Opinion

Defending Michael Ignatieff

A pro-torture US imperialist? Not the guy I've seen.

By Shefa Siegel, 9 May 2006, TheTyee.ca

Ignatieff

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

During his brief residence at Harvard, Michael Ignatieff quickly became a regular on the lofty Cambridge lecture circuit. At points in his talks, he had a custom of reminding the audience of his perspective "As you know," he would say "I am Canadian," as in "The United Nations sometimes asks me to sit on commissions, because, as you know, I am Canadian."

But since reentering Canada and seeking the Liberal Party leadership, Ignatieff's Canadian identity is something he is required to defend in every interview. He is subject to suspicions about the imprint of foreign lands and whether he is attempting to import American military arrogance.

Most of the questions about Ignatieff's loyalty are fixed trivially on how much time he spent on Canadian soil, as if this is the only determinant of Canadian identity. But those questions about Ignatieff's patriotism imply deeper identity issues - questions about what, in the end, makes Canadians belong to each other. What, if anything, do Canadians believe about how the needs of people should be met by government? And how, if at all, should Canada represent itself in foreign policy?

Ignatieff has been cast one-dimensionally as an Ivy League academic. In fact, his Harvard post was at The Kennedy School of Government, which is less an academic environment than a global policy centre, a seminary for bureaucrats and a way station for dethroned Democrats waiting out the election cycle. Ignatieff himself was not awarded the human rights post for academic contributions. His reputation was built as a London (not American) -based writer.

Humanist impressionist

Just as he had done as a journalist, while at Harvard, Ignatieff practiced a brand of engaged humanism which is not the territory of an academic at all, but rather that of an intellectual. Unlike an academic, who seeks to dominate a discrete discipline, an intellectual views knowledge as evolving, changing and growing. An intellectual insists on verifying ideas through primary experience; frequently gutting old ways of thinking to meet new truths. If he is a public intellectual, then this transformation happens before an audience.

And as an intellectual at the largely technocratic Kennedy School, Ignatieff stood out. He stood out as a humanist and human rights philosopher; he stood out for caring about good writing and literature as much as politics; for being irreverent to the point of calling the entire body of academic human rights literature entirely beside the point ("If you can even call it literature," he liked to joke). And, because he insisted on telling everybody, he stood out for being Canadian.

As a student who attended Ignatieff's classes, I heard my peers criticize our teacher for being too impressionistic. For me, Ignatieff's lectures were a source of refuge precisely because the rap against him was true. Like every impressionist, he sacrificed detail in pursuit of a bigger, often fuzzier picture. Today's policy studies are dominated by the anti-poetic, wrathful "instruments" of social science - standard deviations, qualitative analysis, indicators, assessments and the assessment of assessments.

But Ignatieff was unconvinced by the American establishment's economic reductionism. "The quality of people's lives cannot be evaluated by gross domestic product alone," he argued, following the reasoning initially recorded in his book The Needs of Strangers where he wrote "What we need in order to survive, and what we need in order to flourish are two different things."

Ignatieff's thinking was grounded in the political philosophy of a different age - Isaiah Berlin, Hannah Arendt - not to mention the best Canadian philosophers like Charles Taylor, James Tully and Will Kymlicka, whose writing on multiculturalism has no parallel in contemporary American political theory. In no small part, he was teaching the Canadian rights tradition.

More fox than hedgehog

Privately, Ignatieff had what religion scholars call a prismatic personality; demonstrating an ability to meet people on their own level. In addition to pontificating, arguing and thinking aloud, he did something rare for Ivy League professors - he asked you questions. This had the effect of making one feel led, not by someone omniscient, but by an avuncular thinker with a pragmatic thirst for knowledge. He could also be deeply self-deprecating, mocking himself for having sold out his pursuit of art.

In fact, Ignatieff was at his best in the realm of the artist. "If you want to write, you must find your metaphor," he told me at the first of our three meetings. And it is important that Ignatieff's finest work is not a political document at all, but a biography of Isaiah Berlin, a deeply personal portrait which manages to strike the chord of simultaneous affection and criticism so seldom achieved in biographies.

True to Berlin's own personality, Ignatieff falls into a category of artist Berlin called a fox. "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing," Berlin wrote in his classic essay, citing the Greek poet Archilochus. As a writer, rather than settling into one genre, Ignatieff veered from traditional historical writing to become a novelist, memoirist, moral philosopher and biographer.

He contributed to liberal magazines like the New York Review of Books and NY Times Magazine, writing about political and literary figures like Bernard Kouchner and Bruce Chatwin. Ignatieff's combination of linguistic finesse, artistry and photogeneity - qualities that will play well in televised political theatre - made him a good documentarian and he seemed to locate a more political voice in this genre while filming Blood and Belonging, his six-part BBC series on nationalism.

From there, he started to concentrate more on conflict, war and human rights. As a field reporter, Ignatieff never seemed quite in the middle of the action. More than reporting the news, Ignatieff remained a writer, always seeking philosophical motivations coursing beneath facts and engaging with friends among the dead. To understand the conflict in the Balkans, he invoked Freud's "narcissism of minor differences;" while grappling with Rwanda, he conversed with Joseph Conrad.

'Empire Lite'

It was while reporting from the Balkans that Ignatieff began developing his chief criticism of the international community. "You cannot run an empire with 25-year-olds working for aid agencies between finishing their bachelors degrees and going to law school," Ignatieff observed in a talk in 2001 at Tufts. This evolved into Ignatieff's magazine article and later a book called Empire Lite, which, despite its poor title, drove home the point that Western powers defend liberal democracy and human rights on the cheap and with unclear military motives.

Since the publication of his earlier book, The Warrior's Honour, Ignatieff had been working toward an ethics of intervention; attempting to articulate when and how to intervene militarily in humanitarian crises. His objective was to avoid exactly the unconscionable and humiliating situation we are witnessing yet again, where young aid workers with CARE or Oxfam are charged with stopping genocide in Darfur, while military power is deployed to the wrong places, or not at all.

Though he remained a popular feature on the lecture circuit, there was always the sense that Ignatieff was still searching for the right stage. Ignatieff possessed a pragmatic bent not shared by his mentor Berlin. Indeed, for any artist, there comes a point of wanting to prove his existence. But the question remains, when an artist decides he wants to use his ideas to govern, can he be trusted with the affairs of state?

The novelist Lawrence Durrell, who also had a career as an information officer in the British Foreign Service, once cautioned that the artist cannot dabble in politics because his real job is to "concentrate on values rather than policies." At the same time, Durrell wrote, contradicting himself like any good novelist should, "Ruling is an art, not a science, just as society is an organism, not a system."

Ignatieff has little of the managerial experience we have come to expect in the job profile of our professional politicians. He has not been CEO of a company, or administered a government agency. His primary public service falls more in the realm of literature and ideas than budgeting and tax shifting. So, the question goes, can an intellectual drive policy through government's crushingly impenetrable bureaucracies, where real political power lies today? What's more, does deep reflection necessarily translate into good political instincts?

Supporting Bush's invasion

At first glance, there are real concerns to be raised about Ignatieff's leadership bid. Though consistent with his ideas on intervention and support of the Kurds and Shias, Ignatieff temporarily ignored obvious signs of incompetence in the Bush administration that ensured a disastrous reconstruction in Iraq. This is an example where the virtue of an idea did not necessarily dictate sound policy.

But more than whether he would have taken Canada into war in Iraq, the question journalists should start asking Ignatieff is whether he would have withdrawn troops after realizing the war was mismanaged from the start. The reality is that Canada lacks military capacity to war on two fronts simultaneously, meaning the debate on Iraq was always a bit of moral showmanship. More important is how political class refuses to accept the lesson from Viet Nam, where the majority of deaths occurred long after everybody knew the policy was a failure. In short, political leaders also possess the most basic of human rights - the right to admit mistakes. The question is whether they have the humility to exercise it.

Here, Ignatieff may actually enjoy an advantage over a professional politician or bureaucrat. As an artist and intellectual, he has made a career of learning from experience. Early in 2002, I attended a panel on which Ignatieff was sitting with the conservation biologist E.O. Wilson. During Wilson's sermon, I watched Ignatieff turn his chair around to face the lecturer, as a student would face his professor. He then immediately incorporated Wilson's ideas into his own talk on human rights. The message? He was learning alongside us.

In a forgotten NY Times Magazine article of March 14, 2004, Ignatieff did withdraw his support for the Bush-led war (as opposed to the war itself), acknowledging he had underestimated the competence of his shipmates, writing "I supported an Administration I didn't trust, believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."

Environment and human rights

On other critical policy issues, Ignatieff also demonstrates a willingness to have his mind changed. In all his writing about international affairs, Ignatieff has not once written significantly about environment and resource issues. And yet, following his parliamentary campaign, he told a reporter he had not previously understood just how central environmental issues are for people in his riding.

Meanwhile, Ignatieff's foreign affairs expertise might be the only thing capable of coaxing Canada out of an increasingly lazy foreign policy. As civil war in Iraq hands control of the region to a potentially nuclear, and definitely nihilistic Iran, China - backed by Russia - is economically colonizing Africa, southern Arabia and parts of Latin America and the South Pacific. What this means was summarized in one line by the president of Yemen, who, after returning from a recent trip to China, announced triumphantly "China wants to give us lots of money, and they don't care whether we are democratic or corrupt!"

As Ignatieff postulated in an op-ed for the New York Times in 2002, it is possible we are now witnessing the end of the human rights era. If this proves correct, it is a poor moment to choose isolationism over internationalism. But so far, Canada's response to this new order is to shutter its embassies the world over.

And yet, a powerful voice of moral persuasion to balance U.S. aggression is the ideal role for Canada to play in foreign policy. Framed this way, it might be possible to persuade people that being a left-leaning social democrat is not inconsistent with supporting a real foreign policy aimed at stitching the world back together.

Taking on torture

But the real dilemma for a public intellectual like Ignatieff is whether his audience possesses the patience for precision and deliberation. To this point, the smell test suggests the answer is maybe not, or at least not yet. The clearest evidence is the issue of Ignatieff's alleged support for torture. A close reading of the position he articulated in the Financial Times on May 15, 2004, shows Ignatieff clearly rejecting the idea proposed by Alan Dershowitz that liberal democracies should start regulating rather than outlawing torture, following a longstanding American belief that torture in times of trouble is inevitable.

"Legalisation of physical force in interrogation will hasten the process by which it becomes routine," Ignatieff wrote, vigorously defending the inviolability of human dignity. "For torture, when committed by a state, expresses the state's ultimate view that human beings are expendable. This view is antithetical to the spirit of any constitutional society whose raison d'etre is the control of violence and coercion in the name of human dignity and freedom. We should have faith in this constitutional identity. It is all that we have to resist the temptations of nihilism…"

Nowhere does Ignatieff support methods like water-boarding, and his treatise on the suppression of civil liberties in the name of national security was roundly applauded by the New York Review of Books, whose reporting on Abu Ghraib exposed and admonished the Bush administration for adopting a policy of torture. The problem for Ignatieff is he openly debates himself in public, examining differences between coercion and torture, asking out loud why it is not okay to torture your enemies but it is acceptable to kill them. These are the questions of an ethicist at work in his laboratory, at a time when the electorate confuses simplicity of thought with ideological resolve and moral courage.

As more a popularizer of ideas than a populist, Ignatieff's campaign amounts to a referendum on the role of intellectuals in Canadian politics. Modern politics was never intended to be the exclusive domain of career politicians and tycoons. A meritocracy is supposed to respect service from all social spheres, including the realm of ideas. Indeed, Ignatieff's real challenge is to make the Liberals a thinking person's party again. If he is successful, the challenge for Ignatieff is just how tied a career thinker will be to the pre-existing Liberal establishment, whose ideas have been atonal for a generation. After a career circulating as a fox on the fringes - observing, recording, witnessing - can Ignatieff make Canadian government hum again by proving the point that ruling really is an art?

Shefa Siegel is a writer living in Vancouver. He works as an environmental expert for the United Nations, and, as you know, is Canadian. [Tyee]

258 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • ferenc

    5 years ago

    Comments on "Defending Michael Ignatieff"

    It's good to read this sympathetic view of Ignatieff. But surely Siegel lets him off too lightly in Ignatieff's response and support for the Bush administration. This was not a small mistake. The level of Dubya's boys' incompetence, fanaticism and dishonesty was very obvious BEFORE the Iraq invasion. And the disaster of creating a rationale for pre-emptive strikes? That is in itself disastrous. Ignatieff became an apologist for all of this, for an appalling regime. He should have known better. And his apologies have not been convincing. It's hard not to feel that power has too much seduction for him. He lost his way around the Bush admin and who is to say he won't again?

  • mystified

    5 years ago

    So: what is his postion on domestic policy? He may know a lot about foreign policy, but a Prime Minister needs to govern a country, specifically Canada. What's his position on education, health care, the pharmaceutical industry, environment, taxes, NAFTA, ......? That's his weakness.

  • wellherewegoagain

    5 years ago

    Today I was speaking with a student organizing, some sustainability program at UBC, as part of the Peace forum. These students are going to donatemoney to an NGO, as part of the "sustainability".
    When I heard the name of the chosen organization, I almost puked.
    I told the student, that NGOs (with excception of a few, like Plenty International). Is a stomping ground for aspiring academics and other academic diploma holders, to get their feet wet before they go into the halls of governmrnt and industry. It looks good in the resume.
    Also NGOs, because they need to think in the donors and how they are perceived by the governments, are very lite, in dealing with issues and realities.
    Most international NGOs are like the NGOs that deal with the downtown eastside...a bunch of poverty pimps.
    I could care less what this man did or think or whatever. Anybody that is a friend of Bob Ray, is suspect. Anybody that is accepted in Havard, to teach politics, government policies and all that jazz; is part of the problem and has his/her hands full of blood.
    Ignatieff, is really a fox. All right. he can fool Ahefa Siegel, but he cannot fool me.
    Ignatieff is another face of the empire, like Marthat Piper and Wente (G&M), making the empire light to feel more palatable.
    Any fool can see that. Why can't Siegel? Because Siegel, like the environmentalists that chose Mulroney as a green PM, is a sell out.
    If canadians look at what is happening with the Liberal party, the americans and the Canadian council of chief executives, are scared that someone meaningful will run the liberals. So more circus, more division and more destruction. They want Harpo in power.
    The liberals and ignatieff are just distraction. While we are contemplating this bunch of freaks, the Harpo government is sending our man and woman to die in Afghanistan for oil.
    Ignatieff is not an apologist. He is a war criminal, just like the others that know better and play coy. He supported the war in Iraq. He is as responsible for the thousands of death and the Depleted uranium pollution, just as much as Bush.
    This man has no platform. He will never get canadian sovereignty back. We are becoming embeded in the US military, security and economics.
    This man will not destroy the masters house. He is paid to continue the absorption of canada into the us.
    Ignatieff is not a canadian. he is a trojan horse. A turn coat.

  • Duncan (Sask Farmer)

    5 years ago

    Having travelled abroad isn't exactly a knock against him. Look at Harper. He travelled the states, went to mexico for a vacation once for a week. In short, Harpers view of the world is quite... small. And boy, does it show.

    Mikey, on the other hand, has lived in the U.S., subject to an old fashioned pro U.S. brainwashing... a definite knock against him. How can anyone consider this man to be an intellectual when he was too dumb to see the empirical motive for the U.S. invasion into Iraq? How can anyone give this guy credit for supporting the Iraqi invasion when knowing the U.S. history of foriegn policy has always been to take countries to war that nationalize their assets and keep rich corporate shareholders from buying anything that they can exploit? Or Chaneys obvious rise to become a millionaire over Haliburton shares? Is this guy to dumb to ask the question, who benefits? Yup.

    How could Mikey have missed the economic reality that the U.S., having lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, and losing the tech edge with 9 asian scientists to every North American scientist, have one last staw to grasp, a rise in commodities and foreign ownership of those commodities before the rich collapse under their own greed, politiclally corrupt inept tax cuts to the rich, and the final nail in the coffin, spiralling currency and high interest rates before the ultimate economic collapse?

    People call this Harvard hack an intellectual because he can spell? C'mon.

  • Duncan (Sask Farmer)

    5 years ago

    I'm suspicious like wellherewegoagain, but like the first two commentators as well, thinking that his intellectualism is grossly over rated to begin with. Mikey hasn't got what it takes.

  • Tax Cutter 99

    5 years ago

    I don't like the fact that he was parachuted into his riding, but it's good to read an alternate view.

  • grw

    5 years ago

    Good article. I know next-to-nothing about the man but like the idea of an intellectual leading the party. No, it wasn't good if he backed Bush's war, but what I really detest is politicians not being permitted to change their minds. Since when is steadfastly sticking to an idea in the face of new evidence considered a strong point?

  • asher

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    Ignatieff has been cast one-dimensionally as an Ivy League academic. In fact, his Harvard post was at The Kennedy School of Government, which is less an academic environment than a global policy centre

    So, since he was teaching at the "global policy center" (read: an excuse for an intel network with no pretense of being academic) of Kennedy School of Government he shouldn't be considered Ivy League?

    Good grief. You're standing ankle deep in it, aren't you. Here's some intel for you to deicpher...
    ä½*是牡龜蛋。

    In any case, what kind of dissent to corporate capitalism can Harvard students find amongst their professors? Cambridge is a straight-jacket of capitalist conformity swarming with profs on some government agency payroll. Saying you're prof from Harvard is like saying your a member of a board of directors of a corporation. So what? He's a well connected corporate capitalist. What is sick is that he uses erudition to justify murder.

    Gee, call me naive, but I kind of don't think Ignatieff was on the side that supports publications like the Covert Action Bulletin in outing academics who work for US government intelligence agencies since he's their bitch now, and they tell him when to bark "forthwith".

    Check the Covert Action Information Bulletin (especially issue #38) and other sources on how the Ivy League plays as the farm team to the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Information Board etc...

    Why don't the Liberals just get Porter Goss to run for the leadership now that he has stepped down from the CIA?

  • asher

    5 years ago

    We live in the largest Asian city in North America, and this blog cannot support Chinese characters?

    Bloody backwater.

  • nightbloom

    5 years ago

    Can I assume The Tyee is endorsing Michael Ignatieff--?

    Can we please get a wee bit of journalism to go with this hagiography...?

  • Capitalism

    5 years ago

    This guy is bad news - we don't need an intellectual leading our country. Guys like him do not relate to the every day man.

    He has spend most of his life in the academic northeast USA, and is out of touch with canadian reality. This guy is full of ideologies, but has very little management and or political experience. Sounds like and NDPer...

    I was hoping a guy like Frank McKenna ran for the Liberal leadership. He is pragmatic, intelligent, and experienced in both business and politics. So, in the event we were stuck with the Liberals - we'd have a guy on the right of center.

    Let's hope Harper can build on the momentum..

  • freebear

    5 years ago

    I agree with most-Ignatieff (sp?) does'nt seem to be well rounded, and the environment issue seems to be an afterthought-just like the next federal liberal leader will be (not that I support the conservative bunch!).

    Give forth a Vision for Canada and I will pay attention-especially as no one seems to have one! (note a Vision should be more than 4-5 years into the future!).

  • verso

    5 years ago

    Guys like him do not relate to the every day man...He has spend most of his life in the academic northeast USA, and is out of touch with canadian reality. This guy is full of ideologies, but has very little management and or political experience. Sounds like and NDPer...

    I'm not much a Liberal supporter and I don't think Ignatieff need me to defend him, but could you tell me how the hell you possibly know this to be true? Have you ever met the man, or seen him in action? Or are you just in the habit of repeating the talking points of his political opponents.

    Many have lacked political experience before entering politics, some make good politicians for precisely that reason. And heaven forbid someone with some brains would take a stab at running the country.

  • gardensnake

    5 years ago

    Frank McKenna? God, no, ugh. Do you seriously think that pragmatism is the cardinal virtue that Liberals need right now?

    They've OD'd on it already!

  • Yammer

    5 years ago

    I have admired Ignatieff's writing for many years. As a human rights investigator for the feds, grappling with the gaps and grey areas between practice and theory, I appreciated his grasp of these nuances. He's not a plodding thinker and that sets him apart from the wad.

    Good writers do not necessarily make good statesmen, of course. However, it would be a worthwhile candidacy. I don't believe you get to be a Harvard professor without having good rhetorical combat skills, or the discipline to maintain your administrative duties. Therefore I am not too concerned about the ability to handle the nuts-and-bolts tasks of public service.

  • Left-Right-Left

    5 years ago

    I can't decide if it's amusing or disheartening to see an informed and well-argued piece such as this being responded to in such a reactionary and uninformed manner. Ignatieff lived in England and the U.S... unpatrioatic!! He spells well... elitist!! Are wellherewegoagain and Duncan real people or farcical caricatures doing parodies of the reactionary left for our amusement. If it's the former, we're all in trouble. Have either of you read any of Ignatieff's work? Do you understand why he thinks that states are the only viable defender of human rights at present? Life is far more subtle and complex than the reductionist, pessimistic arguments about "empire" spouted on these comment boards. Ignatieff gets that. Do you?

  • marta

    5 years ago

    I admire Ignatieff. I think living and working abroad gives one a clearer view of one's own country. I also despair at the anti-intellectualism displayed by some on this site.

    Canada is a small insular place. Ignatieff has a vision of how we might fit into this frightening new world. He also has a vision of Canada which is diametrically opposed to Harper's dismantling of the federation.

    He has changed his position on Iraq. That's refreshing and healthy in a politician.

    Plus wouldn't it be nice to have someone who is smarter than Harper stand up to Harper (the man who thinks he's the smartest person in the room?)

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    A couple of times previously, when his name came up on these pages, I posted my feelings about Ignatieff. They were positive then and they'll be positive now. I think he is, as the writer of this piece puts it, a public intellectual. I think he's had intriguing and thoughtful and not infrequently controversial things to say and I'd wager that the writers who've rushed to criticize him here haven't read much that he's written. He's actually been on the ground in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq - and not as part of a two-day stopover in a leisure suit. I think he understands more about the dynamics of international relations than pee wee rambo's whole cabinet does. No doubt you’ve read critiques of what he has to say. I’d suggest that’s not enough and to fairly criticize him I think you have to make a slightly bigger effort.

    I doubt if he'll make it as a political leader because these days appearances and style have more to do with leadership than substance does. I've never voted Liberal and I won't be starting to anytime soon but I think the Liberal Party would be very wise to select him as their leader and I think, if he ever got to be Prime Minister, he'd do much more for this country than the current occupant of that office could ever even dream of doing in three lifetimes.

    Read some of what he's written. You might find he surprises you.

  • IAMC

    5 years ago

    It's going to take a special person to win the Liberal leadership, only to sit as leader of the opposition for the next 12 years. I don't know who would want a job like that, except for the money and a free residence in Ottawa.

  • grw

    5 years ago

    I wonder if a lot of these posters have read the article the whole way through. I thought the article was balanced.

    Quote:
    We live in the largest Asian city in North America, and this blog cannot support Chinese characters?

    Bloody backwater.

    It worked from my end. Go to 'View' on your server and go down to 'Text Encoding' and make the necessary adjustment. You'll see your Chinese characters.

  • nightbloom

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades - I've voiced my skepticism about Ignatieff as "the next Trudeau" before, but I've also cited him a few times during my posts over the last several months. I've read some of his material, and "The Warrior's Honour" struck a cord in particular.

    He's got a brain. He's got an ideology and worldview I can live with. But I'm wary. He's an itinerant prima donna with very limited staying power in opposition. Liberals might want to think in terms of two or three elections in the future, because I really don't think they're getting back in next cycle. I think the next Liberal leader had better be prepared for a long-haul under a Harper majority.

  • Capitalism

    5 years ago

    Verso,

    I have nothing against him personally, and I am certain he is very intelligent. However, he have never managed, been involved in business, or worked in any meaningful job.

    He is little more than an elitest, theoritical intellect with a number of interesting opinions.

    He has spent more than some time abroad. In fact, he has spent more time outside of Canada than in.

    Moreover, he has very little understanding of economics.

    He has devoted his career to studying foreign policy, and while this is important, we have several issues at home which require our priority - health care, pension, quebec, the economy, etc.

    Plus, he is not a manager and these theorists often have difficulties in implementation. They spend most their time discussing and less time acting.

  • ubiquitous

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    he have never managed, been involved in business, or worked in any meaningful job.

    Define meaningful!

    Quote:
    he has very little understanding of economics

    Are you sure?

    Quote:
    Plus, he is not a manager and these theorists often have difficulties in implementation. They spend most their time discussing and less time acting.

    Isn't that what politicians are elected to do? I thought that it was the public service that "implimented"!

  • nightbloom

    5 years ago

    ...those wouldn't necessarily be my criticisms. I'm just dubious of how he'll be able to work the Ottawa Apparatus. People who don't know what they're doing tend to get a rough reception. The management issue is a valid concern - the only thing we know for sure that he's run is graduate-level seminars. A man of ideas only could easily be overwhelmed or simply paralyzed. All this is supposition, of course, but I certainly don't think he's "the next Trudeau".

  • Duncan (Sask Farmer)

    5 years ago

    Alchibiades
    Just cause someone knows the difference between right and wrong and can articulate it, doens't mean that someone will do whats right. We all make mistakes, but following Bush's war cry to Iraq was a no brainer. Still like most of your posts, though, just the same.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Duncan
    No question. My point simply is that Ignatieff is a thinking man; he reasoned his way into supporting the intervention in Iraq from a firm base of knowledge about what was actually happening on the ground - and he did that from a base of experience in the Balkans and in Iraq over a period of years. He knows so much more about the actual conditions there that I'm not afraid to defer to him in some respects when it comes to talking about the Middle East.

    He has, since then, if you read everything he's written, acknowledged how and where he went wrong. I've read everything he wrote about torture and I'm satisfied he never once said he was in favour of it - unlike Alan Dershowitz. And I read this stuff months or years before there was ever any thought of Ignatieff ever leaving Harvard.

    Just once, I'd like that monkey in the White House to stand up in front of a camera and say he's made a mistake or admit he dissembled and went to war on a trumped up case.

    I don't think Ignatieff will ever get to be leader of the Liberal Party but, as I said, if he does I don't think it'd be a bad thing for the country. If it came to a choice between him and the pathetic excuse for an intellect we have installed in 24 Sussex Drive today I know where I'd throw my support. Thankfully, it won’t, and people like you and I have other alternatives.

    All kinds of people have helped build this great country. I think the fact somebody like Ignatieff comes along and cares enough about this place to put his name forward as a possible leader - even if I disagree with much of what his party stands for - is a reason to rejoice, in my opinion.

    Just my thoughts.

    All the best. The greatest thing about being a thinking progressive, in my opinion, is that at bottom the philosophy is peopled by folks like you and me who, even though we don't necessarily agree on everything, can find a way to work together. That's why, in the end, we'll win and the neo conmen are going to lose.

  • verso

    5 years ago

    He is little more than an elitest, theoritical intellect with a number of interesting opinions... Moreover, he has very little understanding of economics... Plus, he is not a manager and these theorists often have difficulties in implementation. They spend most their time discussing and less time acting.

    How do you know this? These judgments of yours are based on what exactly? He has little record in the Canadian political scene. Of course, you're free to believe what you like about him, I'll wait until I've seen him/heard him inaction.

    Like I said before, all talking points.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    What makes you guys think Ignatieff's smart? He couldn't even figure out that the Bush administration lied its way into Iraq.

    So what do you imagine has made him change his mind? Couldn't be a stupid Machievellian trick to get Canadians to like him, could it?.

    Are you sure?

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Iggy says, "I supported an administration I didn't trust, believing that consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."

    Everything you ever need to know about this "Prince of Darkness" (google it) is embodied in that ridiculous, dishonest pretense.

    If Iggy was an ugly, obsese, sweating little wart what would you fawning fools think of this kind of stuff?

    Ask yourself!

    "Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."

    Such a briliant man! What a masterful revelation--intentions DO shape consequences--especially when you're trying to suckhole to some potential voters.

    Grab a clue, people. This is Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live, pretending to be an intellectual.

  • daria-in-toronto

    5 years ago

    Well…

    Michael Ignatieff is indeed an artist, that's what I felt immediately after meeting him. And I invite you to understand what I mean by 'artist'. By artist, I mean that Michael Ignatieff is a creative human being. And you may ask how this creativity can help in his role as parliamentarian and future leader of the Liberal Party. Well it will help him phenomenally. Michael can think c--r-e-a-t-i-v-e-l-y, and when you can do that, the universe of possibility presents itself to you! And these creative possibilities will be translated to new, and transformative visions for the Liberal party and our country. And we DO need them.

    You don’t think Michael is a Canadian? Please. Michael Ignatieff is a Canadian and a citizen of the world, with a rich Scottish and Russian immigrant heritage. Please read Ignatieff’s ‘The Rights Revolution’ then tell me that work is not written by someone who understands and embodies the depth of our evolving Canadian psyche.

    You think that Michael Ignatieff lacks the experience to run our country? Come on writers /critics you aim too low. I invite you tothink out of the box of limited possibility. Michael Ignatieff has extraordinary life-professional experiences to contribute to the position of our future Prime Minister. Ignatieff is highly educated, speaks several languages, and as a Canadian has lived in different parts of the world. Lets remember the importance that living in different countries, working in foreign cultures contributes to understanding, the modus operandi of global cultures and systems. All this is paramount knowledge necessary to run a country on the global stage. Michael’s broad spectrum of life work - his prolific writings, literary and political, his human rights activism, his academic teachings his journalist reportage in the bellicose parts of the world, such as the Balkans and Afghanistan give him an exemplary and necessary groundwork for leading a country through these rapidly changing times. You don’t think so? Have the recent leaders taken our country to where we want to see it? I don’t think so.

    And would Michael Ignatieff be learning on his new job? Indeed he would. That’s the mark of a progressive evolving person, isn’t it. We don’t want stuck in a rut old political thinking, do we? We want progressive, evolving, thinking and action.

    So let’s not think little. Let’s dream big and act on it. We have the opportunity to elect a true Renaissance man to be the leader of the Liberal Party and one day be our future Prime Minister. Let’s do it.

    I invite everyone to think individually, read Ignatieff’s books, speeches and policy papers and if at all possible meet Michael Ignatieff in person. Let’s aim high aim for the best for ourselves and our country. You/we deserve nothing less!

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Geez, daria-on the mount, why didn't you tell us Jesus Christ has returned (in the twinkling of your eye) and available to be our very own Prime Minister.

    So how come he didn't figure out that George Bush basically lied his way into Iraq?

    Your admiration goes beyond iconopathology. In fact, I think you ARE actually Michael Ignatieff. Thanks for coming out and talking to us common people, eh.

    May I humble suggest to you that, even if I'm wrong and you're right about Iggy, try to be careful about putting so much trust in any one particular human being, eh.

    We tend, as a species, to be quite self-serving and manipulative.

    Somehow I see you cheering in a crowd in Nuremberg in l936, while Leni Riefenstahlian horrors go marching by.

  • IAMC

    5 years ago

    It's seems Michael Ignatieff has a history of long term jobs that allow him to philosophise on all things great and beautiful, not being pinned down to any particular con/lib peg hole.
    And I also see , that although I am sure he has worked hard studying , I am not sure if he has ever worked as a busboy, stable hand, librarian helper, Lawyer, Doctor, Engineer, Athlete, gigolo or anything.
    This man seems the perfect candidate to lounge around Store away for the next 12 years waiting for attrition to get him into power.
    Because I will tell you one thing, PM Harper has a plan that doesn't include him.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    We certainly do know, after all, that pee wee rambo - by comparison with Michael Ignatieff - has done with his life precisely nothing. Of that there can be no doubt, even for the clueless one.

  • IAMC

    5 years ago

    George Bush was a oilman, who didn't do that well but did work at being an oil executive, from there he became the owner of The Texas Rangers MLB baseball team.
    After that he ran twice for Congress and Governor of Texas. He did become Governor of Texas. From there he was elected as President of the USA twice.
    He must be really stupid, right ?

  • jaspersky

    5 years ago

    I've met Iggy only briefly, and I don't know enough about him yet to draw firm conclusions about his character or his views. So far, on balance, I have a cautiously favorable impression. I intend to learn more: as a Liberal, he's one of the people hoi-polloi schmoes like myself are busily interviewing in the delightfully upside-down process of democracy in the first really competitive LPC leadership process in a generation. I've been doing a lot of comparison shopping -- Iggy, Kennedy, Dion, Rae, others -- and so far my impression is that every one of them is honorable, decent, ambitious, and intelligent.

    Iggy has, I think, the most presence, and an intriguing willingness to hear advice and learn from it. Kennedy has promise, but significant limitations; maybe he needs a few years in the federal arena to persuade me that he will be ready to lead the country as well as it needs to be led. Or maybe I'm underestimating him.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Now if only Martha Hall-Findlay could speak French, eh?

  • grw

    5 years ago

    What about Dryden?

  • Capitalism

    5 years ago

    IAMC -

    George Bush is no idiot. He may not be sophisticated, but he is not idiot. He is from Texas, and he is an ordinary man!

    He was very accomplished. He oil business wasn't very successful, though he attempted it at the wrong time.

    He had military experience, management experience and significant political experience.

  • grub

    5 years ago

    Capitalism:

    Quote:
    George Bush is no idiot. He may not be sophisticated, but he is not idiot. He is from Texas, and he is an ordinary man!

    WRONG! He is an idiot.
    RIGHT! He's not sophisticated.
    RIGHT! He's from Texas... well... sort of...
    WRONG! He's an ordinary man ROTFLMFAO!!!

    One cannot be an ORDINARY man if one is born with a silver spoon in one's mouth! Unless you mean intellectually ordinary, of course.

    As to military experience: he's apparently adept at going AWOL. Is that good in your odd world? Further, for a guy who was AWOL, he seemed to take great delight in mocking guys like Kerry who actually served with distinction.

    Quote:
    He oil business wasn't very successful, though he attempted it at the wrong time.

    I trust you cut the working poor the same slack: they're just living "at the wrong time".

    Quote:
    He had military experience, management experience and significant political experience.

    Cut to the chase: he had a rich and influential pappa.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    grw
    What about Dryden - does he speak French?
    W/out Francais no candidate for the Libs has a chance, imo.

  • incredulous

    5 years ago

    Asher - I used the google translator to run through your Chinese phrase

    Quote:
    佪是牡龜蛋。

    .

    It came back as: "Killer is male turtle eggs". Then employing my awesome Chinese language abilities, I deciphered it as actually meaning: "Hesitation is a male turtle egg" Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what this means. . . I am sure that it is a wise proverb of some sort - but wtf does it signify, and what does it have to do with Michael Ignatieff?

    Or, rather, are you trying to appear cute and worldly? If you want to be strict about it, you've used the traditional characters and not the simplified characters that are used in the PRC - presumably the source of intel. Traditional characters are used in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Think tanks and US intelligence agencies are less concerned about intel in Hong Kong and Taiwan. But hey, they're all Chinese aren't they? Of course, I'm sure you knew all of this already, being in the "largest Asian city in North America"

    Oh, actually, you're wrong on that one, too. In terms of population, we lag behind LA, NYC - even Toronto, from an absolute asian population perspective.

  • incredulous

    5 years ago

    Hey grub,

    Michael Ignatieff's pappa George was a former diplomat - and trust me - Canadian diplomats are NOT rich. . . I'm sure that he was banking sweet coin after he retired from the service and became the chancellor of UofT, but by then, his he was already old. . .

  • incredulous

    5 years ago

    Ignatieff lived abroad and he gets roasted over the spit for it. . . heck, a requirement of being the leader of a country should be living for some time in another country. . .perspective on a personal basis is always a good thing.

    Everyone needs context and basis for comparison, or else we all revert to proto-Kantian isolationists burying our heads in the sand and wondering why the world doesn't revolve around - say, a farm in Saskatchewan.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    incredulous
    You do grub a disservice I think. The George that he was talking about was George Bush, not Georges Ignatieff.

    You're right about Ignatieff pere though. He should have been appointed Governor General, in my opinion, and was a very great Canadian - as is, in my opinion, his son.

    That doesn't mean, I'd add, that he necessarily will (or even could) be successful as a politician. In any case, I'm glad he's left Harvard to return to the University of Toronto whatever the outcome of this little leadership gambit happens to be.

    Your slight against Saskatchewan farms and farmers is as unfair, in the context of real and successful government reform in this country, as anything those who've slammed Ignatieff for his time abroad have said. However, that may well have been your somewhat ironic point...Kant notwithstanding.

  • incredulous

    5 years ago

    Ah - thanks for the clarification G West. Grub - my apologies. . .wrt. Dubya - your aim is true.

    Re. the Saskatchewan farm comment - some irony was intended but then like a mobius strip, hard to know where it starts and where it ends 8) Suffice to say, it was an intentional jab at Duncan(Sask Farmer) waaaaay up the thread. . .

  • Steve P

    5 years ago

    I've read several of Ignatieff's books and was very impressed by them. He is very articulate about human rights and universal liberal/enlightenment values without getting shrill, flakey and prone to saying "I told you so" with the benefit of hindsight.

    If he is chosen to lead the Liberal party, I'd strongly consider the party a viable option.

  • Cathryn Atkinson

    5 years ago

    Interesting article.

    I used to edit Ignatieff's work from time to time as a copy editor on the Guardian newspaper in London. Met him once or twice. He's got a good brain, and would be as good a Liberal leader as many of the others. Better than quite a few. I believe he has a Trudeau-like style, but that is just an impression.

    He handled things badly in the run-up that won him his seat. I think he was quite suprised at the suspiciousness with which he and his motives were/are held by some Canadians. Some of the reasons are valid concerns about his distance from Canadian discourse and some are jealousy as his success and some are Iraq.

    Although he spent the last half decade or so at Harvard (though I believe it was under five years, can't remember off hand), he is much better known in the UK than the US -- for his books, and for his columns and TV programs. Most of his time away, I believe, was spent in Britain.

    That UK connection doesn't make him better or worse than the proto-American Bushy neophyte that some seem to consider him to be, but I think it is significant and I think that people can't have a discussion regarding his expatriate status without looking at his UK years.

    It was evident in my experience of knowing of him in the UK -- via TV, his writings and minor dealings with him on the newspaper -- that Ignatieff has a big ego. This is why he has tripped up badly in Canada, because he was unable to understand that Canadians won't unquestionningly accept that he is an important world-class player.

    I also believe that his pro-war postering was mainly similar to the Blairite liberal pro-war thing that was happening in the UK in 2002-03, rather than a Bush empire thing. A liberal Machiavellian "ends justifies the means" way of getting rid of Saddam.

    There was an enormous split in liberal-left thinking at the time in the UK (you could cut the tension with a knife in some quarters of the Guardian).

    And now, with quite a few of those liberals recanting their positions, the anti-war left is having a lot of fun giving them a hard time because of their previous positions. I know I am.

    I think Ignatieff is a perfect Liberal candidate - take that as you will.

  • james

    5 years ago

    A response to Shefa Siegel:

    How much time a potential political leader has spent on domestic soil is not a
    trivial question; we are hopefully past an era of absentee landlordism;
    the duration of one's Canadian stay is a significant determinant of one's Canadian
    identity.

    Voters matter, mr. Siegel, and they will sense this weakness.

    Mr Siegel: you do not state who has cast Mr. Ignatieff one-dimensionally. I contend that it is
    Mr. Ignatieff who casts himself as an Ivy League academic.

    In my opinion (and surely not mine alone), Mr. Ignatieff is a dilettante: an individual
    for whom the issue has never been 'how to survive', but rather 'how to flourish'.

    Unlike most 'artists', Mr. Siegel, your man can afford to lie still, muse, and create -
    because he has received an easy, higher education that came with family connections
    and money.

    Equally, while Mr. Ignatieff reads books, he is no more special for having read works by Taylor,
    Tully or Kymlicka than you or I.

    Mr. Ignatieff writes...because he can. Much as Harvard can charge a fee for students despite
    its hefty $26 billion endowment.

    Berlin and Trudeau are two names that you and/or others swirl around
    your man with recklessness. Let's settle this issue now
    a la 'Dan Quayle vs. Lloyd Benson':

    "Mr. Ignatieff, I served with Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
    I knew Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Pierre Elliot Trudeauwas a friend of mine. Mr. Ignatieff,
    you're no Pierre Elliot Trudeau."

    Someone, sometime soon, is going to take your man out with equal precision, Mr Siegel.

    We can of course improve upon Mr. Ignatieff's 'deeply personal portrait' of Isiah Berlin,
    with Isiah Berlin's self-portrait. But this is seemingly where you are taking the reader
    isn't it, Mr Siegel? Your man is Mr. Berlin is Mr. Ignatieff is Mr. Trudeau etc.
    You are employing a deliberate but transparent ambiguity: juxtapose the writer and subject,
    then guilefully merge the two.

    But Mr. Ignatieff is shadow-boxing with the famous dead. Who next? Voltaire?

    The real question is: who is Michael? Not his personal narrative(s) which can seem imitative
    and elitist, but his real biography.

    A man fast approaching 60 years ought to have 'found his metaphor'by now and begun to
    'prove his existence'a very long time ago.

    I dispute that 'Ruling is an art". I do not disagree that there is an art to ruling.
    That is different. Your continued use of that word 'rule' is disconcerting.
    Your man or any other potential candidate would govern within a democracy,
    not 'rule' an autocracy. There is an important distinction. And in failing to draw it,
    you are sounding elitist yourself.

    Further, politics is less art and more the 'viva activa', Mr. Seigel. It requires at least
    'a doer'. Mr Ignatieff thinks, but what is it that he can actually 'do'?

    You also assume that professional politicians or bureaucrats cannot make a career of
    learning from experience - an invalid assumption, and a silly one.

    To many Canadians, Mr. Ignatieff's 'foreign affairs expertise' looks more like self-absorbed
    travel writing. Though he and another 'left-leaning social democrat' - Senator John Kerry - share
    a few characteristics, including a tendency to 'flip-flop' on the big issues,
    Kerry was always practically involved. Your man, however, appears to
    have only ever visited places, written letters and left.

    With respect to torture and so many other issues, it would be a major dilemma for the
    Canadian public if Mr. Ignatieff's deliberations and commutations required the same
    30+ year patience accorded to his 'career as a thinker'.

    Mr. Seigel: politics is real-time.

    From Harvard to Etobicoke by parachute? Highly controversial.

    Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Seigel, you patronise the Canadian people.

    It is never their problem that your man might be misunderstood. But it is his problem
    if he is.

    Less a 'Fox on the fringes' and more a 'Canary cavorting abroad'.

    Good luck, Michael Ignatieff. But do you know yourself, yet?

  • lynn

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    I think Ignatieff is a perfect Liberal candidate - take that as you will, wrote Cathryn Atkinson.

    Never said better...and a very interesting piece of yours to read as well.

  • vilde chaye

    5 years ago

    I just want to comment on the left-fascist who referred to Michael Ignatieff as a "war criminal" and that "he is as responsible for the thousands of death and the Depleted uranium pollution, just as much as Bush."

    Now before this crypto-fascist sends me off the guillotine also, it must be pointed out that Ignatieff has never held office, so he can only be called a "war criminal" based on his thoughts and writings, and by that definition, i figure, virtually the whole country could be called the same, since we're all "sellouts" or "fools" with the exception of the ideologically pure writer who came up with this drivel.

    p.s. I have no feelings on Ignatieff one way or the other.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Candidates sent to the Political Graveyard for trying and failing at acting as somebody else:

    Mr. Gary Hart, Mr. Dan Quayle, Senator John Kerry, and now...

    Mr. Michael Ignatieff

    He is so derivative, imitative, a 'counterfeit' individual. It's painful to observe.

    Another handicap is his patronizing glib-tongued manner.
    It just doesn't wash... with the media, individuals, or the Canadian public.

    Down the line, a major problem will be the connection between Ignatieff and Conrad Black's funds. Few commentators are saying anything yet.

    Prediction:

    Liberal Party remain out of office for the next 2 electoral cycles (and possibly three).

    (Ignatieff will be in his mid + 60's)

    The depth of political talent in the conservative movement in Canada
    has never looked better - from coast to coast to coast. They want the centre.
    The Liberals argue for a renewed left - which is simply suicidal today. No election will be won by contesting for the left-vote.

    Ignatieff, a ~ 60 year old political neophyte, is a wilful lamb to the slaughter. Such is the disarray in the Liberal camp.

    We can almost gaurantee his demise.

    Harper's War-room knows it.

    Still, Ignatieff is a copycat. Why?

    Who is Michael, really?

    Someone out there must have the answer?

  • vilde chaye

    5 years ago

    i couldn't disagree more with "james," who seems to be licking his chops in anticipation of a Tory dynasty.

    It won't happen.

    As should be obvious to any astute watcher of our political scene, Canadians generally are firmly centre-left, and the only reason the Tories won (if you can call a minority govt. "winning") was because of the sponsorship scandal. Once the taint of that scandal dissipates (which should happen, at the latest, as soon as the expected spate of Tory scandals begins), The Libs will be back. And if Harper manages to win a second election, this time with a majority govt, and begins to impose the right-wing agenda so dear to his heart, the tories will be back in opposition for another decade or two.

    The only way Harper et al. can hold on to power is by moving to centre, and if they do that, and stay scandal-free (a tall order, mind you), nobody will care that they CALL themselves Conservatives. But then it wouldn't really matter whether the Tories or Libs are in, would it?

    True-blue conservatives, dream on!

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Whatever Michael Ignatieff's shortcomings are, he needs be little concerned with attacks from posters like james. If james actually knew anything true or factual about Michael Ignatieff he certainly didn't provide it above. From Ignatieff's age to his 'connection' with Conrad Black's 'funds' (whatever those may be) his entire post is constructed from whole cloth.

    I'm with vilde chaye on this one.

    I have a feeling that Harper's mindless acolytes are nervous that their champion might actually have to face off against a Liberal threat led by an intellectual much more deserving of the term than the mantle which pee wee has donned for himself.

    As I wrote earlier on this thread, I’m no Liberal supporter; on the other hand, anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see how a comparison between Ignatieff and Harper would redound.

  • Cathryn Atkinson

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    As I wrote earlier on this thread, I’m no Liberal supporter; on the other hand, anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see how a comparison between Ignatieff and Harper would redound.

    Absolutely agree with Alcibiades, et Al. As I wrote above, Ignatieff is the perfect Liberal candidate, take it as you will. He may or may not win, but as an MP he will be allowed to talk to the floor.

    And I think he could sweep up the mummified Albertan without too much trouble.

    Having heard him speak on-and-off over about 15 years, he certainly is a better speaker, and if he actually 'speaks to the issues' unlike so many Liberals, it will be interesting to see what the average Canadian makes of him.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    mummified Albertan

    seems a pretty apt description Catherine, thanks.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Again, no-one here is saying who Michael Ignatieff really is, nor is anyone addressing an obvious issue: his studied imitation of others.

    Why not?

    (Afraid to confirm impressions?)

    Ignatieff is Trudeau is Berlin is ... ? It keeps coming up. The dilettante, the perennial traveller, the carpetbagger ...

    It will be an issue. You know it.

    Some here seem to under-rate their own intelligence vis-a-vis Mr. Ignatieff's. Why do that to yourselves? Many real academics already dispute Mr. Ignatieff's credentials.

    Someone please address the issue of elitism!

    It is outstanding, and ought to be intelligibly addressed at least.

    Or are some here apologists for elite governance? (and no-one here dares address the festering issue of Etobicoke)

    Again, it will be an issue for the party rank and file (to say nothing of honest, hard-working Canadian families).

    To be in Parliament's chmaber is to debate, discuss, assert. It is not a therapy session for a 'career thinker', nor is it a Hyde Park-type Speaker's Corner.

    Ignatieff is no debater. I have witnessed this personally. Harper and the adverserial Westminster tradition of Parliament will likely see Micheal Ignatieff withering...he even appears to be physically frail...
    Further, Ignatieff would lead a still-divided political party. If so, I forecast less support for him as leader from the Liberal caucus in the chamber - and out. It will remain internecine for a year or two yet (at least). This is the nature of electoral failure after a long period of success. And this will be de-stabilising.

    Finally, there is a large youth section in the current Liberal Party who prefer to discuss issues from a 'left' perspective - not a 'centre-left' one; this is legitimate; however, they are increasingly influencial; and that is a potential problem for the party's federal electoral success.

    It is now mostly about the centre. (the centre-left exists, and the centre-right exists et cetera, but they are secondary to national political success)

    Example: Quebec is so much more 'family-values' based than it is left or even centre-left issues - based. This matters.

    Fund-raising is also key. Capital sources matter. Some here ought to dig deeper.

    Again, who is Michael really?

    Anyone?

    I would like a cogent analysis and rebuttal, if possible...

    I note that Mr. Siegel is suspiciously quiet.

  • james

    5 years ago

    To "Alcibiades",

    Fact: Michael Igantieff was born on May 12, 1947 (that he is almost 60 years old was already public knowledge; why did you not know this, "Alcibiades" ?).

    Therefore, Michael Ignatieff is 59 years old today. In less than 1 year, he will be 60. No, "Alcibiades" ? ...

    Apparently, it is not I who needs to fact-check on this candidate. I suggest that this error by "Alcibiades" redounds poorly to himself.

    Support Mr. Ignatieff if you might, but at least demonstrate basic knowledge of
    verifiable facts before remonstrating on others for not having done so -
    when others clearly know more about your candidate, in this instance.

    Many Happy Returns for last Friday, Mr. Ignatieff; now, you are nearly 60 years old!

    I never suggested otherwise...

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    It happens to be because I do check my facts that I was able to point out your error. I notice you don't address the other point I raised.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I happen to know Mr. Ignatieff's exact age, as well as the date of his birth, as well as a lot more about him and what he's written than you do. Why do you think I'd bother posting a correction if I didn't. He is within 6 months of being my exact contemporary - as I've posted on this site earlier - if you actually did anything but read right-wing blogs you might have known that and not bothered trying to recover from your pratfall above. You also might actually know something real about Michael Ignatieff.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Re: "Alcibiade's" comments,

    From your post, "Alcibiades", you explicitly state that a reason I have allegedly 'constructed my whole post from cloth' is
    [my comments about] Mr. Ignatieff's age. Readers everywhere can see this above. The assumption is I have his age wrong.

    I verified that I was correct about Mr Igantieff's age.

    No-where (yet) have you corrected me.

    I suggested that you were uninformed about certain facts, namely his age. Given your written comments above, it seems that you were incorrect or disingenuous.

    You are now misreading what every reader can see for themselves. This is silly of you.

    Finally, do not presume to know more about a public figure than others; this is a very difficult claim for you to substantiate; everyone, now, wants you to do so.

    Finally, this is a blog, and as such, there is no call for you to lapse into rude: no matter how much you profess to know the mercurial Michael Ignatieff.

    Pergaps, given your claim, you might instead (accurately) abswer the outstanding question:

    Who is Michael, really? (since you seem to know him quite well?)

    What is it that he can actually do?

    How different and advantageous is his thinking over anyone else's?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades":

    It has been on the public record for weeks now that Mr. Conrad Black is endorsing Mr. Ignatieff (oh dear!). You should be able to 'fact-check' this, yourself. Or, you could just your acquaintance, Michael.

    This fact should prove ... a near-fatal blow.

    Like Mr. Black, Mr Ignatieff seems less Canadian and more 'international' (read: Anglophilic). Again, it won't wash with the canadian public. Appearances count, as does biography.

    C'est une catastrophe! N'est-ce pas?

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    The fact that Conrad Black, who is no longer a Canadian citizen, should have said anything about anyone is a matter of complete indifference to me and any other thinking human being.

    Your nearly libelous statement implied that Mr. Ignatieff was somehow bought by Lord Black of Crossharbour. You will note I referred to your use of the word 'funds'. Given everything else you've written and its tendentious relationship to truth or reality, I did not expect you to advance a sensible argument. As I said, I’m not in the business of defending Michael Ignatieff; I do have a strong affection for facts and for the truth – you seem incapable of demonstrating a passing acquaintance with either, alas.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades":

    I think I am slowly drawing you out for the readers: you very much appear to be a supporter of Mr. Ignatieff.

    An Ignatieff acolyte, perhaps?

    But why?

    What is it that he can actually do?

    Why is his thinking necessarily superior to anyone else's?

    Why do you disagree with the statement that he can seem derivative, imitative etc?

    What of his carpet-bagging in Etobicoke? (or is that fair, legitimate or irrelevant? (and why>))

    We now know that Mr. Ignatieff is at least very familiar to you, "Alcibiades". So, do enlighten the readers.

    And why do you revert to ad hominem attacks? This is not argument.

    You may not like someone else, but that is never a legitimate reason for attacking another's view-point nor for believing the truth of your own conclusions. You must argue...

    It is also common sense and common good manners to do so.

    As glib-tongued as your man, Mr. Ignatieff, can sound, I do not think that even he would be so directly rude to another. Not yet, anyway.

    So let us debate, argue, discuss...

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    What ad hominum attacks? Please cite one, I mentioned two things: one, that you'd erred when you stated his age and, two, when you said he was connected to Black's 'funds'. Those were both your errors. The baseless allegations against Ingatieff have all been from your side of the fence. I could cut and paste them here but I'm not going to bother because you'd think I was piling on. If you actually post something worthy of debate we can go on from there. Until such time, there's not much to talk about.

    Ignatieff's writings and repuation are more than enough evidence of his own qualities and shortcomings.

    In my view you are the only one saying, out of any recognizable context, that you don't like someone or what you think they represent.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Poor "Alcibiades",

    Again, you do not answer any of my questions. You are a poor debater.

    You appear to be flunking at Argument 101. May I suggest that you might be sensitive about your own age? (Oops!) If so, you needn't be. It can be a strength, if you know yourself...

    I am arguing that in your acquaintances case (Mr. Ignatieff), he does not quite know his 'own metaphor' yet; at nearly 60 years, he ought to, by now. The question is then: "why not?"

    I have suggested here that your man, Mr. Ignatieff, is fast approaching 60 years (a truth); and that after at least 2 electoral cycles, he would be aged at least in his mid-60's (also a truth). I write the truth. (this is verifiable, also)

    You then suggested that I did not know anything about Ignatieff's age (hilarious!):

    "Alcibiades" writes:

    "From Ignatieff's age to his 'connection' with Conrad Black's 'funds' (whatever those may be) his entire post is constructed from whole cloth".

    Oh dear, "Alcibiades"...

    I then provided the factual basis for my age-related comments: Mr. Ignatieff's date of birth (brilliant - you must admit!)- which makes him less than 1 year shy of 60 years, today!. Familiar?

    I am correct. I maent to be correct. I was and remain correct. But where does that leave you?

    What is so different about your arithmetic?
    What age do you have for him? Mid-40's? 20's?

    Baby-boomers can tend to have quite a phobia about ageing! (common knowledge)

    Oh dear, poor "Alcibiades"...

    You ask that I cite evidence of your base ad hominem attacks:

    "Alcibiades" writes:

    "Given everything else you've written and its tendentious relationship to truth or reality, I did not expect you to advance a sensible argument. As I said, I’m not in the business of defending Michael Ignatieff; I do have a strong affection for facts and for the truth – you seem incapable of demonstrating a passing acquaintance with either, alas."

    This is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem attack. It is a fallacious appeal by "Alcibiades". It is also a 'lapse into rude'.

    Oh, poor old "Alcibiades"...

    "Alcibiades" then writes:

    "The fact that Conrad Black, who is no longer a Canadian citizen, should have said anything about anyone is a matter of complete indifference to me and any other thinking human being."

    Oopps, "Alcibiades"...!

    This is an example of an abusive ad hominem attack; it is an illegitimate appeal by "Alcibiades"...

    So...

    You can see how you are 'attacking' others?

    Cogent analysis and rebuttal please.

    Feeling vanquished yet, "Alcibiades"?

    I must admit that your posts bore me. (This is an evaluative statement only)

    Debate...if you can

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    You may have 'meant' to be correct. In fact, you weren't.

    You were also making the point, if you'll scroll back to what you wrote, that Ignatieff was suspect in terms of his Canadian-ness.

    I thought it was interesting to point out that Black himself is no longer a Canadian and, under that rubric, should be of little evaluative interest to someone like yourself who is so concerned with attacking Ignatieff's identification with this country. If you wish to be subsumed along with those who take Conrad Black’s opinion about anything seriously, so be it. I don’t.

    As to evidence of thinking. If you actually show me some, evidence that is, I'll certainly continue, if not well: c'est la vie.

  • Steve P

    5 years ago

    OK James, here is a response you've been asking for. I'm not an Ignatieff nor Liberal nor Trudeau nutrider, but I have enjoyed Ignatieff's writing.

    Quote:
    How different and advantageous is his thinking over anyone else's?

    He is one of the few folks I've read who talks intelligibly about the problem of nationalism and culture without getting glazed over and flakey. I believe the problem of Canadian identity to be key to driving where we go next as a country. We have been adrift since the end of the British Empire, and we do need to decide on an identity to help us forward from here.

    So many writers treat "culture" as the justification for all values, similar to the role "religion" plays -- i.e. any barbaric practice (e.g. circumcision) can be justified in the name of culture or religion. The philosophical problem is that, however good cultural relativism is for promoting tolerance (which is debatable), it doesn't solve the problem of how to solve conflict between competing cultures with different value sets. I think Ignatieff writes cogently about the need for the Enlightenment discourse (universal human rights) as a way out of infinite ethnic-violence regress.

    Since there are many failed states in the post-cold war era that cannot guarantee security for their citizens, there has been a tendency to resort to older forms of social solidarity -- kinship & religion, with all the bloody mayhem this implies. We have the roots of the same potential problems in Canada, if Canada were to experience a crisis and was unable to provide security for citizens.

    I think that Ignatieff understands something about this difficult dynamic: the need to be sensitive to other views, while maintaining a commitment to the Enlightenment.

    James also argues that Ignatieff has no experience in business or administration. But do politicians need to be good administrators? Not really. That's what staff is for. We need good leaders for their value orientation which drives policy which is administered & implemented by staff.

    James, re: your many comments that Ignatieff is derivative and an imitation of something else, I haven't the faintest idea where you are coming from with that unsubstantiated comment.

    And re: James' comments about Ignatieff being unworthy because he has lived a privileged life as an academic? Resentment and envy is an ugly emotion ... Our current PM is well-educated and was privileged to live as a party policy wonk and NGO researcher. I don't have a problem with smart, educated people running the country. We need to look at their policy orientation to decide.

    As for the comment re: his acceptability because he has lived abroad. Well, time will tell. Personally, I don't have a problem with it.

    Is Ignatieff the best thing since sliced bread? No. Will he single-handedly rejuvenate the Liberal party? Unlikely. Am I a federal Liberal? Hell no -- I live in Hedy Fry's riding =^)Would I consider taking a closer look at a discredited party if he was the leader? Perhaps ...

  • Marysue

    5 years ago

    I do not like Ignatieff's philsophy. He has no frame of reference for poverty or disability, and that does, indeed, shape a person's philosophy. It's a lot easier to ignore the plight of the single mom, the learning disabled, the bipolar when you've never had any of these problems. Society and tax laws have vastly favoured the rich and corporate, while cutting back help to seniors, the poor, the middle class, the disabled and mentally ill. A person of Ignatieff's ilk will not deal with disadvantaged people fairly. Therefore, I consider the guy evil--but brighter than Cap'n Paul Sweatship and Harper, both of whom I also consider evil. Academic intelligence without heart isn't much good to me, my family, my community and my country. Those who actively seek to make laws and taxes to favour the already advantaged at the expense of the rest of us are heartless wretches, unsuitable for public office. Ignatieff is such a one.

  • seymour

    5 years ago

    For more perspective on this man, go to

    http://www.stopiggy.com/

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Yeah, this kind of thing is really offensive, isn't it?

    From the Tanner Lectures I. Human Rights as Politics:

    Quote:
    We think of the global diffusion of this idea (the moral intuition that our species is one and each of the individuals who compose it is entitled to equal moral consideration) as progress for two reasons: because if we
    live by it, we treat more human beings as we would wish to be treated ourselves and in so doing help to reduce the amount of unmerited cruelty and suffering in the world. Our grounds for believing that the spread of human rights represents moral progress, in other words, are pragmatic and historical. We know from historical experience that when human beings have defensible rights—when their agency as individuals is protected and enhanced—they are less likely to be abused and oppressed. On these grounds, we count the diffusion of human rights instruments as progress even if there remains an unconscionable gap between the instruments and the actual practices of states charged to comply with them.

  • 4Cryinoutloud

    5 years ago

    From Ignagieff's astrological aspects he will/has found success and I would suggest fullfillment as a writer and communicator. He will continue to find that success as a writer and communicator. I could see him being of much more use as an ambassador to the UN or some other country if he decides to stay in politics but I do not see him as a strong candidate for leader of a country. From listening to his speeches (both televised) and reading some of his work, I often find him ambiguous. On This Hour Has 22 minutes he looked very uncomfortable being "made fun of". My feeling is that he can be defensive and possibly thin skinned. I think he should have stayed writing and teaching. Sometimes when we feel called to be "more" we can be fooling ourselves.

  • oldcrank

    5 years ago

    Well, I have read Ignatieff's apologia for torture, what he called The Lesser Evil. Based on some time spent in Kurdish areas of Iraq, he decided that the Geneva Conventions, in particular the convention on Torture, no longer applied.

    I would not want someone who felt a few hours or days of his time informed him sufficiently about the nature of human history that he felt he was the one to redefine it.

    I have read the Rights Revolution. Again, not impressed.

    I read both because he was a Canadian making it big in the US who might be worth reading. Wrong.

    Some earlier commenters say that experience with management in some form is hardly necessary in a Prime Minister. Failure to have some understanding of management has brought the Liberals to the brink - they managed a the gun registry from a few million to a few billion.

    Failure to manage the bureaucracy is, in my view, the main failure of the Liberal government. The fews millions or tens of millions diverted in the sponsorship scandal pale beside the billions wasted - long gun registry, submarines, Human resources, helicopters, ...

    Ignatieff's colossal egotism causes him to think he can run a nation with zero experience. That he can define protocols on war and torture, based on a few weeks experience.

    What is the main characteristic of people who believe him?

  • G West

    5 years ago

    oldcrank

    I think, with respect, you need to read again. I'll post what Ignatieff wrote with respect to torture, but first, here's what he said, responding to...

    Quote:
    "Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School (who) supports an outright ban on torture, but argues that if the United States is going to rely on it, Congress should regulate it by law. Interrogators would at least be required to apply to a court for a ''torture warrant,'' which would set limits to the practice. The evidence extracted by torture would remain inadmissible in court, but it could be used to prevent impending attacks."

    Then he went on to give his own position, which supports the establishment of:

    Quote:
    "An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way a democracy can keep true to its ideal of respecting the dignity even of its enemies. For that is what the rule of law commits us to: to show respect even to those who show no respect for us."

    He then went on to write:

    Quote:
    "And how can we forget what everyone who has ever been tortured always tells us: those who are tortured stay tortured forever. If you want to create terrorists, torture is a pretty sure way to do so."

    Does this sound like someone who is equivocal about torture?

    All references from: "Lesser Evils" by Michael Ignatieff, May 2, 2004 New York Times Magazine

  • james

    5 years ago

    I think that Mr. Ignatieff's formal education is a red herring if one is discussing his sense of entitlement or privilege - sentiments that, I argue, were likely formed much earlier
    in his development.

    It requires only a superficial read of this individual's biography to understand his elitism. This side of the man's character seems palpably obvious to many Canadians.

    Etobicoke?

    (this is a problem in and of itself; but, it is also revealing ... about his character)

    He wants to assume governorship. I think this much is clear.

    His 'type' have existed in most Western Parliaments.

    ... Mr. Andrew Peacock (Australian Liberal Party), Mr. Don Brash (New Zealand National Party), or Mr. Michael Heseltine (British Conservative Party), etc...

    ...Mr. Ignatieff is a apt Canadian example ...of an individual who, I contend, believes that he was 'born to rule'.

    His 'values', travel-writings, the imprimateur
    of certain educational institutions etc; his 'my dear friends' mode of address to 'we the people'...

    ...these are smokescreens for raw elitist ambition.

    A word about manners: they can do two things
    simultaneously:

    Lift some people up
    and put others down.

    I am not fooled by his character.

    Or witness the way that Ms. Clarkson grew into her role. And, accordingly, became quickly unpopular. Mr. Ignatieff, I contend, is 'cut from the same cloth'. It will not wear again in Canada. It must seem warm and genuine and distinctive.

    It is not envy etc. It is genuine concern for the democratic process.

    It grates ... because it is undemocratic.
    It is un-meritocratic. This much should be obvious.

    Finally, from a Canadian's perspective, Canada first needs good governance; not the world outside her borders. What he or she can be for Canada, in Canada matters primarily.

    Talk of Canadian Foreign Affairs on this blog is,frankly, premature. The PM's Office is first and foremost a very important local, domestic one.

    The truly successful incumbent will be also.

    Mr. Ignatieff ain't it.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Once again, not a single fact, not a single reference, the only things you did post were wrong. Just a lot of idle, prejudicial maunderings. I can see why Alcibiades wouldn't bother discussing anything with you, james.

    What a hater!

  • james

    5 years ago

    Gee "G West":

    Fact: Etobicoke...?

    Carpet-bagging? No? Then what?

    Care to discuss?

    Etobicoke...anyone?

    It's an issue. What's your view on it?

    Or is 'hater' etc all you offer?

    Etobicoke?

    What's your view of Mr. Ignatieff's Etobicoke 'challenge'?

    Call others names, "G West", if you must, but...

    We, the readers in their thousands, want your view - "G West's" view - of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore issue.

    Give it...

    Etobicoke...discuss that fact.

  • marta

    5 years ago

    OK James

    Etobicoke. Yes, he was parachuted in.

    But the voters of Etobicoke Lakeshore voted for him. The word is - they liked him, and he's really good at face to face discussions.

    He WON. What's your point?

  • G West

    5 years ago

    marta
    He doesn't have one.
    The details of the nomination are trivial - typical Liberal nonsense - but, as you say, he got the most votes and that's democracy, as it is practiced in this country.

    The point is that james dislikes Ignatieff for reasons he's apparently incapable of articulating in anything other than the written version of a sound bite. Ignatieff returned to teaching at the University of Toronto from Boston, why wouldn't a Toronto constituency be perfectly appropriate for him?
    Further, the results election night were as follows:
    Michael Ignatieff ...........43.9%.....24 641
    John Capobianco ...........35.0%.....19 651
    Liam Mc Hugh-Russell .......15.5%..... 8 710
    Philip Ridge ........... 5.0%..... 2 830
    Cathy Holliday ........... 0.3%..... 188
    Janice Murray ........... 0.2%..... 137
    I'd say the people have spoken, james.

  • james

    5 years ago

    The end justifies the means?

    Winning is what matters? Never mind by whom, or how?................?

    You miss the point at issue - both of you. The readers get it.

    In Mr. Ignatieff's case, the pre-selection methodology was abusively irregular.

    Etobicoke-Lakeshore voted Liberal again as they have repeatedly
    in the last 4 Federal elections.

    Arguably, one could have ran any 'liberal' substitute for Ms. Jean Augustine. She had performed exceptionally well for this riding and the Liberal Party.

    With FPP, the incumbent increased her plurality significantly in each successive
    Etobicoke-Lakeshore election over a period of at least 12 years.

    John Capobianco increased his party's share of the popular vote. He is a local;
    he is committed to serving the constituency he actually belongs in.
    He ran against a carpet-bagger named Michael Ignatieff who cares not for
    the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore while losing votes for the Liberal Party in that riding,
    reducing the Liberal Party's increased plurality there significantly.

    Next time?

    Marta has admitted that her man is a carpet-bagger. Marta's Red Aunt Fanny
    might have 'won' better than Ignatieff in Etobicoke-Lakeshore in 2006.

    Jean Augustine retired conveniently the year before. Why?

    Speak to local coloured Canadians about this issue to know more.

    It is wide public knowledge that (too many local) Liberal candidates were blocked
    from the pre-selection process in Etobicoke-Lakeshore
    - except your elitist carpet-bagger, Michael Ignatieff. Marta's parachutist from elsewhere.

    Why was this allowed to occur?

    It is a very controversial issue. It will come up in this current leadership convention year.

    And again, afterwards. It refuses to go away.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Ignatieff escaped...but only just.

    No, "G West"...no-one really believes that the good people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore
    have yet spoken about their current MP.

    Glib rhetoric from 2 elitist apologists, "G West" and "Marta".

    Surely you can do better than this....?

  • james

    5 years ago

    "G West"

    Your logic is deeply flawed.

    All Torontonians are people who are residents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

    Mr. Ignatieff is (now) a Torontonian (again).

    Therefore, Mr. Ignatieff is a resident of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

    What crack are you smokin'?

    You also assert that " The details of the nomination are trivial ".

    ?

    Why do you care to comment on representative, deliberative democracy?

    Could you care less?

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    Once again, nothing you post has anything to do with your opinion about Mr. Ignatieff. I've asked you several times to say what it as about him that upsets you.

    It has now become evident that you really have problems with the Liberal party and not with Mr. Ignatieff at all. That's perfectly okay. I happen to have a lot of problems with the Liberal party too. Go ahead and make your case about them and the way they run things if you like - but don't start a phony campaign centered upon slagging a man you really know nothing about.

    As to your suggestion that the results of the Jan 23 election as posted above are not representative of the democratic wishes of the voters in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, well, that’s the kind of nonsense I’m starting to think is your stock in trade. That’s the system we have, get over it. If more people had voted for a candidate other than Michael Ignatieff then he wouldn’t be in Ottawa as an MP. Period.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades" writes:

    "nothing you post has anything to do with your opinion about Mr. Ignatieff".

    Universal claims! Incredible!

    "Alcibiades" then writes:

    " That’s the system we have, get over it."

    How supplicatory of him. How deferential, defeatist. Uncritical. Or undemocratic and elitist? Which is it?

    Instead of arguing like a progressivist the belief that we Canadians can do better,

    "Alcibiades" effectively says to the readers and himself, "let's lie back and take it all, it ain't gettin' better, nothin' I can do 'bout it".

    "That’s the system we have".

    Ah, the unexamined life, "Alcibiades".

    You, "Alcibiades", ought to get political - on a political blog, at least.

    It must be easier to be another's lackey.

    Astounding!

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    Still nothing substantive about Mr Ignatieff, eh?

    Why not, pray tell? All the stuff you posted above has nothing to do with Michael Ignatieff; it does say quite a bit about the person you are though james.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades":

    I am equally sceptical of your claim to know all about Mr. Ignatieff.

    Does he know you as "Alcibiades"?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    Still nothing substantive about Mr Ignatieff, eh?

    You haven't go a leg to stand on my friend. As I started out posting on this site, I'm not interested in defending Mr Ignatieff. I am interested in exposing people who don't care about the truth and are more interested in criticizing people than actually thinking critically about what they believe.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades",

    But you claim to know Mr. Ignatieff.
    Are you close friends?
    Substantiate this claim of yours?

    I think you are quite naive about human nature.
    The book is not the man, my friend.

    But you know Mr. Ignatieff.
    I think the burden of proof is upon you to prove that you do indeed know Mr. Igatieff. Since you claim to.

    I am suggesting that you are bluffing us all.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades",

    It should be clear what I do not believe in or tolerate:

    1. Elitism.

    2. Carpet-bagging.

    3. Political imitators.

    3. Sycophancy.

    To name only 4 outstanding issues affecting your man's candidacy.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    These are your opinions, as I've stated before. I'm not interested in your opinions unless they are backed up with facts and hard data. I've already dealt with your contention that Ignatieff is not the legitimate representative of the democratic process in his riding. I’ve dealt with your imagined connection with Conrad Black and I’ve pointed out your error with respect to his age.

    So, since you have nothing but your opinions to support your items 1, 3, and, apparently, 3 again.
    Thus, you have three points, run off and find some evidence that they are valid and we can have a discussion.

    Until then, I won't be holding my breath.

  • DPL

    5 years ago

    I watched the vote to extend Canada's troops in Afganistan for two more years yesterday. Two of the Liberal leader wanabees voted with the Cons, Bison and this fellow from the south
    Ignatieff along with the acting leader, Graham. What a bunch. They didn't like the way Harper was raming things but voted with him anyway. I guess they don't want to upset the wagon till somebody takes over as the leader of the Libs. Ain't politics just great? I wonder just how many troops actually were hoping for a different result

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Good point DPL, if our little friend james above here had his/her wits about him he might suggest that Ignatieff's vote for the continuing deployment in Afghanistan is something real about the man that he could cite for dispraise.

    Then again, perhaps he's a neo conman himself and more inclined to agree with extending the mandate for another two years.

    One hopes not too many more young Canadians will have to pay the ultimate price for pee wee's big adventure.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades",

    I think that you are misinformed here:
    An opinion need not be verifiable (with facts/data etc), as opinions are - by definition - matters of interpretation or taste; they are not verifiable statements (e.g. Ignatieff's age). You should be fair and acknowledge the difference.

    Opinions do not necessarily require proof.

    You like Mr. Ignatieff. That much is evident from your writings. That is your opinion. You are not required to prove it.

    p.s. Mr Harper appears to be wiping the Commons' floor with Mr. Ignatieff's arse.

    I told you guys...

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades",

    You write (above):

    "If more people had voted for a candidate other than Michael Ignatieff then he wouldn’t be in Ottawa as an MP. Period."

    Well...guess what?

    More people did vote for a candidate other than Michael Ignatieff....

    (a simple fact-check by yourself would verify this)

    Yet, he is the MP currently. This fact contradicts your statement.

    Ooops!

    Wrong again..."Alcibiades",

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    "G West":

    If you were a professional Canadian soldier or a Canadian reservist, and told to serve in Afghanistan, what would your response be?

    Best,

    James

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Ignatieff's in Canada to become Prime Minister and to bring Canada deeper under the irreversible control of the United States.

    The fodder for obvious "dark triad" guys like Ignatieff is always the same: relentless gullibility of people like G. West and Alcibiades.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Oh, "dark triad" types are machievellian, narcissistic and psychopathic and only a few in any population have the specific antigen-type genes to recognize them. James has them.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james, james, james
    You need to learn to read. The word I used was 'candidate'; it is a singular word and what I said was entirely factual. No single candidate got more votes than Mr. Ignatieff. You really need a lesson in multi-party democracy.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    it's my understanding that, at the moment, the choice to serve in Afghanistan is left to individual members of the armed forces to make. I don't believe any member currently in theatre has been forced to serve there.

    On the other hand, it may well be that a refusal to serve would constitute professional suicide for a career officer - but that's quite another question.

    As for me, I disagree with Mr. Ignatieff and Mr Harper and do not support having our soldiers in Afghanistan as part of the mission there as currently defined.

    I certainly don't see it as being in our national interest, nor do I see it as an effective part on the so-called war on terror.

    Truman - haven't we had this discussion before?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Dear "Alcibiades",

    No, you are not correct in this instance:

    You created an ambiguous sentence.

    A legitimate literal meaning of your original sentence is that people can vote for a candidate other than Michael Ignatieff. This might mean that people could vote for the same candidate or that people could vote for a different candidate (more usually). Your sentence does not specify. Overwhelmingly, more people did vote for a different candidate than your man, Michael Ignatieff. Therefore, my statement is not incorrect.

    I know it's annoying for you...but C'est la vie, ah!

    You cannot erase what you wrote, "Alcibiades".

    You can re-state it later on (as you have) and that is legitimate also.

    But it's not really worth getting upset over.

    Here's something more important to answer:

    If you, "Alcibiades" (or "G West"), were a professional Canadian soldier or a Canadian reservist, and told to serve in Afghanistan, what would your response be?

    Best,

    James

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Ignatieff writes in his "Empire Lite": "Imperialism doesn't stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect." pg 106.

    Okay, here's the test: Do you guys know any other human being who would write such a thing?

    And no, G. and Al, this isn't taken out of context. There's no way to take this out of context. This and a couple of other things he wrote tell the whole story of that snake in our parliament.

    Read it again: "Imperialism doesn't stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect."

    Such words are a trickster's stock in trade.

    Come on you guys. You GOTTA see who this guy really is.
    And yeah, he's talking about the American Empire. This is his entire deal.

    Get it?

    Deconstruct the sentence. Deconstruct the sentence.

    Of course, a guy with the narcissism of Ignatieff doesn't really worship American Imperialism--it's just another trick. He's pandering for power. And he's not really interested in power emanating from Canadians. It's big power he's sucking up to--Bilderberger-type power.

    Do I have to tell you guys everything?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Ok, " G West", I posted too late. But I now understand your viewpoint. Still, would you refuse orders?

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    I think Truman has got it in one.

    With deadly accuracy.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    No. You're still wrong. As I said, I choose my words very carefully. You don't. You should learn to be a bit more careful too.

    You know Ignatieff is the legitimate MP for his riding. Why flog a dead horse.
    If you want to criticize the man, there are ways to do that, you just haven't established how. You make nothing of your other alleged points. Why is he an elitist?
    What evidence so you have that this is true?
    What has he done to prove this to you?

    Truman is closer to doing this - being a legitimate critic, although he still takes the man's words very carefully out of context. But Truman is as much a trickster as Ignatieff, after all, he is most concerned with generating a reaction in his readers

    I suspect even he would admit that.

    Neither of them (Ignatieff or Truman) are as harmful or soul destroying as Mr Harper.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    I would not be a part of the Canadian military under the current regime. I would do nothing to support what I think are Harper’s selfish and highly political reasons for continuing to have Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Period.

    Hypothetical questions are a waste of my time. As I said, under the current arrangement, it would probably be unwise for anyone who planned on making a career of the military to avoid being part of the current adventure in Afghanistan if the opportunity arose. While this is both unjust and unfair, it is undoubtedly true.

    I also tried to give you a strong clue about how you might want to attack Mr Ignatieff. Surely I don't have to spell it out for you, do I?

    Why do you think you hate Ignatieff anyway? Just out of curiosity?

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Truman
    Is it what you see as Ignatieff's duplicitousness that bothers you most? Or is it the fact that he couches what he says and writes in such complex and academic language?

    I was certainly disappointed that he voted with the government on the additional 2 year deployment and I think he may rue the day he did come December. By then, I expect, the popularity of this war will be down to about 29% and it will certainly make his run for the leadership more difficult.

    On the other hand, I suppose he'll use it as evidence that he is tough and principled. I'm sure he 'sees' it that way; I'm equally sure he's mistaken on this issue - and lots of others too - but I can still respect his intellect and his courage...much as I did some (but not all) of Trudeau's thinking. Without, I'd hasten to add, ever having voted for him.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Okay, so how about this: If Ignatieff doesn't get to become P.M. in a few years and decides to chuck it and get back to Harvard in the Empire that he loves, will that tell you guys ANYTHING about the guy?

    Don't say no, eh, cause you're starting to scare me.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Truman
    I think he'd be more likely to go back to England if and when he leaves politics. He actually didn't spend that much time in the States - less than 5 years if memory serves. And no, why would it be surprising if that’s what he did? Furthermore, what exactly would it prove?

    Look, I've never said I support him politically but I'm not afraid to recognize that he has an intellect and that he isn't afraid to use it.

    I'm more frightened by guys like james here who can't articulate why they have a problem with him other than to post a string of sound bites disconnected from anything studied or analytical.

    But I'm actually more interested in why you feel the way you do. Is it just a basic distrust of anyone who has a program or a set of beliefs?

    I really do see you as a trickster figure because you react so decisively and emotionally.
    I don't distrust that; I just can't quite understand it.
    Cheers.

  • 4Cryinoutloud

    5 years ago

    G West

    Why can't someone use their intuition to tell them they are looking at someone they cannot trust? I know some of us are more in touch with that part of ourselves than others but there is no way to document that kind of decision making for someone like you that feels all your evidence has to be written "somewhere" by "someone else".

    My first indication that I could not trust Ignatieff was when he was interviewed after being "selected" to run in his riding and said he saw what was happening to his country and had to come back and do something about it. Achmad Chalabi came to my mind immediately. They both were living in the USA and now both have returned to their homelands running in government. Well the Iraqis didn't fall for Chalabi and I certainly hope that more Canadians use their "good senses" to reject Igatieff as well.

    I was NOT surprised that Igantieff voted for more war because that is who I saw him to be just from watching, listening and reading him. The same way I felt about Harper. They both have something they need to "prove" and it has nothing to do with doing what's best for my country.

    You can pooh pooh my way of judging character but it has never let me down.

    I don't have the birthdates for Gerard Kennedy nor Martha Hall Findlay so I can't speak about them but as crazy as some may think it I believe Hedy Fry to be one of the better candidates running for the leadership. She's real. Warts and all I can trust her. She was my physician many years ago and I really liked her matter of factness. She also has a very positive and strong astrological chart. Not the usual "deceptive" aspects that an outstanding number of politicians have. She's in politics for all the "right" reasons. She would have Canada's best interests at heart which is how I felt about Trudeau even though he did some things I did not approve of. I always trusted he did the things he did because he loved Canada as much as I did.

    I have no problem reading your comments and most often agree with much of what you say and often disagree with James but I don't think you are correct when you tell someone that their "opinions" are not a valid part of a debate. Opinions are normally arrived at through life experience and granted some may have had a richer, deeper life than others but I believe both ways of debating are better served in combination.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    4Cryinoutloud

    Can't disagree with what you've said without taking a lot more time than I have this morning.

    Suffice to say I don't think the Chalabi parallel is apt - for a lot of reasons I'm pretty confident about and will cover later – if you’re interested.

    I've been more than clear that I don't support Ignatieff and I’m no Liberal but I think he's intellectually interesting and a lot deeper and more analytical than our current PM. I think james was just spewing sound bites and I think if you look back you'll find he was more involved with attacking his interlocutors than his main target in most of what he wrote subsequently as well. I expect there is another reason behind the obvious hate he has on for Ignatieff. You'll notice he's the only one I spent any time responding to other than Truman.

    As for Truman, you can see what I posted for him. I don't think I've been dismissive or intellectually dishonest with anyone on this thread.

    I'll get back to your other points later, ok.
    I take this stuff seriously. Always.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    G. West,

    Ignatieff wrote this in the New York Times:
    (concerning Germany's refusal to sent troops to Iraq)

    Title: Who Are Americans To Think That Freedom Is Theirs To Spread? June 26, 2005

    "The reticence extends even to those nations that owe their democracy to American force of arms. Freedom in Germany was an imperial imposition, from the cashiering of ex-Nazi officials and expunging of Anti-Semitic nonsense from school textbooks to the drafting of a new federal constitution. Yet Chancellor Gerhard Schroder can still intone that democacy
    cannot be "forced upon these societies from the outside." This is not the only oddity. As Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of the German weekly Die Zeit points out, the '68-ers now in power in Germany all spent their radical youth denouncing Mubarak! Shah Pahlevi! King Faisal!'
    Now it seems as though an American president has finally heard their complaints...But what is coming out of Germany?..Nothing but deafening silence!

    Ya know, G. You're a pretty smart guy. Why can't you identity all the non-sequitors and lies in this kind of stuff? Are you just in love with Ignatieff or something? What's going on?

    Do you think Ignatieff really thinks Bush went to Iraq to preserve freedom?

    This is the kind of crap that he's using that intellect for. (that you respect so much)

    A very evil person wrote this stuff, G. I wouldn't fool ya.

    The reason I see him as a puke is not so much that he wrote it, but rather, it's obvious that he doesn't really believe any of it. He's too smart.

    He's a fantastic liar. He's appealing to people he refers to as "the common people"--unsophisticated people who will "respect his intellect"--no offence, G, but kinda like you, for instance.

    This is what demagogues do. They don't have any morals. They don't believe in anything except their ability to persuade.

    I mean, look how this creep is trying to equate the Americans opposing the Nazis with Bush sending troops to Iraq.

    Do you think that Ignatieff is so stupid that he doesn't know that Bush and Colin Powell basically invented the entire rationale for invading Iraq?

    Do you think he cares?

    Do you think even David Shrum would write this kind of transparent crap? (bad example)

    But come on!

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Truman
    I'm busy for now. I'll get back to you later. You deserve a response. Maybe you should read back over the posts here to understand my point of view a tiny bit better.

    I just want people to learn to think for themselves - short answer - more later.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    All right, Truman, here goes:
    I've a bit of time available so I looked back in my files to find a copy of the piece you've chosen to quote from above...just to refresh my memory.

    As you say, it was published on June 26, 2005. My reading of it is that it was mainly concerned with making a connection and a comparison between Thomas Jefferson's vision for America in the world - as illustrated by words taken from a letter (June, 1826) that Jefferson wrote some 10 days before his death - and the state of the current vision of democracy in America and of American democracy in the world, as at July 4, 2005.

    It's a long piece, 5030 words, and it appeared in the Sunday Magazine section of the Times.

    You quoted one passage of 120 words - a little more than 2% of the whole piece.

    Would it be fair to say, for a start, that your selection is hardly a fair reflection of the complete article?

    Now, I have less than 4200 characters to make my case and I’ve already expended about 800 of them to this point so down to business.

    This essay is for an American audience, for a start, and that makes a big difference. He’s concerned with addressing Americans’ own view of their role in the world and he uses Jefferson’s notion of America as a beacon and democratizing force for good to provide context.

    I think it’s valid that a majority of Americans do see themselves in this way and I think Ignatieff’s thesis that this attitude is at least partly responsible for them getting into Iraq is unexceptionable.

    But, he also points out how many other countries, including Canada, France, Western Europe and others disagree with the American approach for a wide variety of reasons; he goes on to describe how badly, not to say incompetently, the war has been prosecuted and is quite clear about the fact that many Americans too are no longer willing to pay the price to sustain the war.

    In the end, it’s a pretty pessimistic piece and it doesn’t gloss over America’s record in Vietnam or Latin America. Withal, I find I’d probably have been less patient than Ignatieff is with the whole idea of America as a savior manqué, but, I certainly don’t think he comes across as a liar, a demagogue or a man deficient in morals. It’s a thoughtful piece of journalism, in my opinion, ending as it does, with the following:

    Quote:
    There is nothing worse than believing your son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother died in vain. Even those who have opposed the Iraq war all along, who believe that the hope of planting democracy has lured America into a criminal folly, do not want to tell those who have died that they have given their lives for nothing.

    Don’t know about you, but I can’t help but think those lines are pretty sincere. Even though I think the Iraqi debacle will spell the beginning of the end of the kind of nonsense a lot of Americans seem to believe about themselves and will be, for the future, one hopes, the beginning of a better (or at least more realistic) life for all – and not just for Americans – I still can’t help but feel some regret that a lot of fine people and generous ideals have been squandered so wastefully in the exercise.

    I don’t think Ignatieff was wrong to point out these contradictions to his hosts as they prepared to celebrate the birthday of their country.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    That's his technique, pretending to be reasonable and cognisant of contradictions--that's how he fooled you, G.

    You're just never going to get psychopaths!

    Or you're just joking. I think you're joking.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Truman
    Look, he's a complex writer. You can't reduce 5000 words to a few simple lines. I don't think he's a psychopath because he sees the world is a complicated place and that peoples motives aren't always as pure as they'd like others to think they are. I didn't mention, but he also points out the fundamental disconnect between what Jefferson says about democracy and the fact that he (Jefferson) was not only the former president of the Republic but also a slave owner and an adulterer - with a black woman of all things.

    I just think it's too simple to dismiss somebody like Ignatieff who has complicated ideas about the interface between politics and philosophy.

    I don't in any way revere the man. But I'd be a liar if I said I hadn't learned from reading him.

    I just think that proper criticism requires more that a few cut-outs and sound bites to deal with somebody like him.

    So, no, I'm not joking - but I'm not worshipful either.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    4Cryinoutloud
    I expect you'll have read my response(s) to Truman and that, for the most part the general tenor of what I've said there will suffice to explain most of my approach.

    I see no parallel between Chalabi and Ignatieff. Chalabi is a convicted criminal and a disgraced politician. Ignatieff is an intellectual and journalist, a teacher who has also spent considerable time in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Chalabi had everything to gain from supporting the Iraq adventure; Ignatieff had nothing to gain except, as he said, to promote democracy and an end to tyranny.

    I think he was mistaken in supporting the war and the way it has been prosecuted and I think he erred because he thought the ends would justify the means. I'd say that kind of thinking is almost always wrong and absolutely always risky and I'm surprised he succumbed to it. On the other hand, he spent a lot of time on the ground there and seems to have been very much influenced by what he saw. I'm not so arrogant as to say I might not be more sympathetic if I could share his perspective.

    As to James's remarks. I've looked back at them one more time and I'm pretty confident I did him no disservice. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

    Cheers.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    4Cryinoutloud
    Looking back over my post, I realize I've failed to comment on the idea most central to what you said this morning.

    I'd say that was the following statement:

    Quote:
    but I don't think you are correct when you tell someone that their "opinions" are not a valid part of a debate. Opinions are normally arrived at through life experience and granted some may have had a richer, deeper life than others but I believe both ways of debating are better served in combination.

    I think it deserves a more complete response than I gave above.

    You also said this:

    Quote:
    Why can't someone use their intuition to tell them they are looking at someone they cannot trust?

    Can I deal with intuition first?

    My problem with intuition, unless it is accompanied by some kind of evidence or logic, is that it can be nothing more than inchoate passion. The kind of thing that demagogues do when they are trying to convince people to react emotionally and to stop thinking for themselves.

    I have some problems with Ignatieff too, as I pointed out to Truman above, but I wouldn't just dismiss him and condemn him with words like carpetbagger, liar or elitist. I think intuition can be mistaken as often as it is accurate. Like first impressions, which are ‘never’, wrong - except when they are. Thinking people are guided by reason, not emotion. Intuition may help me pick lottery numbers, but I've never found those numbers produce any more winners than Quick pick.

    As for opinion: Completely different matter. Opinions are important. However, they have to be based on facts and not impressions, details and not speculation. It is my opinion that Michael Ignatieff is a man who thinks deeply about the problems of finding an adequate moral approach to politics and foreign relations. I can find all sorts of evidence of his thinking about such ideas. It is also my considered opinion that some of his conclusions amounted to dreaming in respect of the Iraq war. In some ways this is a consequence of his own overly academic approach compounded by a sense of personal responsibility that he gained from having identified so closely with people he observed who had suffered under Saddam Hussein. In some ways it is an outgrowth of his background and upbringing as a child of a Canadian diplomat who was very active during the years that Canada’s reputation as a helpful fixer was born and grew to maturity.

    Had I wanted to criticize the man, that's the way I'd have done it. I would not have laid out a dozen disconnected personal impressions of a man who I know only from having read his words. I’d have used his actual words to illustrate what I saw as a problem about him and his ideas.

    Your example of Hedy Fry is interesting. In this case your personal feelings about her - because you know her in that way - becomes more significant in terms of your evaluation than would be the case for others who know her only from her words.

    Isn't it possible that you'd feel differently about Ignatieff too if you actually had shaken his hand and shared a beer with him on a hot afternoon?

    I'm glad Ignatieff in running for the Liberal leadership. I think it will be interesting to see how he deals with the rough and tumble of the race. I think, if he wins, that he'll bring something new and different to Canadian politics and if he doesn't, we'll still have a chance to get to know someone who has the courage to illustrate controversial ideas in the public forum and submit them for criticism. When theoreticians like him come out of the academy and engage I think that’s a good thing, not something to be decried.

    I don't think he's afraid to admit he's been wrong and I've seen several examples in his writing where he's acknowledged that his ideas are in flux and subject to change. As an alternative to Mr. Harper that would be a pleasant change.

    I won’t be voting for him but I’m not embarrassed to say I think he’s worthy of my paying him some close attention.

    My view. Cheers.

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West says:

    "I think [Mr Ignatieff] erred because he thought the ends would justify the means. I'd say that kind of thinking is almost always wrong and absolutely always risky and I'm surprised he succumbed to it."

    Yet earlier G West stated:

    "The details of the [Ignatieff] nomination are trivial... but, as you say, he got the most votes and that's democracy, as it is practiced in this country."

    Marta (and presumbably G West] are arguing that the end [Mr.Ignatieff's 'win'] justifies the means.

    It matters only that Mr. Ignatieff 'won' in Etobicoke-Lakeshore - right? Not how the 'win' occurred...right? You seem unbothered by the means...this is troubling. Very...
    You guys are so confused...

    G West is being self-contradictory, or 'wilfully ambiguous'...what he believes is not clear to the readers... G West erred in exactly the same way that his man, Mr.Ignatieff did. Oh dear...

    On opinion, G West states:

    "As for opinion: Completely different matter. Opinions are important. However, they have to be based on facts and not impressions, details and not speculation".

    What absolute nonsense!

    No, G West is wrong here. Why?
    Opinion is personal belief or judgement not founded on proof or evidence or certainty. This is a fact. I am just giving the universal english language definition and understanding of what an opinion is. G West apparently does not get it. He should, after reading this.

    It gets worse with G West:

    On intuition, G West states:

    "I think intuition can be mistaken as often as it is accurate. Like first impressions, which are ‘never’, wrong - except when they are. Thinking people are guided by reason, not emotion".

    I strongly disagree (so would most thinking people, I suggest). Why?

    Intuition is a legitimate mode of understanding or knowing; it's immediate and direct, occurring without thoughts or judgement. It's a response to subtle cues etc, grasped implicitly. G West may not trust his intuition or that of others because intuition is somehow 'mystical', 'inaccurate' or 'unscientific'.

    G West and others here prefer 'pure reason', the rational, the 'scientific'...they are part of some rational sect, it would seem. No room for belief, intuition, common sense also.
    'Cold reason, please. We are rational, and exclusively so.'

    What you might well be is bloody dangerous, guys!

    Exclusive reliance on reason leaves society rudderless. Reason integrated with belief, intuition, common sense (and a host of other values/virtues...) is far superior to reason by itself. But G West, "Alcibiades" and some others here demand (exclusively) reason/rationality. They have an assumed contempt for opinions (without understanding the word), beliefs, and intuition (without understanding the intuitive process).
    The study of human behaviour is complex, guys. Your 'hymn to the rational' is weird, boring, and dangerous.

    I really do not want to get into a slanging match with you over reason, intuition, opinion etc but we should first all agree on certain definitional terms. But some here are distorting defintions.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West and ""Alcibiades":

    You are both trying in vain to flush out hatred of Mr. Ignatieff. I will spare you both some further effort:

    Although many Canadians likely hate Mr. Ignatieff, I do not (yet). However, I do have strong contempt for the man.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West writes, bizarrely, that

    "Had I wanted to criticize the man [Mr. Ignatieff], that's the way I'd have done it. I would not have laid out a dozen disconnected personal impressions of a man who I know only from having read his words. I’d have used his actual words to illustrate what I saw as a problem about him and his ideas"

    Mercy!

    What bloody nonsense again from G West!

    The above statement by G West is self-contradictory. Every reader can see this for themselves. G West, what you see of Mr. Ignatieff from reading the man's words is equivalent to your impression of Mr. Ignatieff after reading the man's words. Surely you grasp that!

    Enough bloody nonsense, G West.

    What's going on with you?

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    Would you like to read the essay I was discussing?

    If so, please post your email address and I'll send you a copy of it in word format from my files.

    Then you could have a go at actually criticizing what he has to say.

    Cheers.

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West:

    Mr. Ignatieff may be confused and self-contradictory; but the point (above) is that so are you, G West. That should concern you, not me or your man, Ignatieff.

    Get it?

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Conrad Black is endorsing Mr. Ignatieff.

    First reported in the National Post, January 31st, 2006.

    Best,

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james

    Do you want the essay or not?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Re: G West's comments:

    "Isn't it possible that you'd feel differently about Ignatieff too if you actually had shaken his hand and shared a beer with him on a hot afternoon?"

    Yes, it's possible, but unlikely.

    Ignatieff is no Clinton etc. He does not display real empathy much at all; he hasn't a 'common touch'(your statement above assumes this quality, I think); he tries (because he must), but it is imitative, and insincere (witness his constant refrain "my dear friends..."); it makes my skin crawl!

    Someone reveal this guy, please!

    And, as I said above, there is always cause to be wary of manners: i.e. the fact that an individual shakes your hand and drinks a beer with you.....doesn't reveal a lot about what they really think, nor even of what they think of you.....at all.

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james

    Do you want the essay or not?

    I have no problem with you or anyone else criticizing Ignatieff. Just do it on the basis of what he's actually 'said' and what he's actually 'written' and not what you or anyone else 'intuits' about him. He is an intellectual. He’s spent his life in academia. He’s not just somebody going into politics half-cocked about some trivial local issue or other. I think people like that deserve to be criticized in a different way than, for example, an MP like Gary Lunn from Sannich and the Islands

    Set up a hotmail account in whatever name you want, post it here and I'll send you a text file of the essay. Then go to town!

    That's all I've been saying all along.
    Cheers

  • james

    5 years ago

    Acquiring a hard copy today.

    Then will get back.

    Just a point, though. I strongly disagree that an 'academic' must necessarily be immunized from criticism non-academics (and indeed other academics) normally receive.

    This is arguing for a double-standard. This is unfair. And unacceptable in a democracy. Again, I am suspicious that it is a subtle endorsement of elitism - one of my core contentions with your man, Mr. Ignatieff.

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    First of all, very quickly:
    (i) Ignatieff is not my man; and
    (ii) I never said academics deserved a pass when it comes to criticism; howerver
    (iii) I merely said that they deserve to be criticized on the basis of what they've actually said and, or done;
    (iv) A quick question fo you, what do you mean when you say "elitism"?

    Ignatieff now has one 'political' deed in his record; he voted with Harper on the extention of the Afghan adventure for Canadian troops. T'd say that was a mistake even though I haven't seen his justification yet - but I'll be more than happy to analyze it when I do.

    cheers

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West (and the other Ignatieff sycophants):

    Re: "Who are Americans to think that freedom is theirs to spread?", by Michael Ignatieff. NYT, 26 June, 2006,

    I read this op-ed, as you asked me to do.

    I needn't have, though.

    Mr. Ignatieff writes like an above-average College student - no better. (moreover, true academics continue to dispute his credentials, - as I've said before)

    Further, the article's tone is flaky. Or rather, it is ethereal. Extrapolate that: the writer is faky, he is ethereal (many commentators have stated as much before, also).

    He clearly prefers the word 'rule' to govern or manage etc. I told you guys. Mr. Ignatieff ain't no real democrat. I will almost guarantee it. He is a dangerously ambitious dilettante.

    An example: in his article he defends 'imperialism' of a sort.

    What the ___?

    He begins with a ridiculous universal claim (always contestable; always very difficult to substantiate): "its impossible to untangle the contradictions of American freedom without thinking about Jefferson and the spiritual abyss..."

    Yawn...

    He sets the reader up for a fallacy or two also, for example:

    "the problem here is that while no one wants imperialism to win, no one in his right mind can want liberty to fail".

    What choice!

    Elitist? Perhaps a tad...

    Look, guys, he writes averagely. He comes across as 'everyman'. (remember he has PhD in History - I am sorry, but a PhD doesn't mean much on its own, and History is an easier PhD than most)

    The entire article is his account of selected events and incidents. He has written an historical narrative. I would emphasise the word 'narrative'.

    And as such, it's boring.

    Mr. Ignatieff writes like a dilettante. I honestly believe that this man does not care that much at all. He writes like he is finger-painting a history lesson. He likes his own penmanship - that's about it.

    I do not regard the man as a serious academic at all (nor, I am almost certain, do thousands of true academics everywhere).

    Now, it leaves an important question unanswered: what is it that Mr. Ignatieff can do (and well)?

    Here is something you must enjoy, guys:

    Ironically, Mr. Ignatieff writes that " the chaos of the contested [US] presidential election in 2000....left the impression...that closure had been achieved at the expense of justice". It reads as if the writer might care about the process. Right? Yes? Yes, I think.

    ~6 months later, Mr Ignatieff is committing the same grievous electoral error - without so much as a scintilla of a sliver of an apology to the good people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Liberal Party, or the other local candidates.

    The Harper war-room are already all over this stuff, don't worry.

    I do not respect this individual (at all), his 'work', or much of his revealed life experience. (and I am the least of his problems, guys)

    Harper and too many Liberals (and others) are going to play with this individual's political aspirations like putty. I guarantee it. And, Mr. Ignatieff deserves to be played like putty.

    Although it is an unfair comparison in many ways, I contend that Mr. Harper is the brighter individual. In fact, I'd bet on it. Mr. Harper appears serious and seriously intelligent. Mr Ignatieff appears slightly gay and dilettantish about the world. I am sorry, but I do think this opinion also reflects the views of many many others. It's just too obvious a conclusion to draw.

    What other articles by your aristotelean Mr. Igantieff must we all read?

    God save us!

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West:

    by 'elitism', I mean the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals.

    You can figure out the rest - you seem bright enough.

    Best,

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james:

    You still haven't dealt with the complex issues addressed in an essay that's more than 5000 words long. Further, it was a feature article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, not an Op Ed, just another of your frequent errors and misstatements.

    Then, as I hoped you wouldn't, you go on to throw a whole lot more dirt without actually contending with what Ignatieff has actually written. Did you note his explication of the reason Canadians didn't support the American exercise in Iraq?

    I'm surprised you didn't pay more attention to the disconnect between American values and American history as regards Latin America; or did you not get around to those parts of the essay either? What about his comments on the reflection of America's 'history' with respect to slavery and civil rights? Not worthy of any notice either - or are you still reading those parts?

    I begin to wonder if you really did read the essay at all. However, that doesn't stop you from saying this:

    Quote:
    Mr. Ignatieff writes like an above-average College student - no better. (moreover, true academics continue to dispute his credentials, - as I've said before)

    [You might actually want to quote one of those ‘true academics’ who “continue to dispute his credentials” because you’re getting pretty close to libel again, by the way.]
    and this:

    Quote:
    Further, the article's tone is flaky. Or rather, it is ethereal. Extrapolate that: the writer is faky(sic), he is ethereal (many commentators have stated as much before, also). [Is that flaky, faky(sic), or ethereal? Does he manage to carry off all three?]

    but no quoted examples to support these accusations, then you go on to write:

    Quote:
    The Harper war-room are already all over this stuff, don't worry.

    Which pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

    By the way, I'm not worried, even though the Harper war room sounds like another transplanted American phenomenon.

    You actually haven't got a clue about how to contend with Michael Ignatieff's intellect, his ideas, or the threat he poses to your own transparent ideology. That much is obvious.

    I guess you're counting on Mr. Harper for that.

    Anyway, post your email address if you actually want to read the whole article.

    I’ll bet you won’t though.

    Cheers.
    PS, Do you see now what I meant, 4Cryinoutloud?

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West:

    You are beginning to sound weird (constant irrelevant and unsolicited requests on this site for my email address. What else must you ask for: my shoe size? Watch yourself, G West -or the law may find you interesting.

    I have a copy.

    You strike me as naive.

    I am clearly beginning to debunk the Ignatieff myth for you, and you are suffocating with your bold font typing! Hilarious.

    You resort to 'I'm right, you are not!' techniques.

    You are skirting around so many issues that I have legitimately raised. I am tiring of your tirades.

    Pick me apart one by one, if you dare...

    You bore me with your unexamined, sycophantic interest in this man named Michael Ignatieff.

    Yawn.........

    p.s what article were you reading?

    Best,

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    Post something substantive and not a lot of idle and unsupported opinions that border on libel then; if you've actually read the essay.

    If you had read it, you’d know if was no OpEd.

    Do you actually know what an OpEd is?

    Or where the concept started?

    I'll post my email address anytime. I'm not in the business of posting garbage about anyone, ever, and I'm proud of what I believe. Clearly, the same doesn't apply in your case. You obviously have something to hide or someone to hide from.

    Now, if you actually have the essay, how about reading it.

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West,

    Are you quite compos mentis?

    What is an opinion, for you? Define it. (It is my opinion that Mr.Ignatieff writes like an above-average College student, no better)

    What is intuition, for you? Define it. Why is it less valid?

    Comment on Ignatieff's judgement of Election 2000 [US], and what that should infer about his own Etobicoke-Lakeshore election. Dare you admit his deep character flaw over this issue?

    Describe an historical narrative? (because this is what he writes; he writes about incidents and events that he has had no part in - for the most part; he is an 'historian' though he craves to be more.)

    You are fallaciously appealing to this man's authority to write (an authority vested in his title, and his PhD in history and the fact that he writes more than 5000 words, and has a 'Feature Article' (not an Op-ed), and in The NYT, no less)

    Are you a snob? (snobbery is not a Canadian quality)

    All of these do not provide adequate reason(s) for establishing the truth of any of Mr. Ignatieff's conclusions) You are awkwardly deferential to all of the above. This has you sounding like a sycophant. You come across to me as the ever-regardful acolyte of Mr. Ignatieff. No matter how you protest, that is how you come across.

    There is nothing necessarily complex about a 5000+ word document. Especially this one.

    Do you yet understand the word elitist, or elitism? Show us a sign that you comprehend?

    Explain how having a beer with and shaking the hand of Mr. Ignatieff would change a voter's (or any other's) opinion of this individual?

    Explain you contradictory statement below:
    "Had I wanted to criticize the man [Mr. Ignatieff], that's the way I'd have done it. I would not have laid out a dozen disconnected personal impressions of a man who I know only from having read his words. I’d have used his actual words to illustrate what I saw as a problem about him and his ideas"

    What is so distinctive about Mr. Ignatieff's words on Jefferson? Nothing, I contend.
    He is simply borrowing from others (big-time). It is not quite plagiarism, but?
    Jefferson is the American enigma. Jefferson is thought - by too many - to personify the US's ambivalent record on racism, slavery, and freedom. His vision for the Indian people was that though they were noble, they would be doomed. He even speculated in Indian lands etc.
    None of what Ignatieff writes on is new - none of it. He borrows - heavily. I think he is imitative, a bit of a dilettante, and yes, you said it, a fake.

    Comment on Mr. Ignatieff's use of 'imperialism'? Why not?

    Or his favoured use of the word 'rule'? Why not? (Mr. Siegel enjoys that word 'rule' also)
    These traits are offensive, I find.

    Your logic is weak:

    G West perhaps argues:

    "All people who write books/articles/> 5000+ words are intellectuals. All intellectuals should be treated specially. Mr Ignatieff writes, so is an intellectual, and therefore he should be treated specially also."

    You are either very naive (which I suspect), or you are complicit in this dangerous play for elitism in Canadian public life.

    Or is it something else?

    Why do you love/adore/defend/honour Mr. Ignatieff this much?

    Please explain your viewpoint.

    Because its about time you did.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West,

    Lay off the public notice of your personal email address and your repeated solicitation for mine.

    It's creepy.

    I think others can see this also.

    Anyone can get the article you refer to without handing over to you data which is personal (+/- sensitive etc).

    This is why I suggest that you are very very naive...or compicit.

    What is your stand on civil liberties and sensitive personal data collection?
    CCTV in Canadian streets etc?
    Care to reveal?

    Stop being creepy.

    Best,

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    My opinions are not the subject of our ‘debate’.

    The subject is Michael Ignatieff and what he believes. You have written a lot of unsubstantiated and highly personal (in fact possibly libelous) things about him. You have said absolutely nothing about what Ignatieff has actually written or what he believes.

    Again today, as you've been doing ever since I read your first remarks on this thread, you have written nothing of any substance. The only real difference in your current posting is the fact that you've now moved the target of your bile to me.

    But, since this is the last time I’ll waste my valuable time on your facile notions of dialogue, I will quickly deal with your several points one by one. I assume you’ll be able to handle the numbering required to do them in sequence.
    1) Yes. Are you? Here’s one for you: volenti non fit iniuria
    2) An opinion, for it to have any merit, must be based on observation and analysis; upon facts to which others can refer and not just on the product of indefinable feelings.
    3) I’ve already commented about the results of the January 2006 election which Mr. Ignatieff won.
    4) It is my opinion that Michael Ignatieff’s writing is as much political science and philosophy as it is history. I do not agree that this particular essay can be adequately subsumed by the label 'narrative'.
    5) I have asked you to look at and criticize what the man actually wrote – nothing more. You are the one who questioned his qualifications, remember?
    6) I am not a snob. If I were, I certainly wouldn’t bother trying to engage you in discussion.
    7) I’ve never ventured any opinion about what Mr. Ignatieff believes. Go back and check if you like. You’re the one who was questioning the truth and validity of what he stands for. I did say that I thought he should have voted against extending the Afghanistan tour.
    8) Prove it. You haven’t yet shown an evidence of actually having read and understood the essay.
    9) How I define words is not relevant; I do have a dictionary, do you?
    10) I like to get to know all kinds of people, not just the ones I happen to agree with.
    11)Using the written record of someone’s thoughts is a better way to understand and criticize them than simply reaction emotionally – I would have thought that was obvious.
    12) Jefferson and his writings form an important element of the American psyche; to understand the way thinking Americans see themselves, understanding Jefferson is an important prerequisite.
    13) I never called Ignatieff a ‘fake’; check back, you said that.
    14) You need to use that dictionary again.
    15) I haven’t had to use any logic yet. It’s usually only necessary if one’s interlocutor understands how the process works too.
    16) That syllogism is yours, not mine – I don’t happen to think it’s good logic.
    17) So far I haven’t called you any names. You are trying my patience though.
    18) I’m not complicit in anything. I do believe I’ve proved my point conclusively about what you’re up to though.
    19) Please refer back to paragraph 1 above.
    As to my posting my email address. I could care less who sees it: People who don’t libel other folks in print should have nothing to fear from writing publicly. It’s called freedom of speech. It is a wonderful gift and those who use it responsibly have nothing to fear and don't need to hide in the shadows and throw stones.

    cheers

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West,

    sensitive, aren't we?

    Politics is probably not for you. (I think you may know that after these encounters here)

    Your 'defintion' of opinion is immediately qualified! Hilarious!
    In the midst of your definition, you insert your opinion on an opinion!!

    You really are something else!

    You almost set up a fallacious false dilemma for the readers, also:

    "Using the written record of someone’s thoughts is a better way to understand and criticize them than simply reaction emotionally ".

    One or the other? No alternative means of 'understanding'in your view?

    Although I respect your right of reply, I find that your assessment of Mr. Ignatieff still ignores counter opinion (yes, it is valid), intuition (still valid), and counter-evidence (you like that word, don't you!).

    On the whole, G West, you proffer a rather one-sided assessment of Mr. Ignatieff. And that is your weakest point.

    Talk of libel, and allegations of libel are two distinct matters. Which one is your concern?

    Empty rhetoric...?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james

    I've been watching this little drama. I feel kind of responsible since I was the first one, followed by marta, to point out your errors.

    G West is right. You haven't said a single thing about Ignatieff except:
    getting his age wrong; libeling him for allegedly being on the take and suggesting that an endorsement from Conrad Black means anything. All the rest has been empty rhetoric.

    I think you're nothing but a right wing political operative who's more concerned with damning the man (for some unknown reason) than you are trying to understand what he actually believes.

    I can see why G West gave up on you. You’re hopeless.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    Correction: your attempts to prevail over me are hopeless.

    If, here, I have helped any reader think again about Mr. Ignatieff, then it will have all been worth while.

    Or do you prefer a one-sided assessment?

    This Liberal Party will remain divided, and out of power for several painful electoral cycles. I feel pity for you and your cause - the dilettante, Mr. Ignatieff.

    Finally, I am very confident that the views expressed here can adversely affect this man's candidature; I am also supremely confident of the ultimate result.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Despite the apparent rancor (unintentional, I am sure), there are still some perturbing facts here that we can all agree upon:

    Mr. Ignatieff is a carpet-bagger (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).

    Mr. Ignatieff has lived outside Canada for most of his adult life (almost 30 years!!).

    Mr. Ignatieff's personal background is one of elite circles and special advantages.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    I would have preferred a fair assessment to the one-sided one you tried, and failed, to present.

    As I wrote yesterday, you clearly have an axe to grind, which is okay it you are honest enough to admit it. However, you pretend to be a fair critic and fail to provide any fair criticism.

    I think readers will have been able to see you for what you are and will make up their own unprejudiced minds about Michael Ignatieff. And that's a good thing!

    I think he scares you and your conservative colleagues. And that’s a good thing too!

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    By the way: You're right about the absence of rancour; but completely wrong about the other points in your final post - I don't agree with you about anything else - so don't try to pretend I do.

    Moreover, I think there are a number of other posters who commented on this story who'd say exactly the same thing, not just marta and G West.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades"

    Although it was a bit like pulling teeth, Marta finally effectively admitted that Mr. Ignatieff is a carpet-bagger.

    Why is it that you disagree with this?

    Why do you disagree with the statement that Mr. Ignatieff has lived outside Canada for most of his adult life (almost 30 years)?

    Why do you still disagree with the statement that Mr. Ignatieff's personal background is one of elite circles and special advantages?

    (and where/when did I ever get his age wrong????)

    Why do you disagree?

    Don't attack the messenger. Do not excuse yourself from a rebuttal on some spurious ground that this blogger is not worthy enough to reply to etc etc etc. This is childish.

    Answer these simple questions (if you dare).

    If you do not, it does strongly suggest to readers everywhere that you favour one assessment only of Mr. Ignatieff (your own). This is unbalanced. It is unfair. It is unexamining of you.

    If not, just answer my three questions please?
    Surely it cannot hurt your pride to?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    But this is also what marta said:

    Quote:
    But the voters of Etobicoke Lakeshore voted for him. The word is - they liked him, and he's really good at face to face discussions.

    He WON. What's your point?

    Remember

    Your errors and false insinuations are on the record above.

    I can't force you to admit them if you don't want to.

    You still have said not a single word about what Michael Ignatieff believes, period.

    I'll stand by what I've written above. You stand by what you've said if you want to.

    My pride is completely uninjured, thank you very much.

    I could care less how long Michael Ingatieff worked outside this country. You might want to do a little travelling yourself; it tends to increase your understanding of others and your empathy for your fellow man. I recommend it highly.

    I do care about what he believes.

    As to rebuttals, when you provide something substantive to rebut, let me know.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades"

    Thanks, that's 2 out of 3 questions you answered. I appreciate it.

    But, please can you answer the 3rd question also?

    Why do you disagree that Mr. Ignatieff's personal background is one of elite circles and special advantages?

    Please answer this, thanks...

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    I don't think having a higher education means he got special advantages. His father was a refugee from the Soviet Union and his mother worked in intelligence in London during the war. How does that make him a member of an elite?

    Do you think he's spent all his life with a silver spoon in his mouth like George Bush? Well he hasn't. He's actually been in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq - and not part of a government junket. Maybe you didn't know that?

    I can't understand why you aren't proud when Canada produces some one of international stature, someone who's also willing to give up a life he obviously loves writing and teaching to dedicate himself to the service of his country in the parliament and as a candidate for leader.

    If I was half as confident that Stephen Harper wasn't a purblind political hack I'd be a lot less concerned about the knuckle-draggers who are running a country I love right now.

    I’ll never vote for Ignatieff’s party but I’d cheer to the high heavens if he can manage to send Harper back to the University of Calgary for good.

    Your welcome.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    One thing no one on this thread seems to have recognized is the possible positive consequences for the NDP of an Ignatieff victory in the Liberal leadership contest.

    Since Ignatieff has now tied his star to Harper's plan to extend the Afghan mission to at least 2009 this aspect of foreign affairs may be a big feature in the next election campaign. Especially as Quebecers seem likely to sharpen their already-negative views of Canada’s involvement between now and then.

    If, as seems likely, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan gets worse between now and then it puts the NDP in the position of being the one national party firmly on the record as opposing the extension. In a battle against parties led by Ignatieff and Harper - Layton should be able to attract a lot more left-leaning support from the Liberals than would be the case if someone other than Ignatieff wins.

    Is it possible that Michael Ignatieff, despite his generally activist and left-leaning program, would be a real asset to the Left?

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Thanks, James for taking up my quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands I threw the torch...just kidding.

    Anyway, the reason G.West loves Ignatieff so much is that he's just like the guy--pretending to be actually debating with you. West just does this kind of stuff. I've read his stuff all over the place. Truth is he actually knows Ignatieff is a carpetbagger, pseudopopulist, strategic machievellian (he bs'd about not having time to do his laundry, since he got over from Harvard and his clandestine Cheney-Shrum-Wolfowitz meetings) (just kidding)--the common touch, for all us "common people" (Iggy's comment)

    So, James, G. West just does this, eh.

    He knows Ignatieff writes like a fairly bright grade eleven student, fakes ambiguity on torture, worships the "Imperialism" of the Bushies and just can't hardly wait to be PM so he can phone home and say, like Sally Fields getting the Oscar: "They went for it, they actually went for it."

    I particularly like your comments on intuition, James. Why G and Al can't see what a phony Ignatiff is, is as mysterious as the force that ignited that first lonely nascent hydrogen atom 13.5 billion years ago and precipitated the cascade of events leading to this debate.

    The naive, like the poor, Jesus referred to, will always be around.

    Amoral demagogues need Albiciadians and G. Westians to love them.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Truman
    DO you actually 'read' what I've written before you rev up that outrage engine and start spinning?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Truman,

    Thank you. Commentators like G West do not see that Ignatieff borrows heavily from others. An example (ironic that G West raises it), Mr. Ignatieff's NYT essay (discussed briefly above) borrows heavily from academic literature with its use of the model/metaphor of American Exceptionalism. Ain't nothin' special there guys...it's one standard approach to his topic; and, it's been written about before in superior prose by purer academics than the dilettante, Mr.Ignatieff.

    Mr. Ignatieff's gadfly lackeys like G West simply refuse to or cannot see the wood for the trees here. (definition of a lackey, I suppose)

    Ignatieff is no Trudeau. Trudeau never borrowed. Trudeau knew himself. Trudeau never spent public life in 'search of his own metaphor' - as Mr. Ignatieff must.

    I suggest that Trudeau would laugh derisorily at his latest studied imitator, Mr. Ignatieff.

    And yet, 'believers' like G West and Alcibiades "ooh & err" at this act, from high up in their nose-bleed seats. They are comical!

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    Unfortunately, you, like Truman, apparently can't or at least don’t read.

    You certainly can't debate and you still haven't posted anything substantive to indicate that you actually have the intellectual jam to understand about what Ignatieff is actually writing.

    Whether it's the essay you continually fail to appreciate and understand or your reluctance to declare your own bias against Ignatieff's candidature, you are a tabula rasa when it comes to reason and explication.

    It now seems quite likely that his principled (but still mistaken in my view) stand to support the extension of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan will doom his quest for the Liberal leadership. The Canadian people rightly understand what Mr. Ignatieff (and the Prime Minister) appear to be unwilling to acknowledge: that our association with the American project in Afghanistan is going to condemn and compromise this fine country’s tradition of fairness and objectivity.

    It certainly won't have anything to do with the ineffectual and essentially non-existent campaign you've mounted against him on this thread.

    How long did it take you to come up with that idea about ‘American Exceptionalism’? Pardon me if I suggest you borrowed it from G West's commentary.

    How old are you, actually? 12, 13, 14 tops I'd guess.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Yeah, I can read, Al. You wouldn't believe how much I read so I'm not going to tell you. Okay, I'll tell you. Lots!

    Ignatieff has no principles. Did you say, "his principled stand to support the Canadian mission" in Afghanistan? You're not serious, I know.

    You meant to say his "strategic stand," didn't you? Don't forget, it's Canadians he's trying to impress to get elected. But his real bosses are in the states. It's American foreign policy he's defending. How come you guys don't know this? Nobody could be as gullible as you and West are pretending you are. I used to watch Iggy on tv, pretending to be an intellect. (Poor sentence, I know. It was Ignatieff who was pretending to be an intellect, not me) It's just a shtick--a gimmick.

    Did you and West read Ignatieff pretending to squirm about torture?

    Seriously, though, G and Al, if you look at Iggy's behaviour in the last twelve months, it should become obvious to you that he's just an opportunist. Opportunists don't have principles. They just do what they think will get them to where they want to go.

    Regarding, "American Exceptionalism" originally invented by Alexis de Toqueville back in the early nineteenth century...
    I couldn't find your reference to it, James, but it's perfect representation of what Ignatieff is all about.

    He's about nothing more exceptional than rampant yankophilia. Only you guys can't see it. Weird!

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Seriously though, it's not possible to read the title, "Who are Americans to think that Freedom is Theirs to Spread."

    Principled people don't write sentences like that. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq was about spreading freedom, and G. West you know it, so I'm going to have to suggest that you're just playing dumb, which you're not, so wasup?

    This should be enough to tell you what the guy is all about. These words were written by a sniveling, whining sychophant--not a principled human being.

    Forget all Iggy's comedically verbose essays. If I had read only that title and nothing else, I'd know exactly what kind of person had written it--with the possible exception of it having been invented by a stand-up comedian--say Jon Steward or Chevy Chase.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Meant to write, "It's not possible to read....without understanding...."

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Truman
    Never said you couldn't, or didn't read. I think your analysis is a bit too facile but I also recognize where you're coming from. James, on the other hand, hasn't articulated what he actually does think about Ignatieff and just reacts emotionally - constantly saying the same two or three things when he isn't attacking his interlocutor.

    The sentence you're so exercised about is meant to be taken satirically, in my opinion. I don't think Ignatieff thinks 'freedom' is just the Americans' to spread. In fact, I think the idea of Canada also having a mission to spread freedom, among other things, is central to Ignatieff's worldview. His parents were part of the generation who saw Canada as having an international mission, which grew out of the experience of WWII and post war Pearsonian 'peace' making.

    I think that Canada should be involved in trying to help other countries as much as we can but I don't think, unless we're directly threatened - or unless there is a real international consensus - that we should be involved in shooting people and blowing them up.

    Ignatieff, given the way he voted last week in the House, apparently sees it differently.

    He's tried to make a consistent and nuanced case for that view - much of it comes from all the time he spent with Isaiah Berlin. He is a classic liberal and he thinks it's important to try and spread the idea of freedom to people who have less than perfect human rights and are victims of one kind or another. I agree with the sentiment but I disagree strongly with the way he implements it.

    I don't think you're being fair in your analysis but I'm not prepared to waste both of our time arguing about it. As I've written several times, I respect his intellect and his determination but I disagree with many of his conclusions.

    What I don't understand is why that should be such a problem for you. I disagree with your interpretation of the HIV/Aids thing because what I've read doesn't convince me. But I'd never be so churlish as to belittle your views or suggest you weren't entitled to them. That's what intellectual honesty is all about, in my opinion; it should never be about a process of just slagging people for some kind of perverse pleasure. When I see you do it, whether it's over the Aids issue, or religion, or whatever, I can't understand why you feel it's necessary. I don't think you're mean-spirited and I've seen you write apologies many times for what you've said.

    I think you might be a little less dismissive of others views. I don't think Ignatieff is funny and I simply can't accept that you really believe that stuff about him being a sniveling, whining sycophant either. I think many people read without understanding, all the time, by the way.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Further, I'd just add that I said I thought his vote was principled precisely because I think it will alienate him from the majority of the Liberal party, especially delegates from Ontario and Quebec who are vehemently against Canada's mission in Afghanistan. If he'd wanted to be opportunistic, in my opinion, he'd have voted against the mission. Supporting it will almost surely mean he'll never become leader - some opportunist.

    He's being, on the contrary, entirely consistent.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    Quote me anywhere above where you think I am not right about Mr. Ignatieff's age, "Alcibiades".

    Let everyone finally see "Alcibiades" apply his much vaunted reasoning processes...to correct an alleged inaccuracy over Mr. Ignatieff's age.

    Be careful how you reply, "Alcibiades". This is quite a test.(i.e. it has implications for your credibility on this website!)

    You're up Aristotle.

    Your age-allegation; quote me, and correct me?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james:

    Quote:
    Ignatieff, a ~ 60 year old political neophyte, is a wilful lamb to the slaughter. Such is the disarray in the Liberal camp.

    [posted: 2 Weeks Ago]

    That is your quotation.

    If it were the only imaginary creation in what you've tried to say about the man, that would be one small thing. Unfortunately, it is not.

    You are wasting my time, james. Either come up with something substantive we can discuss or let's just forget it.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    You i___t, "Alcibiades" ! (I suspected as much weeks back). Let's address "Alcibiades'" 'concern'-

    "Ignatieff, a ~ 60 year old political neophyte..." clearly means (literal interpretation!) "Ignatieff, an approximately 60 year-old political neophyte..."

    ~ means about, approximate, ballpark etc...!

    You may have missed that: this symbol at the end of this word (now) ~ .

    What is wrong with you guys! Sometimes here, you can quickly seem like idiot savants!

    What did you think this symbol ~ meant? Tell us, what do you think this symbol ~ means to you now? Zzzzzzz.....

    "Alcibiades", you are naive also. You have fallen into one trap too easily. Your powers of observation are now under suspicion. You discredit yourself.

    Check, check and then check again. Don't rush in! Only fools do....

    Best,

    James

    p.s. Today, Mr. Ignatieff has one more reason to be concerned about his followers!

    Mon Dieu!

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    Why do you employ condescension? (easier than fact-checking and opinion/intuition/reason/logic?)

    Readers everywhere might see here that you (with attitude to boot) are mistake-prone...

    "Either come up with something substantive we can discuss or let's just forget it". - Oops! "Alcibiades", these are your wise words from above!

    Time for "Alcibiades" to take some of his own medicine....

    We will check in on you in the morning...

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    I am confident that both G West and "Alcibiades" are amateurs.

    One of you imitates a dilettante.

    The other needs to 'google' or search factiva or JSTOR etc or read his copy of APSA's Journal, or ask experts or visit a public/university library etc .... to know what American Exceptionalism, in the context of a discussion about Mr. Ignatieff, means.

    Quickly, you will discover that neither Mr. Ignatieff nor you originally described American Exceptionalism. However, you both heavily borrow from it. This is a serious weakness. I suggest G West refer to original sources first.

    It's not my responsibility to always instruct or educate G West or "Alcibiades". Here, I must make an exception, however.

    Because you guys are both so evidently full of it.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    Why so much rancor and bile spilling from you for PM. Stephen Harper?

    Is it deeply personal?

    Please explain?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    No james, I thought you'd say that, the symbol for approximate is two of those little squiggly lines. By the way, that symbol is a tilde. Two of them, one over the other means approximately equal to...what you posted meant exactly nothing! Except an erroneous reference to Michael Ignatieff's age.

    Sorry james.
    How old are you anyway?

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    And the idea of american exceptionalism. Perhaps you remember this from one of my posts - commenting on Ignatieff's article:

    Quote:
    This essay is for an American audience, for a start, and that makes a big difference. He’s concerned with addressing Americans’ own view of their role in the world and he uses Jefferson’s notion of America as a beacon and democratizing force for good to provide context.

    I assumed you were sophisticated enough to have picked that up if you'd actually read what I wrote.

    Clearly I was giving you too much credit if you had to get the information somewhere else.

    Good night james.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    No, you are not being honest..at all (and you know it):

    Did you intentionally omit to type your symbol for ~?
    Having trouble with your key-board?
    You are hilarious! Your ~ has disappeared?

    You are so disingenuous, "Alcibiades". So transparent. A little too weird for my liking, also (I'll explain this comment about you, below)

    And, yes, I agree with the inference from your post above that Mr. Ignatieff borrows from a standard model of American Exceptionalism. That is what you are writing. You just don't seem to comprehend this fact.

    Admit it, "Alcibiades": your man's writing is unoriginal. One of my conclusions about Mr. Ignatieff is that he is a derivative sort of chap, anyway. Others' ideas/models/metaphors somehow keep finding Mr. Ignatieff's pen! And you and G West blindly applaud his use of others' models. That is my ground for accusing you of being his lackey, or a sycophant. You are unexamined. I cannot take you seriously (on this matter).

    However, you may genuinely not understand what American Exceptionalism refers to? It's not clear to readers here that you do get it, yet.

    We shall attempt to re-educate you. We have at least 2 electoral cycles to work on you and the other sycophants here.

    In your writings here, you do seem quite sensitive about your own age, "Alcibiades". You write on this blog that you are ~ 60 years old. A ~ contemporary of Mr. Ignatieff's. (you must have intended to inform the readers of your own age)
    And you persist with an odd rear-guard action concerning Mr. Ignatieff's age (and your own, perhaps?). Further, you suggest (above) that an ~ adolescent-aged discussant is unworthy of your time, here. How discriminatory of you!

    Are you prone to a type of reverse-ageism, "Alcibiades"? What is it with you and age, "Alcibiades"?

    Finally, and most seriously, you and G West persist with soliciting either my age or other sensitive personal data about me on this blog. There is a public record of this. It appears odd, to say the least. G West had to be warned; it's not acceptable behaviour.

    My earnest advice to you both is to be careful about what you write on this blog. I respect the Law. I presume that you do also. No-one wants any legal trouble.

    As an older individual, you ought to know better anyway.

    Sincerely,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    I think the readers can understand my legitimate concerns about this aspect of your behaviour here, "Alcibiades".

    It is wiser that you desist.

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james:

    Quote:
    Ignatieff, a ~ 60 year old political neophyte, is a wilful lamb to the slaughter. Such is the disarray in the Liberal camp.
    [posted: 2 Weeks Ago]

    That is your quotation.

    If it were the only imaginary creation in what you've tried to say about the man, that would be one small thing. Unfortunately, it is not.

    You are wasting my time, james. Either come up with something substantive we can discuss or let's just forget it.

    James.

    THat's exactly what I posted yesterday. Copied above and posted once again - with the tilde - exactly as YOU typed it and as it was when I posted it yesterday.

    It's not me who's being dishonest.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    That's it for me james.

    I want none of your personal information and I want to know absolutely nothing further about someone as lacking in intellectual honesty as you apparently are.

    G West offered to make available a copy of Ignatieff's essay - you declined. I still doubt you've actually read it. But, even if you had, you are obviously more interested in playing silly games than serious debate.

    I've had enough of you. Goodbye.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Thanks Alcibiades for giving me minor benefit of the doubt. Okay, if I could show your where Ignatieff says that the US is the ONLY country in the world which consistently tries to export freedom (forget Canada, from which he was in exile at the time), would you promise to review my opinion of him?

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Shucks, Al. I just did 4438 characters--way passed my allotted 4100 and I can't find my comment to shorten it--it was a masterpiece, though, I can assure you; and of course, I decisively defended James from your longing, lavender-filled romance with Ignatieff American Exceptionalism.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Truman
    Minor? You're kidding, right!
    Of course, anytime. I always have been open to debate this issue - as I tried unsuccessfully to do with james - and have now given up....you'll no doubt see why above.

    I've never said I supported him politically. I have said that I think he's a significant intellectual force and it's not fair to dismiss him because he discusses the formation of his own ideas and consciousness in a public academic way.

    I'm sure there are many things he'd revisit if he had a chance. I know that's true of me too and I'm sure you know it is of you as well.

    Even his decision to continue to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering what a cock-up it has turned into and what the political costs will likely be for him is, in a way courageous and far from opportunistic. He's an idealist. Those guys don't make good pragmatic politicians but they do help inform the public conscience, in my view. They get us thinking – something lots of people don’t do enough of lately.

    You'd be surprised how strongly I'd defend you, my friend.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Thanks, but if you go into the archives and read an old Crawford Gillian story about Iraq, and follow the comments down to the end you'll see I that predicted exactly what is happening in Iraq and exactly how the American invasion would end. I mean, it's a no brainer. So wouldn't that tend to suggest that I'm smarter than Ignatieff?

    Did you see Colin Powell at the UN lying through his teeth? Do you really think Ignatieff didn't know Bush was lying about that diplomat who supposedly witnessed a deal in Niger for Hussein to buy Uranium. I did! (as if Mobutu wasn't on the payroll of the Americans during his dictatorship in the Congo, or Noriega wasn't a CIA spy while he was supposedly leading Panama).

    Wake up, man. Ignatieff's not a nice person, but I'm feeling a little upbeat that American foreign policy is about to make a shift away from AIPAC domination and towards international civility. Heaven forbid, we could even see the day when America becomes an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. Up till now it's basically been extreme "tail wagging the dog." Sounds weird, eh, "Palestine"--which would do as much as ten million American troops to quell all this hatred and bloodshed in the Middle East. But this is all pretty intellectually sophisticated stuff--Ignatieff wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about, or, more to his style he'd pretend not to have a clue.

    Hopefully Ignatieff's ability to undermine this country will diminish concurrently.

    Are you suggesting then, that I'm smarter than Ignatieff? I mean I think so obviously, but even half my IQ would allow any fool to see that the whole thing was not inspired by any intention of "exporting American freedom," as Ignatieff pretends that he believes it is.

    He's a liar; a phony and a faker and he wants to be our Prime Minister so that he can bask in the adoration of his AIPAC handlers and his personal Nietscheian triumph and bring Canada under the control of rejuvenated New American Century-type decrepid manifest destiny.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Now regarding aids--you claim that you looked into my assertions and decided that I'm wrong when I say that hi doesn't cause Aids. So I imagine that you understand all about the three pillars of Aids diagnosis--whether in Africa, Australia, Canada, the UK or America; and that in the UK the Elisa test is basically banned, although the Americans and Canadians use it as a test of retroviral infection; and I suppose you understand how the CD4 surrogate marker is used to measure the progression of immune suppression in antibody-positive screening tests; and I suppose you understand that the antibody tests are fantastically non-specific and that over 70 viral and toxic syndromes have been identified which will yield the same antigen reaction in face of supposed specific immunoglobulins as the "aids virus."

    I suppose you understand that cluster differentiation type 4 Thymus lymphoctyes have been proven to be ineligible as a dependable measure of immune suppression because diminishing CD4's show up in endless pathological syndroms, even "white coat syndrome" and othe kinds of glucocortisoid stimulation (read cortisol and epinephrine and nor-epinephrine)

    I suppose you understand that the polymerase chain reaction assay has been condenmed by its own inventor, Kary Mullisk, as being abused when it is used as a surrogate marker for immune suppresstion because the virtual mathematical exponential amplification can only yield useful results when examining partial genomes, that is genes, one stop at a time.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    continued: I'm sure you've given great consideration to the issue of "clinical case definition" as it is applied in Africa to supply Stephen Lewis et al with their huge estimates of Aids deaths in that continent. Show up with a couple of the three or four case definitions--persistent cough, weight loss, diarrhea and bingo you have Aids--even without an HIV test.

    I'm sure you've looked into Aids definitions in Canada and the US where the CDC says that if you have any one of the 29 Aids-related syndromes PLUs HIV you have Aids, but if you even have ALL of he 29 AIDS-related illnesses without HIV "infection" you don't have AIDS.

    And I guess you understand how ridiculous this is?

    And I'm sure you've studied whether human papilloma virus really causes cervical cancer; whether Hepatitis B really causes liver cancer; whether Hepatitis C (for which the Canadian government has paid off billions in the "tainted-blood" scandal) actually does anything, let alone cause liver cancer. (Do a double-blind, randomized, placebo-based study on Hep B cancer vrs alcohol consumption as etiologically significant co-factors while your doing your research, maybe)

    Or since you already know what does what, I imagine you've already looked into such studies.

    Hep A is a genuine infection (temporary livery deterioration, then regression and rebuilding), and Hep B will turn the whites of your eyes yellow (jaundice), temporary illness in most people)and Hep C will get you a nice chunk of change, as if you won the Hep C lottery from a too-easily convinced federal government.

    But HIV is a harmless, ubiquitous retrovirus. (If the serum for Elisa and Western Blott is not diluted with suitable reagents, everyone will have a positive reaction. We're all already hiv positive, Alcibiades. In fact, google "Everybody is Positive for HIV by Giraldo and read the research.

    It's all a hoax. You believe it because you're not intelligent enough to see through it, Alcibiades.

    I'm sure you know that Kaposi's Sarcoma which was touted as the big, surefire Aids cancer has quietly been proven to be caused by a particular type of Herpes virus. (google it)not to mention that it's been around in old Jewish men in Eastern Europe and young Africans for hundreds of years.

    I'm sure that when you say you looked into it that you gave consideration to at least these issues and decided independently that I'm wrong.

    Because if your view isn't independently-arrived at, it's just really stupid, and you, yourself are pulling an Ignatieff--that is, faking.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    What, then, causes cancer if not these viruses? Think "aneuploidy" Alcibiades--nascent speciation in chromosome regression or progession from the diploid state of normal human cells. If you want me to explain this in detail I will. Hint: can genetic mutations really cause evolutionary speciation?--which is what cancers really are--or does it take something more global?

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Truman
    I don't doubt it! That you were right about Iraq. I wrote an email to Richard Gwynn at the Toronto Star excoriating him for accepting Colin Powell's ridiculous testimony at the UN and suggesting pretty much the same thing to him. I think Ignatieff was wrong to support the US position and I think he's wrong to still be supporting - albeit with a number of codicils - Canada's program in Afghanistan.

    But I can still respect him for his intellect even if I don't agree with his conclusions and I don't think it's sustainable to imply that he's afraid to accept the implications of his beliefs.

    All I have time for right now.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Thanks Al. So all that I'm saying is in view of the fact that Powell was so obviously lying, and Bush was so obviously faking, how did Ignatieff, then, with his reported massive intellect not understand what was going on?

    And considering that your main admiration of the man is derived from his uh... "principles,"
    would you say, then, that there may be something wrong with your theory of Ignatieffian idealism, or as a surrogate for idealism, at least that he can not be so intelligent as you think he is?

    Both of the assessments of why Ignatieff and Richard Gwynn,(darn, I always respected Gwynn)pretended that they believed Powell, who, as I said, was obviously lying through his teeth, cannot be correct.

    Ideas and their manifestations, words, are syllogistically related, Alcibiades, and the veracity of every idea condemns its opposite.
    As much as we would love to cherish two mutually extinguishing beliefs, the universe is not, unhappily, constructed that way.

    Either Ignatieff's a liar, or he's a fool. I would like to claim that he's actually both, but I don't in all "intellectual honesty" as you have mentioned, believe it.

    I have proven that, in all probability, he must be a liar--and the sheer elegance of my syllogistical proof is awe-inspiring--wouldn't you say?

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Almost forgot--in case you haven't done due diligence into HIV/AIDS try this:

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/citations.htm

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Truman
    Because, quite simply and of course only in my opinion, he let his 'desire' to fashion a better world - which was the consequence of his study of Berlin's essential liberalism and his belief in freedom (and not a small part because of his own background as a Canadian do-gooder) - colour his own judgment. Because he believed that freedom and the end to tyranny in the general equation which obtained after Tito's death in Yugoslavia was a good thing and a consequence of Clinton's commitment to intervene (finally and at long last) it would therefore also be a good thing once again for power to intervene in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq. He extrapolated from the Balkans to the other cases without fully appreciating the unique qualities of each country and the nature of the intervening party (parties).

    His commitment to good ends blinded his critical faculties about the means by which those ends were to be achieved. I think also he was strongly influenced and shocked by the appalling failure of the United Nations to intervene effectively in Rwanda and he was therefore much more likely to accept the arguments of Powell as a justification for doing what America wanted rather than taking the United Nations option of continuing sanctions, talks and isolation.

    If American had really been that avatar of freedom and democracy he thought it was, then it’s possible the outcome might have been different. And it is in this that I most disagree with Ignatieff and at least partially accord with your opinion. Because he had been on the ground in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Northern Iraq (among the Kurds) and had seen the harm and depredations of tyrannical behavior there, he became too emotionally involved in the cause of trying to improve things. He, back at Harvard now and immersed in the reaction to 9/11, became too caught up in the academic and hypothetical construct of the American belief system and began to believe their myth too – that America is that great and overpowering force for ‘good’ in the world. That was his mistake, in my view – he failed to analyze American motives as critically and skeptically as he should have and he is still recovering from that.

    I don’t think that makes him a fool. It just makes him human. The key will be, for me at least, what he does next. In fairness, while his continuing commitment to Afghanistan is consistent and principled (from his point of view) it does make me wonder how much worse things will have to get before he makes a change.

    Btw, I’ve read the stuff on AIDS, it’s interesting and extremely complex – it is, after all, a syndrome and it appears and behaves in maddeningly different ways – but I don’t think it is nothing and I don’t think all the people who’ve died were 'all' more vulnerable because of drug use, for example. Let’s say I’m still skeptical but also still open-minded.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    You are incorrect.

    I must point out your gross error for everyone to read.

    You claim that the symbol ~ as I (correctly) employed it in my original statement is incorrect. Here is that (correct) statement again:

    "Ignatieff, a ~ 60 year old political neophyte, is a wilful lamb to the slaughter."

    The symbol ~ is correctly employed to convey an approximation - as I correctly stated in my defence yesterday.

    ~ is used in mathematics, logic, computer programming and English (to name but a few instances) as a legitmate symbol for an approximation, as in:

    ~6 would mean "approximately 60".
    ~60 would mean "approximately 60".
    ~60 years means "approximately 60 years".

    As used by me, it is correct.

    As accused by you,"Alcibiades", I remain correct; you are wrong (again).

    This symbol ~ means 'an approximation'.

    You, "Alcibiades", are behaving like an imbecile, a buffoon.

    You repeatedly demonstrate to me all the mental agility of pond-life.

    Regarding your most recent rant above, I will deftly take that apart when there is time.

    You are not what you claim to be - bright.

    My use of your 'tilde' or 'twiddle'(~) is correct - you 'twat'.

    Leave it.

    Thanks for desisting from your illicit practice of soliciting sensitive personal data from a blogger (myself) on this great site.
    I had considered company +/- legal action if you persisted.

    Get well,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Allow me to type one sentence again (as meant)

    ~6 would mean "approximately 6",

    Obviously, "Ignatieff, a ~ 60 year old political neophyte, is a wilful lamb to the slaughter." still means..well...that he is a loser.

    Anyway, I hope Twat gets the correct use of his tilde or twiddle.

    You are just not up to speed, "Alcibiades",

    Speedy recovery,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    If tildes are approximate,
    And twiddles are about,
    Does that make a twat roughly?

    "Alcibiades", you are comically substandard.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades" writes:

    "I don't think having a higher education means he got special advantages. His father was a refugee from the Soviet Union and his mother worked in intelligence in London during the war. How does that make [Ignatieff] a member of an elite?"

    Oh dear, "Alcibiades"...oh dear oh dear oh dear!

    Prepare yourself, "Alcibiades"....

    Check, check, and then check again...(you haven't, have you "Alcibiades"?)

    Type soon,

    Be prepared...

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    I disagree. Two tildes one over the other is symbol for approximation. But, in any case. when you wrote the sentence Ignatieff was 58 or had just turned 59. He was not not 60 - which was, from Alcibiades reference, the point he made to you - along with several others.

    Your unbelievably theatrical reaction above leads me to conclude that you are not only illogical, but unstable. Like Alcibiades, I want nothing more to do with you. Take your prejudice somewhere else.

    Good bye.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    What you don't know may nevertheless be so.

    Muse on that, mate.

    Speedy recovery,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West,

    How many times must you keep saying 'good-bye' to this blogger? I suggest that it is not me who is quite so theatrical, here. No?
    Abusive ad hominem attacks by yourself, again?
    Dear oh dear oh dear, G West! Silent for days, then, abuse?

    Your opinion on the twiddle is not so wise, mate. Believing/wishing it to be so is not the same as verifying it as such. You are wrong. Like your fellow Ignatieff lackey, "Alcibiades".

    Your twiddle or tilde has verifiable meanings. Check. (you guys don't check much well at all) You will certainly discover that it means "an approximation" etc. It is also a simple matter of being generally informed, mate.

    The symbol ~ as used (above) is an example of its correct usage. No-one can reasonably dispute this.

    That you still have difficulty here perhaps suggests that you are 'licking your wounds' a bit for being shown up on this blog.

    End of fact-checking conversation. Any further discussion on your twiddle or tilde ought to show a source(s), please. The burden of proof is upon those who first claimed an incorrect usage. So far you have not (nor can you, actually; nothing personal; it's a definitional issue)

    As used, the tilde (~) is correct: it legitimately conveys "an approximation" or 'ball-park' or 'roughly' or 'about' or 'close to' or...I don't know. G West...find your own Thesaurus. Importantly, the literal meaning of the author remains clear, despite your attempts at misstating me over Mr. Ignatieff's age. The readers can see for themselves. That's the beauty of the blog: you don't get to erase your mistakes G West!

    After today, Mr. Ignatieff is in even more dire straits with you two bootlicks misstating and not fact-checking.

    Desist from abusive ad hominem attacks. You and "Alcibiades" have been warned about asking for sensitive personal data.

    The article you quote is widely available. This much is self-evident. Your assumption that it is not and your repeated unsolicited attempts to acquire my personal email address -ostensibly to provide your copy of something widely (and frequently freely) available may appear odd and unusual.

    No one enjoys being accused of being weird; but that is how you came across.

    Accept this small defeat and please move on.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West froths:

    " I want nothing more to do with you. Take your prejudice somewhere else".

    From his statement, above, G West presumes control over this blog! (erroneous assumption)

    Further, it is G West's opinion (evaluative only) that prejudice does exist here. (verify?)

    Point to your source, G West, if you can...

    On what grounds?

    What reason(s) have you for making such a statement?

    The point of contention between us, I suggest, is that you have strong reasons for supporting Mr. Ignatieff, and that you use reason/logic/rationality to discuss Mr. Ignatieff. (i.e. while you agree with the above, I strongly disagree with the above statement)

    In discussing Mr. Ignatieff with either of you, I find that as you laud yourselves for your allegedly exclusive use of reason and logic etc, you avoid any reply to legitimate issues raised by myself (and others) concerning Mr. Ignatieff's candidature etc, while attempting to smear the discussant!

    It is a pattern that you have established here(above) over and over.

    If this were a live TV interview, both of you would be seen to 'storm off in a flurry of protest'... much like a sulky 10 year-old might.
    It is simply bad form, G West and "Alcibiades".
    A potential audience would always be left asking where the blazes either of you had disappeared too. It is odd.

    If this were Parliament's House of Commons, you would both be redundant MPs in opposition.

    You must develop a measure of legitmate rebuttal technique on this blog; and not, as you tend to, smear the discussant with aspersions upon their character.

    It is simply impolitic of you both, and shows a seriouslack of common good manners. I am certain that you both would prefer to establish a different reputation here.

    Surely, both of you can contribute to a higher standard?

    Also, this is not life and death (only political debate); so, please try to see a humorous side to the blog entries occasionally.
    It is healthy and human to.

    And try humility once and a while...you can find strength in defeat too (e.g. the double twiddle error)

    Back to debate...discuss...rebutt...?

    Or both still smarting somewhere in the woods?

    Sincerely,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades" writes:

    ["I don't think having a higher education means he got special advantages. His father was a refugee from the Soviet Union and his mother worked in intelligence in London during the war. How does that make [Ignatieff] a member of an elite?"]

    The prior charge was/is that Mr. Ignatieff is one of the elite, is elitist; that he has had an especially privileged personal background and easy access to most favoured connections most people could not.

    What of this charge of elitism?

    Elitism: the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals.
    Elitist: someone who believes in rule by an elite group.
    Elite: a class of persons enjoying a superior social or economic status.

    Who is Mr. Ignatieff? He is a public figure at the moment. This public figure's familial/personal/educational background is relevant. It also assists in answering the charge.

    Elitism is one charge. So,

    His Great Grandfather was a Count in the House of Romanov – the last Imperial Dynasty to rule Russia - under Alexander III of Russia.

    His Grandfather married a Princess. Next, this Grandfather 'became' a Count in the Court of Nicholas II of Russia, the last Emperor of Russia before his rule over Russia ended with the 1917 Revolution.

    (pre- your Soviet Union, I'm afraid,“Alcibiades")

    So G West and “Alcibiades", what are you defending so far?

    A Count. Courts. An Imperial Dynasty. Rule. More Counts. More Courts. A Princess. An Emperor. A Monarchy. More Rule.

    How could any of this elitism seem ...well ... elitist?

    Anyone?

    G West?
    "Alcibiades"?

    The Grandfather’s son somehow obtained a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, England. (And on he would go...to soon become an Ambassador etc)

    Categorically non-elitist? (One could argue that...at a bit of a stretch though, guys ...)

    It sounds less grand to someone like me than rarefied and slightly contrived. This sort of nonsense is endemic in many former colonies and 'Old Europe'. It's factual. And offensive.

    It is also a serious part of the seal of an elite.

    Really...guys.

    Somehow, Mr. Ignatieff managed to secure a place at Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford (???).
    And with the imprimateur of not one but all three of these (slightly elite - and yes, still faintly elitist) institutions, your man, Mr. Ignatieff would return to Canada after an absence of almost 30 years (~30 years, guys!) to carpet-bag his way into a Canadian riding Federal Election (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) in sordid controversy (that persists).

    Those insititutions, chaps: Ivy League or non-Ivy League?

    Red-brick? Non-red-brick? Anyone?

    Elitist or truly meritocratic?

    Careful how you reply guys - diligently recall each period of attendance and research the admissions criteria, and student body composition etc. You must.

    Again, anyone?

    Elite-light? Someone?

    “Alcibiades":

    Dare you suggest a comparison of Mr. Ignatieff’s relative to the very real, countless, faceless heroines of every county in England during WWII. This would be a disingenuous comparison to make.

    I assert that “Alcibiades" is artful with his readers.

    Less refugee, perhaps, and more emigre?
    Ask Russians everywhere in North America what might be the distinction I am suggesting.

    I contend that G West and “Alcibiades" are both elitist apologists,

    Or that they are both simply very ignorant of their subject matter (Mr. Ignatieff)

    Check everything guys, each time you type...

    Refute the facts above if you can...

    Do not confuse true intellectualism and meritocracy with elitism. You do true intellectuals and worthy talents everywhere a great disservice.

    Best,

    James

    For non-elitist governance.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Looks very much like I've won this debate.

    Thank you everybody.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    What debate?
    This little soliloquy of yours is impressing nobody but the face you see in the mirror each morning...and the CSIS agents who read these posts looking for subversives.

    Tilt on, there are lots of windmills.

    Quixotic victories in imagined battles are lots of fun - pardon me for saying I couldn't care less.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades"

    You admit that you are wrong about the elitism charge? Yes. Yes?

    What debate?

    Debate what I wrote above? That's a chance to debate for you.

    You cannot, will not, debate but prefer to hide in a casualty bay.

    I am not tired of you - I recognise you as a weak discussant, however. I think other readers may also.

    I have called your bluff on this blog, and you do not like it. (neither would I, truth be told)

    Tough.

    Answer the rebuttal of the elitism charge.

    Or admit defeat.

    Readers everywhere will be interested in your next excuse...

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I recognize you as an agent with whom discussion was obviously pointless from the beginning.

    The only mistake I made was thinking you might actually have a thought to discuss. I certainly regret having spent the time I did catering to your monomania. Next time I won't turn over the rock.

    You will be okay though; solipsism is its own reward.

  • james

    5 years ago

    You are a sore loser, "Alcibiades":

    Your borrowed verbosity is not argument. It's a distraction - for you own pleasure, I suspect.

    Neither does abusive ad hominem attacks help you argue or counter-claim. Call this blogger all the 'isms you can transcribe. Still, such abuse is irrelevant to argument.

    We can now confirm the following as established facts:

    1. your man, Mr. Ignatieff has spent most of his adult life outside Canada. (some commentators tally his recent time absent from Canada at ~ 35 years!! Good God!)

    2. Mr. Ignatieff is a carpet-bagger (Etobicoke-Lakeshore). (even Marta finally conceded that he is!)

    3. It is more likely than not that Mr. Ignatieff is an elitist individual. Certainly, Mr. Ignatieff's personal/family background is one of exceptional privilege, and/or Russian Courts, Russian Aristocracy etc.
    (it is an established fact, mate; you were incorrect re this dispute)

    4. It is debatable that Mr. Ignatieff is an exceptional writer. (You/G West and I do not agree over this!)

    Tell the readers, "Alcibiades", what is it that you have proven by legitimate argument in any posts by yourself over the previous 2-3 weeks here?

    Certainly, you favour abusive ad hominem attacks. You keep establishing this unpleasant truth. You target a messenger, not the message. Unfair/irrelevant method, "Alcibiades". Not argument.

    None of this should be about the blogger(s); it is always about the topic/scope/subject etc - try and address yourself to the above points at issue.

    You always get a second chance at proving yourself on a Blog. So, take it (fairly).

    For your interest/education, I do recommend that you (and any interested reader) read the following article on Mr. Ignatieff by The Globe & Mail's Jeffrey Simpson, titled:

    "Mr. Ignatieff's subliminal Canadianness".

    Some commentators just get it in one.

    If you cannot/will not refute my legitimate arguments concerning your man, Mr. Ignatieff, can you/will you address yourself fairly to the above-mentioned Columnist's conclusions about Mr. Ignatieff's candidacy?

    What excuse from you next, "Alcibiades"?

    Best,

    James.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    As I already said. I won't even try. You still haven't advanced anything other than the slurs and errors and prejudices you started with. You may think that's argument. I and others who read this know it's not.

    Further, this site is not a blog. I'm not surprised you don't know the difference. Just one more error from you, to add to an embarrassingly long list.

    Another thing I do know from having corresponded with Jeff Simpson numerous times is that he's not afraid to actually discuss something and he does have the odd original idea of his own.

    Come back when you actually have one and I'd be happy to let you try again.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    Just read the article - and stop the slagging.

    Constant abusive ad hominem attacks! Very non-Athenian Statesman of you.

    You are correct on one score though- this is a website (and not a blog). Well done. G West is correct too about the NYT article not being an op-ed. Congrats to you both - you've done a fine job drawing the distinction for me. I admit my error with respect to names.

    But contrast this with what you are both incorrect over:

    1. Mr. Ignatieff's 30+ year absence from Canada and the political consequences for him of this fact.

    2. Mr. Ignatieff's age allegations

    3. Mr. Ignatieff's carpet-bagging in the 2006 Etobicoke-Lakeshore federal election.

    4. Your tilde or twiddle versus the world's tildes or twiddles. (quite funny, actually!)

    4. Mr. Ignatieff's exceptionally privileged and elite personal/familial background.

    5. Russia - (not the Soviet Union)

    What next?

    I notice you do demonstrate a slight propensity to 'name-drop', "Alcibiades".

    First Mr. Ignatieff, and now Mr. Jeffrey Simpson. Rather than tell us readers how well you know Mr. Ignatieff (but nothing more than that!) or that you and Mr. Simpson have corresponded, please address the points at issue above, and below, as that's what this website is about ( and not your personal 'roladex' of important-sounding contacts - it demeans you somehow)

    Read the article by Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail, titled:

    "Mr. Ignatieff's subliminal Canadianness".

    It verifies how different you are from Mr. Simpson, and how similar my points re your man, Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Simpson's conclusions are.

    Read it, then discuss it, please.

    Dare you address yourself to any point at issue?

    Someone here will beat you to it, no doubt and read the article and then post a thoughtful commentary about Jeffrey Simpson's conclusions on Mr. Ignatieff. And you may regret your comments above.

    I admit that I do strongly agree with every point Mr. Simpson makes in this article about your man, Mr. Ignatieff. It's a damning article about his candidature - (albeit by a writer you appear to grudgingly respect!).

    Try not to miss the points at issue. Go read.

    Then contribute fairly...

    What excuse will you post next, "Alcibiades"?

    Mr. Simpson's article examining Mr. Ignatieff is not worthy of the attention of the great "Alcibiades"?

    ?

    Try reading the article first (you don't require my personal email address to access it!) And get back to us. I'd be genuinely interested to know your what you thought after reading Jeffrey Simpson's column. Other readers would also.

    No excuses this time, alright?

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    6. Did we omit mention of Mr. Conrad Black's endorsement of Mr. Ignatieff's candidacy?

    Yes, "Alcibiades", you are wrong on this fact, also.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Just sent an email response to Jeff Simpson. I'll post it below for you:

    Quote:
    Dear Jeffrey Simpson,

    I read your column about Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff with interest. I found it a bit disappointing in fact. Instead of dealing head on with the issues on which Ignatieff is most seriously deficient - the whole idea of his support for the disgraced American program of bringing 'democracy' (at the point of a gun) to places that neither want, nor have the social and cultural infrastructure to support it - you've given most of your column over to the fact that the prospective leader of the Liberal party has spent many years during the last decades outside of this country, both as a student, journalist and academic. In fact, although you emphasize the American portion of his sojourn, I think it actually amounts to a very small part of his time outside Canada - when compared with the time he spent elsewhere.

    Your readers, I'm sure, never hold the first 10 years of your own life against you, nor do they quibble about the time you've spent outside the country doing graduate work, teaching or on fellowships. Why is Ignatieff's absence, during an era when keeping up to date with events here at home is neither difficult nor particularly time consuming, such a big deal?

    And your other cavil, with respect to the personal pronouns he chose to use in a commencement address, is even more pedantic.

    In the end, given your final paragraphs, and the far more critical remarks you've leveled at Prime Minister Harper in recent times, I'm left with the conclusion that you are becoming a reluctant Ignatieff supporter yourself - if for no other reason than that the other available choices all have too much 'Liberal' baggage for your taste. Perhaps, in that sense, his time away "has apparently become an advantage" as you've put it.

    I think, for my own part, that his recent decision to support the government's continued adventure in Afghanistan will shortly begin to weigh him down with an albatross of his own. Time will tell. I suspect a lot of Liberals may well be wishing that Martha Hall Findlay spoke French

    Regards, as always,

  • james

    5 years ago

    Well, I like what you've written.

    Hope he considers it.

    All I have time for at the moment. But must return to this.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    You miss the scope/intent of Jeffrey Simpson's article: it is not about Mr. Ignatieff's deficiencies (much less about a war etc) but about his identity as Canadian, and his claims concerning this.

    The columnist cites evidence that contradicts Mr. Ignatieff's statements to date
    about his Canadian identity. Simpson suggests that Mr. Ignatieff is one of the " non-Americans [who] have made a living in that country commenting on, analyzing, teaching and writing about the United States without identifying themselves as Americans". Nowhere does he attack the 'life decision' of an individual to live and work abroad. In fact, he suggests that, in principle, this kind of decision is meritorious. However,
    Mr. Simpson is justifiably questioning
    the wisdom of Mr. Ignatieff (or anyone else) having spent so much time away from Canada, if he/she next intends to run for office in Canada and become Prime Minister back home. The disadvantages are mostly self-evident; they should outweigh any advantages.

    I strongly agree that such a decision has to have serious domestic political consequences for any serious political candidate. His final comments are ironic: "[Ignatieff] has the fewest Canadian scars by virtue of having
    fought the fewest battles in his own country...".

    However, you argue that because keeping up with Canada's domestic issues while abroad is
    quick and easy, being abroad should not be a 'big deal'. So, if it is not quick and easy, it is a big deal?
    The existence of simple and efficient means of communicating back home (if one chooses to),
    while helpful, is not sufficient or real/live enough.

    Hence the article's title " Mr. Ignatieff's subliminal Canadianness."

    While there might be no substitute for an overseas experience, there is no substitute for the actual experience of living in one's own country/nation/polity.

    Mr. Simpson gives proper reasons why:

    "[Canada] can be learned about from books, but it cannot be deeply understood from them.
    Living through the crises and challenges of a place and dealing with people and
    prejudices of that place teach an individual in ways that a more intellectual
    understanding cannot".

    This is common sense.

    I think you miss the writer's point that Mr. Ignatieff's extensive period away from Canada
    is necessarily 'the albatross around his neck'. Mr. Ignatieff's imbalance is
    his weakness.
    You do not seem to understand this.

    You make a very weak analogy between a) the readers of a writer who spent 10 years of infancy and early childhood abroad, and b) the more than 15 million voters for a sudden Canadian Prime Ministerial candidate who has recently spent nearly 35 years of his adulthood away from Canada (and most recently!).

    Where you observe pedantry, others see accuracy and detail in reporting: for
    the writer is reporting and commenting on a current public figure. Accuracy and fairness are to be expected where he quotes anyone, Mr. Simpson's pedantry withstanding.
    Though it might irk you, Mr. Simpson's accuracy does in fact help to uncover half-truths and lies about Mr. Ignatieff.

    This is a huge merit.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    What half-truths and lies? Again, "james" you advance no actual evidence. Not, at this stage of the game, much of a surprise to me. I don't think I missed the scope or intent at all.

    Therefore, obviously, I disagree.

    Of course it was a weak analogy; however, is was meant to be, because it emphasizes, in my opinion, how precariously weak it is to argue that Ignatieff's non-residency is any kind of an issue. Jeffrey Simpson writes from Toronto - this never stops him from commenting sagely about matters in the west, the east or the North.

    His residency is simply irrelevant - just as the fact that Simpson was born in the US is irrelevant. However, if Canada had the same rules as the United States does then Ignatieff could quality to run for leader of this country and Simpson could not. To me this is a perfect refutation of the claim that residency has anything to do with the matter. And another one of many available examples about how much better the democratic system in this country is than the one that obtains to the south of us.

    In all likelihood, if Ignatieff becomes the leader of the Liberal party he will have spent as much time (perhaps more) in parliament than Pierre Trudeau did before 'he' became Prime Minister.

    Again, I have no problem with anyone who analyzes critically what anyone says or writes. Simpson does almost none of that, apart from what I see as his pedantic point about the choice of a few pronouns in a commencement speech to an American college. Not very different, in its way, from what you wrote about Ignatieff's 'advanced' years.

    Still no effective and intelligent commentary about what the man actually has to say, just idle chatter about where he came from and who his parents are. Along with a good deal of ad hominem stuff about his imagined elitism and his unquestionable academic credentials.

    In fact, in all the stuff on this thread, again in my opinion, I've actually written a good deal that is substantively critical about how Ignatieff sees Canada in terms of its foreign policy - vis a vis American aggressive democratization projects, if we can agree to call them that - than virtually anyone else.

    Certainly far more than the weak gruel served up by Mr. Simpson.

    As for the dilemma of Canadian voters presented with a choice between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff (if it should ever come to that); I have more confidence in my fellow citizens’ judgment than you appear to have.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades",

    With respect, you have missed the point of Simpson's article, as I explained above.

    Again, you miss the point with your Trudeau example. The time spent in the House of Commons in order to represent Canada's people is less important (much less so) than credentials to represent her people in the first instance. These important credentials include residency in this country.

    Further, Trudeau made a decision early in his life to stay resident in Canada. He lived and worked here amongst her people for a long time before he ran for public office in Canada - not America or England etc. But Canada.

    As did Harper, Martin, Chretien, Turner, Clark, and Pearson, Diefenbaker, etc etc etc.

    Nearly every Western democratic political leader for most of the previous century has resided in their domestic constituency - for obvious reasons.

    See a pattern?

    Then what do you suppose the reasons are for this pattern? I'd be interested to hear your view?

    Here's one clue: all politics is local.

    Why? Well, voters are local, for one.

    But your "perfect refutation of the claim that residency has anything to do with the matter" is a hypothetical/a 'what if?'.

    This is not argument. You are speculating. The future (presumbably uncertain) cannot support your claim.

    Mr. Ignatieff's non-residency for almost all of the previous 35 years becomes exceptionally relevant if he decides to run for any public office resident in Canada and then to become PM of Canada. He has, and therefore his prolonged absence from Canada is now a issue. He is not applying to manage a global MNC, an international NGO or Policy Think Tank. A country's governance is necessarily a privilege and honour etc accorded to her residents. There are many strategic reasons for this to be the case. And many more non-strategic reasons.

    You do not seem to understand why this is should be so.

    Jeffrey Simpson understands this.

    Mr. Simpson's accuracy does in fact help to uncover half-truths and lies about Mr. Ignatieff. That is, anyone who practises good journalism, as Jeffrey Simpson does here, assists to uncover half-truths and lies.

    Mr. Ignatieff is wilfully ambiguous where he uses pronouns like 'we' as referred to in the contexts quoted by Simpson. These are clearly not truths as told by Mr. Ignatieff to his audience. Then what are they?

    With respect to your persistent point about Iraq and Mr. Ignatieff's tortured position:

    Rae got it in one:

    Mr. Ignatieff is 'Harper-Lite'.

    This is going to stick. And it will undo him (in Liberal circles first) eventually.

    This past week has seen the start of the public hunting season for absent game.

    I think your view, as a Canadian no less, that residency is simply irrelevant is indefensible.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Did I omit to list Brian Mulroney - another former and resident/local/domestic PM of Canada - also?

    Local, local local.....first.

    These individuals all knew this. They based their lives on this principle.

    Canadian all..........first and last. Never variably...

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    "james"
    Obviously, I disagree, as I pointed out numerous times and as I wrote in my response to Jeffrey Simpson. In my opinion, the residency question is a non-issue and I'm not prepared to discuss it any further.

    However, just as your repetition of the same refrain isn't going to change my mind, my further reiteration clearly isn't going to make any impression upon you either. Although I might think your position is indefensible, I can’t see any particular value in saying so. But, I do believe in the law of diminishing returns and I'm not prepared to waste any more time on this pseudo debate with someone who can't seem to move his (or her) analysis beyond the simplistic and the prejudicial.

    Further, if you actually had taken the time to read what I've posted on this thread you'd see that I suggested some time ago that Ignatieff's stand with respect to Afghanistan would likely doom his candidacy for the leadership.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Surely, you're not suggesting Brian Mulroney as a sovereign example of anything except rampant greed and sycophantic self-interest: The Prime Minister, who, more than any other, sold out his country to the USA for a mess of pottage.

    By the way “james” what is it with you and quotation marks?

  • james

    5 years ago

    I presumed that no-one named their child "Alcibiades" last century.

    Best,

    James (real)

  • james

    5 years ago

    Mulroney made a decision to stay resident in Canada. He lived and worked here amongst her people for a long time before he ran for public office in Canada - not America or England etc. Mulroney had ample opportunity to move south of the border with the Iron Ore Company.

    An example of 'local gets the most votes'.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Like Trudeau, Mulroney faced a critical decision in his late youth - leave or stay in Canada. In this instance, both future PMs chose to live and work in Quebec, Canada.

    Ignatieff happily left. It'll come back to bite him - big time.

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Do you have any idea how complicit Mulroney is in corruption, both here and in the work he did as a consultant for Archer Daniels Midland when they were in serious legal trouble? God I wish he'd left and never come back and taken his insufferable twit of a son with him - he's more responsible for ruining this country than any other single prime minister since R. B. Bennett.

  • james

    5 years ago

    But where is your argument leading? For example, was/is Mr. Paul Martin any less corrupt than Mr. Brian Mulroney?

    I sincerely doubt it.

    What the public does know of Mr. Ignatieff includes his endorsement by Mr. Conrad Black. !!!

    Arguably potentially much more sinister.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    You suggest that this country is ruined.

    Really?

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    yes james, I do. We are exporting most, if not all our resources for a pittance and we have, since Mulroney's cherished free trade, surrendered many of our industrial jobs (outside of the auto industry). The average industrial wage, when compared with the earnings of the top 2 - 5% of incomes in the country is far smaller, relative to high earners today than it was in 1970. Real wages have actually decreased for many Canadians when adjusted to constant dollars. OF course, the banks and the big oil companies are doing very well, thank you very much.

    Mulroney lied about accepting money from Karlheinz Schrieber and is, at the very least, culpable for perjury. He also accepted a role to negotiate a settlement in a price fixing case between Archer Daniels Midland and several other suppliers who had colluded to fix the price of wholesale bulk products including, I believe, ascorbic acid. Had that case happened in the post Enron era, instead of in the years just following Mulroney's political swan song, someone would have spent time in jail.

    I've already dealt with your phony charges re Conrad Black and Ignatieff and so far as I know, Paul Martin was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Gomery Commission. So, what's your point?

    If ordinary Canadians don't wake up to what Stephen Harper is all about and send him back to the University of Calgary where he can consult with David Bercuson and his other close personal friends after the next election I don't think this will be a country I'll want to live in much longer.

  • ModernSerf

    5 years ago

    Wow,

    I'll give you guys credit. You've been sorting this out for weeks. Alcibiades, I know how tempting it is to try to bring enlightenment to the anger-ridden and misinformed of our country, but perhaps it is time to give up on this one.

    I just thought I would drop you a vote of confidence for fighting the good fight and say that I agree 100%.

  • ModernSerf

    5 years ago

    P.S. Mulroney didn't need to leave Canada, he could sell us out, from the comfort of home.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Thanks for that, ModernSerf. Much appreciate your comment.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    Hear only what you want to hear, and see only what you want to see, if you must.

    Despite yourself, it is a fact that:

    Mr. Conrad Black is endorsing Mr. Ignatieff.

    No amount of stonewalling or obfuscation by you can change this fact.

    Respectfully,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Surely you are not suggesting that PM Stephen Harper means more harm to Canada than Mr. Ignatieff?

    Please explain your rancour toward our new PM?

    It appears to be unsupported.

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I'm neither ‘stonewalling’, ignoring nor obfuscating. I wrote before that Conrad Black is a British Citizen who has no relevancy - other than sometimes stirring in me a certain sense of Schadenfreude. His opinions, and I now see him more and more in the pages of the 'new' Maclean's and on television, appear to be a major source of income for him now that his other business ventures have disintegrated.

    I thought nothing of what he said and wrote when he was at his pompous, greedy and nominally successful best – or when he decided that a British peerage meant more to him than his natal country - why would I take any notice of his bluster now?

    As to my feelings about Stephen Harper, they are no secret. I began posting to this site around the time of the most recent Canadian general election with the express purpose of trying to do whatever I could to prevent his election as PM. It is the first time I've been politically active in any kind of way in my life. I think Harper is intent upon trying to turn this country, which I deeply love, into something neither you nor I will recognize. And not in a good way, either. If you had actually read some of the things I’ve posted to other threads than this you'd know that my views are far from unsupported.

    However, if you're so incurious that you haven't already done that, I'm certainly not going to try and re-educate you now. As a matter of fact, as Modernserf suggested above, my efforts appear to be wasted on you.

    And yes, I am suggesting that Ignatieff (in fact almost anyone else) would be less harmful than the current PM.

    Further, you keep implying that I am an Ignatieff supporter. The fact that I'd prefer him as Prime Minister to someone I consider a potential disaster for Canada's future (Stephen Harper) does not make it so.

    My commitment in respect of Michael Ignatieff is to the truth and fair criticism, nothing more – I’m surprised that you haven’t grasped that long before now.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Your hatred of PM Harper is ideological.

    This is dangerous.

    Life is more complex than the clash of any ideologies.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    Where did I ever write that I 'hate' Stephen Harper?

    What do you mean by ideological?

    Perhaps it is Stephen Harper who hates me; after all, my saying that would make as much sense as what you've written - precisely none.

    Consequently, your second line is complete nonsense and totally out of context and your third is a glaring non sequitur which doesn't even qualify as irony.

    Enough said.

    I'm afraid you bore me.

  • ModernSerf

    5 years ago

    James,

    I much as I feel like our insight is falling on deaf ears here, I will write this for myself as much as you. If loving this country is idealogical then yes I oppose Harper on those grounds. If you are looking to understand the rancour against Harper, I suggest you begin here:

    1) He was the President of an arch-conservative think-tank and lobbying oranization.

    2) He was in support of the war in Iraq, even after all that has transpired.

    3) He has undermined the basic tenants of democracy by attempting to manipulate the national media.

    4) He was an active opponent to measures preventing soft money from influencing government decisions. (The American system of one dollar, one vote.)

    5) He promotes extreme regionalism, as evidenced by his co-authoring of "The Alberta Agenda" and by his attacks on Atlantic Canada.

    6) He has eliminated major environmental policy and has replaced it with Luntzism's like his Made in Canada but never to be seen in Canada solution.

    7) He has demonstrated Bush's level of disregard for the international community is eroding our international reputation with his foreign policy.

    8) He has had a number of very derogatory thing to say about Canadians. Just ot choose one example: "...like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."

    As for Ignatieff's "Canadianess", he identifies himself as Canadian to international audiences. I believe that in his heart he indentifies himself as Canadian. That's good enough for me.

  • james

    5 years ago

    ModernSerf,

    But you may not be good enough for Ignatieff?

    As I suspect Ignatieff is an elitist snob who wouldn't concern himself for long with most here.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I suspect, james, that you are a far bigger snob than Michael Ignatieff. You asked some questions about Stephen Harper - which Modernserf responded to very well.

    However, I notice you have not replied with anything pertaining to Mr. Harper - just more prejudice against a candidate for the 'Liberal' leadership...about whom your views are already well known.

    Since you're the one who asked about Mr. Harper, I find that a little strange and can't help but wonder why.

  • james

    5 years ago

    "Alcibiades", G West and others:

    I would like to you of few important points about Canada, elections and
    the office of the Prime Minister.

    First, the requirements for the office are minimalist: any Canadian citizen of voting age may run This includes stay-at-home moms, full-time office managers, musicians and a whole host of other career choices. second: to run for Prime Minister, candidates must first win the hearts and minds of their fellow party members. In doing so, they must demonstrate an ability to reach consensus, to lead, to convey a clear message and to rally more to the cause.

    You would do well to remember that all Prime Ministers are at some point new to the game.

    Third, there is an undercurrent of elitism in Alcibiades' and G West's commentaries. You refer to Ignatieff's academic background ( which must include an examination of Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford) and international experience with much admiration (sycophancy even), yet find no value in Mr. Harper's directorship of a national lobby representing some 40,000 of our fellow Canadian citizens, or his qualifications from the University of Calgary - a Canadian institution.
    Mr. Harper comes from a middle-class family. Middle-class families are not necessarily trouble-free.
    I would not so glibly down-play the significance of Mr Harper's personal acheivements - before he rose to become Prime Minister of a G8-member Country.
    You ignore or deride Mr Harper's intelligence, his post-graduate qualifications as an economist and his years of lecturing and commentating on economic and political issues affecting Canada.
    You also ignore the important work Mr Harper has done rebuilding one of this country's oldest political institutions - the Tory Party ... work which is necessarily healthy to a working democracy.

    I suggest that you and many other commentators here think they have a license to advocate the maintenance of latent elitisms in our political systems.

    I welcome the return of a mainstream Tory opposing voice within Canadian political debate. And now they are a competent Government with a strong future. I have a strong sense, also, that many other middle-class voters continue to feel the same way - after Election 2006.

    Mr Harper is scarily competent as a leader and strategist.

    Observe him more closely, and learn from him. It is more likely than not that Prime Minister Harper will repeat the strong incumbencies of Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien.

    I also contend that Prime Minister Harper - not Ignatieff - has the superior intelligence - 'credentials' withstanding. I think many many other Canadians believe this to be the case, also.

    Keep trying guys.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades writes:

    "I suspect... that you are a far bigger snob than Michael Ignatieff".

    Aha! Caught out!

    Finally an admission from Alcibiades that his man, Ignatieff, is a snob!

    Because Ignatieff most surley is one.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    You condemn both yourself and Harper in the same breath.

    And, by the way, Mr. Harper certainly is a bigger snob than either you, james, or Michael Ignatieff. On that, I have no problem agreeing with you. In terms of relative snobbism, Harper exceeds all previous standards by a margin of at least three to one.

    I fear for my country with a PM like Harper and mindless supporters like you - anyone who would describe Harper's 'achievements' as a politico in the same breath with Ignatieff is beyond the pale, in my view.

    If the worst you can throw at Ignatieff is a phony charge of elitism, I'd suggest he's in pretty good shape. That is, after all, pretty much what all your palaver has boiled down to in the end.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    You are an Ignatieff hachet-man.

    No doubt about it.

    You worship the guy.

    You want to write like the guy.

    You may even wish to be the guy.

    He's your guy. Deny...as you do.

    Your acclaim for his musings, and your tone where you do defend him give you away.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    A question for you:

    How long do you think this Tory Government will last?

    1 term only?
    > 1 term?

    And why?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james

    Predictions are a waste of time. Ignorant people get votes in this country too.

    The damage the country suffers will be proportional to the length of time the Harper government lasts. In the past two days, anyone with eyes to see and read and ears to hear will be aware of the way in which the Prime Minister is pandering to separatists in Quebec. These are very dangerous times. Between Harper’s Alberta roots, his Christian fundamentalism, the greedy selfishness of his western 'separatist' supporters and his uncritical support for a probably doomed provincial government in Quebec City the writing, alas, may be on the wall for our country.

    No thanks to incurious individuals like you, alas. I hope you will be happy with the disaster Mr. Harper is brewing for us all. He now seems intent upon fomenting a fight with the Iranians, the principles of international justice and diplomacy and the government of Iran. He is, if possible, potentially less-competent than Joe Clark as PM.

    And, for the last time, since you simply don't get it and I'm bored with trying to reason with your one-track mind, I am not an Ignatieff supporter. I am simply someone who believes in the truth and is not afraid to defend it against the ignorant.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    What is your problem with Canadians from Alberta?

    What is your difficulty with an individual's professed religious belief system?

    How would western and supposed 'separatist supporters' be any different than another interest group in national politics, with respect to their selfishness??

    It's called corporatism.

    Wise up.

    You are evidently stacked with religious and regional prejudices.

    Tut, tut..

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    Are you a 'conditional Canadian'? (on your conditions only?)

    ?

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    When a religious system creates restrictions for other groups who don't share those 'beliefs' and group supports placing restrictions upon how non-believers live - then I have a problem with those who espouse such beliefs. Does that answer your question?

    As for Alberta, I've lived there. I know what life there is actually like and it is certainly not generous inclusiveness.

    Harper is the man who imposes conditions on people, I'm sadly sorry to say.

    My support for the country is unconditional; my concerns about Harper and his gang are unbounded.

  • james

    5 years ago

    No politician is perfect.

    Still, Mr Harper has earnt his position.

    Mr Ignatieff essentially stole his.

    One is more perfect than the other, I suggest.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Ignatieff 'stole' his position?

    So you're the one who doesn't really believe in democracy.

    Clearly YOU have a hidden agenda. And you've had it from the very start.

    Thanks though for posting the evidence above.

    By the way, what does 'earnt' mean?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Ignatieff stole the Etobicoke-Lakeshore Liberal Party riding nomination.

    There are many ways of describing it. But democratic/meritocratic/liberal is not one of them. He is a Carpet-bagger. You've agreed to this.

    Mr. Harper has worked for everything he now has.

    That, you cannot deny.

    Best,

    James

  • G West

    5 years ago

    james
    That's the problem with you. Reason and argument has no effect upon your 'thought' processes.
    1. I have never agreed that Ignatieff is a carpetbagger;
    2. He won the Liberal nomination according to the terms the party set for that riding - if you don't like it then join the Liberal party and change it - but for heavens sake stop harping about it;
    3. Ignatieff stole nothing;
    4. The fact that Harper worked for what he has is a complete non sequitur and has absolutely no relevance in this discussion and in no way responds to any of the points made either by me or by modernserf above here.

    I don't accept a single point you've ever made on this subject. My only regret is that I've wasted an hour or two dealing with someone who is incapable of having a serious discussion about anything, let alone understanding someone with ideas as sophisticated as Michael Ignatieff has.

    Given your last two or three posts, I'm not surprised you'd find him too much to deal with.

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West:

    We established a while back that Ignatieff is a carpet-bagger. You are not up to speed on this fact.

    Or if I described him as an outsider who seeks power or success presumptuously, perhaps you might finally comprehend.

    Whether you 'accept' this fact or not is irrelevant, frankly, as it is an established truth - despite your evident cognitive dissonance.

    Re: your non-sequitur comment, you are misguided: my reply is of immediate relevance to what preceded it - a comparison of Mr Harper and your man Ignatieff.

    Though both you and Alcibiades labour in your wordishness here, you both come across as dilettantish - much like your candidate - the imitator, Ignatieff.

    Observe Prime Minister Harper instead- then you will learn much more that is ultimately useful to you.

    Best,

    James

    p.s. your penchant for abusive ad hominem attacks does not go away, G West. This is not debate or argument.

  • james

    5 years ago

    That Ignatieff stole the riding selection process is not in dispute here.
    The nomination process was clearly appropriated by Ignatieff and his supporters - in conflict with established riding association and Liberal Party convention, in this instance.
    He has run roughshod over innumerable Liberal Party workers and candidates in Etobicoke-Lakeshore and elswehere.

    You ignore this brewing controversy (and others mentioned here) ahead of the Liberal Party Convention at your peril.

    Much of what you've already read here is and will be repeated in more public commentary about your man Ignatieff in the ensuing months. I think you realise this though.

    Wise up, political aspirants. And be honest here.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    I see you've now added outright lies to your bag of tricks.

    'We' as you so royally put it, have established no such thing. 'You' may have formed that opinion in your febrile brain, james, but you are the only one who has. To pretend anything else is a blatant untruth – for you to talk of honesty in the same breath is actually quite funny. And for you to write about others making ad hominem attacks while that is ALL you ever do is even more hilarious.

    As to honesty, you are apparently unfamiliar with the nominal requirements of being truthful, logical or honest. You are, however, fully qualified on the bitterness, resentment and anger scales.

    Your post immediately above this one would seem to provide evidence of the true nature of your prejudice; born, it would seem, out of some particularly vituperative and emotional reaction to a personalized and probably imagined offence from the Liberal Party riding association of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. One might postulate that you are a resident of the riding whose preferred candidate did not succeed in gaining the nomination prior to the last election.

    I had wondered, given your complete failure to mount a clear and logical case against Ignatieff, if this was a personal vendetta. It now appears my suspicions were well founded and it is evident that you see yourself as an embittered loser.

    A loser in a way Ignatieff, who has actually done something worthwhile with his life (whether he becomes Liberal leader or not), will never be.

    And please, drop the complimentary closing - it is just too phony for words!

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades and G West:

    It pays in the long run to be polite, even if I happen to think that both of you are foolishly misguided about Ignatieff.

    Re: your unfair 'loser' comment, I must point out that my preferred candidate (over Ignatieff) is the Prime Minister of Canada; however, your preferred candidate is a highly controversial rookie opposition MP who shadow boxes with the famous dead.
    Best of luck to you.

    Are you Ignatieff's relatives or staffers?

    The question is directed at both of you:

    Why are you elitist apologists for Ignatieff?

    We look forward to an honest answer.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    If you think it is polite to pretend someone has said or believes or accepts something they have never said, believed or acknowledged and that the only requirement of politeness and civil discourse is to end your posts with a phony closing I have news for you. Politeness, respect, and civil debate require something quite different. Something you obviously don't understand, appreciate, or have any respect for.

    How many times is it necessary to point out that:
    1.Ignatieff is not, and has never been 'my' candidate; further,
    2. My only interest in all of this was to point out that you had nothing substantive to say about him, his background, or his intellect; and
    3. Everything you have posted is patent prejudice against someone you apparently fear, which is the only conclusion one can come to after weeks of waiting for you to do anything other than parrot the same nonsense you started out with.
    4. I have never, and will never, vote Liberal in my life – and that I can guarantee.

    In any case, as you've done with Michael Ignatieff, you now hope to do with me - namely, misrepresent what I've said and pretend you know that my beliefs conform to your delusions too. I have never been an apologist for Ignatieff and you wouldn't know the truth, or honesty for that matter, if you met it in your cereal. My only interest, as others have noted several times on these pages, was to point out that much of what was being said and written about Ignatieff as an individual, scholar and neophyte politician was neither fair, accurate nor particularly insightful.

    You obviously are a political hack of some kind and wasting any more time on someone like you is no longer even mildly interesting as an intellectual exercise. As I wrote once, or perhaps twice before: you bore me.

    ‘best’

    Alcibiades.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades and G West:

    I pointed out to you both that Ignatieff's personal/familial
    background is one of elite institutions
    and Old Russian Aristocracy (House of Romanov, Counts, Princesses etc)
    His forebears were not the classic paupered Russian immigrants of North American legend but rather
    Russian Aristocratic Emigres containing ...well...plenty.

    To state otherwise is to be disingenuous.

    Ignatieff is a carpet-bagger with respect to Etobicoke-Lakeshore. He has never resided there.
    He has been non-resident and living outside Canada for almost the past 35 years. (how much tolerance would you extend to Prime Minister Harper for an equivalent absence from this great country?)

    At 60 years (almost) Ignatieff has yet to 'find his metaphor' This is worrying.
    It is still unclear what Mr Ignatieff actually does - other than comment and write....and fashion his speech and body language on the famous dead.
    I'll make it simple for you - he has left his run too late.

    He is verbose and dilettantish in his prose. Few of his ideas are truly his own. Ignatieff borrows - heavily.
    An example: American Exceptionalism in the essay your mate G West keeps hawking.

    Many argue that he is less an academic and more a writer only. This is an
    important distinction.
    You are a writer - but you are not an academic. There...

    Ignatieff is receiving major endorsements from Conrad Black. Sorry, its on the public record guys.

    He is imitative - of Pierre E. Trudeau, and John F. Kennedy to name two great 20th Century Politicians both of whom had found their metaphors by their 30's, and who probably wouldn't enjoy Ignatieff's company for much (God! your man, Ignatieff even
    finger-points in direct studied imitation of the late President! - I wonder what the Kennedy Clan in Boston make of this latest JFK Imitator?)) Its pathetic a la Gary Hart, Dan Quayle,...and other grave-yard politicians.

    Yet you like him. Why?

    You and G West both continue to apologise for him/his 'work'. Why?

    Are you Ignatieff relatives or staffers?
    If so, I could understand your public positions.

    Ignatieff will be better off reverting to writing about his world.
    His Canada barely interested or interests him for too long. Why now?

    We deserve much better. Someone at least 'substantive' and not 'superfluous/dilettantish'.

    Who among the other Liberal Party Leadership candidates could you support?

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    G West & Alcibiades:

    Whether I or anyone else bores you is irrelevant.

    Here, you need to address the issues raised above.

    You should not excuse yourself because you are bored or feel above this fray.

    You cannot afford to sound arrogant, in my opinion.

    Address issues, do not issue ad hominem attacks.

    Let us predict your reply:

    "You ... are a political hack .....wasting time ... you bore me".

    Acknowledge the above substantive points and defend your own position(s), please.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james

    Quote:
    He is verbose and dilettantish

    Look who's talking! I've done nothing but address issues . You just don't have anything further to say – witness your two comments above.

    If you post a substantive point or something you already haven't said several times or something that doesn't misrepresent what I've written then I'll respond.

    I've already proved my position and won’t waste any more of my time on pointless elaboration.

    Further response, beyond this, would give your maunderings more attention than they deserve.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    Do you deny that Ignatieff's background is elitist?

    If yes, what is your counter-evidence? (evidence that it is elitist is abundant and easily accessible - much of it posted here)

    If not, then we are in agreement.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james
    as I wrote above:

    Quote:
    If you post a substantive point or something you already haven't said several times or something that doesn't misrepresent what I've written then I'll respond.

    I've already proved my position and won’t waste any more of my time on pointless elaboration.

    Further response, beyond this, would give your maunderings more attention than they deserve.

    Since you've provided nothing new I judge this discussion is over.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Sore losers - both.

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    You certainly are a sore loser. That is, nominally, the only truthful and accurate thing you've posted.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Why don't you emigrate?

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Because I'd never leave a country I love to a traitor and a liar like you.

  • james

    5 years ago

    You do not like PM Harper yet PM Harper clearly loves Canada.

    ?

    I hear that Ignatieff loves Lufthansa - not Air Canada.

    You guys in opposition are disloyal.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Give it up james, lies don't help your cause. You really are clutching at straws.

    Air Canada is no longer a crown corporation, by the way, it's no different from any other shareholder-owned airline. Did you not get that message?

    Still no ideas, no evidence, no sense and above all, no idea of what this country is all about - just like Stephen Harper.

  • james

    5 years ago

    So, why did our Canada vote in Mr Harper?

    I suggest most Canadians are very different from you.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    From my experience james, they are not very different from me. Unfortunately, they have people like you who only care about themselves around in such big and sick-making doses - especially in today’s compromised media - that they sometimes lose sight of what is really important and true.

    This time, with this nightmare - Mr Harper and his hateful image of this country - is one of those times. I feel truly sorry for someone like you who, like Mr Harper, has allowed his hatred of his fellow human beings to consume him. I feel even sorrier for the poor idealistic soldiers, both men and women, who are sacrificing their lives for such a liar and such a lie.

    But, still, you and the Prime Minster are both more to be pitied than laughed at. I hope the land and the people survive your treachery and your selfishness.

  • james

    5 years ago

    As a blogger here you lose your focus very easily.

    Why?

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    james:
    This is not a blog, remember.

    From someone like you, who has the focus of a gnat, your current observation is as trite a thing as you've posted so far. Keep it up, you will soon spin yourself into the ground and disappear.

    I see some commenters have remarked on another thread that you seem rather childlike. So hard to get any respect when everything you write and believe in is laced with hatred and resentment, isn't it?

  • james

    5 years ago

    Indeed, and there also I see that you happen to use the same abusive ad hominem technique on all of those who dare to disagree with you or point out your weakenesses.

    Scary guy, you.

    Less bile, more argument please.

    Be polite.

    Best,

    James

  • james

    5 years ago

    One gets the distinct feeling that if armed, 'Alcibiades', you'd be very dangerous!

    Learn some tolerance. You are Canadian - yes?

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Never used anything but peoples' own words against them - as you ought to know.

    Tolerance is over rated.

    I believe the proper sentiment is Respect.

    Not that you'd know anything about that.

    Quote:
    One gets the distinct feeling that if armed, 'Alcibiades', you'd be very
    dangerous!

    WHere do you come up with these fantasies?

    As for tolerance, remember this?

    Quote:
    Why don't you emigrate?

    You have nothing to teach me, or anyone else, in that department.

  • james

    5 years ago

    Alcibiades,

    You have misjudged my meaning: 'Why don't you emigrate?' is a question meant literally? That is: have you considered it? If your Canada is so going down the drain for you etc. It is not an unreasonable option for you, perhaps - given your resentments of the Government and PM Harper in particular.

    It is not, however, a jibe or rhetorical question meant maliciously.

    You have misread my question.

    Further, you express anger in your posts. Hence my comment:

    "One gets the distinct feeling that if armed, 'Alcibiades', you'd be very
    dangerous!"

    Humor us instead.

    Best,

    James

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I've been humouring you for months.

    More intolerance just above I see.

    All ended with that phony 'best'.

    Spare me any more of the same unless you have something 'different' to say.

    No anger from me - that's your department.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.