The Trouble With Canada .........Still

[lukin]

The Trouble With Canada..........Still by William Gairdner

This is a great book that does an excellent job explaining the problems facing Canada today. This book explains how Pierre Trudeau imposed his socialistic agenda on Canada. Canadians attitudes need to change. This book is very well researched. Anyone who likes a book that will force them to think will love this book.

Edited December 9, 2010 by lukin

[bloodyminded]

Yes, I enjoy hearing this repeated belief, which is that of religious fanaticism (I'm not exaggerating, by the way; it's precisely identical, and often adhered to by the same personages):

Canada would be a paradise were it not for Trudeau.

This is closely related to the notion--stated with a straight face--that something called "the left" has simply...ruined everything.

By this logic, we all lived in Eden in the 19th century, before the great, Satanically-inspired Leftist "fall," played through the drama of the 20th Century.

The only thing I can't determine with certainty is whether proponents of this "theory" (and its contiguous pre-lapsarian notions) are ignorant, knuckledragging droolers....or vicious, propagandastic liars.

But those are the two primary choices, as far as I can figure.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[lukin]

Have you read this book? Many interesting points are made in the book, whether you agree with them or not. Your critique is useless if you haven't read it, or are you just writing something you read on Rabble.ca?

Edited December 11, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied previous post

[Smallc]

So then explain Lukin, what is the book about? What are the top points as you see them? Why is this book right? I don't have time to read the books that I want to, and so far I'm not wanting to read this one.

[lukin]

So then explain Lukin, what is the book about? What are the top points as you see them? Why is this book right? I don't have time to read the books that I want to, and so far I'm not wanting to read this one.

The book is 450 pages,and many topics pertaining to Canada are discussed, smallc.

Here is a synopsis:

Canada suffered a regime-change in the last quarter of the twentieth-century, and is now caught between two irreconcilable styles of government: A top-down collectivism and a bottom-up individualism. In this completely revised update of his best-selling classic, william gairdner shows how canada has been damaged through a dangerous love affair with the former. Familiar topics are put under a searing new light, and recent issues such as immigration, diversity, and corruption of the law are confronted head on as gairdner comes to many startling—and sure to be controversial—conclusions. This book is a bold clarion call to arms for canada to examine and renew itself…before it is too late.

Like I said, I don't agree with everything in this book....however many topics covered in this book should lead to so heated dialogue and discussion between people of all sides of the political spectrum.

[Shwa]

This book is a bold clarion call to arms for canada to examine and renew itself…before it is too late.[/i]

A "call to arms?" Is this guy advocating for armed insurrection of the government? Too late for what - more peace and hockey?!?

Good God man! What sort of terroristic evil are you trying to feed us here on MLW??

[bloodyminded]

Have you read this book? Many interesting points are made in the book, whether you agree with them or not. Your critique is useless if you haven't read it, or are you just writing something you read on Rabble.ca?

A not totally unfair response; however, my remarks were aimed not only at the prevailing "the-left-is-the-root-cause" conventional thinking among a sector of an essentially radicalized Right...it was all predicated on your remarks.

Your precis of the book was that this entity called "Trudeau" is responsible for Canada's problems.

Whatever Trudeau's faults, this is patent nonsense...unless and until someone explains how no real problems existed in Canada prior to 1968.

I'm amazed that this obvious nonsense even has to be argued, frankly.

[bloodyminded]

A "call to arms?" Is this guy advocating for armed insurrection of the government? Too late for what - more peace and hockey?!?

Good God man! What sort of terroristic evil are you trying to feed us here on MLW??

In a way, the current American Tea Party phenomenon perhaps in part clarifies an explanation for us.

People do feel, to at least some degree understandably, that large-scale forces, seemingly beyond their control, are screwing them over.

So ideologues, in this case mostly right-wing ones, have stepped into the ideas vacuum to explain the problem: ie "liberal elites" and other scary foes.

It's a piss-poor explanation; at the very best, it's a small, small part of the truth. But it is an explanation, so it has some teeth, and people are desperate to have thinsg explained in a straight-narrative way, and with clear villains.

Hence my "religious" remark earlier.

[Shwa]

In a way, the It's a piss-poor explanation; at the very best, it's a small, small part of the truth. But it is an explanation, so it has some teeth, and people are desperate to have thinsg explained in a straight-narrative way, and with clear villains.

Hence my "religious" remark earlier.

The analogy I would have given was 'fairy tale.' But I get the religious angle too.

[bush_cheney2004]

In a way, the current American Tea Party phenomenon perhaps in part clarifies an explanation for us....

Of course....and as always.

[eyeball]

Canada suffered a regime-change in the last quarter of the twentieth-century, and is now caught between two irreconcilable styles of government: A top-down collectivism and a bottom-up individualism.

Bottom up-individualism? WTF is that all about? There is one style of government in this land and it has always been entirely top-down no matter who's doing the driving.

The only differentiating style I see flowing down from on high is the occasional swing between social engineering and moral engineering. In either case, the only thing resembling a bottom-up position here is the one that's usually offered by sycophants for their guy. Sorry about the imagery that conjures up but don't forget, you're only gay if you push back.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm amazed that this obvious nonsense even has to be argued, frankly.

It doesn't, and shouldn't except to dismiss it. This board has too many of these simplistic threads, in my view. Too many "Obama is Socialist" catch phrases and the like make the board appear dumber than it is.

[lukin]

A not totally unfair response; however, my remarks were aimed not only at the prevailing "the-left-is-the-root-cause" conventional thinking among a sector of an essentially radicalized Right...

Isn't that what the "radicalized" left is doing to president Bush in the United States?

Read the book and you'll better understand. Prejudging or assuming doesn't go very far.

Edited December 9, 2010 by lukin

[bloodyminded]

Isn't that what the "radicalized" left is doing to president Bush in the United States?

No. The mainstream liberals had it in their heads that Bush was the font of all evil, and that a wise Democrat--say, Barack Obama--would set things right, and put America back on its "correct" and "traditional" course of saving the Earth from evil, etc.

Those who are commonly deemed the more "radical" leftists assumed that Obama would not be terribly different in too many ways.

Read the book and you'll better understand. Prejudging or assuming doesn't go very far.

Yes, and again, I think that's fair enough. But then your introduction ("Trudeau sucks," essentially) wasn't too helpful, and perhaps not really fair to the author.

[lukin]

No. The mainstream liberals had it in their heads that Bush was the font of all evil, and that a wise Democrat--say, Barack Obama--would set things right, and put America back on its "correct" and "traditional" course of saving the Earth from evil, etc.

Those who are commonly deemed the more "radical" leftists assumed that Obama would not be terribly different in too many ways.

Yes, and again, I think that's fair enough. But then your introduction ("Trudeau sucks," essentially) wasn't too helpful, and perhaps not really fair to the author.

Are you saying no one(politicians, media personalities, journalists) in the USA is currently blaming that country's current problems on the 8 years GWB held office?

I can understand your point about my Trudeau quote. What I should have said was the author goes into great detail on how Canada changed through the Trudeau years. You may agree with him or disagree, but I do feel he brought up some excellent points.

[Shwa]

Isn't that what the "radicalized" left is doing to president Bush in the United States?

Read the book and you'll better understand. Prejudging or assuming doesn't go very far.

No, seriously. You aren't suggesting that one must read this book to come to some epiphany about the way things were before and how terrible and teeth-gnashing worthy they are now because...because of Trudeau??

Canada suffered a regime-change in the last quarter of the twentieth-century, and is now caught between two irreconcilable styles of government: A top-down collectivism and a bottom-up individualism. In this completely revised update of his best-selling classic, william gairdner shows how canada has been damaged through a dangerous love affair with the former. Familiar topics are put under a searing new light, and recent issues such as immigration, diversity, and corruption of the law are confronted head on as gairdner comes to many startling—and sure to be controversial—conclusions. This book is a bold clarion call to arms for canada to examine and renew itself…before it is too late.

What I like best about this fear-mongering baseless appeal to the insufferable and mindless right-wing partisan moron crowd is the way that the dust-cover author grouped the words, "immigration, diversity and corruption" so neatly together. Sheesh. Really?

Good God, if they can't even get the dust-cover description in order, the last thing I will doing is waste any time or coin trying to decipher how a published, non-fiction author could be so daft.

But I'm glad you enjoyed it. Did it come with a complimentary tin-foil hat too?

[bloodyminded]

Are you saying no one(politicians, media personalities, journalists) in the USA is currently blaming that country's current problems on the 8 years GWB held office?

No, but I wasn't clear. To clarify: the wheat and chaff need always to be separated. To condemn Bush for certain actions is fine, so long as they can be argued reasonably; to hold his administration particularly responsible for everything that's gone wrong is not only unfair to the former President; it often implies a premise that the US is some force for freedom throughout the world, with Bush as an unfortunate interregnum to the Noble Purpose.

[dre]

The book is 450 pages,and many topics pertaining to Canada are discussed, smallc.

Here is a synopsis:

Canada suffered a regime-change in the last quarter of the twentieth-century, and is now caught between two irreconcilable styles of government: A top-down collectivism and a bottom-up individualism. In this completely revised update of his best-selling classic, william gairdner shows how canada has been damaged through a dangerous love affair with the former. Familiar topics are put under a searing new light, and recent issues such as immigration, diversity, and corruption of the law are confronted head on as gairdner comes to many startling—and sure to be controversial—conclusions. This book is a bold clarion call to arms for canada to examine and renew itself…before it is too late.

Like I said, I don't agree with everything in this book....however many topics covered in this book should lead to so heated dialogue and discussion between people of all sides of the political spectrum.

Canada suffered a regime-change in the last quarter of the twentieth-century, and is now caught between two irreconcilable styles of government: A top-down collectivism and a bottom-up individualism.

Irreconcilable? Every prosperous country on earth blends those two concepts... They are EASILY reconcilable.

[bloodyminded]

Irreconcilable? Every prosperous country on earth blends those two concepts... They are EASILY reconcilable.

Absolutely. Virtually everyone believes in some socialist amelioration of capitalism's harsher effects, to one degree or another.

The more fundamentalist libertarians apparently dream of a violent hellhole, in which the riotous peasants outside the iron gates are shot by a privatized police force.

[bush_cheney2004]

More insights from fans!

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=92224

Edited December 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

So then explain Lukin, what is the book about? What are the top points as you see them? Why is this book right? I don't have time to read the books that I want to, and so far I'm not wanting to read this one.

The book is 450 pages,and many topics pertaining to Canada are discussed, smallc.

Here is a synopsis:

Canada suffered a regime-change in the last quarter of the twentieth-century, and is now caught between two irreconcilable styles of government: A top-down collectivism and a bottom-up individualism. In this completely revised update of his best-selling classic, william gairdner shows how canada has been damaged through a dangerous love affair with the former. Familiar topics are put under a searing new light, and recent issues such as immigration, diversity, and corruption of the law are confronted head on as gairdner comes to many startling—and sure to be controversial—conclusions. This book is a bold clarion call to arms for canada to examine and renew itself…before it is too late.

Like I said, I don't agree with everything in this book....however many topics covered in this book should lead to so heated dialogue and discussion between people of all sides of the political spectrum.

c'mon, lukin... Smallc wants more... you know, your thoughts, your articulation - something more than a parroted dust-jacket verbatim quote, ala the lukinWay™

[Smallc]

You're right Waldo, I would like more. I just don't find even the idea of it very convincing.

[Jack Weber]

You're right Waldo, I would like more. I just don't find even the idea of it very convincing.

You ask a serious question and the guy gives you the sales pitch crapola from the back cover...

Fine...

I suspect this book is just the same synopsis of the same whimpering and whining from the hard right in this country..

Not the latest stuff,however,what would be the author's solutions to the nefarious plots of the "Left" in this country?

Lemme guess!!!

1.Smaller government

2.Lower taxes

3.Curb,if not stop immigration

4.More individual freedom

What have I missed?

Edited December 10, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lukin]

c'mon, lukin... Smallc wants more... you know, your thoughts, your articulation - something more than a parroted dust-jacket verbatim quote, ala the lukinWay™

The above comment brought to you by the master of the copy and paste.

[waldo]

The above comment brought to you by the master of the copy and paste.

no - sorry, no matter how many times you say so... any cut/paste I do is fully articulated with associated relevance, context attachment/significance, etc. I, in no way, follow your practice of blindly linking to references, without adding your own commentary and, typically, without even bothering to quote from your "ta da" linked reference... ala, the lukinWay™

besides, you shouldn't ignore Smallc's comment where he acknowledges he was looking for more from you... not just something ala, the lukinWay™