You have to love the way in which most of the major media outlets are slagging those of us that think the recent "nation" debate something between ill-advised and potentially disastrous. Apparently, most of us that oppose this ridiculousness are either upset ex-Reformers, or diehard Trudeauistes (Tru-does? Tru-bucks?). Frankly, I don't mind being of a slagged party, because it usually tells me I'm on the right side of an issue rather than the wrong one. But there's something truly--- madly, deeply--- dubious about a gesture that is about to receive support from all of the major political parties, that is broadly claimed as historic in some circles and technically meaningless in others, and that depends on dicing language, in two languages no less, finer than Paul Sorvino's garlic in Goodfellas. Shouldn't this remind all those of us that were alive through the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords that there's something deeply problematic, and almost certainly amiss, about the shenanigans at hand? Why is it that the primary objectors to this nation-thing are removed by at least one step from the primary positions of power and/or concern? It's as if we're being asked to sign a document without reading what it says, which is exactly the technique that was applied in the admittedly more-complicated Meech and Charlottetown scenarios. Even before one gets into the parsing of the legalese--- all of which remains, as far as I can tell, an Empsonian wet dream--- the delivery of the text alone should raise collective suspicion. We're being asked to buy now and pay later, to sign the contract now and worry about the installments later. And, damn it, we've been through this before. We should know better.
So why don't we? Or, perhaps more accurately, why won't we?