« Vinick Collapse (If Santos Gets the Nomation) | HomePage | Catholic Church Pushes Creationism »
Monday, April 04, 20051112671200
Gomery, Groupaction, and Adscam Summary for American Readers
"Sponsorship scandal," Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_sponsorship_scandal.
"Spotlight Falls on Groupaction," by Tu Thanh Ha, Globe and Mail, 28 March 2005.
Finally, I know what the heck is going on. "Canada's Watergate is unfolding, apparently, the blogs are charging, and it seems to be a public work scandal. Can't the Great White North have a real scandal? You know, like accidentally invading an oil-rich despotism or familiar relations with an intern or something?
If Paul Martin isn't Canada's Nixon....
Then Why is the Globe and Mail story written by Tu Thanh Ha?!?
Anyway, the story out: The Liberals are Canada's Democrats, but crazier. Ever since the Conservative (Canadian Republican) and Quebecois (Canadian French) alliance fell apart in the early '90s, the Liberals have been runnign the show.
Tu Thanh Ha (Presumably, the Aforementioned Reporter)
Not Actually Implicated in Scandal, but Quite Attractive
Mid-90s, the Canadian French realize they don't like living in America, Jr. and try to leave. They lose the freedom election very, very narrowly. The Liberal Canadian government decides what the Quebecquackers need is propoganda, and begin a massive PR campaign to convince the French they really like living in a former British colony.
Canadian Frechman,
Not Being Subject to Criminally Ineffective Propaganda
A lot of this PR money is sent to a company called Groupaction. In a series of murky deals, a lot less money goes out than comes in. A lot of money is spent on farm shows and other worthless campaigns.
Turns out, Groupaction was getting away with it by sending money back to the Liberal Party in illegal
Because of the fact it involves advertising scams, it's called adscam. Get it? Ad-Scam. Har har.
To make it more fun, no one won the last election. The Conservative Party, Liberal Party, and Bloc Quebecois (Angry Frenchman Party) split the Parliament, with no one winning a majority. As the first-loser Liberals apparently are all crooks, this may hurt them.
The sad part is that this shouldn't be happening. Quebec has no business being in Canada. British Columbia has no business being in Canada. The Domion is an artificial state created by the business to contain America. The sooner it falls apart, the better to Canadians, North America, and the World.
22:20 Posted in North America | Permalink | Comments (3) | Email this | Tags: adscam, canada
Trackbacks
Post-Adscam Poll Predicts Collapse for Canadian Liberals
"'Breathtaking' poll sees defeat for Canada Liberals," by Randall Palmer and David Ljunggren, Reuters, 11 April 2005, http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-04-11T160006Z_01_ZWE149861_RTRUKOC_0_CANADA-POLITICS....
Trackback by: tdaxp | Monday, April 11, 2005
Comments
So what's the difference between a North American Union and Canada? Are the Quebecois to be left out of a NAU? Or is it the way the Canadian provinces are put together that you're objecting to?
Posted by: Michael | Friday, April 27, 2007
Sorry, I should have read through all the posts in the North America category before asking.
To a certain extent, though, it's still a valid question. BC and Alberta may be better off going it alone, but the same could be said for assorted American states. Quebec may have non-pragmatic reason for becoming independent of the rest of the continent, but the same could be said (again) for parts of the US and for parts of Mexico besides.
If you open the door to an eventual annexation of parts (or all) of Mexico, you also open the door to a similar annexation of parts (or all) of Canada.
Posted by: Michael | Friday, April 27, 2007
Michael,
Very good points. You've thought a lot about this. A break-up of Canada is more likely, if less beneficial, than a break-up of Mexico. As an already developed country, it has a lot less ground to make up, and no internal non-integrating Gap to really worry about.
The United States has already demonstrated its views on states seceding (1861-1865), so I think that possibility is somewhat less likely.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, April 28, 2007