Bush-apalooza

George W. Bush visited Canada last week, and for several days it seemed that the news media could talk about nothing but the visit and the protests it inspired. As someone whose views are pretty centrist and moderate (for Canada, in my opinion) both sides of the issue irritated me.

First of all, anyone who knows me, or has read any of the even vaguely political entries in this blog will know that I'm not fond of Bush. That being said, I had no problem with him coming to pay us a visit. Like it or not, he is the leader of our neighbour, biggest trading partner and closest ally. Some of the things on his agenda could have happened a little sooner (three years to thank the people of Halifax for taking stranded Americans into their homes on 9/11? C'mon, I know you can do better than that. Those who were stranded certainly have), but whatever. What specifically irritated me about the Bush visit was the content of what he said, and did not say. There are a couple of things that are huge deals in this country with regard to our relationship with our neighbours to the south. (Well, north from Windsor, but I digress) Among them are the issues like the ongoing dispute over softwood lumber and the current ban on importing Canadian cattle into the US. Lip service was barely paid to these issues. These were the things we wanted to hear about, but instead we heard very little on them and a lot on missile defense.

There are a few problems with missile defense. Primarily that it's ludicrously expensive and just plain doesn't work. Even if it worked as advertised (it doesn't), it still would do precious little to save the US from a nuclear attack. Honestly, any country with the wherewithal to build a nuclear warhead and an ICBM is going to know that using them against the US would mean that they would be vapourized minutes later. There are other, safer, less obviously traceable ways to use a nuclear warhead against the United States. For instance, there is enough commercial traffic into and out of the US that hiding a warhead on a ship or a plane would not only be more effective, but frankly, easier and cheaper than building and using an ICBM.

But W wants to do it anyway, and he'd really like it if we were in on it. And, despite the above, there are some good reasons for Canada to be involved. Mostly that Bush is going to do it with or without us, and because one of the most likely trajectories for an ICBM strike on the continental United States is over the north pole, we're kinda stuck in the crossfire. So, it'd be nice if we had some say with regard to when/if the system is used and where any highly radioactive missile debris might fall.

This puts Canada in a rather difficult situation. Really, we'd rather GW pack up those toys and go home, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Reminding us of that every seventeen seconds while you're here is just irritating. Shut up.

My other irritation was the protesters. Clearly I sympathize with a lot of what they were trying to say, but their methodology stinks. We had such creative displays as a group who brought a meter and a half tall effigy of Bush to Ottawa and then encouraged passers by to beat. Way to stand up for peace. Another great moment was the call some of them made for Bush to be arrested and tried for war crimes while has here. Yeah... That'd go over really well. Do you really think we could capture the man billed as the "Leader of the free world" without some sort of fight? And assuming we managed to somehow get around or dispose of the United States Secret Service, how long do you think we could hold him without the Americans coming north to liberate him and perform some "regime change"?

Even the more reasonable protests irritated me. How much do you think you're hurting Bush by blocking an intersection or fighting with the police? Let me assure you, not much. You are, however, getting in the way of average Canadians who have their own lives to lead and don't appreciate you and your beliefs getting in their face for no good reason. Have you let people know that you care deeply about this important issue? Sure, but they're too busy swearing at you to really embrace your point of view.

Well, if nothing else, the visit did inspire a decent, honest to God, rant, so I guess that much is good...

---

In rant related news, when I first started this blog I had every intention of doing a lot more ranting on it than I currently do. So far it's been mostly stories and the odd rant here and there. To that end I'm currently contemplating changing the name from "Rants from Cold Cold Canada" to something a little more accurate. Possibly just "Cold Cold Canada", possibly "Stories (or Tales) from Cold Cold Canada". Let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions on the matter...