Left Overs: Hippies vs. Bible Thumpers fi: Left Overs \ Iain Reeve, OP Columnist A With a new academic year upon us here at good old Douglas College, I would like to welcome back old students and bid good luck to the new ones. No mat- ter what group you fall into—if you're new to the Other Press, or to my little slice of weekly political ranting—thanks for checking us out and I hope you keep doing so throughout your stay. Now, down to business. Since many of you are no doubt new to both this column and that of my right-wing counterpart, Mr. McCullough, I thought I'd start the semester with a staple in any right vs. left argument: extremism. Ah yes, what politically aligned commentator can resist the urge to point out the foibles of the more, how shall we say, “enthusiastic” members of the other side? The problem with most of said commentators is that while they are quick to point out the more loony ideas coming from the other side, they are also persistent in their denial or ignorance of problems in their own camp. I like to think of myself as some- what different from these folks. A big deal has been made this week about comments made by the 700 Club host, republican supporter, and all around wretched guy, Pat Robertson. On his tel- evision show, Robertson spoke of the problems the US has been having with Venezuela. To deal with these problems, Patty targeted Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and made a rather extreme suggestion: “This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” It must have slipped the mind of the former presidential candidate that the US has had an open policy against targeted assinations since the Ford administration. It certainly has not slipped the mind of the Bush administration, who have ten- derly tried to distance themselves from the comments. They do so gingerly, though, as they recall the huge amount of support they garner from Robertson, as well as his seven million television viewers. Journalists, and not just those on the left, have been rightfully outraged by such comments made by a major sup- porter of the current ruling party. It would be easy for us left-wing nuts to sit back on our high horses and criti- cize comments made by Robertson and those of his ilk. However, the more astute among us may do well to recall some of the nuttier things that members of the extreme left have gotten up to over the years: encouraging violent protest, endorsing terrorist action and armed resistance against “imperial” pow- ers, and throwing support behind oppressive rulers who resist the US and others are but a few examples. While I would certainly say there will always be a day for protest, meeting violence with violence and resisting globalism with oppression and human rights abuses is not my left. Many of us on the left feel misrepresented by such extreme and just plain unreasonable positions. It is also important for us to remem- ber that the majority of the right are not represented by the likes of Pat Robertson or Anne Coulter; they are rea- sonable people who simply have a differ- ent set of views. The ridiculous right-left, liberal-conservative debates going on in the US and, to a degree, in Canada right now are divisive, counterproductive, and not good for the people. The best way to solve the problems in the world is to lighten up, ignore the extremists on either side, and let the more moderate people on both sides come together and discuss the issues. Neither side should be able to put the other over the table; we are a democracy, after all. The truth often lies in the mid- dle, or close to it. No More Figureheats: The absurdity of Governor Generals 4 ‘Right Hook J.J. McCullough, OP Columnist Can we please give the Michelle Jean story a rest already? I wasn’t even on the same continent when this whole contro- versy over the credentials our next Governor General erupted, and ’'m already sick of it. Don’t get me wrong—P’m always happy to see any Governor General come under fire. Canada is long overdue for a serious discussion about the office of our nation’s head of state. I always wait in anticipation, eagerly hoping that the latest scandal will be enough to finally trigger that national debate. But my waiting is always in vain. No matter how badly a Governor General manages to embarrass herself, her office, or the nation, few Canadians ever seem to get too riled up about it, and fewer still use the opportunity as a chance for a more sophisticated political discussion. The ongoing scandals surrounding Ms Jean are simply the latest episode of this tired cycle. It is quite obvious that the former CBC host was nominated by the Prime Minister mainly because of her race, appearance, and gender, at the expense of more substantive qualifica- tions. (She also has a rather open history of supporting the separatist cause in Quebec; if not on a partisan level, then at least on an emotional one.) The gist of critics’ outrage is that Ms. Jean was simply a bad choice for the job. The Governor Generalship of Canada should demand a higher caliber of occu- pant than a largely unknown, second-rate CBC personality with a history of sup- porting dubious political causes, they argued. The National Post’s resident monarchist, Andrew Coyne, went fur- ther, evoking the most flowery of lan- guage to justify his outrage. “This is supposed to be the position of supreme honor and prestige in the country,” he wrote of the Governor General’s office, arguing that the position “should be filled by titans, revered national icons, whose love of country is reflected in the love their country has for them.” In another column, Coyne rattled off the names and careers of some of the ceremonial Heads of State in other nations. The figurehead President of Germany is the former head of the International Monetary Fund, and the current Governor General of New Zealand is an ex-justice of the Supreme Court. But Coyne missed the larger point. On paper, these leaders’ creden- tials may look impressive, but when you actuall¥ talk to the citizens of their coun- tries, most remain unmoved. No matter what nation of this world you are in, if the King, Governor, or President of that country is a symbolic figurehead who does little more than cut ribbons at new Wal-Marts, he'll inevitably be the subject of grumbling about the useless yet expensive nature of his office. The prob- lem with Ms Jean is not that she is unqualified—it’s that her useless and lay- ish, taxpayer-funded position exists at all. The man on the street, unlike politi- cal science majors and other obsessive apologists of monarchs and figureheads, does not expect his government to employ someone to “embody the nation” in a ceremonial capacity. The politician who actually runs the country is the man or woman who will always be considered the true head of the nation.