Former Canadian PM MSG to Blatham

I find your use of "moderation" very odd, indeed.

LOL---are you saying that you so far left that both parties here are right of center? whew---really---or did I misinterpret yet again?

That's pretty accurate. To most of the world, all Americans are right-wing--to them, it's just a matter of small degrees of separation.

LOL---that is a portion of my perception of which I have not perceived.

Not being a student of political science I have never understood the reason for most elective gov'ts choosing a parlimentary system that can allow such extremes of power as in the days after WWII when the labor party in the UK gained so much power and nationalized almost everything which damn near wrecked the country. Can someone explain why our form of gov't with the checks and balances is not deemed superior to the parlimentary variety?

true canadian conservatives always made sure that they were known as members of PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY (they also weren't ashamed to be called RED TORIES ... good examples were: premier bill davis in ontario in the 60's and 70's; he seemed to be able to get along quite well with the labour unions; another one was flora macdonald, foreign minister under joe clark, and now very active in helping the underdogs and poor all over the world). one would have to suspect that brian m.(the jaw) was a mole planted by the liberals and socialists(in canada called "new democrats") to kill the conservative party from the inside(sort of like some wasps lay their eggs in some unsuspecting host). on thing is for sure, the conservatives don't seem to be able to recover from the damage inflicted by brian m.every time they are trying to come up from the mat, they get another punch and go down for the count. hbg

ehBeth

Re the shades of rightism in the US...I consider that the present administration is uniquely extreme (see, for example, Dworkin's article in the present NY Review of Books).

Perc is quite right to comment on my country, as I surely do comment on his. He just got unlucky and picked a fellow to quote who has a 'kick me' sign on his weenie.

I almost feel sorry for Mr. M. The guy took down a party that is associated with the founding of our country. Something special for his resume.

I know that if I wanted to have an interesting debate involving the thoughts of a Canadian, I'd probably pick Stephen Lewis. I admire the man enormously and love that he can be so courteously disrespectful. I'd vote for him regardless of what party he was running for.

ehBeth

Yes! on Lewis. A man of principle and great intelligence and ability (and his kid is no slouch either). My brother heard him talk here some years past, and though the talk was about an hour in duration, it included not a single 'uh'.

I had no idea he was so universally hated or that he had such a "distinquished" resume i.e., destruction of his party---whew---- I did however have a suspicion that his conservative views (American style) would draw a humorous comment from you. I have listened to so much tiring ridicule and non-contructive criticism of my gov't from you Canajuns that when I saw the text of his speech ( which to me sounded much like Tony Blairs recent speech to congress) I felt compelled to print it in a very public place.

I have never before indulged in any form of discussion for or against another countries gov't because I had this old fashioned idea that to do so would be found offensive. I now realize that all other citizens of the world
have a vested interest in the actions of the US given our somewhat large influence on all other countries. I have no quarrel with your criticisms because you have devoted a vast amount of time and enery studying American politics but it's similar to Walters trying to understand the nuances of the english language----he is doing well but he has a long way to go. In your attempt to understand our motives for our actions----you have some distance to travel.

perc

That's a nice balanced post. I like you too.

I do distinguish, let's be clear, between the citizenry that one might meet on the streets of Booneville, West Carolina and the rusting cannon-laden ship of state...or between Private Fred Popsmithers and the Pentagon. The significant connection between these two levels is mythology, and that's where I point my arrows.

Blatham;

You say you distinguish between the citizenry and the gov't but you see those of us who voted for the current administration believe that we are the gov't.

Mythology is something that doesn't exist----I guess only an academic would waste time shooting at something that isn't there----If there is real meaning in your last sentenced ---- please explain it to me.

Well, for example of myth, take the notion that 'you' are the government. I agree you ought to be, and I agree that lots of folks will say it is so. But it isn't. For example, call up Cheney's office and ask to have a meeting with him. Then try to ascertain who IS meeting with him.

Mythology exists. The term is often understood as 'an idea which is false', but that's not the key here. It is an idea which is broadly held to be true, and which helps us make some sense of the world or which helps us feel comfortable. It is an idea which speaks deeply to people, otherwise it wouldn't be so commonly held to describe reality. The problem is, that it MAY NOT describe reality or it may be unpalatable to others (say, French notions about cultural superiority). Another problem, a serious one, is that myths tend not to be much inspected for accuracy, they tend to be accepted as fundamental truths. They are the stories we hear from childhood, say on Walt Disney FrontierLand, about one's people or one's group or one's nation. Davy Crockett and Mike Fink. Or, a real classic, the movie (was it) Fourth of July where American roughneck drillers save the world from an approaching asteroid because the scientists all have small weinies and abstract heads which never get the work done.

Blatham:

Nice explanation but I fail to see your point about me not being able to walk into Cheney's office as being relevant----he is doing exactly what I want him to do so why should I want to question him?

What I think you are trying to say is something like this----Jesse Jackson represents the blacks of this country for THEIR benefit. THAT IS A MYTH--- Jesse Jackson says he represents the blacks but it's not for their benefit ----- it is for his and his cronies benefit.

He was not elected by the blacks----he elected himself.

I and many people like me voted for Bush and Cheney because we hoped they would react to a disaster such as 9/II in exactly the way they did---with decisiveness and firm political will. I didn't vote for Gore and his mate because I had reason to believe he would have reacted the same way Clinton did---- I don't need to describe what that was.

That's a nuance of American desire that you have not yet come to recognize nor understand. As the leading country of the free world we want decisiveness and firm political will as the primary moving force. Not as a sunday morning footnote after all other political considerations have been acted upon as with Clinton.

No we don't, some people who find the agenda of the neo-cons attractive want "decisiveness and firm political will." This can by no means be reasonably made as a blanket statement about the will of the American people. It assumes that this is what we have gotten, and it ignores the partisan and venal motives of members of the administration. It ignores sweetheart contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. It ignores the fiasco of the "evidence" adduced to justify the war. It ignores that the current administration was elected by less than half of the electorate who bothered to vote in November, 2000. Hitler was certainly decisive and had firm political will. I doubt that you would suggest that such a circumstance entitles one to describe the Nazis as having provided good government. You need to read BLatham's description of mythology again. That statement about decisiveness and firm political will is a prime example of mythologizing.

set

Not sure if you saw (or knew) this, but on another thread, a linked article noted that 40% of the votes Bush received were from individuals who were white evangelicals.

there was a really bad joke after ww 2 (i think it is still circulating today on occasion) : the nazi government in germany did have some faults, but after all they also build the autobahn on which you can cruise without speedlimits(at least on some stretches), so they weren't "all bad". and there are some people around - and not only in germany - who still truly believe that. as far as the autobahn "no speed limit" is concerned, some later "democratic" governments have come along and posted "suggested maximum speed limits" - such spoil-sports. and if remember rightly it was said about "el duce" that he made the trains run on time in italy; and look at the mess democratic governments have brought to italy : workers striking to maintain their pension benefits. what has this world come to ! hbg

Good of you to respond Setanta----I was pouting to myself that one of my better posts would be ignored.
I made my presumption based on the fact that Bush is now president and that there was a high enough percentage of the electorate who felt exactly as I did and still do. After the election of 2004 and Bush is still our president I will feel vindicated and perhaps you and others will admit that Americans do really want decisiveness and strong political will. If the reverse is true I will acknowledge it.

Yes decisiveness and strong political will are signs of strong leaders and strong leaders always create a certain polarization and alienation of minority factions within a society. I say it is always a minority faction because if my logic is correct, if you were in the majority you would be in power.

Your constant comparison of this administration to that of Hitler is counterproductive to any reasonable discussion. I equate mythology to ghosts and conspiracy theories and what relevance have they to reality.
Regarding "sweetheart" deals for Halliburton and Bechtel---have you offered any proof that they are not the best companies for the job?

My statement that decisiveness and strong political will are the desire of the American people stands as an example of reality not mythology

Blatham

I am very disappointed in you----I was certain you would launch a blistering intellectual attack on my post but you allowed Setanta to answer for you. I hope you're not ill.
Now gather yourself together and "blow me out of the water".

I'm still trying to raise myself to your level but how can I if you don't respond. It's like golf, or chess, it's difficult to learn unless you exercise against more skilled opponents.

So now, you've altered your memory of events sufficiently that you no longer recall that Gore polled more votes than Bush, who won in the electoral college after Supreme Court intervention? I voted for Gore. I was in the majority. Bush won because of the system, not because of some democratic purity, which is what you see to wish to imply.



More than one point in there. As for a comparison to Hitler, your contention that i constantly compare this administration to Hilter is simply not so. Straw man argument, Percy, so it'll get no response.

It is interesting to learn with what you equate mythology. Language functions as communication, however, through censensual definition. BLatham has provided a perfectly acceptable definition, without limiting the concept to "ghosts and conspiracy theories." Myth is a concept, not a set of stories. It is applied to many sets of stories when it is demonstrable that the stories are fabrications, and nor reflections of reality. For example, your attempt to imply that the current administration sits because of the expressed support of the majority of the population. Even had Bush garnered 50% of the vote, which he did not, that would have been half of those who voted, and not those eligible. Your "story" about majority support is without foundation, and therefore mythic.

As for unbid contracts let by the Defense Department, in an unpublicized process, it is inimical to the democratic principles which you seem to tout. Best company for the job also would refer to "bang for the buck," how much one pays for what outcome. Of course, we'll never be able to judge that aspect of a contention of which company is best for the job, since no bids were let. You have no basis on which to contend that the best companies are doing this job, or that we are getting the best possible value for our money, because the ordinary procurement procedures were circumvented.



Prove it. (Edit--prove that's what we've got. Seems to me these clowns blew into Iraq without a clue, and haven't been able to buy one since.)