What did you expect...

from a person long associated here with being an outspoken advocate/defender of Zionist Israel, whom of course shares the US Empire interest in the broader Middle East, not just Palestine, at least to this point in time.

It is in both these invader interests in the Middle East, of course, to spill the blood of whomever will slavishly serve this joint interest as well. Enter Canada, long a servant of the Empire interests of others-, Great Britain's in the past and currently the US Empire.

No surprise here in the position of Glavin, or sad, rather pathetic Canada-, the latter also, to this point in time anyway.

Yep - gotta hand it to manly

A report co-authored by the world authority of international development - Pamela Wallin and professional bureaucrat Derek Burney really has a lot of credibility.

But then, what do you expect from a so-called leftist who starts dishing the dirt in para 8 with this:
....New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton will have to stop the hippie-speak..
moves into high gear in para 9 with more of the same:

...Stephane Dion will have to abandon his sophomoric and illogical fixation with a 2009 departure date

Then he starts in on everyone else...

And it just goes downhill.

If anyone disagrees with Terry, they must be an idiot.

I thought the most pathetic part of the whole report was Manley's conviction that we have to make sure Canada brushes up its image in the projects it selects to do in country so that the folks back home can be more easily gulled into believing what we're doing there is doing any good at all.

Mind you, it's not surprising Terry would like Manley's report - because halfway through the thing he 'confesses' that they basically agreed with everything his little ginger group suggested and promoted..
Nice stuff Terry; when are you gonna go into politics full time.

Despite Terry's usual sermon:

Yeah Right Terry!

The truth is that you're a broken record.

Terry Glavin comes through

Terry Glavin comes through with another excellent article.

It's rather shocking that usual suspects and their constant ideological babble are upset about a Glavin article. I guess to be considered a real progressive journalist you need to have an unwavering bias towards a narrow ideological viewpoint.

I always find it amusing when the left constantly references non-binding quasi-UN panels about “gross violations of human rights” in Canada, yet completely ignores the UN regarding the Afghanistan situation.

So a teacher in BC suffers immensely from human rights violations, yet the teacher in Afghanistan should be left to fend for themselves. I guess your right, 35 kids in a class is a much more serious human rights violation than burning down the school.

What was I thinking? We better call in the UN to take care of our fascist provincial government.

Glavin is the only “progressive” journalist with an ounce of integrity.

Too busy...

But what my learned friend Ed Deake says above. Just in case there is a vote here on this latest Glavin bit of Zionist so-called "left", serving the Project for A New Amerikan Century cause propaganda. :-)

It is amusing to see our JIm

It is amusing to see our JIm talking about a narrow idealistic viewpoint...........

Like an old European proverb says: "The sparrow calling the owl a "Bighead".

Well, OK, what are those handful of motorized troops accomplishing there? The poppy crop and dope factories are booming with NATO help, the Taliban are in control of the vast majority of the country and a few women are used for photo opportunities showing their "freedom".

Like the nazis used their Theresienstadt KZ camp for propaganda, showing how good the inmates were treated. Before they were taken to the gas chambers...

How do you occupy and pacify a country with motorized troops and no roads?

How is that pipeline coming, by the way ?

Ed Deak.

Correction: The proverb

Correction:

The proverb says: "The owl calling a sparrow a bighead"

Ed Deak.

JTF2 - murdock

I guess you're talking about this:

We learned just before Christmas 2001 that JTF2 was part of a seven-nation operation called Task Force K-Bar during the campaign in Afghanistan. Task Force K-Bar took part in 42 reconnaissance and surveillance missions, as well as what U.S. military authorities call "direct action" operations. JTF2 soldiers were part of commando operations that killed at least 115 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters and captured 107 senior Taliban leaders over a six-month period.

I was referring to the following in my post above - which was certainly a deployment change, wasn't it?

In July 2005, Chief of Defence Staff. Gen. Rick Hillier confirmed that members of JTF2 would be part of a new Canadian deployment heading to Afghanistan to fight the remnants of the Taliban and supporters of al-Qaeda.

Some "Remnants" eh?

why

Because we are in a hurry to become a militaristic society.

The phantom threat of 'terrorism' is being used to 'scare-up' the resources and legislative hammers to dismantle our otherwise acceptable society.

We are seeing a centralization of power, something that must be resisted at every turn.

Glavin is no Fisk

Ya, here's a report for you on Afghanistan - it's called The Great War for Civilization by Robert Fisk whose father served in Afghanistan. Maybe that's not enough for Glavin - he wants our grandchildren to see combat there?

I have liked Glavin's reporting on aboriginal and fisheries issues in the past, but he is not an expert on international issues like these - just a hack.

Ya, did you really speak to the people of Afghanistan, Terry? Uh, for a couple of weeks through an interpretter at a military base?

Or, tell me Terry, did you find time to speak Pahtun? Let alone Farsi, Urdu or Kazak.

Really, I want to know what you consider "talking to the people of Afgahnistan." I need a good laugh.

The last mayor of Kabul spells the death of Afghanistan

The last emperor of China was Henry P’u Yi. When P’u Yi was born on February 7, 1906, the Ch’ing Dynasty was in trouble. The pathetic condition of Mr. Karzai’s rule reminds one of the Last Chinese Emperor who was barricaded in the “Forbidden city” in Beijing and thought he was “emperor” of all China. Like Mr. Karzai’s “Afghanistan” all of China was not in the Emperor’s control.

In 1931 the Japanese army invaded Manchuria and made P’u Yi the puppet ruler of Manchuria, a client state of Japan. Like China of the time, Afghanistan too is awash in opium. This situation is very similar to Mr. Karzai’s condition.

The Vichey government of Mr. Karzia is unable to make any decisions within its borders.

The “Barbarian”Taliban are at the gates and neither NATO nor the Marine guards that protect Mr. Karzai can save him from his eventual fate—exile in New Delhi.

In Davos and in other forums, Mr. Karzia in carefully veiled sentences blamed Pakistan for all his ills. He specifically did not name either Paksitan or President Musharraf but tired to rub salt into the wounds of the recent Pakistan bombings. Mr. Karzai warned of the “wildfire of Terrorism”. Mr. Karzia did not mention the fact that the writ of his government is limited to North West Kabul and the last time he tried to venture out of the capital.

Mr. Karzai had threatned Pakistan before and now with the help of the India RAW has launched many mercenary attacks into Pakistan. Some of the suicide bombers have been identified as of Afghan origin.

Sanity asks why India has four consulates in Afghanistan to process a few dozen visas a year?

Afghanistan has been a problem for the world for the last 30 years. It is time to end this monstrosity. The solution to the turmoil in Afghanistan is to abolish the Durand Line, unite the Pashtuns, and initially absorb the Pashtun provinces into Pakistan. As a next step the Pakistani boundary should extend to the Amu Darya (Oxus). This will eliminate the need of NATO troops in Afghanistan, and save European and American lives.

To bring peace to the region, relieving NATO, Pakistan should be given control of all Pashtun areas.

After bringing peace to the Pashtun areas, “Afghania” should be absorbed into Pakistanas envisaged by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali and Afghan leaders. This has to be done peacefully through a jirga and democracy.

moinansari.wordpress.com

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/the-last-mayor-of-kabul-failures-spell-the-end-of-afganistan-how-long-can-the-inept-karzai-blame-others-for-his-corrupt-narco-warlordism/

Advice for Terry Glavin

After reading the majority of Manley's report (geez, wasn't this the same John Manley who advised CIBC to enter into to U.S. subprime with 10% of their portfolio? I'm sure it was...) the suggestion is simply to push for more Nato forces by other Nato allies and we get to pony up another 1,000 plus on top of what we've got, plus more defense spending!!

Terry... do you really think Afghanistan is the place to make our stand in the face of an imperial quest for oil by the empire below and its warhawk emperor and friends? Do you want to see 200 dead Canadians and another 10 billion frittered away in the face of a U.S. and possible global recession that will undoubtly cause some pain here as well? Or maybe you would like to see a Republican president invade Iran and trigger the next world war with a Canadian government only to willing to help...

Its bad enough that we've elected the most self serving, U.S. corporate driven lobbyist we've ever known in government, much less as a PM, but to support this inept bunch of war hawk sell it all New Cons who openly support war criminals south of the border...

The premise of your entire arguement to stay the course no matter what it takes be it years or decades with loss of life and resources, yada yada....

Got news for you. Since 2005, after the UN reponsibilities were fulfilled, we did choose to stay there in the wake of an illegal invasion of Iraq by the U.S.. The U.S. was never threatened by Afghanistan or Iraq and they pose no threat now. We had the choice to pull out then, but we didn't. Paul Martin opened the door, and Harper led the elephant into the room.

Actually, Terry, we did create those conditions with a mere choice to go militant in Afghanistan. Don't ever, EVER think we never had a choice in this. We did. And don't preach to those who are in the know, that we can't leave at any time from Afghanistan. Nato has 17,000 troops there not counting our own. They can carry on without us, to be fully honest and I for one, don't like Canada in a region where Bush could very well start the next world war over Iranian oil. Neither should any other man who knows better. It takes more than spelling and a way with words to be a good journalist... you know?

The truth will never be seen without the surrender of ones ego and bias, Terry. Its as simple as that.

A new improved war

Glavin writes:

As they say it pays to advertise. Oh! how the same corporate public relations people that brought you a more sudsy, new and improved dish detergent have moved on - to the greener fields of war:

A new report, a "fresh start", that once again makes the senseless, the inane, and the irrational appear as the only "sensible" thing to do...

What's that phrase ...."the benignity of evil."

Crazy!!!

I wonder if those who champion this war would be so gung-ho about it if they had children fighting it.
I have. My youngest son is a military warrant officer and it pains me that he has been fed even the military propaganda about the value of Canada's contribution.
I wonder how Canadians would feel if our country were subjected to outside military forces - and told we could no longer grow our wheat.
I say let the Afghans work it out. We surely have learned from history that no outside army is capable of conquering the country.

damage control

I see Pee Wee Rambo is taking some hits in the MSM over the Afghan detainees/torture file.

Sandra Buckler is doing her best to get the boss off the hook by pleading ignorance and 'blaming' the military for it.

See the top story in today's Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080125.MANLEYOPPOSITION25//TPStory/Front

That little bubble Harper has created around himself is starting to get him into some real trouble.

Now, will the media actually follow up & insist the 'maximum leader' answer some real questions - or - as seems likely - start screaming blue murder when he refuses yet again to do so?

One thing about having a lame duck leader of the opposition, the PM's predilection for blaming the Liberals for everything is finally wearing a little thin.

Having just passed the 2nd anniversary of his election, I think it's time for a few of our so-called independent journalists to take the gloves off.

Fighting for UNOCAL

http://coat.ncf.ca/Slides/3in1/084.htm
take a look at the map above.

"This is the 1,400 km pipeline that Unocal, and others, have been dreaming of.

It will move billions of dollars worth of natural gas from the Caspian to the Arabian Sea.

And, most importantly, it will keep those petrodollars out of the hands of America’s enemies, Iran and Russia.

U.S. oil companies, and their political representatives, have desperately been trying to turn this pipedream into a reality.

They are closer to that goal now than ever before.

Would you be surprised to learn that it will run right through Kandahar?"

Rambo's not going anywhere soon...

Heard on the radio this morning that 77% of Canadians do not want an election in 2008. They are content with a Con minority

just for you happy

Never underestimate the intelligence of the average voter.

They got us into this mess, remember?

Yeah... but

The numbers are misleading. Canadians never want an election, lol. And on top of that, I think there's a real fear that if the Cons win, were stuck with them. When Con support dwindles (and it will) that number will change and quite quickly. I don't know.... maybe I'm a little biased because I can't stand having the most powerful U.S. corporate lobbyist to ever enter government in a PM chair?

I'd say this government will be running deficits with hard numbers showing up by June and when it does, this government will fall.

Chantal Hebert

Has an interesting take on Pee Wee's failure as a leader and Prime Minister here:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/297383

I eapecially like this:

More than ideology, the sense that Harper has been reluctant to rise to challenges larger than those posed by his immediate partisan goals accounts for the unease that his leadership continues to inspire. It leaves many voters with few compelling reasons to want more of his leadership.

That sense is amplified by a bunker-style communications strategy that enhances the partisan nature of the government's message to the detriment of its public policy benefits. More than ever before, this regime has given a new and narrower meaning to being inside the loop.

Derek Burney – a former chief-of-staff to Brian Mulroney – and Paul Tellier, once the country's top civil servant, would never be described as media groupies. Yet their signatures are on the unanimous Manley report. Their alarm at Harper's approach reflects what they have been hearing within their own insiders' networks. What started off as a media irritant has evolved into a governance hindrance that inspires concern at every level of Canada's public life.

whatever

Just passing on what Canadians are saying outside of the Tyee box. Sorry, I'll go back to the real world now and leave you people in peace to carry on the planning for the upcoming revolution

you do that

happy..and take sneezy and dopey with you.

Deal

And I'll take Sleepy, Doc and Bashful too. But no Grumpy! (joking)

Now happy...

You are aware that the poll question to Canadians was, "do you want another federal election?" Imagine what the poll response would have been if the question was, "do you want another Harper government?" or another question still, "Do you trust Stephen Harper?"

Just thinking outside the box... you know, planning revolutions and such, lol.

State of the nation

Over in right-wing media-land its been discovered the Tories wouldn't win the next election. Apparently the best they could hope for is to squeeze out a minority gov't.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=266935

Facing the weakest Liberals leader in a century, lots of face time on tv, and yet the best they can get from a right-wing media poll is hope for around 35% of the vote. That's gotta hurt.

Manley's Report

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Shakespeare always said it best. It isn't so much the lies Harper tells us, but the silence of factual truth he practices in hope that the public won't notice.

When the truth will out, as it is wont to do, his first reaction is to find someone to blame for the event in question. Linda Keene was fired for want of a working pump. A weak defense minister was replaced with another weak defense minister, and now Peter MacKay is defending our involvement in Afghanistan, and Sandra Buckler is taking the flak for Harper (though not fired since she is a loyal Conservative).

Manley knows which side his bread is buttered on and produced a report allowing Harper to maintain the illusion we are fighting and dying to secure "freedom" for the Afghans, hiding the real reason, which is to placate George Bush, who is being used covertly to advance US hegemony over power supplies by way of a pipeline under Afghan poppy fields. When the Canadian Armed Forces suggested we could win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers by legitimizing heroin production as a medical resource, George shook his head, and Harper acquiesced. Ditto our suggestion we should pursue the Taliban, even across the Pakistani border. Bush could have extended his threat to bomb Musharaff 'back to the stone age' but declined, and our soldiers dutifully had to obey orders. So the web grows and grows.

Presumptious bumpf

Glavin's polemic here is as backward as the Taliban he excoriates. A close reading of the much vaunted document produced by the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee (have you ever heard such a preposterous name?) demonstrates contradiction after contradiction, and a tenuous grasp of reality.

http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/submission-independent-panel-canadas-future-role-afghanistan

On one hand, Canada is called to fight for human rights, freedom and democracy, and on the other, the Taliban enjoy tremendous support precisely because of their rejection of those things.

One one hand, Afghanis want the same things as Canadians, but on the other, Kabul is as different from the rest of Afghanistan as Ottawa is from Big Lake, and the people living in each place have entirely different priorities.

On one hand "Option 1" has fatal flaws, but on the other, "Option 1" will be successful if we extend the timeline for implementation from 2009 to 2010. Do these people read what they write?

On one hand, Canada has a powerful and highly trained military, and on the other, Canada is constantly calling on the US military to provide helicopters and air support to get Canada's boy scouts out of a jam. With another spring offensive due in a few weeks, Canada's shortcomings are once again about to be highlighted for the world to see, and more of our troops are going to come home in body bags.

The CASC group has been smoking too much opium. Their assessments of the will of the Afghani people and their importance to the struggle for human rights and world peace are completely without foundation and ignore the realities of the situation - that Canada is trying to project western objectives of governance and education on a country with a radically different history, one with no tradition of cultural solidarity but with, instead, a long history of armed resistance going back hundreds of years before the British invasion.

(cont'd)

...by impractical idealists

Canada is trying to project its influence into the middle of a region populated with similar-minded peoples, for whom family pride and loyalty are more important than fairness, none of whom is particularly friendly to western attitudes toward education and enlightenment, with no forward bases to work from. A broad-based coalition to address similar issues in neighbouring Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is not underway, thus undermining all the good work Canada does.

And no spirited polemic about human rights can ease Afghani peoples' minds about the fact that once peace is restored, work will begin on a new pipeline across Afghanistan, satisfying once and for all in the minds of native Afghanis that Western interest in their country was not motivated by the principles we live by, but by corporate will, by which Afghanistan will never profit. To ignore this view is foolhardy in the extreme.

Why did Canada not first work to transition Serbia, including Kosovo, to a more respectful statehood? There was UN and multinational support for that too. More than 150,000 Canadian Serbs, Croats and Bosnians would have supported such an effort.

Why does Canada not guide Haiti to representative democracy free of violence and corruption? Not only would Canada be able to more easily project its power and influence to Haiti rather than Afghanistan, but tens of thousands of Haitians now living in Quebec would find vindication in their selection of Canada as refuge, the only country who would stand up for the rights of the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. Instead, Canada supported the violent overthrow of its democratically-elected president by US-backed forces. Some paragon of human rights.

No, Canada fell, like the rest of the world, into the trap of abreaction suffered by the US in September 2001, and now considers its salvific role in Afghanistan to be anointed - nay - God-given. It isn't.

Glavin sweeps all this under the carpet with the fanciest of words. It would be nice to be responsible for restoring Afghanistan to the community of nations that the UN is called to be, but we couldn't have picked a more difficult nation, in a more difficult spot, with the most difficult of allies, not to mention the slimmest of resources. And we did it without any kind of national debate. We did it on a whim.

Nation-building is not whimsy. CASC clearly is. I'm not going to ignore Manley's report, but I'm certainly going to ignore CASC's supposed contribution to it. It's worthless.

Re Mopled's post

After opening the link given in Mopled's post titled Fighting for Unical (some 13 posts above), I sent the link on to all those fiends who I know have an opinion re Afghanistan.

For those who are truly dedicated to politics, :-), there's some 100 + slides to view, including some useful info re history.

But promoting those is not the purpose of this. Mopled's link opens at a simple map of the Mid East, and indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words.

With it's simplicity, the reasoning behind Bush and Co's machinations in Afghanistan and the area becomes self-evident, particularly re the overarching struggle with Russia over control of Oil and Gas in the "Stans" and the Balkans.

If all you do is send the map to your friends without any other comment, you've done them a favour.

There are more ways to skin a cat..

“Never underestimate the intelligence of the average voter.

They got us into this mess, remember?”

- What is your point here? Are you slamming ‘the average voter’ for exercising his democratic rights and voting for what or who he thinks best? That is a losing game. If you think your prospective clients are dumb, you have to keep it behind closed doors or inside your head. The task at hand as far as the big picture goes is simple: present a better case for ‘the average voter’, so he will see the light. If you can’t convince enough people to change things, have the decorum to accept that that failure is yours.

The problem with discussions like this is, that there is some truth to both sides, and absolutist views will sooner or later be seen as full of holes. Surely you are not suggesting that it would be a good thing for you and me and any of our grandkids, if the Iranians and Russians got their hands on the oil reserves instead of North Americans? Now, it seems that the Russians and the Iranians are every bit as eager to wage war for this, or else there would not be a problem, would there? It would just go peacefully to the highest bidder, as in all business. So, logically it seems to me, that the Yanks are mainly being slammed for appearing to have the upper hand, yes? A little perverse, perhaps, but so human, to stand up for the underdog.

...more

...more

As far as the Crusaders go, it really is pathetic in the slide show, to haul them out of the moth-bag! Read, for God’s sake, the early history of Islam, and it is crystal clear, who the imperialist expansionists were from the outset. Any religion, who occupies itself with the relative worth of those not adhering to it does not deserve the name of religion; it is no more than a rationalization of pure fascist views.

Afghanistan is not ‘a country with a radically different history’, Britain, which has thrown itself into the fray, has through most of history lived with a constant influx of ‘new masters’, who hacked and slashed through the established population to carve empires and places in the sun for themselves. The Norman invasion was only the last one of a long line of such conquests, and so this pattern is not as alien to any of us as we might believe. If you read European History up till - eh, why not up till right now, ‘armed resistance’ is still within living memory of many, many Westerners. Family pride and loyalty, yes, Christianity tried to squelch that, but it didn’t succeed much, most Europeans and indeed Westerners set great store by family and kin, but it has lately been made an object of disdain, slammed as ‘elitism’, so most of us go quietly about it. But it is precisely because we still hold to those values, that we also know they do not have to take a violent turn, that that is an unnecessary baggage, mostly related to the views taught by the so-called religion.

What I am saying is, there are no innocents in this. We are all scrabbling for being the ones with the most groceries, when the store closes. It is not necessarily so, that because there are some mercenary interests in there, there is not also something else. In the final analysis, only the individual soldier himself knows precisely why he is in the battle, and we, who are not there, shouldn’t denigrate that.

I disagree .... and so do an increasing number of others

It isn't all about who is going to be top dog Dorothy and in a world with diminishingly fewer resources and increasingly more people it can't continue to be that way.

That's the whole point.

Parenthetically (since that topic is now closed), on the other thread, remember it was YOU who asked onewomanarmy to justify her entirely understandable reaction to a personal invasion with more 'personal' details.

Some cases just ARE open and shut. That was one of them and I think you were out of line and said so.

The 'personal' isn't a great place for anonymous discussions to wander.

In my view.

Is this OUR choice??

"It isn't all about who is going to be top dog Dorothy and in a world with diminishingly fewer resources and increasingly more people it can't continue to be that way."

How do you see us breaking that pattern, as long as 'the other side' doesn't? I have a friend who grew up in a mainly muslim country, but belonged to a non-muslim minority in that country. It did not even occur to her as a possiblity, to have children there and raise them into a position of dirt under some other people's feet, as she had experienced. If you can take that as a test of what that ideology does, when it has the upper hand solidly, then I think we should not be naive and think that we can 'co-operate'. Top dog, no, decent life, yes. If they cannot figure that out, would you hand over your right to live according to your own sense of rightness?

And, I would like to know who decides that there are going to be more and more people? Not the Western world, which, for the most part, only shows growth due to immigration. Maybe we should ask those industrious breeders elsewhere, what they see as a possible future? Somehow, I think we're not going to like their answer...

Parenthetically, as you say, it was indeed I , who asked a couple of pertinent questions to seek context and better understanding, and I never did get them answered. Instead, I got mud thrown at my moral standing; all in a day's work as a rabble-rouser....But I think your knight-in-white-armor act was not needed. The lady can look after herself.

For Dorothy

Dorothy wrote :

Are you slamming ‘the average voter’ for exercising his democratic rights and voting for what or who he thinks best? That is a losing game.

Since there are a number of ways of looking at this issue, I consider that a too-formulaic statement, unworthy of Dorothy's usually thoughtful analysis.

It is undeniable that we deserve the governments we get, since we voted them in. So why do we vote for governments that so consistently act in the best interests of special interest groups rather than we the voters ?

Without informed voters, Democracy becomes a sham, and simple voting a mere stopgap against only the most egregious of political abuses. Too many voters think that merely by voting, they've fulfilled their total duty to our democratic process.

How do voters get the information to make what they hope is an informed vote? Mainly they depend upon the MSM, and even while they know that source cannot be trusted, the power of constantly repeated propaganda overrides contrary reasoning.

We Lefties think we have the answers, and constantly scheme for ways to get this info out to the public. But outside of agreeing with points made long ago in the early CCF-NDP days, such as Public Health, Public Forests and a now-waning concern for Public Hydro, the public isn't listening to whatever today's Left doesn't have to say anyway, and so it continues to lose numbers.

And while Campbell cleverly cozens the public with bread and circuses, the Left continues to be successfully portrayed (rightly or wrongly) as being unable to run even a hot-dog stand.

How I long for a leader like Tommy Douglas, who never strayed from basic Socialist principles, who told it like it was even if it was unpopular. As another example, Van der Zalm spoke forthrightly, and many people voted for him simply because "at least you know where he stands". David Lewis tried it with his "Corporate Welfare Bums" and his social message, but the unionists didn't like him picking on their corporate buddies, and his social message didn't attract enough centrist voters to win an election.

So if the message from the Left fails to inspire the voter, since it appears to be only watered-down centrist policies anyway, who can blame the voter for indifference?

The upshot of all this, Dorothy, is that the act of voting today simply legitimizes corrupt administrations – a “losing game” in itself. A far more powerful vote is defacing one’s ballot, since they too are counted, and is they ONLY way we can demonstrate our dislike for the choices we’ve been given.

Not at all dorothy

I think personal stuff on these pages is largely useless...but, if someone decides to use a 'personal' example to illustrate a point, so be it...

I don't believe in excusing what I see to be bad (actually your word is better, I should say immoral) behavior (in this case by a government agency) by rationalizing and spreading the blame in any way.

I wasn't defending the person, I was trying to say I think the focus was wrong. I think such things turn what should be a civil discussion into a personal matter - which engendered a similar attack on you - to which you responded with more (in my view, unnecessary), personal information.

Almost everyone posts here anonymously - I don't question their reasons for doing so, but I think it means that - for the most part - the discussion should stick to ideas and not personal stuff.

In the end, I think that communications with one's friends and correspondents are, and should remain private and personal. When the government starts looking over our shoulder without good reason (if someone's involved in crime then get a court order) we have bigger problems afoot than a potential bent welfare rule or two.

On the other issue, which stems out of the article above us here, I do have something I came across in my reading yesterday that you might enjoy - something that impinges at least marginally on this topic.

See what you think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=login

Reply to (almost) all my friends

“I consider that a too-formulaic statement, unworthy of Dorothy's usually thoughtful analysis.”

- ouch! So, I have created a monster. Now I can’t wear stuff off the rack, but must come up with original couture every time….Actually, that is very astute of you. Like people, whose first language is not English, sometimes will revert to their old language when they get upset, I do get a deal more ‘formulaic’, when certain things near to my heart are being thrown around a bit roughly.

I do believe that changing attitudes and convincing people of anything is uphill work, and that it only really happens one sphere of influence at a time. One can lead by example, or inspire people, with whom one interacts directly, in the flesh. But I do not believe sustainable changes in people’s thinking will happen through mass media. Manipulation and intimidation, yes, but not real change. However, close up or not, one must not show negative feelings due to disappointments; that will lose any shred of credibility so fast. People will come to think that it isn’t them and how they fare, that you care about, but only that your agenda and comfort zone requirements will prevail. This is all going way back to Andrew Carnegie.

It also ties in with GWest’s input about the ‘personal stuff’. I agree that writing anonymously makes it impossible to prove anything by using one’s own stories, although it may be possible, over time, to establish a body of attitudes and values that people can recognize as coherent and therefore valid – or not. Sometimes, one cannot escape having to answer to a challenge regarding all the lofty principles and philosophies being professed and advocated, along the lines of ‘Oh, yeah, and what have YOU done in that regard?’ This is where I believe it may be good to sometimes show a bit of personal openness, so that if such a challenge arises in a discussion, people have a little something to hang their belief or disbelief on, as opposed to being completely a nonentity. I do, generally, agree with GWest , that opinions and conclusions should stand on their own merit; that is partly why I do not use my usual name. I think that can get too personal and can interfere with objectivity.

...more

...the more

“Without informed voters, Democracy becomes a sham, and simple voting a mere stopgap against only the most egregious of political abuses.”

Let us just get truthful about this: I do not consider, that we have a democracy. I think, that we have a system of corporate and other types of tribal warlords, and the government tries to simply balance sets of special interests, so that no one gets too outraged, at least no one with enough clout to hurt a government. I consider the situation between our governments and the corporations to be not different in nature, but perhaps in degree from the house of Saud vis a vis the philosophical descendants of 'Abd al-Wahhab. So, more than just a few good ideas is needed, or a better presentation strategy. I think we need a complete overhaul of our poltical system, the kind that normally only happens trough a revolution. But this is Canada, so we muddle on. No hard feelings, just a quiet observation, that it can’t be done that way. One customer at a time is the other choice. Wear sturdy shoes.

So sorry, GWest

Forgot to thank you for the delightful forecast of the future. This is the kind of stuff you can save and read again, when it should have already come about, and then really learn from.

More than a few good ideas

Absolutely.

Glad you enjoyed the 'little' piece from the Times...