"Mad" Max RIP: 2006-2006

We hardly knew ye.

In case you're wondering why there are so many deleted comments, allow me to explain.

"Max" is the author of all of these comments and he has a very Right-winged point of view. It seems that he was not pleased with his experiences at Denis McGrath's blog and, from what I can tell, followed through on his threat to "leave".

I'm not sure how I feel about Max deleting his comments here. I had decided to leave Max's comments standing because he has the right to say whatever he'd like. If he were a hate-mongering Nazi, I might object and delete the comments, but at worst Max was an inflammatory Right-winged zealot. Nothing inherently wrong with that other than perhaps a narrow-minded point of view. (Liberals are called "liberals" for a reason, I suppose, and I, like Denis, would be accused of being "politically inconsistent" - lefty on some issues, righty on others)

I had planned to address some of Max's more recent posts (which I have in my email inbox), but I won't indulge now - and I won't post Max's comments without his consent. Because that's his right, too.

What became clear from Max's last comments however was perhaps the biggest ideological difference between the two wings: the US's role in the world.

Max believes (as many right-wingers do, I suspect) that the US should act as the dominant force in the world. That the US should use its military might to spread its ideology throughout the world and protect the West from aspiring powers. That the US should prevent other countries from developing nuclear power and should keep the flow of oil in the hands of pro-US leadership (though it is less important that these countries be democracies...I wonder why).

And while I may find it convenient to have the neighbourhood bully as my closest neighbour and on my side, my conscience does not allow me to accept this position as right.

Ben Franklin's words are true: those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

You can't say: "Freedom for everyone...as long as I'm in charge and you do what I say." That's not freedom, that's a dictatorship - on a global scale.

Under Bush's administration (particularly) this has become the norm, and it is high time people in positions of authority rose up to defend what is right, not what is "Right". When GWB circumvented the UN to invade Iraq asap, despite the lack of evidence of the existence of WMDs, he crossed a line. He snubbed his nose at the international community, basically saying "the US will use its power for what it wants, not what you want."

This is when the schoolyard defender publicly became the schoolyard bully.

This is when the US became less "our closest ally" and more "our friend with the drinking problem".

This is what I was referring to in the comments to the United93 post: you have to be willing to die for your principles. You have to be willing to take on the enemy man-to-man, face-to-face and in equal numbers...not just flex your nuclear muscles and bomb the unseen enemy from miles away. That's not victory, that's not right: that's convenient. That's easy.

As the guy in the red and blue suit says: "With great power comes great responsibility".

Or, as I like to quote, "principles only mean something when they are incovenient."

It takes a big man to put down his weapons and talk to his enemy. It takes a coward to use his might at the first opportunity.

So if Max wishes to post, I will allow him to do so.

However, I will give Max this stipulation: so far, I've let many "nicknames" go (Chicoms, Fundies etc.) because while they may be slang, they do reflect their meaning somewhat. However I will not allow religious slurs; if you mean Islamic fundamentalists, say so - "Islamists" refers to a religious people, from a religion that promotes peace as I understand it - and is not synonymous with terrorists or evil.

We know you're uber-Right-winged: you don't have to go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance.