« Late 'best headline of 2008' entrant | Main | An education with gaps »
The National Post, conscious of the need for scrutiny of our new Liberal leader, is having its top writers work their way through the career of Michael Ignatieff one book at a time. I'm in today's installment #2 of the reading circle, where Ignatieff's book of Massey Lectures, The Rights Revolution, is covered.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.colbycosh.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/371
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 20, 2008 2:09 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Late 'best headline of 2008' entrant.
The next post in this blog is An education with gaps.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (5)
Could the comment registration nonsense be any worse than the system they have at the Nat. Post? Sign up for a "membership". Then have to sign up again for "community access". Then, perhaps, another layer -- I gave up after two.
Posted by sacamano | December 20, 2008 4:51 PM
Posted on December 20, 2008 16:51
I love pieces like this, because this way I don't have to bother reading the man (unless he somehow becomes PM).
A bit more used to lecturing than debating, you say - seems to be a trend lately with the Grits.
Posted by nitus | December 20, 2008 5:36 PM
Posted on December 20, 2008 17:36
You don't even want to know how many times I have to sign in just to write a weblog entry. It is sick and wrong. But you can always just comment here.
Posted by Colby Cosh | December 20, 2008 6:20 PM
Posted on December 20, 2008 18:20
I'm with sacamano, the NP's system is the reason most of their comments are of the compulsive Tory angst type.
Posted by AtlanticTy | December 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Posted on December 21, 2008 11:55
You nailed it Colby with one of the comments in your mini-review: moral hazard.
When someone sets themselves up as the arbiter of "rights" the question is, who are these people who think it's their job to do so, and why should we trust them that their violent, coercive and extremely well-remunerated actions are either moral or just?
It's because he has no moral or ethical ground to stand on, as a would-be enforcer of "rights", that Iggy writes such vapid, equivocal prose. It reads like the bullshit that emanates from the Supreme Court of Canada whenever they decide that the latest outrageous redistributive action is OK as long as some kind of nod is made toward the (alleged) greater good. But why shouldn't they sound the same? They're on the same side.
Posted by Anonymous | December 21, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted on December 21, 2008 15:35