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."

I have a totally unworkable and impractical idea - for the public to at mimimum question what they see on T.V. and at maximum ignore or not watch. We live in a society today where people blatantly accept what they see. The old maxim "Buyer beware" should apply here. The primary resposibility lies with the viewer or the consumer to put some research into their purchases. Certainly there should be some legislation (I assume there is now... I haven't checked) to protect the public from blatant lying. This is a message that doesn't come out very often in these sorts of issues.

We're getting a bit away from Chomsky here but many people are talking about how bad they are. I was watching a protest in Calgary last year and there was a man on a loud speaker comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler. I've heard other comments suggesting George Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. In all of the rhetoric I've heard very little analysis of the Bush Doctrine, missile defense and the enourmous commitments America is taking on in the world and how these will affect its' standing. I'm not defending American policy but rather suggesting that such policy should be looked at in context. Getting back to Chomsky, my original point was that he's one sided. This is a valid point. He is also intelligent, well spoken and offers many good points to think about as well.

source:August1991I don't dispute that some may be upset but I like the idea of a moderator. Although technically impressive the internet has hardly ushered in a new era of enlightment. I would argue it's one of the largest idiocy dispensers since cable television. Consider the most common material available on the internet: pornography, hate literature, conspiracy theories and endless pop culture. There is very little of substance available regarding history, politics, science and a host of other more important issues. Mapleleafweb provides a forum for people to express their opinions. I have no problem with Greg acting as a censor which is almost never. Without some kind of control the forum would quickly dissolve into pointless discussion, rants, hate speech and outrageous claims of all sorts.

Well when all someone hears is how evil, how corrupt and how bad they are it doesn't give much inspiration to listen. The majority of Americans are good people who have little or no interest in the country's foreign policy, little ability to judge it and little desire to bring harm on anyone else. These people are only going to listen to rational and well presented arguements.

My point again is a critique of American power needs context. I hear people exclaiming that Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam and that America is heading in the same direction as Nazi Germany. That these ideas draw mainstream news is disturbing. All the more so because they render any useful and credible criticisms of American power mute. To hear people suggest that anarchy and communism are preferable to Democracy and western styled economic systems is ridiculous. Noam Chomsky is an intelligent and articulate writer and speaker. However much of his critique is lending to a screwered view of America's role in the world - which has enormous potential for good as well as bad. Again, America has never come close to committing the level of atrocities of other western powers. When all anyone hears is how bad America is those who might be swayed to make a difference tune out.

True Patriot, I have been unable to find any information on your claims. Since you don't provide a source and provide no further information I'll assume this is hearsay and fiction.

Your comments have given me reason to rethink the term anti-Americanism. There is certainly a valid argument that the term is inappropriate and useless. I was referring to criticisms of America with no substance rather than valid critiques of American policy - foreign or domestic. For example the "Bush is a moron" crowd. I understand this sentiment but it is useless as a critique of American power or as a means to change the current situation. I've spoken with several people holding this view and almost none of them can elaborate on pre-emptive strikes, the Bush Doctrine and what it means, the withdrawal from the SALT treaty or the basics of missile defense. The current Administrations' position on these issues must be attacked in a rational, clear and concise manner so that the American people and their allies understand where the world is heading and what are the possible consequences. Comparing America to Nazi Germany is completely ridiculous. Yet I've heard this sentiment expressed as well. President Bush (and I'm no fan) has a legitimate responsibility to protect America. The debate centers around the best way to do this. We need moderate (I love that word) commentators from both parties to step forward and have their say. I would concede that America is a culture and perhaps economic colonialist. However this is much different from what the Europeans( for several hundred years) and Japanese( for several decades) engaged in. America has never come close to this level or barbarity. Some specifics: British Colonialism: let’s not forget the British had the largest empire in the world and also gave us the concentration camp: source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp They also carried out early biological warfare on the North American Indian population and who’s colonial legacy has left the world with many of it’s current political crisis – Middle East, India Pakistan, including problems in South Africa and Northern Ireland. The French: The Vietnam War was started by France in attempting to re-colonize Vietnam after World War two. They also fought a brutal war against Algerian independence. The Spanish: Let’s not forget our friends Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés who both practiced early germ warfare against the natives of Central and South America. The Japanese: Check out their pre-war and wartime actives throughout China and South East Asia. They have never fully acknowledged their atrocities during WWII and don’t even teach the proper history to their students. Germany: The Nazi regime has left a permanent scar on her history that will never be erased. And on the colonialist side of things we have, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Germ...uth_West_Africa The Russians: no tradition of democratic institutions or respect for human rights to this very day. The loss of life and abuse of power under the communist regime is hard to imagine. China: The Great Leap forward and the Culural Revolution certainly aren’t proud moments in human advancement or dignity And let’s not forget Belgium and the Rape of the Congo: “…set in train the most brutal colonial regime in modern history.” source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State America has never come close to engaging in the kind of abuse of power of the above named, furthermore any such attempt has the potential(at least in theory) to be restrained by American public opinion. This was the case in Vietnam where public opinion had a substantial impact on the conduct of the war. They are a world power as never before seen yet at the same time perhaps more constrained than any previous world power in history. Does this excuse America’s current actions and wrong doing? By no means. That is not my point. We must try to keep America’s world position in perspective. And this traces back to Chomsky and several other critics as well. They often seem to present a one sided story in which America is all wrong. Again, Chomsky is thought provoking but the claim that he's a little one sided is justified.

To clarify I have nothing against Chomsky. But from what I have seen of him I would agree with the suggest that his view of things is a little one sided. This does not mean I agree with interventionist American foreign policy. "The linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky claimed that "anti-Americanism" is a term of vanity-- that few societies in human history have ever had such a high opinion of themselves to warrant an "ism" to describe themselves..."

maplesyrup is right. Why is Harper focusing on the NDP instead of the liberals and if he is why won't he debate? A similar mistake was made last year while everyone was waiting for Chretien to step down. Instead of attacking Paul Martin and ignoring Chretien they focused stictly on Chretien and Martin had a love affair with the country on his way to the PM's spot. The job of the official opposition is to go after the governing party and not to waste energy on other opposition parties. Instead of talking endlessly about how bad the liberals are why doesn't Harper spend some energy outlining his plans for the country and trying to ready himself seriously for the next election. I don't get the sense that he is.

I came across the following quote and it sums up my thoughts on Harper as well, source:http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/election_insults/This is about as an accurate assesment of Stephen Harper as you're going to get. Now this isn't an attack on conservatism or on a western candidate. It's a senitment many people across the country feel when watching this guy - he's dry as a bone. As I've stated many times before the whole "new" conservative party concept is flawed. Having Harper lead the pack is sure keep them in opposition for a long long time.