A question before I blog again

pogge--please don't even take any politician into consideration before posting--otherwise we may as well read the msm--and then we are truly finished. Keep the faith--WE SHALL OVERCOME!!!

Well that's hardly fair: after all, Ignatieff is taking the Cons' orders rather than raising the issue himself. So like every other communication in Canada, your posts should instead be submitted to the PMO.

Jurist - would not a submission to John Manley or directly to the real power, Thomas d'Aquino, suffice?

pogge, I think we should go for a royal warrant from teh queen. I mean, the queen is us, all of us allatime. And she signed the Charter -- I remember watching her do that, with Trudeau sitting next to her grinning like like a Cheshire cat.

It's not like we'd be asking permission, no no, and she would understand that. We don't need permission. But we could use some protection, and that's the racket she's in -- she can do protection.

Imagine the button you could get for the front page.

Iggy = dishonest hypocrite.

"When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river ...I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control."

-- Michael Ignatieff, The Guardian, April 19, 2002.

Weren't most of your comments supportive? I'd be surprised if you're stinging from the relatively tepid criticism you received in your last post (by the strange standards of the rough-and-tumble blogosphere), particularly in light of the controversial topic on which you were blogging.

Rob:

I see I still need to work on making it clear when I'm being ironic. Perhaps this is why skdadl chides me from time to time for not making a set of smilies available for use when we're posting.

Oh what a great twitter post, unless this is meant to offer something of substance in which I must say I fail to see anything of the kind.

Besides the illogical implication that Ignatieff would screen your most impressive posts, this post contains the short sensationalism common to those with nothing to say.

I guess that's two votes for not seeing the irony.

'It's irony' is a common refrain from Ann Coulter

'It's irony' is a common refrain from Ann Coulter

In circumstances in which she has discussed blowing up buildings and killing people. Are you seriously equating my comment with that?

Is that what is implied from my statement? Now in the comments section you continue to write fantastic senationalistic twitter posts.

Who pissed in your corn flakes this morning?

I've met pogge. I assure you, scott ross: he is not a female impersonator.

Aren't you going to tell him that I'm much cuter than Ann?

Yes, you are a lot cuter than Ann, although I've never seen you turn up for a breakfast TV interview in the little black number you were wearing last night.

Little black thing last night?
Woof! What have I been missing?
Can I come back??
As for her maj - as skdadl said, that lady can warrent anything and you are thereafter and forevermore under royal protection. I mean look what it's done for Dundee marmalade! (skdadle probably knows all about that, too!)

Mac, all my pencil/pen holders are Dundee marmalade originals, I promise you. I mean, since meeting Dundee marmalade jars, who has used anything else?

I've never been to Dundee, although I've seen it in the distance from Saint Andrews to the south. I love the river, the Tay, that flows down to the ocean there, but I know it from some distance north, at Dunkeld, where it begins to become quite grand. I know that the city has been through some very tough times, but I'm told that it is enjoying a renaissance now, and that makes me happy. You know that they were the hemp capital of the world?

Apparently Ignatieff also has to let you screen his statements.

Otherwise, he gets criticized for Mccartyism and overstepping his role.

Or maybe the point is that criticism--either of you or of Ignatieff, isn't "screening; it's free speech, which this site supports (in theory).

Ignatieff is a public servant, with some considerable power behind him.

The people who write here are (I think, most of them, anyway) private citizens.

It is wrong to the point of being a crime, a constitutional offence, for anyone in public office to start passing judgement on the free expression of individual citizens.

The reverse is not true: all public officials, in their public roles, are open all the time to judgement and criticism for the way they carry out their duties, for which we have given them special authority and for which we also pay. I think the modern mushy-minded word for this notion is accountability?

Apparently Ignatieff also has to let you screen his statements.

To expand on what skdadl wrote, when Ignatieff speaks as an MP and Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, he's invoking the moral authority that he got from us in the first place when we elected him. When he wields that authority to shut some of us up in order to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions, I regard it as a betrayal.

To repeat what I wrote in another thread to another commenter who says he wants to see a real debate on the issues surrounding Israel: it isn't an open and honest debate if the power of the state is used to intimidate one side into silence because the other side doesn't like the way the argument has been framed.