Nice little government job your relative has here, fella. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.
I still want the buggered-up Canadian refugee system to be fixed, but I don't want to be standing in Mackenzie King's shoes, waving goodbye to the MS St. Louis.
The campaign against this mosque is one of the ugliest and most odious controversies in some time. It's based purely on appeals to base fear and bigotry. There are no reasonable arguments against it, and the precedent that would be set if its construction were prevented -- equating Islam with Terrorism, implying 9/11 guilt for Muslims generally, imposing serious restrictions on core religious liberty -- are quite serious. It was Michael Bloomberg who first stood up and eloquently condemned this anti-mosque campaign for what it is, but Obama's choice to lend his voice to a vital and noble cause is a rare demonstration of principled, politically risky leadership. It's not merely a symbolic gesture, but also an important substantive stand against something quite ugly and wrong. This is an act that deserves pure praise.
. . . the lasting, bedrock values of diversity, the common good, a toleration for muddling through, and so on, that Harper opposes are not new Liberal impositions; they're basic Canadian values, and they're actually quite old. The only thing the Liberal Party has ever really done about them is to align itself (roughly) with them more often than not, and to dimly reflect their implications in policy as Canadians grew and changed with new realities. . . .Does anyone still remember Wayne and Shuster? They understood as well as anyone, I think, the bemused tolerance Canadians have for their governing institutions, along with impatience for pomposity and disdain of hypocrisy. I wonder how many of our politicians today remember this skit?
What Harper and his true believers are up to, really, is that thing that traditional conservatives were always against: social engineering. . . . In the end, they'll fail. Political parties just don't have the power to change people's character all that much; there are always too many other forces at work. Harper thinks he does have that power, because he thinks, incorrectly, that the Liberals once had that power. But he's wrong, both historically and politically.
... it’s as if these guys took the car, drove it into the ditch, then -- so we put our boots on, we walked down into the ditch, into the mud. We pushed; we shoved. Meanwhile, they’re standing back, they’re watching us -- (laughter) -- drinking a Slurpee or something -- (laughter) -- and saying, well, you’re not pushing fast enough and you should push this way instead of that way. And they had a lot of commentary, but they sure weren’t putting their shoulder behind pushing.
And finally we get this car up on level ground. Finally we get it back on the road. And these guys turn to us and say, 'Give us the keys back.' (Laughter.) Well, no, you can’t have the keys back because you don’t know how to drive. (Laughter.) You do not know how to drive and so you can’t have the keys back. (Applause.)
Now, here’s another interesting thing -- I want you guys to think about this. If you have a car and you want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' (Laughter.) When you want to go backwards, what do you do? You put it in 'R.' (Applause.) I'm just saying. That’s no coincidence. (Laughter.) We are not going to give them the keys back.Publish Post
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.
The essential principle is immutable: we should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.Exactly.
