tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post1897501438904810632..comments2023-06-22T07:32:28.491-04:00Comments on Dred Tory: My First Annual Gossipy "Inside the Queensway" PostSir Francishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-62835087325229077152008-05-01T23:05:00.000-04:002008-05-01T23:05:00.000-04:00What are you drinking, sir?My usual: whatever's ch...<I>What are you drinking, sir?</I><BR/><BR/>My usual: whatever's cheap and on tap.Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-86267522363845859672008-05-01T22:53:00.000-04:002008-05-01T22:53:00.000-04:00your former American blog-interlocutors notwithsta...<I>your former American blog-interlocutors notwithstanding, of course; they may still be nattering away</I><BR/><BR/>Of course they are. At times they left me with the impression they were unable to buy a bus ticket or pay the hydro bill without first consulting the dog-eared copy of The Federalist Papers they kept in their back pockets.<BR/><BR/><I>the act of taking pride in a nationhood that represents the most objectively successful multi-racial modern society on the planet </I><BR/><BR/>What are you drinking, sir? My round.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-7740827773831512392008-05-01T20:16:00.000-04:002008-05-01T20:16:00.000-04:00I cannot take seriously anyone who condemns as "sm...<I>I cannot take seriously anyone who condemns as "smugness" the act of taking pride in a nationhood that represents the most objectively successful multi-racial modern society on the planet...</I><BR/><BR/>Hear hear.<BR/><BR/>...uh, I mean...how smug. <I>S-s-s-smug!!</I>Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-42242110549069148242008-05-01T18:26:00.000-04:002008-05-01T18:26:00.000-04:00I confess I am torn between rushing out to buy and...<I> I confess I am torn between rushing out to buy and study the records of the Quebec Conference ... </I><BR/><BR/>You'll find them all on-line, mate...fully annotated, even.<BR/><BR/><I>...unlike with the American Founders, nobody has cared what they intended for a very long time. </I><BR/><BR/>Hah! Outside of a few cranks languishing on the Republican fringe like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, you'll not find many Americans musing at appreciable length about their Founders' philosophical dispositions (your former American blog-interlocutors notwithstanding, of course; they may still be nattering away).<BR/><BR/>As for our own Fathers, Stephen Harper used to trot them out in order to justify his vision of a de-centralised federalism, without mentioning, of course, that he was quoting from the <I>Grit</I> faction--the minority report, as it were. Harper hasn't had much opportunity lately for that kind of high-flown discourse, as he's been preoccupied with the grubby and degrading business of governing (or "governing").<BR/><BR/><I>A lot of it is simply irrational, visceral, experiential and traditional...</I><BR/><BR/>...which pretty much describes the complexion of much of my own conservatism, for good of for ill.<BR/><BR/><I>whatever was intended then and is felt and cherished today cannot and should not be reduced to an ideological polarity, nor a visceral demonization of the Yanks...</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. Such reductions are impoverishing, although an honest assessment might need to admit that the motives you mention were <I>aspects</I> of the founding intention, and our attitudes concerning Confederation might need to take account of how we feel about those motives. I, for one, am fairly comfortable with them.<BR/><BR/><I>Nor is their anything wrong with liking and admiring the Americans for that for which they deserve to be liked and admired, which is a lot. </I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. I'm quite fond of the Swiss--the Japanese, too. There's nothing wrong with liking people; in fact, my religion requires me to like <I>everybody</I> (too tall an order for me, alas). In fact, one of the reasons why I dislike our deepening ensconcing behind the walls of Fortress America is that it requires us to restrict our global friendships--traditionally quite vast--to a narrow band of America-vetted nations. I cannot think that's healthy for us. <BR/><BR/><I>I'd fight to keep it, but I see no need to parade smugness, spew contempt southwards or take principled pride in rote reaction. </I><BR/><BR/>Some might argue that "smugness", "southward-spewed contempt", etc. are ways of fighting the fight you admit is worth fighting. I'm not sure I would agree, but I've seen the argument made.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I'm not willing to allow Americans or our own self-loathing continentalists to define the meaning of "smugness" or "contempt". I cannot take seriously anyone who condemns as "smugness" the act of taking pride in a nationhood that represents the most objectively successful multi-racial modern society on the planet and yet applauds whenever a state that has failed and continues to fail on so many crucial levels spit-polishes its self-applied messianic veneer. <BR/><BR/><I>..it is part of the Canadian destiny to bear the burden and savour the glory of being part of something bigger than ourselves.</I><BR/><BR/>True, but I would argue (perhaps naïvely) that the "bigger" things have always been ideals, rather than nations.Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-43761693630613182352008-05-01T12:27:00.000-04:002008-05-01T12:27:00.000-04:00Historically, it is part of the Canadian destiny t...<I>Historically, it is part of the Canadian destiny to bear the burden and savour the glory of being part of something bigger than ourselves.</I><BR/><BR/>...which obviously includes suffering the insufferable. On this, we agree.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-79616870936112761242008-05-01T08:50:00.000-04:002008-05-01T08:50:00.000-04:00SF:Intriguing, and I tip my hat to you, sir, for y...SF:<BR/><BR/>Intriguing, and I tip my hat to you, sir, for your scholarship. I confess I am torn between rushing out to buy and study the records of the Quebec Conference so I can argue with you about what they intended or take the far easier route and suggest that, unlike with the American Founders, nobody has cared what they intended for a very long time. Is not paying no mind to our Founders part of our Canadian distinctiveness? :-)<BR/><BR/>But sure, I didn't mean to suggest that Canada was created in a "whatever Kipling says" spirit. There certainly was (on the English-Canadian side) a North-American frontier-conquering impulse, a conflicted assertion of autonomy vis-a-vis the Brits and an element of reaction to the American experiment, all rolled in together. I suppose my thesis is that whatever was intended then and is felt and cherished today cannot and should not be reduced to an ideological polarity, nor a visceral demonization of the Yanks, as a substitute for clarity of thought and perception. A lot of it is simply irrational, visceral, experiential and traditional, but there is nothing wrong and much right with that. A very preceptive American colleague of mine once quipped: "Everything in Canada is exacly the same, except completely different". (BTW, the hardest question to field logically from an American is "Why does Canada exist?") Nor is their anything wrong with liking and admiring the Americans for that for which they deserve to be liked and admired, which is a lot. <BR/><BR/>An example: You will be aware of the current blazing row between free-speechers and the HRC's. Many of the free-speech voices are doctrinaire libertarians in the American mould who are quickly talking themselves into an appalling national self-disgust. OTOH, their opponents seem lost in some miasma of abstract, postmodern notions of "human rights"(an equally foreign concept), the definition of which they seem determined to control themselves. It seems to me that the impulse of the semi-mythical average Canadian would be to favour free speech very broadly defined, but set on a plinth of decency, safety and public tolerance they can't define but can intuit in a given situation. That's my position and I can't define it either, but I know my extremely agreeable, safe, clean city and cohesive community is built on it, and it makes me weepy on Canada Day. I'd fight to keep it, but I see no need to parade smugness, spew contempt southwards or take principled pride in rote reaction. Historically, it is part of the Canadian destiny to bear the burden and savour the glory of being part of something bigger than ourselves. What will that be in the 21st century, the UN, the French or the Chinese?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-44763984206140418192008-04-30T20:36:00.000-04:002008-04-30T20:36:00.000-04:00...surely the notion that the Fathers of Confedera...<I>...surely the notion that the Fathers of Confederation saw Canada as a worthy and noble project in its own right, has to be interpreted in the context of a firm, loyal, subsidiary status grounded in the Imperial project, not a full-blown, discrete national narrative that was a counterpoint to the Americans. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure. Again, that tends to be our <I>modernist</I> take on things, but the deliberations of the Quebec Conference suggest otherwise. There was, of course, considerable tension between the Tory/Bleu agenda (i.e. that of Macdonald, McGee, Cartier, etc.) and the Grit/Reform/Liberal agenda (Howe, Brown, Mowat, etc). The notion of Canada as a sheer extension of Britain was closer to the Tory than to the Grit vision, obviously (though we should recall the <I>all</I> members of the conference wanted Canada to be called a "Kingdom", choosing "Dominion" only as a Westminster-suggested compromise); the Liberal faction was certainly "nationalist" in the strict sense and definitely saw Canada as autonomous from Britain in every way. <BR/><BR/>Even Tories, though, had a sense of Canada's uniqueness. Remember that the Tory <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_First" REL="nofollow">Canada First</A> society--really Canada's first indigenous large-scale cultural movement--managed to be both deeply High Tory and imperialist but also "nationalist" (in the Grit sense) at the same time. Much like the members of the later Imperial Federation, they envisioned the Empire as an ethno-cultural alliance of <I>equals</I> (with England as <I>primus inter pares</I> at most) within which Canada was expected to evolve in ways very different from Great Britain and the rest of the Empire. So, again, I think Canada's distinctiveness has always been acknowledged and nurtured, even by her "reactionaries".Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-10568000516108388982008-04-30T14:36:00.000-04:002008-04-30T14:36:00.000-04:00Shorter Peter: can we have your liver then?Shorter Peter: can we have your liver then?liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-82402917043038626832008-04-30T11:14:00.000-04:002008-04-30T11:14:00.000-04:00Those efforts generally fail because the Canadian ...<I>Those efforts generally fail because the Canadian public know their lyin' eyes are telling them something different</I><BR/><BR/>What are our lyin' eyes telling us?<BR/><BR/><I>even though they treasure the distinctions and love nothing more than wiling away pleasant summer evenings talking about them.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, enough accusations of parochialism and bigotry; I don't think anyone here as been under-exposed to Mark Steyn.<BR/><BR/>Also, if you spend your evenings doing this, you need to find more interesting friends.<BR/><BR/>I got together with my shriekingly and appallingly anti-American family and friends over the weekend and apart from a show-and-tell of what each of us thought we understood about the current primaries, the subject never came up.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-47733500756449948982008-04-29T09:34:00.000-04:002008-04-29T09:34:00.000-04:00SF: I grant you the "honest broker" middleman rol...SF: I grant you the "honest broker" middleman role is indeed more revisionist, sometimes embarassingly so, but surely the notion that the Fathers of Confederation <I>saw Canada as a worthy and noble project in its own right,</I> has to be interpreted in the context of a firm, loyal, subsidiary status grounded in the Imperial project, not a full-blown, discrete national narrative that was a counterpoint to the Americans. To the extent that we did have our own narrative, and we certainly did, it was similar to the American one except less extreme, dogmatic, rigid, ideological, etc. Democracy, opposition to aristocratic government, trade, settlement and development of the frontier, freedom of speech and religion, openess to immigration, etc. were our causes too, all tempered and guided by the British allegiance, orthodox religion and a decent, deferential political and social culture. We're still much inspired by our friends to the South, as Trudeau's Charter shows. We certainly had more of a tradition of public investment in infrastructure and settlement, but as much out of a defensive pragmatism about our size than an ideological affinity for the state. There have been a lot of international economic developemnts in the past few generations which put that issue in a wholy different context than out grandparents saw.<BR/><BR/>And unlike the new breed of angry libertarians, I think our distinctiveness is just great and well worth preserving, but we go off the rails when we try to define ourselves through rationally coherent competitve philosophies or demonize the U.S as some kind of voracious, totalitarian behemoth that threatens Canadian children and puppies. Those efforts generally fail because the Canadian public know their lyin' eyes are telling them something different, even though they treasure the distinctions and love nothing more than wiling away pleasant summer evenings talking about them.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the collapse of religion and the British narrative, and the wholesale European postwar reaction to their heritage leaves us somewhat ideologically naked. Either we bumble along as wary, stand-offish friends (or friendly adversaries) of the Americans or jump onto the postmodern, transnational UN dream of the EU and the left. No thank you to the latter for me.<BR/><BR/>Also, there is a tendency for Canadian intellectuals from both sides to panic a la Grant if we can't come up with a full-blown ideology to define and protect us from the rapacious Yankee trader. I used to feel that way, but I now see Oakeshott's irrationalism and traditionalism as much stronger and perhaps more enduring than I had feared and a good counterpoint to my beloved U.S. vacations and American friends. At least I hope it is. Don't you, hoser?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-25316950833085388252008-04-29T01:24:00.000-04:002008-04-29T01:24:00.000-04:00You are a brave man. Surely that's not news to you...<I>You are a brave man. </I><BR/><BR/>Surely that's not <I>news</I> to you... :)<BR/><BR/><I>Be prepared to suffer the lings and arrow of outraged Liberal's... </I><BR/><BR/>From what I've read on the Liblogs lately, Dion seems to be losing his blogger friends <I>en masse</I>. I don't think you'll see many of them volunteer to defend his honour.<BR/><BR/><I> It would very likely be baggage during the election campaign. </I><BR/><BR/>Bah. It's only <I>French</I> citizenship--rather like Senegalese citizenship, only less threatening.<BR/><BR/>Now, if <I>American</I> citizenship were in question, he'd be laughed out of the election.<BR/><BR/><I> I have faith in his integrity to discharge his office with 100% loyalty...</I><BR/><BR/>I do not. No politician today deserves my faith concerning <I>any</I> aspect of his personality or performance. Given the wretched nature of our politics, I want my PM to be kept on such a short leash that he has to use his bellybutton as a water bowl.Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-28473040961569818262008-04-29T01:01:00.000-04:002008-04-29T01:01:00.000-04:00In other words, I question whether we can be that ...<I>In other words, I question whether we can be that historical "bridge" between old and new anymore. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure we've ever really thought of ourselves as such a "bridge". A few minor post-war academics advanced that notion, primarily (I believe) as an illegitimate and preposterously over-extended extrapolation from Mackenzie King's self-concept as a conduit between Churchill and FDR (a typically self-aggrandizing fiction of King's own; those two men had no difficulty communicating without King's aid). <BR/><BR/>The implication is that Canada never thought of itself as a nation whose significance lay in its own nature but, rather, always saw its true value in its purely instrumental function--as an anonymous service road between the two cultural entities that actually <I>mattered</I>. <BR/><BR/>This may be how some of us wish to view things <I>retrospectively</I>, but there's little to suggest that this view was part of our traditional self-understanding. Certainly the Fathers of Confederation had no use for this nonsense. They saw Canada as a worthy and noble project in its own right, with no obligation to be a "bridge" for anybody.<BR/><BR/>In any case, we should keep in mind that the United States is no longer "new" in any meaningful sense. Initially a brash, revolutionary society, it has undergone a century-long process of ossification and is now wallowing in what can only be called an inert, smug satiety. As I've said before, neither Jefferson nor Madison would recognise it.<BR/><BR/>Americans have perverted the foundations of their nation far more than any European people have theirs. Of course, the U.S. is an ideologically derived entity and thus actually <I>has</I> an ideology to pervert, whereas no nation of Europe was ever founded on an idea. Europeans cared very deeply about ideas; they <I>invented</I> most of the ones that matter, but they weren't stupid enough to try to conjure countries out of them--a good thing, in my book.Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-49216465034897867262008-04-29T00:39:00.000-04:002008-04-29T00:39:00.000-04:00pardon..."the slings and arrows"pardon...<BR/><BR/>"the slings and arrows"Tommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-70522775445883790412008-04-29T00:24:00.000-04:002008-04-29T00:24:00.000-04:00Sir Francis,You are a brave man. Be prepared to s...Sir Francis,<BR/><BR/>You are a brave man. Be prepared to suffer the lings and arrow of outraged Liberal's for your slander and smear of their illustrious leader.<BR/><BR/>I personally think its a little odd he would wish to keep his French citizenship. It would very likely be baggage during the election campaign. However, I have faith in his integrity to discharge his office with 100% loyalty and don't believe he would need to renounce it to be a good and loyal PM.Tommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-50929529833823950142008-04-29T00:11:00.000-04:002008-04-29T00:11:00.000-04:00Should Dion be forced to renounce his French citiz...<I>Should Dion be forced to renounce his French citizenship?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, if he were our head of state. Michaëlle Jean renounced hers, back in the days when she took conflict of interest seriously.Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-43079175589801481262008-04-28T23:03:00.000-04:002008-04-28T23:03:00.000-04:00aenas,From my reckoning it makes you "snooty".aenas,<BR/><BR/>From my reckoning it makes you "snooty".Tommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-29771608180263823782008-04-28T22:40:00.000-04:002008-04-28T22:40:00.000-04:00Peter wrote: "that's as close to an English-Canadi...Peter wrote: <BR/><BR/>"that's as close to an English-Canadian equivalent of the pure laine rants of bitter, powerless, reactionary Quebecers as I've ever seen." <BR/><BR/>Defending the proper and quite legitimate structure and functions of the Canadian Constitution makes me a xenophobe? <BR/><BR/>Explanation please ...Aeneas the Youngerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18235737108817968315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-20299747427077326652008-04-28T22:17:00.000-04:002008-04-28T22:17:00.000-04:00Sir Francis,You said:"...So the nation's highest l...Sir Francis,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"...So the nation's highest legislative and Parliamentary authority can pal around with the wife of someone whose entire agenda requires her constitutional consent and whose power increases proportionately as hers decreases (would in fact be absolute were hers entirely neutralised) without the slightest appearance of conflict. Right."?<BR/><BR/>The answer of course is...RIGHT!<BR/><BR/>I have business relationships with clients, contenders, friends, superiors, inferiors, winners and losers. I also have a partner, kids, and friends. <BR/><BR/>I do not need to put a firewall around the world to live in it. Nor cocoon myself behind one.<BR/><BR/>Should Dion be forced to renounce his French citizenship?<BR/><BR/>TommTommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-72680642682219911052008-04-28T21:09:00.000-04:002008-04-28T21:09:00.000-04:00SF: I haven't said a word about Europhobia. The ...SF: I haven't said a word about Europhobia. The only remark I've made here is to question whether modern Europe hasn't so throughly renounced its own political and cultural heritage as to render problematic the idea it can or should inspire us as a source of Canadian distinctiveness. In other words, I question whether we can be that historical "bridge" between old and new anymore. I think you are trying to slam me for criticizing a post you haven't made yet.<BR/><BR/>aeneas, that's as close to an English-Canadian equivalent of the <I>pure laine</I> rants of bitter, powerless, reactionary Quebecers as I've ever seen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-37483984771474922572008-04-28T14:03:00.000-04:002008-04-28T14:03:00.000-04:00In fact, they seem to revel in it ...In fact, they seem to revel in it ...Aeneas the Youngerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18235737108817968315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-27845542369266061252008-04-28T09:51:00.000-04:002008-04-28T09:51:00.000-04:00Again .... Tomm and Peter represent individual exa...Again .... Tomm and Peter represent individual examples of the "collective amnesia" that I alluded to earlier in the thread. <BR/><BR/>They simply have NO CONCEPTION as to how Canada is to be governed.<BR/><BR/>Raised and brainwashed on US pap for far too long, they have no understanding of the fundamental difference between Canada and the US. And ... they are shameless about this ignorance.Aeneas the Youngerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18235737108817968315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-5909690276753617892008-04-27T23:37:00.000-04:002008-04-27T23:37:00.000-04:00I like my Canadianness built on actual positives, ...<I>I like my Canadianness built on actual positives, not desperate, frothing demonizations.</I><BR/><BR/>You say "<I>to-mah-to</I>"...<BR/><BR/>Ah, but what is your <I>Europhobia</I> built on, my good chap?<BR/><BR/>Not "demonizations", you would say. No, you would call them "critiques", naturally.<BR/><BR/>You say "<I>to-mah-to</I>"...Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-71339946561385123382008-04-27T23:29:00.000-04:002008-04-27T23:29:00.000-04:00I do not see a conflict even in the stuffiest circ...<I>I do not see a conflict even in the stuffiest circumstances.</I><BR/><BR/>So the nation's highest legislative and Parliamentary authority can pal around with the wife of someone whose entire agenda requires her constitutional <I>consent</I> and whose power <I>increases</I> proportionately as hers <I>decreases</I> (would in fact be <I>absolute</I> were hers entirely neutralised) without the slightest appearance of conflict. Right.<BR/><BR/>This is news, I must say: I thought those from the Reform/Alliance tradition were suspicious of élites, and I'm surprised to see you so comfortable with the head of state and the head of government forming a clubby combine. On the other hand, the CPC's retention of its core support is beginning to make sense. I guess the old populist soldiers are losing their passion for political propriety. Fortier, Emerson, Khan, Cadman, In-and-Out, Laureen shedding the pounds with Michaëlle on the ratepayer's tab--it's all good. All we need to do is bring Mila back with her lorry-load of Prada pumps and it'll be 1988 all over again. Swell. <BR/><BR/>Tell me, how far would your perspective need to be extended before even <I>you</I> discerned its absurdity? What if Jean were best buddies with Harper himself? Would that be appropriate? What if the Harpers divorced and Stevie and Jean started dating, or were married? Would that be kosher? What if a prime minister appointed his wife or girlfriend as GG? Would that pass the smell test for you? <BR/><BR/><I>I assume that you would also disagree with a friendly relationship between the Queen and the British PM? </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I would, as would the British constitution--which is why there never <I>has</I> been a "friendly relationship" between a reigning monarch and a prime minister.<BR/><BR/>Queen Victoria had a crush on Disraeli, flirted with him shamelessly during their weekly meetings, and laughed at his stupid jokes. She did <I>not</I> go out dancing with him. Do you see the difference, or is it apparent only to those of us who "don't get out enough" (and who probably read too many books in consequence)?Sir Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052750849770350973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-42835477561316669372008-04-27T23:20:00.000-04:002008-04-27T23:20:00.000-04:00I assume that you would also disagree with a frien...<I>I assume that you would also disagree with a friendly relationship between the Queen and the British PM?</I><BR/><BR/>Most definitely. Indeed, we are not be amused.<BR/><BR/><I>...but we would likely not agree as to whether this is a good thing.</I><BR/><BR/>No SF, sorry to disappoint you, but I would agree with you there too. I like my Canadianness built on actual positives, not desperate, frothing demonizations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3260545195755894149.post-3212028014553808092008-04-27T22:32:00.000-04:002008-04-27T22:32:00.000-04:00You guys gotta get out more. I personally think t...You guys gotta get out more. <BR/><BR/>I personally think that the GG should be on chummy terms with everybody, from the leader of the opposition to the PM's wife.<BR/><BR/>I do not see a conflict even in the stuffiest circumstances. <BR/><BR/>I take it you are thinking that the GG will be under a cloud if asked to do her job of dissolving parliament, because she is a friend of the PM's wife. <BR/><BR/>That's Jack Kerouac kool aid, not Sandra Buckler stuff. <BR/><BR/>I assume that you would also disagree with a friendly relationship between the Queen and the British PM?Tommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.com