Moonlight Graham

Thought this subject was interesting. From another thread, dre replying to me re: pledging allegiance to the Queen of Canada: Fair enough. I just wanted to share with others on here what i learned years ago in university, some of which surprised me, about specifically what the Crown and the Queen of Canada is and what it/she represents. When someone pledges allegiance to the Queen they aren't really pledging allegiance to the individual person or glorifying her. From my dusty 2nd year university Canadian political institutions textbook by Rand Dyck: "The concept of the Crown is not widely understood by Canadians...For example, since the Queen represents the whole state (of Canada) and its people, oaths of allegiance to the Queen are really pledges of support for the Canadian political system, and "God Save the Queen" really means "God help us govern ourselves". To put the Queen's picture on stamps and coins, in classrooms or courtrooms, is not to glorify her personally, but to recognize her as a unifying symbol of the state." More from the textbook... "The Crown is not only the collectivity of executive powers; it also represents the entire state and embodies what belongs to the people collectively. This can be seen in ie: Crown lands (state-owned lands), and Crown corporations etc. ... The Queen embodies the Crown. The term 'royal' is also widely used in Canada to refer to institutions that function for the advantage of all in the name of the Queen, ie: Royal Canadian Mint, royal commissions, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police etc." So pledging allegiance to the Queen isn't really pledging allegiance to the woman personally, more like pledging support for the state of Canada and its institutions. Similar to how pledging allegiance to a flag isn't pledging allegiance to a piece of coloured cloth, but what it represents. And, of course, the Queen is not a foreign monarch and to Canadians is not the Queen of the U.K./Britain/England, but officially known as the Queen of Canada. "The Queen's relationship with Canada no longer has anything to do with the country called the United Kingdom". She is equally the monarch for all the Commonwealth countries, including the U.K. and Canada.

Yes, not a bad idea at all... The oath is a verbal legal agreement. Y'know, like taking an oath in court. Signed documents are just as legal, but are easier to record and store. Oaths don't prevent anyone from lying, but neither does a signed document. If you don't follow your legally binding oath that's your choice, but you can get in legal troubles for it. See: lying in court.

The failure of Kyoto shows the tragedy of the commons. The atmosphere is very easy to exploit and just about impossible to regulate internationally with all major players on board. Once again, money and short-term self-interests rule the day. Humanity's tragic flaw, that may one day cause its extinction.

Moonbox never said that.

IMO, I think the veils should come off for the oaths. It's a question of citizenship. We need to see their mouths speak the words of the oath to this country. However, this is just my opinion, and this is a very controversial topic because it is also a matter of religious Charter rights. I don't think Mr. Kenney has the power to make such a demand/law without it going through the courts (unless it had already?). The Charter also has a "reasonable limits" clause. Are there not reasonable limits to religious freedoms? Should we allow female circumcision in Canada based on religious tradition? Should I be able to rape or slap my baby, or urinate on my baby if it's part of my religion? Or any other nutso tradition (from a Canadian perspective)? Canada cannot possibly permit everything and anything just because it's a "religious tradition" and therefore protected by the Charter. We must decide as a country what we should permit and what we shouldn't. It's offensive to me that you think the oath is a "meaningless symbolic pledge". Aren't you a Canadian??? Are wedding vows meaningless to you as well? Or any promise? The pledge also has legal implications. From wikipedia: "The Oath of Citizenship is today a legally binding oral and written contract intended to ensure that new Canadian citizens promise to obey the laws and customs of their new country, fulfil their duties as citizens, and recognize the authority of the monarch as the personification of various entities and concepts." Also, the Queen isn't a foreign monarch. She is the Queen of Canada, as is stated clearly in the Oath. You may not like it, and I'm not the most thrilled by it, but until it changes you must accept it and pledge allegiance to the Queen because the monarchy is a core part of our country and she is our head of state.

Good luck with that.

TV news media now is a bit damned for the format it is: quick, visual, and competing many other channels. Anyone relying on TV news for their news will be info deficient. The strength of TV news is the video footage it brings of coverage of events unfolding, as well as things like interviews, press conferences etc. You still couldn't cover the day of 9/11 on the internet like you could on CNN or NBC etc. But for real depth of info you have always needed to rely on print/text media, ie: newspapers or internet sites etc. Thankfully the internet is a very text-friendly medium. It's also free of so many restraints of TV broadcasting and (theoretically) allows billions of voices to be heard. The internet is Michael's media revolution. Great post Michael.

This reminds me of FOX News. Millions of viewers lap that programming up, not because it presents objective facts, but because it reinforces their own preconceived notions of what is real and what is not. And let me tell you, i've seen those on the left drink their own liberal kool-aid too. But on the right it seems far more bizarre and downright scary.

And the six heirs help keep them that way by employing many of the lowest 30% with Walmart wages and crap benefits. But dang do I like those savings!

I think only in the last couple of decades have some Arabs/Palestinians been able to accept the prospect of a 2-state solution. Many still don't of course. This is what has shot them in the foot many times in the past and left them with less land now than they would have, ie: if they accepted and tried to work out a deal on the Peel Plan or 1947 UN partition plan. But Israel wasn't game for those either, and they've benefited from it in terms of land grabs.

Just went to the store to buy some milk and came back having bought six 50" TV's and I don't know why or even who i'm going to give them to. In fact I barely even remember buying them.

First of all, who is "we"? You don't speak for a bloc, you speak for yourself on this subject. You, me, nor anyone, should ever take unacceptable behaviour by government as acceptable, no matter how many of them have done it in the past. A bunch of bologna. You put up with it, even defend it, because your "team" is in power so you don't mind it as much. I'm quite certain you wouldn't be saying "oh well, it's ok, everyone does it" to scandals if the Liberals or NDP were in power and doing it. That's the problem with citizens thinking on partisan lines. People start defending, or ignoring, nonsense just because it's their "team" doing it. All parties and governments lie to us, they must all be held to account with vigilance.

But Harper has been more controlling than his immediate predecessors in many ways, and it certainly did not start with the recent CPC majority.

Found this also disturbing from a Globe & Mail article on the topic:

Nothing new for the Harper gov really.

jbg, I don't agree with most of the points in your OP, and your main assertion: I don't think "self-flagellation" is the right term. There would be a chunk of that for sure, but most of all nowadays there would be people asking questions. Why did this happen? What should our response be? Could we have prevented it? Should we go to war? If so, what does that mean, and what will it look like, and how much will it cost in blood and treasure? These are VERY important questions to ask, and I'm glad societies ask them more these days, and citizens are more vigilant & critical about what is likely the most important decision any government will make: going to war. You make it seem like a quick reactionary military response by the US is somehow sentimentally noble, and the same with your natural father enlisting in the military 3 days later (whom I assume did so voluntarily?). With all due respect to your father, if I enlisted in a war I would darn well take a bit of time to read up and know exactly the war is about, why it happened, if it's worth it, if i'm just being played as just another expendable political pawn in some stupid game etc. Questioning government actions, especially in times of war, is in the national interest. The rah-rah-rah "let's go to war!!!" macho bullcrap belongs at football games, not in decisions of war & peace. With the US being attacked by another state? I doubt it. Humiliated as in like Abu Ghraid? I would hope so. If it were done on US troops, I highly doubt that.

I was just jesting, but yes these things exist. As do people from businesses who get paid to go onto popular message boards or customer review sites and sing fake praises of products etc. The story was picked up from the AP though, so who knows.

Alec Baldwin was mentioned about 11 times. It's almost like they are trying to market Alec Balwdin.

If most of this is free, or at least a good chunk of it, then cool. If I have to pay it's useless since I already have cable plus don't want to waste bandwidth. I don't have Netflix but it is popular on Xbox Live and a convenient idea, but most of the other stuff, like Facebook and Twitter, is just fluff I don't use. Why don't they just include a freaking internet browser so I can just surf the web (i'm sure it has everything to do with media control and $$$). Even the Wii has web browsing.

So you are celebrating the fact you don't celebrate?

They'll still get bullied, just maybe not quite as much.

Wow look at all you old spunkers.

Doesn't bother me. I won't use it, so I just ignore it.

These blocs need to be formed in order for these individual countries to gain power over other powerful countries and blocs. Look how powerful the EU can be, given it combined has a higher GDP than the US. Strategic blocs are especially important for developing countries/regions without much political/economic power like Africa & L.A. Just wait, some nut job will think this is some NWO conspiracy toward one-world government when it is really just a clear maneuver of international power relations.

The gov/cabinet/Tory MP's reducing some of their own sweet wages/benefits would be a nice gesture indeed. Lead by example, and put your money where your mouth is. Of course this will never happen! Revenues may slip if a bunch of these PS workers can't find new jobs or their incomes in their new jobs aren't as high as with the gov (likely!), but the savings of not having to pay the salaries and benefits of these people will more than make up for it. That's why they are doing! They aren't going to do it so they'll need to print money, since the debt/deficit is the entire reason why they are making the cuts in the 1st place.