Bring back Baird!

A country's foreign minister is the most high-profile personality to represent their nation on the world stage, after the prime minister or president. That's why you want somebody in the role who brings a little zenf to the table.

I thought Bullshittin' John Baird managed that in spades. I didn't agree with him very often but he was impossible to ignore. He was also a breath of fresh air among the stodgy band of fundamentalist Christians Harper surrounded himself with. It was sad to see him walk away from politics when he announced that he was transitioning to the private sector for the "stuff-my-pockets" phase of his career.

There can't be a lot of Canadians who could name the two FMs we had between Baird and Chrystia. Those guys had serious zenf deficits.

Then Chrystia. You always got the sense that she was more about promoting her personal brand and ingratiating herself with the Trump administration. Sometimes these two goals worked at cross-purposes. It's tough to pretend you're tough on Saudi's human rights record while simultaneously selling them military tools that enable them to further oppress dissent.

In practical terms she wasn't much of a FM. Where are the wins? Venezuela? Ukraine? But generally speaking the media gave her a pass for a record that had far more errors than home runs.

Now we've got another dullard in the job who looks like he's going to advance Canada's role in the world by sucking up to Washington. Check out this story at CBC. That's got a bit of a huffy tone, eh? You almost figure maybe this guy is gonna bring the zenf!

But check out the sub-head; "Ottawa is the only one qualified to set Canada's foreign policy, says Francois-Philippe Champagne." He's responding to some snippy comments made by China's new ambassador to Canada on the topic of the two Michaels. Our latest laughable strategy is to prevail on Trump (that is, beg him) to intervene on our behalf.

Because, as you know, we're all about the rule of law, just like the Americans! They sent us a warrant to arrest Meng Wanzhou, and we're either about rule of law or we're not, so we had no choice but to do the right thing, the thing the Americans demanded we do, and if the Americans demanded it, it was obviously right...

As is typical in Canadian reporting on the matter, Elise von Scheel neglects to provide the context for Wanzhou's arrest. The Chinese national was allegedly in violation of some unilateral sanctions the US has arbitrarily and illegally imposed on Iran.


That's what we're talking about when we talk about "rule of law;" going along with illegal sanctions the Americans made up to bully Iran. How is it America's job to decide who China can or cannot do business with?