Concerning the CBC Web site's latest socialist Viewpoint drivel by Larry Zolf, I noted in their brief bio of him that Zolf is "now retired."

I wrote to the CBC to ask them, please, could they keep him retired?

The Manitoba Teachers Society website published a list of recommended summer reading for their 15,000 members.

"It was only when we saw who compiled the MTS reading list that we got our answer to how the description of The Black Rod could get so distorted.

It was George Stephenson, MTS website manager, and sometimes freelance columnist to ---wait for it --- the Winnipeg Free Press.

Yes, the same George Stephenson who wrote a blistering attack on bloggers in January. (Rogue journalists. Bloggers take on the world in cyberspace. Thu Jan 26 2006)"

blackrod.blogspot.com/2006/07/black-rod-required-summer-reading.html

Aw c'mon guys — don't be so hard on ol' Zolfie.

He's just t-t-t-t-t-alkin' 'bout his generation...

What's going on with this Zolf character? Not one mention of Harper eating babies. The worst part of this slop for me is that when I return to work,the loony left will pull this drivel out and portray it as positive proof that PMSH is just a baby step from braeking out the white sheets and swazistkas.

"How 'liberalism' became a bad word"

Eww, Toronto Star today. Please wait at least half an hour after eating before attempting to read it.

Not sure about the filter so I'm not even going to attach the link. On the front page though....

Ole Larry may get "his money for nothing" but I doubt he gets "his chicks for free". [with appologies to Dire Straits]

I just love how the CBC describe Larry Zoloft as a political expert. speaks volumes about the leanings of this MSM.

Kate,

great link to the Hawaii Report examination of NATO. The report is accurate, balanced, right on the money, and dangerous.

What are your winged monkeys supposed to make of a Europe that does not consist of surrender monkeys, whose assessment of the Iraqi threat and post-invasion scenario "was indeed correct"? How do they deal with the possibility that the Chinese "threat" is not what it's cranked up to be to feed "the military-industrial complex that rides so high in the US ..."? How do they avoid apoplexy when reading about "the clear desire of this administration at least, to achieve global hegemony," its "long term partiality towards Israel," about "overt and covert oil imperialism," and the possibility of "a more balanced administration" to follow Bush?

Hey, agitfact, us winged monkeys know a set-up when we see one.

Agitfact: I see you bit... that's why I put up the link. So... what do you suggest be the role for NATO, or did you miss the point on this as well. If the oped is accurate... how much of a military should Canada have; and how large should NATO get? What, in fact, does Agitfact see as the role of NATO and Canada's contribution to it?

agitfact, unlike Liberals, socialists, etc, we of the so-called 'right' support the right to make dissenting opinions. Even ignorant ones.

I'm unsure of your meaning of 'monkeys', so can't comment.

But with regard to your other comments and dire threats of 'apoplexy', it just won't happen. You seem to be 'crowing' about something. Surely it can't be the opinion piece, because it is shallow and focused only on the immediate rather than 'la longue duree'.

And, it's ignorant. I'm sure you know, that the US isn't interested in 'global hegemony'. However, Islamic fascism is. You know that, don't you? Just listen to what the imams say. Facts are important, not empty opinions.

And no, the war against fascism isn't about oil. It's about fascism. Enabling democracy is one strategy to deal with fascism. Another is loudly and clearly rejecting Islamic fascism.

But, people who are ignorant of the deeper infrastructure - well, all one can do is acknowledge their ignorance. Ignorance is not something to 'crow about'.

From Yahoo news by Jennifer Ditchburn:

"OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative party appears to be doing just fine without the help of corporate donors, raking in nearly $18 million from individual Canadians last year.

"That's double the $8.3 million the Liberals collected, according to party documents released by Elections Canada on Saturday."

Actually, Jennifer, the $18 million the CPC collected from individual donors last year is MORE than double what the Liberals were able to collect, $1.4 million more to be precise. (And what's with using "raking in" when referring to CPC donations? Watch it, your leftie tendencies are showing...)

Doesn't this put the lie to the CPC being the Party with big ties to "corporate" Canada? Just another Left/Lib myth busted. 'Not a bad statistic to tell people when they start spouting the Left/Lib line about Conservatives supporting and being supported by BIG BUSINESS.

The small guy in Canada supports the CPC. Yeah, baby!

ET: The Hawaii report takes some "typical" America bashing swipes, but it raises some very important questions... and that is the role and purpose of NATO in the future. NATO was primarily set up as a defense against the East Bloc, which no longer exists. The article points out that no clear articulation has been made as to NATO's new purpose, if any. It also suggests, tepidly, that NATO members have been freeloading on the American military. Since Canada is a part of NATO... what will our role be?

I get such a kick out of typical lefties like Agitfact who blast the Americans any chance they get, yet they have no grasp of geopolitics, least of all military complexities. There is an enormous vacuum in the world today... and it is there because Agitfact and his leftist counterparts in Europe and Canada have not been willing to fill it, they have fully and completely given it over to the United States. Nobody in the world today, not even NATO, can provide the logistics needed during huge natural crisis, except the USA military. Even the UN, can hardly deliver a crumb of aid without massive US support. What an irony, that while the utopians squawk and starve their militaries, they have given the United States the role of world policeman, world relief agency, world dominator... and it's all because they are long on talk but to bloody socialist to spend a penny on NATO and give it the tools to be a force for democracy; independant of the American foreign policy (no matter what that policy).

The fact is, we can't even handle our Afghan committment without American airpower at our disposal. It is so funny to watch the Agitfacts of this world fume away, pick out the parts of an oped that they "like", and ignore the larger implications of the piece and questions it raises. The piece takes is its shots at neoconservativism (indirectly), but it raises critical questions.

Agitfact: If you don't want the USA to be completely dominant in geopolitics... what are you willing to do besides bitch about it? I'll give you a hint... N.. A... T.... O.....

PISS ON YOU ALL, my feelings exactly. You can't discuss anything reasonably with the left or the muslims, they are right, period. I don’t care if they live die shit their pants or steal second, and the reason why I never rebut their views or give a second thought to anything they say is because they are ignorant and stupid. You just descend to their level. If the old adage that civilizations die from suicide not murder is correct, and I think it is, it makes one wonder who should be the target. You can read into that whatever you want.
Off to spend another hard day on the golf course. To all the lefties and muslims I can only offer you this advice, if you ever get the opportunity to F--- off, take it.

I find it quite amazing that the CBC,LPC and a good chunk of the MSM seem to find it impossible to change tactics against the right.

The fear-mongering and scary Harper/right BS is STILL the mainstay of the left's political strategy,even after their recent disasterous campaign backfired,based on this same unconstructive,hateful crap.It is also AMAZING that anyone,no matter their political leanings,could still defend this party's disgusting past and it's current visionless leaders.

I'm starting to believe that the only things the LPC really care about are staying in power(a no-brainer)and destroying everything conservative in NA.At least,these are the ONLY messages I ever hear them rail on about.

The MSM,sadly,and for the most part,seem to also see the right as an enemy,virtually ignoring how badly the LPC has hurt this country...And they arrogantly trumpet the same twisted bigotry inherent in the LPC itself...We love and accept ANYONE who thinks as WE do!....the rest of you are unCanadian!

As this party searches to redefine itself,may I suggest the following name change..LCC...The Liberal Cult of Canada.And maybe this could be their new catch phrase...You are either with us or against us!(this should scare quite a few back into the fold)

Debris Trail

If you think N..A..T..O is not in the American back pocket you are even more naive than you sound. If any country, Canada included and perhaps especially, tried to separate its foreign policy goals as being anything remotely seen as unproductive to America we would be punished economically.

If we are passive observers or active participants, when invited, we will be allowed to maintain our economic and political freedom. If we ever decided not to cooperate as described above then we would pay the price that countries like Cuba, Iran, ro Iraq suffer. Everyone knows this so they don't dare go down that road too far. We can decide not to help in Iraq but we will not work against the US either.

Lets not pretend to be more free than we really are. What NATO's use by the US proves is just how much these wars and the Bush tax cuts have undercut their ability to swagger like they used to. They used to plan to cope with two regional wars and one world war...that is over for the time being. There will have to be a major rethinking of how American foreign policy will proceed.

Debris Trail,

six months on SDA has convinced me that this is not the forum for discussing such questions in earnest. That's why I wondered what Kate (or her substitute) were up to.

But I will run with the lure a little -

1. Canada and NATO. The first non-peacenik to seriously question Canada's involvement in NATO was Gen Chris Vokes in his memoirs. He had commanded two Canadian divisions in WWII, and recommended a complete pull out.

2. Size of the Canadian Military. That should depend on Canadian domestic, foreign and defence policy that, in turn, should be driven by an OBJECTIVE assessment of current and future threats. We will continue with expediency, patchwork and band-aids until we get such a thing, so anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. But do beware of institutional imperatives.

3. Role of NATO. Mutual defence, as before. Size of NATO? What's the threat to the whole group, or to individual NATO countries? Certainly not something Small Dead Animals would know anything concrete about, so what's the point of raising it?

4. Canada's Contribution to NATO. What we're currently doing seems about right - consultation, planning, liaison, and equipment and training to maintain professional standards and enhance interoperability, followed by a troop commitment if necessary and warranted.

Debris Trail, I do thank you and some of your fellow monkeys for making my point before I had even posted it.

agitfact,I seem to remember we both 1st showed up on this site about the same time.I also remember both of us not being too far from center,albeit from different sides.
Your point about blogs NOT being a proper forum for quality debate is dead on.Since you obviously have come to realize this,why do you keep coming back to this conservative blog then?

It seems to me you still try to offer logical points,however you have lowered yourself to the same gratuitous partisan insults you used to take others to task for.I read your comments about'Kate's winged monkeys'and anything else you have to say,no matter how intelligent,loses it's validity.

BTW,to put things in perspective,I have seen you treated with much more respect on Kate's blog than I have EVER received on any lib blog.You seem to completely forget your own observations about the blogosphere when you come here and slag all the regulars.Nobody is making you come to this site that you so obviously have little respect for...

Agitfact: I find it amazing that when you are given a chance to add substantively to a debate or question, without the diatribe, you fail. You didn't answer my questions, other than with incredibly vague generalities. Or, is it that you don't know what you are talking about outside leftist anti-American and anti-conservative talking points. I am, believe it or not, actually interested in what you think about NATO, but, "Size of NATO? What's the threat to the whole group, or to individual NATO countries? Certainly not something Small Dead Animals would know anything concrete about..." just does not make for an arguement. It amounts to nothing more than a smarmy and childish comment. What makes you think that if you presented a rational and articulate thesis on NATO, it would not be accepted in whole or in part at least by some of us.

If, on the other hand you exist to only denegrate those who frequent SDA, then I'm not sure why anyone would take anything you have to say seriously... as your only purpose is to quibble. And that, if true, is infantile.

agitfact - you haven't said anything in your reply to DT.

1. Because one individual recommends a pull-out of Canada from NATO does not mean that such an act is correct.
steve d makes the same kind of statistical errors in his post, except his is the 'everyone knows this' error. No steve d, everyone does not know this, and an 'appeal to the majority' is without evidence.

2. What's your point about this? It sounds like a brochure. No-one can agree or disagree.

3. Same as #2. What's your point? You aren't making any argument, and are instead, adding an insult. Why are you insulting people?

4. Again, same as above. Nothing. We are in Afghanistan. Why? What is the threat that we are fighting? I know that you assert that no-one at SDA (do you mean all bloggers?) would know, but, do you know?

steve d. Again, none of your opinions are substantiated. All you do, is inform us of your opinions, but, never, ever, provide any factual or logical evidence to support them. A blog is a bit more than a coffee shop. How about some evidence for your anti-Americanism?

Debris Trail - as you point out, the entire world is freeloading on the American Military, except for a few mature nations, such as the UK, Australia etc. Europe and Canada certainly have been freeloaders. Finally, under Harper, Canada is starting to mature and take on some adult responsibilities rather than allow the US military and US taxpayer alone support freedom and democracy in the world.

As for wars, I think the West has to come to terms with a different type of war, one that is not so much nation between nation, each with their own military, but, at the moment, democracy versus tribalism. And tribalism uses terrorism, based around civilian-terrorists attacking civilians. The US Supreme Court decision was wrong, in my view, to treat these terrorists as civilians. (I agree with Scalia's dissenting opinion).

Canadian Observer said, "I find it quite amazing that the CBC,LPC and a good chunk of the MSM seem to find it impossible to change tactics against the right."

I think that's the definition of stupid, verdad?: You just keep doing the same old thing even though it's proved to be ineffective. They've got fancy blinkers on and as they do business, talk, and party only with each other, it's little wonder that they have no idea of what to do except the same-old, same-old now that PMSH and the CPC are in power. I mean this is just so unacceptable, they think, that it's just got to "go away" somehow. They fiddle as Rome burns.

CO, you also said, "The MSM,sadly,and for the most part,seem to also see the right as an enemy,virtually ignoring how badly the LPC has hurt this country..." I think the reason they ignore the mess the LPC have made of Canada for most of us is that the LPC didn't make things bad for them. In fact, they were on the Librano gravy train and never had it so good. Money for life.

'Didn't matter how hard life was for the rest of us chumps, who were being taxed to the max and paying our and our kids' own way, they and their kids were getting the juicy jobs, hyper-salaries, benefits, and expense accounts, all paid for by US, so "who cares if the LPC is 'a little' shady? We can look the other way AND it works for us."

Doesn't that sound like how Communist dictatorships work? Under the LPC, Canada has become a Socialist dictatorship--that is until PMSH and his CPC were voted in. Wow! It's got to be freaking the Left out, with not a new idea or policy between them. The Left is not adapting to the new reality, so I'm hoping that means they go the way of the Do-Do. I'm not holding my breath, but...they're not handling this sea change very well.

ET
The pot calling the kettle black.
As if you substantiate.

What would you like me to substantiate?
That America is an economic superpower?
That America is a military superpower?
That America uses its military power more regularly than other countries?
That America punishes countries that don't cooperate?
These are all well known facts. Since when is it necessary to substantiate the obvious?

NCOTB
I think the LPC has made things bad for themselves, but Canada?

You would think a Conservative would be thanking the Liberals for finally opening the door to power. In that sense the Conservatives should be saying the Liberals have saved Canada. You are way too negative for a bunch who finally can show us what great governance looks like. I don't even see references to anything Harper is doing. Its as if you are not happy with his leadership. The focus is still on the out of power, Liberals. What is that about?

Again the resident socialists are missing the entire point of the Hawaii Report ... or what is stated as the point in the last paragraph ... I think they call it the conclusion.

I think that the author's fear is not that Canada, France, etc leave NATO, but rather that the US will abandon it.

steve d:

"That America punishes countries that don't cooperate?"

Interesting socialist thinking. Since when is rewarding those that help, punishment for those that don't?

We still focus on the liberanos because there not dead yet. I will not rest til the last one is either on the end of a rope or at least behind bars.

steve d

You are simply argumentitive. Further, the damage to Canada is quite evident compared to the standard of living Canadians enjoy compared to the US; lack of productivity; lack of independence in trade; dependence on a cheap currency etc. In order to appreciate how damaged Canada is you have to live outside of it for a time to either have some perspective and/or something to compare to. The healthcare I received when I was a boy isn't what it is now; the cost of post secondary education isn't what it was, even adjusted for inflation; infrastructur now needs to be either subsidized by the private sectors or entirely arranged but what was formerly built by the public purse.

The richest city in Canada has infrastructure falling apart and despite outrageous fair market value property tax, it needs a hand out every year. T

For Gods sake, a backwater like Buffalo had a publicly paid for gleaming professional arena 5 years before Toronto's private cabal of pensions funds, banks and wealthy built a rink no one can afford to go to.

steve d. I didn't ask you to substantiate general statements, but your specific statements:

1) steve d wrote: "What NATO's use by the US proves is just how much these wars and the Bush tax cuts have undercut their ability to swagger like they used to. They used to plan to cope with two regional wars and one world war...that is over for the time being."

Kindly substantiate all points in the above paragraph.

2) steve d wrote: "Lets not pretend to be more free than we really are."

Kindly substantiate.

3) steve do wrote: "If we are passive observers or active participants, when invited, we will be allowed to maintain our economic and political freedom."

Please provide examples and substantiate.

4)" If we ever decided not to cooperate as described above then we would pay the price that countries like Cuba, Iran, ro Iraq suffer. Everyone knows this so they don't dare go down that road too far"

Again, please substantiate.

5) steve d wrote: "you think N..A..T..O is not in the American back pocket you are even more naive than you sound. If any country, Canada included and perhaps especially, tried to separate its foreign policy goals as being anything remotely seen as unproductive to America we would be punished economically"

6) steve d wrote: "That America punishes countries that don't cooperate?"

These are not 'well-known facts'. Please substantiate and provide examples.

Otherwise, your statements are empty coffee-shop opinions.

Again, please substantiate.

jrb
You don't think I ask good questions?
I realize that a lot of people don't want discussion but rather approval or some rah rah bully for our side kind of BS, but I am here, and I like to remind even those with blinders on that there is indeed two sides to a story or point of view.

So who in the world has as high a standard of living as the US? On the other hand they have as many working poor as we have people. So I would be willing to bet that per capita we live better than Americans. Their top 10% is better off than our top 10% but as you move down to the average working stiff our guy has it better.
The cost of their post secondary education was more slow to rise than ours was but they are there now. State colleges and universities were $4700.00 in 2003-4. Private colleges were $20,000. Even community college was $2000.00 (all US figures).

Cities go through these cycles. In Ontario we chose to take tax cuts rather than put money into infrastructure and education. Our choice, now we are more willing to pay, but we have some catching up to do. It will take several more years to redress our selfishness.

Buffalo is now going through what Ontario went through a few years ago. They now short of funds and have had to cut public spending to the bone.

Roger Smith of CTV said Harper was greeted by the crowd as though he were a rock star. Rock on, Harper. Rock on. LOLOL. Cheers.

----------------------------------------------

Harper celebrates Canada Day on Parliament Hill
Norma Greenaway, CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, July 01, 2006

OTTAWA – Stephen Harper celebrated his first Canada Day as prime minister by offering a special salute to Canadians working outside the country, especially the Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan.

At a sun-soaked party on Parliament Hill, Harper appeared thrilled to be marking Canada's 139th birthday, and made a point of citing by name and location some of the other events going on across the country, including a swearing in of new citizens in Markham, Ont.

He reserved his most heartfelt remarks for Canada's soldiers, diplomats and international aid workers. He praised them for sharing the peace, prosperity and freedom Canadians enjoy with those torn by war, poverty, disease and disaster elsewhere in the world.

"Our country, our way of life did not happen by accident," he said at one point, citing Canada's English and French roots and the waves of immigration as adding to its character. "Canada leads by example." ...-
voy forums

Thanks, jrb and FREE, for answering steve d. for me. I barely have the energy to do it. You know? If you have to explain ad nauseum, ad infinitum, then it's too late.

You know what I notice about our resident socialists/lefties/trolls, whatever label fits apply it?: They suck the energy out of you. There's a point where you just have to say, "Sorry. I've tried conversation, I've tried discussing, I've tried explaining, and you still don't get it. Maybe you don't want to get it."

Perhaps not getting it is a permanent state, and if it is, I'm sure not the person who's going to make you understand. God can do that, not me. In the meantime, jrb's and FREE's and ET's attempts to enlighten you, steve d., will have to do.

steve d wrote: "ET. The pot calling the kettle black. As if you substantiate." (sic) and sick.

Toddler behaviour, steve. ET has just answered your questions--on THIS thread! (ET has actually answered them many times on many threads.) It seems that you have very serious language processing problems. I think you need a tutor.

Why don't you find someone who really knows about the issues you talk about, in a much wider context? Also, someone who's able to understand the content of posts, such as ET's. That person could help you process the immediate information and then synthesize it within the larger framework.

"The pot calling the kettle black"? That you would presume to put yourself on the same level as ET is almost blasphemy! This person's vast knowledge and superlative ability to present it analytically in all sorts of contexts beats your paltry, one-track-mind opinions any day. (Don't get me wrong: You have a right to your opininons, steve d. But I'd appreciate them far more if they had any gravitas, which, in my opinion, they don't.)

Think about that tutor, steve ;-)

I like "empty coffee-shop opinions". That way, you get better service than when the coffee-shop is full.

steve d: I've just read to my nearest and dearest some of the unsubstatiated vapidity you spout. We think that a Canadian revision of the universal term "useful idiot" might be called for here.

I'm making an assumption: I think you're Canadian and probably on the short side of 35. So, in that context, how about "entitled idiot"? (Charter: Get it?)

Of course, to be inclusive, I'll throw in "useful [to trolls and tyrants everywhere] idiot" as well.

P.S. NKOTB (NB, steve, it's got a K, not a C), I share your frustration, as you see.

Make that opinions, not opininons!

Frustrated? Gastrointeritis? Perhaps you should take a break. Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is. By the way, the coffee-shop I attend sells antacids. Under the counter, of course, along side the Handbook of Gracious Behaviour.

I hear you, Vitruvius. But sometimes, people don't deserve "gracious behaviour".

The steve ds of this country--ignorant, immature, entitled lefties--have treated too many sda types--reasonable, intelligent, non liberal--with the utmost contempt, e.g., ungracious behaviour, for far too long. Oh ya, while doing so, they also congratulate themselves on how tolerant and inclusive they are.

So, I'm drawing the line--actually enjoying a nice glass of red wine and feeling quite fine!--and letting steve d know that my tolerance and inclusiveness don't encompass giving credence to his small-minded AND small-brained sophistries. (Again, he has a right to spout them. But he needs to be prepared to take the heat. Lefties always seem to discount that aspect of "freedom of expression".)

So, there you are. (I've just received two beautiful gifts as thanks for generous hospitality.) Please pass the handbook on to someone else.

steve d. I'm still waiting for your to substantiate your empty coffee cup opinions. I asked you. You are the one who promotes 'dialogue'. So, answer the questions. Dialogue.

You state that the US has 'as many working poor as Canada has people'. That's about 10% of their population. What's wrong with that? Do you expect everyone to be at the same income level? The pilot of the plane should earn the same as the street sweeper? The engineer with several degrees and 20 years of experience should earn the same as the waitress in the corner Starbucks?
Why?

Ever looked at a statistical chart showing a bell curve of normative percentages or wages? Do you know what a bell curve looks like, and that a robust economy can't be all at one level? Do you know which economy, and there's only one, has all its population at one economic level? The hunting and gathering economy. Is that your utopia goal for Canadians?

Did you know that Canada has a higher unemployment rate than the US?

Did you know that Canada relies almost exclusively on the US to purchase its export goods? That means that Canada isn't competitive on the world market.

And now, instead of throwing out empty opinions, substantiate them. Answer the questions.

ET
Lets pretend that you didn't realize that the spending was balanced before 9/11. Since then the congress has had to okay a $9 trillion debt. You never heard this?
The Iraq war has cost over $400billion. You never heard that either I suppose.
The debt is projected to be 9 by 2008 then 11 trillion by 2010. By 2015 the mandatory expenses begin to accelerate. By 2040 the mandatory spending outpaces what income based on historical tax rates.(dept of treasury budget)
Meanwhile, Bush has committed to cutting the deficit in half but not by raising taxes. So that leaves cutting his spending.
there's your first point... more to come

ET
The pentagon military plans are interesting too.
Rather than me taking out parts you may as well read the article in its entirety.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Pentagon-Terrorism-Plan23apr06.htm

more to come..

K, I fleshed out my "Immigration Is Bad For Global Warming" theory a bit. For the record, I oppose Kyoto but do not dispute a causal link between human activity and global climate change.

Last election the Liberal Party of Canada pledged to bring eight million immigrants to Canada over the next ten years, more than tripling our current (highly backlogged and 90% unsecure) levels of immigration. Given our current population of 33 million people, the Liberals wanted to increase Canada's population by nearly 25% to 41 million.

While simultaneously reducing C02 emissions to 1991 levels, when our population was 27 million.

See the problem here? 41 million is a bigger number than 27 million. Over 50% bigger.

And it's actually worse than that, globally speaking. As we all know Canada is the biggest energy consuming nation in the world on a per capita basis. This is due in no small part to our cold weather and vastness, but perhaps to a greater extent it is because we are such an affluent society.

Those 8 million immigrants become C02 emitting machines when they come to Canada and adapt our ways (Minivan, furnaces, etc.); the net effect of immigration from less developed countries to Canada is an overall increase in C02 *globally*.

As for the Conservatives, Immigration Minister Solberg is maintaining the same immigration levels as the Liberals. The Liberals set a target of 300,000 annually but never met it. Sort of like how they set a foreign aid target of 0.7% and never met it, and set C02 emissions targets and never met them.

The point I am making here is that public policies need to mesh together; the Liberal plan to reduce C02 emissions 30% while increasing the population over 50% (from 1991's 27 million to the Liberals' proposed 41 million) appears unrealistic to an absurd degree. In a broader context, we need to recognize that immigration = net overall global increase in C02 emissions and proceed from there.

ET
Cuba was a friend of the USA before it was an enemy. Did Cuba attack the USA? No. What did it do? It declared itself independent. It wouldn't allow American companies free reign. Venezuela is the latest country to be independent. America is cutting trade, starting with military parts.
Venezuela had a 1% royalty(like Alberta) but Chavez bumped it to 16% and now wants closer to 30% royalties. If Canada decided, say under a socialist government to up the ante regarding oil royalties America would give us the big chill too. You doubt it?

America it the only nation to have attacked us(yes before we were a nation, as if that would make a difference) and they have attacked Mexico in 1846(a land grab). They have made more recent plans to attack as well.

http://www.counterpunch.org/rudmin02172006.html

How free are we? As long as we agree with them we can be as free as they are. If we decide to go a different way it may be more difficult than at first meets the eye. Not that we would want to go a different way but, if America became fascist it may not even matter. Fascism is part of their past, present and...

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

this just in:

curiously, I knew *exactly* what broom was referring to.

************************

also, I swung by the local lieberal's constituency office and they dun tooks down my posters about pierre turdeau zooming thither and yon laughing at the Canadian soldiers going off to dispense with the nazi thugs.

so I replaced them with the larger 11 X 17 photocopies ready at hand. and then I hilited the key words 'german uniform' and 'joke'.

jeezuz Lard helps me Ive hated that man right from the start in 1968. Ive seen thru his 'debonaire' crap all along.

tomorrow is a statutory holiday, I will do the same thing again as well then too if I have to and any left over are getting tacked up next weekend.

photocopies are 7 cents apice at staples and a roll of scotch tape goes a long way.

godamm lieing thieving lieberals, they brought all this on themselves.

I disagree, Lookout, that "sometimes, people don't deserve 'gracious behaviour'". After all, if you wish to attempt to stab someone in the back, you must first get behind them. Yes you can attempt to shoot them in the face, but that's rather pedestrian behaviour and tends to soil the upholstery, so I think it should be reserved for true emergencies.

steved. What's with this 'more to come'? Are you saying that you didn't have your facts in front of you when you wrote all those opinions?

Again, you haven't answered even one of my questions.

1) You state that the US normally planned to be able to cope with two regional wars and one world war. At a time. Please provide proof of this. Where does it assert this Three War At A Time Mandate? I've never heard of it.

No, you can't just fling financial data around, for that doesn't show how the US planned to deal with three wars (two regional and one world) at a time. Substantiate your claim.

No, don't send me to a link. And the Pentagon doesn't post its war plans. But, you, after all, made the assertion already. That meant that you already had the facts. Provide them.

2) You say that we pretend to be more free than we really are. Please substantiate.

3) You say that if we please the Americans 'we'll be allowed to maintain our economic and political freedom'. Please substantiate.

4) You say that 'if we don't, then, we pay the price'. Please substantiate.

5) You say that NATO is in the American's backpocket. Please substantiate.

6) You say that any country whose foreign policy is unproductive to America is punished. Please substantiate.

7) And what about my question about the normal Bell Curve statistic for wages in a country?

So far, steved, your opinions are just empty coffee cups. And unless you substantiate them, that's where they belong. In the coffee shop. In the dishwasher.

"steve d. I'm still waiting for your to substantiate your empty coffee cup opinions. I asked you. You are the one who promotes 'dialogue'. So, answer the questions. Dialogue."

ET,it is bad enough you continually feed the trolls here,but going outside and yelling'dinner'to invite them to the feasts you lay out for them is just too much!Why can you not realize you're banging your head against a concrete wall?My guess is you just enjoy arguing with people.
Most importantly,why don't you do the rest of us here a favor and take your personal little battles with steve d to private e-mail and leave some bandwidth for others to voice an opinion?
It is tiresome,repetitive,pointless and sets a combative tone to threads.To day after day subject everyone else here to your stupid,neverending peeing matches with trolls is arrogant.
Whenever a new thread comes up,the odds are good it will be eventually hijacked by you and one or two trolls dancing in circles.Give it a rest!
I come here to speak my mind and then ingest the varied opinions of many,not to watch the ET/steve d show!

I don't agree with you, canadian observer. I don't think that steved, agitfact etc, are trolls. I think that neutralsam is a troll. I think that steved and agitfact are representative of the majority of Canadians, who are, after all, of the Liberal and/or NDP alignment.

I don't think it's productive to simply say to this mindset - 'You don't get it; you don't think like us; go away'. And refuse to discuss with them.
I'd instead like to point out to them, that their conclusions have no grounds, no evidence.

I don't see the point of a blog, as is so common among the left, where everyone agrees with each other and violently rejects other conclusions.

canadian observer
You can pee but I can't? I am stupid and you are...? I have battles and you have..?
Your head is concrete and its my fault?
I am tiresome and you are ...?
You come here to speak your mind...? well excuse me...As far as I can tell speaking your mind would only take a line or two. Anyway, speaking your mind isn't good enough...you have to substantiate.
I take up bandwidth and you...?
I "hijack" and you...?

I understand you need agreement. But the real world isn't like that. Get used to it.

I must say, ET, that I do think you would earn a higher return on your investment if you were to spend more of you resources on explaining your own positions (most of which I happen to agree with) than you are currently reaping via your attempts to demand that others explain theirs.

ET
can you be clear about what you wanted substantiated and what ,in fact, substantiation is in your mind?
Substantial evidence to me is not substantial to you, so you would have be clear and concise about what it is that you would consider substantive.

ET,I didn't expect you to agree with me,that's why I suggested you continue on,just do it in PRIVATE and give the rest of us a BREAK...you seem to be the only one here naive enough to think you have accomplished ANYTHING with steve d in the past few months except give HIM a forum.
If you want to argue all day,every day with people,may I respectfully suggest you start your own blog!
BTW,look up troll in the dictionary,you'll see a picture of steve d next to it.

To Steve D you said:
"So who in the world has as high a standard of living as the US? On the other hand they have as many working poor as we have people. So I would be willing to bet that per capita we live better than Americans. Their top 10% is better off than our top 10% but as you move down to the average working stiff our guy has it better."

I read a statistic 10 or 15 years ago but I did not verify the source. This may or may not be true today, or even then, but at that time I highly suspected it to be a true statistic. That statistic was presented in the context of the overall success of Blacks in America. It is as follows:

The average American Black is better off economically than the average Canadian.

One must admit admit that the U.S. has a high number of very rich and a high number of poor. This statement refers to the average. Also do not forget our aborigines.

No, look, I'm sorry Kate, we're grossly out of bounds on the posted SDA commenting rules, but here's the thing. I have had reasonable social interactions with all the regular parties hereto, or at least as reasonable as can be approximated by this cyber-channel, and I've done it by being thoughtful, clever, humorous, and self-deprecating, not by being angry, petulant, and rude.

I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant, but it seems to me that the reason so many of you are being rude to each other is that so many of you are being rude to each other. It's a horrible positive feedback loop. To the degree that you are successful, all you manage to achieve is to convince your paying audience to tune their receiver to another channel, while the fruit of your labour withers on the vine.

steve d - I've listed, point by point, what I want substantiated. I can't be any clearer than that. Substantiation means evidence for your conclusions. All you do is state those conclusions. No facts, no proof. Nothing. It would be like me saying: 'That man eats people'. Would you expect me to provide some proof?

vitruvius, I think I've made myself clear in explaining the issues that concern me - such as Iraq, democracy, Islamic fascism, Canadian decentralization etc. Surely you don't expect me to do more on these issues. Enough is enough.

Islamin Death Sentence On Tarek Fatah.

Just heard on CTV Question Period in an interview with imam Aly Hindy and Tarek Fatah .... where Fatah revealed that he has been accused in Canadian mosques of smearing Islam which he said amounts to an accusation of apostasy ... and that means a death sentence on him according to the Koran.

Fatah also accused Hindy and the other imams of not allowing the moderate muslims to preach their message from the pulpit of the mosques ... as with the teleconference with ul-Haq thus sidestepping Canadian govt refusal to allow him to enter Canada and preach his message of hatred for Christians, Jews, gays, lesbians, atheists. He states that the imams are financed by the extremist Wahabbi sect from the ME and are radicalizing muslims in Canada.

Aly Hindy refused to accept Fatah's challenge to him and the mosque establishments .... to allow differing views for Islam in Canada. Hindy made the accusation that freedom of speech was being stifled in Canada .... and used the example of the Taliban being good for Afghanistan because they maintained law and order (Sharia and beheadings) and eliminate the poppy heroin crop and essentially providing good government. Hindy complained that by supporting the Taliban he is being branded anti-Canadian. (Sort of reminds you of Nola ...!!)

Hindy failed to mention that the Taliban used Afghanistan as a training ground for thousands of alQaeda jihadi warriors who are now stationed all over the world ... like our beloved Khadr family and no doubt within the 50,000 extra muzi men in Canada with no muzi women unless they get ugly fat Canadian hags to bear their muzi children and support them while they plot and plan treachery ... and then flee Canada with the children to be brought up in a good Islamic country.

Tarek Fatah is now under the cloud of a death fatwah all because he believes in a moderate Islam in Canada ... while the imams in the mosques are extremist muslims and radicalizing the muslim community and the young men ... like the Gang of 17 who undoubtedly have been radicalized with views of hatred for Canada ... BELIEVE IT ..... !!!!!

FORGET ABOUT WAITING FOR SOME SLOW CANADIAN COURT TO MULL OVER IT FOR YEARS .... THE ENEMY IS IN OUR MIDST AND TAREK FATAH IS NOW BEING MARKED FOR DEATH BY SOME NUTCASE AND MAY GO THE WAY OF VAN GOGH IN HOLLAND ..... THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW .... SO OBVIOUS ... !!!
http://www.voy.com/178771/10278.html

How many times do I have to repeat this,the United States has never attacked Canada! The war of 1812 was between the US and England.Canada didnt exist as an independent country till 1867 and not fully then until well after the first world war.Why there was a great todo about the British commanding Canadian troops in WW1.I wish that some of you people would read history before you spout off.I sometimes wish that Canada would have changed places with Poland about 1900,then you US detracters would have found what bad nieghbors were alll about.

Actually, ET, I would hope to expect you would keep explaining your positions over and over again, carefully promulgated and distributed, for I think they are valueable signals.

On the other hand, to consume bandwidth demanding what appears upon historic examination to be blood from a stone seems to me to be noise.

I'm interested in the signal to noise ratio. Adding noise to noise doesn't help.

Hirsi Ali: A Call For Clear Thinking

The Times of London has published one of the powerful essays from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book The
via LGF ...

There is an alternative to Islam’s example
In her essay A Call For Clear Thinking, Ayaan Hirsi Ali urges her fellow Muslims to reject fundamentalism and to embrace the open society

THE CAGED VIRGIN
by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Excerpt:
The central figure in this struggle is not bin Laden, or Khomeini, or Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, or Sayyid Qutb (the Egyptian schools’ inspector whose ideas fed the minds of those who flew the planes on 9/11), but Muhammad. A pre-medieval figure to whom these four men — along with all faithful Muslims in our modern world — look for guidance, Muhammad and his teachings offer a fundamental challenge to the West. Faithful Muslims — all faithful Muslims — believe that they must emulate this man, in principle and practical matters, under all circumstances. And so, before we embark on a battle of ideas, we will need to take a look at this figure, and his presence in the daily lives and homes of faithful Muslims today.

On reading the Koran and the traditional writings, it is apparent that Muhammad’s life not only provides rules for the daily lives of Muslims, it also demonstrates the means by which his values can be imposed. Yet remnants from some of the earliest Korans in existence, dating from the 7th and 8th centuries, show small aberrations from the text that is now considered the standard Koran. Nonetheless, just as some fundamentalist Christians cannot understand that the Bible went through numerous changes, interpretations, and translations before it became the contemporary text now widely used, and consider it inerrant, many fundamentalist Muslims consider the Koran a perfect, timeless representation of the unchanging word of God.

To spread his visions and teachings, which he believed to be from God, and to consolidate his secular power, Muhammad built the House of Islam using military tactics that included mass killing, torture, targeted assassination, lying and the indiscriminate destruction of productive goods. This may be embarrassing, and even painful, for moderate Muslims to admit and to consider, but it is historical fact. And a close look at the propaganda produced by the terrorists reveals constant quotation of Muhammad’s deeds and edicts to justify their actions and to call on other Muslims to support their cause. ...-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13332.2

"ET
can you be clear about what you wanted substantiated and what ,in fact, substantiation is in your mind?
Substantial evidence to me is not substantial to you, so you would have be clear and concise about what it is that you would consider substantive."

"steve d - I've listed, point by point, what I want substantiated. I can't be any clearer than that. Substantiation means evidence for your conclusions. All you do is state those conclusions. No facts, no proof. Nothing. It would be like me saying: 'That man eats people'. Would you expect me to provide some proof?"

Hello?....Hello?...,ET,again,I'm trying to stay respectful here,can you possibly show me where this TYPICALLY useless exchange is adding anything to this thread?
How can you possibly feel compelled to answer a post sooo stupid and meaningless that is ultimately steve d's rendition of "da proof is da proof"?...PLEASE...ET....WAKE UP!

I'm with ET, who reasonably and substantially proposes hypotheses and always provides verifiable examples and explanations. I don't believe ET is the problem at all.

I've appreciated the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of this person's posts. To have them hijacked and belittled by posters, like steve d, who presume some equivalency, is, in my opinion, the heart of the problem.

Vitruvius, your willingness to accord the intelligent, reasoned, 3D discourse of ET with the juvenile posturings of steve d is disappointing.

I appreciate ET's postings and altogether support this person's expectation that they won't be trashed by those who have no authority to do so. (The authority to which I refer is knowledge and sense.) ET is not argumentative for its own sake: this person is responding to challenges to credible positions. That's called debate.

Good for you, ET. Please keep up the fine work. (I always look for and read your posts with pleasure.)

P.S. If Canadian Observer thinks that steve d's a problem, perhaps he could assist ET by providing some counter arguments so ET doesn't have to do it all.

CO says, "How can you [ET] possibly feel compelled to answer a post sooo stupid and meaningless . . . "

I'll tell you how, CO. It's because ET has the integrity to OWN his/her posts. They're not made for nothing. They count.

The "whatever" outlook, which reduces everything to the same, so doesn't seem to take anything very seriously, seems alive and well here. E.g., steve d's posts are anything but "meaningless". I believe they're an outward and visible sign of the serious lack of character and intellectual vigour that's going to be the literal death of the West if things don't change.

Equivalency? I take both ET and steve d seriously. But I happen to respect ET.

You've misread me, Lookout, for I'm with ET (most of the time) too. I just spent a good part of an evening here at SDA a couple days ago arguing in ET's defense on a matter I thought to be a frivolous prosecution.

Further, I don't think that providing intelligent reasoned discourse to anyone should ever be considered disappointing, even if they are not according it to others (not that you said that, Lookout). But as always, of course, the notions I support are just my opinions.

By the way, ET, you mentioned a few days ago that you had a web site about the work you and your colleagues are doing in your professional field, which I vaguely understand but would be loath to put words to. As an electrical engineer and computing scientist, I'd like to read your dissertations on some of those matters your have highlighted here in the blogosphere over the last oh so many months. Please send me the URL to vitruvius2 at gmail dot com. Thanks.

ET
Now what exactly would YOU consider evidence? That is the mystery.
I pointed to the budget 07 from the US treasury dept. I even quoted from it. See, there needs to be such a level of substantiation that it has me baffled. I suspect that is a game with you. I give my proof and you sneer back, "Its not good enough" not a good source, not specific enough, not conservative enough, too vague, too liberal, too suspect, too suspect, too much reading, not substantial enough, etc, etc, etc,. You never have to deal with the substance because of course I can't prove it to your satisfaction. How convenient.

During a recent visit to Mongolia, for example, President Bush pledged $11 million for its 120 "fearless warriors" in Iraq as part of the White House's "solidarity initiative." Poland's presence in Iraq was motivated in part by the prospect of securing lucrative post-war reconstruction or oil contracts.

Albania

BRIBED Incredibly poor country with refugee crisis following the Kosovo war. Depends heavily on Western aid.

Azerbaijan/Georgia

BLIND and BRIBED

President Ferenc Madl, left, has allowed the Iraqi opposition to train on its territory. Hungary is also involved in massive oil deals with the US. It is part of a new wave of countries joining the EU in 2004 and its relations with the West are vital for that course to be completed.

BRIBED Desperate for aid, trade with the West and cash for the war on terror.

BRIBED Desperately needs to develop trade links with Britain and America. Has sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to US request. Poised to join the EU next year and must keep relations with Britain tight.

Czech Republic

BULLIED The Danish government is sending a corvette and a submarine, - but dropped plans to deploy ground troops because of weak parliamentary support.

BRIBED

Colombia, El Salvador and Nicaragua all receive generous anti-drugs funding from the US.

Denmark Colombia/C America

BRIBED

These are two of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world. The bitter rivals each want US backing in a boundary dispute and need US aid to fight a massive famine.

Eritrea/Ethiopia Hungary

BLIND One of the 12 original members of Nato's Security Council. Fully supports military action, despite massive protests from within the country.

Iceland

Italy

BLIND The country's right-wing government, led by Silvio Berlusconi, right, has been behind Britain and America every step of the way. But the Vatican said it was deeply pained by the outbreak of war and deplored the interruption of efforts to bring about peace.

Italy has offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under long-standing Nato commitments.

BLIND Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has given his moral backing for Washington.

Japan South Korea

BRIBED Has depended heavily on the Yankee dollar for the massive restructuring of its infrastructure.

But even more important than that, it needs American muscle as protection against its nuclear-capable neighbors in the North. President Roh Moo-hyun admitted fearing that war with Iraq could hit relations between North Korea and the West.

Baltic states

BRIBED The crumbling economies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are desperate for funding from Britain and America through the United Nations.

Philippines

BRIBED President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, right, said Manila gave political and moral support, adding: "We are part of the coalition of the willing."

But the country depends on America for military support and muscle to fight terrorism.

Poland

BRIBED President Aleksander Kwasniewski, left, agreed to deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, to perform non-combat roles supporting any US-led offensive.

He also signed an open letter in support of the US. There's a reason he loves America - Poland is the first former communist state to join Nato and is among the 10 countries which have qualified to join the European Union in 2004.

Macedonia

BRIBED Did not exist at the time of the last Gulf War and is among the world's smallest nations. Needs friends such as Britain and America as well as more funding for its depressed economy and services.

Netherlands

BLIND The Dutch have sent anti-missile batteries to Turkey.

Spain

BLIND The strongest ally of the US and Britain. Has promised the use of its Nato bases for a strike on Iraq. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, right, appeared side-by-side with Blair and Bush at the Azores summit last week.

Romania

BRIBED Has offered a small military contingent, but it is unlikely to see any action. Romania is desperate for its support to be repaid with increased trade with Britain and American - as well as continued aid.

Turkey

BULLIED and BRIBED Has reluctantly pledged support but President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, left, criticized the US attack, saying the UN Security Council process on Iraq should have been allowed to finish. Washington abruptly withdrew its carrot of a £10billion aid package to Turkey after the pro-Islamic government frustrated the US's military build up.

Slovakia

BRIBED A leading member of the countries which are using this process to boost their own standing, Slovakia has offered troops on a non-combatant basis but expects financial rewards in return.

Silent Partners

SAUDI Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman have refused to associate themselves publicly with the coalition.

Israel has publicly supported the war, but America does not want it linked to the coalition.

How many contracts did Canada get?

If you were recieving aid from the states then you had to join or lose the aid.

All foriegn troops to leave most Iraqi cities by end of year.

Ummmmm...I know that I'm coming in late and the majority of discussion here is about the Hawaii Report.

I just want to interject with my support (of course, a little more "tempered" - right Outlook ;) ) of The Broom's latest tirade.

Canada and the US, I would like to believe, were pioneers because we were the first to have the idea of nationalism that centered around "ideas and values" (as opposed to the "old world" nationalism that focused on superficial things like race, religion, or ethnicity). However (again this is under the qualification of "I would like to believe"), there still has to be that strong nationalistic force. So, instead of saying, "If you're not of this colour/race/background, get the Hell out." We should be able to say, "If you don't go along with our common ideas of freedom of expression, civil rights, etc...get the Hell out."

Yes, yes, I know...in the context of this country's modern multiculturalist hullaballoo, my "wishful thinking" may be seen as naive. But, it make me feel all warm and tingly inside to see some other Canadian telling it like it is...and making a brave stand to boot.

Muslim Islamist Terrorists: A Plague in Great Britain.
A leak a la New York Times? Disinformation?
...-

Britain spying on 8,000 Al-Qaeda 'sympathisers': report
Posted by markedmannerf
On 07/02/2006 6:32:17 PM PDT · 5 replies · 136+ views

Turkish Press ^ | 7/2/2006
LONDON - Britain's internal intelligence agency M15 is spying on some 8,000 sympathisers of the Al-Qaeda terror network in a bid to identify future terrorists, The Independent newspaper reported Monday. Operation "Rich Picture", also aims to recruit agents within the Islamist movement, the report said. The nationwide investigation follows intelligence suggesting there is a very small, but significant number of British-born and Britain-based Muslims, who are prepared to carry out bombings and other terrorist attacks in this country. "Undercover officers are gathering information from all over the country, including at colleges, mosques and internet websites where extremists may try to...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659513/posts

I agree with your perspective, Bryce Man, but the chain of values goes beyond Canada and the United States. Egypt, Greece, the Far and Near East, Rome, the Magna Carta. Certainly the Athenian democrats were not short of values and ideas.

It does seem to me though, that what is commonly known as the anglosphere, the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, India, and numerous other countries that are the beneficiaries of Athenian democracy and the Magna Carta, generically speaking, have history on their side.

Still, history shows that having history on your side is not necessarily enough. To arms then I say! In other words, carry on.

Possibly I am not understanding bryceman, but his notion that Canada and the US are the 'first to centre their nationalism around ideas and values' vs 'race, religion, ethnicity' is, in my view, quite wrong.

First, he is completely ignoring history. At the risk of endless, exhaustive repetition, populations below the multi-millions will be socially and politically organized within 'tribes'. That's valid for medieval Europe as it is for pre-industrial Asia, the Middle East, Africa, anywhere.

So, it isn't that 'the old world' was organized within the tribal values of 'race, ethnicity, religion', which define membership within the community by kin and clan ties...because it didn't 'know better'. It was because of the population size, which was linked to the economic mode (pre-industrial agriculture). Period.

The US and Canada - and Australia - are immigration nations. They developed within the late agricultural and early industrial period. This is a completely different scenario. The populations are large, the economy is early industrial - and therefore, the political and social mode of organization cannot be by race, ethnicity or religion, but by civic membership.

The way bryceman writes, it's as if these different modes were intentional. They weren't. They are directly related to economic and technological mode and population size.

And both modes have 'ideas and values'.

ET:

Hmmmm. Ok. You have made a good point...I am actually still considering it as I type this.

I am willing to accept that the birth of the societies (nations) and their differences can be better explained by your analysis...but, I would contend that the "old world" values of centering nationalistic ideals around race, religion, and ethnicity survived in Europe long after technology should have made that type of thing irrelevant.

I give you Croatia and Serbia...arguing essentially over who's kingdom was better 1500 years ago in a dispute that wasn't really even theirs, but the Roman's. Nazi's able to whip up the public behind the idea that the Aryans should rule over the inferior Slavs. Catholics and Protestants in Ireland arguing over massacre's of the Thirty Years' war (1600's I think)...and so on.

I can't imagine such fervor being whipped up in Canada until I started seeing the recent reports (and that's all they are at this point) about Muslim clerics here.

I am a firm believer that the path of the United Stats becoming a super-power (economically first) was started in WWI (and further helped along in the early days of WWII) precisely because they looked at Europe and said, "We don't care if you want to kill each other and your economies because of old tribal arguments. If we can make money off of it, it's all good. In the meantime, send us the intellectuals that you fear because of their ethnic backgrounds...we have great jobs for them too."

Perhaps when it comes to the birth of the societies, you are right. But, when it comes to continued prosperity...I believe that (as an augmentation to our natural resource supply), the "Americas" continue to outpace the old European establishment because we have been less concerned about ethnicity and more concerned about what they can offer.

To those who would jump on my last sentence...please note that I said "less" and "more" and was not trying to be absolute. I know that there are examples of exceptions.

neutralsam: Canada actually got some really good contracts in Iraq. You know those big fiber shelters you see on all the bases there... yep... made right here in Saskatoon. A very lucrative contract.

"If Canadian Observer thinks that steve d's a problem, perhaps he could assist ET by providing some counter arguments so ET doesn't have to do it all."

lookout,let me see if I have any better luck getting you to understand my point...

1st things 1st,lookout..steve d is NO problem,he is the king of trolls,if you cannot understand this then I recommend you go back a week or two to the'trolls 101'symposium we held...then go back and look at the archives and the COUNTLESS'trollish',repetitive,insulting,anti-right,US-bashing posts by steve d over the last few months.Next,consider our hostesses requests here for guests to NOT feed the trolls...I believe ET is the #1 rulebreaker in this area.(in comparison,in respect for Kate's wishes,I have NEVER addressed steve d directly,he is NOT a threat!)

Next,I have already supplied you with a stellar example of the pointless BS already going on between these two(and I didn't even have to go outside of THIS thread to get it!)ET has accomplished NOTHING in months of this type of typical'shouting at a wall'.Nothing!...Please show me proof of a breakthrough ANYWHERE if you disagree!

3rd,agreeing with ET's message is NOT the point.I agree with 90% of his/her opinion,I'm tired of hearing it from someone acting like they are scolding a 5 yr old(not much of a stretch in steve d,s case I admit.)In fairness,I even successfully defended steve d's opinion on one thread...though he never saw fit to thank me...:)

Next,nobody asked ET to be a beacon for the right,it is a responsibility we ALL share,and quite frankly,I think he/she just loves the limelight.Again,all I asked is for these two to KEEP wasting each other's time,but STOP wasting mine.Go to private emails if you want to keep talking in circles day after day after day after day.

Allow me to agree when you make the vital point of the importance for honest debate and defending our views...May I please submit to you that trolls have no interest in learning or educating but exist to get a reaction...ET has been guilty of jumping at their bait at almost every instance.Again,show me any proof of him/her successfully changing steve's mind,...it will NEVER happen...For you see,where ET seems quite well educated,he/she is seriously deficit in street smarts.Although ET has received this message from others,he/she still doesn't get that trolls are all about DANCING,not the sharing of IDEAS!

Finally,I apologize for going after ET in this matter,I am just FED UP with the constant pandering to trolls and hijacking of threads!
lookout,I hope you will research my claims so you will see the truth in them,and I thank you for hearing me out.You see,where I also respect ET's opinion,it is the tactics I tire of...

"I think I've made myself clear in explaining the issues that concern me - such as Iraq, democracy, Islamic fascism, Canadian decentralization etc. Surely you don't expect me to do more on these issues. Enough is enough."

ET,if only you would WALK the TALK!

bryceman - no, I disagree with your analysis. You are ignoring history. You cannot 'wipe out' the history of a society, so, although most, but not all, of Europe moved into the industrial mode and therefore, out of the kin-based tribal mode, eastern Europe didn't move into it until post WWII. European fascism was a crisis mode between tribalism and a civic mode.

I'm rather hesitant to accept the notion of 'the birth of societies'; there's never a clear beginning and end.

Remember, industrialism has only been around for about 150 years. It takes at least three or more generations to change an ideology, even after the technology has changed. The ideology is always the last to change and the most firmly held onto.

Canada and the US do not have a history of 'tribalism'; they developed, as I said, within the late agricultural and early industrial era. Therefore, they began as civic rather than tribal collectives. If you are trying to imply that there is something unique about the Canadian or US mentality that enabled them to be 'non-tribal' - I disagree. Europe had 2000 years of tribalism. Canada and the US had zero years. It makes a difference.

But Canada isn't comparable to the US. The US is far more innovative, privileges the individual, privileges change - while Canada is more like Europe. Socialist collectivism. No, the US isn't about money - unless you understand money as the capacity to construct future-oriented activities. It certainly has that capacity.

As for Canadian Observer, you can rant and rage at me as much as you like. I disagree; neutralsam is a troll because he has only one agenda and isn't interested in debate.

I don't think that steved is a troll. He is incredibly ignorant, he doesn't seem able to use basic reasoning tactics (causes leading to result);he is manipulative (his last post to me was a manipulative attempt to get out of the responsibility of answering), and he's completely brainwashed in leftist sophistry. So? Are we supposed to ignore all brainwashed leftist people?

Canadian Observer: My opinion on this matter is simple... a thread can be any number of conversations going on at once. If I don't like what person A and B are talking about, but I want to engage person C, then I'll have a conversation with C only. If you go to LGF or Iraq the Model, where there are often 300+ comments per post, you'll see a lot of cross talk with multiple conversations going on. SDA has a very robust comments section, and there is no reason that any number of conversations can't go on at once.

If you don't like ET spanking the trolls or whomever... then ignore. I'm sure if Kate doesn't like something, she'll pull the plug on it.

Personally, I love reading ET's learned response to Steve and others. What amazes me, almost to shaking my head, is that they just keep coming back for more no matter how soundly they've been trounced. It's almost masochistic.

By the way, the trolls 101 session was very revealing. I think that what most took away from it was that the best is to ignore them; or ignore the attempts to debate them if you don't like it.

Now, after rethinking some of what you said. If the debate with the troll takes up too much "space", it does drive other people away... or it could, and that is a problem.

bryceman
I think you have to be careful when reading ET.
His opinions and assumptions are not well grounded.
Canada did and does have tribes. Native tribes, orange lodge tribes, catholic tribes, elite tribes, union tribes, particular church tribes.
Today there are ethnic tribes that have many common traits. As a society matures and grows nationalism will become the unifying theme but those other tribal themes are slow to extinguish and it fact re-ignite at particular times.
Notice in the US how a particular group is identified and then rise up in a tribal response during the immigration debate. Cultural norms are extremely slow to extinguish and sometimes lie dormant for years only to be re-ignited under the correct circumstances.

"Now, after rethinking some of what you said. If the debate with the troll takes up too much "space", it does drive other people away... or it could, and that is a problem."
Posted by: Debris Trail at July 3, 2006 12:05 AM

DT,without trying to sound like a smartass,I think you may have'stumbled'across the point I have been unable to articulate.You claim to have rethought some of my comments...is that not really what's lacking with'trollish'behavior and their enablers.Nothing EVER seems to get resolved,it is just 2,3 or 4 people demanding they be considered RIGHT and not taking time to digest an opinion before a common sense rebuttal.

I again apologize for my insistance on this topic,I do(obviously)feel strong about this monopolizing of threads for partisan circle-jerks...thanks for your input,but most importantly,thanks for reassuring me some people still seriously consider another person's POV before declaring their own...Have a good night.

"As for Canadian Observer, you can rant and rage at me as much as you like. I disagree; neutralsam is a troll because he has only one agenda and isn't interested in debate."
Posted by: ET at July 2, 2006 11:57 PM

ET,you keep throwing neutralsam's name at me,I haven't mentioned him once...I admit I have picked on you this evening,but with good intentions in mind.
Rant and rage?Hardly close to being accurate,but I understand where steve d is EASY to beat up,my allegations are much more difficult for you to face.Just please do me the courtesy of at least CONSIDERING my points...A good evening to you also...

Kate,

Any chance of getting the posters name on top of the comment instead of the bottom?

ET:

I don't have a problem with your analysis. I don't agree with it...but that's cool.

I am fairly well travelled, and I see evidence all of the time that the "tribal" mentality still permeates European thinking. My wife is Russian and tells me all of the time about how, as recently as the 1990's, Russian students were taught that Tatars (Russians of Mongolian-ethnicity) were genetically different in thinking from "regular Russians." Heck, two days ago, I was in a line at the post office and got into a conversation with a Belorussian gentleman who was convinced that there was a genetic superiority of people from his country over "regular Russians and slavs."

Ask an Irishman about the differences between he and a Scotsman. You'll find that he'll go on about 'absolute truths' in the differences. They are always convinced that there is something in the genes.

You just don't see that as much on this side of the Atlantic...except from those who have just arrived.

http://www.gomery.ca/en/witnesses/index.asp

...somewhere in here was Reader's Tip's and not slag the liberal, no matter how right or wrong they are.

Anyway, interesting read - blame Bush right?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/Internet/2006/07/01/1663566-cp.html

Bell Sympatico has informed its customers that it intends to "monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider's networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request."

Bell Sympatico's new customer service agreement, which took effect June 15, is a clear signal the telecommunications industry expects the Conservative government to revive the surveillance law, said Michael Geist, an Internet law professor at the University of Ottawa.

I've apprecaited many of the recent comments here.

CO, thanks for your thoughtful response. I hear you but am still inclined to side with ET here. steve d is very manipulative and end-runs issues rather than dealing with them head on as ET does. Requiring accountability from steve is quite acceptable, I think. As to drawbacks when the back and forth is protracted: I see your point, though people may skip the posts. Perhaps it's the responsibility of those who resent the debate between A and B to start another line.

I guess neutral[sic]sam was trying to substantiate steve d's anti-Americanism: no go nt. This lumpen post provided no context, no references, and was full of jargon: a junk post, in my opinion. All big organizations/corporations--unions, school boards, hospitals, cities, dioceses, companies, etc.--do, or don't do, things that could be described--especially by those who don't like them--as BRIBED, BULLIED, AND BLIND [ignore, stonewall, I take it].

If I were writing nt's report card, he'd receive a D. My comments would be: "nt needs to learn to construct a coherent argument, rather than providing a string of unconnected pieces of information, with no context. He needs to learn to write in paragraphs, using well constructed sentences. At the beginning of his essay, he must state a concise thesis, using specific language. The following paragraphs must use specific, referenced examples and clear explantions. He must end with a succinct summary that synthesizes the information he's provided." (steve d, take note.)

A broom that how hillary gets around when her car is in the garage I,LL GET YOU MY PRETTY AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TO

Now that we all have had a night to cool down I will reply to a few of the comments sent my way yesterday.

Debris Trail, you certainly proved my point about SDA being the wrong forum for earnest discussion. You knew exactly what “typical lefties like Agitfact” were going to say before they had said anything, and couldn’t wait to slag my “no grasp of geopolitics, least of all military complexities” without having given me a chance to demonstrate same. Then, after my post had gone up, you slag some more: “given a chance to add substantively to a debate or question, without the diatribe, you fail. You didn't answer my questions, other than with incredibly vague generalities.” Where, oh wise one, was there any “diatribe” in my post of 2:30 PM? Show me one phrase of diatribe in this post, and show me one phrase in yours that wasn’t. You are quite right, I did not answer your questions - because real answers can only follow consideration of the factors involved that I did list. Lacking ideology, I don’t know the desired, politically correct answers to questions I have not examined. But, with all of your right-wing certitude, you don’t even know the questions to ask.

Same for you, ET. I do get a little tired of your demanding proof from others when you have never deemed it necessary to back up anything you say yourself, even when challenged directly. You did say “read Popper” at some point, but generally are content to play your tribalism-fascism-statistics broken record, truly using nothing but ad hominem arguments, and picking fly specks out of what others have said. Lookout and Debris Trail obviously operate in a separate mental reality when they congratulate you on your learning and debating skill. To me, your modus operandi is not worthy of the professional academic you are, but since you are only acting as a conservative propagandist, I should make allowances. But that’s “blasphemy,” isn’t it, Lookout?

I do know that General Vokes was only one man, but he was a man who knew something about warfare, and he questioned our role in NATO on functional grounds when it was not politic to do so and been done so before only by the odd peacenik and New Democrat. And then the unthinkable happened: the Canadian Government countered conventional wisdom and shut down Canadian Forces Europe in 1993 and 1994. ET, it was your very own Conservative Mulroney Government that did it! The Liberals only took over in November 1993, while the orders were being implemented. By all means, question our role in NATO, but do ask the right questions and don’t just presuppose conservative answers. NATO as a counterweight to the USA? Dream on. And why would a counterweight to the greatest, most magnanimous nation on earth even be necessary, DT?

And, for those intimates who don’t remember, “my winged monkeys” is what Kate has called you.

DT, I don’t exist to “denegrate (sic) those who frequent SDA.” I do claim the right to denigrate far-out comments, and I do try to remind some of you of the real world. The real world does not operate on ideology. Only propaganda does, and the whole point of propaganda is to short-out thinking and make you believe something that might not be credible in itself. Frankly, I do not know why any thinking human being would be content to merely advance an ideology, Left, Right or Centre, but obviously some people are. Whatever works for you. But I do not want people to think that what is written here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As I said before, I consider that a duty to truth and a small service to humanity. And you might have noticed that I only snark back, and do not use foul language.

Which takes me to a small quarrel I have with you, Canadian Observer, although we share some common ground. On the Caledonia thread you accused me of slagging all conservatives. I didn’t, and I don’t, only a few rabid ones here that fully deserve to be slagged. I can live with objective criticism of anything I write, but I’d sure like to have written something before being maligned for it. I gave up on that thread when it turned into a bunch of nasty posts that showed that preceding comments had not been read, much less understood. By the way, is Caledonia still standing, and if so why, in view of incendiary comments and Indians gathering firewood?

I could go on, but you get the drift. Here's hoping that we get beyond the “You’re a … He is … Is so … Is not …” sandbox style of argument?

...oh lookie, a shiny thing...

Ok, everyone lighten up a bit ok?

Here are some clean family jokes I've garnished over the years:

http://www.tomax7.com/comedy.html

- click on the 'Firefox Wheee Video' - 11th item down.

As well, listen closely to what the Firefox icon says...

Reminds me a bit of what's going on...

;-)

agitfact - Thanks for taking the time to express your opinion, though what many of us say here is less ideology than observation through a great many experiences. Perhaps your experience has been altogether different from ours, e.g., You find the MSM credible and we don't. (And I don't consider what you said about ET blasphemy.)

Agitfact: "Certainly not something Small Dead Animals would know anything concrete about..."

Yeh right... As long as you want to tag crap like this onto your statements, you'll get more of the same in return... or nothing at all. You write literally pages of commentary... then when given a chance to add something substantive and answer a genuine question... you answer with a kiddie level point form nothing with a shot tossed in... grow up!

Debris Trail,

your "kiddie level point form" is exactly how national policy is developed when it is not shorted out by political expediency and similar considerations. But you've got to get out of the blogosphere and its free-radical imagenings (as in Celestial Junk!) to realize that.

And just what do Small Dead Animals know CONCRETELY about the threat to NATO as a group or to its individual member countries? I'm sure that the intelligence services of 26 nations and one large headquarters would appreciate credible information from you.

Like the Firefox video goes...

...uhh huhha...

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

huhuhaa

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

Let's move on shall we?