Liam

Fine, I am sure there will be plenty of global conglomerates who would be willing to completely rip off the hard work of a film maker from Montreal, a sportswear designer from Vancouver, the author from Toronto, and make millions of dollars off pirated and stolen copies. Who cares that Margaret Atwood spent years researching her latest? Dougls Coupland actually thinks his time and effort is worth something, that it should be protected?? So what if Leonard Cohen thinks he owns his own work product?? "F" them. Sony can make so much more of what they did. They should step aside. Who cares about the integrity of their work, the labor that went into it. They have no ownership in their labor. Screw them. You're right. Eliminate copyrights now. You've convinced me!!!

Sorry, but one need only look at the respondents who've replied to see that Huxley was right. Right wingers and Bush cyclons love their unquestioning servitude to the dear leader. Anyone who even remotely implies that Bush has anything but the glint of golden, dappled sunshine on his cheek is a threat to be dealt with.

Funny, but I'm a moderate who knows a few on each side of the political spectrum and the only people I've known who claim the moral high ground are right wingers who claim to know that the Baby Jesus sheds tears of love for them.

I've been reading this forum for some time, but this is without question, one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen. I'm not a fan of big movie studios and record labels, but an aawful lot of money goes into placing a message into a medium (whether it be film, music, books). Take away copyrights and you completely take away the incentive for anyone to create. Books stop printing, CDs stop being pressed, movies stop filming. The people who risk the money on putting out a product that may or may not sell have the right to "own" that product and to sell it. If you want to undo copyright law, don't b*tch when someone from Texas decides to rewrite A. Proulx's books and claim them as his own. She doesn't have any copyright interests, based on what the lot of you are saying.

Ann Coulter is good looking?? Man, it would take at least a good six pack and some seriously dim lighting before she'd even look average, IMO.

Government is getting out of peoples' bedrooms. That's the point. Before SSM, the government was directly involved in discriminating against certain kinds of people. By legalizing SSM, government has finally gotten out of the way of peoples' personal relationships. Something tells me that if government did something to make housing incredibly affordable, you'd find a way of blaming government for making it cheaper for couples to split up and live apart.

Yes, I think the west can win the war and, in fact, I believe the west will win the war. It depends, though, on what you mean by "the war." The armed conflict? No, I don't think we can win that. The US is not willing to wage an all-out war (massive drafting of soldiers, long-term engagement, post-war planning, etc.) in either Afghanistan or Iraq. And the US has so botched the war effort that no ally is going to add to its forces in the Middle East. If we got smarter and saw the war for what it is, namely a battle for hearts and minds, and acted accordingly, I have no doubt we'd win. Of the billion Muslims, probably 90+% want peaceful coexistence, want their kids to have opportunities and a decent education, and healthcare for the old and young. If we presented the west as a way to get those things, the choice between becoming a suicide bomber for Osama bin Laden and true prosperity would be very stark. If we put as much effort into the battle for hearts and minds as we do into the deployment of men with guns, I have no doubt we'd win in a walk.

"Marriage" is failing in your minds for one reason: people no longer feel the need to sacrifice their own happiness for some nebulous family image or feel the need to prentend that their abusive/loveless/unhappy situation is a "Father Knows Best" scenario. While I wish there was more emphasis put on permanence in relationships among heteros (seriously, is there a single instution you guys *can't* sully??), I think the benefits of self-respect and strength of individual character far outweigh the "benefits" of staying in a marriage that is abusive, loveless or false. I swear, you straights with your Anna Nicoles and Britney Spears and your 24 hour Vegas weddings, have so triviliaized marriage it's a wonder we gay guys even want to demean ourselves to be a part of it.

I am reading this thread like a bad memory from the past... anyhow, is it really the responsibility of people who inhabit a particular plot of real estate to take ownership of the sins of their forebears? If so... while slavery was abolished (in a way) on the British homeland before 1800, it was abolished in several US states eariler than that (Massachusetts, for example, out lawed slavery around 1780, Britain, aournd 1803)... and the British Empire profited quite grandly, I assure you, on the continued slavery within the Empire till it was entirely outlawed -- on the books -- in the 1830's. So let's hate on all English people (and Canadians who came from England prior to 1833) as being slave profiteers. C'mon. Regardless, even if abolished, the Bristish held India in bondage for more than a century after the abolition of slavery in the Empire. Let's skewer them all!!! And what about Vichy France? Shouldn't we hate all French people because some of their grandparents collaborated with the Nazis? I mean, what could be more right than cornering a French tourist and holding him accountable for events that took place before he was born!? Gte real -- he is responsible! And while we're at it, let's get back at the Japanses for the Rape of Nanking. I hold the manager of my company's Tokyo office entirely responsible and declare that he should be subject to my vitriol on this matter. And I personally hold responsible all Mexicans for the elimination of the Aztec world, destruction of Tenochtitlan, and the eradication of an entire race. The scum! I'm going to give those guys at Taco Supremo a piece of my mind! And while we're all about holding present day people accountable for the errors of history, let's not forget the Romans...

Drea, if only you had such power! *LOL It's just that you seem to relish America's demise and China's rise. Good luck to you, I say. China might start out paying market rate for your timber and natural gas, but if you think 35 million Canadians can say No when China's 1+ billion people start demanding a better price for your resources, I'd say you're being naive. What Wal*Mart is to the economics of retail, China will soon become to "your" natural resources. Don't be too surprised when China Inc. starts buying "your" timberlands and wheat fields.

Liam, I'm not understanding the meaning you are trying to get across. I'm sorry for coming across as sarcastic. The world (and a good many Americans) are sick and tired of the rhetoric coming from the Bush League. The sooner they are outta there the better and hopefully America will get back to being her real self instead of this paranoid/war mongering Bush America. Before I respond, I have one observation. I live in Massachusetts and we are a major audience for Canada's tourism industry. This time of year is when Canada's tourism board usually starts promoting the summer travel season. I have not seen one commercial or print ad promoting Canada as a vacation destination this year. Strange. OK, to address Drea, sorry I was PUI the other night -- posting under the influence. Blame it that extra glass of wine after dinner on a weekend night. The point I was trying to make is that even middle of the road and left-leaning Americans can't help but get tired of the daily flow of insults aimed at America from around the world. Sure, the insults are aimed at Bush -- at least initially. Eventually the conversation turns and ends up with hurled insults at Americans generally. We know our president $ucks -- it's pretty self evident. But we don't need you to remind us daily. (There are an awful lot of us trying to undo the damage that Bush and his Christianist cronies have done, by the way.) We know there are too many of us without healthcare, we know that Katrina exposed huge divisions in income. Thanks for the memo. My point is that as a potential host nation to American tourists, it really doesn't serve Canada all that much to be routinely told by Canadians that Americans are not at all in sync with their host. One major asset Canada's tourism industry has is that Canada is next door to the enormous and lucrative US travel market and the barriers to travel to Canada by Americans (cost, time, language differences, etc.) are relatively small as compared to more distant destinations. Canada has two choices, it can smile and put down the welcome mat, or it can act smug and distant and make its larget market feel isolated. I am someone Canada could easily lure as a tourist. I live in Boston, only an hour flight from Toronto, maybe a five hour drive to Montreal. My company is owned by a Canadian conglomerate. I work with Canadians. I dated a Canadian ex-pat. I routinely meet Candians vacationing here in Boston and on Cape Cod. I have vacationed in Canada a handful of times as a kid and am really curious about going back. But, frankly, the draw of vacationing in Canada is not so strong as to outweigh the sense of dysfunction within our North American family. All things being equal, if I am to vacation someplace where it is rumored that the locals are semi-unfriendly to Americans, do you think I will be spending my money on Rue Ste. Honore or in Eaton Centre? If you ask me, Canada would empty a lot more American pockets if it put on a friendly face.

I'm trying to figure out why Drea felt the need to address Borg's conerns about China by sending up the US as the worse of the two? As far as I could tell, the US was not part of the discussion. Oh, well, embrace your future overlord, Drea. Perhaps China will be more hospitable to you than those filthy Americans. (But I suspect that a mere few years into a China-dominated world, you will rue the day you decided to be their apologist.)

Just playing Devil's advocate, but do you think that maybe if Canadians stopped setting up their largest market for tourists and international business visitors as being separate from them (and the rest of the world), that Americans might actually feel a little more welcome to visit and do business in Canada? Having been in a relationship with a Canadian and visiting Canada numerous times and residing in the bluest of Blue America (Boston, MA, as opposed to "Jesusland"), I have absolutely nothing against Canada. If anything, I fall deep within the category of people who "hate" Bush. But I have to also point out that being continuously harangued by Canadians as being outside the mainstream of global thought does not endear Canada or Canadians to me. Frankly, it's insulting and that attitude (coupled with all the smug superiority flowing down from Canada on a routine basis) just doesn't make me want to spend any money inside your borders. Think about it this way: if, as an American, I'm going to be on the receiving end of anti-American bigotry when I travel outside the US, should I be spend my time and money along the Cote d'Azur or in Toronto?

OK, I'm convinced. It is my patriotic duty to surrender my own free will and support whatever my government tells me. You know, there used to be a time when being a conservative meant requiring government to show results before extending more trust to it. As of today, Bush hasn't earned one moment of the public's trust. People like Sarandon and Fonda are speaking their minds. If anything, they're being more patriotic than you.

There's a tension in the lives of public servants between voting or speaking what you believe and voting the will of the majority of a political district. Representatives who stray too far from the view of their constituents risk not being re-elected. Anyhow... I am gay and think this guy should be allowed to speak his mind. If he opens his mouth, he might just prove to all that he's an ignoramus. Or he might educate. I'm also an American and sometimes wonder what it is about Canadians that they have to legislate away offensiveness. Are you all so fragile and victimized that you need to construct some legal framework that keeps your ears free from offense? Wasn't it a Canadian who said something like if you aren't occasionally offended you aren't living in a free society?

It's Stupidity for me... er... wait a minute!

Kind of like Dean Koontz' "Watchers"?

For the most part, Canadian, American and (to a lesser extent) Australian food has British cooking as its primary influence (roasted meats, potatoes, etc.), so our foods are probably 80% similar. We each then got the same immigrant groups that added their cuisine (bratwurst, pasta, vindaloo) to our national diets. Where we differ is the inclusion of French food as being native among a significant number of your population. The US got Mexican and Latin influences (e.g., Tex-Mex), you got French. But for that 20% difference, I'd say US and Canadian cuisine is nearly identical.

Interesting. I agree with you to an extent. I don't think that people continued to live in the buildings they once owned but abandoned them when they fled for Miami should have much a of a claim. However, landowners disposessed of their land and relocated by the Castro regime who then later fled should be able to get back what was theirs.

... back to the main topic... with the exception of Rick Santorum, it was mostly moderate Republicans who lost their seats in the '06 elections, so it stands to reason that, in theory, the GOP of '07 is more ideologically conservative than was the GOP of '05. However, I do take comfort from the fact that, in practice, the GOP of '07 is piling on WRT to Bush's abuses. It doesn't exhonorate their complicity in totally screwing up the US, but i find it interesting that it took losing an election to both convert many of those pro-war Republicans to becoming skeptics of Bush and regrowing a spine in the face of executive overreach. Suddenly warrantless wiretapping is a problem. Suddenly global warming exists.

I agree that we're not far apart -- and I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. But I also think that the US can get back a lot of its lost influence provided American voters elect a leader who is willing to do the right thing and really push the US to a point where it leads by example. But that's a big "if". I think thirty, forty, seventy years from now when China is ascendant, a lot of the world will look upon the US lament what once was and is now gone (why is it that I hear Simon & Garfunkle: "...where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...") Anyone who thinks the US is a bad imperial power -- you will look fondly upon today once China, and its two billion hungry and energy starved people with powerful armed forces come looking for food, water and raw materials.

You should try to sell that idea to Hollywood. Seriously. Sounds good. I see a handsome, yet gritty guy in the lead. Maybe a Clive Owen-type. And a girl. Julia Roberts. No, too tall, too imposing. Smaller. Siena Miller? Who is she anyway?

I am not praising Bush policies. I mostly stand against them and think his entire Iraq policy is a folly that will come back to haunt us for a generation or more. However, you are speaking only in terms of Iraq whereas I view the discussion as being about US "imperialism" globally (and in terms of economic and social and political terms). Given my perspective on this issue, adding or losing allies in the Iraq war cannot be an accurate measure of siding with the US over some Venezuela-Iran alliance because, as I said, I am considering the broader global picture of US imperialism on a variety of fronts. If you want to limit the scope solely to Iraq policy, I would agree: there will be no new allies fighting in Iraq and the ones that are there will only remain in as long as they feel the need. But someone posited the Chavez-Ahmenijad friendship as a sign that the world is aligning against US imperialism (not just its Iraq policy), hence my looking at the topic with a more broad scope. There's no doubt that US influence, stature, economic power, etc., have declined under Bush. I am not a fatalist, though, in believing that the trend cannot be reversed under different leadership and with the development of different policies. And, despite all the perceived warts of the US, I still believe that if you asked the entire globe would they rather have Iran or the US as the so-called "world leader", I think the vast majority of people would prefer the US to Iran. Oh, there will be some countries that would favor Iran just to stick it to the US (Cuba, Sudan, possibly Myanmar) and there would absolutely be a number of lefties both in the US and Europe who would love to see Washington rebuked (you should read the last question asked of Martin Amis in this article published a couple of days ago in The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profi...cle2154795.ece), but I think the majority of people around the world would look upon US "imperialism" in a much more predictable, acceptible, and favorable way than if Iran was setting the global standard if such a referendum were to be held.

Well, I am perfectly willing to admit that I misinterpreted your intial point, but you did present an excerpt from a news story about Venezuela and Iran in the context of a growing global movement to oppose US imperialism. Regardless, I stand by my point that if you asked the people of the world which side of an argument, dispute, who would they want as an ally, whatever and the choices were limited to 1) the US, or 2) an alliance of states like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, even Russia, I would still wager that the overwhelming majority of both governments and their citizenry would align themselves with Washington over Caracas-Tehran. And I also feel very strongly that once Bush is out of office (and maybe even beforehand if the Democrats are able to influence foreign policy away from Bush's long list of disasters), the pendulum will swing back a few degrees to be more in favor of US policy. Not overshelmingly so, but I don't see that there is possible room for the pendulum to swing farther from the midpoint than it is right now.

Of course not. Not by themselves. Coincidentally, they aren't by themselves. No, they're not alone. They have Rober Mugabe on their side and probably Syria's Assad and perhaps would like Kim Jong Il as a friend. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to draw a line of morality between the US and the likes of Kim Jong Il by claiming the US only does good, and I'm not saying that nations like Bolivia or Angola don't have justification for not liking US policy, but I'm trying to address the initial claim that "the world" is aligning against US imperialism. I think the friendships of convenience among a handful of despots, socialists and holocaust deniers does not exactly evidence of a global showdown where the US faces the globe. I'm sure if you gave Britain, Egypt, Indonesia, Holland, Mexico, Germany, India and a hundred other countries the chance of aligning on the side of the US or against it, I think you'd find the "against" camp very very sparsely populated.