• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Futuretrooper said:
I actaully read an article about how some african american leaders were attacking the hip hop culture being adopted amongst the nations youths. It's creating a huge problem in my own opinion, because alot of people are starting to think that black means cop killing, gangsta living, nailing bitchs, and killing others. Have any of you ever watched MTV or VH1, the type of lifestyle they usually support is individualistic, and most kids tend to idolize people like 50 cent, Tupac Shakur, as well as NWA. I watched a documentary with 50 cent, and in it whenever he saw a police cruiser he ran away, and their was a bike police officer a few feet away from him, and he got one of his gang members to go try to grab his gun. WTF. Thats the type of person this generation is modelling itself upon. It seems as though we as a society are more happy with seeing the failures of others, thats the reason reality TV is doing so well. I watched a movie the other day, and their was a preview for a new skater movie coming out, and they saw some police officers coming and they said "look out the pigs are coming". I'm just getting really sick of all of this BS. I mean pretty well anybody thats an authority figure is considered evil. I was even watching this one rap video with Tupac Shakur that made all of the police officers look evil, and he was your friendly drug dealing gangsta who was kissing babies.

Sorry for the rant
    This is new?  In the thirties and fourties kids idolized Al Capone, Machinegun Kelly, John Dillinger, the zoot-suit look of the urban gangster punk became the fashion of the younger generation.  The glamorization of drug trade, and the flashy drug dealer, has been going hand in hand with the hard partying urban crowd since the twenties.  The generation that grew up with that fought WWII, and kicked some serious ass.  If that is the worst this generation has to worry about, we can relax.  The problem of mainstream apathy, of civil rights being used to empower criminals and disempower police is more worrysome.  Punks are not a threat to society, they are simply inevitable parasites.  Widespread acceptance of the emasculation of government, the courts, prison system, and police is a danger.  It is not that the parasites are dangerous, but the attitudes that hamstring our defences against them ARE dangerous.  The idea that these streetscum represent a threat to society is wrong, it is the society that is giving up the ability and right of the state to defend them that is the threat.
 
This hip-hop thing has become a running joke out here in BFN Alberta.  I live in probably the whitest town in Canada, and these kids drive around here in their boomcars, hat backwards, and Dads old carharts hanging down between their knees.  How these kids can "relate" to a media that was born out of urban poverty and violence is a mystery to me.  My daughter and her friends call these kids "whiggers", pretty distasteful, but funny nonetheless. Especially funny when they come from quite affluent, 2nd or 3rd generation Northern/Eastern European stock.....

CHIMO,  Kat
 
Same thing in my hometown. I live in a farming community, and its always funny to see kids thinking that their "gangsta". I just think their fucking idiots.
 
The good news is that most kids grow out of it. Thank god its just a phase.
 
I guess one thing I find concerning is how the "gangsta" BS translates so readily across ethnic and racial lines, encouraging the same sick attitudes in other cultures (I'm not so worried about suburban middle class wiggers and wannabees who probably will grow out of it..) Here in Winnipeg, where we have a very large urban aboriginal population (over 10% of the city's population) with disproportionately high violence, dysfunctional families, substance abuse, gang warfare(sound familiar...?) I see the young "warriors" cruising around the North Side with all the "gangsta" trappings. I see the same BS amongst a certain strain of young Asians living downtown as well. To me this kind of   music and the role model it brings is like a kind of anthem to these types: it tells them its not only "OK" to be like that: it's also cool and "bad". Another disturbing thing is the number of young girls attracted to this stupid role model of the "bad boy" which IMHO is ironic because in the gangsta culture the primary role of women is that of mattress.

To me it is far worse than the idolization of Capone or Machine Gun Kelly-you could argue that there was almost a chivalrous "Robin Hood" side to them (I don't, but you could....). I just don't see a single redeeming thing in this gangsta culture: the fact that it is so popular and so readily adopted bothers me. Hopefully, as other posters have suggested, kids will just grow out of it.

Cheers.
 
Here, from today's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050328.WINSOR28/TPStory is yet another take on Welsh's challenge.

Global-role review is already doomed

By HUGH WINSOR
Monday, March 28, 2005 Page A6

Jennifer Welsh, a onetime Young Liberal activist who is now a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, has been labouring at her computer on behalf of Prime Minister Paul Martin, trying to rewrite Ottawa's much-delayed foreign policy review and provide a gloss of coherence to the disparate views of the four departments principally involved.

She was given the job because of the positive response to her recent book, At Home in the World, Canada's Global Vision for the 21st Century. We may even see the results of her handiwork, and the other effort that has gone into the review, in the next few days. But even if Ms. Welsh can insert some capital-V vision into her overview, it's too late.

The process has been so flawed, and so upstaged by eclectic decisions taken on the fly, that the review is already overtaken and discredited. This is especially the case with the handling of the Canada-United States relationship and, to a lesser extent, the re-tasking of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian International Development Agency.

Whatever you think of U.S. plans to develop some sort of shield to protect North America from missiles fired from "rogue" states (and the scientific consensus is that it will not work with current technology), the way the Martin government handled the U.S. invitation for Canadian participation has caused as many problems as the decision.

And don't believe the spin coming out of Texas last week to the effect that the ballistic missile defence issue is now behind us. That is not what President George W. Bush said when he indicated that our differences would not prevent co-operation on other, mostly housekeeping matters, or previously agreed upon border security enhancements. The BMD nettle is still there.

The evidence suggests the Prime Minister's anti-BMD announcement, which came on the eve of last month's Liberal Party convention, is popular with Canadians, regardless of the rationale. But senior U.S. officials are astonished by the eclectic way in which the decision was taken. So are a lot of Canadians who believe the pros and cons of the issue should have been aired and measured. Instead, the government left the field to Mel Hurtig and former Liberal MP Carolyn Parish, who needless to say, are ecstatic about the outcome.

The person who has taken the biggest credibility hit is Defence Minister Bill Graham, who was defending Canadian participation up until the day Mr. Martin pulled the rug out from under him. His department wrote an analysis of Canada's foreign policy, as did Foreign Affairs, addressing, among other things, the touchy issue of whether BMD would lead to the weaponization of space. But none of the analyses made it into the decision-making process.

The review has also been scooped on the more-robust approach to the Department of National Defence. There was initially much rejoicing at DND about the additional $12.8-billion promised in the Feb. 23 federal budget. But a closer look reveals most of this money is for future years, when the Liberals may or may not be in a position to deliver. And far more money will be required if the forces develop a true rapid-reaction force capable of getting to trouble spots quickly.

When the foreign-policy review finally surfaces, expect that it will include a lot about global citizenship and Canada's desire to make a difference in the world. To this end, the government acquired bragging rights with its budget promise to double overseas aid.

But a sage critic of current foreign policy, Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador in Washington and Mulroney-era apparatchik, called in a recent speech at Foreign Affairs for an injection of realism about what Canada can, and should, do in the world.

"If . . . we indulge fancifully about bringing our 'values' or providing a 'model' to the world," he said, in a direct shot at Ms. Welsh's book, "we will, I suspect, be confined more permanently to the periphery as a dilettante, not to be taken seriously."

I think Winsor is correct when he says: â ? The process has been so flawed, and so upstaged by eclectic decisions taken on the fly, that the review is already overtaken and discredited. This is especially the case with the handling of the Canada-United States relationship and, to a lesser extent, the re-tasking of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian International Development Agency.â ?

The Department of   Foreign Affairs and the government are committed to a so-called 3D foreign policy: Diplomacy, Development and Defence.   Winsor suggests, and I agree, that all three have been compromised, especially in Washington - which is the primary, only important target audience for Welsh's pizzazz laden magnum opus.

DFAIT has an institutional mistrust of the Bush administration; the Department is chock-a-block full of Europhiles and Arabists; the Department, as an institution, opposed missile defence but was ready and willing to support joining because it seemed (and must, therefore, still seem - no matter what Mel Hurtig and Carolyn Parrish think) like a fair and reasonable price to pay to accomplish the prime ministers stated overarching requirement of restoring Canada/US relations to a friendly neighbour/trusted ally level.   The Department agreed with the prime minister; officials, especially the most senior officials, were dismayed at the fact that Canada is, right now, being further and further â ?... confined more permanently to the periphery as a dilettante, not to be taken seriously."   This peripheral position is not just vis-à-vis the United States, our position with all of the world's powers, including Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark and so on down the list has deteriorated since 1993.


 
Edward Campbell said:
Here, from today's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050328.WINSOR28/TPStory is yet another take on Welsh's challenge.

I think Winsor is correct when he says: â ? The process has been so flawed, and so upstaged by eclectic decisions taken on the fly, that the review is already overtaken and discredited. This is especially the case with the handling of the Canada-United States relationship and, to a lesser extent, the re-tasking of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian International Development Agency.â ?

The Department of   Foreign Affairs and the government are committed to a so-called 3D foreign policy: Diplomacy, Development and Defence.   Winsor suggests, and I agree, that all three have been compromised, especially in Washington - which is the primary, only important target audience for Welsh's pizzazz laden magnum opus.

DFAIT has an institutional mistrust of the Bush administration; the Department is chock-a-block full of Europhiles and Arabists; the Department, as an institution, opposed missile defence but was ready and willing to support joining because it seemed (and must, therefore, still seem - no matter what Mel Hurtig and Carolyn Parrish think) like a fair and reasonable price to pay to accomplish the prime ministers stated overarching requirement of restoring Canada/US relations to a friendly neighbour/trusted ally level.   The Department agreed with the prime minister; officials, especially the most senior officials, were dismayed at the fact that Canada is, right now, being further and further â ?... confined more permanently to the periphery as a dilettante, not to be taken seriously."   This peripheral position is not just vis-à-vis the United States, our position with all of the world's powers, including Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark and so on down the list has deteriorated since 1993.


Get your CF-issues B.S. detector fired up. Notice how making Canada relevant never includes making us STRONGER, which would require those dirty words--protectionism and nationalism--the two things that have made the U.S. a world superpower. But our betters in Ottawa will have nothing of that for Canada.

Mel Hurtig and Carolyn Parrish, two people who lead a democratic push to oppose BMD which the majority of Canadians supported--but something tells me our "betters" aren't terribly interested in democracy anyway. Hurtig published a Canadian encyclopedia, gets the Order of Canada, writes books about Canada, and still he is an considered an embarassment, not a hero.

 
Another disturbing thing is the number of young girls attracted to this stupid role model of the "bad boy" which IMHO is ironic because in the gangsta culture the primary role of women is that of mattress.

Hey, women are attracted to assholes
 
daniel h. said:
Notice how making Canada relevant never includes making us STRONGER, which would require those dirty words--protectionism and nationalism--the two things that have made the U.S. a world superpower. But our betters in Ottawa will have nothing of that for Canada.

Uhh...when you consider that the three cornerstones of the post World War II global economy (of which the US is the hegemonic power) are GATT (which evolved into the WTO), the World Bank, and the IMF, I can't see how the hell you figure protectionism was responsible for making the US a world superpower.

IPE 101 my friend....

Mel Hurtig and Carolyn Parrish, two people who lead a democratic push to oppose BMD which the majority of Canadians supported--but something tells me our "betters" aren't terribly interested in democracy anyway. Hurtig published a Canadian encyclopedia, gets the Order of Canada, writes books about Canada, and still he is an considered an embarassment, not a hero.

Probably an embarrassment because they base their entire notion of nationalism off the premise that the United States poses a clear and present danger to the existence of Canada.   I don't like to foist "Chicken Little" up as a national hero, despite their achievements....
 
Optimistic at the time of Chretian's departure, I can barely put into words what a spineless disappointment Paul Martin has been.




Matthew.     >:(
 
But senior U.S. officials are astonished by the eclectic way in which the decision was taken.

I love the way Hugh has carefully chosen his words in describing the absolute and total politicization of the foreign and defence review process. "Eclectic" makes it sound like there is some sort of cosmopolitan charm and creative energy suffusing the Great Minds of the Natural Corrupting Party.  

How about "balls up" as a more accurate term?

In the current Ottawa environment DFAIT, Defence, and all the rest of the departments, I suspect, have next to zero influence in the formulation of policy - it's all being written (re-written) and approved by the PMO pols: Tim Murphy, David Herle, Scott Reid and Richard Mahoney et al.

Cheers, mdh    
 
mdh said:
In the current Ottawa environment DFAIT, Defence, and all the rest of the departments, I suspect, have next to zero influence in the formulation of policy - it's all being written (re-written) and approved by the PMO pols: Tim Murphy, David Herle, Scott Reid and Richard Mahoney et al.

Cheers, mdh    
    Why would they include defence, intelligence, or foreign service professionals in drafting our foreign policy, the shock of coherent, competant mission statements and objectives would kill or cripple long time professionals in the armed, intelligence, and foreign services.  It should be obvious that ipsus ried and a half trained cabal of spin doctors and political bag handlers will continue to provide Canada the kind of foreign policy, and defence initiative that make us less relavent than Luxemberg.
 
mainerjohnthomas said:
     Why would they include defence, intelligence, or foreign service professionals in drafting our foreign policy, the shock of coherent, competant mission statements and objectives would kill or cripple long time professionals in the armed, intelligence, and foreign services.   It should be obvious that ipsus ried and a half trained cabal of spin doctors and political bag handlers will continue to provide Canada the kind of foreign policy, and defence initiative that make us less relavent than Luxemberg.

In fairness we should distinguish between a full blown White Paper which is a fairly detailed statement of the government's policies and intentions (and which can be cited as an authority in budget submissions, etc) and a policy review like the one which, as I understand it, Welsh is doing.

The White Paper needs the combined inputs of the PMO and ministerial staffs in support of the senior civil service mandarins.   Good White Papers can be dry and detailed; not so good ones can be filled with pizzazz â “ as was the failed (and written by Toronto based Tory outsiders) 1987 White Paper tabled by then Defence Minister Perrin Beatty.   A policy review should precede a White Paper; it should be, essentially, a political document designed, in the 21st century, to sell the government's goals to the mandarins who will be expected to translate them into achievable policies and intentions.   There is a role for the spin doctors and party hacks, flacks and bagmen in this policy review process.

Both foreign and defence policy reviews also need an agreed (by government, including the PMO) 'Strategic Survey' â “ which should be produced, in private, by the foreign, trade, Bank of Canada and defence mandarins and the intelligence community.   These are hard to develop and harder, much harder, to get accepted.

It used to be that the policy review things were done in relative privacy and then released at party policy conventions.   Since the latter have evolved into yet more 'sound bite mills' feeding the ever open maw of 24 hour television news channels the former have also been forced into a more public forum; thus Paul Martin's need for pizzazz â “ everything has to be moved away from steak and towards sizzle.
 
Another disturbing thing is the number of young girls attracted to this stupid role model of the "bad boy" which IMHO is ironic because in the gangsta culture the primary role of women is that of mattress.

Hey, women are attracted to assholes

You have no idea how true that is!!! I watched a special on discovery channel a few years back about it...

Basically, the "bad boy" apprently shows that these guys have "survival traits" somehow. And/or that they are natural leaders and would be good providers for children... Something about the way a woman is "programmed" to be attracted to a confident man....

Anyway... However that works, it ISN'T working I bet....

They do say confidence is the biggest attractor though.
 
Since the latter have evolved into yet more 'sound bite mills' feeding the ever open maw of 24 hour television news channels the former have also been forced into a more public forum; thus Paul Martin's need for pizzazz â “ everything has to be moved away from steak and towards sizzle.

EC,

Isn't that the real issue? You're right about the policy development framework at the federal level - from Whitepaper to whitewash.   But does it matter?

As you noted, it didn't matter in 1987, and from everything I've read to date, it doesn't look like it matters much today.

Is Ms. Welsh just the infant terrible providing a rough draft before the adults take away the crayons and make the real decisions? It certainly appears that way -- with even an establishment journo like Hugh Winsor suggesting it's all an eclectic waste of time.

With Welsh's crazy talk about custom unions and ending agricultural subsidies, it's little wonder that the egg and chicken marketing board people aren't signing on to dream the dream of a regnant Canada.

What's left of Ms. Welsh's musings then? Only one concept that I can see: Canada as a "model citizen" - or more succintly a model welfare state with a multi-cult adjunct that ought to be emulated (if not exported) around the world. (Forget about the market, Bangladesh, it's pay equity you really need.)

In short, the prevailing ideology of the state is, so to speak, writ large, and presto, Canada has a foreign policy.

The Liberal Party has now reached the point where it believes that statism is the answer to all the globe's problems.  There may not be much pizzazz in that - but it's the one thing that the ruling party believes in without question.

cheers, all, mdh

 
As a side note to Mr. Martin, an effective and stimulating vision and plan for Canada is not something that will look good when George Stroumbolopolus (or however you spell it) says it for you on Much Music and The Hour.


I see Canada as a "soft and cuddly" power. Picture a neo-aggressive Sweden confronting rogue states that allow their parents to spank children - that's where I think our future lies,   ;)

cheers, mdh
 
Yeah, nothin turns on a girl more then a guy that does heroin, hates police officers, and takes advantage of other people, as well as cheat on them behind their back. ::)
 
Basically, the "bad boy" apprently shows that these guys have "survival traits" somehow. And/or that they are natural leaders and would be good providers for children... Something about the way a woman is "programmed" to be attracted to a confident man....

Survival traits? Who thought this one up? What's the average life span of one of these people? Isn't it true that gunshot wounds are the single most common cause of death amongst young black males in the US? And, anyway, "survive" to do what? Go to jail?

I agree fully that a certain slice of women seem to be attracted to bad boys-IIRC there is a certain type of women who engages in fantasy relationships with dangerous criminals: writing them letters, trying to visit them in prison, etc. Perhaps this is related to the condition that makes battered and abused women keep returning loyally (and stupidly...) to the same man who beats them, despite the urging of family and friends to leave.

Anyway, aberrant female psychology aside, I guess we're done on this gangsta thing.

Cheers.
 
Anyway, aberrant female psychology aside, I guess we're done on this gangsta thing.

Cheers.

Yeah, I think we beat it to pieces... Just another note on female psychology though, when Ted Bundy went to jail, THOUSANDS of women wrote him letters and tried to visit him while he was awaiting his trails and then, finally, execution....

He was even allowed a final congecal visit apparently towards the end.....

::)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top