Nov 10, 2013 at 17:38:18
“If it does, I hope veterans themselves will start using it to put forward issues that they want to have action on instead of (or in conjunction with) this largely de-politicized exercise in remembrance.”
Nov 10, 2013 at 11:58:14
“That's RICH. The multimillionaire distracts people from the dismantlement and de-funding of certain sectors of the state (including veteran benefits) using the discourse of patriotism. And people gobble it up.
Emotional and symbolic support is nice but what does it mean if we let veterans starve and suffer? Respectfully, I think this white poppy fad is mostly in reaction to the red poppy having lost its political potential as a symbol to incite the will to fund and help war veterans and those they hold dear, if it ever had any such potential. Notice how it marginalizes other, provocative symbols like "widows", "amputation", "PTSD" and a host of others.”
teeleecee on Nov 10, 2013 at 17:31:55
“Excellent points, although the white poppy is a symbol that will catch on, in my view.”
Apr 13, 2013 at 19:51:28
“I don't see why this should be branded as "turning left". Leaving out more contentious issues of spending, labour and taxation, is addressing the current inadequacies on the issues of First Nations, of the threat of war in Iran, of fair representation, of natural resource management and of sustainable development really "leftist"?”
Mar 21, 2013 at 17:20:24
“With all the (expected) problems this budget has (and I contend they are many), I have to say this budget's policies on housing are better than I expected them to be. I'm not saying it's brilliant, but I'm glad it's not what I foresaw. A focus on housing (despite the level of economic commitment being somewhat lacking) is better than the previous focus on band-aid policies (not that those are gone by any means).”
Nov 30, 2012 at 11:09:03
“Why not just have a system of proportional representation instead of more party mergers and subsequent divisions?”
Liz Wilson 2 on Nov 30, 2012 at 11:46:21
“I would support a merged party in order to secure the majority needed to switch to proprotional representation. I would like to see this include a core number of seats allocated to FN representatives as other countries have done for their aboriginal people. this is long past due.”
“A perfect example of why people should learn to analyze their own lives in sociological terms rather than relying simply on explanations brought forth from agency only. Ironically, by making this letter somewhat public, it's as if the father acknowledges social facts...”
Nov 20, 2012 at 16:18:24
“Let's give the source the benefit of the doubt and agree, as you said, that it was merely a mistake and not a statement.
Yes, I'm aware it's not correct grammatically: it's attributed to Arthur Rimbaud, the French poet who was making a comment on how we perceive ourselves in the face of the Other (L'Autre). Merci tout de même pour votre commentaire!”
Nov 17, 2012 at 22:11:14
“Firstly, thank you for bringing some criticism to what I said, I appreciate it.
However, I never argued that this was not a sample of what the world thinks or that Ipsos deliberately fudged the results. What I argued was that this is not a representative sample and part of this is because of the countries selected. I believe the poll does represent the opinion of the population within each country (although I could argue about how census data is unreliable and may have biased how Ipsos conducted polls in each nation-state). This point aside, most of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America are not represented. There seems to have been a bias in the selection of the countries, most of which have economic agreements or good relations with Western nations (which is not the case for the regions I listed as under-represented).
As for my opinions, I have them, as I'm sure you have yours and everyone across the "glove" has theirs. Should that act as a categorical impediment to critical thinking? Should we begin saying that everyone is so steadfast in their own views that no exchanges or criticisms are valid?”
TwoZeroOZ on Nov 18, 2012 at 10:00:03
“I think when conducting a poll like this, the rational thing to do would be to select the country's with the most global influence and power.”
Nov 17, 2012 at 13:55:52
“Excuse me, as a regular HuffingtonPost reader, I feel it is my duty to point out that the information presented here is not adequately introduced or presented. I feel it is any media outlet's responsibility to offer the most information possible on an issue as concisely as possible. The onus of honesty is all the more significant when one is intending to present information from another source. In under a minute, I found which countries were surveyed in this poll:
"The countries reporting herein are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States of America. An international sample of 17,172 adults aged 18-64 in the US and Canada, and age 16-64 in all other countries, were interviewed."
Anyone with even a mediocre understanding of international relations could tell you that while collecting data must have been much easier in these countries, this is not a representative sample to make assumptions about what "the world thinks". Not even close. Without getting into what a media outlet's responsibilities should be, I am very disappointed that something like this would be published in its current form. With the way the media shapes public opinion these days, it is all the more irresponsible.”
goleafsgo on Nov 17, 2012 at 14:47:07
“Well said, Anthrpocan! Thanks for taking the effort to enlighten us since it seems that doing it ourselves is the only way to find the truth as we swim through the sea of misinformation and innuendo. Fanned and faved.”
TwoZeroOZ on Nov 17, 2012 at 14:44:15
“I'm curious as to how you think this is not a sample of 'what the world thinks'. There's many sets of populations across the glove, and at least one country from every single one of them.
I think you disagree with the premise of the article, and are trying to rationalize why the article must be wrong, before you would ever consider your own opinions to be wrong.”
Aug 31, 2012 at 16:15:57
“It's okay, I've figured it out. The only rational explanation for this is that the average Conservative voter is part of a great group of ascetic illuminati from Western Canada who believe the only way to achieve real progress is for the Conservative Party to drive Canada into the ground and for us to rebuild a better society from the ruins. Right? It couldn't possibly be ignorance.”
HarleyOpenRoad on Aug 31, 2012 at 22:36:25
“That sounds more like a goal of the short-lived and misguided OWS movement. These days, "Progressives" are anything but.”
“Perhaps I'm wrong here, but in that slideshow, the Democrats being criticized are being challenged on the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Were they saying those things before it was made significantly smaller? It seems like not mentioning what happened to the stimulus from inception to its enactment doesn't put their statements in the right circumstances to be understood. Again, I could be wrong, and there could be Republicans misquoted/misrepresented as well, but I didn't check.”
“I won't even mention the debate about the Queen of England and President De Kirchner. What I don't understand is why Christine Lagarde is not #1. I think more people need to realize just how much control the IMF has over the countries it lends to.”
“I would argue that there is no American ethnicity either. And yes, the groups involved in this are defined by ethnicity (we can assume). What I'm challenging is the denomination of "ethnic violence" because it detracts from the root of the conflict. It makes the conflict seem distant and different from what "formal armies" do. I would also argue that just because we belong to a society that acknowledges the state as the executor of military conflicts doesn't mean we should judge the conflicts of others as fundamentally different because they come from a different political structure. I'm putting the emphasis on the cause of the conflict as it is stated (the wealth and resources provided by control of territory) because I believe the role of ethnicity in this is overemphasized and secondary to the real basis of the conflict. Ethnicity may determine the factions, but any groups in a similar position would likely be competing for the resources in ways that are in concordance with their society. I say this with respect and I do appreciate your contribution to this discussion!”
“I find a few of the comments here a bit disconcerting. The media likes to paint things a certain way, calling it "ethnic violence". Really, their fights are for the same reasons as ours: resources and wealth. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, though, I didn't see anyone calling that ethnic violence. Let's see, revenge killing (finishing Bush Sr.'s war) over resources fits that bill too.
Disagee with the analogy if you want; My only point is there's an unnecessary (and perhaps racially biased) categorization of this conflict.”
Cygnus1 on Aug 22, 2012 at 12:33:39
“Repubs just make racist jokes.”
Robert SF on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:31:57
“Well, for one, there is no American ethnicity. Ethnicity means that the people are genetically the same tribe, the same people. And it's ethnic violence because it's two specific groups of people. The fight may be over resources and wealth, but the reason that it's not anarchy but well defined groups of people is that the violence is along "ethnic" lines. It just can't be said otherwise.
When the violence is ethnic, two people look at each other and say, "You and I are from tribe A, so we're allies. Now let's go kill people from tribe B." And this spreads like wildfire through the civilian population. If you notice, there were no formal armies involved here. It's nothing like the US invading Iraq.
When the US invaded Iraq, it was not ethnic Americans (there's no such thing) against ethnic Iraqis. There are thousands of Iraqis in the US, and although a few knuckleheads attacked them, nobody seriously thought the war was against all Iraqi individuals.”
“Yeah yeah, boycotts are great and all...but why are we attributing importance to the opinions of CEOs and the like? Because of their money and influence, obviously.
Individuals can make their own opinions; it is their right (even though, again, that's something of a joke nowadays with the concentration of media ownership). However, whichever side you take on same-sex relations/marriage, do you really want to owe any kind of social change to a handful of people who are already so influential that they're practically writing the legislation at this point? Just a thought.”