the Declaration of Independence, which charges not the British government but King George specifically with responsibility for all the complaints the colonists laid forth.
That doesn't mean that the King by his direct action did any of the things the DoI charges, and its authors knew that very well. They were simply observing diplomatic form: it was George III's job, as Britain's head of state and the figurehead of its government, to take any international political flak, and he was quite properly the person to whom the Founders addressed their grievances.
45 - Dr Dreadful
Heck, if the Hawaiians can keep the Union Jack in their official state flag when they're part of the US, why can't we?
Stan, the Hawaiian state flag has the Union Jack in it only because King Kamehameha liked the look of it, not because of any particular colonial connection.
And you do have a very obvious symbol you could have slapped on your flag: the kangaroo. That said, I do like your flag and its only drawback is that it's so similar to New Zealand's. To avoid confusion, I really don't see what's wrong with NZ changing theirs to black with a Kiwi on it, so that it matches the colours of their rugby team.
Of course it would mean that from a distance at sea, a NZ-registered ship could easily be mistaken for pirates, but that would just add to the fun!
46 - STM
I know the story of the Hawaiian flag Doc. Very interesting stuff.
47 - STM
But it is an excellent flag
Of course, the King had style. I mean, he was smart enough to watch all the comings and goings, ships with the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes, and obviously had a choice in regards to a flag as both Britain and the US were looking for influence there ... and he chose the Union Jack.
Which is just as well, because the Stars and Stripes would look really silly stuck up in the corner of another flag.
I think it's hilarious that two centuries after the revolution, one of the states - the best state, in my view (especially when the swell's up over winter on the North Shore of Oahu) - has a Union Jack in the corner of its flag.
Definitely the nicest-looking of all the state flags too, and tells a great little story about the king.
48 - STM
And Doc, we don't want a bloody kangaroo or a boomerang on our flag, and the silver fern is more the emblem of NZ than the Kiwi. The Kiwi is just - damn them to hell - the emblem of the New Zealand Rugby League emblem. All Black, however, and most other NZ sports teams use the silver fern on a black background.
We'll stick with the Union Jack I think, both of us. If we do drop it from ours, I'm moving to NZ, Hawaii or Fiji.
49 - STM
I can't and won't live in a place that doesn't have a Union Jack as its flag or as part of its flag.
50 - Dr Dreadful
Then you'll have lots of choices if Australia ever does the unthinkable, Stan - most of them gratifyingly hot and paradisical.
Besides the three places you mention, you could also go for Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Montserrat, Niue, Pitcairn, Saint Helena (mais check ze wallpapeur), Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos, Tuvalu, most of the Canadian provinces, and assorted places which you probably wouldn't find all that appealing, mainly because they involve either extreme chilliness or large US air bases.
51 - STM
Did you call up that link for the Hawaiian flag Doc :)
52 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, and numerous others. I don't understand why Hawaii doesn't just say, 'ah, the hell with it', instruct the mainland to lop one star off their flag, secede and join the British Commonwealth. :-)
53 - STM
Well, they probably should!
Many native Hawaiians regard the US as an invading, occupying imperialist power with no legitimate right to be there. They don't like haoles (white folks).
They seriously want them to bugger off, and there's also a radical polynesian anti-pakeha movement that wants ALL haoles out of the islands.
Had they been an independent nation, they'd probably be in a better situation now at least in terms of lifestyle etc, as it's likely their main source of income would still have been from tourism and their population would be much smaller. The flipside is that it's probably not bad to be a state of the US a very long way from the US but enjoying all the benefits of federal funding.
Big problem though ... Obama might now be sitting down there at Sunset Beach or Waikiki sipping a cocktail instead of packing up his boxes for the White House.
54 - Old Chap
And mate, if they were part of the Commonwealth, at least they'd have got a railway!
55 - Dr Dreadful
But my dear 'Old Chap', there are railways in Hawaii - the Sugar Cane Train on Maui being the best-known. There are also tourist lines on the Big Island and on Kauai.
There were once dozens of them: some providing passenger services, but the majority constructed and run by the sugar cane plantations for the purpose of getting their crop to port.
56 - Cad and bounder
Yes, you see exactly what I mean ... they would have had a proper railway, one exclusively designed for carting people around in exchange for a very small sum, not one for the transport of sugar cane.
They don't burn their cane there, either, BTW. They cut it unburned.
57 - Dr Dreadful
They weren't all plantation lines, Stan.
Hawaii's best attempt at a serious railroad was the one on Oahu that existed until just after WW2. For most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the best way of getting around the island since the roads were mostly terrible and tended to disappear entirely in the wet season.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, it played a major role in carting materials in for the rebuilding and supplying of the base - so much so that by the end of the war the railroad and its locos, rolling stock and infrastructure were pretty much worn out from the effort.
The final nail in the coffin was that meanwhile, the US guvmint had built a nice sturdy network of roads all around the islands, so all of a sudden there was a better, faster way to travel than by train. The owners decided that it wasn't worth the time, money and effort to modernise the railroad, so they shut up shop.
58 - Cad and bounder
Did you have a ride on the train while you were there Doc? There are some beaut little old railways in England and Wales, and a few down this way too.
The roads are pretty good in Hawaii (one of my mates drives up to the North Shore all the time from Honolulu), but you can't beat the train for a leisurely way of getting around.
Up your way, I hold Los Angeles up as an example of failure on that score. The burghers went for a huge network of roads, and now look at the place. If you don't have a car in LA, you don't really get around. And if you don't have decent car, no one talks to you.
No one walks, except for exercise. They don't walk to get places. A bloke nearly had a heart attack when I suggested we walk to the shops - about 15 minutes' away at most.
SF is pretty good though.
59 - Dr Dreadful
I haven't ridden the Sugar Cane Train, but I did have a go on the Kurunda Railway up by Cairns when I was down that way a few years ago. Unfortunately we ended up with a seat on the wrong side of the train, so we were staring at rocks for most of the journey.
LA does have a metro now, but it doesn't really go anywhere useful. And there is a limited network of commuter trains. But still. You're right about the walking. My wife's grandma lives down in Lakewood, next to Long Beach, and even walking to the mall five minutes down the road is unheard of. My wife and I decided to do so and were supposedly going to get run over, murdered, raped, hung, pickpocketed, drawn, mugged, quartered and set fire to, probably in that order. Needless to say, the walk was perfectly harmless.
San Fran does have an excellent and very thorough public transport network, yeah. Just as well, as you'll know if you've ever tried to drive in the city!
BTW, Richard must be tearing his hair out (by his own account he's got plenty to spare). He tries to get us interested in Canadian politics and we end up talking about railways in Hawaii.
60 - Richard Marcus
Actually if you've ever experienced a winter in Ottawa, Canada's capital city, you'd appreciate a conversation about Hawaii - and those types of non-sequitors are what life worth while anyway.
Oh - and as for the long haired thing - not so long anymore, at least by my standards - check the picture in the profile - that's about it now. It's more an attitude than a reality.
61 - STM
Yeah, it's all connected anyway. Remember, we were talking about how if you were part of the British empire, you always got a decent railway (which a Filipino told me was one of the problems of being colonised by the Americans, all they got was an education system they would have got with the British anyway, and corrupt politics where everyone is getting their palms greased) - which kind of follows on from Union Jacks, parliamentary democracy, the Commonwealth (we love it, and all our mates in it!), the Queen, Governors-General, our American cousins who can't work out that NO foreign head of state is interfering in our politics, etc.
62 - Dr Dreadful
Remember, we were talking about how if you were part of the British empire, you always got a decent railway
Yeah... Unfortunately (to be sombre for a moment), if you were part of the Japanese empire, you also got a decent railway...
Have you seen the memorial in Melbourne to the Aussie servicemen who worked on the Burma Railroad, Stan? One of the most moving monuments in all the world - and all it is is a few wooden sleepers set in concrete.
63 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, Richard, I've seen your new profile pic: I was thinking more of the 'long-haired Canadian iconoclast' bit!
You do scrub up pretty nice, but I think I preferred the old photo where you looked like Cap'n Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean...
64 - STM
Lol. Yeah, I preferred the old pic too. It almost scared me, the old one, whereas this one makes Richard look more like a uni lecturer with attitude.
I haven't seen the Melbourne memorial for the railroad, as I don't get down there that much.
Americans would be interested that an official war memorial - The Shrine of Remembrance also in Melbourne - commemorates the Australian and American sailors of both the cruisers HMAS Perth and USS Houston, which engaged a superior Japanese force in the Sunda Strait during WWII.
They never had a chance but decided to have a go anyway, as they had been ordered to try to stop the Japanese fleet at all costs.
Perth went down first, still firing whatever guns were left, followed by Houston doing the same thing half an hour later.
Many were killed but the survivors of the two ships formed a bond in captivity in the face of terrible privations. The Japanese weren't always kind in those situations, as we know.
Anyway, the memorial honours the American dead as well as our own, but together. I like the idea that no one forgets this stuff - but without turning it into jingoistic nonsense.
I must say I was very moved when I visited the US war cemetery in Manila in October too. Very sobering, all those young - and not so young - lives lost. I know of our own but I haven't always been aware of the extent of the American sacrifice during WWII, so it was an eye-opener.
It'd be nice if we could learn from it though, and have every bastard not trying to shoot up every other bastard.
Perhaps peace will break out for five minutes, somewhere on this planet, during our lifetimes.
I have a personal reason for this too: my son is making noises about joining the Commandos. Why them, I ask? It's a worry. They've already been deployed overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan, so hopefully, like most other things he's decided to do, it'll be forgotten within a few months when some other idea pops into his head, and he decides that he prefers to have beard and long hair - like his dad (and Richard M, above).