thanks to henry for showing me this! all the books i've been reading have just been put on hold.
a lot of talk recently over the "unity" question. read stephane dion's view of quebec nationhood. and justin trudeau calls nationalism "small minded." gilles duceppe points out that canada's obsession sovereignty vis-a-vis the united states (and/or in the arctic) is rooted in the same understanding of the world. if canada must be separate, sovereign and unique from the united states, so too must quebec goes the doctrine. stephane dion, above, asks the good hard questions this debate requires. a militant, angrier view from an early founder of quebec's liberation movement might also provide some perspective. of course, it's easier in english canada to just be fervently federalist. therefore, how popular can acknowledging quebec's legitimate historical grievances while not abandoning a strong central government for a unified canada. what got me thinking about this? my friend gregoire brought this ruling to my attention.
do you ever wonder where to logic for these statements comes from? it's easy to endorse a non-violence policy; but to append a nonpunitive policy AND to be against nuclear proliferation is inconsistent. further, what are the democratic mechanisms pursued by the peace alliance? i have recently joined the mailing lists of similar minded groups and still do not understand the democratic and liberating processes involved in being a member. the clarity with which other NGOs and/or progressive movements lay out their democratic mechanisms should be an example.
and finally, i saw the borat moviefilm. you must go, notwithstanding these types of concerns. primarily, one of the things that makes this so remarkable is the wholeheartedness with which Sacha Baron Cohen pursues his craft! yasher koach!