Welcome - keep in touch - after the news out of Iran this morning we made need some good luck to get out of the rest of Bush's term in one piece:

Alcibiades:
Lynn was asking yesterday, why the media was so silent about the U.S. intentions toward Iran. As I see it, the "word" has been put out to guage the reaction to the U.S. actually considering a nuclear first strike - to see how that would sit with us and soften us to the idea. Now your article above...the beginnings of reasons to validate that threat. That's what I am reading into it, am I wrong? This whole theory has been circulating for months now. I've been waiting for such a scenario since Fiat Lux spelled it out for me and others. This was always on the agenda of Bush and the multi-national corporations, not a reaction to a new threat. The big picture is all about who controls the region and therefore who rakes in the profits, imo.

Ohmygawd
Obviously, you're watching, reading and listening. There is clearly no need to invade or bomb Iran at the moment - I don't think they have or are near to having the bomb; but, this little tinpot fellow Ahmadinejad is pushing Bush's buttons and you know what happens when you bring two unstable elements together under the proper conditions.

There is one other interesting factor that I've been watching. There are a growing number of senior military men in Washington (some retired, some not) who are starting to go on record about Rumsfeld - there's a kind of summary piece about them in today's NYTimes if you're interested - and I had been thinking the pressure to dump him was getting pretty intense. But then today Bush pipes up and says he still loves and supports Rummy.

I'd been hoping Ed (fiat lux) would post something about his feelings and maybe he will now that there is kind of node here that would attract his attention. I'd like to know what he thinks. I'm sure you remember what he'd been saying about crisis time during the last week in March.

Interesting times, no doubt. I really think Bush has actually never been in real control of the White House - he's a kind of hands-off managerial type at best and I think the power is in Cheney's hands so he's really the one to watch. Look how skillfully he's skated away from the recriminations surrounding the Libby/Plame affair. Not very many months ago everyone was suggesting he'd have to resign over that - now it seems very unlikely.

No answers, just lots of questions. There's a piece about nuclear hegemony in the current edition of Foreign Affairs - I think it's on line - that says there are likely to be problems upcoming with Russia and China too.

I’m sure Ed would suggest we follow the money and the oil multinationals are rolling in it right now.

G West:
You are right - I am still a committed pupil. And I agree about Cheney holding the reins. China and Russia do not have the weaponry to challange Bush, and the U.S. economy is not in imminent danger of collapsing into itself as was hoped, before things got out of hand. They just print more greenbacks out of thin air and pepper the citizens with lies to keep them in line. I guess Blair's inability to whole-heartedly back Bush this time (or put his neck in a noose at home), made Harper's gleeful entry into the "Club" all the more timely for PR reasons.
At least in our own little piece of paradise (B.C), I sense a bit of awakening to our own predicament, neocons aside.

You've mistaken me for somebody else, Ohmygawd, but, I'm not upset - these are the lines in Hersh's piece in the New Yorker that caught my eye:

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

how similar is that locution - 'saving Iran' to what he was saying before the Iraq thing started; even the WMD/Nuclear parallel is almost exact.

One thing you can't charge these idiots with is being original.

Alcibiades:
Sorry for the slight. My buttons have to be pushed to make me step into a conversation, and then I lose all sense of where I am. I don't post often, as you know, as I spend more time backspacing my entry to make corrections, than producing pearls of wisdom 8-). Since I began visiting this site, I have had a soft spot for G.West. I have found you to be every bit as charming, and Coyote blows my socks off! The last few days you guys have been on fire! I'll try harder to compose my posts beforehand, as I am prone to gaffs such as this. Better yet, I'll keep quiet if I can!
I checked out your N.Y Times article an was drawn to the fact that many Generals insisted on anonymity. Hmmm..time will tell.

Ohmygawd...hope you keep posting..always really enjoy reading your comments. We need more women posting on Tyee...so don't keep quiet...be as noisy as you want...:-)

The thing I most take away from Seymour Hersh's articles on Bush and Co. is his view that this government has no intention of listening to anyone...it is completely insular...with a deadly resolve to carry their New American Century vision through ....and that they will proceed no matter what.

I think you're quite right about them guaging the American reaction to a nuclear first strike On Iran... and that they are also setting up the situation as they did with Iraq to make it look like there is no other alternative. Hersh has been saying that the US military have been operating secret missions inside Iran for quite some time now...the latest info saying deaths have already occurred.

Alcibiades: A great week-end to you, too. Cheers. :-)

Thanks, hope G West sees this too. Hersh’s piece is scary when you get down to it, isn’t it?
You should speak up as often as you want – no apologies necessary!

Alcibiades:
It certainly is! Unless more Generals and Senators start speaking up, the consequences are going to be world wide. I thought China had an ace up it's sleeve, holding so much economic power over the USA because of its ballooning debt, but I'm not so sure now. I'll stay tuned.
Lynn:
Thanks,and I agree with you.
I'll still be here on Monday, typing this same post. Fingers and brain work independantly (lol). Have a great Easter!

Has anyone ever figured out how many in North America can follow a complicated plot developed through such erudite, figurative, and intuitive language? I fear West Wing leaves us as American Idol takes over. Ahhh...the lure of money and fame seems to trump an enlightened citizenry's responsibility. Heaven help us. We may deserve what we get.

blackbella
Part of the problem for Sorkin and his successor has been that the contrast between the dramatic and the real in a series that purports to deal with a fictional White House has become farce.

Since fictional characters are so much more believable and coherent than the real ones who go through their daily paces on Pennsylvania Avenue the audience has drifted off and now pays most of its attention to the ongoing train wreck at the real White House:
Just another example of the pollution spreading throughout popular culture from the CNN/Fox /American Idol approach to current affairs. Since we’re about due for another big shock and awe campaign it’s probably long past time to wind up the TV version so we can look back nostalgically at reruns while we wonder how the hell we got here!

Can it be any accident that a cartoon show like South Park is the only vehicle courageous enough (most of the time) to deal with real issues about the way we live today?

South Park isn't dealing with real issues. South Park is just blatant farce.

The West Wing has certainly jumped the shark. Recently I've been watching Sports Night (some episodes are available on You Tube, illegally of course) and I was reminted what witty, intelligently written dialog was. The West Wing used to have this.

It has slipped into mediocrity, and suffers -- in part -- from being currently embroiled in back room politics. I suspect this is much less interesting to the average viewer than the high-minded idealism of (for example) curing cancer.

Season 3 opened with Bartlett at a press conference, rumpled and wet having just returned from Mrs. Landingham's funeral. I was watching it recently, and thinking -- that's the problem with Bush...he'd never appear anywhere without a script so tight it left no room for guessing.

In reality, this is a problem with politics in North America, and perhaps the modern media age. The myth that anybody is being natural anymore is just that -- a myth.

David Emerson is, I think, being very natural right now. He sucks at it and looks really uncomfortable. Guess what? That's pretty much what he's like in real life.

Chretien faked it pretty well; Ignatieff is, I think being himself and the media's ripping him for "not being able to relate to the general public."

So....what?....suddenly having an education is a bad thing?

Bartlett is too good to be true, because if it were true he'd get ripped apart by the media.

Of course it's farce.

But how else do you deal with an issue like Tom Cruise and Scientology? Or racism, or sexism?

Wasn't that what Voltaire was all about too?

The point is that West Wing is too rational to be real - given the irrationality of the Bush White House and the way it plays the fictional construct at the heart of its world view.

Haven't seen Sports Night! Refuse to watch any reality TV - what's left that's not afraid to stick its finger in the public eye - South Park.

I like Ignatieff - I wish he had a chance and the Liberal party had a heart; he doesn't and neither does it. Did you read his recent speech?

Even if he wins, the press will destroy him....just like Bartlett! (your words)

What would we do if we didn't have the USA, to be daddy. You can all criticize but at the same time you know deep down that you appreciate them keeping an eye on Iran.
Don't be so stupid that you don't realize this.
Pussies.

It seems apropo that threads on AMERIKAN fantasies get more comment than real life.

It also shows what a great BRAINWASHING device the BOOB TUBE is.It is the only place you can watch shows like THE UNIT and see the AMERIKAN MILITARY perform clock work precision operations and save the day without anyone mussing their hair and usually within the hour and with heavy advertising.

Television shows us what can happen if we don't get into the way with little irritants...LIKE THE TRUTH !

OF COURSE,THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG,IS ...ALL AMERIKAN .

No, actually it is very scary to have Bush right next door. Hes a Flipin' moron. You must of voted for him! You better give your head a shake.

y'know what really did it for me with Westwing?

When they had the so-called live debate between Smits and the other "candidate" whose name escapes me at the moment (he was in the TV show 'Mash').
Anyway - Why the show ever thought that it would be good to watch an actual debate (without prepared lines) between two actors, I'll never know!!!!

That night I said goodbye to ever watching the show again.

Alcibiades, so you kinda like Ignatieff, eh. Well I'd recommend you at least read his torture stuff and especially: "Who are Americans To Think That Freedom is Theirs to Spread." It's in the New York Times and is on line by googling the title.

Also, you gotta read John Chuckman's rebuttal, entitled, "Canada's Prince of Darkness", also online by googling or dogpile.com.

I think that Ignatieff's probably the most Machievellian and dishonest person ever to run for office in Canada or the US, including Senator Joseph Macarthy.

You're pretty smart, but I think you owe it to yourself to do a bit more due diligence on this parachuted frumian trojan.

Truman
I've been reading Ignatieff for years. And I've read Chuckman too.
I'm no Liberal - in fact I don't belong to a political party.
Ignatieff is an intelligent guy. A lot smarter than Chuckman, I think...in a battle of the intellect I know where I'd put my money.

He has a complicated and somewhat 'tortured' reason - very personal in fact - for having taken the approach he did to the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

It got him into a lot of difficulty - most compromises do.

I don't agree with him about a lot of things, including, for a time, his somewhat equivocal attitude about torture. But I acknowledge that he is intelligent and he's not afraid to recognize that making decisions and governing is a difficult and fraught exercise.

The utopians never get beyond the pages of the books; real life and real people are messy, decisions almost always involve compromise and sometimes, even, deception.

I prefer to be a critic but I'm not afraid to admit that governing is difficult and always involves failure and forces us often to
accept less than we'd like and work with people we don't always agree with.

I think Ignatieff recognizes this too. I don't think he'll make it as a politician but I don't see how my saying there are some positive things in the way he sees the world is a problem. The world of the mind is often black and white; the world of the critic almost always is; the real world is grey.

Have a good day.

ANYONE,who is an advocate for TORTURE,is a dangerous homo sapien.Regardless of his intellectual status and in my mind as an intellectual he is even more dangerous than the average misanthrope,because he feels his view of the situation is more balanced than those of the little people...the GREAT UNWASHED.

You need only look to Trudeaus Reign over the Great White North,to see what a dilletante can do,once in power.Just think of The Charter Of Rights and who it really protects,it aint you and me,it's the government.

Even that great genius,jean cretin,said ,right after the signing of the charter,it can be overridden in any court,check the archives for the film/audio...many missed this little news gem.

Thomas

I don't disagree. I just think it's more complicated than many admit - everyone, mostly, starts out with good intentions. Nobody sets out, with a few obvious exceptions, to do bad. I think it's right to criticize but equally right to see that every human enterprise, intellectual or otherwise, is complicated and conflicted.

Ignatieff is in the process of finding out that the ivory tower and the mud outside his door are very different environments.

What I'd like, and you too, I'm sure, is for more people, every day, to be more aware of what's going on around them and what are the implications of their actions and beliefs.

Later on, If I think of it, I'll post one of his recent speeches.

Cheers, dude, have a happy Easter!

Here's some excerpts from a recent Ignatieff speech. I don't agree with everything he says and I'd take issue with some of his conclusions too - and I sure won't be voting for him.
But, he's no Stephen Harper.

At our best, we are that kind of people.

. . .Today, we are concerned about our soldiers in Afghanistan. So we should
be. But service in Afghanistan is in the best traditions of our people. From
Vimy Ridge to Juneau Beach, from Rwanda to Bosnia, we have earned our place
in the world of nations by service and sacrifice.

I've been to Afghanistan, once when the Taliban were in power and once since
then. I've got faith in the Afghans who are pushing their country out of the
ditch. It's good that Canadians are putting their shoulders to the wheel to
help them. . .

I saw it clearly in eastern Croatia in 1992. I had just crossed a UN check
point and had been taken prisoner by a half a dozen armed men high on
alcohol and ethnic nationalism. A young UN peacekeeper arrived, as I was
being bundled away. He cocked his M 16 and said, 'We'll do this my way.'

And they did.

That young soldier was from Moncton, New Brunswick.

I saw my country clearly watching a policewoman escort frightened families
to and fro across a mined no-man's land in another part of Yugoslavia. When
I asked her why she was doing dangerous work in a foreign country she said,
with a smile, 'It beats writing traffic tickets in Saskatoon.'

. . .So this is my Canada and these are my Canadians. We are serious people.
I've tried to be a serious person. Being serious means sticking to your
convictions. I went to Iraq in 1992 and saw what Saddam Hussein had done to
the Kurds and the Shia. I decided then and there that I'd stand with them
whatever happened. I've stuck with them ever since. Whatever mistakes the
Americans have made, one day Iraqis will create a decent society. When that
day comes, Canadians should be there to help because their struggle is ours,
too.

. . . In understanding Canada's place in the world, we need to think of
ourselves not just as defenders of our own sovereignty, but as stewards of
the global commons.

From 'the responsibility to protect' to 'human security', Canada has been a
leader in putting good ideas into circulation and then getting them accepted
into practice. Without us, there wouldn't be an International Criminal
Court, and without us, no Land Mines Ban. . .

G, I already read that, "we're serious people" crap. You guys are SO gullible. Ignatieff's just pandering. (another in his bag of Ignativian polemic tricks. (Ohmygosh, I did a tautology! Come on!

As for being dazzled by his intelligence. Watch out!

Good one, Thomas49.

Who the hell isn't "serious"? Norweigians? Cambodians? Martians? Americans?

I DO have an unfair advantage, I admit, coming from an entire family of tricksters, but come on--who isn't "serious"?--and why does Ignatieff make this one of his themes in G.West's example?

Okay, I'll answer my own question about why he says we're a "serious people".

He's trying to make you guys feel special--another old trick of demogogues and cultists.

Truman,
What is it with you man? DO you not read? This is what I said:

The only possible problem you could have with that is if you think you're perfect. I don't think Ignatieff is and I don't think I am either.

Because he's made mistakes and has admitted them, because he has ideals and isn't afraid to talk about them he deserves to be slagged!

Give me a break.

If the only choice available was between that demagogue Harper and Ignatieff I know where I'd put my vote. It's not the only choice thank God, so I don't have to make it but I'm not afraid to say that I think having intelligent people who recognize the world is a complicated and conflicted place where governing is a difficult and fraught process putting their names up for office is a good, not a bad thing.

So, while I won't be voting for Ignatieff, I won't apologize for saying that I think he has something interesting and thought-provoking to say about the current mess we're in.

And I'd sure rather have someone like him leading the US, if that were an option, than the mindless idiot who's driving us all down the path to ruin with his lies and failure to own up to HIS shortcomings.

Anyway, have a Happy Easter!

Okay, I'll go for a walk after this, but you should see him pandering to Americans if you think his "we're serious" crap is funny.

Read: "Who are Americans to think..." This is serious "New American Century" stuff, that, as I said, would make David Frum, Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney blush.

Ignatieff's a hollow man; he doesn't believe in anything except his own personal Nietzchian triumph of his will and his ability to persuade--and I can see judging from his success with you admirers, not without some justification.

Truman, I've read it all. And more. I've read his novel about his mother's last years suffering from Alzheimers and his father's sudden death. I've read his biography of Isaac Berlin. I know all about him and I've been disappointed about much of what he's said too.

It was Alcibiades, 14 hours ago, who said, in a qualified way, that he 'liked' Ignatieff.

I just stepped in this morning when Thomas49 responded to his posting and basically agreed with him.

But that doesn't mean he's not head and shoulders above this phony PM with his Peewee Rambo trip to Afghanistan to play nudge-nudge wink wink with General Hillier. ..Ignatieff may be hollow, as you say, but if he's hollow then Harper is a negative entity...a complete stuffed shirt non-entity. Ignatieff went to the Balkans and Afghanistan and Iraq on his own and wrote about his experiences there - he didn't do the 48 hour cooks tour like peewee did - you might not like his conclusions, and I might not either - but he has a right to them - he's earned it and I think he's earned at least some respect and reconition for that. Which is more than I will ever be able to say about Stephen Harper.

Nobody, by the way, and nothing, would make David Frum blush!
CHeers.

should be 'recognition' near the end of para 4 above - sorry.

Serious Canadian, Truman Green to Serious Canadian G. West. Do you think it's acceptable for me to say that I truly hate Ignatieff and his every torturous pretense of being a liberal. (Liberal) Alcibiades said he liked him, and that seemed acceptable! I don't see as how this could be libelous, eh.

Glad you have at least some reservations on this strange character.

I will defer to your take on Frum, though. He's totally non-blushable, just a little suckholing weasle. Is that over the line? I just Frum written in bold all over Ignatieff.

s'posed to say, "I just SEE Frum..."

Truman
I think they're a bit different - won't quibble with your label for little david frum. I used to correspond with his mother and always thought she was a decent sort - one of the few journalists who actually took the trouble to write back by the way. Never read or heard anything by David that left me calm enough to write and I just assumed he'd never reply anyway so what was the point - I think the delicious irony of the piece is that his only minor claim to fame will be that he wrote speeches for the worst president in US history.
I expect he's now writing them for the man destined to be our worst Prime Minister. Talk about a double-barreled threat.
You're too hard on Ignatieff, but I won't belabour the point.
Cheers.

Jeez, we're supposed to be talking about WEST WING!

Truman,
Sorry, he wrote a bit of a eulogy when his Grandmother died a year or so ago, it was quite moving - but even there he managed to find a way to pander to his American roots. Look it up, I expect it's still on the web somewhere - the words of guys like Frum keep rippling the calm surface of the world a lot longer than they ought to...I didn't save the link, for obvious reasons.
If I didn’t say happy Easter before, I’ll say it now – just wish the sun would shine – feels like snow outside.

GWest,

Caution must be taken when listening to any speech from a politician fighting for leadership. Just look at their past for their true self. Words are thrown around so easy, becoming meaningless. Even mine.

crh
Don't think I ever said anything which could lead you, or anyone else, to think I'm not aware of that...another requirement is that the 'critic' read carefully.

Truman Green,

Thanks for these two article by Ignatieff, which you mention above. I must concede I lack a great deal of knowledge of this dude, though I have read just enough to strike an initial chord of dislike and suspicion. (A slippery, slithery quality, and I thought, as a first reaction, Machiavellian dangerousness couched behind the smiling face of sweet words of reason.)

But I shouldn't get caught too far out in unfamiliar territory. I will read these two articles you have posted, to add to my initial primer on Mr. Ignatieff. When one such as he emerges in Canadian politics, and is touted as a prospective next Liberal Prime Minister, I certainly must know more about him than I do.

Thanks for this-, and any other material on the man folks may want to fire my way.

A good weekend. We have a nice day here that is calling me out to play. (I am a really reluctant amateur "academic", much preferring scampering about the countryside. I am afterall, the young boy who actually ate the pretty girl's mudpies, in order to get her kisses. Possibly why my parents were always having to de-worm me. :-)

more accurately, concerning Ignatieff. :-)

Coyote writes: "Machievellian dangerousness couched behind the sweet words of reason."

See what I mean, G.West?

Truman
Bud, you need to read me more carefully. I just think Ignatieff is worth reading. A lot of what he says in his biography of Berlin is useful. Some of that criticism used to be available in the New York Review of Books. I doubt if you can get it online without subscription – so you may have to get the book out of the library. His reflections on his mother’s death, which were made into a TV movie if I remember rightly, and his musings about the pressures we feel when our parents die and fail rang awfully true to me given some of the things that have happened in my own life of late. He’s almost my exact contemporary.

There is no doubt that his academic background and the length of time he spent at the Kennedy school (which was not, contrary to what most people believe, that long) have affected him. On the other hand, mostly we only know people from what they write or say in a public context. I think you need to be a little more careful before condemning people who've said things that turned out to be foolish or even totally wrong. I know I so that kind of thing fairly frequently and often find myself wondering how I could have been so foolish. The only folks with a perfect record are the ones who never enter the fray at all.

Let's look at you, for example. A few weeks ago you and I had an exchange about your acceptance of a particular point of view with respect to AIDS and HIV. I hope you won't mind my summarizing and I'll try to be fair.

Your side of that argument took a particular somewhat 'iconoclastic' approach (I'm trying not to be controversial or unfair) and I said I had some serious doubts about what you believed.

Since that time, I've done a good deal more reading and nothing I've encountered has made me question my original conclusion. Again, I'm not trying to rehash that debate, just use it as an example. Therefore, now we have another discussion. I don't, because I think you were mistaken and wrong about issue 'A' conclude that my thinking about you in that context is valid in every other context and I don't deny the possibility that you may eventually change your mind about something you once believed passionately. In other words, I’m more than willing to listen to what you have to say about many other things even though I think you were wrong about topic A.

Things change, people do too. That's all I'm saying about Ignatieff and I don't think it’s either naive or unwise.

Let's read what he's written, listen to what he's saying and watch what he does. Alcibiades, in suggesting that he might 'like' the man may well have been trying to initiate just this kind of discussion and evaluation. Possible? Greeks, often versed in Rhetoric, are like that.

'so' above in para 2 should be 'do'

I also wish I'd written 'lets look at you and me' rather than just 'you' at the start of para 3 - I'm sorry, it was ungenerous....I'm sorry.

G. West, according to Beldeu Singh: "Christine Johnson, a researcher and author, compiled a long list of conditions documented in scientific literature to cause positves on HIV tests, and provides references for each condition. He cites 63 research papers by over 100 scientists. The list: anti-carbohydrate antibodies; naturally-occurring antibodies; passive immunization: receipt of gamma globujlim or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies);leprosy; tuberculosis; mycobacterium avium; systemic lupus erythematosus; renal (kidney failure; hemodialysis/renal failure; alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients; flu vaccination; herpes simplex 1; herpes simplex 11; upper respiratory tract infection (cold o flue); recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines; pregnancy in multiparous women; malaria; high levels of circulating immune complexes; hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies);false positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis; rheumatoid arthritis; hepatitis B vaccination; tetanus vaccination; anticollagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both seses and people with leprosy);serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody(both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies); autoimmune diseases; systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connection tissue disease, dermatomyositis; acut viral infections, dNA viral infections; malignant neoplasms (cancers); alsoholic hepatitis/alsoholic liver disease; pimary sclerosing cholangitis; hepatis; "Sticky" blood (in Africans);Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits); blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions; multiple myeloma; hla antibodies (to Class 1 and 2 leukocyte antigens); anti-smooth muscle antibody;anti-parietal cell antibody; anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody); anti-Hbc IgM; Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before l985; haemophilia; haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma; primary biliary cirrhosis; Stevens-Johnson syndrome; Q-fever with associated hepatitis; heat-treated specimens; lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids); haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells); hyperbiliubinemia; globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS rish groups); healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reations; normal ribonucleoproteins; other retroviruses; antimitochondrial antibodies; anti-nuclear antibodies; anti-microsomal antibodies; T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies; proteins on the filter paper; epstein-Barr virus; visceral leishmaniasis and receptive anal sex."

G, any of these things can give you a positive on an Elisa, Western Blot p24 antigen, orasure or rapid test for hiv

Therefore, the tests don't mean anything except the pharmaceutical industry has a huge pool of innocents upon which to base their ridiculous vaccine tests and poisonous anti-retrovirals such as AZT and nevirapine.

It's a murderous joke and if you don't get it it can only mean you're too stupid. Harsh words but really there's no other way to say it.

Hope you're watching "Correspondent" on CBC about the missing millions of women in India, Pakistan Bengladesh and China. We've done the same thing to HIV positives for years; killed them with poisonous chemotherapies.

Sorry for the "stupid" expletive.

Yeah, so I just watched this episode.

What a sad, sad reminder of how far this series has slipped. It was once great.

G, you goaded me into continuing with the HIV/AIDS mythology. If you or any scientist wants me to explain exactly why the CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts as indicators of immune depression AND so-called virtual viral loads as indicators of the amount of infectious units in subjects'serum is a JOKE, I will.

What has happened is that the scientific community for what ever reasons, has used the conventional template for antibody theory as a rationalization of how to approach a potential viremia of the IMMUNE SYSTEM. Evolutionarily speaking, the immune system is the most recently designed program for our survival. There is no way NATURE would allow such a radical intervention.

I have my suspicions about the REAL origin of AIDS, but not even close to being sure--but it's not a simple, harmless retrovirus.

I understand that the last sentence will appear "flakey" to you, G, but it would take me hours of typing to explain it and I'm already flirting with chastisement from the site manager for changing the subject.

Again, if you have an interest in the second line of HIV testing and drug treatment rationale, CD4 counts, (also a pernicious comedy)just ask.

Truman, my friend, and I actually mean that, I didn't goad you in to anything. Yesterday you attacked, in a thoroughgoing way, someone who has said and done certain things you (and I for that matter) disagree with. You implied that because of this, no one could trust, believe or have any confidence in anything else that person might ever say or write or believe subsequent to taking the attitude and expressing himself in a way you said was wrong.

You denied, in my opinion, both the complexity and the subtlety of human relations and personality and opinion and you denied the possibility of growth and change. I strongly disagree with that attitude. I think I demonstrated why and in concrete terms why I believe what I do...end of story.

If you've been reading what I write and how I behave on these pages I think you must know I'm not very patient with those I feel I can't respect and who come here just for some kind of perverse sport. I don't think I have anything to apologize for in terms of the way we've handled our discussions.

G, you said, "You denied, in my opinion, both the complexity and subtlety of human relations and personality and opinion and you denied the possibility of growth and change."

Are you absolutely sure I did this, G. West?.

Did you read what you said about my views on the HIV/AIDS issue? My god man, if that's not a challenge then the word has no meaning.

As far as you having something to apologize for I don't recall hinting that either--and I certainly don't think you do.

So you said you did more reading on the Aids issue and that you would be (to paraphrase you), "summarizing and trying to be fair."

What do you think of the implications of Christine Johnson's list of syndromes which can create false positive reactions to assaulting antigens which may be triggering antibody reactions from non-specific antibodies? What are the implications of such non-specificity for the validity of hiv positivity and can such positivity be used as a screening test for immunodepression? Researchers are supposedly trying to create vaccinations which will trigger the T-lymphocytes (CD4's) to produce antibodies. What is their rationale for their research into therapeutic vaccinations, if by their own admission, the production of antibodies is a signal that the immune system is malfunctioning?

Or do you really understand any of this?

What do you think of this sentence: Contrary to what all the doctors, researchers, Aids activists and scientists claim, the existence of antibodies to HIV or any one of the syndromes listed by Christine Johnson may ACTUALLY MEAN THAT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS WELL AND RESISTING ATTACKS BY PATHOLOGICAL SYNDROMES AND ORGANISMS.

After, all it is exactly these antibodies that the researchers of vaccinations are trying to goad the immune system into producing. This is obviously true of "therapeutic vaccinations." "Preventive vaccinations" are purely fantasy-mongering and mostly overlap into the field of highly-activated anti-retrovial research--not killer T cells (CD8's), but killer aids drugs, like AZT.

Can you "summarize" your reasons for doubting my assertion (on another thread) that "there will never be an Aids vaccination."?

And please include in your "summary" your response to my surprise in finding out that the p24 antigen is a non-specific antigen, the "p" being merely a shortened version of "gp"--glucoprotein, (a molecule with an added sugar) and the "24" meaning merely that this particular protein has a molecular weight of 24 kilodaltons or 24,000 daltons--and even though it is used in the form of the well-known p24 antigen test, it too, is entirely non-specific for HIV.

I know I'm a bit late into this one, but some very interesting reading.

G West,

The more I hear from you, the more I'm hoping to see your name on a ballot.

Truman,

I think even you will have to admit that we have a much greater insight into the workings of Ignatieff's mind than we do just about any other candidate. He is on the record, with explicit detail, on all the hottest topics of our time. What other MP can we say that of?

When things of this sensitivity are discussed at this level you will find it difficult to fully agree with anyone. Most politicians would never discuss them for exactly that reason.

Truman,
Can't you see what G West is telling you? It's possible to respect someone who believes passionately in something without actually accepting the truth or even accuracy of what said person actually believes. Keep the advocacy civil and intelligent and we all learn something, not least about ourselves.

Modernserf, I don't know why you would say that. I knew tons about most big league politicians before they got into office. Certainly guys like Trudeau, Chretien, Harper, Gordon Campbell, Carole Taylor.

What I'm saying is the more I learn about Ignatieff, the less I respect him or trust him.

G, as you've said you agree with a lot of my take on Ignatieff. You think think he might be a good guy to have around, maybe even as PM, I'm guessing, but I don't. You think he will "grow and change." I don't. You can easily get past his "we're serious" people flattery. I can't. If I'd never read another word of his besides just that, it would be enough for me to distrust him forever. To me it's kinda like you inviting me over to your house for supper and me commenting that your 16-year-old daughter (or granddaughter, whichever applies) is "sure sexy." Are you ever going to invite me over again, or even allow me to sit down at your supper table? I think you're probably going to mistrust me forever.

And would you want me for Prime Minister?

That's all I'm saying. The guy's a creep,and btw kinda stupid, really, if he think's any "Serious Canadian" is going for his, as Coyote (one of our better heavyweights) says, Machievellian sweet talk.

Also Modernserf and Alcibiades, there was once a guy who did a kind of thesis which roughly translates as, "my struggle." His countrymen (and women) had an opportunity to know all about him, too. Most thought he was a lovely man and voted him into office. So just the fact that our subject spilled has spilled his guts all over the place isn't necessarily a recommendation.

And I've studied every nook and cranny of the writing of both of these guys and I do see a certain blending of polemic style.

Truman,
Here's a paragraph from one of Ignatieff's books. I think it makes a lot of sense in the context of several 'nationalist' struggles and the role of fear as an emotional trigger in today's world but it is particularly meant to address the situation between Serbs and Croats after Tito's death when 'greater Yugoslavia' started to disintegrate.

From the Warrior's Honour: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience. 1998

Al, perfect example. There's a lot of arbitrary posing going on here. "Disintegration of the state comes first, nationalist paranoia comes next."

Who says disintegration of a state necessarily comes before nationalist paranoia? Why couldn't it just be the other way around?

Where's the evidence? I think, even taking this out of context I can see that the guy's mainly bsing, eh. That's what I mean. He's got a decent command of the language alright, no denying that. But what's he using it for? I think to dazzle you and G. West.

"Nationalist sentiment on the ground (where else?--In the sky?)...among COMMOM PEOPLE (my upper class, pun intended)is a secondary consequence of political disintegration."

Why not a "primary consequence?"

So this kind of stuff you impresses you guys, eh.
There's no accounting for taste.

Coyote, will you get in here!

Ignatieff says we Canadians are "serious people" or "a serious people". Is this stuff serious? I doubt it.

This reads like a Saturday Night Live joke.
In fact, I seriously think Ignatieff was laughing when he wrote it, kinda like that flying nun when she got the Academy Award.

"These people actually like me. What fools these morals be." Okay, the nun didn't say that part.

And would that be the "common people" or just the "people" who become afraid when they become nationalistic. Oops, I mean who become nationalistic when they become afraid.

Why you guys can't see this fool for who he really is is as mysterious to me as the origin of that first sub-atomic chunk of hydrogen that exploded to give us our world. There's a certain undeniable density here. Pun intended.

I seriously think you guys are in a trance and I cherish being similarly insulted.

Chevy Chase should be reading this stuff. It's hilarious.

Truman
Don’t know, seems to me an accurate description of what happened during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Look how quickly ethnic and national tensions can crop up here in Canada between discrete or not completely integrated groups. Travel around rural communities in the prairies and ask how people actually feel about the Hutterites who are buying up huge tracts of land for new colonies. I guarantee you'll find a lot more hostility toward them than the big corporate entities that are doing the same thing but are run by individuals who don't belong to an ethnic minority: the them/us dichotomy.

There's a situation of stress that finds itself expressing ‘not exactly friendly’ sentiments between identifiable groups - it's never gotten to blows of course because the context is different - and largely diffuse and rural, but I don't think the analogy is entirely inapt.

He may be guilty of expanding from the particular to the general too readily, I'll grant you that. But not much more, in my opinion. At least in respect of this little passage, which can, as you pointedly demonstrate, be worn several ways.

Orwell uses exactly the same technique although his syntax is more pleasing.

Yeah, but Alcibiades, you gotta know that your version of events in Yugoslavia is much more believable and intelligent than HIS, (and STRAIGHTFORWARD) which is basically goofy--a dishonest, fancy construct of a way of saying people get pissed when they get threatened, which is all he's really saying. As for the order of disenchantment and such--all pure bs.

"Common people," indeed. G, you strongly dislike Stephen Harper, but would you give him a pass if he said, "common people" (not to be confused with "serious people") And I bet Ignatieff doesn't consider himself among the former, what with his great uncle or something working in the ministry of Czar Nicholas, and everything.

And this passage is among his more benign little hoaxes.

Truman
No question, academic language is a crock, won't argue with you there. All kinds of elites have a special vocabulary they resort to when they're doing their business. That's why lawyers get the big bucks and engineers wear that stupid iron ring on their pinky finger.
That's why I suspect Ignatieff won't make it as a politician - because he can't find a way to be 'common' enough to appeal to the average voter. His background is the Russian aristocracy - which you no doubt know - but that doesn't mean that everything he says or does is worthless, does it?

I think you know why I'd prefer him to Harper's phony stuffed shirt persona - at least he's been to the Middle East, the Balkans, and Iraq and lived there with the people, he speaks several languages etc., etc.; if he ever gets to be PM, which I don't think he will, I don't think he'd embarrass ‘us’ the way Harper has.

Ignatieff
Certainly is the only interesting spark in that sordid affair called the Liberal party. But I suspect that he will be punished for making statements such as the ones about torture and Iraq. Not 100% sure if he would fail to connect with the common man, depends on how he puts across his ideas. It would fail if he tried to pretend to be common like Kerry did so poorly. Better that he sticks to what he does best and thoughtful elaborates his vision. Now that would certainly be uncommon in the Liberal party!

As for Stephan Harper, other than the Emerson issue, he has been a breath of fresh air after Dithers and Slime Incorp.

Colin
No problem with your feelings about Martin. As for PeeWee, I'm with Alcibiades on that one...and not just because of his 'Stephen in Afghanistan' caper either. Ignatieff may be too intellectual, Harper's way too political, imo, for all our goods.

I really wish the editors around here would set up a kind of dummy storyboard where one could post the little bits and pieces that catch one's eye but which, after the usual manner, don't really fit into one of the available categories. Some of these things, slowly and in due course, find themselves stuck on the sidebar here --------------------------------------------->
for general perusal. Still it would be handy to have a general board (with available comment space) upon which one could stick things like this: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060414_170120_5808

Which is a link to a little 'debate' (so mild that it hardly deserves the title mind you) between lord chubby black and Steve Maich on the proposition: George Bush is the worst US President for, oh say, 100 years.

I now see that the editors, in their diligence, have actually beaten me to the draw.
Blush!!!
However, given the case that the race has often gone to others in similar cirumstances, the point rests.

Cheers.