gnam

The problem here is that you are equally guilty of doing that which might have truly angered Benedict de Spinoza (formerly Baruch Spinoza until excommunicated from the jewish community he was raised in). If you are going to quote Spinoza on religion you should be aware of the contents of his Theologico-Political Treatise as well as the historical context in which he did much of his writing. In point of fact Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise was a book dedicated to the defense of scientific enquiry as a method appropriate to undertake moral and political enquiry (previously morality and politics had been the all but exclusive realm of religion). Simultaneously he was convinced, thouroughly, that morality and politics must guide the gaze of science. In his Treatise, religion stands in as the word for morality (this kept him from being lynched by the religious authorities of the day as a heretic). However, he begins his treatise (you only have to read the introduction if you aren't interested in reading the whole thing) by pointing out that science (reason) can teach humans anything that is found in the bible that is worth taking undre consideration. The rest (and this most assuredly does include biblical creationism for Spinoza) of what is found in the bible (mostly the old testament - he touches on new testament scripture only a couple of times, and then very briefly) is dismissed as the superfluous, though entertaining, writings of ancient men with a surplus of imagination. He doesn't claim that there is anything wrong with these imaginitive methods for understanding the world except that they seem to 'get it wrong' as often as they 'get it right'; it is in this sense that he does not attempt to philosophically defend the atheist's position. As a 'pantheist' he is simply saying that one gets something akin to a religious (a sense for the sublime and the beautiful - or if you prefer, 'fear and trembling) feeling upon careful examination of the world around her/him. In all likelihood the closest approximation to Spinoza's philosophy one might point to in the religious world is the ancient Chinese Daoism - itself somewhat unclear concerning the manner in which it should be understood. A philosophy or a religion?? In any case, let me assure you that Spinoza is probably the last person you will want to bring to the defense of a belief in religion or creationism. Really, you would do just as well to quote Nietszche's The Anti-Christ. Your post is a case in point for the unreliablity of electronic sources that do not quote the original material in full. Be more careful next time.

That is exactly what is being said in this defence of anarchy. In simple terms, if nobody forces anybody else to do something against their will, you have anarchy. As a result of this, the natural way of doing commerce and trade without force would be pure capitalism. OK, I have skimmed some of the stuff on capitalism you posted the link for. I think I get your drift but I'm still not sure why capitalism and not some other form of barter trade or something that makes little or no use of investment finance. (I think I have an idea where the answers might lie but haven't really articulated them for myself... maybe you can help)... Or maybe I'm just way off track with that question and have a lot more homework to do?? What's your take??

Sure, Sorry about that... still trying to figure out how to use the site properly but I think I have now.

[ Sorry I bored you. But thanks for amusing me. -IG My pleasure.

No, because it is involved in terrorism. Right... I guess maybe you missed the point. Forgive me if I was unclear. I was attempting to point out that no sufficient definition of 'terrorist' has been given that would condemn Hezbollah as such. They are not terrorists because you say so... so what are the reasons? That would depend on how they "agitate". Again, What constitutes the terrorist sort of agitation? Would the Canadian historical figure Louis Riel be included in your definition? The Canadian state at the time thought so (they used different language though). They certainly were terrorists. Nelson Mandela is an unreformed terrorist. I'm not gonna touch this one... No, the fact it deliberately seeks to murder civilians and sow terror. On this point I will take your lead and ask your questions: Do you have any evidence to support this claim. The story cited below requires some context. For example, what was Hezbollah's explanation for this action. Concievably, Lebanese civilians might interpret the Israeli leveling of an apartment building filled with women and children in much the same as you are interpreting this action... context my friend. Let's just say they'd have more moral authority had they not provoked the encroachment through attacking Israel. Be that as it may, their tactics are hardly uncommon among Israeli or US military startegy... moral authority doesn't seem to be included in their demands in any case. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The only name I've heard mentioned, the name of a man Hezbollah demands be released from prison, is Samir Kuntar.In 1979, Samir Kuntar led a raid that targeted civilians in Nahariya. His group entered the apartment of a young couple, Danny and Smadar Haran. They took Danny and his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, hostage and retreated to the beach. Trapped there, first, according to witnesses, they killed Danny. The murder of her father would be the last scene Einat would see. For then the raiders killed the little girl — by bashing her head against a rock. Back at their apartment, Danny's wife, Smadar, had escaped execution by hiding in the crawlspace above a bedroom with their other daughter, two-year-old Yael. Afraid the child would reveal their hiding place, she had covered Yael's mouth with her hand. When she took her hand away, the mother realized she had smothered her child to death. This is a terrible story. As I mentioned above the attacks on civilian targets by Israel have provided equally terrible video footage. Niether action is justified at this stage. As for the evidence you seek. A simple google search will bring up the names of a number of of lebanese and hezbollah prisoners taken and held by israel over the years. Also, you will undoubtedly stumble across an article (BBC I think) that details Israeli willingness to engage in prisoner exchanges in the past (I can't remeber the guy's name at the moment), thereby setting a precident for these sorts of tactics. Thus Hezbollah's most recent kidnapping can hardly be surprising when Israel has sent the message that it will negaotiate under such conditions. Anyway As I said, my point is just that this conflict is hardly as cut and dried as the staunch supporters of one side or the other make it out to be. Particularly troublesome is the fast and loose use of the term 'Terror' used to describe evrything one doesn't like. Maybe we could tighten up our use of the term??

A small one, of no consequence, not worth discussing. True, and yet fun to write.

Of course he's right, and he's made a pretty good/sly move in appointing a liberal to be a middle east advisor though. This MP is going to have to quit the caucus maybe even jumpt ship. There is no equivocating here when it comes to supporting or not supporting terrorists. Hezbollah is an illegal, nationless terrorist organization that cannot "retaliate' for anything in any acceptable definition of the term. Hezbollah has no citizens, no recognition as a nation, no responsibility and represents no one. This gang of amoral, belligerent, murderous thugs can only lash out, destroy, maim and murder. Hezbollah contribute nothing to civilization nor to any society; their coinage nothing but is anarchy and disruption of peaceful coexistence between nations. Sovereign nations can retaliate for encroachment on the safety and security of the state or its citizens; Hezbollah can not. Do people really think that it is reasonable to allow Hezbollah to continue to be funded and armed by Iran, and to continue bombarding Israel with rockets, to tunnel under the border and kidnap Israelis at will and that Israel can continue to exist, but only so long as it accepts constant attack and makes no efforts to defend itself? What do you mean when you say there is no equivocating when it comes to supporting or not supporting terrorists. Also, how do you define terrorist? Is Hezbollah a terrorist group by virtue of the fact that it is illegal? Many groups that seek to agitate for civil liberties and increased democratic rights in China are illegal. Presumably you do not believe that they are terrorist organizations, though you may feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Nelson Mendela's efforts in South Africa were deemed illegal by the South African State, again, I can only assume that you, being a reasonable and decent human being, would not label the efforts of the Black movement in South Africa as Terrorist. Thus if you agree to this then legality can have no bearing on your definition of a group as a terrorist organization. Is the fact that Hezbollah has no nation it's defining feature as a terrorist organization? Perhaps, and yet there are a number of instances in which groups of fighters have been nationless or sectarian and have also constituted a legitimate fighting force. Here the Cu Chi Rebels of the Vietnam war come to mind. Technically the people of Cu Chi are Vietnamese. During the war they were neutral with many of their sympathies in the south... until they were carpet bombed by the americans, at which point the came together as their own guerilla force and proceeded to pummell the south using many of the same tactics as Hezbollah. They became Viet Cong fighters by default. In any case the people of Cu Chi cannot be said to have constituted their own nation. Additionally, the claim that Hezbollah is nationless is debatable to say the least. Even pro US/Israel news networks (CNN) have pointed out that Hezbollah is seen by many in the arab world as La Resistance against israeli occupying forces (those forces that occupied southern lebanon until very recently). Thus Hezbollah can reasonably be said to belong to the arab nation and to represent the interests of at least some members of that nation. Note here that resistance fighters in world war 2 were not taken to represent the views of all Frenchmen at the time. Many French people advocated peaceful co-existence with their German occupiers as a pragmatic survival strategy. Please take note here, I am in no way suggesting that there is any ideological connection between present day Israel and Nazi Germany. I only make the point that Hezbollah does not need 100% backing from the Arab world in order to legitimately claim to represent and belong to that nation. You say that Hezbollah has no recognition as a nation and yet they legitimately hold seats in the Lebanese parliament (which I might add refutes your claims that Hezbollah has no responsibility and represents no one... two claims which are obviously erroneous due to the definition of what it means to be elected to parliament and hold parliamentary seats) and are recognized as an important group in the region by the entire world at this point... Important enough to bomb UN outposts and civilian filled buildings in hopes of killing a few of Hezbollah's fighters or destroying some rocket launchers. You say that soverign nations can retaliate against encroachments on the safety of their states and citizens, but Hezbollah cannot. Are you saying that Hezbollah cannot do so because they lack a State? The Kurds in Iraq have no state and retaliate(d) against Iraqi and Turkish attacks alike in their territory and against their citizens. No one (except maybe Iraq and Turkey) considers the Kurds to be a terrorist group. Thus statehood cannot be the criterion by which a group legitimately derives the right to retaliate against attacks on its military and general population. Near as can be told, considering everything discussed thus far, Hezbollah does retain some right of retaliation against anyone who threatens the citizens it represents, its territory, or it's organization. As for whether it is reasonable for hezbollah to recieve funding and weapons from a state that sees its interests represented in the actions of that group (Iran)... well, Israel recieves weapons and funding from the united states... South Korea recieves funding, weaponry, and a standaing US military prescence, Likewise for Japan. The Kurds (see above) recieve weaponry from the united states and its client states. Thus, either all of these actions are justified (from a given perspective: Western, Arab, Kurdish), or all of them are not. In any case, if the those of us in the west are justified in arming certain groups in order to achieve political ends then we can hardly scoff at the the legitimacy such a practice being undertaken by Iran if that is indeed what Iran is doing. We don't have to like the fact that the Iranians have learned to play our military/political games but we aren't in a position to use such activities in the definition of those we dislike as terrorist, unless we would subject ourselves to the same labelling criteria. Finally, while it is agreed that Israel has the right to defend it's state and citizens, one should keep in mind that Isreal has been fighting with and Killing Lebanese Hezbollah fighters for many years, and vice versa. The issue that seems to have set this most recent conflict in motion is the continued detainment of Lebanese prisoners, many of whom have been detained since the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon (Thus reasonably interpreted as POW's). In retaliation, Hezbollah seems to have launched a military operation against an Israeli military target (two Soldiers) in order to gain the leverage necessary to negotiate its demands with Israel, namely, the release of its POW's. In response, Israel has sought to display its ruthlessness on such matters in the region by pulverizing southern Lebanon, as well as any Hezbollah targets that happen to get in the way. At this point one ought to take account of the traditional (pre-9/11... that is, before the word terrorism became the Macarthy era equivalent of the word communism)understanding of the definition of terrorism. Terrorist acts were taken to be acts committed by civilian or paramilitary groups against civilian populations of a given state in order to leverage said state into capitulating to the group's demands. As is well known, Hezbollah is an oganized military and political group that is confined to a specific region. Prior to the current conflict in which civilian casualties have become the order of the day, Hezbollah tageted military servicemen and installations inside its territory, though the point should be made that it consistently threatened to target civilian Israeli areas. In any case, the facts as they stand show that the criteria by which you label Hezbollah a terrorist group are insufficient to make your case. Thus, if Hezbollah is not a terrorist group then Harper must adopt a new middle east policy in the interest of acting as a responsible broker (since we've decided to use that namby pamby term). Otherwise, it remains to be shown that Hezbollah are, in fact, terrorists and Sciblett as well as his hero Harper have work to do in order to justify their position, and show that Canadian policy in the region is justified. Or, we could just skip it and forget trying to pretend that Canada is a democracy with interested, intelligent citizens. I say we skip all that, grab a bag of popcorn, sit back, turn on CNN to watch the fireworks eh??

Ha ha ha! In fact, you will see that you are very much in the minority now! I suggest that you do some reading on libertarianism to start. In general, libertarians are anarchists who do make room for a very small and limited role of government in society. Anarchists do not. Anarchists categorically identify all forms of government as coercion and a priori they are wrong. When you identify yourself as an anarchist, you set yourself up for being misunderstood. There are a lot of people who say they are anarchists but in fact are socialists or communists in denial. They seem to be the great majority. They will also categorically refuse any connection between capitalism and anarchy. Sorry about this... I'm new here but could you restate as clearly as possible why it is that capitalism and anarchism are inextricably bound together... if that is what you are saying?? (I think that's what I read earlier but many of these posts are very long and I'm not so sure anymore)

And if I am a Christian I'm not allowed to question authority of the "holy" book, or have my own interpretations? Just because you cannot prove anything you say (other than with a book that hasn't been proven) does not make your arguement and more valid or true than what I have to say.You say I can't understand "it." Please start a biblical thread. I'd love to go verse and chapter with you. I should have said, "just because ONE does not understand it does not mean it is not true." Whose authority do you question? A Christian accepts the bible as the word of Christ. Really?? Do Christians also accpet the word of the old testament as the word of Christ?? That would be wierd.

hahahahahahahaha.... This whole thing is hilarious... I guess neo-cons just can't help hating a commie out loud. True that Castro accomplished a lot with his education and medical systems True Castro hasn't been a very nice guy for those who oppose him and he has maintained a significant interest in ensuring that cuban people buy into his government's propaganda... so I guess that makes him kind of a jerk but better than the old regime. Hardly the kind of guy worth getting wound up over when you take a look at the nightmarish SOB's our gov'ts regularly agree to deal with over in Africa and some places in Eastern Europe. The only real difference between many of those countries and Cuba is that the africans let us N. Americans rape their natural resources and sell our goods there in exchange for a few guns and bullets. In any case, we americans are hardly any better, NSA wire taps and jail time for those who don't like the way the US behaves in their ethnic home country... really is a guerrilla war conducted against us on our own soil truly that surprising? We have all the guns... who of our adversaries was going to march out to meet us on a battlefield?? God we are such idiots... heh... at least we've got some shweeeet rockets. None of our outrage at actions of Catsro's government stops us from shipping people off to Guatanamo whenever we think we have resonable "suspicion" to believe so and so might or might not be a terrorist or have terrorist information... talk about hipocrisy.

Hey guys... just a thought... Since this whole Isreal-middle east thing isn't working out so well, I thought maybe everyone could get together and arrange to have the Israeli state moved. Doing so would, in fact, be no more arbitrary an action than the decision, taken not too long ago, to create the Israeli state where it now stands. Additionally I have a geat location in mind that I think the israelis will like. While the location I'm thinking of doesn't boast the same number of of Judeo-Christian historical sites, there are some geographical similarities. There is a coast line, and the climate is not unsimilar to that of the current Israeli state... and the overall land mass in question is not so different from one place to the other. Additionally there are still some very valuable natural resources in the new area. As for most of the current residents of my proposed location for a new Isreali state... well, they aren't really of much consequence. They could, for the most part be dispersed to the surrounding countryside, or the Isrealis could keep them if they wanted. Additionally, most of the current residents are Christians who haven't had to deal with any real persecution or violence anywhere near their homes in quite some time now. The likelihood of the new Isreal finding it necessary to engage in the kind of ugly mass murder campaigns they are currently embroiled in would probably be a thing of the past. The christians in this area are more or less docile sheep when faced with anything but a TV screen featuring the visage of Osama Bin Laden or a homosexual. In both of those cases the current residents tend to froth at the mouth and hurl obscenities at anyone within spittle showering range. All the same dealing with these folks should be a walk in the park for the Israelis. The Israelis could also free up a large chunk of their defense budget since the high tech anti-terrorist gadgets and trinkets in use in the Middle east would be unnecessary for dealing with the christians. Rather, a system of deterents could be put in place (the current residents of this area already make extensive use of a system of deterents for maintaing existing racial and class stratifications, thus they should prove quite receptive to this kind of a control mechanism). For example, should any of the dispalced residents of the area take it into their heads to shoot at, bomb, kidnap or frighten the Isrealis in any way, public executions of those responsible, or members of their group (re: Christians) could be publicly executed... nothing fancy... maybe crucifixions, or perhaps public lion feedings with christians as the main course might do the trick. Flayings and lashings ought to work for lesser offences. In any case, those in the middle east would probably be much better off were we all to get on board with such an undertaking. What does everyone think?... should we move Israel to Texas?? It would be a win-win situation for everyone involved... no more daily violence for Israelis and arabs in the middle east and no more Texas. How's that for a bit of honest brokerage?? heh... I should be Prime Minsiter... heellooo nobel peace prize!

Just a few quick points to be made here... I think your heart is probably in the right place but you begin by quoting someone, then go on to tell him/her that what they think they know is nonsense based on a few historical examples that vary in their relevance to the issue being raised. Perhaps you might want to address his/her claim that anti-americanism is directly tied to the rising number of immigrants from regions with a strong islamic demographic. That said, your tone expresses a little too much confidence in your having exhausted the interpretations of the events you bring up as evidence for anti-americanism (or is it 'grounds' for anti-americanism... you aren't very clear about that). I don't want to spend a lot of time with this but I have a few comments and additions to what you have written. Gowch You Quoted: ==>I know for a fact there was never any ==>outright anti-Americanism in this country ==>until the Liberals started heavy immigration ==>from Islamic countries followed by vocal ==>oppositon mainly from Quebec. Then, Gowch, you said: You "know" nothing of the kind, although you may well "believe" it. Canadians' suspicion of and occasional hostility toward their American cousins have roots that go back at least as far as 1812. Actually, the roots of said suspicion, on your line of reasoning, must go back much further than 1812. Probably to British/US relations circa US independance struggles. The war of 1812 was a british war, not a Canadian one... please don't use the events of that conflict as a platform from which to launch some wierd Canadian, breast-beating patriotism. It makes you sound disgustingly... ugghhh... American. Also, the events of that war have yet to be raised as a relavant issue in any recent discussion of Can/Am relations. You may be stretching this just a wee bit hmmm? Gowch, You also pointed out: Are you at all aware that Canadians were so sickened by Americans' maintenance of slavery when all the rest of the world had abandoned it as immoral that they set up systems to help runaway slaves achieve their freedom? Canadians, in general, were not all that sickened by slavery since it continued to exist in Canada (albeit under the radar and not in the same garb as US slavery) long after the US outlawed that practice. Additionally, Canadians openly embraced trade with S. Africa for many years (post 1812) as it continued to allow slavery. Additionally, while you are right to point out that a significant number of Canadians had a hand in helping slaves secretly move into Canada during the period of the US slave trade, this was not an officially sanctioned practice in Canada. Furthermore you neglect to mention that these actions by Canadians required significant co-operation, planning, and -gasp- friendly relations between an equally significant number of americans. Gowch, next you mentioned Vietnam: Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history) to remember Canadians' disgust and horror at America's attempt to re-colonize Vietnam, and the brutality with which that attempt was characterized. You are right... these events were disgusting. However, there were no shortage of calls from the general Canuck population for Canadian involvement in that war. Just as there are no shortage of Canadians who believe that Canada should be in Iraq. Gowch, you also pointed to a number of other US policy initiatives: You also don't seem to know squat about how Canadians have been repelled by U.S. actions, over decades, to crush independent governments in Iran, Chile, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela . . . and a host of other places too numerous to mention. Again, none of these actions prompted much official action on the part of the Canadian Government. Many americans felt the same way as the Canadians you mention... Stupid US policy? Yes, but then free trade came after many of these trajedies... hardly the act of an anti-USA nation. Gowch, you concluded the following: Nevertheless, Canadians' view of their truculent southern cousins is coloured by the knowledge that Americans always choose governments and leaders who opt for force over reason, coercion over negotiation and the promotion of wealth for a handful of Americans over every other consideration. As for the promotion of wealth for the few... tell me you don't think Canada is exempt from that criticism... you are losing credibility fast. As for you characterization of the way that americans 'always act'.... I will let that careless generalization slide a little... you're just upset. I'm sure you don't mean exactly that. Finally, You adressed youself to the person you replied to and made the following concluding remarks Gowch: I don't really expect any of this to make sense to you, since you're one of those whose knee-jerk reaction to all political questions is to demonize Canada's Liberals, but I suggest you research your facts before you embarrass yourself further. Hmmm... good advice Gowch. But keep in mind, research is never complete... so maybe you wanna cool it with the 'maybe you're too young or ignorant rhetoric.' Also, don't forget that there are just as many knee-jerk political reactionaries whose first impulse is to demonize Canada's conservatives. While I generally agree with the politics of those knee-jerk liberals, they are often no less thoughtless in their response to conservative politics than their conservative counterparts. This is scary... see US elections 2004. Anyway, to wrap up, it seems that all you have done here is point to a number of blemishes on american history and try to suggest that this is where Canadian anti-americanism comes from (thankfully you stop short of suggesting that anti-americanism, whatever that is, is justified). Canada and it's people have been, and have a right to be critical of US democracy. The question you seem to skirt around is: How does that constitute Anti-Americanism? Answering this question might shed some light on the truth or untruth of what the person you quoted had to say. Instead all that has happened is that you have let yourself be dragged into some starnge game of pseudo-academic posturing and breast beating. A little bit boring to be honest... yawn... next post. That is all.

First of all, Bush is not "near-lunatic". It is of vital importance to fight radical Islamism (really the successor to cold-War communism) on their turf rather than ours. While concededly Saddam was not involved in the 911 attacks, and may not have gotten that far along the nuclear road, there is no question that both the geographic centrality of the country and the presence of a largely educated population made it a prime candidate for regime change. Eventually the methods of the colonial era must inevitably be restored; local control on local matters, with a liberal smattering of Western bases. That part of the world is too important and too dangerous to allow it to be so badly misgoverned. Hey JBG, Just a a little curious on one point. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us all regarding the relevant connections that you believe exist between cold-war communism and radical islamic movements. I've never heard that connection made (except as just one more supervillain for the super USA to save the world from) in such a way as I have been able to wrap my puny little mind around the progressive historical ties, as it were, between the two.

One more thing... maybe we should try to agree on exactly what constitutes anti-americanism. "Anti-American" can't possibly be the term meant to describe the general dismay, regret, and disagreement that many Canadians have expressed in regard to US policy, decision-making, and global action can it? If that were the case then one would logically be lead to the conclusion that the US media is actively involved in a continental propaganda campaign designed to discourage and suppress dissent in the Americas... very 1984 and something that I'm sure the United States would never be involved in... right??? If Americans are upset because some Canadians think that US democracy is faltering and that current US international policy represents a threat to global peace, perhaps Americans need to take a moment to try and understand why this might suddenly seem to be the case in a country that has traditionally lined up in support of, rather than against, US policies in general. Something has happened over the past decade to cause Canadians to be more vocal about their displeasure with US international policies, regardless of whether Canadians have traditionally agreed or disagreed with American policy. What that something might be is what ought to be up for discussion. Please, try not to get caught up in mindless Rush-Limbuagh-style-left vs. right-rhetoric. It reinforces the common misconception among Canadians that Americans are stupid and shallow people. In addition, it is counterproductive both for US/Canada relations as well as for the intellectual health of America. The U.S. and Canada had very good public relations during the Mulroney/Reagan era and the Canadian Mulroney government was far more liberal than any government that has come to power in that country since. In any case, I think there is a lack of clarity regarding just what americans are charging Canadians with when they claim that anti-americanism is growing in canada. After all, Americans are generally welcomed when they attempt to cross canadian borders. In my experience Americans are usually treated well when visiting, living, and working in Canada. They are rarely if ever, as a result of their citizenship, the targets of public abuse, violence, or marginalization even remotely similar to the poor treatment that many other groups recieve in Canada and the United states both historically and regularly. In fact, I would feel much safer and more welcome as an American visiting almost anywhere in Canada than a Canadian might in the state of Florida, where Canadians are routinely targeted by thieves and murderers. Furthermore, Canada and the United States continue to work together on a number of continental issues (ie. resource sharing, pollution standards, trade agreements) regardless of the fact that there have been a few snags of late. This is not exactly the kind of behavior one would expect from a country rife with 'freedom-hating evildoers.' Additionally, one might look to countries that are openly (or semi-openly) anti-american for an example of so called anti-americanism. Iraq: American soldiers and civilians routinely kidnapped and killed. US flag and other symbols often publicly burned or destroyed. Pakistan: See Iraq. Afghanistan: See Iraq. A number of small african countries: See Iraq. China: Openly opposes and often competes with or railroads American foreign policy while maintaining surface diplomacy that drips with insincere goodwill. Actively engaged in subduing the American economy... aided and abetted by George W. Bush. Russia: See China... except the economy part. Actively exporting illegal underground businesses all over N.America. North Korea: Opposes any American contact and threatens the US with long range rockets. Hmmm.... the list could go on, and on, and on.... but why belabour the point. What is beginning to seem more and more clear is that Canada is simply not what one might call anti-american. Canadians may think that american foreign (and perhaps domestic) policy is idiotic and suicidal, and they are entitled to that opinion whether they are citizens of the US or not. That does not make Canadians hostile to the united states or her democratic project. It makes them critical... which is better than being religious fundamentalist reactionaries. As Americans one needs to ask oneself why this position is gaining in popularity on a global scale, not whether people have the right to hold that opinion. However, addressing this question can never take place as long as we are pre-ocuppied with our poor bruised little ego over a few harsh words from our friends to the North.

Bloodbath of a melting pot? I live in an affluent Jewish village, which is cheek-by-jowls with a somewhat grungier Hispanic and Italian village. I don't see a bloodbath; I see people working, playing, socializing, making money and fun together. Nobody asked you about your quaint little neighborhood... However, if you wanted to witness the american bloodbath perhaps you might apply for residency in Bagdad. Lucky for you, you'll have missed the first 100,000 or so lives crushed under the boots of the American Empire's 'marching freedom'; not to worry though, I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from.

Near as I can tell the best thing to to when state-corporate-capitalism (Re: fascism--not to be confused with Nazism) begins to take root as the dominant ideology for an entire continent is what many before us have done who had the forsight to read the writing on the wall. I didn't bother voting in the absence of choice. I left the continent. I am now safe, comfortable, and free to pursue my interests far, far away from the n. american nightmare. That said, I continue to hold out a hope against all probability that things will improve back home. I can only hope that the pursuit of my interest might have some positive effect over there... heheh. Don't I sound the smug, cowardly little pedant... heheh. Well, hopefully the next gov't will be a CPC majority, and I do my bit honest

Actually, for the record... Diefenbaker was the last canadian PM to run on a Canadian Nationalist platform... a platform that emphasized the necessity for Canadian political decision making to operate with a reasonable degree of sovereignty in its relationship to US economic, political, and military interest. The fact that the big D wanted to retain and promote a strong sense of "pro-canadianess" is no evidence of anti-americanism unless you are trying to persuade us all that insofar as canadian interests are not interpreted as lining up with US interest, Canadians are 'anti-american.' Keep in mind, after all, that it was our beloved hero L.B. Pearson who succeeded Dief and then proceeded to sell Canada out to US Nuclear aspirations... arming the Canadian North and getting canada into the game of nuclear proliferation. Friends don't need to hold their tongues when they think the other is acting like a jerk. Maybe the U.S. should stop crying about canadian anti US bigotry and get involved in it's own politics when it's closest trading partner and long time friend begins wondering aloud if our good friend is not just alittle 'wrong in the head.'