Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 52

Journal by pudge

Canadia

I was in Canada last week, and I got the chance to read some Canadian newspapers and watch some Canadian TV. Some thoughts:

  • The two major parties are the Conservatives and the Liberals, and they are, by our standards, roughly the Republicans and Democrats, respectively. The New Democrats (DNP) are the leftists who are too left for the Liberals. Then there's the Greens. National polls show a roughly 30-30-15-5 split between them. The Bloc Québécois is the fifth major party, getting about 10 percent nationally, but about 50 percent in Québec.
  • None of the candidates listed on TV or on any other ads had position names attached to them, just party names, sometimes with the district they intend to represent. Joe Smith, Liberal, Saskatchewan. I presume it's because there's only one position anyone is running for?
  • I enjoyed watching what appeared to be the Canadian version of C-SPAN, CPAC. They had cameras following candidates around to diners and such.
  • I watched some French language CBC, and happened to catch an interview with Michael Moore (it was captioned in French). He said Canadians should vote Liberal, because if they allowed the Conservative party to win -- as it looks like they are going to -- that would "set a bad example for (their) neighbor to the south." That's right, not only do Canadians want a loudmouthed American telling them who to vote for, but Americans want to follow the example set by Canada. What's he thinking?
  • From what little I know, and what little more I learned last week, I am pulling for the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean I like a system whereby such a small minority can win by virtue of a multi-party system. I like a winner-take-all system like we have in America, I just wish more parties would be allowed to participate (though that's another subject). The country is clearly far more left than right (four of the five parties I mentioned are on America's left wing), and yet the right is poised to take power, because the left is so fractured. It's a shame, I think. But I am speaking more about how I would feel if we had that system in the States: if the Canadians like it, then that's great.

Clinton

I couldn't really care less about his book. I have no problem with it. I just prefer books that I can learn something interesting or important from, and I figure if Clinton does say anything important in the book, I'll hear about it. I was there, I don't need to read a thousand pages to jog my memory.

It's an interesting question of whether Clinton will help Kerry or not. It's clear he could help Democrat voters come to the polls, but will he also help Republican voters come to the polls? I think here the Democrats stand to gain more, because the Republican voters seem to be plenty energized already. Further, I think Clinton appeals a lot more to the swing voters than Kerry does: many of them see Kerry as a liberal, and Clinton as a moderate.

And while on the face of it, it appears Clinton's saying that he agrees with Bush's decision to go to war (apart from the timing) helps Bush, one most quickly remember that Kerry voted to approve the war, too. That statement could really help bring more of the left out to vote for Kerry, who might otherwise have refused on the grounds of this one Kerry vote.

Iraq and 9/11

There's nothing to see here. The few times the Bush administration has spoken directly to the question of Iraq's involvement with 9/11, they said there was no evidence of it; they merely assert that Iraq and al Qaeda had connections, not that they collborated on this attack. The 9/11 Commission says there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and add that there is plenty of evidence that there were connections between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission just said what the administration had been saying and what they themselves had already been saying. There's no controversy here, and no news.

So why are people making a big deal out of it? Because the Bush administration did not do much to dispel people of the notion that Iraq was not involved with 9/11, even if they never asserted it, because if people believe that, it means they are more likely to believe the war was justified, and therefore more likely to vote for Bush and Republicans.

The Bush-haters say Bush created this perception, even though he never stated it. He should stand up and denounce it to the world, they say. The problem is, he did do just that; but people still believe it anyway. It's hard to fault him for a belief people have that he not only never stated, but specifically renounced. Well, unless you just hate Bush, and then it's easy. I suppose he could get up every day and deny what he has already denied in categorical terms, but at some point, maybe you should blame the media just a wee little bit.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The leader will be the prime minister, and their underlings are going to be the advisors/etc by apointment, like the chiefs of staff are in the white house.

      The people I am referring to are elected to Parliament, and the cabinet members and Prime Minister are then selected from the party with the greatest number of members. But like the U.S., there's a House and a Senate. What I found out since I wrote that is that the Senate is appointed, so the only national office anyone runs for is the House, hence t

  • foo (Score:1)

    by FroMan ( 111520 )
    Canadians:
    Those wacky northerners, eh? At some point I'd like to look into the parlimentary system a little more as my knowledge of it is a little sketchy. There are aspects of it that seem like they might make a better federal level government (or atleast advocated by an aussie friend) for represenation. But as I said, I need to do some more research before I could determine that. The winner take all system (for executive branch) in some ways seems to me to cause a 2 party system as at this point to cr

  • media (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    I'm sorry, I just have to get this straight. Somehow -- somehow, two-thirds of this country wound up believing that Saddam personally ordered 9/11. You and I both know our President and his administration tried to conflate 9/11 and Saddam in every way possible, short of telling outright bald-faced lies about it*, for about a year. I heard the press conference where reporters six times asked about Iraq and six times our President answered with 9/11. I've heard the radio address on the brink of war where he s

    • You and I both know our President and his administration tried to conflate 9/11 and Saddam in every way possible

      Er, uh, I don't think pudge believes that, so it must just be you.

    • You and I both know our President and his administration tried to conflate 9/11 and Saddam in every way possible

      I have stated I think that Bush overemphasized the links between Hussein and al Qaeda. But as best I can tell, he didn't say Hussein was involved with 9/11, and he, in fact, specifically renounced the idea.

      You bemoan the fact that he talks about Hussein and 9/11 in the same breath, but that is because -- as Bill Clinton himself noted -- they are part of the same problem. One of the justificat

      • I have stated I think that Bush overemphasized the links between Hussein and al Qaeda. But as best I can tell, he didn't say Hussein was involved with 9/11, and he, in fact, specifically renounced the idea.

        I'm sure you're going to reply immediately to this with some hair-splitting tortured grammatical explanation of why I'm reading it wrong. I'm not going to get into it with you except to say that anyone with a high-school education can read it and parse that Bush is claiming Iraq "aided" in the 9/11 at

        • I'm sure you're going to reply immediately to this with some hair-splitting tortured grammatical explanation of why I'm reading it wrong. I'm not going to get into it with you except to say that anyone with a high-school education can read it and parse that Bush is claiming Iraq "aided" in the 9/11 attack. And that the party that mocked Clinton for torturing grammar needs to step back and take a look at how far it will go to defend real lies.

          Funny how you can say that while lying to me.

          The plain meaning
          • Pudge, I said the opposite of the words you're putting in my mouth, and I do not appreciate being called a liar.

            Look, if you want to argue the meaning of the individual words, let's get it on. Here's the phrase in question:

            (A) take the necessary actions against
            (B) international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
            (C) including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored

            • Look, if you want to argue the meaning of the individual words, let's get it on.

              I am gonna tear you to shreds!

              I think you're saying that Bush was forced to quote the full text of that one portion of Public Law 107-243, which is a bit odd

              Not that he was forced to, only that it is common practice to quote full phrases.

              Nor is Iraq an international terrorist organization (because a nation cannot be international

              You're not making a jot of sense. If a nation cannot be a terrorist organization, then the
              • Pudge, suppose a legal document says "X, including Y" and by the normal understanding of the language, X does not include Y. Wouldn't you understand this to be defining X to include Y?

                For example, suppose a law referred to "states, including Washington, D.C." Since D.C. is clearly not a state, this is obviously defining it as one for the purposes of that law. Right?

                • You cannot reasonably say a nation is not, for the purposes of this law, an international terrorist organization. You try to, but you fail.
                  • No, I do completely agree that, for the purposes of this law, nations are being defined as international terrorist organizations. But only because of the language in clause (C) which explicitly defines nations that way. Just as, for the purposes of many federal laws, Washington, D.C. is a state.

                    What I do say is that, if not for clause (C), no nation would be considered an international terrorist organization. Therefore, it is specifically clause (C) that ties the sentence in question to Iraq.

                    I take it y

                    • Don't you think this is weak and a stretch? That over the last (almost) 3 years since 9-11, with all the claims that the current administration mislead the country about an Iraq/9-11 connection, this is the ONLY thing that can remotely be interpreted as such?

                      With countless CLEAR statements, claims and suggestions by the administration that there was no evidence (none) of an Iraq/9-11 connection, and countless claims by the administration that the actions we were taking with Iraq were preemptive, isn't it
                    • Last try to help you understand.
                      1. Given: for the purposes of this law, some nations can be defined as international terrorist organizations.
                      2. Given: clause (C) does not exclude other types of groups which may also be included in clause (B).
                      3. Therefore: it is possible for other nations, which (for example) are involved in supporting terrorists as per clause (C) but not specific to 9/11, to be included in clause (B).

                      This is straightforward and correct.

                    • "Don't you think this is weak and a stretch? That over the last (almost) 3 years since 9-11, with all the claims that the current administration mislead the country about an Iraq/9-11 connection, this is the ONLY thing that can remotely be interpreted as such?"

                      Remotely interpreted? Really?

                      "As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated: 'The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrate

                    • And pretty much everything you quoted doesn't tie Iraq to 9-11, but ties Iraq to preventing something like or WORSE than 9-11.

                      I can toss out quotes, articles, commentary myself. Most directly from the administration where over the last nearly 3 years has said there is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9-11. In fact, I have -- to several others. In fact you included a Cheney quote that basically said there was only one piece of intel supplied by the Czechs which he readily admited was a dry le
                    • When you have facts to present, instead of attacking me with rhetoric, feel free to try again. You claimed that nothing "can remotely be interpreted" as tying Iraq to 9/11. I presented many examples of how the media-savvy administration fooled 69% of Americans into interpreting the facts incorrectly.

                      Obviously you feel what was said should not be interpreted that way. There I agree with you: I am all in favor of critical thinking, careful reading, and distrusting deceitful manipulative bastards. But as to

                    • Actually, I'm done with you. You are insisting that the administration "media-savvy" or otherwise deliberately fooled "69%" of America. It's amazing how little background information is provided with polling data. Such as, how many polled actually regularly read the news papers or just watch the news vs. just hearing stuff or, bluntly, jumping to conclusions.

                      Way-back-when, the media did in fact present that the administration was looking in to possible 9-11 links with Iraq. Then you take a poll and ask

                    • other nations, which (for example) are involved in supporting terrorists as per clause (C) but not specific to 9/11

                      OK, this is different from what you were just arguing, I think, but that's fine, let's discuss this too.

                      You are mistaken. All of clause (C) is specific to 9/11.

                      Clause (C) refers to: "those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations."

                      "Such persons or o

                    • You are mistaken. All of clause (C) is specific to 9/11.

                      You're mistaken in believing I said otherwise.

                      So: how could a nation be "involved in supporting terrorists as per clause (C)"

                      You misunderstand "as per clause (C)." Perhaps if I changed "as per" to "in a similar way to what is described in."
                    • OK, so your argument is:
                      1. Given: for the purposes of this law, some nations can be defined as international terrorist organizations.
                      2. Given: clause (C) does not exclude other types of groups which may also be included in clause (B).
                      3. Therefore: it is possible for other nations [such as Iraq], which (for example) are involved in supporting terrorists in a similar way to what is described in clause (C) but not specific to 9/11, to be included in clause (B).

                      Let me first show you a reductio ad absurdum of thi

                    • Let me first show you a reductio ad absurdum of this, then explain why you are wrong.

                      Stop being stupid. You are the one with the absurd argument. You have a serious mental block here, and I am done trying to help you see through it. You pretend that there is some limit somewhere for what a terrorist organization can include, such as there is a limit for what "states" can include. You're wrong. There is no such limit. You're making it up for the sole reason that you hate Bush and want to show he did
                    • So you have no refutation for what I just said?

                      I explicitly said I was not yet asserting "some limit somewhere for what a terrorist organization can include" -- just trying to show that your argument was wrong. You failed to address that at all. You skipped ahead, wanting to argue about what our government believes are "international terrorist organizations," or what you think "international terrorist organizations" can or cannot include, which I identified as the next step.

                      I'm happy to continue and mak

                    • I explicitly said I was not yet asserting "some limit somewhere for what a terrorist organization can include" -- just trying to show that your argument was wrong.

                      The basis for your argument -- the one using the analogy regarding states -- is that there is some additional authority limiting states to a certain thing. There is no such limit in what I am referring to, so your analogy is useless. I did say this, I did refute it, I did prove your argument was wrong.

                    • Let me first show you a reductio ad absurdum of this

                      TECHNICALLY, you misused the 'reductio ad absurdum' in a way that's quite typical and understandable -- the 'absurdum' technique is often misused this way -- don't feel bad. You formed a 'straw-man', then took THAT appart.

                      Your entire argument is based on a weak premise. And as I pointed out earlier, it is quite interesting that you need to construct such convoluted arguments to support your claims.

                      John Adams once said that 'facts are stuborn things;

                    • "The basis for your argument -- the one using the analogy regarding states -- is that there is some additional authority limiting states to a certain thing. There is no such limit in what I am referring to, so your analogy is useless."

                      OK -- again -- I did not address that yet. I was just talking about your attempt to hang a proof on the word "including," which you had misunderstood. Now it looks like you have moved on beyond that and want to talk about whether there is an "additional authority" which excl

                    • OK -- again -- I did not address that yet

                      It is the *basis* of your analogy. You made an analogy to show me that my argument is wrong, but it is fundamentally different from what my argument says, in this important respect. Just because you didn't address this fundamental flaw yet doesn't mean it didn't already exist.

                      I was just talking about your attempt to hang a proof on the word "including," which you had misunderstood.

                      No, I never did. You continue to, however.

                      Now it looks like you have moved o
                    • "you didn't address this fundamental flaw

                      I am not going to even read the rest of your post"

                      ... in which I told you I was going to address it.

                      Nice.

                    • ... in which I told you I was going to address it.

                      You could address your fundamental flaw, but it won't negate it, so what's the point? And I already told you I was done.
    • There might be a reasonable answer to this Jamie.

      9/11: largest terror attack known to the US in recent history
      Saddam: man who has supported terrorism in the past
      9/11: while not WMDs per-se, certainly quite destructive
      Saddam: man who has used WMDs on his own people
      9/11: performed by terror organization who has ties with Iraq
      Saddam: leader of Iraq

      Now, are you completely blinded by the idea that Bush must have misled
      folks? Or perhaps we have two subjects that have a lot in common?
      Perhaps Bush while explaini
    • somehow, two-thirds of this country wound up believing that Saddam personally ordered 9/11

      Not quite correct. The poll in question referred to involvement, not a personal order by Saddam. The polls almost always referenced shows that about 32% thought it was very likely and 37% or somewhat likely that Saddam was involved with 9-11. The total comes to about 70%. Also interesting is that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents felt there was some sort of link. Also, this 70% rate held s
      • Being a Bush supporting Republican, even I am scared to death that only 12% said there definitely wasn't any link between Saddam and 9-11.

        Being a pedant, I am scared to death that ANYONE would say there definitely wasn't any link. There is no known evidence of a link. Ben-Veniste said yesterday [msn.com], "Take it to the bank, there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11." But he then went on to concede, "But in terms of collaborative relationship in operations (between al Qaeda and Iraq) targeting the United States,
        • I was thinking in terms of the poll responses. Two of them were "not very" and "definitely not likely". I feel that the current evidence puts it in the "really really not likely, but still possible" group. Heh, why didn't the Washington Post have one of those options! Anyway, if I participated in the survey, I would probably be more inclined to choose the "definitely not likely" category, because that response would be what I want others to see. However, you make a perfect point that technically, that'
      • I'm not gonna keep arguing the main point here, there's no point, but you seem like a reasonable person and you raise a good side point:

        I had no problem with this. It always seemed to me that Bush referenced them together as part of a larger fight against evil. He'd discuss what happened when we didn't act (9-11), and then described the need to act (Iraq). The two were seperate groups, but they could be lumped together quite effortlessly.

        Do you realize what's happened in the past fifteen months?

        Sev

        • Saddam largely cooperated with U.N. weapons inspectors

          And was therefore in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

          Saddam hadn't killed a single American in ten years

          But did try.

          Saddam wasn't harboring terrorists (except in the north, in a region where he had no control)

          False. He was harboring terrorists in Baghdad. Most notable is Abu Nidal. But there were others, and only some of them were in the no-fly zones.

          Build yourself some nukes. Not having nukes causes invasion; having
          • Well, the pressure would have to come from non-U.S. groups, wouldn't it, since we are not in a position to exert our will elsewhere in the world right now. Pressure on North Korea? We're pulling troops out of the South to move more people into Iraq. So Iraq is the only thing we can deal with for the next year or maybe two -- enough time for Iran to finish off whatever it's working on. Unless the IAEA invades Iran... how many tank divisions does the IAEA have, again?

            In the next 20 years, we'll have multip

            • Well, the pressure would have to come from non-U.S. groups, wouldn't it, since we are not in a position to exert our will elsewhere in the world right now.

              In terms of military force, that's true. But Syria isn't complaining about new economic sanctions because it isn't affecting them. Whether the sanctions are a good idea is beside the point: Syria is feeling a lot of pressure from it.

              Pressure on North Korea? We're pulling troops out of the South to move more people into Iraq.

              We announced removal o
        • I'm not gonna keep arguing the main point here, there's no point, but you seem like a reasonable person and you raise a good side point

          Thanks...it's always nice to discuss stuff while not shouting names and yelling at everyone.

          It appears this discussion has delved into the great Iraq war debate. I tend to agree with your statements more than I disagree with them. Pudge pointed out many of my disagreements, so I won't rehash those.

          Anyways, given the bad that the Iraq war has cost, my major reason
          • I agree with the humanitarian reason, the one reason on your list that was not a serious point in how the war was sold to the American people. But then... why aren't we sending 150,000 troops into the Congo, where genocidal civil war has killed millions over the past years? Bush travelled to Africa and didn't even go there [salon.com].

            As for showing the world we mean business... you still think Libya's capitulation was because of Iraq? Well, I guess you would, because as Bush took credit. Only trouble with that theor

            • As for showing the world we mean business... you still think Libya's capitulation was because of Iraq? Well, I guess you would, because as Bush took credit. Only trouble with that theory is that Libya had been trying for four years to do what it did last year:

              Ya, I know Lybia had been working towards a solution many years prior, and was getting pretty close. But it does appear that Iraq really pushed him farther than negotiations would. There's also this choice quote:

              "I will do whatever the America
            • I agree with the humanitarian reason, the one reason on your list that was not a serious point in how the war was sold to the American people. But then... why aren't we sending 150,000 troops into the Congo, where genocidal civil war has killed millions over the past years? Bush travelled to Africa and didn't even go there [salon.com]. Oops, I forgot to reply to this. I agree, it wasn't how the war was sold. I support the war, but not necessarily why Bush sold it. Also, we should be in Congo, or at leas
  • > The two major parties are the Conservatives and the Liberals, and they are, by our standards, roughly the Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

    This is pretty much wrong. The Liberals are closer to the Republican party of the US than the Conservatives, except for a few strange policies. They are not left enough to be close to the Democrats of the USA, by any stretch of imagination. Years ago, you would be correct in saying so, as Pierre Elliot Trudeau was a centre-right Liberal Party Prime Minister
    • This is pretty much wrong.

      Nah. Look at the platform [liberal.ca]: universal health care? Global interdependence? You'd be hard-pressed to find any Republican who agrees with these things. Meanwhile, on the Conservative platform [conservative.ca], I see an emphasis on cutting waste, smaller government, gun rights, and increased security.

      I'd probably put the Conservatives slightly to the left of the Republicans socially, and (in principle) in the same spot fiscally. I'd put the Liberals as slightly right of the Democrats socially a
      • I believe there is very little difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives; the only difference is on public issues like same-sex marriage, abortion and legalization of pot. The problem is that Canadian politics is stealthy. Platforms here are rarely followed to the letter, and the most common factor of platforms is how quickly they are abandoned after E-day. Examine the recent elections in Ontario and the Liberal party has reversed 9/10 of their promises based on excuses about provincial debt lev
        • I believe there is very little difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives; the only difference is on public issues like same-sex marriage, abortion and legalization of pot. The problem is that Canadian politics is stealthy. Platforms here are rarely followed to the letter, and the most common factor of platforms is how quickly they are abandoned after E-day.

          You're describing the Democrats and Republicans.

          he's going to likely end up selling Hydro One to private interests, which is a very Repub
          • > I really think you are overglorifying the leftist nature of the Democratic party in the U.S. It is just like the Liberal party, everything I have seen and heard, and everything you describe.

            So the Democrats are corrupt liars who act just like Reupublicans when they get elected? Why bother voting at all if that's the case? What a huge waste of money, the electoral process is. *sigh*
            • So the Democrats are corrupt liars who act just like Reupublicans when they get elected?

              Well, all powerful political parties are filled with corrupt liars. That practically goes without saying. And in the U.S., the Democrats have only been able to get power by acting like Republicans, like Clinton talking about small government and supporting free trade. Even Kerry supported the war and the Patriot Act and free trade.

              Why bother voting at all if that's the case?

              Because, as with the Liberals and Cons
              • Really there are only miniscule differences between the Liberals and the Tories; they are both bad for Canada, IMHO. They play one against the other for votes, splitting the votes between themselves; essentially taking turns with controlling the country. Much like that Dilbert episode, when PHB is talking about whose getting the contract this time, between competitors and the buyer. They flip a coin on the golf course.

                Maybe this is why I'm left wing. I see the two major parties in my country screwing the c
                • Really there are only miniscule differences between the Liberals and the Tories

                  And the only thing I am saying is that the left-wingers in the U.S. say the same thing about the Democrats and the Republicans. It's the same thing, it really is.

  • Hi pudge. I still read your journal from time to time. We just had our election here -- check your favorite news outlet for results.

    mfh is on crack. You figured it out better than he did. Kormoc is also misinformed -- we do not necessarily have a winner-take-all system.

    On parties:

    Drawing analogies between American and Canadian politics is perilous. Canada is better understood as a compromise between regions, and every party has a regional agenda as well as an ideological one. The USA seems to be gea

    • Yes, I didn't mean they are exactly equivalent, only rough equivalents. The Liberals and NDP are probably combined more like our Democrats than either of them alone.

      There are no "positions" to vote for -- at the federal level there are only Members of Parliament.

      Yeah, I figured that out later. The part that confused me was the Senate, but I got that figgered out too.

      This also renders your concerns about a minority Conservative government moot. By Canadian standards, the Conservatives had a radical a

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close