rigorousintuition.ca

You're right Jeff. You never heard a Liberal mouth things like that - though I would say, er, Chretien, in fighting back the tide to bust into Iraq was pretty neat.

When I heard Mulcair's comments, it was the first time since the results were settled upon that I felt better about Canada.

Hell, if I was 20 again, I'd be volunteering to work for Mulcair!

So life continues....

It's taken me a few days of sullen simmering to get to this place where I can at least organize a few thoughts with what I hope is in range of peaceable and constructive intent. It may read more like long-winded rage therapy to those who might trouble to read it all. For that I apologize. I am - in fact - looking for what to do next, what next? Now that the thing that has filled the gentle, hopeful, socially minded people of Canuckistan with bottomless dread lo these long years, since we first heard the name of the tyrant sinister muttered in threatening tones, now that it has at last come down upon us ( ) - how will we respond?! What action will we commit to, knowing that action is - more than ever - a must?

Canadian_watcher wrote:It is a mere babe at the moment, but I am going to see where it goes.
If anyone wants to write anything I'm glad to post it...

That does look like a great beginning - this is your baby, C_W, or did you join a gang ...? Forgive me for quoting and tossing in a few edits - merely for emphasis of the heinousness, I assure you. I'm also thinking a lot about the math ... the whole 60/40 framework ... please bear with me whilst I unpack my ramshackle thoughts. Quoting from your link:

http://thesixtypercent.blogspot.com/
He Prorogued Parliament - *TWICE*.
He was found in contempt *BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE*.
He lost Canada a seat on the UN Security Council.
He gave out a handbook instructing his "people" on how to disrupt the House.
He cut funding to women's groups and social justice organizations like KAIROS.
He closed Human Rights Commission Offices.
He fired nuclear *SAFETY* watchdog Linda Keen only hours before she was to present her report.
He refuses to take questions from the media.
He muzzles his caucus.
He has removed pictures of former Prime Ministers *IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PORTRAIT GALLERY* and instead hung photos of himself exclusively.
He entered office with a large surplus and has frittered our savings away leaving us with a huge deficit.
He spent *OVER* a billion dollars of taxpayer money on a G8 and G20 summit and refuses to account for it.
He has on his staff convicted criminals.
He is alleged to have broken campaign finance laws.
He panders to a minority base with deep pockets.
the list could go on...

INDEED, the list could stretch out like an unfurled large intestine, couldn't it, Steve? How about a little Afghan Detainee Abuse Scandal, eh? Hah? C'mon Steve. I worked recently with a guy who went to high school with Steve. According to him, the tyrant sinister was just as socially crippled in his formative years; a veeeeeeeeeeery frustrated, power-mad dude, is our Steve-O. It may not surprise you to read that he almost certainly did NOT have a date for the prom. I'm guessing he just couldn't wait to grow up and take it out on the womenfolk... one way or another.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=16559

Now suppose... just suppose, each of those strikes against our prime sinister were linked to one (or more) well spoken/written & illustrated accounts thereof, each amply substantiated by much recourse to second and third helpings of absolute, unglossed, read-it-and-weep-for-a-generation (or two or twelve) truth, the truth that he, his cowboy hat and his drones all claim they stand for. The truth wears cement boots and then the cobblers turn history into Disney movies - *poof* - truth disappears. Overshadowed by rabid idiocy or outright callousness or tragic closet illiteracy among the allegedly literate who all rushed out here and there to cast their vote for a nest of snakes (apologies to snakes), the truth is officially - to quote a cliche - inconvenient.

Honest to fuck. Where DO they find these Donnas and Chucks who will coo for days in a Tim EFFING Horton's bloody parking lot about how honest and fair and moral he/it is?! Donna! Chuck! Can we not read? Reading is about comprehension after all, isn't it?

If all you had to do was roll your eyeballs over a couple of captions and a headline, I guess you could equate with honesty an entrenched, cynical, political culture of lying, slandering, strangling caucus and dismissing opposing, opinionated citizenry, informed in spite of every effort to put them to sleep, like so many mosquitoes spoiling an afternoon in Muskoka. I guess, if you have the marketing prowess and cold hard cash needed to delete what words actually mean, then fairness and moral behaviour might just as well be defined by a complete lack of respect for open discussion and debate and our right as citizens to a TRANSPARENT ACCOUNTING of how many genuinely needful things we can't afford because we're shooting our budget wad like DICK Cheney blows his load at arms fairs.

We have *at least* two serious and over-arching problems to consider here. If we start with a mere two it may help us engender the endurance to proceed on to others. Lord knows I myself have preferred to curl up at the foot of the mountain of despair and cry rather than attempt to get over it ... but the mountain just sits there and I end up snotty and tired for nothing.

one problem

I am continuously hearing about this horrendous boil that's erupted yet again on the arse of the land. It's a weenie bit bigger this time, composed of some 40 percent who, to spite the poor/underclass/underfoot or in persistent ignorance of the reality of such and their own part in perpetuating it - consistently vote badly. "Forty percent of what?", my crazy-eyed grade 7 math teacher used to shriek, veins popping. What indeed.

In addition to this 40 percent of what are those who elect not to vote at all. Depending on your view of those absent on the floor of the house when the vote is called, you may include those who don't vote at all among those who vote badly. I suggest the goal is to get everyone voting with a spring in their step and a tune on their lips. In the interest of that goal we might be better off seeking ways to inspire those of our neighbours so *alienated by the bullshitstorm the democratic process has become that they opt out. The root(s) of alienation as might pertain here constitute the second problem to which I referred earlier.

First things first. Let's focus on this first aspect of the math for now - that of defining our terms and being clear about what it is we're counting. I don't suppose many of you have this problem, but I myself struggle with math like ... like Steve struggles with caring about other human beings or *cough* - would struggle if he thought caring about other human beings was some kind of priority. Ahem.

voter turn-out in Canuckistan

At an all time high of 79.4% in 1958, it has been dropping steadily - to an all time low of 58.8% - in 2008. Preliminary estimates from Elections Canada for 2011 by province/territory:

Alberta 56.4%
British Columbia 61.1%
Manitoba 60.3%
New Brunswick 66.1%
Newfoundland and Labrador 52.8%
Northwest Territories 55.2%
Nova Scotia 62.1%
Nunavut 48.5%
Ontario 62.2%
Prince Edward Island 74%
Quebec 62.2%
Saskatchewan 64.1%
Yukon 67.8%

TOTAL average: 61.4%

We could digest these for days; at a glance we can see that Islanders are still kickin' it in nearly old school numbers, and the rest of us, not so much.

Here -> http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx is a preliminary report on the popular vote. From here we get the magic number - the 39ish% (rounded up to 40...) bandied about everywhere in such a way as to suggest that almost half of Canadians support a Harper majority.

Indeed. We do not know any such thing nor can these numbers be accurately manipulated into saying so. After all, preliminarily speaking, 38.6 eligible voters did not vote. Their sound and fury, if it exists, signified as nothing. We have to do some extra math in order to calculate what percentage of the whole hog of the electorate is represented by Harper's portion of the popular vote, ergo the real question is what is 40% of 60%? Answer: about 27%. Less than a third of eligible voters would deign to cart themselves off to a polling station and make an X for prime sinister H.

That is the real sting in problem one. A process that almost everyone if not absolutely everyone is not participating in cannot in any way be held up as representative of the will of the people. Problem two might be paraphrased as an indictment of the legitimacy of the process itself.

another problem

If it is so easy for a party with less than a majority of the popular vote - less than a third in fact - to hold the reins of power in an untouchable death grip, then the process cannot be held up as legitimate, ie. free and fair, in terms of delivering on the will of the people. If our process is illegitimate to begin with we can hardly expect everyone to participate in it. Round and round and round we go.

We absolutely must - as is being said in other corners by other people looking for the way out of the land of Mordor - take it to the streets. We cannot lie back and 'think of England'. We must give ourselves to the barricades, so that Uncle Jack and his fellow travelers can wave us around in the tyrant's face, day in and day out. We must find creative ways to explain what we know to be true to those whose minds are not yet lost, such that we build strong bridges and light wild fires. Nothing less will do. Preaching to the converted is dead. The system must be revealed far and wide as the shitty, broken, outmoded, illegitimate, unrepresentative result-generating shadowy-thing that it is. Those who already agree that it is and have opted out for just that reason might - if our cause is justice - think about adding their weight to the demand for a democratic renewal through WHOLESALE electoral reform. There is no other way. This is the crossroads.

I have even come to the conclusion that this crossroads had to come and could only come from this apparent ultimate victory of all things dank and mildewy, sweater vests made of kittens and vengeful adult versions of teenage fascist wannabe's. The campaign is not over. If we mean what we say then we must also understand that the truth is, it's just getting started.

Feilan - glad you're back! I agree that we need to overhaul the electoral system. That - and cutting MP pay - must be one of the most difficult things to make past a vote though, I'd think. Maybe not under a minority but certainly right this minute. You write so passionately!!!

-- the blog is just me at the moment but I'm hoping that I'll get contributions and ideas and link, etc. I want to set up another email account so that ppl can send stuff in but haven't had time. Actually, not true. I did yesterday but the very last step insisted that Google needed to call my cell phone or text me. I have no cell. I do not text. I was pissed off.

Blogger is NOT ideal but I didn't want to pay for anything at this stage. If I can manage to drum up interest I'll think of getting a better place where videos and interactivity are more easily accomplished. Blogger is quite crappy IMO.

_________

What in God's Name is Terrence Corcoran up to here? Assuaging fears? Saying the things he should have said two weeks ago? What? Did his cheque bounce like Sun Media's?

selected bits:

The Harper Tories hold the upper hand, but they are no conservatives. In Ottawa, no party stands for less intrusive government and more disciplined spending. Chances of lower taxes and greater reliance on private enterprise and markets in key economic sectors are now out of reach. The possibility of smaller bureaucracies and fewer subsidies and handouts to cabals of handout-seekers are unthinkable in the wake of Monday's vote.

The Tory campaign slogan, "Here for Canada," scored high on the vapidity metre. The words "free markets" or even private enterprise were missing from the Tory platform. Milton Friedman's famous phrase, "Free to choose," appears only in relation to the provinces, who under Tory rule, the platform reports, have the "freedom to choose" whether to harmonize provincial sales tax regimes with the GST. The rest of us, apparently, never get to choose much of anything beyond what the government delivers.

Figures Corcoran would advocate for Friedman. I hope Corcoran learns what it is like to not be able to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. It is an awful thing to wish on anyone, but it'd do him good - you know - I'm just trying to save his soul.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... story.html

C_W wrote:- the blog is just me at the moment but I'm hoping that I'll get contributions and ideas and link, etc.

I am so impressed with your fortitude to cast aside some days of sniveling (such as I indulged so freely in) and get busy with an education portal. That's the spirit!

C_W wrote:I want to set up another email account so that ppl can send stuff in but haven't had time. Actually, not true. I did yesterday but the very last step insisted that Google needed to call my cell phone or text me. I have no cell. I do not text. I was pissed off.

How about wordpress as an alternative ...? I'm no expert in these matters, but live with someone who certainly is. When I started my blaaaawg, these days so dormant as to be mistaken for dead, he set me up with wordpress. It's free as far as I know, CMS is pretty user-friendly, and video is quite doable. *We* can even offer free hosting , so if that is something you want to discuss some more, send me a pm...

stoneonstone wrote:You're right Jeff. You never heard a Liberal mouth things like that - though I would say, er, Chretien, in fighting back the tide to bust into Iraq was pretty neat.

I do not enjoy bubble bursting, but like seeing someone get undue credit for taking a stand against invasion and all-out war on the innocent even less. That said, I hope you'll pardon my blunt instrument:

Chretien was brimming full of shit/engaging in optics. We were privately committed - from the get-go - by Chretien and his obedient ones to provide offshore support for the invasion, assisting with targeting US weapons among other handmaiden's chores... He lied like a _________ .

Our disgusting role in what may otherwise be known as a “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.”, a handy moniker coined by a Mr. Sanders, is illuminated here http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8110 and elsewhere.

Richard Sanders wrote:On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

My current thinking is Harper is not going to go Full Metal Straightjacket on us just yet. He's an incrementalist extremist. Even with a majority, he may still prefer the slow boil approach, otherwise all his gains are at greater risk of being undone in four years. And the Liberal party isn't quite eradicated yet. That may take another election, and it will take Harper restraining himself, as well as all the social conservatives anxious now to press their agenda. But he has to nail down the trust of the blue Grits who voted for him this time, as well as earn the votes of the ones who didn't.

thid appears to be an existential position of canada, on this board as well. but the rightousness...oh my...
excuse me for bringing up the USA again, in this hard time...lest I be charged with rapists here or worst, for merely suggesting what you just wrote.

Feilan wrote:

stoneonstone wrote:You're right Jeff. You never heard a Liberal mouth things like that - though I would say, er, Chretien, in fighting back the tide to bust into Iraq was pretty neat.

I do not enjoy bubble bursting, but like seeing someone get undue credit for taking a stand against invasion and all-out war on the innocent even less. That said, I hope you'll pardon my blunt instrument:

Chretien was brimming full of shit/engaging in optics. We were privately committed - from the get-go - by Chretien and his obedient ones to provide offshore support for the invasion, assisting with targeting US weapons among other handmaiden's chores... He lied like a _________ .

Our disgusting role in what may otherwise be known as a “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.”, a handy moniker coined by a Mr. Sanders, is illuminated here http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8110 and elsewhere.

Richard Sanders wrote:On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Jeff wrote:My current thinking is Harper is not going to go Full Metal Straightjacket on us just yet. He's an incrementalist extremist. Even with a majority, he may still prefer the slow boil approach, otherwise all his gains are at greater risk of being undone in four years.

That's some very cool-headed thinking - the best kind. Even so, if the kind of ho-hum 'slow-boil' approach to cooking our collective goose has taught us anything so far - it is that by and large - we have failed to exploit his exploits to their full potential, revealing him for what he is. Colour me naive to a fault, but I am still clinging to the belief that nowhere near sufficient numbers exist to elect him and his kind. He has only succeeded thus far because of his masterful abilities to lie, obfuscate and silence opposition as well as our inability to counter his bullshit consistently, persistently and effectively.

I think he must lie down in his little wooden box at night and think to himself ... how easy this is, a sweet, steady cakewalk. He'd be right.

Even / ESPECIALLY things like the portrait gallery and the staining of official Government of Canada documents and press releases with HARPER GOVERNMENT - as though our democracy had become his own personal brand of wonderbread - these have not been adequately framed by proponents of reason and compassion, nor confronted and explained by him or his apologists. Constitutional experts have very grave concerns about such naked self promotion, as well we all should...

The tyrant sinister has already given us such a wealth of ammunition against him - let him carry on as he has then and play the 'moderate fascist'. He will certainly keep us in good supply as the weeks and months (years, *sigh*) unfold.

This election should be our GET THE FUCK UP ALARM after hitting snooze a few too many times. We need to step up our game about a thousand fold or give up now and let the snake digest us slowly, slowly. I am not a hamster. (again - apologies to snakes and - hamsters.) ...

hava1 wrote:thid appears to be an existential position of canada, on this board as well. but the rightousness...oh my...
excuse me for bringing up the USA again, in this hard time...lest I be charged with rapists here or worst, for merely suggesting what you just wrote.

Right. Hello, Hava and thank you for the razor edged sarcasm/two by four across the proverbial face.

You are of course referring to the wee hours of the election night this thread has been all about watching wherein I pulled away from entering into a debate about Obama with you - because - and I guess this isn't obvious to you - why should it be after all? - in Canada many of us often are sick to fucking death of every conversation we might try to have about ourselves and our own trajectory as a sovereign entity being INVADED by what amerikans are up to/who their president is/is he a good guy or not.

Suggesting I called you a rapist is the kind of EFFed up flaming that tells me I should avoid having much direct conversation with you in future because it's dangerous. I'd also like to think I'm wrong. Either way, in the interest of wiping this shit you just took on me - off - I'll attempt to explain.

The feeling I get as a Canadian trying to talk about Canadian shite is not unlike the feeling a lot of us used to get in women's collective discussions in college; someone would eventually stick their neck out and say "Isn't it funny that we're here to discuss what's going on with us and we end up talking about men instead?"

If you are simply not aware that this is an unequal and forced international relationship wherein we are dominated and coerced by 10 to 1 ALL THE EFFING TIME then ... welllll ... I guess you aren't aware of that. Consider this note a 'head's up' ...

Conflating "I don't want to talk about amerikans, their politics and their president right now because these have nothing whatever to do with what we have enjoined this thread to discuss." with me calling you a rapist is MESSED UP PASSIVE AGRESSIVE SHITE and you can have it back. I don't want it. Thanks anyway.

FWIW (nothing much I'm sure) ... I thought about how that manner of declining to discuss the great Obama any further might possibly come back to haunt me - and then I decided to stick with it anyway because it's HOW I REALLY FEEL.

Shite, yah, amerikan hegemony is the biggest section in the bookstore but...

SOMETIMES, sometimes, like when I'm shitting bricks about the very real death throes of my own shitty little Canuckistan and the potential it once had to evolve into something more closely resembling it's best UN reviews - in REAL time - and what that could mean to people who live in this country currently completely left out of Harper's equations, not to mention our relations with the rest of the world - I just don't want to effing talk about amerika. OKAAAY?

YAH. Talk about yer RIGHTEOUSNESS. OH MY.

in closing ... don't know WTF you mean by

thid appears to be an existential position of canada, on this board as well.

... perhaps you feel like clarifying?

Or not. Suit yourself. Apologies in advance for any coarse language you may find offensive. I prettied up as best I could given how very pissed off I am right now.

ONE MORE TIME - WITH FEELING!!

1. foul language is not taken personally, where I come from, this is routine.
2. You are free not to exchange, this too will not be taken as offensive.

To the point at issue, well roughly the issue of american domination is at the center of this board's debates, and some of the power issues are played out in the board itself, in a very interesting and subtle manner. Commendable is the Canadian graceful self humor, but I tend to see the interactions in power terms, and this brings in a lot of insight as to the americanzation of ISrael the last two decades.

I know that election times bring a lot of emtional turmoil.

I guess one should still be grateful for the relative freedom to express one's thoughts and opinions without being arrested secretly by either american agents or the canadian angry ladies brigade.

I love the part in "sheep in the big city", where the military scientist goes "i am not a mad scientist, i am an angry scientist"...but i dont know how to embed vids here..

Feilan wrote:

hava1 wrote:thid appears to be an existential position of canada, on this board as well. but the rightousness...oh my...
excuse me for bringing up the USA again, in this hard time...lest I be charged with rapists here or worst, for merely suggesting what you just wrote.

Right. Hello, Hava and thank you for the razor edged sarcasm/two by four across the proverbial face.

You are of course referring to the wee hours of the election night this thread has been all about watching wherein I pulled away from entering into a debate about Obama with you - because - and I guess this isn't obvious to you - why should it be after all? - in Canada many of us often are sick to fucking death of every conversation we might try to have about ourselves and our own trajectory as a sovereign entity being INVADED by what amerikans are up to/who their president is/is he a good guy or not.

Suggesting I called you a rapist is the kind of EFFed up flaming that tells me I should avoid having much direct conversation with you in future because it's dangerous. I'd also like to think I'm wrong. Either way, in the interest of wiping this shit you just took on me - off - I'll attempt to explain.

The feeling I get as a Canadian trying to talk about Canadian shite is not unlike the feeling a lot of us used to get in women's collective discussions in college; someone would eventually stick their neck out and say "Isn't it funny that we're here to discuss what's going on with us and we end up talking about men instead?"

If you are simply not aware that this is an unequal and forced international relationship wherein we are dominated and coerced by 10 to 1 ALL THE EFFING TIME then ... welllll ... I guess you aren't aware of that. Consider this note a 'head's up' ...

Conflating "I don't want to talk about amerikans, their politics and their president right now because these have nothing whatever to do with what we have enjoined this thread to discuss." with me calling you a rapist is MESSED UP PASSIVE AGRESSIVE SHITE and you can have it back. I don't want it. Thanks anyway.

FWIW (nothing much I'm sure) ... I thought about how that manner of declining to discuss the great Obama any further might possibly come back to haunt me - and then I decided to stick with it anyway because it's HOW I REALLY FEEL.

Shite, yah, amerikan hegemony is the biggest section in the bookstore but...

SOMETIMES, sometimes, like when I'm shitting bricks about the very real death throes of my own shitty little Canuckistan and the potential it once had to evolve into something more closely resembling it's best UN reviews - in REAL time - and what that could mean to people who live in this country currently completely left out of Harper's equations, not to mention our relations with the rest of the world - I just don't want to effing talk about amerika. OKAAAY?

YAH. Talk about yer RIGHTEOUSNESS. OH MY.

in closing ... don't know WTF you mean by

thid appears to be an existential position of canada, on this board as well.

... perhaps you feel like clarifying?

Or not. Suit yourself. Apologies in advance for any coarse language you may find offensive. I prettied up as best I could given how very pissed off I am right now.

I am, overall, more confused than ever by this latest response from you. As I can be quite slow to catch the drift, and since it is so much less overtly hostile than the one before, what the heck. I'll give it a whirl in the spirit of open human interrelations and the advancement of my own reading comprehension skills

hava1 wrote: 1. foul language is not taken personally, where I come from, this is routine.
2. You are free not to exchange, this too will not be taken as offensive.

^^^ Check and check. Good to know.

hava1 wrote:To the point at issue, well roughly the issue of american domination is at the center of this board's debates, and some of the power issues are played out in the board itself, in a very interesting and subtle manner.

^^^ Insofar as applying rigorous intuition to world affairs tends to turn up lots of evidence of amerikan domination - sure. When we assemble as citizens of various nation states to discuss such matters we will no doubt incidentally and quite intentionally give evidence of how we are affected by concentrations of power and influence in the 'real' world. We agree on this much, but the water is suddenly muddy as all heck. You had indicated some inclination to expand your testimony in favour of Obama and I just wasn't into it, found it off topic, beside the point. I actually thought there was just as likely a chance you would totally get - as in empathize with - my analogy, but you came back days later with:

previously, hava1 wrote:...oh my...
excuse me for bringing up the USA again, in this hard time...lest I be charged with rapists here or worst, for merely suggesting what you just wrote.

hava1 wrote:Commendable is the Canadian graceful self humor, but I tend to see the interactions in power terms, and this brings in a lot of insight as to the americanzation of ISrael the last two decades.

^^^ I'll take the opening clause here as a complement just because I do, in once famous Canadian style, prefer the path of peacekeeping. As for the rest of the sentence ... I'm lost. All I can say is amerika is busy amerikanizing every blessed thing it can get it's greedy mitts on. Empire building 101. It goes about this in a fashion which adjusts to local conditions. How and for what profit of theirs you and yours will be amerikanized, is bound to differ by some degree from methods and motives in action elsewhere. Tool making is the art of specificity after all. They've only been pulling Israel's strings for 20 years, you say? Lucky you.

hava1 wrote:I know that election times bring a lot of emtional turmoil.

^^^ Another offering I will take at face value. Yes they do.

hava1 wrote:I guess one should still be grateful for the relative freedom to express one's thoughts and opinions without being arrested secretly by either american agents or the canadian angry ladies brigade.

Right you are, the dissappearing of the tyrant's opponents is nowhere near in the full swing he no doubt dreams of, in technicolour. ONE - as in this one - as in I - am indeed - really FUCKING grateful for it. I'm in the 'use it or lose it' school of thought and action. As for the green bit - WTF are you on about? Srsly. Are you this good at making new friends IRL ...? In the event that the green bit was aimed at me in any sense - you may as well know I've never been mistaken for a 'lady'. Please consider some other angle for small, snide, petty-minded remarks if you wish them to be even a little bit effective.

hava1 wrote:I love the part in "sheep in the big city", where the military scientist goes "i am not a mad scientist, i am an angry scientist"...but i dont know how to embed vids here..

^^^ If you have found a suitable youtube clip, click on the 'youtube' button above the text entry box in 'post reply' mode ... you should see this: [youtube][/youtube] ... using this as our sample youtube url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJRF8xGzvj4 select the highlighted part, after the equals sign, and insert between the 'youtube' brackets ... thusly: [youtube]MJRF8xGzvj4[/youtube] ... if vimeo is the source, the vimeo button likely works the same way. If the source is neither of these I'm not altogether sure one can upload. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to enlighten us both on that one ...

previously, hava1 wrote:...oh my...
excuse me for bringing up the USA again, in this hard time...lest I be charged with rapists here or worst, for merely suggesting what you just wrote.

^^^^ SO ANYWAY ... does all this mean you weren't attempting to slander me by suggesting I was a hair's breadth away from calling you a rapist .... ?

Whenever you see thorns, keep in mind a rose is attached to it...i memorize that in such moments/

I thought the Obama was relevant to your elections, and I commented that I prefer him to Bush. I can definitely be blamed for truism or trivial comments.

The issue that I was probably trying to develop was the forked movement of americanization, through the gov and opposition at the same time, and how, if at all, this can be addressed.

I should correct that the process of americanization in Israel goes before 20 years, but has become visible and overwhelming in the last two decades. The only exception, so far, are the Russian immigrants, who I think represent a legacy of their own empire, and are therefore more immune, but I am not sure their baggage is better.

The question of extinct races, and "preservation" comes to mind, as opposed to the worse sounding "nationalism". anyway...that's already beside the point.

Haaretz comments on your elections that your unique method allowed for majority in the House without this representing majority of the people, and that in their view the decisive moment was "stability" in the face ot 4 elections in 7 years, and the problem of minority gov.

I wish you more success in the process we are all enduring and good luck.

hava1 wrote:Whenever you see thorns, keep in mind a rose is attached to it...i memorize that in such moments/

Not always. There was a tree overhanging my peaceful patio - its branches were very thorny & quite dangerous. It didn't flower but would grow berries that turned black and fell into our food.

I lived with it for years but last week I cut that tree down.

Feilan wrote:I am, overall, more confused than ever by this latest response from you.

FYI, Hava is not a native english speaker, and green text indicates the use of sarcasm. Hope that helps and carry on.