This must be some form of a gag

Ever have one of those moments where you just couldn’t stop laughing? I mean bend over gut pain laughing?

That’s what happened when I read this.

Poor old George Bush. He’s blamed for bringing down the Middle East. For stirring up Russia. For destabilizing Pakistan. For fomenting anti-Americanism around the world.

And now, according to Maude, he has turned his evil eye towards Canada. No, not all of Canada. Little old Atlantic Canada. Bush wants to “take over Atlantic Canada”.

Now, I realize that everyone with a cause these days evokes the name of George Bush to get their desired effect. “Oh, that restaurant is crap. George Bush ate there.” “George Bush is responsible for global warming.” “George Bush is behind the bad weather in the U.K.”

But of all the areas that George Bush would want to take over, why would he ever want Atlantic Canada?

It’s kind of neat. I say bring it on. Maybe it would finally shut Maude Barlow up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to This must be some form of a gag

  1. Anonymous says:

    Um, how about oil, potash, lumber, paper, and gas? This isn’t even a debate in the states, just go read state department documents, they SAY it. Ask the owner of Pumphouse Breweries how much free trade helps him. This stuff is pretty much FACT, I mean they openly SAY it. Why exactly do you think 60% of Irvings gas goes to Massachusetts?

  2. NB taxpayer says:

    I don’t know what all the fuss is about? As Mulroney said recently, Free Trade [now NAFTA] is responsible for 3 out of every 4 jobs in Canada. That can’t be a bad thing.

  3. Anonymous says:

    That’s just garbage, in particular for New Brunswick. None of the largest exports from the province have anything to do with free trade. Oil, lumber and fisheries were all under separate treaties. Call centers have nothing to do with free trade, neither do fisheries or financial services.

    And of course it very easily ‘can be a bad thing’, when most of your trade is with one partner, and most of their trade isn’t with you, then obviously they have power over all kinds of issues on you. Plus, if something happens to that one economy then the whole deck of cards falls down.

    The ironic thing is what they don’t say, which is that New Brunswick is already run by virtually all the policies that Atlantica wants to be. The US NEVER wants to actually have democratic tools available to those they trade with, because that could lead to what is called ‘economic nationalism’, meaning people may want to use their resources for their own benefit.

    So this is why we don’t hear word one about ‘Atlantica’ from anywhere south of the border, except some guy in Maine right on the border. You think Vermont or Maine is going to dismantle their democratic institutions for Atlantica? Not likely. But here in Canada we simply have no say in the matter. In fact, the CofC should be arguing for MORE integration with the US, namely in the political tools like far more impressive environmental regulations, grassroots democratic tools in dealing with development, and statewide citizens initiatives so that the people actually have a voice in what happens.

  4. David Campbell says:

    Ah, finally. A true contrarian. “the CofC should be arguing for MORE integration with the US”. Maude would beg to differ but I think you’ve got a point.

  5. mikel says:

    Actually, I doubt it, but again, it depends what is meant by integration. I was being a contrarian at a ‘left’ website when the atlantica protest was going on at the same time that it came out that the pollution in the great lakes had the canadian provinces far more culpable than the US.

    It came down to terms, all I said was if we ‘integrated’ our environment regulations with the US we’d be better off environmentally (which is just a statement of fact), however, (and here I think we find the true contrarians) the opposing argument was “no, we should just step up our own regulations”. Well that’s potato potato, if the regulations are the same then the rest is semantics.

    Of course we could make our regulations even stricter, which would then be a ‘made in Canada’ solution, however, don’t hold your breath for that. It’s a question of strategy, do you attempt to reject a proposal outright or do you attempt to change it so it fits your needs.

    Incidentally though, the CofC’s chief argument has been that this security agreement was co-opted by corporations (there WERE over 300 recommendations but almost all the labour and environmental ones were tossed). While they say ‘reject free trade’, that’s again a kind of strategy, you can’t have a protest with a sign that says “Reject Policy 242 and 658 of the Security protocol and adopt the recommendations of the council of foreign relations” -it won’t fit.

    If the policies were GOOD (from their point of view) they would be cheering integration. But its like Afghanistan, we COULD be doing good works, but we aren’t, which is why people support pulling out. If the policies were different, then the opposition would be different.

    Keep in mind these government policies change all the time. One big media omission is government changes that are due to United Nations resolutions. We almost never hear about that. But how often do you see the council of canadians (which again, represents actual canadians not corporations) having protests talking about rejecting GATT regulations on micro credit or human rights? Not too often, so its really not accurate to state that they are always griping or not presenting solutions.