I spend every weekend up in Canada. I watch news on the tv in both English and French, and have seen loads of images and reports on Canadian soldiers who've died while fighting in Afghanistan. They show a head shot of the soldier, how s/he died, and then show Canadian soldiers walking the casket of the dead soldier off of the plane.

There's great discussion about getting Canadian troops out of Afghanistan. It's everywhere. And it's all treated, pro and con, as if it's a legitimate topic to talk about in depth.

Before the US invaded Iraq, maybe 500,000 people took to the streets in Montreal to protest the invasion. It's a number that's pretty impressive on paper (or on screen), but once you actually see that for yourself, on the street (I didn't know about it and tried to drive around it), it's daunting. Say what you will about Canada...lots of us Americans do...but the contrast between articulating and standing up for rights and freedoms in Canada should shame every single dismissive American.

Posted at March 20, 2008 11:51 AM in response to Hundreds of flags .... 3,982 Americans dead

I've seen a few quotes lately about Noam saying this (including in this post):

When asked about the US list of terrorist states, he said if the US was to stick to the clear and precise definition of terrorism in its code of laws, it would be the leading terrorist state

I've seen all kinds of diatribes against him, but nothing relating to the behavior of the US regarding its own policy on terrorism. The fact that this quote was posted here but not adequately commented on (unless 'lovefest' was supposed to serve as a blanket commentary) leads me to think that this is another 'Chomsky has really bad table manners', or that 'he is one self-hating Jew'....ie off-topic.

Posted at May 17, 2006 12:30 PM in response to Noam Chomsky Pays a Solidarity Visit to Hezbollah

That is a crime deserving the most serious punishment.

What kind of punishment are you talking about, specifically?

Posted at October 28, 2005 5:56 AM in response to The Marriage Canard and Valerie Plame

I sense a large degree of willingness to elevate shrill rhetoric over actual policy. Dick Gephardt, having done more than any other member of the Democratic Party to land the country in Iraq, was able to recapture the hearts of many bloggers by calling Bush a "miserable failure."

Beg your pardon, but Paul Hackett was anything but shrill, whereas Dick Gephardt's constant harps about Bush being a 'miserable failure' (which I agree with) came off as contemporary democratic whining.  I liked Gephardt's policies but couldn't bear to hear him speak.  Same thing for Gore, same thing for Kerry.  For many in this country, it's come down to this: are you able to deliver lines that make a punch, and not rely solely on content?

Posted at August 23, 2005 5:56 AM in response to What Does The Base Want?

Can we not start using the word *treason* as a regular talking point when discussing this affair rather than referring to it as 'plame-gate' or other points that don't quite make the mark?

I don't want to be unneccessarily incendiary but the more I read and hear about this case the more it points to treason.

As for who exactly is responsible for committing treason, that's another point.

From Wikipedia:

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

Posted at July 13, 2005 7:16 AM in response to The Big Lie About Valerie Plame

I would like to respond to one little niggling thing in an otherwise excellent response:<span class="Apple-style-span">"The most likely scenario I see for a serious centrist third party run in 2008 is is Giuliani or McCain make a strong run..."</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Can anyone (progressive Demos, conservative right quadrants, liberal cereal eaters...) really claim that John McCain is a moderate?  His stance on many issues are totally conservative.  Like many poeple I too can appreciate that he answers questions head-on. I even like some of his responses too, especially immigration from Mexico, but his voting record does not seem to be middle of any road. I apologize in advance for the digression of a really important posting about the possibility of a third party.Also this posting doesn't seem to be able to read my html from a safari browser (boo!).</span&gt

Posted at June 8, 2005 7:39 AM in response to The Center Cannot Hold