They’ve Always Wanted Us
While scooting through the InterTubes this afternoon I came across a link to tonights CBC movie “Trojan Horse” over at Woman at Mile 0.
It reminded me of a post I did a few years ago referencing Article 11 of the US Articles of Confederation which reads like this:
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.
(emphasis mine)
Yes folks, any other place that wanted to enter the union needed the agreement of 9 other states but Canada was pre-approved.
In addition to the short on the CBC site, here’s another.
[ratings]
Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Democrat = Socialist, Conservative Cat, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and A Newt One- MAF letter, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
This is a veiled attempt by the CBC to spread fear about hidden agenda’s on the right.
This would never happen. The lefts attempts to cast right leaning Canadian’s as unpatriotic are just as low as the right’s attempts in the US to cast the left as unpatriotic.
The idea that “harmonization of regulations” between countries is the first step towards losing our sovereignty is ridiculous. It’s only to prevent the bureaucratic overhead of having to have lawyers in all three countries to constantly deal with 3 different regulatory bodies for trade, massively increasing the cost of moving goods.
Equating trade harmonization with loss of sovereignty is left-wing fear mongering.
Using Lou Dobbs, who I deem to be a racist xenophobe to drive the point home, doesn’t exactly prop up the argument.
Ah, yes. That damned lefty CBC and their veiled attempt to spread terror of the Right’s hidden agenda.
Really, Mike…your message really does need to evolve a bit. I’ve given up posting at your site because your Lefty-Bad frame, while not delusional enough to be as entertaining as Scenty’s, is really, REALLY stale.
Lou Dobbs? I mean, I know who he is and all, even watch his segment on CNN now and again…. but what does he have to do with tonights CBC movie?
Well, to be fair, the CBC probably actually believes there is a hidden agenda. Just look at Avi Lewis.
And balbulican, you read too much into me. I don’t hate left-wing people. I’m marrying one. I went to the campaign office of Peggy Nash last election, and she seemed to take to me well.
I’m not malicious against the left.
Take stageleft, his libertarian leanings lend me to a very favorable perception of him. Of course we don’t agree on everything. I’m a libertarian conservative. He’s a left-leaning libertarian.
I do think that many aspects of the left are devoid of integrity, and worthy of my respect. My blog represents this. You can call my message unevolved.
I read your comment over a CC, which has a similar message towards me. It’s a downright insulting message; that I don’t understand the world, that I’m insular, incapable of understanding the manifest consequences of my worldview, if they were practiced.
You know, I’d entertain that criticism, because all criticism is fair if it wasn’t a criticism made on the back of outright dismissal. That simply makes it a personal attack. Just an outright derision of everything I’ve said.
Your flavor of political discourse, to a lesser extent, is much like that of Canadian Cynic, or Robert McClelland: sneering, contemptuous, moral superiority and dismissal of people on the right. Your position, like theirs, doesn’t reflect well on your character. It doesn’t really add to the debate, and it’s not particularly different from what you criticize Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle, or anyone on the right for doing.
Now, I have no problem with your approach, or Canadian Cynic’s approach. But I take issue with the fact that any of you, would portray yourself from coming from a morally superior position.
You’re not morally superior. Nor am I. I don’t presume over peoples intentions, although I may question them from time to time. And while I think that sometimes intention may abdicate someone from moral culpability in most cases. Often, I don’t.
You, and others, have questioned my intention for my failure to challenge commenters on my blog. By this omission, you and others have drawn value judgements of me, my true intentions, or my lack of desire to be reasonable.
While sniping attacks between people in the blogosphere are common, and will likely remain a mainstay for the foreseeable future, I very seldom draw value judgements on people myself. You may have difficulty believing this. But I suppose that doesn’t matter.
To be honest, I’m not too concerned that you consider my blog stagnant and without redemption. That’s fine.
Now of course, as you know, I get attacked from people on the left all the time. And the only reason why I have afforded you such a lengthy response and portion of my time, is that I thought we’d moved beyond making personal attacks. But I suppose I place too much confidence in people.
I still find it odd that a work of _fiction_ should be part of a hidden agenda of anything. That’s tinfoil hat territory.
And I should point out that, in the original movie H2O, the Americans weren’t the villains. I thought their actions at the end were highly justified. The administration down south is not going to stand idly by while Paul Gross’ character takes the country to the brink of chaos as part of his own power trip. This movie seems to be even loopier than the original.
So, my advice would be to just sit back and enjoy the wild scenario. I do admit, I have a softspot for these wildly speculative political fictions. I remember reading a book called “The Crash of ‘79″ which involved the Americans getting into a nuclear war with the Shah of Iran.
And, you know, the eleventh amendment is hardly surprising considering that, when it was drafted, the assumption was that Canada would eventually be a part of the union. The fact that the loyalists would be powerful enough to keep the Upper Canada out of the U.S. or that the people of Quebec would tolerate British rule just seemed inconceivable. And some people north of the border thought the same way. It was only when the American immigrants didn’t join their brethren during the War of 1812 that we started to think that this colony would have staying power outside of the U.S.
And we should also point out that the American constitution gets amended, not taking away from. After all, we have Article 19 which bans the consumption of alcohol throughout the union, and Article 20 which basically says “woah, we’re we drunk when we wrote that last amendment, or what?”
“I don’t hate left-wing people. ”
No, I don’t think you do. I do think you parse every issue into a simplistic, Manichean left/right framework. That’s not an opinion. Reread your own blog see for yourself.
It’s a rhetorical strategy that’s lazy, shallow and tedious. But it’s your chosen style, and you’re entitled to it.
So Mike, does all that harmonization include labour mobility and immagration rights? Like the EU?
No I thought not. Kinda puts a hole in your little Conservative utopia eh? I mean who doesn’t like less lawyers when it comes to moving TVs and oil across the boarder but loves them when it comes to workers and people.
Mike, ideally I’d love to see labour mobility throughout the entire Western world. Why not?
Practically, I know we’re a long way towards that happening.
I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to be a sovereign nation, and allow people to move between nations. That is, unless you fear that you nation will be victim to mass emigration because your country sucks. I don’t think Canada is in that position. To be honest, I’d rather live here than in the US. And that’s coming from a right-leaning guy.