Black Dog

August 1991: I can see the appeal in such simple bianaries, but the fact is, the real world is too complex to be shoved into such boxes. For instance, a look back at the 20th Century includes such bianary defying events as the freedom-loving U.S.A.'s support for murderous tyrranical regimes in Latin America and the Communist Vietnamese's overthrow of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Frankly I find terms like "freedom" and "tyrrany" to be golden examples of what Orwell called "meaningless words": that is: "words with several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." You cannot claim that there exists a universal definition of freedom and tyrrany, therefore such pronouncements as the one you make above. If you wanted to be really percise, I'd say the 20th century was characterized by mass and hugely costly (in human terms) conflicts between economic systems. And in that sense, I'd say that for the vast majority of the world's population, the 20th Century was dominated by a clash of tyrranies.

August: see new thread in "Morals etc."

Wah wah. Very magnaminous of you. In return, I'll overlook your inability to support any of your points (say, what ever happened to your claim that the Democratic Party is becoming more socialist). I beg to differ. meaning what? That the moderate Americans out there are too busy to pay attention to the erosion of their society? Excellent! That wil make the fascists' and fanatics' job so much easier.

I don't think I made my poasitionon rand clear enough earlier: she was a kook. Her writing was turgid, self-congratulatory and rife with contradictions. Anyway, ModAm, I'm very flattered by all the attention you've been giving me, but you should realize that this is a discussion board and, as such, all views expressed herin represent the opinion of the poster. That said, some opinions are closer to the mark than others.

Hey jackass, where did I say that these folks were representative of the average American? Nowhere. That said, there's no denying the rising tide of extremism in the U.S, as evidenced by some of these stories. Let me put it another way: if these were all random and unconnected events, that would not tell us anything. But they're not. The lowering of the barriers between church and state (as evidenced by Terri Schiavo, "Justice Sunday", the serious consideration of intelligent design in schools) is part of a wider agenda to roll back the Enlightenmnet value sthe U.S. was founded upon. You can dismiss some of these folks as freaks, but to do so would be to underestimate the influence they have. Look: Neal the mule humper was a guest on Alan Colmes's show. Colmes is a guy who is considered pretty mainstream, yet he's having anti-abortion donkeyfuckers on his show. Have you asked yourself why the mainstream media is giving these freaks so much attention or why the Republican party is aparently willing to do whatever they an to placate them? These people are indeed "severly demented ". they also represent a severly powerful element of contemporary Amerian society. ignore them at your own peril. One last thing: where is middle America through all this? Where are the voices rising up and saying "Pat Robertson does not represent me"? Why aren't they rallying against the undercurrents of fascism that are buffeting the body politic? Are all y'all too cowed, too stupified by TV and junk food to see what's going on? Or is it that this administration and its allies have convinced y'all that anyone who doesn't toe the line (or keep their mouth shut) is a traitor or worse, a "liberal"?

I'm not clear on what issues these two have in common other than the fact both are regional parties with a parlimentary presence that is vastly disproportinate to the amount of support they have. So I don't forsee any formal coalition between the two.

Recruiters play hardball What's next? A draft? Press gangs? Seriously though, I'd wager that people in the U.S. tend to support the war, the troops and Bush in very abstract terms. Clearly, they're not willing to risk death or injury to fight for another country, which is essentially what Bush is asking (if one suspends disbelief for a moment and presumes all that talk of bringing democracy to the benighted brown-skinend people is true). In World War 2, it was an easy sell. The world was endangered by the menance of fascism, so it was not difficult to appeal to people's sense of duty to their country. But what duty to Americans have to Iraq and to a needless war?

Who's gloating? I'd liken my reaction to the state of affairs in the U.S. and Iraq to watching a grusome car wreck in slow motion: horrible to watch, yet strangely compelling. Sorry, but no. Why would other nations want to send their people to die for George Bush's folly? Uplifting bromides won't disguise the fact that the U.S. invasion and continuting war on Iraq was poorly planned and poorly executed. I'd wager that the longer the U.S. stays, the less chance a truly democtratic Iraq will have at success.

I understand he was captured last year and subsequently "dissapeared" to Jordan.

Yes, Iraq was at one time part of the caliphate. That was, what, a thousand years ago? I sincerly doubt sucj considerations were laid on the table when the U.S. was formulating their plans to attack Iraq. No, i think Occam's razor applies here and the decision to go to war on Iraq (which, by some accounts, pre-dated 9-11) had little or nothing to do with Al Q'aeda. Weird. In my book "winning a war" means no more hostilitities and certainly no more casualties. Yet Americans are still dying at a steady rate (the death toll for U.S. service personnel just passed 1,600), Iraqis at an even faster clip, the government is still powerless, forced to depend on U.S. forces for security as they hunker down inside the fortified Green Zone. Hardly what any opbjective observer would call a decisive win. As for Iran, I wouldn't count on any U.S. military action (at least an invasion) any time soon. To do so would open up a two-front war and further polarize the Islamic world against the U.S. But then, invading Iraq was a stupid idea too and they did that anyway, so we'll just have to see....

It's very easy to lump Hitler, Stalin and any other mass-murdering dictator into the same pile and leave it at that. It's also ignorant. While they may share some traits, they also differ in many, many ways. Understanding tyrrany is essential to preventing it. If just assuming "it can't happen here" is all one has to rely on, then chances are, it will happen here.

Which has what to do with Iraq?

Family values

Gah!!!

Fascism is not just another buzzword for tyranny. Fascism and its historical antecedents are marke dby specific traits not shared with other ideaologically-based tyrranies. Duh. But there's no denying that historical fascism grew out of modern, market-oriented liberal systems. Caligula wasn't a fascist. Those finer distinctions that you have so little time for are essential to understanding. You lack of intellectual curiosity here is puzzling.

Iran has been an enemy of the U.S.A since before their was an Al Qaeda. remember that whole "overthrowing the Shah" business in the '70s? Yeah, you went in to the one country in the Middle East that had no connection with Al Qaeda and was, in fact, headed by a regime on Al Qaeda's hit list (bin Laden considered secular leaders like Saddam to be apostates). The ensuing chaos not only drew more recruits to Al Qaeda, but put them in action against U.S. troops. Bravo. You and me should play Risk sometime.

Since you're obviously not one to let things like facts challenge your preconcieved notions, I'll refrain from pointing out that the "overwhelming support" for Blair amounted to a 36 per cent share of the popular vote, the lowest for any incoming majority government in Britain's history. Factor in a voter turnout of 61 percent, and it turns out Labour won the support of only a fifth of the electorate. Not that reality ever penetrates the concrete bunker betwixt your ears. The Lib Dems gained 11 seats, not two. And, since you claimed this election was an endorsement of Tony Blair, the Conservative gains represent a further erosion of Labour's support. Quotes and citations, please. I believe they are. the media in Canada has decided otherwise.

Most of RB's initial post is so poorly crafted, I can't make enough sense of it to adequetely respond. But this: caught my eye. Do you know why we have women's shelters? Because women recognized both the need and the unwillingness of the male-dominated sopcial institutions (government, police) to take action against doemstic violence. SO they took matters into their own hands. Indeed, every advancement women have made has come from their own toil, sacrifice and hard work. The bleating coming from some maes of the species that these advancements are costing them is the sound of their privilege being eroded. August, you're confusing equality (as in eveyone is treated the same) with equality of opportunity (wher everyone is given an equal shot at success).

It seems like every day I read a story from out of the U.S. that leaves me shaking my head. I honestly beleive there is a growing divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world and so I thought it would be interesting to keep a repository of some of the wackiness coming from south of the border. Now some might accuse me of harbouring anti-American tendancies, but I prefer to let people draw their own conclusions about a country that is currently debating whether or not to add invisible sky pixies to high school science cirricula.

Tokyo, your formatting is pooched. Freedom House? Are you kidding me?

Ya know IMR, it would help you cause if the article you linke dto didn't contradict your premise: Blair's Labour party lost 47 seats, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats made significant advances at Labour's cost. Ousted labour MP George Galloway managed to defeat the Labour incumbent on platform soely devoted to Iraq. Iraq cost Blair big time. The only reason it diodn't cost him the countryw as a lack of credible alternatives (sound familiar?). Oh and every single public opinion poll before and sionce the war on iraq began has shown a majority of Britons oppose the war (at the start of the conflict only 29 per cent were in favour). Your simplistic analysis and pathetic spin have no connection with reality. Labour latest Iraq casualty

Saskatchewan, under the "socialist" NDP, has turned itself into a "have" province, partly due to increased attention to oil and gas exploration and production. Venezuala, home to some of the world's largest oil reserves, is in poverty thanks to a string of authoritarian, right-wing governments that allowed foreign corporations to expolit the nations resources without ever directing the proceeds back to the population. Iran and Nigeria are dictatorships and thus don't make for a far comparison. A better comparison would be with BC and Ontario, places where Alberta-style policies were attempted, but failed.

No you are correct: fascism is a danger even today. But look at historical fascism. in every case, it arose from western democracies with free-market economies. Fascism is a modern creation and has bugger-all in common with Islamic fundamentalism. I see: you need simple solutions for your complex problems. Something bite-sized, like "bomb them!" It's also telling that the internal debates of Muslim society are now "our problem" to solve. You won't buy it, of course, but the problem isn't strictly one of Islamic fundamentalism, but of the choices presented to Islamic societies which, as Tariq Ali put it, boils down to a choice between religious fundamentalism and the funadmentalism of western neoliberal economics and increasingly aggressive militarism. And actually, there are no weapons inspectors in Iran, but here are negotiations ongoing with the Iranians and the EU. So why the disdain for "talking things over"?That is how real countries deal with problems up until the point where negotiation is no longer an option. BEEP BEEP! FALLACY ALLERT! CIRCULAR LOGIC IN PROGRESS! Nope, didn't say that. Are you now denying you refered to social spending as "useless" and a waste of money? Are you also denying that you support increased military spending? Are you also denying that the primary purpose of the armed forces is to wage war (wars where, presumably, people will get killed by the same armed forces)?

Yeah those Calgary School dudes did an awesome job when they put all that oil under Alberta.

Your analogy is bunk because the same relationship applies to unions. Don't want to be a union member? Then walk away. Didn't say that, did I. Unions, like all human institutions be they corporations, churches or community leagues are hierarchal and prone to corruption. I've no doubt unions have their flaws, but I'd hate to imagine a world without them.