![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Here's my quick-simple version of events, and remember that (a) I ignore political news as much as I possibly can, so I'm hardly an expert on any of it, and (b) I am not unbiased. It is, after all, the unfolding history of my country that's going on here. Commentary and correction from my more politcally-astute friends is welcome.
- We had a federal election in October, possibly the most boring election ever held anywhere. The Conservatives ended up with enough seats in Parliament to from the Government, with their leader, Steven Harper, as Prime Minister. Again.
- Steven Harper announced the new Budget last week. It was so stupid and useless that it was about to trigger a non-confidence motion in Parliament. Significant details: it didn't address the Recession, which is on everyone's mind, and Harper tried to cut funding to political parties.
- Here's where the tricky and unusual bit comes. Usually a vote of non-confidence means a new election. But we just had a big, expensive (and did I mention boring?) election in October. So instead of that, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party decided to join together in what they called the Coalition. There are more Conservative seats in Parliament than either NDP or Liberal, but put the Liberals and the NDP together and they have a party with enough seats to hold power. The Bloc Quebecois (which is most of the remainder of Parliament) agreed to support this amalgamation.
This move would topple Harper as PM and make Liberal Leader Stephane Dion the new Prime Minister.
With me so far? - On Wednesday, the evening before this was going to happen, Harper appeared on television to beg the people of Canada to keep him as PM because, well, anything else was unCanadian. (He used the word 'illegal' and hinted at the word 'treasonous'.)
- The next morning, Harper went to Governor-General Michaelle Jean and asked her to suspend Parliament - because if Parliament can't sit, they can't form the Coalition government and can't boot him out of power.
- The Governor-General agreed to this and Parliament is prorogued, which is the technical word for the suspension. Parliament can now not sit until the end of January. Till then, we technically have a government in power, the Conservatives, but nobody can do anything.
- Harper is now writing another, better Budget speech to present at the end of January, hoping it won't get him ousted.
The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 03:51 pm (UTC)Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 04:05 pm (UTC)Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 04:52 pm (UTC)Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 07:01 pm (UTC)Sadly, national anthems are almost always pompous or swaggering. Americans, for example, would be offended if you reminded them that the melody for their anthem was originally a drinking song called "To Anacreon in Heaven" and made references to various classical (Greco-Roman) gods in possibly impolite ways. At least one god was "added" to the pantheon: "Momus ... with his risible phiz" [face].
Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 08:20 pm (UTC)Isn't that just two ways of saying the same thing? I'm not sure what distinction you're making. My problem with it is only partly the implications of Christianity; I am more concerned with the implication that religion should have a role in the secular state. That, I don't like. Any religion. Any state.
Sadly, national anthems are almost always pompous or swaggering.
Might be fun to see then adopt something like soccer songs. Or, as you point out, drinking songs. I think this is because more national anthems AFAIK date to the nineteenth century, and age of hymns, pomp and excess ceremony.
If we get to have personal anthems (why not?) I think mine is "Food, Glorious Food" from Oliver!. Or maybe "Just an Old-Fashioned Girl", as sung by Eartha Kitt. (No, no, just kidding...)
Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 07:44 pm (UTC)Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 08:28 pm (UTC)I think that would simply please no one, except maybe a few theists and pagans. It wouldn't please the devout Christians and it wouldn't please the atheists. For me the question is not "which gods to choose" but "let's just keep that god question outside matters of government and state".
Though I still cosndier myself a pantheist, I find I have more and more of the sensibilities and reactions of an atheist as time goes by.