Mad_Michael

With all due respect, I consider that linked essay to be a rather good argument about the ills of colonialism and the serious danger such colonialist policies poses to liberalism in the 'metropolitan' country. I don't believe that was the author's intention, but I do believe that's the result - especially from our present perspective some 50 years removed from the authorship of the essay. For example... That "justice" is assumed to belong with the French in Algeria in 1957 (when the essay was written) is a purely subjective value statement that is not justified in my opinion. Either way, the latter half of the statement is the more significant admission that admits the key danger or problem with all forms of colonialism. This is a good illustration of the general approach of the author of this essay that purports to address the topic of "Liberalism and Colonialism". It just assumes that British people are indeed entitled to rule others for their own good. Admittedly, there are a few paragraphs earlier in the essay that are relevant arguments given in support of this 'assumption', but I respectfully submit that those arguments are facile and self-serving ones designed for that conclusion. JS Mill was correct at least with the first half of that statement, regardless of the 'bias' of the second half. This one's rich. Here the author asserts that liberalism is little more than 'western nationalism' and that 3rd world colonies ought to be used or abused in the name of 'national security' of the western nations? I could go on for another 1000 words ripping the arguments in this essay to pieces. It fails on so many levels that I just don't know where to start or stop. The argument seems to rise and fall like a yoyo, honestly admitting some of the faults, failures and dangers of western colonialism, but then just brushes all this aside and goes on pretending that colonialism works just fine if you manage it 'properly' (presumably with lots of force). The only supposed 'success' story of colonialism given in the essay as 'evidence' is the British in the Carribean. All this is served up with lots of proscriptions of laissez-faire economic policies, free trade and the liberty of private capital. The essay fails to defend colonialism and it fails to serve liberalism.

Yes, that's a very good point. Actual GDP figures are usually 'adjusted' downwards eight months or a year after the 'preliminary' numbers come out. And the most recent 'preliminary' numbers show that the last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 the US economy was growing at a miniscule rate (under 0.5% on an annualized basis). With later revisions/adjustments, these two quarters could easily show zero or negative numbers which would define a recession as having occured.

Well, my experience says that threads about "redknecks" are going to be trouble right from the get go! Indeed, any and all threads on Israel are pretty much the same. Doesn't matter what forum one goes to (I'm active at over a dozen) - threads about Israel are much like a war zone in the Middle East.

I do believe the current Tory leader was chosen (in part) because of his presumed appeal to 'Southern Ontario' voters. Harper grew up in Toronto's suburban west-end and has credentials with the 'Bay Street' set. Likewise, Dion was essentially made leader by 'young urban' Liberal party activists from places like Vancouver and Toronto. If I remember the Liberal leadership 'national' polling numbers correctly, Bob Rae was the one candidate that had the strongest appeal across ALL the provinces of the country. He lost to some urban yuppy type that even the Vancouver and Toronto voters don't like. That is to say, Canadian leadership choosing processes are often no better than the US process and often produce 'unelectable' results - Dion is a classic case of this. Stockwell Day is another.

I think the poll options betray precisely what is wrong with 'the left'. It is the very assumption of presuming that 'the left' actually knows how to help "ordinary people" or those who are "different from others". That makes 'the left' sound just like just any other charity group deciding what is best to help 'the needy' (this is the elitist way, not the democratic way). I should think that 'the left' ought to focus on how to appeal to voters and win elections. That is to say, the left needs to find some real democratic roots. Being intellectually correct doesn't win elections or put food on the table.

Couple of questions here: 1. Who do you mean by "we"? (USA or 'other') 2. Do you mean 'actual' colonialism or some undefined 21st century 'soft and fuzzy' variety? (aka imperialism 'lite') 3. Depending upon answers to questions 1 or 2, on what basis do you propose 'colonialism' as a successful model worthy of emulation? I respectfully admit, that by even the most 'western-biased' scale of judgement, colonialism had a definitely mixed record of some modest success and lots of huge failures.

That's a very interesting (and familiar looking) list. The 1980 one surprises me as that was a huge Reagan victory. And I would have reversed your 2000/04 votes, but otherwise I would have followed the same voting pattern in 76,84,88,92 and 96 (if I voted, which I didn't). On the whole, I would have preferred McCain back in 2000. Now though, it is definitely looking like he'd be just another four years the same Bush Administration policies running on autopilot for another four years and that's ugly - especially on the foreign policy side. I think the US needs a clean sweep from the Bush Admin in order to get some reputation back on the international stage. McCain will not do that. On this basis, I'd be voting Democratic in 2008 no matter what - though with extremely faint enthusiasm for Obama. Hillary is the one candidate I've liked since day one of this election cycle. I'm an admirer of that combination of polished charm and fiesty fighting spirit that seems so "Presidential" (and similar to many other successful Presidents in the past). And I certainly was an admirer of the Clinton Administration - they did excellent work on a wide variety of policy fronts and did it under the intense fire of a strong Republican opposition (no mean feat that was). I'm a political centerist and proud of it. Doesn't matter if we are talking about US, Canada or UK elections - I like the middle ground for all of them.

So are most of the posts/threads at this forum. I can't take this place seriously - or you.

Aristotle says 'man is a political animal'. I'm inclined to think we are indeed infected with political genes. Statistical analysis shows that people inherit them from their parents with alarming frequency. This suggests a 'nurture' environment. Absolutely. We are always trained to see the world through the bias of our parents or our peer group or our nationalism or our religion or our political partisanship or our sexual partisanship, etc. Absolutely. I was trained to be a political conservative from birth. My father is American and ex-Air Force. Up until the age of 25, I was a conservative. Eventually, I found reasons to question it. I believe it was an argument about the reasons for the US dropping of the a-bomb on Hiroshima that triggered it. Yes, they are called the ignorant. Unfortunately, this subset overlaps with those who are political. Mildly amused. Your questions were rather trite.

It appears to be far more a 'religious' concept. Anthropologists use the term in a cultural sense. The religious types seem to be obsessed with it.

I guess the comedic interlude is just a bonus!

No surprise there. So now I will call "bullshit" on your attempts to assert "to each his own". You don't believe that at all. You just say that when it is convenient to do so and ignore it when you want to make it your business. Like I said, no surprise. I only choose the 'same-sex marriage' example as the most clear cut way to show that your assertion of "to each his own" was pure bullshit. You don't mind your own business. You make it your business to interfere with others. Typical double-talking hypocritical theist.

No kidding. There is only one race - the human race. The classification of humans by 'race' was the action of racists creating the classifications to match their subjective bias and justify them. The idea of 'races' is no more scientifically established now than it was two hundred years ago.

The profits that are presently accruing due to the Iraqi adventure are quite handsome indeed! There is a reason that President Eisenhower warned the American citizenry about the dangers and overbearing political muscle of the 'military-industrial complex'.

I never said otherwise. The decision to 'intervene' itself is unconstitutional. Thus, the Bush victory that it enables is 'fruit of the poisoned tree' to use the common legal expression.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen anyone ever post in a discussion forum. And boy-oh-boy have I seen some doozies. Iraq would be wise to take the beating they got from Uncle Sam too. One quagmire and foreign policy fuckup isn't enough? Gotta double-down now to make up your loses?

Such a clear cut view of such clear cut laws required a very unusual and unique Supreme Court ruling that has been criticized relentlessly from day one as one of the ugliest precedent setting decisions in SCOTUS history. Bush didn't actually win the election on the ground, though he was officially pronounced the winner. I can't see any rational defence of the Supreme Court ruling - not in any context of law. Pure partisanship legislating from the Bench. Legal certainly, but that doesn't reverse Bush's loss at the polls, though it gives the victory to him via the arbitrary assignment of electoral votes. My intense dislike of Gore, and my recognition that the election was his to lose and that he ran the worst Presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis did in 1988, does not detract from the fact that the decision on the 2000 election was made by the US Supreme Court through a ruling they had no business making.

Does that view of yours apply to the secular marriages of same-sex individuals? If not, why not? What does "to each his own" translate to you? That you should convert to my religion? Practice my own belief? Am I your keeper? No. I'm just wondering if your stated view of "to each his own" applies to you minding your own, and letting others mind their own when it comes to (secular) same sex marriages. Seems the majority of political opposition to secular same sex marriage comes from people who hold similar religious views to you. So I ask, does your "to each his own" apply to secular same sex marriage? Will you mind you own or do you grant yourself exceptions to the rule when it is convenient?

What's with all the sophomoric mysticism? How come you like to blurt out these meaningless and usually trite slogans? And they are different from your posts how?

Ban the family? You're making a bit of a leap, aren't you? I never said to ban religion. All this does is show that priests, who act on behalf of God, are not anymore moral than anyone else. Religion shouldn't be banned, but these priests should be charged and, if found guilty, locked away and put on the sex offenders list. I was 'riffing' on Geoffrey's general comment about how people (in other threads, not you) will take the evidence of priests sexually abusing children as an argument as to how religion is evil. Geoffrey (quite rightly) pointed out the duplicity of the argument when teachers are caught doing the same. And I pointed out to the even more hypocritical point that parents are the single greatest danger of sexually abusing children - therefore, by the same silly reasoning, families ought to be banned. You apparently missed the point.

Does that view of yours apply to the secular marriages of same-sex individuals? If not, why not?

As long as the laws of the land are followed, I don't care what religious doctrine or rituals any given religious people wish to engage in. They are none of my business.

Good point. But hey, parents outnumber priests and teachers as sexual abusers of children added together and then some. Ban the family! Parents are evil!

Cicero has an excellent essay on the subject of the immorality/laziness/indiscipline of youth. Apparently every generation since the beginning of time has had the opinion that the current generation of youth is immoral, lazy, lacks discipline, common sense, or whatever. Making this particular rant just puts you into the catatory of mature, albeit slightly cranky, adult human. Its not just you. This is a very common rant going back thousands of years. As for drunk drivers, the vast majority encountered/arrested by police are well over the age of 21. The majority of convictions, and especially for multiple convictions, of DUI are for drivers over age 30. Statistically, teens don't show up as drunk drivers any more than any other category. You got a thing against youth this morning? As for your building inspectors, are you glad they did their job when your house was built and you bought it? Had your roof cave in or walls collapse? Did you get ripped off when you bought your house? No? Maybe the building inspectors did their jobs well back then. And the person who buys your house off you twenty years down the road might be glad that your construction of that shed/barn thing was subject to building inspectors when he parks his collection of million dollar sports cars in that barn. And as for city hall picking through your trash, what is it that you have to hide? City hall is responsible for your trash (picking it up, sorting it, disposing it, recycling it, etc). They have every right to pick through it and hassle you if you are breaking laws that they have established for optimal efficiency of the operation. I agree however that for City Hall to engage in such garbage-poking activities not in a Haz-Mat suit sounds dangerous. As for the courts, that is a serious problem. I guess just having the option between 'slapping wrists' and 'incarceration' really sucks. Especially when the jails are stuffed full already with minor criminals. Don't blame the courts - they are just following the laws. You mean if we perhaps executed those driving without insurance, that would satisfy the need for justice/vengence of the death of those two innocent women? Forgive me for having to point this out, but your sentence actually reads 'I don't like Canada and I won't like it until it does things the way I want it to'. Get a grip. The world isn't going to conform to your sensibilities. Do what you can to make the world (or Canada) a better place.

But you can't prove that or know it to be true. You can only speculate upon that topic. I could be just a figment of your imagination - or God playing tricks on you.