The Shotgun Blog
« CBC apologizing for Terrorists? Their answers... | Main | Shameless Self-Promotion: Secret Trials Edition »
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Weekend Post - The American Moment
I think I discovered Mark Steyn by reading his intro in Rescuing Canada's Right : Blueprint For a Conservative Revolution a few months ago and I have always followed his articles and essays here and there.
Any ways, I thought I must share this great stuff with you guys here. Mark Steyn was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show talking about the desperate attempts of the Democrats or Defeacrats as he puts it in the interview, within the US Senate to cut and run the job in Iraq.
The original transcript of this interview is available at Radio Blogger
Posted by Winston on June 17, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834cef77569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Weekend Post - The American Moment:
Comments
Speaking of 'Rescuing Canada's Right', I just finished reading it and highly recommend it. It takes the next step from bitching about the Liberals and NDP to laying out workable ideas to further conservative movement in Canada.
Posted by: Stan | 2006-06-18 9:49:46 AM
Stan, I have not read Rescuing the Right but I have noted a new tone in Canadian people - gradually they are becomming not ashamed to be a Canadian with Canadian values; not loonie left, hazy, pot head drivil about 'laying down so everyone else can use said person as a doormat' type 'values' that no one wants to have. The silence from the Press Gang in Ottawa has been a welcome break for my nerves! Stephen Harper is rearranging the table, the howling left is squaking but people are not hearing them anymore. It makes a person feel pretty good.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-06-19 9:00:44 AM
You only discovered Mark Steyn this year?
Posted by: cby | 2006-06-19 10:50:55 AM
If Mark Steyn wants to write something which will knock every Canadian off his feet, or sting so ferociously that they will not forget it, he might explain why he left Canada.
I wish he was twins or triplets and had moved here, but if he was born in America and freely chose to move away, I would be disheartened.
We each have a duty of "leadership" which I think of as even tiny individual (daily and life long) actions which demonstrate through our individual lives, just what it is that we believe and ASPIRE to (and which theoretically speak of our culture-society).
If you move away from your country, that is a huge rebuke.
As usual, I don't actually know the facts of Saint Mark's exodus to Vermont (I think that is where he lives?), but I'm pretty sure that he actually moved away from Canada.
If Thomas Sowell moved out of America, I would write my Congressman to have an investigation and put somebody in jail, to correct whatever the problem was and then persuade him to come back.
You guys seem to laugh it off.
Throw the Communists completely to Hell out of your government - back to Russia - NOT HERE. We have to kill off the Republican Party, let Bush and the other clever GOVERNMENT GUYS merge with the Democrats who they so admire, and then we will form and raise up a new clean American liberty and rule of law, originalist constitutional Party, which will be up and running and win all elections in 2008. Watch.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-19 11:35:01 AM
Conrad:
Marxist = state control over economic production and social values.
National Socialism = state control over social values.
Only Marxists could see National Socialists right wingers, since they have not bought totally into the concept of complete state control over every aspect of individual human being's lives.
They really have a hard time with the ‘far right' which trusts human beings to make decisions for themselves on both the social and economiic scales.
That's totally foreign to their ‘perfect' system, in which individuality must be violently suppressed, since and differing opinion is a threat to the created order.
Which third party in the US best offers an escape from both totalitiarian philosophies, the Marxists and the Third Jihad, whose first success was establishing an Islamic Republic beachhead in Iran under the wimpy watch of Jimmy Carter?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-19 11:56:24 AM
Conrad,
Steyn has homes in New Hamshire and Montreal and travels between the two (actually, he spends a lot of time in London too. I'm not sure if he has a home there or not.)
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-19 12:36:56 PM
I am confident that Saint Mark has wings to travel to London when need be.
You guys are really very well informed of facts as well as solid philosophical grounding.
In my view, if you are any kind of citizens at all, you should seek public office. I view that hateful evil enterprise as an absolute duty at times when the community is in dispair.
Set you free - did you leave out the word "as" in the third sentence of your last post? I found that to be a very useful and concise discussion of a significant truth. The kind of truth which must be clearly understood if one is to lead, persuade and explain freedom so that the voter is inspired and energized.
This is all very helpful to me, but your nation needs you guys (and of course, my nation needs a strong solid Canada).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-19 2:44:08 PM
Set you free -
You asked about which third party...
I am focused only on November 2006 and defeat of all Republican candidates.
After that I will contact all of the excellent (and sick to death) former Republican politicians who I know of and discuss forming a new party (and I'll contact Joe Lieberman too, I'm an optimist and think even a guy like him, who evidently has a remaining spark of goodness buried deep in his soul, can be salvaged and straightened out). : - )
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-19 2:58:24 PM
Conrad:
Yet, the word ‘as' was left out and there were plenty of typos throughout.
As long as you understand any time compares somebody to Hitler, it's usually a Marxist who criticizes the inadequacy of National Socialism to not take state control of economic production.
Both are really left-wing philospophies. Right wing philosophy, in its classic definition, recognizes the abilities humans have to plot the course of their own life without intervention of the state.
I could be categorized as an autocrat in the classic definition ... which is self-rule according to a strong moral code. That definition has been Orwellized to mean ‘repressive.
Another example of an Orwellized word is ‘gay' which used to mean happy and joyful until social advocates changed it into an acceptable euphimism for sodomizer. Emboldend by that success, activists are now trying to Orwellize the word ‘marriage' one of whose characteristis was a structure in which children could safely be raised in an environment which prepared them for adulthood.
The love between two consenting adults is just a starting point. A relationship with the potential to bear children pretty much rules out anything a penis in the butt or a tongue on the clitoris could produce, yet people think passing a definition into law will somehow change this natural process.
Civil union may be acceptable, but fool's marriage (like fool's gold) may be more appropriately accurate.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-19 3:02:50 PM
cby; I have read Mark Styne's excellent articles for years, Barbara Aimel also. Formidable intellects!! I have not read the book mentioned here.
I like what you write Conrade but I do not share your opinion of President Bush. I have always admired your President Bush and I think that his mission to make American producers competitive with the slave labour in China re; the pricing of manufactured goods, is making him unpopular. Some Republicans have vested interests (WalMart type Co.s using China slave labour for cheaper goods on their shelves), and they don't want to have the Yen reflecting the slave labour in the value of the exported goods. I support Mr. Bush not the big business profiteering. I also hope with all my heart that United States has HUGE success in the democratizing of the Middle East.
I do agree with you that we have a great PM at the moment. I wish we had your Bill of Rights.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-06-19 3:10:30 PM
Set you free -
Your last post reminded me of something.
After you decide which office to announce your candidacy, perhaps ask your wife to review and edit all of your draft speeches prior to delivery.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-19 3:15:58 PM
Thanks.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-19 3:23:35 PM
Conrad
If you defeat the Republicans in '08 are you ready to be run by Kerry-types?
Posted by: bcf | 2006-06-19 3:42:36 PM
bcf:
Never mind the Kerry types.
How bout them Algores, saving the planet through propoganda films?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-19 3:50:39 PM
jema54j -
President Bush was certainly not elected to be "clever" but to be honorable. Not to bring us "government" but to lead and manage that enterprise faithfully.
We have a core of belief.
Freedom. Fairness. Opportunity. Community.
Core fundamental value is national sovereignty, with wide open welcoming arms to visitors or anyone who wishes to join us in freedom and honor for the rights of others.
President Bush "cleverly" sided with those who cheat others and literally profit from crimes which he agreed with them (he never told me) to not prosecute.
He "cleverly" knew that his Republican Party companions would not speak out, nor fight to the death, to stop this Treason.
Long ago, I got to be on television in Washington, D.C. to be able to defend our then President Nixon on a decision relating to our economy. A very proud moment for me and particularly when friends came up and told me that they saw the clip and agreed, e.g. I spoke as they would have, selflessly for the good of the country, we "all" agreed to absorb the difficulty.
Nixon is "hated" and so "evil" but not at all.
Bush does not state his purpose and exhort our agreement and support for "economic" policy decisions. He "cleverly" cheats the nation of our fundamental integrity of the Rule of Law and centuries long culture of fair dealing in order to slip under the radar screen a money theft on the backs of slaves to pay off his co-conspirators.
I will see him imprisoned for Treason.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-19 3:51:57 PM
"...Adam Przeworski of New York University stud[ied] every attempted transition to democracy around the globe. He and his colleagues found that once a country passes $6,000 in per capita income it is virtually guaranteed to succeed in its transition to democracy. States between $3,000 and $6,000 have less than a 50-50 chance of staying democracies. And countries below $3,000 are almost bound to fail."
Iraq's GDP per capita is between $800 and $2,400. Clearly this does not bode well for the prospects of democracy in Iraq. Considering the work of Lynn & Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, it is unlikely Iraq will create a gdp per capita that will sustain a democracy.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-06-19 11:48:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.