Detroit and Hiroshima - Today and Yesterday

My apologies if I'm calling you on the carpet.... but this is how I feel.

Blame those that continue to buy Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and now Kia, Hyundai, and so called prestige brands.

A nation needs manufacturing for strength. Its proven.

Its not so prestigious driving your new BMW through a city like Detroit.....

Robert Richard

Why does having a city filled with lights and new buildings mean strength?
Gregory Burton
 
economic strength, its a measure of political clout, historically proportionate to the breadth of industry in a nation..... and industry, especially manufacturing, is synonymous with military strength and national security
buy a Kia, or Hyundai --- strengthen Korean nation
buy a Japanese product --- strengthen Japan
today, you've got to ask yourself, "what do I feel I owe others?"
in today's global market, purchases need to be scrutinized, for health in food purchases, for overall value, national security, jobs, and pensions in product choices, etc.
Robert Richard

An interesting comparison but not quite apples to apples. The people of Japan were defeated and disgraced. Having two of their cities destroyed by the bomb they somehow picked themselves up and vowed to rebuild the cities. They pulled together and showed a strength of character and will to survive that enabled them to overcome the ruins of war. Detroit is a city within one of the richest countries in the world that appears to be decaying and stagnant. Detroit was not bombed or did not suffer any great catastrophe yet it is dying. It is not in a bad economic location or in an area with a great amount of natural disasters. Detroit is suffering not because of my choice in automobiles or other manufactured goods. It is suffering because it relied to much on the strength of one industry. Did Detroit think they would "Motor City" forever? We live in a global market now whether Detroit wants to believe it or not. The people of this city should have recognized the changing economic climate and adjusted their focus accordingly. Manufacturing in the US will never compete with the Asian countries mainly because of the labor costs. The downfall of Detroit was the unions and the workers, and lack of industry and government leadership.

And really come on...who needs a Lincoln or Cadillac pick-up truck? And the Aztec? Poor design and manufacturing choices on the part of the automotive industry didn't help their bottom line.
John Burton

I think the comparison of the two cities is valid and is related to their history rather than to politics. As Britain was the first nation to industrialize it also was the first nation to suffer decline in relation to other nations that did not have to repeat the mistakes she had made while inventing the whole thing. The American automobile industry was the unchallenged world leader In both innovation and profitability in the 1950,s and 1960,s – no one thought that that would change so dramatically within twenty years, but it did. Both Germany and Japan had to rebuild their industries from scratch after total defeat during WW2 and could only do so with help from the United States. In order to prevent the defeated countries from turning to the Communists during the Cold War, the US launched the Marshal Plan which helped rebuild their economies. The two defeated nations were also protected by the Western powers (including Canada) so they did not have to spend resources on defence and could concentrate totally on rebuilding their economies. Unfortunately Globalization came to mean nothing more than access to the US and Canadian markets for many countries as they continued to block imports to their own countries. The North American Status quo industries with their accepted and hard won levels of worker compensation began to decline in relation to the new and hungry industries evolving in the east. Other social issues may have also contributed to the success of Hiroshima and the decline of Detroit. Japan is a monoculture with an unchallenged hierarchy and social tensions are all but unknown. United States cities like Detroit are caldrons of seething racial and cultural dissension. Know your history or it will come back to bite you. Japan should be aware that China can supplant her and Hiroshima may yet begin to look like Detroit.
Christopher J Burton

Nope. I don't buy it. The only reason the US and Canada wanted to "protect"Japan was to keep an eye on them and make sure they didn't become a threat again. Yes the US did help with resources to rebuild their some of their cities and economies but only because they believed this would benefit Americans. Cities like Detroit are dying because they were not proactive with regard to the global economy. And yes you are right, other cities like Hiroshima could suffer the same fate if their not proactive. Nothing you have written has bitten me by the way. A big bomb killing thousands is not the same as apathetic people letting their city wither.
John Burton

Ask yourself, when in history has any nation responded to a vanquished foe with economic and military support? Look at the punitive reparations imposed on Germany after the Great War in 1918. The idea then was to reduce Germany to an impoverished backwater that was unable to fight – that worked out really well didn’t it. Look at the way Germany and Japan treated the countries they defeated during the War. The result of their occupation was mass slaughter and enslavement of the civilian populations. The Japanese were particularly brutal and are hated to this day for their actions in places like Korea, Burma, The Philippines and China. Their treatment of prisoners of war bordered on sadism with all its inhumanity. Yet the peace imposed on Japan, primarily by the United States, was one of reconciliation. For certain the Soviet Union did not want to build a new Japan – they were there for the loot. Communism could only take hold with destitution.

I don’t see how a country can be criticised for adopting policies of mutual benefit that are based on universal values. In hind site it was the right and moral thing to do. The defeat of a truly terrifying ideology, International Communism, was a goal that any individual who values their liberty could not help but support.
As for the Atomic Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, you cannot separate the event from the context of the time. Remember that the Japanese were fighting to the death on almost every front and on Tarawa even the Japanese civilian population committed suicide rather than surrender. The people were motivated by the Bushido code that glorifies death in the name of the Emperor. I remind you that Japan did not surrender after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and they did not surrender for six days after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. They did not surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo which killed more people that both bombs put together. If you are looking for a villain that fits the reality of the times – look to the Japanese government and its inhuman ideology.

Your point on being proactive is a good one, however, when it comes to North American industry. I think certain industries should have been deemed essential to the defence of the nation and protected behind a wall of economic sanctions. Much as Europe is doing. With the encroachment of socialism into the economy, large numbers of workers are earning their living with money extracted by force as taxes from the private sector. I would not be averse to compelling these workers to buy North American vehicles as a condition of government employment.

Christopher J Burton

In Bob's original post, I think he was a little selective in his choice of pictures to make a point. He did not include examples like the following:

Irrespective of the choice of pictures, both Bob's and my pictures are extreme examples. The economic and political conditions prevalent in the period after the second world war have been covered in some depth. They are truly representative of the economic climate in the two Japaneses cities and that of Detroit. The Automotive industry in the post war period manifest itself in North America in uninhibited excesses. While Germany and Japan undertook the job or rebuilding their cities and industry, we in North America embarked on a automobile consumer binge of "Big is Beautiful". There were many industry successes. Unions made unprecedented demands on manufactures and got what they asked for. Substantial demands were made fore wages and pensions. Everyone was living well.

About this time Lee Iaccoca joined the Ford Motor Company and in 1960 Ford introduced the Ford Falcon. It was a very conventional design. Simple to manufacture and could be built to a price target and still produce a profit. It was a sales success. GM tried to emulate the success of Volkswagen which was just starting to get a foot hold in North America, with the Corvair. It was an interesting period in the automotive industry in North America. GM introduced a small Pontiac called the Tempest with four wheel independent suspension, rear mounted transmission and a metallic rope drive. There was great innovation at GM during this period. Unfortunately, the manufacturing execution of many of these new features left some thing to be desired.. Other than the compact product entries at Ford, GM and Chrysler during the 60s the bulk of the products were very large very heavy vehicles. There was little concern among the manufacturers to maximize fuel efficiency. Fuel was cheap. The main emphasis was on chrome and fins.

In the early 60s, the Volkswagen company was starting to make significant inroads into the low end of the car market. The car was cheap, fuel efficient and had a kind of non conformist market appeal. It also had some significant product deficiencies. At this point in time the Japaneses product were no were in sight. At Ford, we tried to combat the Volkswagen phenomena with the Fords built in England like the Anglia, Prefect and later the Cortina. It was a half hearted marketing effort and the cars were mediocre.

To my knowledge there was no recognition during this period by GM or Chrysler that imported cars were a problem. It wasn't long before the Corona and Corolla were introduced from Japan and they were written off as a fad. After all, they were small with small engines, no style and who would buy one of those?

At Ford there was a group that undertook a project to design a small car that would capitalize on the appeal of the Volkswagen without it's deficiencies. The code name for the car was Cardinal. The car would be front wheel drive. Would have a 1500cc V4 engine mounted in the front. It Would accommodate four or even five passengers in pinch and would have usable trunk space. A number of prototypes were built. I spoke personally with the engineers who did winter testing in Northern Ontario and they were ecstatic about the cars performance in Comparison to the Volkswagens which also were taken along on these test excursions. The car exhibited outstanding traction in the snow, had a heater that kept occupants warm and cleared the windshield and had trunk space far in excess of that of the Volkswagen.

What this is leading up to is that we had the engineering talent and capability to build a very competitive small car back in the mid 1960s. In Canada we undertook extensive studies as to the suitability of this product to the Canadian market place and how to integrate it into our manufacturing facility. The financial organizations and the manufacturing management in Canada were against

bringing this car to Canada. From a manufacturers view point, they already had too many products to put through the plant. They had Meteors, and Monarchs that didn't exist in the U.S. They didn't want the added complication of a new small vehicle that was totally different from what they were already building.

The financial departments position was typical of accountants. This new little car cost almost as much to build as the Falcon. If we introduce it, it will cannibalize our more profitable products that we already make. Well that was obviously a short term view. Like most financial executives, they're not in the business to make cars. They are in business to make money. In most companies the financial executives call the shots. In this case we were able to convince the president of Ford Canada, Karl Scott to take a longer term view and he approved the addition of the Cardinal to the Canadian product line. Unfortunately, the financial executives prevailed in the U.S. and the car was not available to us. All the Cardinal engineering and prototypes were packaged up and sent Germany were it became the Taunis and sold hundreds of thousands of units.

All this is to address Bob's assertion that the sorry state of the automotive industry in North America is due to the consumer's mindless purchase of off shore product to the detriment of our local industry. In our free capitalist system, the consumer is king. The consumer will buy that which suits him best. In the past, we in North America built the best products at a price consumers were willing to pay. Our industry executives failed to adapt to changing market conditions. The industry in North America lost it's drive to be competitive. It's not we consumers who have failed. The automotive industry failed itself.

Jack Burton

New Battle of Bosworth Field site revealed

The true site of one of the most decisive battles in English history has been revealed.

Bosworth, fought in 1485, which saw the death of Richard III, was believed to have taken place on Ambion Hill, near Sutton Cheney in Leicestershire.

But a study of original documents and archaeological survey of the area has now pinpointed a site in fields more than a mile to the south west.

A new trail will lead from the current visitor centre to the new location.

The battle ended decades of civil war, which is now known as the Wars of the Roses. Read more.

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.
It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation--as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot"--and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government--and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever. Read more.

Digital doomsday: the end of knowledge

"IN MONTH XI, 15th day, Venus in the west disappeared, 3 days in the sky it stayed away. In month XI, 18th day, Venus in the east became visible."

What's remarkable about these observations of Venus is that they were made about 3500 years ago, by Babylonian astrologers. We know about them because a clay tablet bearing a record of these ancient observations, called the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa, was made 1000 years later and has survived largely intact. Today, it can be viewed at the British Museum in London.

We, of course, have knowledge undreamt of by the Babylonians. We don't just peek at Venus from afar, we have sent spacecraft there. Our astronomers now observe planets round alien suns and peer across vast chasms of space and time, back to the beginning of the universe itself. Our industrialists are transforming sand and oil into ever smaller and more intricate machines, a form of alchemy more wondrous than anything any alchemist ever dreamed of. Our biologists are tinkering with the very recipes for life itself, gaining powers once attributed to gods.

Yet even as we are acquiring ever more extraordinary knowledge, we are storing it in ever more fragile and ephemeral forms. If our civilisation runs into trouble, like all others before it, how much would survive? Read more.

Whats good for the Goose!

China has been taking a real PR beating over its heavy-handed censorship of the internet and rightly so. Canada on the other hand happily goes along censoring it's citizens downloadable content from the internet and everyone seems to think that is just fine. The CRTC is an instrument of oppression and should be treated with the same contempt that Chinese censorship is.

The Victoria Cross

As the 150th anniversary of the Victoria Cross is celebrated, Richard Vinen looks beyond the individual acts of heroism that have merited the honour, to the wider social, cultural and historical significance of the medal.

The highest medal for gallantry awarded to members of the British armed forces, the Victoria Cross (VC), was instituted in 1856. Since that time, a huge body of literature has grown up around it. Much writing on the subject involves recounting particular actions in which the medal was won. Yet beyond this both military and cultural historians have tended to steer clear of the subject. However, records relating to the medal (particularly during the twentieth century) are extremely good and it is possible to establish biographical detail about almost all those who have won the medal since 1914. To mark the medal’s 150th anniversary, the National Archives are putting many of these records online.

To date 1,355 Victoria Crosses have been awarded. Though precise statistics about when and where medals were awarded are hard to come by, the awards can be loosely grouped into four categories. Just over 500 were given for action in engagements before 1914, most importantly during the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny and the Boer War. About 620 medals were awarded during the First World War and around 180 during the Second. Read more.

"We agree about the problems," he writes. "Now we need to agree about the solution."

That second part is a bit of a hitch, because while the folks at Cato would respond to special-interest lobbying by reducing the size and scope of government so less of life is politicized and there is less to lobby about, Lessig would respond by amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech. Given this fundamental disagreement, Lessig's efforts to "build an understanding" with libertarians (and other fans of the First Amendment) will not get him where he wants to go. Read more.

The courage to do nothing

I have to say that I am a big fan of talk radio when politics or fascinating social phenomena are being discussed. In the hands of consummate artists like John Oakley, Charles Adler or even the galling John Moore, the topics are kept on course and listeners are spared the meanderings of myriad stuttering windbags. That being said I have noticed of late that there is an ever increasing demand by normally reasonable callers for government regulation to mend the salient issues of the day. A hot topic in Toronto this week is the strange increase is pedestrian deaths; we have had fourteen deaths in fourteen days. Without falling into the weather is not the climate argument – I tend to think of this as a run of bad luck rather than a new cause for MADD Canada.

Most people of good will hate to see people get killed even by their own carelessness, so the kneejerk reaction is to demand that government do something and fast. This is music to the ears of agenda driven politicians who can then craft a solution that taps into the angst of the moment to support their ingenious schemes. Already cash strapped pols are proposing that the speed limits in Toronto should be reduced - for safety reasons of course, but if revenue from speeding tickets were to go up, all the better. Perhaps unbearably slow speeds will finally cause the exasperation level to peak and drivers will flock to the TTC.
My point is lets not give them the ammo to blow a hole in our last vestiges of self-respect. Walking carelessly through traffic in a great metropolitan neighbourhood carries a hefty disincentive, namely death. So I think we should tell the politicians to stay out of this talking point and be more careful when they cross the street. I might not see them in time!

Beware LCBO - Its happening in Virginia

I must say that the LCBO stores look alot better that the Virginia ABC stores.

Response to Iggy targeting young people for support.

Young people today are being moulded and marshalled by the left from the moment they enter the school system. My grade six daughter has been subjected to politically motivated thought control campaigns every year she has been in the public system. I try my best to offer alternative explanations for the present state of the human condition, but against the relentless numinous agenda it is a losing battle.


The left has succeeded in removing context from lives of young people. They no longer learn the basics of Western culture or the important figures that have contributed to our way of life. Instead articles of faith are used to break their will to think. They are told that their way of life, while wonderful, has been built on the exploitation of other cultures, of the environment, of the poor, and they must atone.

I asked my daughter to identify any of the great explorers that opened up our country – she could not. I asked her to name any of the wars that our country fought – she could not. I asked her to name any of the political leaders who would qualify as the Fathers of Confederation – she could not. In frustration my next question was ‘what do they teach you at school?’

My daughters answer sent a shiver down my spine. The people she had learned about were all social activists. The culture of a mythical aboriginal nation was taught in minute detail. The tenets of recycling, anti-bullying, diversity, and avoiding “dangerous activities” could be recited verbatim. The Western concept of Reason had been replaced with a mysticism that I thought could only be found in a rabbit hole. I learned that her school was visited regularly by environmentalists and social councillors, but rarely by the heroes that build and defend Canada. (An anti-war themed Remembrance Day visit by veterans gave no arguments for a just war) The last straw for me came when my daughter described a field trip to a provincial park that housed an idyllic Indian village complete with professional Indians. With a straight face she was told that she must live in harmony with nature and that it was a legitimate activity to talk to plants. Oh boy!

So now you can see why the Liberals would get a royal welcome from their young troops. They created a Moonie culture within our schools when we were not looking and now they expect to collect the benefits.

Five Reasons Why Libertarians Shouldn't Hate Government

Plus, Five Big Projects That Went Well and Five That Were Disasters

When we tell our limited-government friends that we have written a book titled If We Can Put a Man on the Moon: Getting Big Things Done in Government, about how government can better accomplish what it sets out to do, the reaction is often horror.

“I don’t want to make government work better, I want it to go away" is the typical response. Government, in their view, is the enemy.
This way of thinking is deeply misguided, a troubling blind spot that keeps libertarians on the fringe of many policy debates. If you reflect only scorn for government, it’s hard to get anyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid to take your opinions on the topic seriously.
This is not to disparage the argument that government is too large, for which the case is strong. But holding government in sneering contempt is a misinformed corruption of that sentiment.
Our Founding Fathers, fondly quoted by limited-government advocates, didn’t view government as evil, but as a flawed institution with some important jobs to do. They studied how government worked and they served in office, not because they viewed government with disdain, but because they knew the importance of good government. Read more.

Matt Gurney: The real drunk driving problem

As I was saying!!
Every December, the police tell us to drink responsibly and set up the spot checks to back up their warnings. It’s sad we still need to be told, but it’s good advice all the same. The situation has improved from decades past. Once upon a time, police officers pulled over impaired drivers only to send them on their way again with a friendly suggestion to take it easy — but that was another era. Those few who persist in driving drunk now have clearly have missed years of public service announcements. If they haven’t learned yet, they never will.
As an occasional drinker but frequent driver, I have a vested interest in keeping the roads safe. I never mind stopping at a spot check to briefly chat with an officer who is alert to even the faintest whiff of something tasty and fermented. Yet, though I fully support such efforts to get drunks off the road, I’m far from convinced that we’re going about it in a sensible way. Indeed, our approach to reducing impaired driving seems to be all too similar to how we secure airports — why focus on the real troublemakers when you can just target everyone?
I can’t speak for every province. Here in Ontario, though, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government trumpets its tough-on-crime achievement of inventing a neat way to punish people who haven’t broken the law. Impaired driving, a Criminal Code violation, is defined federally as blowing a blood alcohol reading over .08% on a breath test or having over 80 milligrams of alcohol in a blood test. Either test will suffice as proof of guilt. Ontario has decided that it’s more comfortable setting the bar lower — at a blood alcohol level of .05%. Now, if you’re pulled over in Ontario and blow over .05 but less than .08, even though you are not legally drunk, your car will be towed, your licence suspended for three days and the incident will become part of your permanent driving record. Have fun at insurance renewal time, folks.
I also learned yesterday that a series of cases are winding their way through the courts, challenging the validity of Breathalyzer tests as conviction-worthy evidence. I’m willing to put my faith in the machines, and suspect that many of those claiming that they provided a false reading were probably pulled over while a slurring mess, swerving all over the road. But I did find this particular bit of wisdom from the Ontario judge who ruled in favour of Breathalyzer tests a bit worrisome: “[The law] does not support the proposition that the bar for success on a defence must be set so low that it can easily be cleared. There is probably no requirement that the law provide for any defence at all, much less one that is easily attainable.”
I understand the necessity of tightening up court policy so that every impaired driving charge isn’t thrown out on the grounds that the officer might have administered the test improperly, but no requirement for any defence at all? That would mean that in Ontario, you’re guilty until proven innocent of not breaking a law.
This isn’t good, not for anyone but constitutional lawyers and Charter experts, at any rate. They should have a field day with that one.
Adding insult to this injury is the fact that, just like with the above-mentioned airport screenings, we’re casting a tremendously wide net to catch a few easily identified individuals. It’s practically become a cliché: Almost every time a drunk driver kills someone, it’s quickly discovered that they are a chronic, repeat offender, with numerous prior convictions. Some are supposed to blow into an interlock device (a Breathalyzer wired into a car’s ignition) before driving, others are simply forbidden from driving at all. And yet they find ways around the restrictions and end up killing someone.
If lowering the legal limit to .05% will make the roads safer (and I’m sure it would), do it. If the rules governing admissibility of Breathalyzer evidence needed clarification, fine. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger issue — until the courts are willing to jail repeat offenders for long periods before they kill someone, innocents are going to keep dying. No spot check system, not even one backed by the strictest laws and regulations, will ever catch every drunk driver. So we need to clamp down hard at the first instance, not the tenth.
If the law needs changing and clarification, let the work begin there.
National Post Read more.

Death by Moderation?

Christopher John Burton: The quandary that we are facing is how to contend with the irony of individuals using the freedoms and traditions of western society in order to destroy it.

Thea Koenig: Perhaps there is a difference between destroy and change? One presumes death as a bad thing. The other perceives change as needed growth to sustain life.

Christopher John Burton: Change is good if it does not destroy the freedom to change.

Thea Koenig: I don't think that is possible. Change is the only constant in this world. Try as one might not to change, change will happen.

Christopher John Burton: I agree that change will always exert itself on every aspect of our lives; affecting technology, the economy, and science. My point is that there are certain inviolate principles that underlie our civilization and if they are subverted we will no longer be free to change. Global communism and global Islam are two forces that are at odds with our fundamental values.

Thea Koenig: Ahhh. Now I know what you are referring to. It is a quandry. It is difficult to know where the balance lies between creating a society in which people work for the common good, and at the same time enjoy personal freedoms to govern their own life as they see fit. Certainly, global Islam and Communism in their extreme forms miss that balance point, as does the conservative Christian movement and Capitalism inits purest form. I think of it like eating....everything in moderation!
Great discussions Chris.
 
Christopher John Burton: Not quite the quandary I was talking about. A tangible example would be the attempt by Islamists to enact Sharia law under the guise of religious freedom. These laws would certainly discriminate against women and subject them to a cultural ghetto where all manner of legal violence could be done upon them. Another example would be the granting of civilian legal protection to non-citizens who engage in acts of terrorism against a country, rather than treating them as irregular enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention. There can be no balance here.

As a libertarian I would of course reject any notion of “the common good” as a basis for depriving an individual of their inalienable rights. Who decides what the common good is and who must suffer to reach those goals. The whole “global warming” fiasco is a good case in point where an elite group of grant recipients are trying to impose their idea of the common good on the rest of us. I would refer you to a recent poll where two thirds of Canadians do not believe that global warming is man-made.
Certainly all of us have an ethical calculus that we use to guide our actions in life. Some are looser than others. In the West we are protected by the rights and traditions we have inherited and evolved from. The question I am struggling with is: What is the proper response to an entity or person who would use our cherished freedom for the expressed goal of subverting those freedoms? My instinct suggests that rational beings should vigorously criticize those within the country who would promote the use of force against us and support the power of government to react violently against those who use that force. Anyone attacking us from outside the country should be treated as an enemy combatant and be defeated militarily or economically. At this point I would say that the line is crossed when violence is initiated.
But how do we deal with the subtle method of incremental defeat through legal and political avenues? The tools used against us are the very same we use to protect ourselves. Our enemies attempt to disarm our response with the judicious use of guilt inspired by a savvy application of political correctness. The only way I can imagine that would stop this erosion would be through ridged constitutionalism which would employ clear and explicit protection for inalienable individual rights – including property rights. The problem with this solution is that we do not have disinterested rational people who know the difference between an entitlement and a right. Any suggestions on resolving this one would be most helpful.
Finally, one comment on the possibility of benign or moderate communism or Islam: These systems by their nature must compel submission from their populations. Any form of moderation would come from outside these systems – either cultural or philosophical forces. Turkey and Indonesia are good examples of countries that have counter-balances to the destructive influence of Islam. However, when regime altering convulsions occur in these countries Islam is always at the root. Perhaps moderate communism can only occur in voluntary congregations like the Mennonites. But, even here people are shunned for trying to leave and live a different life. Global Communism is an ideology that requires everyone to submit to the same rules and therefore cannot exist for long in the presences of freedom (read Capitalism). BTW I would love to hear what you mean by extreme Capitalism.

Thea Koenig: "What do you include in inalienable rights?
Who decides what is the common good, and what the proper response should be to attempts to subvert our freedoms is of course the problem, and I definitely don't have the answer. But I'd like to think, that while it is by no means perfect, our court system has the best shot of getting it right, eventually, as long as there is the freedom to challenge laws and engage in rational debate. Our society has a better chance than most of figuring it out.
Consequently, while it is infuriating that terrorists are afforded the civil rights we enjoy, I think it is important that we use the systems we have for all people charged with criminal acts, otherwise we run the risk of becoming exactly what we don't want to be. I am thinking of rendition, and how the US government, and probably the Canadian government, has been party to all manner of horrific violence against innocent people, in the name of national security.
While I support our government in responding swiftly and with the full force of the law toward anyone promoting and engaging in violent acts, I do not, think that the best way to respond to violence is with more violence. One only needs to look at the on-going battle between Israel and the Arab world to see that violence begets violence...always has, always will. Living in fear and responding with hatred ultimately destroys us.
The best way to preserve the freedoms and inalienable rights we value is to afford those same freedoms to others, and trust in the systems we have set up to work as they were intended.
Wish we lived closer to have these conversations in person. :)"

Christopher J Burton: 17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights (inalienable rights) in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Who am I to argue with John Locke – I can live with this list.

The problem lies within the social contract that individuals must rationally abide by in order to live in society. In the last hundred years the one organization that can legally put an individual to death has grown exponentially in power and influence. Unless it is curtailed by clear and exact rules the government will expand into every crevice of one’s life. There will always be vested interests that seek to benefit from the wealth confiscated by the bureaucratic machine. So yes the courts should decide, but within the parameters of tightly defined constitutional limits. The producers in society must have protection from those who would use the power of government to loot their property.
A terrorist is the fundamental enemy of an individual’s inalienable or natural rights – after all he seeks to attain his goals by depriving you of your most valuable possession, your life. Within the confines of Canada I would agree that the alleged terrorist should be availed of due process with the caveat that indiscriminate murder for political reasons should be subject to capital punishment. Timothy McVeigh received an appropriate sentence and justice was done. Outside of Canada terrorism against Canadians becomes an act of war and should be subject to military justice under the provisions of the Geneva Convention for irregular combatants. This would include the interrogation, detainment and possible deportment of these individuals to other jurisdictions. In war the stakes are too high not to use every method available to thwart the enemy’s next attack. I think these rules would keep us exactly as we want to be.
While entertaining for some I remind everyone that the movie “Rendition” is a work of fiction that is heavily biased and shows perhaps at best a potential scenario for wrongful conviction. When convictions cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the government should make restitution to its citizens as in the Arar case. Foreigners convicted of terrorism should face military justice.
I cannot agree that one can equate initiated violence with reactive violence. One is wrong and the other is morally right and appropriate. Where would Israel be today if it did not have the will to protect itself? If the Arabs would stop initiating violence against Israel there would be peace – but it seems they just can’t stop lobbing missiles into populated areas. Where would all of us be if we did not have the will to stand up to the Axis powers in 1939? Where would the people of the Falkland Islands be if Britain did not have the will to expel the invading Argentine dictatorship? You are right when you say that violence begets violence, so beware all who would start a war. When a country lives in fear of attack and responds with violence fuelled by justifiable contempt they are opting for survival not destruction.
I agree whole heartedly that we must believe in our institutions and the underlying ideals that have created them. All we require is the will to defend what we know is rational and true with the tools we have at our disposal. Within Canada; due process – outside Canada, that is a matter for National Defence.

America's armed militia on the rise - Modern Leftists are devoid of principles and don't get it.

Extremist "patriot" groups and other armed militias have undergone a dramatic resurgence in America, their numbers more than doubling in the past year amid growing Right-wing fears over expanding federal power and gun control.
Such groups – a mix of libertarians, gun rights advocates and survivalists – appeared to be in terminal decline before the election of Barack Obama, according to monitoring bodies.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which tracks extremist organisations, says it has so far counted more than 300 patriot groups this year, at least double last year's total of 150. The real total will be much higher as many groups do not go out of their way to publicise their existence.
A similar wave of anti-government groups, some of whose members dress in camouflage gear and conduct military training at weekends, sprung up during the Clinton administration.

However, SPLC researchers said there was a new race factor reflecting President Obama's ethnicity and immigration fears.
The groups themselves reject accusations of racism but agree that many members are deeply worried about gun control, are angered by the federal economic rescue packages, and are dismayed by government interference in areas such as health care. They voice frustration at what they perceive as America's international decline. Read more.