At this rate...

Even in a leftist country like Canada - Paul Martin will go down as one of the weakest, most ineffective and probably... one of the worst Prime Ministers of all time.

I like liberals like Tony Blair, the kind that subscribe to a lefist ideology... yet they're capable of discerning fundamental righteousness and they grasp the basic fact that you act in the best interests of your country, even when the citizenry is too ignorant or careless to realize.

The Toronto Star's editorial on the issue of ballistic missile defense was dead-on. It's nice to see some obvious liberal supporters recognizing common sense even when it contradicts the actions of the great party leader.

When Jean Chretien stayed out of the Iraq invasion of March of 2003, he was obviously not acting in the best interests of Canada. However, I could imagine that he might have thought that he was. Some Canadians would've probably died, the military budget would have had to be increased - and maybe those two issues outweighed any possible trade punishment or, more obviously, the moral burden of being on the side of "stability" instead of "freedom" in a dark area of the world.

When Paul Martin declined to "join BMD" (whatever that means - I'm not even so sure myself) he did so with an obvious knowledge that the decision would be bad for Canada. He knows that his political effort to gain more votes in Quebec (and maybe even Ontario) will cost Canada billions of dollars in increased security costs and will ultimately result in a weaker security reality for all Canadians. I really believe that. I don't think he's a bad man. I just think he's an incredibly weak man. Weak and pathetic.

When he's defeated, he might even rival Joe Clark for the title of the most pathetic Prime Minister of all time.

Maybeeeeee. If that's possible.

(for those of you who don't know, I really, REALLY hate Joe Clark, and I could go on about it all day)

There was a time...

I don't find it incredibly productive when people jump on Harper for acting too moderate because their advice is usually impractical and unworkable in the current climate.

I'm only saying that because I don't want to sound like I'm critiquing Harper when I don't have the polling data he sees regularly, when I don't have his group of advisors, and I most likely do not have his knowledge of the electorate.

Anyways: there was a time, not too long ago, when Stephen Harper first arrived in Ottawa as the newly elected leader of the CA. When John Manley introduced his high-spending and unsustainable budget, the one designed to create a legacy for his boss, Harper openly and aggressively attacked it for spending far too much. I remember watching CTV when Harper was being interviewed by a reporter and he was openly attacking the healthcare funding increases, he was openly attacking all the other spending increases, and I'm pretty sure I shouted out a "YEAH!!!" at the TV, cheering on such an open and blatant display of genuine small-government conservatism.

Last year, in the budget delivered before the election, Harper struck a much more moderate tone, suggesting that the budget was "unimpressive" and "thin gruel" (sp?) to run an election campaign on. That reaction was awkward - what exactly was he suggesting? That Ralph Goodale make the budget more impressive by throwing around more money? I don't know, but that reaction was a good one in comparison to his open praise for today's budget.

There's one question I'd love to ask Stephen Harper today. I'd want to know whether he considered founding the Reform Party to be a worthwhile exercise, in hindsight. And I'd want an honest and sincere answer with a clear "yes" or "no".

I'm not trying to judge the man - I don't think he's necessarily unprincipled and I'd probably be just as "practical" if I were in his shoes, but there was a time when Harper actually said what was on his mind. And it wasn't even that long ago...

Being ignorant is worse than being liberal

And naturally, being an ignorant liberal is the worst of all.

However, that's not what I wanted to post on.

I was watching Fox News on Friday when one (of the many) conservative hosts did his "Final Word" at the end of the program. I think the host's name is John Gibson. Anyways, his final word was a rant against "Smart Cars", the ones that are manufactured by Mercedes.

He mentioned that they were doing well in Europe (which is itself a slur against the cars) and that they should STAY in Europe, and not be sold in the USA. I assume he wouldn't mind if they were sold in Canada (which is in his mind a natural extension of Europeness in North America), but his comments baffled me anyway.

He mentioned that they were relatively cheap, he mentioned that they consumed very small amounts of fuel - stating two very STRONG economic benefits of Smart Cars... then I think he mentioned something about climate change or Kyoto and said that the cars should stay in Europe. Okay, I understand that climate change is (most probably) a faulty science. I'm not concerned in the least about global warming, but why can't some conservative folk realize the economic benefits of a car even if it's something that environmentalists would promote?

Also, Clean Air and smog-free cities are two issues that EVERYBODY should rally for, conservative or liberal. Is anyone really "for" dirty air and smog? Obviously not, but some people are so blind, that they come across looking like that anyway.

Mindless right-wing ideologues frustrate me almost as much as mindless left-wing ideologues. People who are for or against a position just because "their camp" probably tends to support it - annoy me so very greatly.

(Abortion is probably the best example of this - such an important issue often decided for people just because they're "right-wing" or "left-wing" - not on the merits of the issue itself.)

Class Discipline

I forget exactly where I disagree with Alan from Occam's Carbuncle over the whole teacher-student relationship and the entire issue of class discipline, so I'll just discuss the issue in general.

I'm a traditionalist in my views. What separates me from most traditionalists is that I don't want or hope to use the state to propogate my traditionalist values. For example, as a Sikh, I'm not sure whether homosexuality is natural or not (since it's not covered in our scriptures), but as a Sikh, I could safely assume that marriage does not work for homosexuals (for a variety of religiously-based reasons which I do not wish to get into). This is a personal view - I have no desire to go out and ban sodomy (which was illegal in certain US States up until two years ago), and I have no desire to go out and restrict homosexual activity in any way. Not only that, but as a Sikh, it goes against a core value to forcefully prevent someone from committing a sin - free will is important in determining our destiny and in realizing our potential.

Anyways, a bit off topic, as usual. However, there are some traditional views which seem to simply work. One such issue is discipline in the classroom. Okay, now, before I start, let me say that I'm not the best at articulating my position on this topic but I base my opinion on the issue completely off of experience. Experiences that comes from witnessing the differences between second and third generation Punjabi/Sikh students. Going with the assumption that 98-99% of teachers are fundamentally good people who have no intentions to abuse their students, the parents of second generation students tend (in my experience) to be less enthusiastic to interfere in and micromanage the school lives of their children, and when they do, it's simply to side with the teacher (assuming the case does not involve abuse or anything like that). When second-generation students grow up and have children of their own and when those children begin to attend school, the system doesn't seem to work as well. Parents begin to be obsessive about every last detail of their child's life and they'll believe anything that the child says. Yes, they should believe the child when he or she claims abuse or something extreme, but to side with the child even in every random case of seemingly mindless discipline (writing lines, "go to the corner", detention, and anything else non-physical) RUINS the atmosphere in the classroom. It erodes the teacher's authority. Yes, the teacher will probably dish out unjustified discipline every now and then when he or she is either misinformed or grumpy, but as long as that discipline is non-physical, parents should learn to relax. It's tough being a teacher. It's tough maintaining the fear and respect of your students and in most cases, fear is more important than respect. Respecting authority is something that many kids don't even grasp - fear is the only way to keep them in check. Fear of having their parents informed about their actions, fear of having to write "lines", fear of being suspended or whatever. Unless that fear exists for disobedient students, the classroom atmosphere is far from ideal. When students believe that they can be in a completely reliable alliance with their parents to endlessly whine and complain about ANY form of discipline to a school's administration and have any punishment overturned, academic learning suffers as well. Again, just my experiences. Students should not feel as if their parents will back them up no matter what. Students should think that their parents will SIDE with their teacher.

Also, I think it's foolish to consider the teacher to be an agent of the state; the teacher is simply an authority figure. Respecting authority before we become an adult is necessary, even when it might seem mindless. What does a little kid know anyway?

As for being programmed as "nanny-state-bots" or whatever, that's a non-issue. Parents should be able to teach their children the differences between different types of authority. Just authority vs. unjust authority. The teacher is usually a just form of authority and his or her authority should be feared and usually, when kids mature into adults they look back and learn to respect that authority as well.

I could've said...

I really dislike it when I get into debates and only realize effective arguments after the debate has already died down.

Or, I really dislike it when I get into specific debates that create a stereotype about my beliefs or principles.

For example, let me refer back to specific debates and specific points that I should've introduced while the debates were still going on:

1) Last week or so, after I made a post about the impressiveness of American public events, I was mocked as some sort of fascist in the comments section of Mike Brock's blog (by Balbulican - the famed commentator who lacks an actual home (blog)) for admiring the 'pomp and circumstance' of the Inaugration, the State of the Union and stuff like that. There are two arguments I want to make about those critiques. Firstly, I should've more clearly stressed that it's better to have an "elected monarch" than an unelected monarch, which we in Canada still have. What exactly is the argument of the people who criticized my appreciation for American events? That we should keep the Governor General because she's so pathetic and illegitimate and therefore she saves us from having a head of state that's elected and not appointed? Actually, the Queen, who's the real Head of State definitely gets more attention when she visits Canada than the attention that Bush gets at any public event down south. She wears a CROWN for god's sake. And people have to take lessons in order to meet her. We still often employ the use of the term "her majesty" and "the crown" SO often in public life. New Canadians have to pledge a sort of loyalty to the freaking Queen which does not happen in America and Canada is somehow an EXAMPLE to America when we practice this mindless, racist, and according to some definitions - "fascist" behavior? Can someone please clarify this for me? Oh god, it happened again. I forgot my second argument as I typed out my first argument. I'll remember it again, sometime soon, and I'll post it completely out of place.

2) Ian has asked me about the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay prisoners - and I haven't yet responded to him, though I've been planning to. And also, Alan at Occam's Carbuncle has got into a few debates with myself over a couple of issues that probably made me seem a bit nanny-statish in comparison to his more pure libertarianism. I'm grouping these two things together because I want to clarify a few things. I'm sort of a libertarian myself, I strongly in theory believe in a very small government, I strongly in theory believe in less "social programs" and I strongly believe in the correlation between the increase in the size of government as a percentage of GDP and the decrease in economic growth over the years. I'm a very small government kind of guy. Really. There's one issue that clouds this perception though and that's the issue of security. When there's a threat out there, a threat that is posed by a group of people who have no rules, no morals, who employ suicide missions as their primary weapon, it's tough and completely unreasonable to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Yes, I haven't agreed with everything the American government has done in terms of security since 9/11, but I agree with most of it. Being vigilant might involve acting like total jerks and I've experienced that myself from American border agents, but it's worth it, if it prevents future attacks. As for "torture" - there must be SOME way to persuade people who have a (very likely) desire to inflict massive death upon you and your countrymen. Call it torture, call it whatever, but if it results in important intelligence information, then it's worth it. Not a single "terrorist act" has been committed since 9/11, and I'm almost certain that "torture" or the "Patriot Act", or increased vigilance and a generally security-driven atmosphere had something to do with that. Ok, I just realized most of the above points are more directed at Ian and less at Alan, but I did get into one debate with him about security and public cameras. Security is the one overriding concern and duty of the government - economic security and prosperity is impossible without it, and as long as we protect property rights and ensure the ability to have privacy then I don't understand the problem with public security cameras since they're in a public area. Nanny-Statism in my definition would be when the state employs the use of cameras at a MASSIVE scale (in order to have a MASSIVE operation to keep files on ALL people) or when they employ the use of cameras to invade one's privacy. A small-scale introduction of cameras in crime-filled areas of urban centres is merely an escalation of the general idea of police surveillance. Cops roam the streets all the time - looking for crime.

3) I want to re-argue a debate I had with Alan of Occam's Carbuncle about classroom discipline... because I know I didn't argue that well at all, but it's getting late, so I'll do that another time.

Hmmmmm. This post is a pretty strange post - but I just needed to get these points out of my head...

For my own sake.

Update: I wanted to include something about Ian and his pretty sad moral and cultural relativism, but Mike Brock's going to write up a post about that soon and he'll probably do a better job anyway.

Beautiful British Columbia

Davinder Singh has some nice pictures over at his blog, from this past summer when we took our friend who was visiting from Toronto (who used to LIVE in Vancouver incidentally) on a tour to remind him of how much better and nicer Vancouver is than Toronto.

In this picture, I'm at the front of the group, with Davinder Singh right behind me and the visiting Singh from Toronto right behind him, and in this picture, I'm sitting on the right.

Shouldn't I be in Poli-Sci?

No.

That's a question I get a lot, since I'm a History major, and most people expect that I should be in Political Science.

For a more experience-oriented explanation of why I'm not a Poli-Sci major, check Joel Fleming's weekly Poli-Sci tutorial experiences. I'll share some of my experiences as well some day, like when professors still talk about how the "Reform Party" is against immigration, multiculturalism and homosexuality.

Let me also offer a more general explanation. I've been in three Poli-Sci classes and I honestly haven't learnt a thing, besides the very theory-based stuff on the nature of the state, which I already knew, except I learnt more about specific theorists. I watch debate on CPAC every now and then, I read the news every now and then, I'm generally curious about the political process and I always have been, so I learnt absolutely nothing of any significance in my Poli-Sci lectures. Nothing. Also, term papers and other information necessary to get good grades is always slanted towards a liberal perspective. For example, the task of analyzing the benefits and 'challenges' of a 'social program or agenda' is a common task for Poli-Sci students, and it's here that they turn into the "true believers" of the Liberal party, after they learn about the greatness of healthcare, childcare or some other form of "care". When they're asked to look at 'challenges' facing specific programs, it's meant to imply that students should realize that more money is required to make Canada even more socialistic. High taxes or even the raising of taxes is never meant to be a concern, and why would it be? Writing a paper about tax policy is something economics students do, right? All Poli-Sci students need to know is that the Canadian government has an endless stream of money, designed to take "care" of everyone, from life to death.

History on the other hand allows me to actually learn stuff. I tend to walk away with a sense of humility whenever I encounter a good professor because I realize how much I still need to learn. Yes - history professors tilt leftward as well, but they're not offered a real opportunity to indoctrinate their pupils. Yes - they could be reflexively anti-American in their analogies and opinions, but most of the time, that doesn't really matter. And now that the Cold War is long over, history professors are unable to show blatant communist sympathies or biases. History is just something that's hard to teach with a lot of biases because history is generally agreed upon by most scholars and teaching something historically inaccurate could be easily recognized and exposed by alert students.

Yeah! I hate it when they do that...

4. Anyone to talk about the "blogosphere", its triumphs, its tragedies - It doesn't exist. Wow. People writing their opinions down and publishing them. Groundbreaking stuff, that;

This is from Occam's Carbuncle's list of things that "we do not need" and I could not agree with this selection any more than I already do.

I hate, absolutely HATE it when "bloggers" incessantly talk about the “blogosphere” in the most self-congratulatory way possible, as if spending the three minutes required to register a blog enters each and every blogger into this influential fraternity of totally powerful elitists. Many “bloggers” have become as divorced from reality as the people they claim to keep an eye on.

How do the thoughts and persistence of a single blogger impact the legitimacy and importance of other blogs? Are people really that obsessed with trying to convince themselves that they’re important? ...that they’ll convince themselves that by blogging about the MSM (mainstream media), they’re taking part in some glorious revolution? Do they really think that they’ll meaningfully impact the vast financial networks and connections that allow mainstream media outlets to perpetuate unpopular liberal bias (unpopular in America at least)? I don’t get it.

That’s probably why there’s not a single American blog on my side panel, even though American blogs are usually bigger and better than their Canadian counterparts. I can barely bring myself to read bloggers that genuinely believe that they matter. That might sound harsh, but I can’t stand people who participate in the reflected glory of others (of the very few, select ‘blogs’ that have impacted the course of a number of public events). I actually do read a number of American blogs after I filter out the self-congratulatory blogosphere comments that appear on so many of them, so maybe my links only lead to Canadian blogs because I instinctively want to promote Canadian content... Oh and the reason Canadian blogs aren't as smug and proud as their American counterparts (in general) is because they haven't really accomplished anything nor have they received much recognition... if that ever happens, I'll have trouble reading any blogs at all...

Anyways, all of my above opinions might make me seem like a critic of blogs themselves, but that’s really not the case. Blogs are a good thing, they help filter out the biases that come through traditional media outlets, and occasionally, they even create or push news stories of their own, but PLEASE, let’s stop over-hyping them as the greatest creation ever… it’s just a guy or a girl writing down their thoughts, their observations and their opinions, and what’s so revolutionary about that?

What's up with Ian Scott?

I just wrote up a relatively large post taking down Ian's irrational and hopelessly naive critiques of American foreign policy, but then I thought that Ian's a pretty good guy, and I didn't want to seem as if I was attacking him.

But yeah - in basic summary (though omitting many points that I wanted to make), but in no real order: America has done bad things in the past; America has done good things in the past as well; Bush's current rhetoric is too ambitious and unrealistic (which is a good thing mostly); A country can only be expected to act in its best interests; America can't be compared with any other nation due to its power; Doing bad things does not handicap a nation's ability to do good things; Iraq's invasion was not in America's material best interests; and lastly, STOP BEING SO FREAKING CYNICAL. Is it not possible for George W. Bush or another US President to be the slightest bit sincere when they talk about foreign policy or are they always acting in the most malevolent way possible?

Another Awesome Blog...

I haven't pointed to many blogs lately, but in honour of Andrew Coyne's Ali-like return to the ring, I thought I'd point to an awesome new blog - that of Monte Solberg, MP (future P.C.). The only blog by a politician that actually seems "real".

Anyways, this is good news only because I was collecting some stats awhile back, and I came to conclude that less than a thousand people actually read blogs written by Canadian Conservatives. That's pretty sad, but it's only expected because all of the popular blogs are written by 'ordinary' people. There aren't many blogs out there that are written by newspaper columnists (Coyne) or elected officials (Solberg). And it's particularly nice to see Solberg operate a blog because he's the second or third most significant member of the Conservative Caucus, being the finance critic and all.

Blogs in Canada have been slow in getting off the ground and will only reach the mainstream once more people like Coyne and Solberg actively post.

"Indo-Canadian" Gang Violence

The Vancouver Sun likes to run the same type of article every few months, raising awareness about the "epidemic" level of Indo-Canadian gang-related deaths.

They run these articles more often with every passing year, even though the level of gang-related deaths has dropped over the past couple of years.

Anyways, I just wanted to say that the articles are presented in the most misleading way possible. Every article pictures about 50-60 "young" Indo-Canadian youths who have been murdered since the early 1990s. The presentation of the pictures makes it seem as if all of the murders have taken place in the past year or two, and that's the impression that most readers walk away with. In actuality though, there's been an average of half a dozen deaths per year, which is shocking and tragic, but not nearly as horrific as the Sun tries to portray.

Nationwide, there's about 600 homicides per year, on average. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the breakdown for specific "ethnicities", but in order to correspond with the national average, Indo-Canadians should make up about 15-20 of those homicides every year. From what I know, murder isn't an entirely common practice in the Indo-Canadian community, outside of gang-related activities. It happens, but I've only known two Indo-Canadians who've been murdered, and both of them died through gang violence (both of them are mentioned in the long Vancouver Sun list.) I'd imagine that the Indo-Canadian community barely reaches the 15-20 murders every year, and yet, I've encountered numerous Canadians who think that gang violence alone accounts for 50 deaths in the Indo-Canadian community, ever year.

I have no reason to play down the problem. I'm not in denial about the fact that many Indo-Canadian youths are complete idiots and I've known two of the victims myself, but it's unfortunate when the facts are skewed so greatly by unprofessional reporting at the Vancouver Sun.

Yay.

Canada's best newspaper columnist is back to updating his blog.

AndrewCoyne.com is back after a huuuge hiatus.

And at the moment, he seems to be laying the smackdown on Warren Kinsella, the only Liberal I've ever seen who seems to actually believe his praise for Jean Chretien.

Now let's just hope that he sticks around... given his horrible blogging track record.

Pretty Cool...

On the FBI's homepage there's a link to an advertisement in the top right-hand corner which leads to a video in which a young Sikh intelligence agent acts as the poster boy for the FBI's recruitment drive for more intelligence analysts. Apparently the ad even played in the superbowl.

I thought it was pretty cool. Considering that Turbaned Sikhs aren't allowed to join the US military, this is probably the second-best form of publicity imaginable.

Most of the (American Sikh) whiners who complain about how mainstream society isn't accepting, tolerant or educated about Sikhs should start thinking a bit more deeply about why that be the case.

In America, the Democratic Party takes a lot of constituencies for granted. Blacks are probably the most obvious amongst them, but all types of Asian Americans are also seen as natural democratic party voting blocks. This is a horrible image for the Sikh community and it's just a horrible reality anyway. It KILLS all forms of inclusion and involvement in the process.

In BC, Sikhs have truly capitalized on their reputation as swing voters. I actually think that BC politicians probably spend a disproportionate amount of time courting the Sikh vote. This is a good thing though. Sikh Canadians become an integral part of the process - their votes are actively sought by both main parties. Yes, it's annoying when we're treated as mindless special interests who can be easily bought off with symbolic appointments and visits to our events, but it's a sign of real inclusion when BOTH parties feel that they can move votes through active campaigning.

In other jurisdictions, this really isn't the case. Across America, the Democratic party feels no need to be inclusive with Sikhs because they feel that they have the Asian vote locked up. And with Republicans, there's two problems. Firstly, a number of republicans feel more comfortable with evangelical Christians as their party's representatives. I don't think this is too much of a problem because there are indeed a number of secular Republicans and also because there's obviously a number of prominent Jewish Republicans as well. With the proper communication of a Sikh candidate being a "person of faith" as well, any hurdles with evangelicals should be overcome with time. Secondly, there aren't many Sikhs active in the Republican ranks. A Turbaned Sikh ran for the Illinois Republican Senate Primary - but he got creamed, he finished in last place I think - I think that was mostly just because he was a pretty poor candidate anyway.

Anyways - I went wayyyy off topic, but I'll just re-iterate my point one last time: Being perceived as a mindless democratic (or liberal) voting block kills a community's influence and it re-enforces a sense of separateness that need not exist. By being perceived as exclusively belonging to a single party, stereotypes and prejudices are created easily. When there's a more equal distribution of support - Sikhs will be increasingly perceived as integrated and included with the rest of society.

Update: Most of the Sikhs I know live in California, so I might have an unrepresentative idea of the American Sikh community's voting tendencies since California is a relatively liberal state.

Looming Provincial Election...

I think that during campaign times, the party faithful must be willing and capable of forgiving the party establishment for going soft on specific issues or for overly moderating their image. The 6 months before an election (in our fixed election system) are lost expectedly to pandering and unprincipled policy positions. However, good policy in the other three and a half years should more than make up for the relatively short period of pandering. We don't live in a perfect world, and we shouldn't expect perfection and completely principled stands from our elected officials - even when they're generally right on the issues.

Of course - I'm speaking of BC Premier Gordon Campbell. Premier Campbell is probably the best Premier in the entire country at the moment. 25% across-the-board tax cuts upon his election, the slow but steady removal of a $4 billion dollar deficit, the cutting of corporate taxes, the cutting of so many useless regulations and red-tape - and the list goes on. BC leads Canada in job creation and BC is just BC. We're naturally blessed with an amazing environment - BC is beautiful... which is something that I never truly came to appreciate until I visited Toronto a couple of times. Oh - and they also secured the 2010 Olympics! So yeah - the BC Liberals are pretty good.

Also, just for the non-BC readers who aren't completely familiar with the BC party system. We have three main parties in BC. The Liberals - which are made up of federal conservatives and probably half of the federal liberals (right-leaning liberals or just liberals who wanted to join a party that was on its way to getting elected), then we have the NDP, which is made up of federal NDPers and probably half of the more left-leaning federal liberals and lastly, we have the Green Party which captures anywhere from 12 - 15% of the vote. Basically, I like to believe that they're a diversion created by the Canadian chapter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in an effort to fool our province's left wing into long periods of (relatively) conservative rule. I can't see why they have such a large base of support. It's shocking - considering that they all equally hate Gordon Campbell and the NDP itself is pretty left-wing on its own.

I bring up the idea of forgiving the party in the face of an election campaign because a lot of pretty sad rhetoric has been flowing from the BC liberals in recent weeks in an effort to moderate their image. Yesterday's throne speech was awful.

They introduced a throne speech that promised to establish programs to ensure that British Columbians eat their "fruits and vegetables". What a ridiculous and hollow promise - but I'll accept it, if it keeps NDP rule away for good.

Quote of the Day

From Jason Kenney in the House of Commons on February 3rd, 2005:

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absurdly wrapping himself and his party in the cloak of human rights on the marriage issue, suggesting that support for traditional marriage reflects hostility to basic rights, but Canadian political history tells a totally different story.

It was the Liberal Party that imposed the infamous head tax on Chinese immigrants; created a racist immigration system with the Exclusion Act; interred all Japanese Canadians; rejected Jewish refugees before and during the war; imposed martial law in 1970; permitted Ernst Zundel to run for its party leadership in 1968; eliminated constitutionally guaranteed rights for confessional education; and preached moral equivalence during the cold war and in China today.

It was Conservative governments that introduced the Bill of Rights; gave aboriginals the right to vote; opposed the War Measures Act; led the fight against apartheid; understood the moral dimension of the cold war; and appointed the first woman and minority cabinet ministers.

Today it is conservatives who believe that the political currency of human rights is devalued when political demands are inflated into fundamental rights claims.

Today, as always, Conservatives stand without compromise for the dignity of the human person.

Quote of the Day

From today's Globe and Mail:

"If he had his way, we wouldn't have multiculturalism and we wouldn't have anybody who didn't look like Stephen Harper or [think] like Stephen Harper," Immigration Minister Joe Volpe charged last night.

They really, actually believe that sort of stuff. I don't know what to say. I remember hearing an American political commentator say once that in order to understand American politics, one has to realize that while conservatives think that liberals are naive, stupid or whatever else - that's nothing in comparison to the liberal view that conservatives are evil. I guess it's the same in Canada. I don't know whether to be shocked or saddened by that comment. That type of disingenous political discourse should not pass in a country like Canada. Does Volpe really believe what he said? Is he that stupid? Is he that out of touch? Is he so devoid of a sense of public service that in order to carry forward in his job, he has to convince himself that the opposition leader is a racist bigot? What a fool. It's not only insulting to Harper and the majority of the conservative caucus, it's ten times more insulting for the immigrants in Harper's caucus, which happens to be the most ethnically diverse in the House, and it's just as insulting and offensive to the immigrant and second-generation Canadians that support the Conservatives. Ahh... I could go on and on with this post, but it's just too depressing to witness such a complete idiot in cabinet. What a joke.

Conversation with someone...

X says:
Japnaam Singh, what did the mulroney government do for sikhs?
Japnaam Singh says:
they implemented the free trade agreement
Japnaam Singh says:
producing thousands of jobs

Someone just asked me this question over MSN Messenger - I Xed out the person's name in order to protect their privacy (in order to protect them from insults about the stupidity of their question).

I've written about this before, but let me say it again: Expecting special treatment from the government is akin to labeling yourselves as helpless victims, incapable of making it in society without government interference.

Voting for a party because they pretend to do stuff for "Sikhs" is almost as stupid as it is immoral. It's unjustifiably selfish and it's mostly just untrue. The liberals, besides hanging out with a few "Sikh Leaders" every now and then and pretending to pay attention to Sikh issues don't really do anything anyway. They simply try to create the impression to every single group that they're all high-priority special interests. When will this impression die down? I don't know, but I hope it's soon.

Update: I think my post might've created unnecessary confusion since I strongly believe that the government should be responsible for safeguarding the essential 'rights' of all citizens - I simply don't believe that any single group deserves special preference or attention. If a Sikh's 'rights' are being trampled on, then it really is good and fortunate to have a government that cares, but I also really think that we've moved away from that time in history, since it's the courts, not parliament, who dictates the extent to which we can enjoy the 'freedom of religion' as well as every other right that's entrenched into the constitution.

"Well, it's just wrong"

That's probably the central argument against Same-Sex marriage, and it could very well be a legitimate argument. I don't think it really is, but I don't claim to have all the answers.

I realized that I didn't mind the idea of SSM back when a gay professor of mines was discussing the issue, and I didn't have the guts to tell him that he shouldn't be allowed to be legally married. If I couldn't make the point to his face and make an honest case as to why gays should be disallowed the privileges of marriage, I assumed that my arguments were probably weak - but maybe they weren't.

I only make this post because I wonder how long it'd take before the "Well, it's just wrong" answer stops working for beastialists, pedophiles, incesters, and most notably polygamists. Would it ever? Especially in the latter two cases which potentially involve consenting adults?

My ideas about this issue are so fluid that they might seem and even be contradictory. I'm trying to develop a position on the topic. It really is such an interesting topic with so many different angles that it gets so very confusing.

Maybe, sometimes, we don't always have to take a position that is perfect. Taking a position, that at some level seems contradictory in a theoretical sense might be okay depending on the practical consequences and repurcussions. I don't know. I think a lot of people are too obsessed with having a "unattackable" and "perfect" position on the issue and I can't see how that's possible.

SCOC

I remember awhile back, I was doing some research just for my own interest on the abortion debate in America. I like to be semi-informed about these issues, and when I was searching for material, everything invariably came back to the Supreme Court of the United States. Unlike how it seems in Canada, the Supreme Court in America carries real meaning and actual significance. Pro-choice and pro-life lobbies often vote for and against presidential candidates based solely on a potential president's preference for supreme court justices.

Do you know what the saddest thing is? I could name all of the American supreme court justices - roughly their year of appointment - roughly their age - and the president that appointed them. I know all of this because I was interested in the potential dynamics of a court that would overturn Roe V. Wade (the Supreme Court ruling that found a constitutional right of privacy to an abortion.)

When I think of the Canadian Supreme court - I could probably name 3, maybe 4 judges, and I'd be unable to give any real information. I know that Martin appointed 2 this past summer. I think Mulroney appointed 1 or 2 and I'm pretty sure Chretien appointed the rest, but it doesn't really matter anyway, does it? There's no genuine ideological divide on the court. None of the justices are staunchly conservative, and most of them appear to be pretty liberal. Or, I don't know, maybe I could be wrong? Is there lots of dissent on the Canadian supreme court? I assume that there's not - at least on the bigger issues, but I could be wrong, because Canadians (including myself) seem to be so pathetically underinformed about the way the court operates and the extent to which the court influences the law.

Conference

The UBC Sikh Students Assocation's conference went well today. Thanks to everyone who attended. It probably got off to a somewhat shaky start, but it really recovered as the conference went on.

America

One of the many reasons that American politics is so endearing and engaging to many (mostly conservative) Canadians is because of how grand and impressive American public events are. They really say a lot about America, and a lot of what they say reflects poorly on Canada, in comparison.

The idea of the President addressing the joint-session of congress in the way that he does is so shocking and unimaginable in a Canadian setting. The President of the United States just by being himself commands more respect and authority than any Canadian Prime Minister could possibly imagine.

Most of the applause in last night’s State of the Union was shared by all members of congress, and most of the time, it even seemed genuine on the face of congressional democrats. The same was true back in the Clinton administration… republican lawmakers, when they weren’t trying to impeach President Clinton, still gave him the respect that the office entails. None of that “official” respect exists in Canada.

There’s no culture or tradition of having genuine, respected and honourable leaders. Or am I missing someone or something? I don’t think I’ve ever really seen an opposition member “cheer” for a government cabinet minister in the House of Commons, or even vice versa, but maybe that’s exactly the point? I don’t expect that Senators and Congressmen cheer each other on during senate and house debate, but there are times in American public life, where those differences seem to be put aside. I only caught the last bit of the President’s speech last night, but when he was walking out… he was greeting so many people that are so radically different than him. He was mostly talking to democrats, some members of the congressional black caucus, and then he even greeted Dennis Kucinich (one of the most liberal guys in America)! None of that would ever happen in Canada.

And I haven’t even gotten around to the President Inauguration. That’s just something else. The inauguration… the inaugural balls… it’s all unimaginable up here. There’s no such tradition or culture in Canada. I don’t personally find the inaugural balls appealing at all, but I’m trying to see things through the view of the average person.

I don’t know why this is, but if I ever ran into a past or current Canadian PM, I would probably fail to be the least bit impressed. Heck, if I ran into Joe Clark I’m almost certain that I’d yell at him for being such a jerk, and if I ran into Chrétien, I’d have no respect either. None. If I ever ran into an American President, I’d be in awe. I know that according to Sikh/Gurmat principles (where all such respect should only be given to the Guru), I shouldn’t be in awe, but I probably would be. Why is that? Why is the American political tradition so much more… something?

Things that annoy me - #6

When people carry on and on about Panthic ektha and are the first to undermine it. (cough*cough) Pathetic hypocrites.

It's funny when Sikh Youths go on and on about how they're going to be more "mature" and "sophisticated" and "united" when it comes to panthic organizations, but everything I've seen so far leads me to believe that things will forever remain the same, and maybe they'll even get worse. There seemed to be a lot of progress taking place at different times, particularly under the watch of Parminder Singh, but all of that seems to be going backwards now.

Responsible member of the international community...

That's what Canadians like to call Canada.

Canada is supposedly a responsible member of the international community because "we listen to the UN" or because we sign onto treaties of international law, etc. Most of the stuff that supposedly makes us "responsible" requires us to do nothing. By NOT going into Iraq, we're responsible, by NOT bypassing the all-powerful and invincible United Nations, we're responsible. What happens when being "responsible" actually requires "doing something"?

That's why I so love Kyoto. There's no chance that Kyoto will ever be implemented in any meaningful way, so how will the federal Liberals continue to convince Canadians that Canada is a "responsible member of the international community"? Since I've always predicted that a Conservative government will form within the next couple of years... I can only imagine that they'll blame the Conservatives.

"We would've got it done, if those oil/Bush/America/Alberta loving Conservatives didn't happen to win that election..."

And then the Conservatives will likely carry the blame for something that would've never happened anyway. Grrrrreat.