Check it out! IggyTube has short clips of Michael talking about different issues and personal stories.
I enjoyed it and just thought I would share.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
In Response to: "The Iggy and the Damage Done"
Click HERE for the artcile printed in the National Post by Ian Macdonald.
I would like to point out first that this article is fundamentally flawed. Where he says that the phrase "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays." he makes an translation or interpretive error by claiming that it means "Quebec is my home". And he does this on two accounts within the same sentence.
1st account: "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie" - translates into "Quebec is my fatherland" - not necessarily "my home". (translation erro)
2nd account: even if he knew that the translation was 'fatherland' , he substitued in 'home' and it is an interpretive error. Fatherland is in reference to the concept of a nation. Saying, quebec is my fatherland is making reference to the notion of the Quebec nation. To say it means home in the sense that he presumes it does, is to miss the point.
Anyone who has studied what the concept of a nation is, would know that it has a strong relationship to the idea of a fatherland. It is encarved in its very meaning.
What really is a nation?: One very influential view is that "nations are merely "imagined" but somehow still powerful entities; what is meant is that belief in them holds sway over the believers. (A.D Anderson) In this sense it is a feeling more than it is any type of sovereign claim of statehood.
Deeming Quebec a nation is not this evil thing that people have made it out to be. Turning it into a project - that is turning it into a license rather than a responsibility- is most certainly an evil that we do not want to touch. But that is not what is being proposed by Ignatieff.
I spoke with Mr. Ignatieff the other day about the negativity that has been shown towards his quebec as a nation idea. He looked at me and said, "in no way do I suggest we open up a constitutional debate on the issue, but just that we acknowledge something that everyone - especially Quebekers- knows to be real". (paraphrasing) The concept of the nation is an internal feeling that, not all, but a lot of Quebeker's relate to and that is something that is necessary to recognize.
I can't take anything in this article as fact or evidence of anything. It has failed to grasp the idea of "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays" and it has therefore failed in arriving at any plausible conclusion of Ignatieff's position on the issue - since the misinterpretations are obvious flaws.
I would like to point out first that this article is fundamentally flawed. Where he says that the phrase "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays." he makes an translation or interpretive error by claiming that it means "Quebec is my home". And he does this on two accounts within the same sentence.
1st account: "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie" - translates into "Quebec is my fatherland" - not necessarily "my home". (translation erro)
2nd account: even if he knew that the translation was 'fatherland' , he substitued in 'home' and it is an interpretive error. Fatherland is in reference to the concept of a nation. Saying, quebec is my fatherland is making reference to the notion of the Quebec nation. To say it means home in the sense that he presumes it does, is to miss the point.
Anyone who has studied what the concept of a nation is, would know that it has a strong relationship to the idea of a fatherland. It is encarved in its very meaning.
What really is a nation?: One very influential view is that "nations are merely "imagined" but somehow still powerful entities; what is meant is that belief in them holds sway over the believers. (A.D Anderson) In this sense it is a feeling more than it is any type of sovereign claim of statehood.
Deeming Quebec a nation is not this evil thing that people have made it out to be. Turning it into a project - that is turning it into a license rather than a responsibility- is most certainly an evil that we do not want to touch. But that is not what is being proposed by Ignatieff.
I spoke with Mr. Ignatieff the other day about the negativity that has been shown towards his quebec as a nation idea. He looked at me and said, "in no way do I suggest we open up a constitutional debate on the issue, but just that we acknowledge something that everyone - especially Quebekers- knows to be real". (paraphrasing) The concept of the nation is an internal feeling that, not all, but a lot of Quebeker's relate to and that is something that is necessary to recognize.
I can't take anything in this article as fact or evidence of anything. It has failed to grasp the idea of "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays" and it has therefore failed in arriving at any plausible conclusion of Ignatieff's position on the issue - since the misinterpretations are obvious flaws.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
John Baird Dubbed
The Rick Mercer Report is looking for submissions of John Baird Dubbed. During a 'rant' in the house of commons by Treasury Board President Baird, a Child's voice filled in that of mr. Baird's. This example can be seen on the link above under " The Rick Mercer Report Audio Challenge"; it is absolutely hilarious!! Watch it and should you be inspired to do so, create your own.
Oh how I love you Rick Mercer.
Oh how I love you Rick Mercer.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Toronto Leadership Debate
I was not fortunate enough to be in Toronto for the debate, but from what I watched on TV I wish I would have been!
It seemed there was quite the lively debate - if we can even call it that- between Iggy and Rae. Iggy was the first to point out Rae flip floped on the issue of Afghanastan, in which Rae jumped all over Iggy's flip flop on the issue in the Middle East. I found this humorous and useful in pointing to the character traits of the candidates. Mr. Rae was not progressive in his purpose, and you could tell that from his smugness when paired up against Iggy.
I only hope that other people recognize the difference between a candidate who wants to win the game and one who wants to lead the party. Rae I dont think is interested in the latter; Dion I think is. Dion was passionate in the debate, he did not back down against the Front runners and voiced his perspective loud and clear for all to hear. However, my criticsm for Dion is that he was to emotional. He lacked focus, he lacked calmness and it worked against him when you think about his debate skills. But I will say that his passion was excellent and from talking with him on previous occassions, I do not doubt that his motives in this race are good.
I do think that Ignatieff did well. I wasn't overly impressed, but than again there wasn't much new that any of them could offer here except better presentation I suppose. The one thing I like the best about Ignatieff is his straightforwardness about any issue. He doesn't choose to use rhetoric in his speech, and doesnt fall into the "whos better than who" game. I particulary enjoyed his forceful statement of "absolutely not!" to Rae when questioned about the Middle East. Because Rae knows fulls well of Michael's positions, yet still judges it acceptable to play on the subject. I think he was putting on a show for television, as Marth Hall findlay put it; who I might add did an excellent job on almost every issue. She is very smart and debates well.
I know that I only mentioned four of the eight candidates, but I have my reasons. I do think that the Race will come down to Ignatieff, Rae and Dion (And I know what the delegate numbers are). I mention Findlay because I think she is doing excellent. Of course she wont win, but she is sure making a name for herself. And I think she adds a lot to the party and to the leadership race.
It seemed there was quite the lively debate - if we can even call it that- between Iggy and Rae. Iggy was the first to point out Rae flip floped on the issue of Afghanastan, in which Rae jumped all over Iggy's flip flop on the issue in the Middle East. I found this humorous and useful in pointing to the character traits of the candidates. Mr. Rae was not progressive in his purpose, and you could tell that from his smugness when paired up against Iggy.
I only hope that other people recognize the difference between a candidate who wants to win the game and one who wants to lead the party. Rae I dont think is interested in the latter; Dion I think is. Dion was passionate in the debate, he did not back down against the Front runners and voiced his perspective loud and clear for all to hear. However, my criticsm for Dion is that he was to emotional. He lacked focus, he lacked calmness and it worked against him when you think about his debate skills. But I will say that his passion was excellent and from talking with him on previous occassions, I do not doubt that his motives in this race are good.
I do think that Ignatieff did well. I wasn't overly impressed, but than again there wasn't much new that any of them could offer here except better presentation I suppose. The one thing I like the best about Ignatieff is his straightforwardness about any issue. He doesn't choose to use rhetoric in his speech, and doesnt fall into the "whos better than who" game. I particulary enjoyed his forceful statement of "absolutely not!" to Rae when questioned about the Middle East. Because Rae knows fulls well of Michael's positions, yet still judges it acceptable to play on the subject. I think he was putting on a show for television, as Marth Hall findlay put it; who I might add did an excellent job on almost every issue. She is very smart and debates well.
I know that I only mentioned four of the eight candidates, but I have my reasons. I do think that the Race will come down to Ignatieff, Rae and Dion (And I know what the delegate numbers are). I mention Findlay because I think she is doing excellent. Of course she wont win, but she is sure making a name for herself. And I think she adds a lot to the party and to the leadership race.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Ignatieff's Defends Liberals Against Harper - Israel-Hezbollah
Michael Ignatieff, during his speech at U of T dismisses Harper's accusations that he or any Liberals or Liberal Candidates are Anti-Israel. As I watched a Ignatieff speak from U of T I was thoroughly impressed with his clarity as he defended himself and the party. He pointed out the obvious point that Mr. Harper sees things in only black and white; there is no grey area for him. A point that Ken Dryen equally agreed with. There is always grey in politics; divisive action is not healthy for anyone, no matter which party they relate with.
I am appauled, but not shocked, that Harper said the things that he said. It is repulsive to have the Prime Minister of our country make erroneous accusations about any memeber of the legislature; especially when he knows full well that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was anything but black and white. There were "war crimes" from both sides - says Ignatieff- but saying that does not denounce any of the members involved in the conflict. Ignatieff's comments were deemed controversial by many, even some of the other leadership candidates, but they were logical, honest, reflective and progressive. There was no rhetoric in his statement about Israel, and there was no attempt to decieve people about his views. And with that, his views are most certainly not Anti-Israel and he did a fantastic job of pressing that point during his speech today.
It's upsetting that Harper is compelled to divide the country for his own political gain; that's not something any Canadian should stand by. And on that note, I was very impressed with Ken Dryden's perception of the situation. He was calm, collective and dealt with the direct issue facing the Liberals after Harper's claims. He did not attempt to criticize other Liberal Leadership contenders, nor did he resort to simply pointing the finger at Harper.
We all know that Liberals are not Anti-Israel; we know that none of the candidates for leaderhship are Anti-israel. However, we also know that it has been said, but the response from Ignatieff directly to Harper was phenomenal; I couldnt have said it better myself. I think Harper needs a lesson in leadership and unity.
In terms of the leadership race itself now: Does Ken Dryden's comments show any leanings on which candidate he will support at the convention? Does the fact that he answered to the accusations from Harper in the same way Ignatieff did, indirectly put him in line with Ignatieff's thinking?
I am appauled, but not shocked, that Harper said the things that he said. It is repulsive to have the Prime Minister of our country make erroneous accusations about any memeber of the legislature; especially when he knows full well that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was anything but black and white. There were "war crimes" from both sides - says Ignatieff- but saying that does not denounce any of the members involved in the conflict. Ignatieff's comments were deemed controversial by many, even some of the other leadership candidates, but they were logical, honest, reflective and progressive. There was no rhetoric in his statement about Israel, and there was no attempt to decieve people about his views. And with that, his views are most certainly not Anti-Israel and he did a fantastic job of pressing that point during his speech today.
It's upsetting that Harper is compelled to divide the country for his own political gain; that's not something any Canadian should stand by. And on that note, I was very impressed with Ken Dryden's perception of the situation. He was calm, collective and dealt with the direct issue facing the Liberals after Harper's claims. He did not attempt to criticize other Liberal Leadership contenders, nor did he resort to simply pointing the finger at Harper.
We all know that Liberals are not Anti-Israel; we know that none of the candidates for leaderhship are Anti-israel. However, we also know that it has been said, but the response from Ignatieff directly to Harper was phenomenal; I couldnt have said it better myself. I think Harper needs a lesson in leadership and unity.
In terms of the leadership race itself now: Does Ken Dryden's comments show any leanings on which candidate he will support at the convention? Does the fact that he answered to the accusations from Harper in the same way Ignatieff did, indirectly put him in line with Ignatieff's thinking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)