AmericanPop

On the surface, it might seem as if Obama won his campaign in a similar fashion to Carter. Both promised proactive 'Change' and littered their rhetoric with moral undertones. The problem with Carter was that his foreign policy goals were entirely incompatible with the geo-strategic realities of the time. The Iranian Revolution brought these inconsistencies to the limelight. While his human rights agenda demanded he discontinue support for an oppressive Shah regime, his sense of realism warned against jeopardizing America's Middle Eastern 'policeman'. Obama's Cairo speech was consistent with his campaign for 'Change', but like Bill Clinton, Obama knows that promoting 'Change' is very different from actually ensuring it. But Clinton entered the presidency at a time when the electorate was in no mood to deal with foreign policy adventures. The current political climate is different, and it can be witnessed by the way the media is reacting to Obama's inaction.

In response to this particular forum rule: I would like to direct people's attention to this section of the site: Why is it that artists are permitted to portray politicians diminutively (by said rule's standards) in the name of satire, but written commentators are not? Is there something fundamentally different between calling Jack Layton 'Lenin' and drawing him as 'Lenin'?

I didn't refer to him to a weasel, I said he had the appeal of a weasel. It criticizes his lack of charisma, not his facial features. Either way, this was a satirical article, and a good one at that.It brought up a lot of good points, and I would hate to think that political correctness has encroached so far as to censor satire, particularly on the internet, one of the last safe havens for the freedom of speech. If that's the case, then this forum isn't for me.

Where is there an insult?

How the Liberals Committed Political Suicide re-copied article deleted by moderator the link to the original article can be found here: http://aproposofwetsnow.wordpress.com/2008...itical-suicide/

The charge towards European Unification came to a halt in 2005 when, disallowed both by French and Dutch citizens, the continent failed to ratify its first constitution. The newly drafted document was put to referendum by a small minority (the French and the Dutch ) whereas the rest of the continent assured its consent only through parliamentary resolve. The setback has coaxed many Eurolites to question the E.U.'s capacity to progress in light of these populist hindrances. Now, two years later, the document remains parallel to its prototype in function, but its parlance has been engineered so as to render it unintelligeable to the average citizen. Suprisingly, the change has been acknowledged, and even praised, openly by many European leaders. Citizens are more likely to acquiesce to parliamentarians when they brand an issue too complex or of little importance to them - bureaucratic jargon often has this effect. As the second vote approaches, it is likely that the constitution will pass, even amidst minor rebuking from dissident states. Regardless, a heavy debate has arisen which I feel is bigger than the E.U; a debate inextricably linked to globalization in general. Keeping in mind that in the past, nation-states have almost always been created by the work of a few men, not the masses, and that we can thank much of our progression to this fact: Should parliamentarians be allowed to bind its citizens into supranational alliances without DIRECT consent from its citizens, i.e. referenda?

I did not say it was attempting to preserve Canadian values, I said it preserves the universal liberal values of diversity and tolerance. To choose programs that only reflect on canadian culture (which you claim doesn't happen) who go against diversity and tolerance. Also, from where do you find the logic to conclude that culture cannot be assesed by merit-based, governmental organizations such as the CRTC? It is not "the regulations of an elite few", it is the regulations of a well qualified group of educated individuals who employ intellectually sound methods to their research, as required by our government's standards. You misinterpret the concept of multiculturalism if you assume it to entail an absolute equality between the various culutural elements that saturate our country. The CRTC is providing other religions one hour a day to express their views, hardly equal if you ask me. Also, the nature of radio is different from that of books, the act of listening to radio is very much involuntary, it invades your senses whereas reading a book requires individual will. The CRTC is making a central decision because the voters have entrusted the government to make these decisions. Democracy is only valuable so long as there is more than one alternative to choose from. If a spiritual man wishes to explore the different avenues of faith and chooses the radio as his median, is it really democratic for one particular faith to be bombarding him with one doctrine? Low ratings, as compared to what? Like I have been sayingg, these programs exist for the purpose of multiculturalism, not democracy. When the minorites of our country seek solitude in cultural programming they can relate to, where do they go to find it? The CBC. When there is a documentary on Native history, it is to be expected that the Natives will watch that show. Americanism is dominant, so much so that it needs to be regulated. I didn't say no Americanism did I? It does not matter whether the station is private or public, the government holds the perogative to regulate it. If you believe that it is unconstitutional and breaches the charter of rights and freedoms, bring the government to court. But I think you would soon find out that the breachment is "justifiable in a free and democratic society".

Well it's to be expected, we live in a multicultural society, a society threatened by americanization, particularly with the advent of modern means of communication. We live in an age where cultural diffusion or "spillover" is exacerbated by the internet,television, movies, books and radio. Based on the principle of democracy, our country is highly receptive of the views of the common citizen, we formalize these views through parliamentary government. Sovereignty, then, is very much determined by the thoughts, ideas, beliefs and convictions of our population. How we are to ensure that our population maintains its independence from the cultural hegemony of the United States without regulation? The CRTC is vital in that it ensures a certain level of diversity in our media, something that is arguably weak in America. Even if you don't support "traditional" Canadian values, of which the CRTC is not intent on preserving, realize that the CRTC is acting in the name of diversity and tolerance, two universal liberal values.

Christianity is similiar to Atheism in that it rejects most gods, Atheism just goes one God further.

Trudeau's early days were marked by a grand transformation. In his early days at Brebeuf he was a Quebec Nationalist, playing around with revolutionary ideas and even organizing a small cell intent on acting out a coup on the quebec provincial government. It is true that he also dabbled in anti-semetic sentiments but such was to be expected at the time. His views began to mature when he began schooling at Harvard, in Paris and particularly the london school of economics. Harvard had trained him thoroughly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, and Paris, with its incredibly diverse range of political opinion, provided him with an arena for which he could explore alternatives to the corpratism, nationalism and clericalism that dominated scholarly thought back home. But it is in London where his professors perhaps had the most impact, particularly on his economic views. Here he was introduced to keynesian economics (at a time when it still hadn't caught the attention of most intellectuals) and where he began sympathising with Communism. In the following years he would be approved by Harvard to complete his thesis abroad, which Trudeau decided would focus on the possible compatility of Christianity with Communism. Trudeau would explore Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia at a time when the Iron Curtain was stiffening and when decolonization was taking hold in India, Indochina and China. Trudeau returned to Montreal very much a cosmopolitan with worldly experience, which would prove beneficial later on in his debates with Rene Levesque, who sometimes found it hard to find examples, let alone personal experience, to buttress his arguments.

John English, Trudeau's most recent biographer, has concluded that the helmet trudeau wore was most likely Italian, rather than German.

Why is it that everytime I read of Harper's visits to foreign countries, whether it be Colombia, Palestine or China, human rights are a central issue? Colombia does not need to be chastised over its human rights record, it needs to engage in meaningful dialogue with the developed world on how to deal with its political instability, small arms proliferation and the public weal. For over half a century Colombia has been plagued by civil war between rebel guerrilla groups and paramilitant organizations. Human rights violations are to be EXPECTED in a country which, as recently as 1999, hadn't achieved a stable coalition government in years. To criticize the head of the Colombian government is a cowardly, politicized move on Harper's part. The paramilitants who wield tremendous clout over Colombian politics should be the object of focus. The history of violence which has characterized late 20th century Colombian politics is not the fault of one man, nor can it be stopped by the one man who holds questionable power, despite his formal title.

That would be improving efficiency. Productivity concerns itself only with the ammount of output.

What evidence do you have to substantiate the claim that youth today are "lost and unsupervised"? And to which generation is this in relation to? The last time I checked crime rates have dropped substantially since 1991, and a higher percentage of this generation are attending post-secondary than their baby boomer predecessors. Young people seem lost because they are lost, its a healthy part of one's life cycle to experience an identity crisis during adolescence and into adulthood. I consent, Accountability is lacking, but not because of a flawed system or a decrease in "supervision", but because there are less and less teens going down the wrong path.