Skating Around the Issues
The Rideau Canal opened up for skaters yesterday, and after having witnessed the miracle of finding skates my size at a local sporting goods store, I didn’t waste much time getting out there in the afternoon. The ice was in decent condition, though one of the many small fissures or cracks did induce a rather theatrical bail on my part. The hot chocolate I enjoyed on the ice upon reaching downtown was fantastic and made up for any bruises or strains I might have suffered as a result of my fall. By the time I made it back home - only a 20 minute skate from Parliament Hill - I was thoroughly convinced that there are few activities more quintessentially Canadian than skating on the Canal during a light snowfall in the first week of January.
Moving on to something else often referred to as quintessentially Canadian: criticizing the Bush administration. This week the President announced a $114 million funding package to expand foreign language programs in American universities. While I think it’s a great idea in principle, it’s the reasoning behind the initiative that’s rather dubious: not to promote a more worldly American citizenry or to encourage students to appreciate foreign cultures for what one can learn from them, but instead to strengthen national security. "We need intelligence officers who, when somebody says something in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu, know what they're talking about," said the President.
The problem with framing the program in such a way is that it does nothing to promote a greater understanding of the world outside the United States than that which already exists. It would take far more than $114 million to make any progress in that regard. Moreover, his reference to Arabic, Farsi and Urdu as important languages for Americans to learn makes it rather clear that racial profiling is still going strong in the Land of the Free.
Though one could argue that funding for foreign-language training is a good thing no matter what the context, it seems counterproductive to couch it in such purely America-centric reasoning. If national security has become the primary motivation for significant social policy initiatives like this one, are Americans only likely to see more funding for child care if babies are deemed a security liability when left in the hands of their parents? Or more funding for conservation initiatives if habitat destruction is encouraging black bear, eagles and elk to form their own pro-wilderness terror cells? It makes you wonder.
As for the trials and tribulations of our own administration-in-limbo, it looks like we have a two-way race on our hands. Regardless of one’s political affiliations, it would be very difficult to argue that this scenario isn’t good for the country. In any event, as I’m sure many have already mentioned, the Conservatives have had a successful campaign so far because in their rush to move towards the centre, they’ve had little or no time to talk about their social-conservative values.
Unlike the last campaign, none of the Canadian Alliance stalwarts have yet come out of the woodwork with their denunciations of same-sex marriage, abortion or liberal immigration policies. Instead they’ve been kept on a much shorter leash, allowing their leader - no longer the rookie he was 18 months ago - to stick priorities: slowly usurping, for better or worse, policy positions that could have just as easily defined the Liberal campaign. Harper’s continued references to a free vote on same-sex marriage in the House and his over-the-top approach to cracking down on crime are the closest he’s come to the once feared hidden agenda that no longer seems to be an issue for his opponents.
Moving on to something else often referred to as quintessentially Canadian: criticizing the Bush administration. This week the President announced a $114 million funding package to expand foreign language programs in American universities. While I think it’s a great idea in principle, it’s the reasoning behind the initiative that’s rather dubious: not to promote a more worldly American citizenry or to encourage students to appreciate foreign cultures for what one can learn from them, but instead to strengthen national security. "We need intelligence officers who, when somebody says something in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu, know what they're talking about," said the President.
The problem with framing the program in such a way is that it does nothing to promote a greater understanding of the world outside the United States than that which already exists. It would take far more than $114 million to make any progress in that regard. Moreover, his reference to Arabic, Farsi and Urdu as important languages for Americans to learn makes it rather clear that racial profiling is still going strong in the Land of the Free.
Though one could argue that funding for foreign-language training is a good thing no matter what the context, it seems counterproductive to couch it in such purely America-centric reasoning. If national security has become the primary motivation for significant social policy initiatives like this one, are Americans only likely to see more funding for child care if babies are deemed a security liability when left in the hands of their parents? Or more funding for conservation initiatives if habitat destruction is encouraging black bear, eagles and elk to form their own pro-wilderness terror cells? It makes you wonder.
As for the trials and tribulations of our own administration-in-limbo, it looks like we have a two-way race on our hands. Regardless of one’s political affiliations, it would be very difficult to argue that this scenario isn’t good for the country. In any event, as I’m sure many have already mentioned, the Conservatives have had a successful campaign so far because in their rush to move towards the centre, they’ve had little or no time to talk about their social-conservative values.
Unlike the last campaign, none of the Canadian Alliance stalwarts have yet come out of the woodwork with their denunciations of same-sex marriage, abortion or liberal immigration policies. Instead they’ve been kept on a much shorter leash, allowing their leader - no longer the rookie he was 18 months ago - to stick priorities: slowly usurping, for better or worse, policy positions that could have just as easily defined the Liberal campaign. Harper’s continued references to a free vote on same-sex marriage in the House and his over-the-top approach to cracking down on crime are the closest he’s come to the once feared hidden agenda that no longer seems to be an issue for his opponents.
posted by Per at 6:07 p.m.
<< Home