He should know better...

A week and a half after the antagonist blowhard on Fox's late, late night Red Eye show insulted Canada to the Nth degree, Stephen Harper, our illustrious Prime Minister thought it made sense to give Fox News the only sitdown interview with an American network yesterday while in Washington. Does he hate Canadians so much? I know that Fox is a "Conservative" mouthpiece, but we're talking American Conservative, not Canadian Conservative. Even Harper is more left wing than *Fox*! Isn't he???

Turns out, yes, he is. Chris Wallace, Fox's interviewer tried his damnedest to get Harper to criticize Obama and lambaste America's current public policymakers, but to his credit Harper didn't embarrass us too badly. I'm trying to be the bigger person in saying that. I'll admit that I was cursing and swearing this morning when I heard he'd given Fox an interview, but after reading the transcript I have to say that besides him sitting down with them in the first place (which I still think was a bad PR move), there's not a heck of a lot bitch about. Like I said, Wallace tried to get him to talk shit, but in the end, Harper kept his head and even went so far as to appear moderate. Read below:

WALLACE: You were the last industrial nation to go into recession, and one of the great joys of this job is you study up on things, and I learned that, in fact, in 2007, you started cutting taxes, and your corporate tax rate is 10 points lower than it is here in the U.S. Am I correct in that, sir?

HARPER: I -- I forget what the relevant American rate is, but I can tell you that our goal is to have a combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate of no more than 25 percent. We’re on target to do that by 2012. We will have significantly -- by a significant margin the lowest corporate tax rates in the G-7, and that’s our -- our government’s objective.

WALLACE: Do you believe that’s better for the economy than President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and some businesses?

HARPER: Well, I’m not going to be drawn in, Chris, as you can imagine, to commenting on American domestic policy. Let me just say that the United States has a significantly different problem than Canada, which is even before this recession, the United States was running a significant budgetary deficit. Canada is in budgetary deficit now only because of the recession, only because of stimulus measures, and we will come out of it. We will go back into surplus position when the economy recovers. So there is no need in Canada to raise taxes. I’m -- as a conservative, I tend to oppose raising taxes at the best of times. But we have not got the structural budgetary deficit that exists in the United States. It obviously limits the administration’s options.

While he doesn't come out and say "Bush screwed you guys, Obama's doing the right thing", that's certainly what he implies.

So... kudos to Harper for not being a complete ass, but the question still remains why he chose Fox in the first place? Left or Right wing politics aside for a moment, that news organization recently supported inflammatory comments about the uselessness of our military and joked about our dead soldiers. Not cool in the best of times, and I understand not lending credence by responding to it, but for the Prime Minister to ignore it to the point of *rewarding* them with an interview??? Really?? Really. It's just sketch. It's not like there aren't other News services that he could've met with. CNN anyone?!? I'm not a huge fan of them either, but at least it's not Fox. They pay the likes of O'Reilly and Coulter and Gutfield to spew vitriolic trash to the most ignorant of American society. Giving them a legitimate interview thereby legitimizes the other nastiness they broadcast. Why would our Prime Minister want to do that? If he must, perhaps he should wait until he's not the public face of Canada, please and thanks.

What I find even more frustrating is that until recently (and by that, I mean not until this fall's election campaign 3 years *after* becoming Prime Minister), Harper refused all media requests for interviews. He's only sat down with CBC twice - once with Mansbridge during the campaign, and then again the day of Obama's visit. Both times, I thought Peter was even-handed and fair and Harper wasn't put on the spot anymore than Opposition Leaders have been when they've had their many, many opportunities. So up until 6 months ago, Harper hated the media. He couldn't control it so he shunned it. But things seem different now. He knows he has an image problem so, he's getting out there. My problem is how.

Not only did he choose to sit with Fox while in Washington, but also with foreign correspondants from Canwest (Global) and CTV. Who's missing there?

Yeah, yeah, we know he doesn't like the CBC. The past weeks' funding disputes have highlighted his antipathy about CBC's existence. But to obviously make a point of granting right-leaning media access to him and exclusively leave CBC out... well again, that's just sketch. If he's really trying to fix his image, he needs better PR people. It doesn't help him win centrist voters to appear more and more propagandist based on his choice of medium. The medium is the message, remember? Even if his words are moderate and fair, choosing only to appear in right-wing media is a mistake. It's still merely preaching to the choir, catering to his base. That's not going to work. He's tried that in the past two elections and only wound up with a minority each time and not because he won the elections, but more that the Liberals lost them.

So if he's trying to make himself look better, I'm not sure he's figured out how. I'm happy to let Harper continue to screw up his image. I'd simply prefer he didn't do it on the international stage and drag us along with him.

Day Light Savings Rocks

I'm looking out the window at 7pm and it's still light out. Thank gawd!! For those of you in the world where the sun is never up past 6, I pity you. Living on the equator, you have no idea what it means to have daylight well into the evening hours, but it is one of my favourite things about summer. There's so much to do when it's warm outside that it seems imperative that we have more sun in which to do it. I guess at the equator, you have summer all year, so you don't have to cram all of your outdoor activities into the few months of the year with temperatures over 20, but north of the 49, daylight savings time means that the World on its axis is just being fair. The great equalizer. We have -30 degree winters, but at least the sun's up past dinner-time for most of the year!

Or at least *now* it's most of the year. I never thought I'd say this, but thank-you George Bush. With daylight savings earlier it means that it's 7pm and I still don't have to turn the lights on. In March. Fan-freakin-tastic.

So it's coming. Tomorrow is supposed to be 14 degrees and sunset's not until 7:30ish. The weather, I'm sure, is a tease, but the sun never lies... Winter has an end. Spring is coming.

Wahoo!

The Brits, they know a thing or two.

I think of myself as a socialist. It is the political state of mind that I can most identify with. And those to the south of us look up here and squirm at how socialist a state we are. But why do we have that reputation? Universal Healthcare? Is that it? Having spent the past week in England it hit me over and over again how much more we could be doing to take care of each other, but we just can't seem to get there.

Time and again, there were signs and advertisements and notices that were meant to impress upon the Brits where and how and why their taxpayers dollars were being spent. Construction on the Tube was plastered with the words "Updating YOUR Underground". Museums including the National Gallery and the Tate are all free admissions and historic sites and monuments are under a governmental umbrella called the "National Trust".  What all of these things say to me and, more importantly, the British public, is that these things *belong* to them. They're theirs. Yes that means that they need to be financially responsible for them, but in reciprocation they get to be proud of them all. That is an incredibly profound feeling, to feel like each individual contributes and so it's a part of them. Walking into Canterbury Cathedral or the Roman Baths, each and every Brit can hold their heads high and claim ownership. Those are their things. Their places, their history, their stories. 

When they introduced the National Health Service (socialized medicine) after WWII, it was communicated to them as something that was being done by each of them for each of them. It was explicitly expressed, that "this is not a charity, but is paid for through your taxes". I can only imagine what it would have been like trying to pick up the pieces after the Blitz had demolished so much of the country. I can see that they felt demoralized. Having just fought a losing battle for so long only to be ultimately "rescued" by the Yanks (and yes, us too), the British were not used to *not* being the super power. Collapse of the British Empire and all that. So to then have the government say, "Hey, we're going to pay for your doctors, because we know none of you can afford it right now", well, that's just another shot at their dignity, isn't it? That is exactly the feeling I imagine poor Americans who are still against medicare must have. It's about pride. Silly perhaps, but oh so powerful. 

So when it comes to "selling" socialism, the Brits seem to have it nailed. It really is all in the approach. Obama take note? Socialism is not about charity. It's not about the dole, although I know that conservatives' arguments against it are that they don't want to bleed and sweat for Mr. Lazy McLazerson to survive without bothering to get off the couch. I get that. I do. And while there are exceptions to every rule, I truly don't think that for most people, human dignity allows for that. Most people do not want to be charity cases. Most people do not want the hand-out. I certainly don't want to be in that position, ever! At the same time, I think it's crucial that we look at the big picture and make sure our society allows for doing what's Right and not solely what's most economical. Anyone who has a baby gets a year off work subsidized by the government. This is the Right thing to do, and no woman (or man) should ever feel guilty about it, because it is *their* right paid for in advance by deductions from their salaries. Healthcare is the same, as is EI and CPP.

These are things our forefathers fought long and hard for and I'm afraid that our complacency in difficult economic times means that we'll collectively forget how important these programs are. There are things that have been left to us in Trust from generations past to hand over to generations future. That trust is sacred. We need to somehow work it into the national psyche that we are here to take care of the future and that the present, well, is fleeting. I've been speaking of government programs, but of course it also applies to our historical monuments and above all, our environment which is perhaps the single greatest monument we have. Canada is still such a vast frontier. We really don't have any right to ruin this land for the sake of our own limited, immediate gains. 

I see what the Brits have done and I'm jealous. But they also have a lot of issues. Homelessness, public drunkenness, an expectation of the dole. I don't want that here. I want to see our social programs as therapy, and less like the permanent crutch it can turn into. Our programs need updating so that people don't get stuck in their dependancy. In all, though,we're doing okay. We're a fledgling little Constitutional Democracy, and we've done well by ourselves so far. I'm proud of that. However, we could still do so much more! Daycare, pharmacare, post-secondary, green industry, better transit, organic food, protected waters... there are so many more things we could do to make our lives better. So many more things that would help ease the burden on *all* of us. It wouldn't be charity. We'd pay for it. Through our taxes. They'd be ours. They'd belong to each and every one of us. Above all, they'd belong to the future.