Not all liberals are obtuse.
Last year the Supreme Court declared that our health care system violates human rights. We are the party of human rights, for crying out loud, and we can’t be selectively so. But rather than focus on progressive new directions to help Canadians in need, all you hear about are the repetition of entrenched orthodoxies into meaningless mantra (“no two tier healthcare”, “health card not credit card”). Slogans don’t save lives. If you believe in universally accessible healthcare as I do then we have to open up our minds from our claustrophobic thinking. I mean, if socialist France can embrace some private care and have even greater and more universal healthcare at lower cost, why can’t we even talk about it?
While I take issue with declarations such as “we are the party of human rights”, Ted has good advice for those who yearn for a return to the day before the word “liberal” was hijacked by the extreme left.
For evidence of that, one only need consider their willful blindness to the fact that modern conservatives in both Canada and the US have now taken firm ownership of the type of foreign policy once associated with “classic” liberalism. It’s something that MIchael Ignatieff understands – and it’s why he has considerable respect from the right. But judging by the kneejerk condemnation he’s received for the sin of siding with Amerikkka, any calls for “open minds” on Liberal policy are likely to remain just so many echoes in the wilderness.
Too many “rights”, too few “duties”.
Actually, Kate has hit upon something that has bothered me a great deal – the usurpation of the term “liberal” by the crypto-fascists.
I may be a card-carrying member of the CPC (and recipient of their endless requests for donations) but I consider myself a ‘liberal’ in the classical sense of the term. For what does the word spring from but a sense of liberty, of freedom in thought and deed? To me, the essence of liberalism was that all ideas could be expressed, and in the harsh light of day, analyzed, debated, and dissected until those that were wanting were driven out. But what do we have today? “Liberals” who won’t allow free speech or expression on any number of topics – you can’t criticize Kyoto without being a ‘pawn of Bush and the oil companies’. You can’t talk about changing medicare without “American-style credit card medicine” thrown in your face. You can’t talk about abortion without being “anti-woman”. You can’t talk about a link between 17 men, alleged terror plots, and Islam without being called a racist. I could go on, but I won’t.
Ted decries the use of sloganeering instead of argument, and rightly so. I don’t know which it reminds me more of: Orwell’s sheep bleating “Four legs good, two legs bad”, or Monty Python’s argument sketch. But it’s difficult to have the political discourse that this, and really any, country needs to deal with our problems when those who try to express thoughtful ideas in all honesty are hectored by the shrill voices of those who will admit to no argument; they are *RIGHT*, g*d-d*mn it, and if you disagree, you’re evil.
Now, I can’t say that the above doesn’t apply to some voices on the right as well, but in general, I’ve noticed on this and other blogs that those on the right put forth ideas more frequently than those on the left, who tend to heap scorn and ridicule on anything outside their orthodoxy. I’m all for injecting a little heat and venom into an argument – that is part of the fun, after all – but the skillful part is to eviscerate your opponent’s argument first, and then move on to his corpus. Simply hurling non-specific abuse is both childish and boring.
kevinb – thanks. Very nice argument.
I agree with the Four legs good, two legs bad of the sheep – and the brainwashed left are those sheep. They bleat out the same mantras every time. But the Liberal Party and their MSM is ‘Squealer’, the well-fed pig, who rewrites history (oh, the Adscam was just a few rogues, not the Liberal party).
And, openly rejects reality. For example, Paul Martin chastising the US for not signing up to Kyoto, when, regardless of the signature, the US emission increase was half that of Canada’s. And, as you say, the left simply won’t permit their Basic Axioms to be open to debate. You can’t discuss Kyoto, SSM, Iraq and so on…
The Liberal Party may have been genuinely ‘liberal’, in the original sense of the word, which promoted individualism, free thought and debate, but they have now moved into the realm of the left.
That’s corporate government, big government, sheep group-ism, rejection of the individual, rejection of free thought. The Liberals have so close to the NDP that they have no policies of their own. Their only agenda has been to ‘remain in control’ and they have become corrupt within this agenda.
liberal makes a “fool” of itself; even bigger a “fool” of itself. The a “fool” shall remain nameless.
Hint: Vkjme.
“Click this link at about 9:15am PST to hear Joe Volpe make an even bigger fool of himself than he already has.”
(Bob Rae and Dosanjh are now in bed… both liberals now. Cotler makes three in one bed.)
via tdh strat’s …-
Go ahead and laugh- the LAWYERS representing these ‘terror suspects’ (and the 100 odd ‘gangstas’ rounded up around Toronto in the past couple of weeks, will put their kids through university on the TAXPAYER’s dime for defending these turkeys! The cops will be paid overtime to round them up, and the ‘Justice Department’ will acquire a new courthouse to try them in!
Duh? (Betcha can’t find out the legal aid bills!)
Please quit referring to pigs as this offends muslims. With Raes new supporters, 3 in a bed, does this mean polygamy is on the agenda. Why wouldn’t an ex NDP premier, turned liberal, support another exNDP premier turned liberal. Layton better watch out, his party is being taken over by the liberals. When will layton come out for Rae. We do not want a federal NDP government. As for the debate in Winnipeg.70% of cdns will not pay attention to this race till Dec 3, 2006, and then during the next election campaign. Only14 delegates per riding, and most posters for or against any of them will not be voting, so what does it matter what anyone thinks.
davie – what’s your point? That we shouldn’t accuse anyone of any crime because it will cost the taxpayer money?
Hmm – if your only criterion is financial, wouldn’t it be more expensive, in the long run, for us to allow criminality? Are you saying that we should allow criminals to rob banks, steal cars, beat people up, because prosecuting them is, heck, so expensive? Should we allow terrorists to blow up our buildings, because, heck, it’s so expensive to prosecute them?
Interesting.
Prophet of Decline – An interview with Oriana FallacI (jUNE 2005)
WSJ ^ | Thursday, June 23, 2005 | TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Posted on 06/12/2006 2:29:35 PM PDT by dennisw
Oriana Fallaci faces jail. In her mid-70s, with a cancer that, for the moment, permits only the consumption of liquids–so yes, we drank champagne in the course of a three-hour interview–one of the most renowned journalists of the modern era has been indicted by a judge in her native Italy under provisions of the Italian Penal Code which proscribe the “vilipendio,” or “vilification,” of “any religion admitted by the state.”
In her case, the religion deemed vilified is Islam, and the vilification was perpetrated, apparently, in a book she wrote last year–and which has sold many more than a million copies all over Europe–called “The Force of Reason.” Its astringent thesis is that the Old Continent is the verge becoming a dominion of Islam, that people of the West have surrendered themselves fecklessly to the “sons of Allah.” So in nutshell, Oriana Fallaci faces up to two years’ imprisonment for her beliefs–which is one reason why she has chosen to stay put in New York. Let’s give thanks for the First Amendment.
It is a shame, in so many ways, that “vilipend,” the latinate word that is the pinpoint equivalent in English of the Italian offense in question, is scarcely ever used in the Anglo-American lexicon; for it captures beautifully the pomposity, as well as the anachronistic outlandishness, of the law in question. A “vilification,” by contrast, sounds sordid, so tabloid–hardly fitting for a grande dame.
“When I was given the news,” Ms. Fallaci says of her recent indictment, “I laughed. Bitterly, of course, but I laughed. No amusement, no surprise, because the trial is nothing else but a demonstration that everything I’ve written is true.” An activist judge in Bergamo, in northern Italy, took it upon himself to admit a complaint against Ms. Fallaci that even the local …….
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648087/posts
(link to WSJ)
This country’s greatness lies in dialogue, debate and the conteracting of various political parties. If the Liberals can bring some good ideas to the table(as opposition ;P) That’s great, makes it better for everyone overall.
Right on, Fergy.
The entire point of a free and democratic society is that ideas are openly and rationally debated, so that the best option can be decided upon.
What political debate in this country (and many others) has become is something else altogether. Mindlessly shouting slogans isn’t political debate because neither side is willing to alter their position. The blogshpere (both left and right) tends to reflect this.
Political debate should be more about asking insightful questions than barking out conditioned answers. Anyone, even a large-Liberal who recognizes this is on the right track.
I agree Fergy, just wondering though, they have 11 candidates in the leadership race, have you heard any good ideas yet?
First time blogger, relocated into the hurricane zone but I beg to differ on your understanding of Liberal (Capitalization intended). Being a Yank I say this with utmost respect. Liberalism is and was a rejection of Monarchy. The King is dead long live the King. The King is God on Earth and all that crapola. Liberalism is and was an ideology that rejected a class based society for the benefit of the individual. As for Canadians and your different history regarding Merry ole versus an American perspective I cannot allow myself to this day countenance Monarchy.
I liked the first responder’s take; Liberalism has been taken over by the word changer CryptoFacists in their never ending attempt, a la Orwell, to change the, oh what is their word, the dialectic. Ah, there is a unique point of view, if I can convince you that the words I use are only my definitions and you belive my BS then there; we have had a fine conversation.
All in all, in the end it all revolves around what you and I think, not believe, is the right course of action. We may have quibbles along the way, we may change course along the way but if, and it is a big if, in these days we agree on the goal, we will all get to the desired end. After all, once we change the game the players will develop new tactics.
Fergy,GM..you both make excellent points,but do not forget,the absense of constructive dialogue is purely the evil liberals doing!… 😉
Well harroo, harrah!!
Our might perriwigg’d masters on high have pulled another heretofore undiscovered “human right” out of their magical hat! Quick now, we must act as if it were there all along and retrofit our world accordingly.
Behold, is there nothing they cannot do? Without these judges and their god-like ability to creat “rights” for us all, we would surely perish!
Only their comrades to the South of us are more powerful yet! Observe: they interpret “the cops have no right to barge into your home” to mean “it is legal to stick a pair of scissors in a baby’s head”! Who can deny their utter wonderfulness?
The federal liberals have been leaning left for years, the only difference lately has been, they no longer try to hide it.
They call themselves liberal, but we all know they are NDPer’s in disguise.
True centrist liberals, should be pissed, the liberal party has been hijacked.
It started with Trudeau and continues under Bob Rae.
The federal liberal party will soon be merging with the NDP and Canada will finally get back to a two party system..!
It’s been a long time comming..!!
Ps…..
Watch how the left votes (as a bloc) in the upcomming leadership convention, since 9 of the 11 candidates are from the left, the results are pretty well in the bag.
We’re witnessing the end of the Liberal party..!
But is a two-party system such a good idea?
Think about it…if the liberals move left, but do not link up with the NDP, then the Conservatives can pull in more moderate votes, while the left stays divided….sounds like a formula for a near-permanent majority.
On the other hand, a united left party has a greater chance of eventually taking power. Eventually, somone from the “NDP” wing of the party would take over….do we really want an NDP’er with a real shot at becoming PM?
GM, the answer is no. But remember that many Canadians only park at the NDP out of frustration. When the NDP collapses into the Liberals the parking spot won’t be available, the dynamics will change again.
William I’m assuming you mean Iggy and Brison are to the right of the 9 lefties. Iggy is sort of a hawk on Foreign Policy but isn’t he another fiscal Trudeau? Really.. isn’t Brison the only blue Liberal? And his French is too weak; he’ll never get elected by Liberals.
I don’t think they have a serious blue Liberal contender.
I’m really worried that we’ll become complacent and lazy because there is no serious opposition and after 50 years in power we’ll look just like the Liberals … this is a terrible spot to be in … oh my.
Not sure where the idea of 9 of 11 of the Liberals are from the “left” comes from, William.
While I’m quite certain most of the readers here would say they are all on the left, from the perspective of the Liberal Party in the past 25 years or so, I would say:
– left left: Kennedy, Rae, Fry, Volpe
– centre-left: Dryden, Hall Findlay, Dion, Bennett
– right: Brison, Bevilacqua
Ignatieff’s the enigma: doesn’t fit into any pre-conceived boxes. For some, it makes it easy to paint him as “other”: too left if you are right, too right if you are left. For others, it is called being an independent thinker who brings a fresh and independent voice to Canadian problems: clearly not conservative (since when did humanitarian/security war become monopolized as a right wing notion? WWI, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, all started by Democrats and all (except WWI and Vietnam but plus Afghanistan) supported by Liberals), but a not a square fit into any circular “camp”.
Stirs things up a bit. Forces people to think about actual policy not perceived policy or slogans (left or right slogans).
Ted
Cerberus
“Our ancestors were so stupid and short-sighted that when the first reformers came along and offered to deliver them from those horrible emotions, they wouldn’t have anything to do with them.”
“Take Ectogenesis. Pfitzner and Kawaguchi had got the whole technique worked out. But would the Governments look at it? No. There was something called Christianity. Women were forced to go on being viviparous.”
…
“Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England. There was something called liberalism. Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject. Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.”
http://huxley.net/bnw/three.html
Bev .. Beva .. Bevilaqua? Who?
Just kidding.
Ted I forgot about him but you’re right.
I’ve met him.
I like him: ergo if I like him, Liberals will never elect him.
He’s in the wrong party.
Plus he can’t speak French.
Harper is the last bilingual moxie politician and he’s ours.
liberals don’t need policy, don’t need a debate.
They are the natural governing party, so they can just relax
Chitty, chitty, bang, bang…-
10 years after Dunblane, gun register is ‘not fit for purpose’
Telegraph Online ^ | 11 June 2006 | Roya Nikkhah
Posted on 06/12/2006 4:34:21 PM PDT by 45Auto
The National Firearms Register promised by the Government in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre has been condemned as “fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose”.
An internal police report describes the database, intended to carry information on everybody who has applied for a gun licence, as unworkable.
The scathing criticism makes a mockery of the upbeat assessment of the register by Charles Clarke, the former home secretary sacked over the foreign criminals deportation fiasco.
Three months ago, after the Government failed to deliver the database in time for the 10th anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, he insisted that “good progress was being made”.
But a report by Lancashire Police reveals that the current system is so riddled with problems that its officers had to abandon a pilot scheme for the National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS) last year.
In a letter from Lancashire police to the Association of Chief Police Officers’ firearms working group, obtained by the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the system is described as having “persistent and immense problems” and “delays of a magnitude which could not be reasonably expected”.
The seven-page letter, which details dozens of other “significant problems”, says: “Lancashire Constabulary felt unable to complete the NFLMS pilot at this present time. It is fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose.”
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, criticised the Government for failing to deliver the register.
“This is yet another Home Office fiasco,” he said. “All we have had is delays and excuses.”
Charlie Clydesdale, whose five-year-old daughter, Victoria, was killed at Dunblane, said: “The lack of progress after all these years is appalling. We were promised the register as a priority but nothing has happened and gun crime is still rising.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648155/posts
Canada’s liberals values …-
Auditor General Blasts Gun Registry Mess
… the resignation of all three justice ministers who handled the gun registry file – Allan Rock, Anne McLellan and incumbent Martin Cauchon, respectively. …
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012424 – 17k
Political correctness; women’s “rights” in Iran.
Men no beat women; women beat women.
Men are “generally” not to “touch” women, except when….
Allah akbar. …-
“Throughout most of the confrontation, female officers beat female protesters and male police beat male protesters there to support the women. Male police generally are not permitted to touch female suspects.”
Women’s rights activists beaten in Tehran
AP ^ | 6/12/06 | AP
Posted on 06/12/2006 4:19:44 PM PDT by freedom44
Iranian police with batons and shields beat women’s rights demonstrators in a downtown Tehran square Monday, injuring one protester and detaining 20.
The injured woman was taken to a hospital with wounds to her face and head. Her identity and further details were not immediately available.
The protest by about 200 women was organized by a previously unknown group calling itself the Labor and Communist Party. An invitation delivered to The Associated Press on Sunday demanded equal rights for women and the nullification of a law allowing Iranian men to have four wives.
“We are women, we are human, but we don’t have any rights!” protesters chanted.
Some 100 police, including female officers, attacked the demonstrators and dispersed them about an hour after the protest began.
Throughout most of the confrontation, female officers beat female protesters and male police beat male protesters there to support the women. Male police generally are not permitted to touch female suspects. …-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648148/posts
RE: We Are Not Afraid
IMHO is not that great a logo.
I would probably have gone for something more along the lines of We Are Not Alone or We Are Not Asleep or Dare To Be Aware.
Sorry to go OT, but there’s tis breaking “news”:
ISLAMIC TERRORISTS (and right wing religious chauvinist pig homophobes) claim alleged “abuse” at hands of police in Castro loving socialist multi-culti Trudeaupia
I think having an NDP’er would be a nice change from the right leaning gov’ts we endure now.
Failing that, I’ll take a centrist Lib party over the “do what we tell you to – and ‘God Bless Canada'” Conservaties any day.
CAW…CAW…CAW…CUPE…CUPE…CUPE …-
BREAKING PARODY NEWS HEADLINES
Posted by Apolitical
On 06/12/2006 6:22:18 PM PDT · 6+ views
Iconoclast ^
GRIEVING CANADIAN LABOR UNION SENDS REPRESENTATIVE TO AL ZARQAWI FUNERAL TORONTO — CUPE Ontario, the provincial branch of Canada’s largest labour union that recently encouraged a boycott of Israeli goods in Canada, has announced plans to send representatives to Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s funeral. “We were heartbroken to hear of his murder by Crusader forces,” said Sid Ryan, CUPE Ontario’s president, to reporters outside his office. Abu was a freedom-fighter, a man of the people, a man of peace. If it hadn’t been for American imperialism, he would never have had to harm a fly.” Ryan broke down in tears,.. …-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648224/posts
Well, Jeff, you have every right to be deluded. I’d just like to know on what grounds: Your post is somewhat vague. (Do you actually have any IDEAS? That would be versus opinions.)
KevinB said “I may be a card-carrying member of the CPC (and recipient of their endless requests for donations…”
Geez, I thought it was just me…they telephone me every two months asking for more money…they’re worse than carpet cleaning companies…
Pics up… see “Dirty Burqies” with the black rods pounding the women protesters… allah steelbars …-
Scoundrels Meet, Women Beaten
As Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pressed the flesh with our friends the Saudis….
An Iranian female police officer, left, beats a female protester, during a protest in Tehran, Iran, Monday, June 12, 2006. Iranian police beat women at an equal rights demonstration in Tehran Monday, injuring at least one protester and arresting 20 others. The protest was organized by a previously unknown group calling itself the Labor and Communist Party. An invitation delivered to The Associated Press a day before the rally demanded equal rights for women and the nullification of a polygamy law that allows Iranian men to have four wives at the same time. (AP Photo) … via http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Actually, we have a similar problem down here.
Leaving aside everyone’s understanding of “classical liberalism”, in the US “liberal” used to mean Adlai Stephenson, Hubert Humprey, and President Kennedy.
President Kennedy, for example, was regarded as a sort of archetypal liberal, and he was an old Cold Warrior who lowered taxes with his famous “a rising tide lifts all boats speech,” and backed Kruschev down in the Cuban missile crisis.
Nowadays, liberals are all trying to be Cindy Sheehan, moonbat extraordinaire. Somewhere to the left of Abbie Hoffman.
This hurts our body politic a lot. Since the liberals feel free to be certifiably insane, our Republican politicians feel free to co-opt much more lefist positions. They realize that the American body politic will perceive them as a lot more conservative than the moonbats, and so they don’t feel threatened.
We really need for the left to return to saner perspectives (perhaps in the general direction of Joe Lieberman), so that Republicans feel they have to stake out territory further to the right.
There’s two questions the Liberal leadership candidates should be answering, but probably never will–What is the proper role of the FEDERAL government ? And, what is our governing philosophy, set of basic principles that we will use to guide us in making policy decisions ?
Conservative voters have a pretty good idea of where Harper stands on these questions. I’m sure the NDP backers could also articulate where Layton stands. But where the hell does the Liberal Party stand ?
The Nation is a liberal left organ/violin; the mag has played with the same bow for about one hundred years. Same old tune/song. The mandatory Bush-bashing is included…free.
Da left liberal values.. a long read. …-
The Missionary Position
by LAILA LALAMI
[from the June 19, 2006 issue]
These days, being a Muslim woman means being saddled with what can only be referred to as the “burden of pity.” The feelings of compassion that we Muslim women seem to inspire emanate from very distinct and radically opposed currents: religious extremists of our own faith, and evangelical and secular supporters of empire in the West.
Radical Islamist parties claim that the family is the cornerstone of society and that women, by virtue of their reproductive powers, are its builders. An overhaul of society must therefore begin with reforming the status of women, and in particular with distinguishing clearly their roles from those of men. Guided by their “true” interpretations of the faith, these radicals want women to resume their traditional roles of nurturers and men to be empowered to lead the family. If we protect women’s rights in Islam, they assure us, the umma, the community of believers, will be lifted from its general state of poverty and backwardness.
Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), the Egyptian writer and activist who has exerted such a powerful influence over the radical Islamist movement, fervently believed that Muslim women belonged in the home. In his 1964 book Ma’alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones), Qutb wrote that “if woman is freed from her basic responsibility of bringing up children” and, whether on her own or by pressure from society, seeks to work in jobs such as “a hostess or a stewardess in a hotel or ship or air company,” she will be “using her ability for material productivity rather than the training of human beings.” This, he claimed, would make the entire civilization “backward.” The misogynistic philosophy has proved enticing, finding advocates among Muslims throughout the world. Between 1989 and 1991, for instance, Abbassi Madani, the red-bearded founder of the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front Party (FIS), often referred to women who refused to cover themselves with a hijab as “sparrow hawks of neocolonialism.” His co-founder, Ali Belhadj, claimed that there was a simple solution to the country’s high unemployment rate: turn over the jobs of working women to idle men. Madani summarized his program: “The system is sick; the doctor is FIS; and the medicine has existed for fourteen centuries. It is Islam.” Reducing Algerian women to birds of prey, and their faith to a pill: These are good indicators of the depth of intellect within the leadership of the FIS.
Meanwhile, the abundant pity that Muslim women inspire in the West largely takes the form of impassioned declarations about “our plight”–reserved, it would seem, for us, as Christian and Jewish women living in similarly constricting fundamentalist settings never seem to attract the same concern. The veil, illiteracy, domestic violence, gender apartheid and genital mutilation have become so many hot-button issues that symbolize our status as second-class citizens in our societies. These expressions of compassion are often met with cynical responses in the Muslim world, which further enrages the missionaries of women’s liberation. Why, they wonder, do Muslim women not seek out the West’s help in freeing themselves from their societies’ retrograde thinking? The poor things, they are so oppressed they do not even know they are oppressed.
The sympathy extended to us by Western supporters of empire is nothing new. In 1908 Lord Cromer, the British consul general in Egypt, declared that “the fatal obstacle” to the country’s “attainment of that elevation of thought and character which should accompany the introduction of Western civilization” was Islam’s degradation of women. The fact that Cromer raised school fees and discouraged the training of women doctors in Egypt, and in England founded an organization that opposed the right of British women to suffrage, should give us a hint of what his views on gender roles were really like. Little seems to have changed in the past century, for now we have George W. Bush, leader of the free world, telling us, before invading Afghanistan in 2001, that he was doing it as much to free the country’s women as to hunt down Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Five years later, the Taliban is making a serious comeback, and the country’s new Constitution prohibits any laws that are contrary to an austere interpretation of Sharia. Furthermore, among the twenty-odd reasons that were foisted on the American public to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, of course, the subjugation of women; this, despite the fact that the majority of Iraqi women were educated and active in nearly all sectors of a secular public life. Three years into the occupation, the only enlightened aspect of Saddam’s despotic rule has been dismantled: Facing threats from a resurgent fundamentalism, both Sunni and Shiite, many women have been forced to quit their jobs and to cover because not to do so puts them in harm’s way. Why Mr. Bush does not advocate for the women of Thailand, the women of Botswana or the women of Nepal is anyone’s guess.
This context–competing yet hypocritical sympathies for Muslim women–helps to explain the strong popularity, particularly in the post-September 11 era, of Muslim women activists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji and the equally strong skepticism with which they are met within the broad Muslim community. These activists are passionate and no doubt sincere in their criticism of Islam. But are their claims unique and innovative, or are they mostly unremarkable? Are their conclusions borne out by empirical evidence, or do they fail to meet basic levels of scholarship? The casual reader would find it hard to answer these questions, because there is very little critical examination of their work. For the most part, the loudest responses have been either hagiographic profiles of these “brave” and “heroic” women, on the one hand, or absurd and completely abhorrent threats to the safety of these “apostates” and “enemies of God,” on the other.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. Her father, Hirsi Magan Isse, was a prominent critic of the Siyad Barre regime, and the family had to flee the country, first to Saudi Arabia and then to Ethiopia and Kenya. When Hirsi Ali was 22, her father arranged a marriage for her with a distant relation. On a layover in Germany en route to Canada, where the man lived, Hirsi Ali escaped to the Netherlands, where she applied for and received asylum. …-
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060619&s=lalami
Greg (outside Dallas):
Funny you should mention Kennedy as the archetype liberal. One of my early posts was about his definition of “liberal”:
“If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” – John F. Kennedy
Kennedy and Laurier: if you ask me, that’s the oasis to which we Liberals should be headed.
Ted
Cerberus
Greg (outside Dallas):
Funny you should mention Kennedy as the archetype liberal. One of my early posts (canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2005/08/proud-to-be-liberal_31.html) was about his definition of “liberal”:
“If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” – John F. Kennedy
Kennedy and Laurier: if you ask me, that’s the oasis to which we Liberals should be headed.
Ted
Cerberus
Hey LOOKOUT – deluded?
C’mon! Name calling because my opinion differs from yours? This is Canada kiddo! It’s still allowed you know!
How OLD are you?
The Liberal Party doesn’t stand. It just lies.
“not all liberals are obtuse” – that’s a good one! lol, lol… They practice every day, are they too stupid to get it down to an art?
Some have mentioned the hijacking of names. I really don’t like how through the various morphs conservatives have gone through in the past few years (Reform, etc), we have lost the word “Progressive”.
As I was growing up, the party was always the PC’s or the Progressive Conservatives. Now I notice Ted and other Liberals using the title more frequently in association with Liberal monickers such as “progressive Liberals” or more commonly “progressives” in referring to themselves. Somehow it just doesn’t feel right, mostly because of my own past and biases I guess. I really liked the name Progressive Conservative but perhaps that’s just me.
Daniel
The term “liberal” – like the term “progressive” was long ago stripped of any real meaning.
The term “liberal” – like the term “progressive” – was long ago stripped of any real meaning.
The term “liberal” – like the term “progressive” – was long ago stripped of any real meaning.
Oops!
Sorry, Kate.
OFP – operator finger problems.
Greg from dallas
So you think you have a Left? It is hard to see from up here in Canada.
The top 10% already own 2/3 of everything. Perhaps when they own 9/10 of everything you will develop a Left. The movement of wealth to the top happens a little more quickly under Republicans but it happens nontheless under Democrats because the top is over-represented and the bottom isn’t represented at all.
Steve D,
You have trouble seeing your hand in front of your face.
2% of 7/8 of 80% of what the hell are you saying this time?
enough
enough
It looks clear and simple to me.
Jeff, you might be pleased to know that I actually edited out the word “stupid”: I thought the adjective “deluded” was more polite. Yes, I’m quite aware that we’re allowed to disagree–and vociferously, Jeff, with strong language, if we like. (I think we’re both adults.)
And I’m still waiting for any sign that you have actual IDEAS to back up your opinion. Slogans don’t cut it.
If you can give me a good enough idea–there’s that thought again!–about what age has got to do with this, maybe I’ll let you know.
Maz2 – refrain from using dedicated threads for unrelated link dumps. And keep the quoting down.
That’s not a request.
Heard a very upsetting radio editorial by Dick Smyth on my local station this morning — he drew up a comparison list to say that America is just like Nazi Germany. I called the radio station (www.am920.ca) to complain; the program manager said he cringed himself when he heard it. I hope more people complain — this really goes over the line.