Moderate Centrist

Regarding Michael Moore's work - I've read Stupid White Men (didn't finish) and saw Bowling for Columbine - it's oversimplified at best and misleading at worst. Some of Moore's work is thought provoking - the issue of domestic/street violence in the United States for example; but much of it especially in the area of race relations(his view of blacks seems to be paternalistic and arguably racist), foreign policy and social issues is down right nieve. Many people seem to regard watching one of Moore's films and reading some of his books as the equivalent of having done serious research on an issue leading to a serious understanding of an issue. Here's an editorial on Moore's latest antics from the Wall Street Journal: http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=...fid%3d110005098 Moore love's conspiracy theories as we all know and he seems to be spinning them again. For a true understanding of world affairs/history a good place to start is with the academics, the foreign diplomats and the foreign correspondants - in short, the people who actually have the time( to study and research issues), experience and knowledge of the issues to provide valid assesment.

One of the reasons I and many others opposed the war in Iraq was the resentment of the US it would enflame. I've always maintained it is essential for America and the west to maintain the moral high ground. It's been chipped away since the invasion and this is beyond doubt the most damage done yet. Here's a little sample of the current situation: "LEASH GAL'S SEX PIX" http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=...s%2f20802%2ehtm "New Photos worse than expected" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/ "What we saw is appalling" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May12.html How did these people get in the army, where was their training and why was there no supervision or discipline? Any thoughts.

Don Cherry? Is this a joke? Do you have a source on this? If the conservatives really want to sink themselves this would be a good way to do it. Politics in Canada is bad enough. Why anyone would want to make it worse by bringing in someone like Cherry is beyond me. Cherry should stick to what he knows - hockey. One of the problems with modern day politics is the courting of celebrities. Canada and certainly the conservatives don't need this. If they want to be taken seriously leave Cherry at the hockey rink.

Black Dog - Rush Limbaugh has about as much credibility as Barbara Streisand. I think the best way to deal with his ilk is not to comment or include his nonsense in serious discussions. As to the torture allegations - they're only hurting the US further in credibility and ability to maintain a presence in Iraq.

Having seen the monumental waste of money and effort on the gun registry why should we now accept a Sex Offender Registry or believe it will be of any value. How will the registry stop the following: Where is the source for this number? Also, the majority of women are assaulted by people they know and many choose not to report it. Again, how is a new registry going to solve any of these problems?

Well most Canadian or most in a hurry. Kanada Dry, Martin doesn't really inspire me either. He's yesterdays' man. This is where the opposition has really let the country down. When Chretien anounced his retirement they should have gone after Martin but instead gave him a free ride. The political outlook for Canada in general is pretty bleak.

The full story is here: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/...42.asp?GT1=3256 Is this fair? When politicians are screaming over government waste of tax payers dollars and a lack of resources and money to impliment and maintain various programs how come they don't call on corporations to pick up their fair share? Any thoughts?

Layton is a non-issue. Is the question who "represents" Canada better or "who is able to represent Canada Better?" I will only address the second. Harper has been tainted by his Alberta first remarks of the past amoung other things. He an extremely bland person who has little if any natural style or fire. Harper, belongs in provincial politics and if Klein ever stepped aside he'd be the first in line to take the job. He hasn't proven himself capable of leading the country and hasn't established a solid relationship with the rest of the country. Is this answering the question?

Hello o.i.c, Scary statement? Poticians by their very nature are all dishonest to various degrees. This is political reality and perhaps nessessity. This is why it's so amusing to hear people preach about the honesty and morals of the "New" Conservative Party. They'll be no better than the Liberals if they ever do take power which will be never.

Well vote buying is practised by all political parties so there's no use in getting uptight about that. Resentment against the farmers is of no use. I think they should get assistance. The effects of Mad Cow have been devestating and have put some farmers in jeporady of losing everything. As someone stated Agriculture does play and important part of the economy - farmers have to buy equipment, feed, hire workers, ship their goods, sell their goods etc etc. The difference between farmers and barbers is that the hair cutting industry wasn't brought to a standstill last year. The government should be there to provide assistance when it's needed. Is this really a hand out or help when it's needed.

Willy, I am not speaking about trade arrangements here or our relationship to the US. I'm referring rather to domestic issues such as privatized health care, criminal/justice policies which are out of any proportion to occurance of crime, courting Alberta separatists, and a foreign policy which suggests we should act in accordance with US wishes. It is in this area that I perhaps have the most concern over Harper as leader. In the years I've seen him in action he has never demonstrated to me that he has a true understanding of foreign policy. His main concern, and the impression he has given to the country is that we should follow the dictates of American policy regardless of consequence. I don't believe we should have bad relations with the United States. I believe we should have good relations but still conduct foreign policy according to our interests. Harper does not inspire me as a politician, his comments made over the years lead me to mistrust him and the core support of the Alliance party turns me off.

I would have to agree with Maplesyrup here. The "New" Conservative Party (read Alliance) regardless of what they really stand for are associated with the Republicanism of the United States. This was fairly open under Stockwell Day and to a lesser extent Manning. It still exists with Harper and we'll see more of those attitudes. Stephen Harper will lead the the "new" party to defeat in the next election. Of this I'm sure.

Hello Willy, I favour a publically funded education system which is compuslory until at least grade 10. It should focus on the basics - math, reading, writing, science, history and civics with a component for languages as well. I believe primarily in traditional learning. The enphasis should come off "computers in the classroom". Students should have federally or provincially set criteria and standards. This should be the focus. As for Osama his beliefs and and behavior are a result of a wider influence than education. It should be remembered that education and morality are not the same thing.

August 1991That was certainly not the intent of my post nor is it a belief I hold about myself. Rather than putting your thoughts in my mouth in the future it may be useful to ask me directly what my position is. Does your post have a point? With regard to political and commercial advertising I still maintain the responsibility lies with the viewer/audience to judge for themselves what is/isn't correct and accurate. I am not informed on current advertising laws in Canada so I can't speak on that issue at this moment. As far as I know we do have laws against false advertising. Politics is the business of lying so the public shouldn't be surprised by dishonest campaign ads. "Back when one in seven men had the vote, and all of those had independent wealth and were landowners, things were very different."