Q: What are we doing in Afghanistan?

A: Among various military activities you’ve heard a fair bit about, this.

Dion, whose delegates waved the Canadian flag and sang O Canada as they awaited his arrival, was in an upbeat mood too. He told reporters he had the passion and heart to win the race, and that, like the others, he was happy to put to end the “political-science seminar” provoked by the Quebec nation issue.

I think Québécois families with children approaching university age have a right to know which institutions on Dion’s resume — Laval? Moncton? U de M? — teach political science seminars that resemble what we’re currently seeing in any way, shape or form.

At time of writing, The Agenda’s (unscientific) online poll from yesterday had 89 percent of 700 respondents disagreeing with the following motion: “The Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”

Said motion passed in the House of Commons with 89 percent in favour.

What can be inferred from this? Chiefly, I think, that Canadians recognize that this has nothing to do with whether Quebec, or Quebec(k)ers, or “the Québécois” in fact comprise a nation. If it did, it is safe to say that the last six media releases on the Prime Minister of Canada’s homepage wouldn’t concern, in reverse chronological order: the appointment of Peter Van Loan to replace some poor conscience-ridden sap (there’s an Onion headline in there somewhere — “Canada’s Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Announces His Existence, Resigns”); the PM’s plans to attend the inauguration of the Mexican President; Canada’s new Partnership Against Cancer; tackling crime through bail reform; the establishment of an Advisory Committee on the Public Service; and, on November 10, the new strategy to deal with drug-impaired drivers. No, if it meant anything, I think the Prime Minister would have explained by now just what in bloody hell is going on.

Does it mean the nation of the pur laine Québécois? Surely not. As Andrew Coyne says, ethnic nationalism is… a little passé in Canada in 2006. Does it mean the province of Quebec and all who inhabit it? Maybe, but what’s so special about Quebec? You can define a “distinct society” in terms of what surrounds it — you have to, in fact — but a nation has to exist on its own terms, independent of its current political situation. Explain to me how Quebec fulfils that requirement and not New Brunswick, which has forged a successful provincial identity out of a far bigger linguistic plurality than exists in Quebec.

But maybe it doesn’t even matter. Maybe every single ethnic, linguistic and civic community in Canada — the entire Canadian francophone community; anglophones in Montreal; Canada itself; Kapuskasing — is in fact a nation, in which case we’re back at square one, except for the new transfusion of piss and vinegar Duceppe, Boisclair, & cie now have coursing through their veins.

It blows my mind that so many people can compliment Harper’s strategic brilliance while freely acknowledging that the whole thing is pure bullshit. It reduces Canada to the status of Texas Holdem. In one sense, though, Harper’s right — or, sorry, the various random MPs speaking for their Prime Minister are right. (And really, why shouldn’t Laurie Hawn face off against Garth Turner to close out the debate?) The motion means anything people want it to mean, and as such is meaningless.

We are assured this was all necessary. I assume that will give us comfort if the whole sham ends up screwing us once and for all. (I should probably clarify: I don’t think it will. But the cynicism of it is all very depressing nonetheless.)

The Edmonton Journal says:

At very least, Harper owes all Canadians a fulsome definition of “nation” so that we will all know what is really at stake.

You guys are crazy. Shut up out there!

There’s this:

Harper said the issue of Quebec’s nationhood should not be decided by the federal government but by the Quebec legislation. However, he said the Bloc has forced the government to take a position.

And then there’s this:

Conservative strategists also hope Harper’s decisive approach will restore some of the Tories’ lustre in Quebec, making them a more palatable federalist alternative than the warring Liberals.

Interesting. Quebec federalists partial to the whole “nation” thing would probably have found Harper’s Conservatives an even more “palatable federalist alternative” if this decision hadn’t been made at the point of a separatist gun. The Prime Minister had ample time to decide this was the right decision, and he opted against it.

But in what way, exactly, did the Bloc force the government to take this position? If his original motion — “Quebec is a nation,” basically — had been defeated, Gilles Duceppe could have gone back to the people of Quebec and said, “See? They don’t think we’re a nation. Let’s separate!” If it had passed, Duceppe could have gone back and said, “See? They said we’re a nation. So let’s separate!”

Neither outcome would have been positive. But seeing either as a code-red national emergency presupposes that Canada is no stronger than tissue paper — and more to the point that Quebeckers are complete idiots, vulnerable to transparent separatist ploys like cats are to catnip. How many referenda will it take to prove it’s not true?

Word was some Liberals would have supported the Bloc motion, and the CP reports that “NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party will support both the Bloc and government motions.”

For the love of god, why? Whether Layton or any other MP thinks Quebec is a nation should be totally beside the point when the Bloc’s motives are so painfully obvious. It’s not the statement; it’s who made it. Politicians disagree with each other on principle all the time — that is to say they disagree with each other as a matter of principle. Most Canadian MPs will say almost literally anything in the interests of partisanship. It wouldn’t have been unreasonable to ask them to stand together to defeat the Bloc’s motion, even if they agreed with it, in the interests of their country.

But given that “nation” seems to mean whatever you want it to mean, I’m going to go ahead and look for a silver lining here: If “the Quebecois form an independent nation,” as Harper said today, then so necessarily does Canada. This Quebec nation presumably comprises its francophone majority and minorities of all stripes — anglophone, allophone, native-born, immigrant, aboriginal. Except that its majority is anglophone, that’s Canada. I’d like to think the Canadian entity outranks the Quebecois entity, but on a day like today I’ll settle for equality. In reality, however, I refuse to believe that politicians have dominion over anything of the significance some are ascribing to today’s events.

If it were a spoof, it’s be dismissed as too much by half. But it’s not a spoof.

The CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving USA is not just a man (no surprise there). He’s a man who goes by the shark-jumping name of Chuck Hurley. I mean… Chuck Hurley. Cripes!

(Oh, and they want everyone to eventually have to blow into a tube in their cars before they drive anywhere. Yawn.)

(h/t William Stewart)

I’ve heard it said that the City of Toronto employs as many people as the Province of Ontario. I have no idea if it’s true, but TTC customers are currently being presented with some stark supporting evidence:

Help me, David Miller. What is the correct way to wipe my ass?

When the Royal Canadian Legion went after Pierre Bourque last year for displaying the poppy on his website, they told him that “we have to protect this image or lose its use as a symbol of Remembrance.” Every lawyer I came across backed them up: “Sorry dude, but the Legion had no choice but to protect its trademark.”

“It’s a protected emblem,” IP lawyer Rod McDonald told the Montreal Gazette at the time. “Whether or not somebody is using it to remember veterans is irrelevant.”

Lawyers are awesome. They act as if the law was imposed on us, in one crazy fell swoop, by the overlords whose Petrie dish we’re now floundering around in. “Common sense?” one can almost see them saying. “Get the hell out of my office!” Rod McDonald would have us believe that it’s totally normal and acceptable — indeed necessary — for the Legion to attack those who use the poppy for its stated purpose with the same ferocity as it would someone who used it to sell, say, lottery tickets, or beer mugs.

Well, what am I saying? Of course only the Legion itself is allowed to use the poppy to sell lottery tickets and beer mugs (and bumper stickers, cigarette lighters, wallets, ashtrays, golf balls, etc.). When I ignite my dying cigarette with a poppy-branded lighter, I’m promoting Remembrance; when Pierre Bourque displayed the poppy as “the most sincere sign of respect to the vets who fought and died for us,” he weakened Remembrance. I’m sure it would all make perfect sense if only I’d gone to law school.

The point was made at the time that the Royal British Legion encourages people to download and display the poppy wherever they like, but it’s not just that. The RBL’s attitude is totally different across the board. On the white peacenik poppies, for instance:

Canadian Legion: “The legion cannot condone it, and we cannot accept any attempt to use this poppy without authority or approval.” And: “The unfortunate decision by these individuals, or organization, to use the national Day of Remembrance as a focus for a fundraising project of promotion of an ideal is completely inappropriate and unacceptable.”

British Legion: “What you wear is a matter of choice, the Legion doesn’t have a problem whether you wear a red one or a white one, both or none at all. It is up to you.”

So what gives? Is this not the RBL’s trademark on its poppy? Are the RBL’s lawyers pounding on the door in Pall Mall, demanding an end to this wanton permissiveness?

Furthermore, I saw the poppy on several well-read blogs this year. Why go after Pierre Bourque last year and not (just for instance) Kate McMillan this year? Has the Legion given up, thus surrendering Remembrance Day to these horrible people who want to honour the memories of Canada’s fallen soldiers? Or did common sense somehow sneak past security?

My indignance knows no bounds, I realize, but these are honest questions. I’m interested in some honest answers.

Not sure how “obscure” this is, but the boffo Britpop continues tonight on Tart Cider with The Wonder Stuff’s “Don’t Let Me Down, Gently”:

And, moving in the direction of 2006, here’s the Stereophonics with a faithful-to-Rod version of Mike d’Abo’s friggin’ awesome “Handbags and Gladrags”:

Cheers to the Star’s “Speak Out” feature for once again spreading total nonsense to the people. “I want real live seeing humans on my trains, thanks,” says Jim Truax, in response to Howard Moscoe’s Random Thought #194 — he wants computers to drive TTC subway trains. Arthur Nichol opines that “If the computer system fails during operation, the lives of all the passengers are at risk.” “There is no substitute like a train which is manned by a driver, especially for safety and security purposes.” “I know I can’t wait to be on a runaway train with no driver.”

I mean, bloody hell. Is it asking too much to suggest that when you say subway trains in New York (only the L line, as far as I know, and rather unsuccessfully), Tokyo and San Francisco are “automated”, you might also want to emphasize that those trains nevertheless have human operators — to point out that HAL 9000 can easily be overridden if the train in question starts hurtling backwards down the wrong track? (UPDATE: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here — as Robert McClelland points out in the comments, the Star article does mention that a human will remain on board. If I weren’t so tired I’d swear blind that it didn’t say that before, but I am that tired, so there you have it. Still, the human’s safety role seems understated to me — “Once automated, the only thing required of the operator at the front of the train would be to look out the window, ensure everyone is safely aboard and manually close the doors.” The operator is also required to keep everyone alive, surely.)

(It’s a little bizarre, too, that the Star didn’t mention the three of four Montreal Metro lines that are computerized, but never mind that.)

While I agree with my dear old dad (seventh response) that “driverless trains come a long way down the list of what is needed to cure gridlock and provide a modern public transportation system in Toronto,” that doesn’t make automated trains a bad idea. Capacity on the Yonge line is a serious concern, and a 40 percent increase therein would make a huge difference. Of course, by virtue of it coming out of Moscoe’s mouth, I suspect the potential benefits are actually far less than that.