Mad_Michael

Agreed. It is quite obvious that the thread-started does not understand the real meaning of the term 'Bubba'. One cannot take Christian creationism as the core definition of a 'Bubba' - that is categorically absurd.

The same could be said of the Christian Church in the medieval era of Europe. They too fought against any technological or cultural growth - seeking to 'hold people back' (including women). European advancements in technology, trade and politics all came at the expense of the Christian Chruch. The Christian Church fought these things every step of the way with every weapon they had.

You are apparently ignoring the (Christian) Byzantine Empire - which formerly ruled over the entirety of the Turkey and the Middle East and established the principle in the region. And the 'divine right of kings' was a concept invented by the Christian Church in Europe, not by feudal lords. Are you not familiar with the importance of the Pope crowning Charlemagne on Christmas Day in 800 AD? Charlemagne was thus 'annointed' by God. This is the real political origin of the 'divine right of kings' (in Europe).

No different than the staff for the Public Works department of the City of Toronto (and thus, probably just like the Public Works department in every city across this country). I know a fellow who drives a snowplow in the winter. He's laid off every spring, collects UI for the summer and is automatically rehired in the fall. Another fellow I know also works for the City of Toronto Public Works department. He works during the spring, summer and fall as a 'heavy equipment operator' - he gets laid off in the fall and goes on UI for the winter and then is automatically rehired in the spring again. It is union rules that the two jobs cannot be made into one, even though over the course of the year, this amounts to only one 'man-year' of labour over the course of a year - for exactly the same job. The practice doesn't cost the city anything - UI and federal taxpayers foot the bill. But of course, public sector sucking at the UI trough is bad enough, but the private sector sucks way more UI subsidies than the public sector. CAW workers routinely collect UI during routine maintenance operations. This is a direct subsidy going to GM & Ford. We've UI subsidies going to so many private industries and private enterprises I doubt if anyone has ever been able to count them all. You can mostly thank the unions for all this. The've never seen a bed that can't be feathered. My favourite union game though has to be nepotism - the way new hires must go out to friends and families of present workers BEFORE it can be advertised.

The US government is apparently discovering this the hard way.

Bemused giggles. The analogy was unserious and I treated it accordingly. And it seems that not only do you make up things about what I believe in, you also like to make up things about why I post what I post. You are on a roll. Please don't stop. It does provide some mild form of entertainment.

1. Canada does not have "separation of Church and State". Please supply a citation for this alleged 'separation' in Canadian law. 2. Christian terrorists murdering doctors in the USA obviously don't count. And they are a lot closer to me than the suicide bombers you speak of. 3. How about those good Christian boys out there in Wyoming that beat Matthew Sheppard to death for sport? 4. And how about that American McVie character? Or PETA fanatics? There's home-grown terrorists of a type that poses a major danger to my personal safety and security. Much more so than suicide bombers on the other side of the planet. Plenty of superstitious violence lying around to choose from. I find Islam-bashing a bit too selective for my tastes.

As I've noted many times, this forum seems overrun with people making things up about what I believe in or support. Apparently, if people perceive that I don't agree with them, it is automatically assumed that I agree/love/support the opposite. Interesting phenomena. Not very original, but interesting. Anyway, just to make one point clear, I consider the idea of an international policeman to be little more than a ruse or justification for US hegemony. I look forward to finding out what else people have decided that I believe in.

Self-serving 'grievences' put forward by those with strong vested interests are suspect by definition - they no credibility upon the issue. True, that doesn't make 'real' greivences less real, but it sure makes addressing them almost impossible. Well I thought that you admitted the obvious but apparently not for long. What is "little more than"? Palestinian refugees and situation in the occupied territories? Massive military aid to the friendly, even if less than spotless on the democracy agenda, regimes? Iraq war? The threat of one in Iran? Those are today's news. Which world are you living in? Which part of "little more than" do you not understand? Self-serving propaganda of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships serve the interests of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships. A kernal of truth may be buried under their propaganda, but it is poisoned by association and, as I pointed out above, makes any reasonable address impossible. Indeed, Arab/Islamic dictators have (by far) the most to lose with improving relations between West and Middle East. The West generally has nothing to lose here on this account. Once again, you just keep appealing to some mystical assumption that all of the ills of the Middle East were magically created by the West. This belief is one of the main reasons that the majority of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live under dictatorships with no rights. Gotta hand it to the Arab/Islamic dictators - they are good at playing the game. They've got you fighting their battles for them. Nice deal. Seriously, always look to "who benefits" and "who loses" when addressing international affairs. In this case, the West has everything to gain from 'good relations' with Arabs and Islam in general (and the Middle East) while the West has everything to lose from 'bad relations' with Arabs/Islam/Middle East. Yet you assume that the West has a fetish for screwing Arabs/Islam and/or Middle East, despite it being against their own direct interests. Only the Arab/Islamic dictators of the Middle East (and oil companies) profit from the present situation. It is they that profit from tense relations and play propaganda games. Always, follow the money.

If you want to draw an analogy, use one that is predicated upon international situations then. Otherwise, I'll just treat with the unseriousness it deserves.

No, I'd be calling the police to have you arrested. The alternative, the one you apparently propose is that I'm supposed to fight with some violent idiot on my doorstep. That of course would only land ME in jail. I'd prefer to put YOU in jail. It isn't. You seem to have a problem with "assuming". And apparently a problem with 'projecting' too!

Do you have an alternative policy proposal rather than just taking pot shots at the existing one?

New naval products are always twenty years down the pipeline. US will be equipping their own fleet before they sell to us. And it always takes at least 5 years to negotiate the deal whereby Quebec has to have a major piece of the action or we aren't allowed to buy/build anything. Indeed, we bumped the construction cost on the original frigate purchase by some 25-35% so we could build half of the ships in Quebec. Defense procurement policy in Canada is ALWAYS subservient to 'pork for Quebec' in the Federal government funding priority system.

To do that Canada will have to build stuff that other countries will want to buy in order to recoup R&D and tooling costs. The CAF's just don't buy enough to make it cost effective. Sweden with companies like Bofors and Saab is one that has managed. Not PC in Canada the Good however. Yes. And Sweden has to sell to some very unsavoury regimes and was involved with selling weapons on both sides in the Iran vs Iraq war in order to keep her native arms industry afloat. Canada's arms industry died with the Arrow. It is US defense policy to have all allies dependent upon US arms.

As a general rule, I consider the threat from Christian medievalists within the West to be a greater or more likely threat to my way of life, health, peace and security, than any Islamic medievalist. Very true. That would make us no better than they are. They want to drag us (kicking and screaming) back to the 11th century (14th to be more accurate for Christian/Islam historical analogies) and you want to drag them (kicking and screaming) up to the 21st century. An eye for an eye just makes two people blind. Western paternalism is as obnoxious as medieval fanaticism.

Interesting. My viewpoint is based on a very simple practical fact that is evidenced daily anywhere on this planet: if someone is pissed off strongly and continuously over a period of time, there's bound to be a backlash. The last hundred years was such continuous and strong interference by outsiders in the region. Now we're seeing the backlash. Yet you fail to see the direct causal link and instead want to relegate it all to philosophy and history. Isn't it like, ideological? I have never denied the obvious Western imperialist/colonialist involvement in the Middle East during the last 100 years. I have acknowledged that it is a major factor in all Middle East issues. Without a doubt present day Muslims are being animated by virolent anti-western emotions, built on some sense of greivance with the Western powers. No doubt about it. But just stop for a minute and think about who is profiting from this Muslim sense of greivance and who is propagating it? I respectfully submit that they are Arabic/Muslim dictatorships. And as my earlier arguments were designed to show, much of what passes for Arabic/Muslim grievances these days in the region are little more than manufactured propaganda based on a very conveniently forgetful reading of history. Until both sides are honest about this stuff, we will only have more of the same. Your views on this issue suggests to me that we are a long way from both sides making frank and honest appraisals of the situation. And you call my position here ideological eh? That is a classic case of projection.

Right. We send a low-level State department functionary who doesn't have any binding authority over anything. And you are demanding bullet-proof credentials from the Muslim Brotherhood that they have binding authority over Muslims? Sounds like you are trying to raise a rather hypocritically high bar here. Why don't you just drop that charade and offer your real reason for opposing such engagement?

How do we know that anyone we're "negotiating" with involved with an illegal, terrorist group has any authority to strike a deal or any ability to make a deal stick? We don't. And it doesn't matter. And life, like politics and war, does not come with guarentees. And the Muslim Brotherhood can say the same. What is some low level State Department functionary anyway? What's their word worth? Do they have any ability to strike a deal? One meeting isn't going to give us an 'Accord' that is binding on all parties and bring world peace in one afternoon. Expecting this is absurd. Rejecting the opportunity because it won't guarentee world peace tomorrow is equally absurd. The point is engagement. Time, dialogue, negotiation, meeting of common interests - eventually, there may be positive results. But engagement is the first and necessary step.

The Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners By Jeffrey Breinholt ... The question of whether Western governments should embrace or eschew the Muslim Brotherhood is a hot topic right now in foreign policy circles, as a result of several articles and at least one televised documentary. This issue is also informed by some geopolitical developments. ... I vote in favour of "embrace". No doubt about it. Engagement and recognition is always a good policy in such situations. Engagement, of and in itself, reduces tensions and acts to improve communications and can act to improve relations over time. Engagement between any two parties always causes them to 'move toward' a middle ground between them. No matter how you want to approach this "hot topic" or according to whatever bias you may have, engagement is always a good tactic for the stronger side since they always have the most to lose (by definition of being the stronger party). From a Western perspective... If you seek to defeat 'islamofascism', 'jihadism' and/or 'dirty A-rabs' then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy. If you seek to maintain 'US-led Western hegemony', then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy. If you seek to reduce tensions between Islam and the West, then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy. If you seek to build better relations between Islam and the West, then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy. If you seek to support the idea of moderate Islam, then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy. If you seek to maintain and improve 'world peace', then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy. On this basis, I don't see how any intelligent and rational Western government could possibly refuse the opportunity. That being said, there are those who definitely oppose all of the above. They are usually the ones who profit from the high level tensions between Islam and the West (oil interests, US military-industrial complex, Arab dictatorships, Russia, discussion forum trolls, etc.). Personally (and for what its worth) my bias is always towards application of the principles of realpolitique and/or the strategies of Sun Tzu in all matters of international politics and foreign affairs.

Gordon Brown was sworn in as new British PM last week. I'm just wondering if anyone here follows British politics at all and what people think about Brown's chances? * * * To me, the similarity of situation between Gordon Brown taking over as Labour party leader and PM of Britain, and Paul Martin taking over as Liberal party leader and PM of Canada is striking in so many parallels. Indeed, the similarities are so many that I think we are quite likely going to see a replay of the same sad saga of Paul Martin played out across the pond. In both cases, we have the long serving Finance Minister / Chancellor of the Exchequer, who came second to the previous party leader to become leader, taking over after a very long, mostly successful but controversial term of office by the outgoing party leader. In both cases, Martin and Brown, have been generally considered to be more intelligent, more competent, more capable and more experienced for the top job than their previous bosses. The both inherited strong majorities in Parliament, with existing electoral mandates, though not one of their own. Both were 'crowned' to the top job rather than elected in a leadership convention - both were well understood to be the 'heir' since day one. Most significantly, in both cases, Martin and Brown have provided the successful financial and fiscal management that permitted their previous bosses (Chrétien and Blair) to spend lots of money in public works and still be popular with the Bay Street / London financial set (and world capital markets) with very good fiscal management - both of them contributing to significant improvements in the long-term fiscal/financial health of their respective national treasuries (Martin far more successful than Brown, but Brown has been more successful over the last 10 years than any other western government finance minister save perhaps some dude in Denmark with an unspellable name). And in both cases, Martin and Brown, inherit a variety of scandals not of their own making. As in Canada with that silly sponsorship scandal (which basically was just some $50 million dollar political slush fund with really bad accounting practices - which is rather little more than a rounding error in federal government spending revenues) in Britain the 'honours for loans' scandal has been sloshing around the halls of Westminster for years now, tainting the Labour party's previous fundraisings with the brush of (potentially) illegal corruption. There are of course far more substantive political issues on the table such as Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Blair's reforms of the NHS that are far more important (as was the case in Canada's last election), but ultimately, governments in Britain and Canada don't usually exchange places over particular policy disputes (or it is rather rare). And it is also to be noted that (in both cases) the multi-term success of the previous party leader came at a time of divided opposition parties with weak leaders. And it is to be noted (in both cases) that the principal political competition (the Conservative party in both cases) managed to finally get its act together with a 'more attractive' leader just prior to the 'big handover' from the old administration to the new one. Just as Harper rescued the Conservative party from further fracture and brought it to successfully challenge the reigning Liberals, so has Cameron in Britain been able to unite the party behind him and press forward with a fresh face for the Conservative party in Britain (which had been mostly moribund since the day they murdered Thatcher - it actually looks alive again - much like the Canadian Conservative party). So there you have it. One heck of a lot of deeply disturbing parallels between Paul Martin and Gordon Brown. Brown certainly lacks Blair's charisma and Britain is increasingly looking like it is restless for a change at Westminster. Just like Canada little more than a year or two ago. Martin wasn't the most exciting guy around, and Canadians were restless after so many years of Liberal government. Anyway, I'll bet on Cameron beating Brown in House seats in the next British general election (technically speaking, this prediction does not require Cameron to win a majority).

Your noted reputation for throwing around insults makes your claim ring hollow. And it devalues your credibility. I don't normally bother to reply to your kind.

Right. You can only buy a toilet in Canada if it meets government regulatory standards. Just like healthcare (or houses, or cars, or educations, etc.). And like healthcare, you buy your 'government approved' toilet from whomever you choose. Same game in healthcare. You 'buy' your healthcare from any 'government approved' doctor you like. Indeed, you can buy your healthcare from a non-government approved source, but you can't get the government to pay for it on your behalf. Are you arguing that the government must pay for your choice of toilets? Bottom line is that the consumer is not sovereign. The opening argument in this thread proclaims that since the consumer is sovereign in all things, the consumer ought to be sovereign in healthcare. That is absurd, as I've shown that the consumer is not sovereign, and thus, cannot claim the right to sovereignty over healthcare (or much anything else). And, for your information, I am a 100% supporter of allowing private healthcare options in Canada. But the reasons I have for holding this have nothing to do with any silly assertion that the consumer is 'sovereign'. Your knowledge of actual government regulatory behaviour seems remiss. Government regulation regularly and routinely bans or eliminates choices.

Agreed. I used that term as a 'short-hand' for the native inhabitants of the region. And I agree that critique of Israeli politics is often taken as justification or support for Jew-bashing. Just as certainly that critique of Muslim politics is often taken as justification or support for Islam-bashing. That was NOT my intention. My interest here is historical, not political or religious. And I do regret it if some idiots will use my arguments to argue that Muslims can't rule themselves, but I can't help it if they do. I understand your point (I think). That is part of why I felt the need to clarify the historical record of Middle Eastern history. It is not nearly so black and white as people would like it to be. Britain's role in the creation of Israel is very complex. Indeed, where would India be today without British colonialism? That's not say that British colonialism was all-good for India because it most certainly wasn't. But no one can look at India today and say that British colonialism didn't have a very large and positive impact upon that country. History is never black and white. And, let me say I'm glad you appreciate the key point I raised about viewing the whole issue clearly - good and bad - as the only way to move forward. Pretending one side is evil and the other angels is a recipe for more war.

That big long post of yours which I quoted from was a list of internal problems facing Muslim nations and it ended with the following: I obviously misintepreted what you meant by "the mess." Yes, the Middle East is a mess. I don't see how anyone can deny or question that. This does not mean that I endorse the view that Islamic terrorism is driven by envy or jealousy of the west. I believe that Islamic terrorism (such that it is, or so named) is much deeper and more significant than 'envy'. Indeed, 'envy' does not provide a functional analysis of Islamic terrorism. If envy was their motive, methinks you'd see some very different tactics being used. Blackmail for example. I really find that people at this forum project a whole lot of views to me that I don't have. I certainly have never endorsed any dictatorship (fundamentalist or otherwise), or overthrowing progressives in any region. Is your view of world politics so one sided (or black and white) that if one person makes a reasoned defence against an outrageous partisan bias that person is immediately assumed to be a neocon? I attacked myata's view that every problem in the Middle East is caused by western colonialism. That viewpoint is purely ideological and ignores actual Middle Eastern and Islamic history. That does not make me a neocon or a supporter of US warmongering or Israeli occupation.

Permitting handsfree cell phones in cars is a silly comprimise. The danger of cell phone usage while driving comes not from the hand you use to hold the cell phone. That is essentially irrelevant. The fact is, according to recent studies, if you use a cell phone while driving, you are the equivilent of a 70year old for reaction times and alertness.