The long line of presidents, both living and deceased, have always valued traditional beliefs and approaches towards governing and policy.  While these beliefs have always been more conservative, it is not so much a leaning towards one end of the political spectrum or another, but is a way of thinking that has been the norm in the past.  This political worldview developed through what some might call outdated opinions and dogmatic beliefs.  An example of this can be found in the copyright legislation that has been passed in the last couple of decades.  This legislation has not only alienated many of those it was created to protect, but has also been overshadowed by the more impressive ‘open’ copyright systems developed outside of congress and federal courts (see Creative Commons, Open Source).

One must ask, is it possible for the thought processes of politicians and lawmakers to finally be in line with the interests of their constituents? Is it possible for those that we elect to have the kind of creative thinking that make entrepreneurs and technology pioneers so prevalent in this, our 21st century?

Signs of this shift can already be seen in both Canadian and American leadership.  Technology and environmental reforms are beginning to be commonplace on the tickets of mainstream political parties, whether through pressure from fringe political groups or from the public.

The recent inauguration of President Barack Obama will see this kind remodeling come to fruition.  Obama’s technology plans are well documented, a summary of the basic outline can be found here.  Technology reforms such as the revamped plan on broadband deployment are not an end in of themselves; by increasing the technological infrastructure of the United States, it would not just mean connecting more citizens to the Internet, but allowing school, hospitals and government institutions increased security and near limitless access to vital information.

One can only hope that the decisions of these leaders will create a political exodus into the 21st century.  Perhaps then certain laws will cease to be obsolete as soon as they are enacted and will instead inspire ingenuity and the creativity required for citizens to bring themselves out of the times in which we find ourselves.

Noun: Debate

Verb: Debate

Definition: A formal discussion in which viewpoints are established and argued between representatives from opposing sides.

In our last blog, we talked about the current political situation in Canada, and how we have arrived at our current state. A large part of this can be attributed to divisive politics and animosity between parties. It seems that instead of using parliament as a platform for progress, it is used to either try to maintain or usurp power. Instead of a collection of dignitaries and servants of their constituents, the Canadian people are forced to bear with a bunch of rabble-rousers. There is such a thing as healthy debate; however if this is what had been present in the House of Commons in the past year perhaps Canada would not be in its current predicament. Below are a couple of examples of debate in the house, and where they differ in their approach.

Healthy Debate

Characteristics:

- Issue focused
- Passionate
- Good humored
- On-topic

Unhealthy Debate

Characteristics:

- Accusatory
- Blame focused
- Dividing
- Emotion based
- Inflammatory

Perspective: An attitude, opinion or outlook on a certain subject.

Conundrum: A confusing or difficult problem to solve.

TheEnglishBlogger in its continuing presentation of the power and subtlety of the English language is pleased to provide this analysis of the conundrum faced by Canadians. The voters have certain rights but more importantly, they have expectations from their political parties, in particular from the leaders.

It is easy to look at the current situation in Canadian politics and take sides.  After all, Canada stands divided and at an impasse, with the Harper government on one side and the Coalition between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Québécois on the other.  These political affiliations aside, it seems the current state in Canada has been caused by power politics and posturing from all sides of the debate.  We must ask ourselves, where would we be today if all parties had been working together in the past few years?  It would appear that our elected officials have been using parliament as a forum to air their differences instead of an arena for democracy.

The culprits are:

The Conservatives: The Conservatives were appointed to lead the country by the people of Canada.  With the threat of a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Harper, the prorogue was a forced move.  With the only choices being a hold on parliament or being ejected by his peers, Harper had little choice but to delay what was to come in an effort to regain control and refocus the country.

Translation: The prorogue is Harper’s attempt to delay the inevitable.  The hold on parliament will be spent leading a propaganda campaign agai¬nst the coalition.  The Conservatives claim the Coalition is a crime against democracy, yet Harper has no qualms with putting a hold on our governing bodies to stay in power.  How are the Canadian people supposed to support the Conservatives when they seem to contradict themselves?

The Liberals: The Liberals believe the Coalition is a great opportunity to save Canada from the damaging policies of the Conservatives. With the new leadership of a confident Michael Ignatieff, the Liberals see the coalition as a means to an end, and that with them as the leading party of the Coalition they hope to achieve their goal of toppling the Harper government.

Translation: The Liberals, bitter after their embarrassing defeat in the November election have been looking for an opportunity to gain back the trust and reputation they once had with the Canadian people.  Unfortunately the Liberals chose to work against the government and sacrifice the integrity of their party to put them in a more advantageous position.

The NDP: The NDP, as well as other members of the coalition, believe that Harper’s prorogue of Parliament is a violation of our democracy.  This, after a multitude of questionable choices by Harper government, has led the NDP to join with the Coalition in order to remove Harper from power.  With the current economic crisis, global environmental concerns, and Canada’s role in the Middle East, the NDP does not believe ‘business as usual’ will work for our nation.

Translation: The NDP has never won a federal election.  They see the coalition as a chance to get rid of an opponent in removing Harper from power, as well as an opportunity to procure at least some role in the federal government.  Instead of looking out for the best interests of their own party, the NDP should have been looking out for the best interests of the country.




The Bloc Québécois: The Bloc is concerned about Harper’s heavy attitude towards artists and the lack of respect for Québec. The Bloc sees this coalition as a great opportunity to further the interests of Québec, as well as legitimize the Bloc more than just the ‘Separatist Party.’

Translation: The Bloc has an unexpected gift from the wounded Liberals and the power seeking NDP to revive not so much Québec’s interest in separation as much as flaming the winds of anger in the rest of Canada, which could reignite the specter of separatist interests. Given the rapid endorsement of the Coalition by the former Québec premier, Parizeau, who lost because of the “ethnic vote”, and others of similar thinking, it is quite unbelievable that Duceppe has not salivated openly regarding this unexpected manna from Liberal/NDP heaven.

True democracy thrives in debate, however there is difference between healthy debate and ruthless power grabbing.  No party is absent from guilt in our current state of Canadian politics.  There have been those who have refused to be diplomatic, those who have been unwilling to compromise and those whose interests seem to take precedence over the interests of the people of Canada.

In our next blog TheEnglishBlogger will be contrasting the differences between healthy and unhealthy debate.  Using examples and the English language, we hope to highlight how each of these has affected our Country.

Verb: Humor

Definition: A quality of being funny, amusing or otherwise comical.

Humor is a common element in human nature that stretches back to very dawn of civilization.  While the term ‘humor’ is most often associated with literature or the arts it is of course one of the most basic forms of communication.  Humor can be used to bring cheer to others, to relieve stress in a tense situation or simply to break the monotony of life’s daily tasks.  This quality alone is the subject university courses, literary groups, blogs,  and an infinite amount of other groups devoted to exploring and enjoying humor.

An endearing characteristic of humor is that it is timeless.  The subtleties of the exchange between characters in some of the world’s oldest comedies still bring smiles to audiences and readers, as does the comedic timing of physical actors such as Charlie Chaplin.  While there are many different types of humor, the end result is most often the same; a laugh, chuckle, a smirk or a smile.

Probably the most intriguing aspect of humor is its ability to make us think.   Even the most ‘simple’ form of humor (if there is such a thing) is able to be thought provoking.  Perhaps this is because laughter is able bring about both an emotional and physical response.

There are many different forms of humor.  One of these forms are jokes, which can be anything from simple puns to elaborate and long-running jokes which can evolve over time.  One example of this is the “Two Cows” joke, which has evolved over the years and has now turned into an elaborate joke to contrast how different economies and governments would handle their ‘two cows.’

From Bloggled:

Socialism - You have 2 cows; The state takes both and gives you some milk.

Fascism - You have 2 cows; The state takes both and sells you some milk.

Nazism - You have 2 cows; The state takes both and shoots you.

Bureaucratism – You have 2 cows; The state takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away…

Traditional Capitalism – You have 2 cows; You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies and the economy grows.  You sell them and retire on the income.

Surrealism – You have 2 giraffes.  The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

An American Corporation – You have 2 cows; You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.  Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

Link: http://www.bloggled.com/blog/2008/11/17/two-cow-economicsbloggeld-economy/

The Two Cows joke has evolved to such a point that it has almost no ownership.  Like many jokes, with every new telling it takes on a new life.  What is your take on the ‘Two Cows’ joke?

Noun: Diplomacy

Definition: Diplomacy is the act of managing or investing in international relations in a savvy or sensitive way.

Diplomacy can be used in political and non-political situations. A board meeting can be handled diplomatically, so can a situation where a conflict can be resolved, whether that be in congress or in the home.

In order to put Diplomacy into context, The English Blogger would like to use the situation in Zimbabwe to show both a diplomatic and non-diplomatic way to handle an international crisis:

The “non-diplomatic” perspective

The current situation of misery, poverty and abuse of the population of this previously prosperous country where hope once reigned is totally deplorable, all the more so because it was avoidable.
Why is today’s Zimbabwe synonymous with corruption, abuse, grief and despair? The answer is simple.
First there is the great liberator turned parasite. Robert Mugabe will surely be remembered as one of the most despicable, selfish, incompetent, abusive leaders that his own people have had the misfortune of having. The man, now 84, is totally corrupt and feeds his insatiable appetite for power by feasting on the bones and dire misery of what he calls his people, while blaming all others and holding himself blameless.
Robert Mugabe is aided and abetted by history and by the apathy of all nations within the continent of Africa, without exception. He is further aided by the apathy of the world, which continues to hide behind rhetoric and hand-wringing concerning this real-life tragedy on an unprecedented scale.
The other African leaders, in close proximity to Zimbabwe, are caught in their own relentless power grabbing and self-aggrandizing enrichment. They cannot afford to cast the light of criticism on the number 1 criminal in Africa as they would then risk that same light being shined upon them.
The rest of the world is no better. Being more distant is no justification for the gross negligence and apathy of world powers both big and small. The tragedy of Zimbabwe is not so much the unbelievable poverty and abuse; rather it is the attitude of non-caring, which continues to exacerbate the worst example of human abuse of other humans on our planet.
Most recently 2 more diplomatic incompetents, who by their philosophy and style contribute nothing more than destructive compliance, have added their (non) weight, outdated and useless efforts to the cause. Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, by virtue of their supposed status and influence, wanted to see “for themselves”, the situation on the ground. It is truly arrogant and destructive to take energy and effort to “confirm” that Zimbabweans are suffering. It is ironic that Robert Mugabe has rejected their request to allow them entry; this shows both his mettle and the lack of same for these tired, useless efforts by dignitaries who continue the same old do nothing apathetical approaches that have allowed Zimbabwe to sink to unprecedented depths of abuse not seen in recent memory.
History will name names of the perpetrators of these crimes and abuses; it will also cast its light on those who could have and should have prevented it. Unfortunately it is all too late for the millions who have suffered and will continue to do so.
The world never learns nor does it care.

The “diplomatic” perspective

By all accounts it would seem that Zimbabwe and its people have encountered some difficult times during many of the last 40 years. The situation has become serious enough that world-renowned dignitaries such as Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter have recently wanted to visit and see for themselves. They have also urged the leaders of surrounding countries to enter into formal discussions as soon as possible with Robert Mugabe in order to determine what may be done to improve the situation. In fact many leaders globally, have begun to express serious concern and interest in helping improve the situation.
Unfortunately, it seems that Robert Mugabe does not trust most of these leaders, whom he blames for much of the problems encountered by his country and its people.
The situation is important and will continue to be monitored. The world wants to help and will do so at the first visible opportunity.

After putting the situation in Zimbabwe into a diplomatic context, we would like to delve deeper into the situation. The English Blogger recently commented on the US elections using the ABC format. To characterize the ‘leader’ of Zimbabwe, the English Blogger would like to present the ABC’s concerning Robert Mugabe.

Robert Mugabe