Distinct Society By Any Other Name...

Reaction to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's latest bombshell, single-handedly removing the 'provincial' label from Quebec and swapping it with 'nation', has been swarming. Early indication is that the move went over big time in Quebec, with the wishy-washy francophones turning back to the Conservatives. It would give credibility to the theory that Harper pulled the trigger on this issue to salvage the free falling Tory support in la belle province. Of course if this is the case, the 'new' Conservatives would show themselves to be no different from the 'old' Conservatives of the Mulroney era - one that routinely bent over backwards in vain attempt to get the thumbs-up from Quebecers.

The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord experiments, both unbalanced and obviously flawed bribes were shot down by the people of Canada. The idea of a so-called recognized 'distinct society' in Canada, with special rights and privileges not allowed 'regular' provinces such as a veto over federal bills and laws, was and remains completely unacceptable to Albertans. Yet now, fourteen years after a democratic referendum told the politicians exactly what we thought of one province being 'more equal' than the others, the Prime Minister has decided that by giving it a new name - out with 'distinct society', in with 'nation' (within a united Canada, of course) - those of us in the West won't notice.

Well, some of us have noticed. And we aren't impressed. A typical example of how Albertans are feeling about Harper's latest Quebec appeasing move comes from Alan Clark of Albertarepublicans.com. He has circulated an email in which he expertly conveys they reality of what is going on:

Dear Renegades:

Do you remember the day Alberta’s voice was heard across Canada? I remember hearing the voices of Albertans gather around me, like the echo of a cannon-shot, rolling and roiling around a canyon. Our collective voice exploded and then rolled eastward and delivered Alberta’s message as it moved, unstoppably, shockingly to Ottawa.

I remember October 26th, 1992 as Alberta’s greatest political day. It was the first and only time that Albertans would get their way within Canada. It was the day that Albertans defeated the Charlottetown Accord which would have bestowed upon Quebec the grand status of a “Distinct Society” within Canada.

At the time, all the well-mannered folks spoke in favour of the Accord including our own Premier. “Distinct Society was meaningless really”, they said. “Simply entrenching the obvious”, they said.

Albertans objected to this elevation of one province over all the others. “If the words are meaningless then what’s the point?” we argued. And in the end, we forced them to bring it to a vote.

And what a vote! For the first time in modern times Albertans got a taste of what it was to actually be in the position to make a decision for ourselves. A referendum! We’d never done that before! From all outward appearances, we liked this referendum process very much. Albertans turned out in droves! 72.6 percent of eligible voters turned out! Never before have so many Albertans participated in a vote. And not since. That one day was truly the greatest democratic event in our history.

The result of this massive outpouring of democracy was that over 60 percent of us rejected the favoritism that the federal government was trying to lavish upon Quebec. In no uncertain terms Albertans stood together and clearly said NO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR QUEBEC!

Today, Stephen Harper set aside the results of our greatest democratic experience and unilaterally granted to Quebec, special status as a “Nation within Canada”.

Brian Mulroney said “A Distinct Society within Canada”.

Stephen Harper says “A Nation within a Nation”.

Albertans thought we had settled this matter, in a fashion that was most exciting and adventurous. This was a battle hard fought and it was the only battle we had ever won. And now, Stephen Harper along with Myron Thompson and Laurie Hawn and Diane Ablonczy, Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose and the rest, people we trusted and thought were on our side, have set aside our greatest, our only, democratic victory.

For What? Is this what they mean by “The West Is In!” I’ll leave that for you to determine. But in closing, I leave you with the words of Steven Deitz who said:

“One should rather die than be betrayed. There is no deceit in death. It delivers precisely what it has promised. Betrayal, though ... betrayal is the willful slaughter of hope.”

Regards, Alan Clark

The 'Nation' of Alberta

I was at a loss. That's right, folks: An issue appeared, and I was thrown for a loop. For those who aren't in the know, I have been really impressed by the federal Conservatives ever since they came into minority power in Ottawa. I was aware of Stephen Harper's credentials, and was familiar with many of the new Tory cabinet members. With sensible ideas and actions on such issues as our military, the softwood lumber dispute, and especially their refusal to give in to reactionary demand and continue with the Liberal gun registry, I was willing to give this federal government a chance. To be clear, I still believe that an independent Alberta isn't only a desire but an eventuality. But this government is Western-based. We might get some fairness after all, right?

Then Rona Ambrose started showing the effects of Early Socialist-Believability Syndrome by allegedly weakening in her opposition to the deadly Kyoto Accord. This, after the Conservatives 'pulled an Oberg' and made a horrible move by luring B.C. Liberal M.P. David Emerson across the floor, thereby causing party supporters to question just how different their team was compared to the just-departed, scandal-ridden Liberals. Luckily, the controversy died down after Emerson redeemed himself by overseeing a smart and final resolution to the lumber dispute we had with our U.S. counterparts.

Now, Harper has come out and declared that Quebec is not a province but is, in fact, a 'nation'. Stealing the thunder held by the Bloc Quebecois and causing the Liberals to scramble for a position, the Tories have attempted to solve the unending Quebec question by creating a whole new concept: one nation existing within another. (Yes, the aboriginals have many 'nations', but it isn't quite the same thing).

This got me thinking. If qualifying for the status of 'nation' in a 'united Canada' is based on culture, difference of political views from the rest of Canada, and a strong sense of independence as a regional people, then there can be no doubt that Alberta (if not the West) hits the target. Alberta has always been thought of as different than the rest of Canada, especially by those in the East. There has always been an underground tension which has had it's blow-ups in the past.

So, if we are able to finally take control of our destiny, maybe it's time to jump on the 'nation' bandwagon. Let's get while the gettin's good!

Check out the online petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/elegance/petition.html, and stand up for our Alberta nation!

Rosie Is Paranoid

Another day, another allegation of homophobia by Rosie O'Donnell. This week's target is Kelly Ripa, co-host of the morning talk show Live with Regis and Kelly. On a recent episode of the popular show, Ripa was joined by guest host and American Idol singer Clay Aiken. During a discussion about something completely unimportant, Aiken decided to cover Ripa's mouth with his hand - an unprofessional move, and one that caused Ripa to search for a face-saving comeback. Her response: '...I don't know where that hand has been.'

Later, on ABC's The View, O'Donnell took the opportunity to accuse Ripa of being homophobic. Apparently, she took Ripa's comment as a slight against the sexuality of Aiken. This is no surprise to anyone, as O'Donnell seems to think that everything and everyone is anti-gay. In fact, ever since Rosie 'came out' as a lesbian, she has blabbed non-stop about several people and groups who she considers to be against the gay community. Her tirade was so distasteful that it caused Ripa to call in to The View in an attempt to defend herself (which she never really had to do) and clarify her comments. This wasn't good enough for the rotund loudmouth, as even after Ripa explained herself, O'Donnell wasn't satisfied and reiterated her opinion.

Rosie is an example of a gay person who, after revealing her own sexuality, seems to develop both a terrible case of paranoia and an inflated sense of self-importance. Kelly Ripa's comments weren't in any way based on Clay Aiken's sexuality but on his idioticy. Before the incident, Aiken and Ripa had a good professional relationship, giving credence to the fact that Ripa has no problem with him or who he sleeps with. Of course, this is all assuming that Aiken himself is gay - something he has never confirmed or denied, but something that O'Donnell seemed compelled to assume on national television.

Many viewers were expecting The View to morph from simple chat show into O'Donnell's personal stage when she was signed to replace another bloated, self-important nobody (Star Jones), and that is exactly what has happened. No one, however, thought that they would actually wish that Jones was still on instead of O'Donnell. Many fans of the show are tuning out because Rosie is just too much to take. It's a wonder that veteran host Barbara Walters hasn't taken any action to tone down O'Donnell's diatribes. Perhaps the endless string of controversy Rosie brings to the show is good for ratings, but that will soon pass as more fans get fed up with the false accusations and unfounded allegations. Someone should tell O'Donnell the truth: she is doing more to fuel anti-gay sentiment than anything Kelly Ripa could ever dream of.

Liberals Play Politics While Families Suffer

The federal Conservative's attempt at getting tougher on crime is a move that many Canadians have been in favor of for a long time, and recent headlines have reinforced the need for such action. Every day we read news stories about murder, sexual abuse, and other various heinous acts being committed with less than reasonable consequences being leveled at the guilty.

Putting it directly, if you do the crime in Canada, you don't really have to worry too much about doing the time. A group of criminals, some under the age of 18, attack an individual with a baseball bat until the victim dies a bloody and savage death. The punishment handed down from the judge? Not much: charges dropped for some, house arrest for the killer most responsible. Basically, because of the murderer's young age, he gets sent to his room for ending the life of another.

Headlines are full of examples of killers, rapists, thieves, and other assorted scum of our society getting slapped on their collective wrists for the most violent of actions instead of having the rightful punishment hammered down upon them. Again, why is this? The answer is both sad and simple. Once again, we see the result of years of Liberal rule and 'enlightened' thinking in our country. Proof that the misguided theory of rehabilitation instead of incarceration has permeated into every corner of life, including the so-called Canadian justice system. So then why, with the new Conservative government following through on their election promise and introducing sweeping changes to toughen the legal system, has nothing changed? Because the Liberal-dominated Senate has chosen to put it's own agenda ahead of that of Canadians by stalling and playing politics with the new legislation. They see this as no more than a game, and are compounding the horrible effects of the original act.

Along with the new Crime bill, changes such as electing judges should be looked at more closely in an effort to rid our country of the inappropriate soft-shoeing currently being done. In our courts, the focus isn't on the actual act anymore. Instead, it is on what kind of deal can be reached between the Crown and the defense. Shameful. As a friend of the baseball bat victim, a girl wise way beyond her years, said after the sentencing: A message has been sent: If you are going to kill someone, don't go through the trouble of a gun or a knife, just use a bat. You will get away with it.

Thanks In Advance For Your Vote!

Voting has begun for the 2006 Canadian Blog Awards, and Rants from the Moderate Separatist has been nominated in 2 categories: Best Blog and Best Conservative Blog.

To vote, click here: http://cba.myblahg.com/ or click on the link to the right.

You may vote once per day until Round One is complete. Thanks to all for casting your virtual ballot and supporting the Rants!

Like a Recurring Nightmare...

Anti-Dinning Crowd Running Scared

The 'anyone-but-Dinning' forces are hard at work in the Alberta P.C. leadership race. Go to any of the political forums and you are sure to find threads attacking the front-runner, with pundits attempting to paint Jim Dinning with such horrible labels as 'too-business' and 'out of touch'. The old and tired 'liberal' tag is wearing thin, especially to those who know better, so now they are searching for other ways to discredit the man who would be king.

From Lyle Oberg's tales of wrongdoing by the Dinning team to candidate Dave Hancock's wife spewing unfounded allegations on her personal blog, the anti-Dinning forces have been in overdrive desperately looking for a way to bring the Dinning machine down. So far, none of these phantoms have stuck. While the Dinning camp hums along, focusing on getting their message out, supporters of the other candidates seem content trying to find a chink in the Dinning armour instead of spreading the word about their own leadership hopefuls. Why is this?

The man who once was considered an economic maverick and fiscal crusader (and roundly supported by the P.C. mob) for his revolutionary plan that turned around the Alberta economy in the 1990's is now vilified by that very same mob. Why? Because, as they have told me on many occasions, Dinning is 'too leftwing'. Of course, when I ask how they came to this conclusion, the responses range from 'he's too much of a federalist' to 'he's status quo' to blank stares. A few of the answers to my queries are, at least, honest: he is a social moderate. That is absolutely right. And, if that is the real reason why some P.C. faithful choose not to support Dinning, then that would make sense. Being a Party that blends Blue and Red Tories, the Alberta P.C.s have always had this minor conflict within it's structure. When Ralph Klein ran for the leadership in 1992, the very same labels were placed on him.

What these people seem to conveniently overlook is that we are a Progressive Conservative party. Progressive and conservative. Not solely conservative, not solely progressive. Out of the group running to lead the province, there is no other candidate that embodies the two together more suitably. Alberta has sorely missed Dinning's fiscal acumen, and even the most staunch anti-Dinning followers admit that we haven't had many provincial treasurers with Dinning's deft conservative fiscal touch since he left office. But they choose not to mention that in public. Instead, they focus on Dinning's centrist social position as reason to be scared of his potential leadership. Conveniently overlooking the 'progressive' label of the party, they zero in on Dinning's federalist leanings as reason not to support him. Last time I looked, the Alberta P.C.s weren't a separatist party. You can almost see the Alberta Alliance membership cards in their wallets.

The sign of impending defeat is when supporters of a candidate ignore the positives of their own guy and instead resort to endless attacks, personal and professional, on another. Why aren't the Morton, Oberg, and Hancock people spending their time spreading their respective candidates attributes out to the public instead of obsessing over Dinning? Is it because their favorites don't have enough good ideas (or the fortitude) to lead Alberta? Deep down, do they know that the best person running for the leadership - the best choice to lead a party that blends both social and moderate conservatives - isn't the person they are supporting?

What's Next? Spitting on a Veteran?

It is the ultimate slap in the face of Canadian soldiers, past and present. The rallies against our involvement in the Afghanistan war is one thing, but this goes way beyond the realm of protest. The latest scheme by the granola-crunchers has given the peaceniks what they were hoping for - media attention - at the expense of our bravest.

The anti-war movement, never at a loss of ways to make themselves look like absolute idiots, have started spreading 'white poppies' as a symbol of 'peace'. The Earth store (?) in Calgary has been selling these items of disgust for a while now, and this has understandably raised the ire of Veterans from coast to coast. What is worse, when interviewed on television the owner of this particular store suggested that the Veterans are upset because, as he puts it, "...they (the Legion) see this as some sort of competition...". Talk about disrespect! What a stupid a**hole.

Not only do these 'white poppies' undermine the symbolism of the traditional poppy worn at this time of year, they discredit the very memory of those who have fallen so that we may be free. This is more evidence that the treehuggers will go to any length to get their blurry message across to the public. No one seems to be off-limits to these bastards, even our war heroes.

The ultimate irony is that these leftwing nuts don't have the intelligence to recognize when they are being taken for a ride. The donations given when someone grabs a real poppy goes to a worthwhile cause, namely to help support the disabled Veterans in Canada. Where does the money foolishly spent on the so-called peace poppies go? To the United Kingdom, where they originated from. In other words, those who honor the memory of our fallen are helping those who need the help, while the anti-establishment freaks freely support business, which I had always thought was something the flowerchildren were against.

The anti-everything crowd as stepped over the line. They have every right to their opinion, and can march in downtown squares throughout the country to their hearts content if they wish. But when they start mocking the most meaningful and recognizable symbol we have that honors our fathers and grandfathers, their message changes from one of protest to that of insult. No wonder the Legion has started legal proceedings against these disgraceful scumbuckets. I hope they win, and win big. They've won big battles before.

Personally, I can't wait until I see my first moron displaying a peace poppy. That poor individual will get a rather quick education on what it means to have pride and honor. As for that Calgary shop owner (have you ever noticed that health food store workers always look like death warmed over?), he should stick to selling his protein pellets and his glute-free crap and leave the selling of poppies to those who have more than two brain cells to rub together.

Ignorance Exposed

Gretchen is a proud member of Canada's anti-war movement. She has been to various rallies around Alberta and British Columbia, joining others in her quest to 'bring our troops home'. Armed with her choice of five signs, she travels sometimes up to four hours to attend a gathering. In a one-on-one discussion with her, there is no questioning her commitment and fortitude. There is no denying something else: a complete lack of knowledge regarding NATO's mission in Afghanistan.

We began our contact online. She emailed my blog in response to my call for a good turnout at last Friday's Red Friday rally in Edmonton. After a few cyber chats, we connected on the phone. There were questions that I wanted to ask her, seeing as she is front and center in her group. What she told me was telling, indeed.

She rattled off the usual arguments from her side: it's not our war, we don't have a plan, Canadians are dying for nothing. Trying to calmly explain my point of view got be nowhere. When I mentioned that terrorism is the biggest threat to our way of life in the world today she giggled at my 'naiveness'. Gretchen explained to me that if we left the bad guys alone, they would leave us alone. She went on to quote various leftwing cliches, such as 'it's an American war', 'it's against our nature to go to war', and my personal favorite, 'the world loves Canada. That is our reputation. If we fight in wars, the global community will look at us differently.'

Quite some time passed with neither of us gaining any ground. My purpose wasn't so much to defend my beliefs as it was to learn about hers. And learn I did. Seems Gretchen is part of the group that protested against Alberta's program cuts in the 1990's. She's been known to join the 'Raging Grannies' at their various protests, even though she isn't a member (or old enough, evidently). When I pushed on down that avenue, she revealed that she often sees the same people at rallies against a range of issues. Calling herself a 'proudly anti-conservative activist', Gretchen let it slip that almost any move by a rightwing government is reason enough to hit the streets. I reminded her that this war is being fought by NATO, not just by Canadians and Americans. Apparently, the U.S. runs NATO. I did not know that.

I switched to history. What if Canadians overwhelmingly refused to join the Allies in World War II? "That was different," she countered. "Hitler was an evil man who wanted to destroy our way of life. He sought supreme power at any price, and envisioned the world living under his totalitarian regime." When I pointed out that it sounded very similar to the radical Islamists who are trying to do the very same thing today, I was met once again with a giggle. "That's really stretching," she said. "I doubt that a small group of religious nuts could harm us. If anything, we are prodding them into action against us."

The end of our conversation took a decidedly uncomfortable turn when I asked her if she knew about the amazing progress our troops are making in Afghanistan - the rebuilding of schools and hospitals, the progressing re-establishment of Afghani society, the towns and cities that are now safer than before the Taliban ruled. Dead air on the phone. Searching for a response, she claimed that she has heard 'very little' by way of success stories in the media. "Just dead Canadians. That's all we hear about."

I thanked Gretchen for the chat, and suggested that she should investigate a little bit more about the situation. Her response: "And become a war-monger like you?"

By George, He's the Winner!

The latest poll on my blog has officially closed, and there was a clear winner. The question was Choose the Most Annoying from the list of CBC's 'The Hour' host (and former MuchMusic VJ) George Stroumboulopoulos, federal Liberal PR spinmeister Scott (Beer and popcorn) Reid, top CTV political mouthpiece (and great friend of the late Pierre Trudeau) Craig Oliver, and the Canadian humor equivalent of watching paint dry, the troupe known as the Air Farce.

Voting was brisk, and I thank all those who participated. It was a tough choice, considering how many ways each of the candidates are annoying. Air Farce, still spreading their brand of grade 5 comedy from coast to coast thanks to a lack of alternatives on MotherCorp, got it's share of the votes. If that show were to go and stay in its original home - radio - I doubt many people would miss it from the small screen. Craig Oliver would be a good choice, as his fingernail-on-blackboard style of 'unbiased' commentary would get under the skin of even the most benign of viewers. Time to retire, Craig.

Scott Reid's overblown self-image shines through with every word he speaks in front of the camera. Given the Liberal's recent scandals and missteps, having Reid as the excuse artist is perfect: he takes the focus off of issues like Adscam and directs it to himself, with a smarmy
attitude and a permanent narcissistic flavor. Like the school brat who knows much less than he speaks, Reid is the perfect face for a shady political party. And very annoying.

Which brings us to the winner: CBC's 'The Hour' host George Stroumboulopoulos. To no one's surprise, he ran away with the title. With a wardrobe consisting of a wide selection of black, along with a variety of shiny piercings that seem to change from show to show, George tries to balance between news show host and generation Y hipster. It is always sad to see what happens when you get too old to introduce music videos for a living. Finding the 'next step' for your career is often impossible. Other former VJ's have found themselves hosting local morning breakfast shows (Bill Welychka), doing beauty product commercials (Erika Ehm), or simply faded away (whatever happened to Master T?).

Georgie should look to the one success story to come out of MuchMusic - John Roberts. The well-respected and very professional newscaster was once known as J.D. Roberts on Much. If fact, he was part of the scene way before Much was around. Roberts, long hair and all, was the guy interviewing all of the best musicians on the New Music television show. Now, he has cut his hair, grew up, and has become the next big thing in American news broadcasting. For George to follow suit, he'll have to start by asking for a shirt with some color for Christmas.

Democrat Victory Good for Terrorism

Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, et al:
Does America want these clowns in charge?

Only a few days left in the upcoming U.S. elections, and the buzz is everywhere. Focus has bounced from Democrat scandals to Republican scandals; from whether President Bush is a help or a hindrance to the GOP campaign. All of the talk is about the depths in which American political ads have sunk, with more controversial advertisements being made by special interest groups than ever before. Since they aren't under the same scrutiny or rules as an ad made by an actual candidate, the creators have fallen all over themselves trying to out-sleeze each other.

CNN has, by all accounts, gone ahead and given the victory to the Democrats in both the Congressional and Senatorial races. The agreed question by political pundits on both sides isn't if the Democrats are going to gain control of both Houses, but by how much. This despite recent polls showing some contests which were long thought to be going Democrat actually tightening to the point of being a dead heat. As election day approaches, Americans are repeating their same process they went through in the 2004 Presidential election. As with the current race, the media had come to a conclusion that the results would be 'too close to call', or even a significant John Kerry victory. The media had not clued in to what was happening on the street: American priorities shifted, albeit slightly, after 9/11. Even the most diehard liberal Democrat has started to include security and the war on terror in their decision process when voting.

The anti-Bush cult in America and throughout the world is something that I have never seen before. Growing up in the 1980's I witnessed some anti-Reagan bias in the media, but anything close to what we have today against George W. Bush. The folks at CNN haven't realized that, while the Iraq war is certainly a mess, it is but one issue in a bigger picture. Americans must again ask themselves: who is going to keep me safe tonight? Republicans who now have years of experience in the New World, or the same sad group of Democrats whose goal, if they indeed obtain the majority of power in the government, will take the focus off of the War and tie up the wheels of progress with endless internal investigation into Iraq, the economy, etc.. With leftwing nutjob Nancy Pelosi expected to sit in the Big Chair, don't be surprised if we see an attempt at impeachment against the President - perhaps a little payback for what the GOP did against Clinton?

With freedom at stake and the American way of life in danger of being attacked, the last thing the Western world needs is for the fight to be in the hands of Democrats. I do think that a Democrat surge is a given. People are pissed off, and the possibility of an anti-Bush (instead of a pro-Democrat) vote is likely. But don't sell Americans short - they proved their intelligence the last time they went to the polls and surprised even CNN. The alternative - Ted Kennedy standing up (?) to terrorists - isn't appealing.