Friday, July 20, 2012
Bradley Hit a Wall
Wall’s question during a Western Canadian & American meeting came in a direct address to President Obama. The question that he made was which president within history has ever had Canada’s interest at heart. My guess is that he would say Ronald Reagan. Since he's had a particular fascination with the former President Reagan, whose relationship with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was a particular source of pride. In fact, some of Wall's closest political colleagues and advisers argue to this day that Reagan was America's greatest president because it was Reagan's emphasis on massive, debt-accumulating military spending that bankrupted the communist states and ended the biggest threat to the globe from potential nuclear war. The theory is interesting and has some validity, but it ignores the fact that the threat to world peace didn't exactly end as predicted, and that debt-plagued Reaganomics has had serious implications for the American and global economies ever since. For Canada and Saskatchewan, the outcome of Reaganomics included a recession that made our oil less profitable and increased U.S. protectionism in the 1980s that produced massive tariffs on softwood lumber exports, uranium, and potash. It is with this perspective that we should explore a remark Wall made in Saskatoon on Monday about President Barack Obama at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region Summit. People think in this country, perhaps they do, that the Obama administration is good for Canada... The facts say something else. Clearly, the premier could and should have been wiser with his words to reporters, especially since his tone can so easily be interpreted as injecting a personal bias into the democratic affairs of Canada's biggest trading partner. That said Wall’s slights hardly constitute an international etiquette.
There is no doubt that Wall was playing to his audience of right-wing American and Canadian political and business types at the conference held in Saskatoon. His actual PNWER speech was considerably more diplomatic and made the point that a premier should make. Yet I would surmise Ottawa, Canada's capital had Wall's phones and staff given a cordial Canadian kick in the behind. There are trade irritants between our countries. Canada-U.S. relations may not be the worst in decades. A claim by former Mulroney chief-of-staff and Canadian ambassador to the U.S., Derek Burney, which even Wall disputed Monday. However, it also would be nonsense to suggest, as current U.S. ambassador to Canada David Jacobson did, that relations have never been better. Which they have but in the recent years, there has been more progress between Prime Minister Harper and President Obama. Whether it's been trade challenges against the former Canadian Wheat Board, or the George W. Bush administration's mostly politically motivated response to the discovery of BSE in Canada, to the embarrassment of protectionist U.S. farm bills under every U.S. administration or those 1980s tariffs, Canadian politicians have spent decades struggling with protectionism by U.S. federal and state legislators.
The "Obama Protectionism" to which Wall refers seems more of the same. In that vein, the premier acknowledged that the Keystone XL pipeline delays are likely a temporary condition related to U.S. election year politics. This doesn't mean that Wall isn't legitimately frustrated by American environmentalists' misguided view of "Dirty Canadian Oil," or that Obama's “Buy American Rule” in the most recent U.S. stimulus package isn't unfair to Canadian suppliers. However, is this something unexpected or unusual? In addition, does it make Obama bad for Canada or worse than any other recent American president? It's at this point that Wall's argument lacks any historical perspective. Exactly what constitutes a good American president for Canada is unclear. However, one would think it would involve a U.S. leader making the world more peaceful, allowing trade and avoiding the kind of protectionism that makes commerce more difficult. Perhaps Obama's record is hit and misses on both fronts, but that puts him on par with most of his predecessors in the White House. It certainly doesn't prove that the Obama’s administration is any worse for Canada than any other U.S. administration that Wall might find more appealing politically.
Yet Brad Wall hardly handled it in a more diplomatic manner. He came out intentionally as the word is that he will be running for the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Interview by James Gormley with Brad Wall attached in mp3
Part of The Equation
With good weather, I took another trail – one that I had started on when I first arrived here. Things were tremendously hard then. I did a fast tapper off a medication – but I force my mind to look at nature. As of yesterday, I knew there was a change of plans where I will move at the beginning of August.
Yet when I went on my three-hour journey – I looked back at how I had walked, and then ran a path, which was cold and covered with snow. These are a few pictures without the need of an editor, which I do miss, as I love to watermark them.
Outside of that from today, I looked afar and I could not believe that there was a person dressed in all winter apparel doing what he had done. When I stood at one local – I sat and looked at everything and again there was the earth, wind, and sky.
I was just a part of the equation I learned.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Rod Stewart - Rhythm of my Heart
Rod Stewart can be regarded as the rock generation’s heir to Sam Cooke. Like Cooke, Stewart delivers both romantic ballads and up tempo material with conviction and panache, and he sings in a warm, soulful rasp. A singer’s singer, Stewart seemed made to inhabit the spotlight.
The London-born Stewart’s long-lived career extends back to 1964, when he cut his first record the blues standard “Good Morning Little Schoolgirl". Soon after, he began turning up in mid-Sixties R&B bands: as Long John Baldry’s Hoochie Coochie Men, Steampacket, and Shotgun Express. Stewart really came into his own as the singer with the Jeff Beck Group, the guitarist’s post-Yardbirds ensemble, formed in 1968.
From there, Stewart graduated to the Small Faces. He and guitarist Ron Wood joined founding members Ian McLagan, Ronnie Lane and Kenney Jones in the wake of Steve Marriott’s departure, and the Small Faces - which soon adopted the shortened name Faces - became an enormously popular touring group, rivaling the Rolling Stones for rollicking, good-natured rock and roll.
In concert, twirling mike stands and kick soccer balls into the audience while strutting across stages in flashy garb. Though critics occasionally looked askance at his music and persona in the wake of his Atlantic crossing, the public stood by him every step of the way. Stewart charted hit singles and platinum albums in nearly every year from 1970 through 1995, and his paced has slowed only slightly since then. He has proved a remarkably durable talent who has been single-mindedly committed to his music, touring tirelessly and recording prolifically.
Coffee Talk
I thought I would dabble into a little – Coffee Talk. You know, I’ve been accused of being a wise guy from time to time and I suppose I am. However, not really. Here are some areas with a coffee at the side to think about and enjoy. They are points to consider now rather than points these could be considered perspective angles.
Too bad wise guy and wise man don’t mean the same thing. 
When you say there’s a slim chance or a fat chance of something happening, it means the same. 
However, when stars are visible we say they are out and when lights are out, they are invisible. English doesn’t make sense sometimes. 
The plural of house is houses but the plural of mouse isn’t mouses. (Duh)
Two moose are the same as one moose but more than one tooth becomes teeth.
Now why is that?
More than one booth isn’t beeth. However, an extra goose makes geese.
They say birds of a feather flock together except a bunch of geese is a gaggle.
A writer writes but a grocer doesn’t groce.
A vegetarian eats vegetables but a humanitarian doesn’t eat humans. ( None that I know of )
.........Although I guess, a humanitarian could theoretically be eaten BY humans in some jungle or other. (Which brings me to New Guinea)
Perhaps in Guinea where you won’t find Guinea pigs because, they don’t come from there and they aren’t pigs in any case. And if staying there you do wish to have a good head sense or it may cost the top of your head.
English muffins don’t come from England and French Fries aren’t from France. Now where do these things originate?
In the meantime be careful if someone offers you sweetbreads which are meat and not sweet.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Out on a Limb
Apart of half of my day within this town I took a few shots in a easy going manner. Thus I was out on limb, which turned the wheels
within my jaunty travels within the day.
The Tenacious Secretary of State
Two summers ago in announcing the end of the combat operations in Iraq, President Obama told the United States it was time for America to devote itself to problems at home. At the first glance, his speech seemed exceptional. Nevertheless, it left one high-ranking American official privately uneasy. That person’s name is Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. From what she took into account from former aides - which had served within the position, Obama’s speech may be overly interpreted and inclined to be sending wrong message. She thought the address as a in apt. From the meaning of President Obama’s speech,
The United States was relinquishing its role as the worlds’ dominant power. Which was in contradiction to the global manner which America would pursue international relations. Eight days later, she would deliver her own speech. Those two speeches managed to capture the subtle contrasts of outlooks between Obama and Clinton.
Behind the scenes, the irony that I find is that Hillary had lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Obama. Primarily due to the liberal image which the Democratic placed together within its platform. Hillary was type casted as a stern traditionalist. This was in contrast to the foreign policies, which were adapted by the Democrats - as advised by Senator Pelusi. In short term, Hillary would place out her own speech. The irony was subtle yet the contrast was two very different outlooks in the aftermath of Iraq. Clinton’s views have not changed within the three years while holding the position of Secretary of State. As at this time, there is a strong relation and respect between Obama and Clinton. I would tend to think that Obama is more reliant and open minded to the decisive rather than some in which have been within his caucus. As you never hear either party criticize her. This leads me to believe that Hillary’s work does not have much leverage from which to criticize from either side of the coin in Washington. That's the Clinton and Democratic Advantage.
Hillary’s various speaking engagements as well as meetings abroad focus more on a new American movement where the nation is laying down a long lasting American foundation for years to come. Ironically, Mitt Romney has borrowed several of Senator Clinton’s ideals. One, which was his first campaigning platform, titled; “This is an American Moment”.
There is no question that that there are differences within the emphasis between the President and the Secretary of State. This might be a reflection to their underlying outlooks and roles within governing.
President Obama views himself as an instrument of change. Whereas Hillary Clinton forms the equation. Formulating while in the pursuit of seeking continued strength while based with a traditional denominator. The two former rivals have worked together surprisingly smoothly. A rather good combination between these two within Washington, D.C. 