Unpolarized

Some of the mostsucessful people in their field teach and often are recruited by Universities. Get a grip. Einstein, Jane Jacobs; Stephen Hawking; the list is huge. You insult all teachers when you say they are just recycling failures. I also see a distinction between University Prof and school system teachers. Those who teach in the school system often just love to work with kids and may or may not have an area of expertise (math, art, biology). University professors usually are focused on a particular subject area, excel at it and also teach it while studying or researching at a university. They are required to publish, research, do field work or whatever as part of what they do at the university.

Ann Coulter represents the dirth of meaningful public discourse. If she is a comedian, she should be on the comedy channel of SNL, not on news shows where it would be very easy for some, who don't know much about her, to mistake her views for meaningful public discourse or intelligent commentary. She is boorish, a bully and rude. Its not funny because she is trying to be serious and people really believe what she is saying. She makes good TV, no doubt but put her on a different channel at a different time.

Brison is openly gay and that makes his a bit more difficult to endorse. I agree with newfie that they will want someone who was not associated with the Chretien government and who has stayed well away from the whole mess. Dryden fits that bill as he was just elected with the last government and could not associated with the current adscam stuff. A national hockey hero (who is very widely admired in Quebec), a lawyer and a generally good guy makes him pretty attractive as a national leader. He is also smart as the dickens. But does he has the charisma to carry it off.

All generations are nostalgic about their own youth and only the good things remembered. Things change some good things are lost and the bad things are forgotten. The original post was very North American centred. Globally is this generation loosing anything. If there is anything being lost, it is the ability to think critically about what is going on around them. We, young and old alike, seem to beleive what we are told and not analyze it. the impacts of constant information that is too little analyzed is the main difference. Kids go outside less because parents are freaked because they hear more about abductions or are told more about the dangers of a variety of product. Too much information and not enough time to think about it all and put it in some sort of meaningful context. And then we react.

University professors, in general, are paid to sit around and think, theorize, hypothosize and teach some of what they think about regarding a particular subject area. Universities often lead the charge in the kind of change that often has fundamentally taken our society to a new place - economic theories that change how economies operate, medical advancement, approaches to international development etc. Its a terrible think that the study and pursuit of knowledge is so terribly disprected. The proposed legislature is certainly a clear indication of this.

The bottom line is that the majority of the public does not know the details of the inquiry and also believes (quite rightly) that if it smells something is rotten. The public is sick of it and I think want an end to it and an election is the way to make it happen. The whole Liberal party is tainted, regardless of which individuals are directly involved. Harper scares me as a potential PM and I think scares many but there is no question that the Liberal party is in a free fall and has lost the confidence of many.

I think you have remember that lots of people have really have had the crappy end of the stick and words were used to characterize them. Perhaps they were women, homosexuals, aboriginals. In the past, (and for some it continues) terrible things were done to some groups and words were used that represented those terrible things or characterized the group in such a demeaning way that every time it was uttered, it reminded them of the terrible things (slavery, genocide of aboriginal groups, forced relocation, women being the property of a man etc) There are still lots of hangover of the powerlessness of some groups and people are still regularly threatened in some way. A black man I know was spit at not that long ago. When these sorts of things happen, people get mad and defensive and touchy so the use of certain words puts salt in the wound. Its hard to know people's intent and maybe there is no nastyness intended behind certain words but unless you know the person really well, its a tough one to call.. That being said, the whole sensitivity thing can go too far the other way and what people call political correctness. It seems to me that a little common sense and sensitivity to the powerlessness or disenfranchisement of some groups is not a bad thing while we deal with some of our historical inrequities.

After lurking and making a few posts, I have noticed the particularly unhelpful approach of saying "well the left created the problem" or 'the right started it". In the Canadian context, doe these terms, left and right, actually mean anything. I do not think so. this is one way of looking at it: WHo is who and really does it mean anything to be catergorized as a lefty or a right besides just being a public relations tool that takes the really issue off the table and then it just becomes a name calling exercise? Mostly what seems to be happening at the national level is one party has been in power too long and has got cocky and lazy and a little too fond of power and big mistakes have happened. It also happened to the last long lasting government. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with left and right.

Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11. Perhaps if Ann Coulter stopped talking and started thinking then this distinction would not be so difficult.

The problem with getting rid of the monarch is that we would have to figure a new government system out and revamp. That debate on how we would restructure outselves would probably tear the country apart. The monarchy and the GG does play an important symbolic role. She is our best global ambassador. She travels across the County to help build unity. She recognizes our best in literature and arts, our bravest and most worthy. She is a non-partisanl voice in a too partisan environment. I am interested to know what kind of government would we put in place if we got rid of the monarch. What process would be used to make the decision on the change. Its pretty complex and the money we would spend doing it would probably support the GG for years, not to mention the irritation of hearing the never ending debates over how our new government structure would look. As for Camilla, , just let them get married. At this rate, his mother will govern until he is too old to ever become King or if he does, it will be for a short time.

Its not conservatives that are the problem, its people who don't think about what they are saying and just base their outrageous opinions on unexamined doctorine. Lots of "conservatives" have well thought out positions and are just as afraid of the likes of AC or the religious extremism that has taken over the agenda of the Republican parties. Quote from John Danforth He goes on to say: The entire editorial Although I can not agree with a lot of Danforth's political views , I can at least understand it and perhaps even with with with engaged conservatives. You can not work with AC. AC does not think, analyze or engage. She is funny, like a stand up comedian but is ponied around by FOX as a politican pundit. Real conservatives are probably just as mortified by her as anyone else and she is best ignored because she is just fluffy garbage.

Not let the representative vote from the Territories. The way our system works is the every eligible Canadian gets to vote for representative to go to Ottawa. that person then represents the area they are from and the people in that area and generally they are a part of a party system, but not always. We elect them to act for us at a national level - they don't always do what we want but they are suppose to act for the public good. Are you really suggesting that only some people of Canada get to be represented? You could argue that the seats from Atlantic Canada do not matter either because most elections are decided in Quebec and Ontario and our population is so small that no one really needs to pay attention to our needs. I also bet that the Liberals are pretty happy to have the Northern seats right now and that the MPs, one of which is a very capable junior cabinet minister are just as sophicated as anyone else. I truly can not follow your logic. Children? ?????

Digby, Good topic and an issue I struggle with personally. I will use a different example to discuss the same basic principle. First, defining the terms.Some would define racism as discrimination plus power. In our society, the people with the most power , one can argue, are white middle class males. The arguement goes on to propose that to empower minorities then some of the natural advantage (and power) of the powerful must be given to some of the less powerful in order for things to equalize. I agree with that too a point but it has tempered a bit by my time in Nunavut. A little background - The territory of Nunavut was established in 1999 as part of a land claims agreement that gave the Inuit a vast tract of land, essentially the territory of Nunavut. It also gave Inuit corporation and the Government of Nunavut a wack of money, a lot of mineral rights etc. It also mandated that the Government of Nunavut hire a certain percentage of Inuit employees and they have a preferential hiring practice so that in many cases if the Inuit employee has60% of the qualifications they get the job over a fully qualified person. Affirmative action is if all things being equal, you hire the minority person or the purple haired peson or whoever is the target group. I have no problem with this approach. Background on employment equity In Nunavut what is happening is that vastly underqualified people are being put into positions that they can not cope with or deal with. It causes social strife, stress in the work place and often sets people up to fail. So, I support trying to help people who are often discriminated against (such as disabled people who are often not given a fair shake, aboriginal groups etc) the trend to go too far to over compensate often creates more problems. I am not very well versed in the fishing issue but it strikes me as very problematic that anyone can fish as much as they want to, regardless of the stocks ability to regenerate. Is this happening? It also is a problem to dump vast amounts of money at aboriginal groups to empower them. the Davis inlet stories certainly point to this. The answer eludes me but no one is being served very well by the status quo I think it is hard to call white men in general victims. I think you can argue that you are being discrimated against but that its not racism. Is it fair - no probably not. But there are tons of studies and anecdotal evidence that lots of other groups are systematically discriminated against and somehow we as a society need to make sure that does not happen without hurting others. Study Its a touchy issue for many an emotionally charged so I hope we can have a respectful and useful debate. Thanks for starting the thread.

. Bush also imposes a certain view on what the American way of life is. GWB's american way of life is quite different I think from at least 50% of other Americans. He was elected to govern but not impose a view of what the American way of life is. I respect his position to govern but not his right to impose his views on what the American way of life is and in particular, to impose his American way of life on me or other countries Quote from Blackdog That's kind of a fact of political life. here in canada, the Liberals claim to represent al Canadians, while in the states, the Bushniks take his incredibly slim re-eelection as broad approval of their agenda, even though, as you said, millions of people across the political spectrum disagree with them. I understand what you mean black dog but I guess what I meant was the extreme certainty based on a particular value system, that does not broker any discussion, which seems to be a tenent of the neo-con approach. I think our government, while taking a strong position, is a bit more open . What scares me about Bush is his positions seem so etched in stone. Bush is just sure he is right and is so convinced that he has the "ends justifies the means" approach. Even when I disagree with our government, I can at least see where they are coming from or understand there arguement. Yes, our government is not perfect and they are some pretty stupid and wasteful things going on or policy decisions that are not in line with my value system. I can disagree without being called a traitor or my Canadian-ness being challenged. I often can not understand how the Bush government gets to their conclusions. Look at the American media, if you think differently from Bush you really are given quite a hard time. People can disagree with Martin on same sex marriage but I do not think they are evil or traitors. Try disagreeing with Bush in a public way, or even getting the airtime to do that and see how its reacted to. The Democrats are scared to stand up and be counted. We know what Harper thinks, for example on same sex marriage. I disagree with him, wish he would take the rhetoric down a notch but do not think he is any less Canadian because of it. But people who do not agree with Bush are seen as Anti- American or traitors (I have heard that a lot in the media). Its the fanatical drive to make the rest of the world be like American and the surety in the superiority the American lifestyle that make me nervous. There are lots of good things about the US( the constitution, the people, their economic strength, etc) but not all is good and some of it, especially recently, is scary - the nose dive the economy, the restrictions on individual rights, the move away from the social security net, the increasing debt that puts, in my opinion, the global economy at risk, and the religious extremism of some of the Bush camp. PS. I am just figuring out the quote thing so sorry about the formatting.

IKB, Do you have a link for this. I would like to see it and perhaps understand it a bit better. I do not think that this is the place to argue about global warming. That is being done in another thread and I am not a scientist. I believe what the scientific mainstream is saying. Simply, if you do not believe in global warming, then Kyoto is a farce. If you do believe in global warming, then Kyoto is not enough and we need to work harder on implementing it and go beyond it. However, I would urge you to use the precautionary principle. I can not prove that Kyoto is a good thing ( the scientific community can prove some pretty startling trends and common sense should kick in at some point), but neither can you prove it is not. Lets be on the safe side.

I don't know if this is true but lets assume it is. the problem with your approach is that you are taking a very country specific approach to this. However, global warming is a global problem not a country specific problem. If you examine why the trees are being cut, it is probably as much to do with market factors, the production of beef for places like MacDonalds or other international trade issues as with the "greedy pigs". There is a problem, the climate is warming and you seem to believe that. Canada is part of it, maybe a small part globally ( I have not done the research to dispute your number but honestly your 2% number seems low since we are one the highest consumer of energy globably on a per capita basis) and we need to fix our problems and then show some leadership to the rest of the world. Its a lot easier to get someone else to do something if you actually do it yourself.

The tension between real conservatives and neo-conservatives will be at play this weekend at the Conservative policy convention. Harper is solidly an neo-conservative where the old PC party is more in line with the conservative approach to government. Can the Bush neo-conservative approach flourish in Canada? I hope not but it will be interesting to see what happens. If you read Kristol and listen to GWB, he is saying that moral justification is the spreading of an American way of life, democracy and liberty. He may actually believe that, the way the British believesd that they were improving the colonies when they were a world power. the problem is when this big picture morality (imposing the american way of life) is imposed and it ends up killing people, keeping people in poverty, restricting access to health care in developing countries - all of these things are clearly immoral. Bush also imposes a certain view on what the American way of life is. GWB's american way of life is quite different I think from at least 50% of other Americans. He was elected to govern but not impose a view of what the American way of life is. I respect his position to govern but not his right to impose his views on what the American way of life is and in particular, to impose his American way of life on me or other countries.

I just found one critique that might be an interesting read. Its really a book review but I think sheds a different perspective. Critique of Neo-Cons

Here are an articles that helped me understand the neo-conservative issue. This one is written by someone who calls himself a neo-con Neo-Con link I tried to find a good critique of neo-conseratism from a more traditional conserative but had little luck. Perhaps I was wrong about Bush. When reading the above link, he follows the neo-con approach to the letter. Can anyone help me understand the appeal of the neo-con approach, which seems to be: 1. Debt financing so that the economy will be stimulated. 2. The American view is the dominant view 3. The role of government should be larger and stronger 4. Even though government is larger, the social safety net can be done differntly or by the private sector. 5. World institutions generally should be regarded with distrust 6. As a world superpower, the American have a responsibility for promoting democracy everywhere possible. 7. Tax cuts (even in the face of a mounting debt) Its seems a weird mish mash of ideas to be but Bush is following almost to the letter. Perhaps he does have a philosophical base?

Its interesting, this story was not reported on the CBC this morning so maybe it will not get a lot of attention. The Conversatives will have a tough haul. Putting aside any partisan preferences, my analysis is that they will have to amalgate some pretty disperate views and they are going to loose some of the more extreme right wing people when they attempt to moderate. I think that they want to loose them so that they are make themselves more of a real alternative to the rest of Canada. I think this policy convention is going to be messy and they are going to have a public split with some in the party. that very split will only improve there chances for election and they know it. They are in a no win situation on the abortion issue and perhaps on missle deference. I think their positions, in general, will moderate on several other social issues.

Bush is not a conservative. I believe that he an issue by issue decision maker and has no consistency to his approach to issues. When I think of a conservative, I think of someone who is interested in individual rights more than a communitarian approach. Someone who believes in a smaller role for the state, incremental change, the stewardship of resources, a strong link to historical trends and not someone who makes wild radical change. George Bush does not steward resources well. Fiscally he spends like crazy. He is not interested in protecting the natural resources. His homeland security intiatives are not focused on making government smaller or on individual right but rather on the opposite. He and his adminsitration are reactionary, ad hoc and not based on any solid philosophical ground. His religious views get mixed up with it somehow but its just a mish mash of approaches that lack consistency and quite honestly, thoughfulness. Neo- conservatism, well I am not sure what that is? Perhaps Bush is the definition of it and therefore it means nothing?

I am not denying that climate change is occuring. I believe the scientific community. What I am saying, and so are many of those same scientist, is that Kyoto is not enough Link Another link Kyoto is a small step but to go back to the main question, Is Kyoto a farce. I think farce is the wrong word but I also do not believe that it is the best thing in the world. Again, it actually may make people feel a sense of security against climate change when in fact we need to move well beyond Kyoto and make some pretty fundamental changes. As for my name, I recently moved from Northern Canada (Nunavut)and I am literally unpolarized. I also think that is is important for debates not to be polarized in terms of left and right, so it was a bit of a play on words. My attempt at humour and cuteness.

Although this is a bit old, the problems of Kyoto remain the same. As for Britian and Germany, this article Interesting link gives the reasons for their reductions as more luck then any grand plan. There is no doubt that Europe is ahead of North America but "so what". For me, the Kyoto Protocal is bit like recycling. It makes people and governments feel like they are doing something about the environment but really it takes the focus away from the real problem and issues. Its not a bad idea (really its a good idea) but its just a very small part of an overall strategy. For climate change, we need to restructure energy production, put subsidies in place for hybrid cars, force industry to choose alternative energy production, just to name a few ones. Although Bush is a problem with the global approach to climate change, he is just part of it. Its so easy to look south and blame them but ultimately, our own government is not going to be able to live up to our own committments (probably). The US NEEDs to show leadership and take responsibility for their waste but lets make no mistake, by putting all our faith in Kyoto, we are not doing a whole bunch more than the US. We need to figure out how to move beyond Kyoto .

As I review this thread and think a bit more about IKB original post, I think he has some important points. Particularly, is Kyoto a farce? As someone who believes in the threat of climate change, I firmly believe individuals needs to take action and that government is going to have to regulate and then live with and enforce the regulations. Kyoto is not enough to stop the tide (or the rising water). It might slow it down but it will not stop anything. We have such a long way to go and if we really want our planet to survive then our lives will need to change. That concept scares the daylights out of me, our corporate leaders and our government. They know they need to do something more effective but lack the leadership to do so. The polical reality is that any proposed change probably would not fly anyway- a minority government, strong corporate interests and a public who knows about climate change but really is more interested in getting a good deal at Walmart would surely sink it. Even those of us who try reduce our emissions (like me) commute in my shiny new car or consume too much. Kyoto is a farce in that it does not force me to live differently, it does not start the process of restructuring that needs to happen and it does conceptualize how the changes can occur without creating chaos. However, I remain hopeful that its a start and starting is just as important as finishing.

But think about what you are saying. You acknowledge that there is a problem but are saying because we are not doing a good job of responding to it now, that we should stop trying. You are correct in saying that Canada is just a part of the problem but, nonetheless, we are a part of it. The US is going to do what it is going to do but hopefully, as we have in the past, we can play a bit of leadership role. I believe that when a more moderate government comes into the US, that they will begin some pretty earnest measures to respond to climate change. Ultimately, the cost of doing nothing is going to outweigh the cost of taking action. Ask the insurance industry and they will tell you that climate change is a serious threat to the viability of their businesses. Again, i think the critism is our government is valid. But you want them to call a spade a spade to take some strong action. I agree but i am still pleased that they are doing something and hopefully it will lead to something better. I wish they were stronger out of the gate but at least we are in the race.