Besides when he did his PhD at Harvard, he spent 5 years in the U.S. between 2000 and 2005.
He lived in Canada until he was 31 when he was offered a researcher position at Cambridge. He spent about 22 years in England and other European countries lexuring and was also a television and radio broadcaster for a while.
People don't know what life is going to bring them. You can't put your career or the pursuit of knowledge on hold because one day you might run for PM.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Yeah, the leader of the country is the same as hockey players and movie stars. They're not the same and you know it.
So what if Crosby (as an example), came back to Canada after his hockey career in the U.S., and then got involved in politics... would you not vote for him based on him leaving for the U.S. for career purposes?
Because that is basically why Ignatieff lived overseas. He was a "top player" in his field and went to the "majors" basically.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
So what if Crosby (as an example), came back to Canada after his hockey career in the U.S., and then got involved in politics... would you not vote for him based on him leaving for the U.S. for career purposes?
Because that is basically why Ignatieff lived overseas. He was a "top player" in his field and went to the "majors" basically.
So Crosby would be intellectually qualified to run the country?
Agreed, but how about some cheers for those who travelled, studied internationally, picked up important skills and connections, and then return to Canada to make it a better place.
Somehow I don't believe that making Canada a better place is Ignatieff's motivation. I suspect his motivation is somewhat more personal and once he fails in his quest for the PM office, he'll return to greener pastures elsewhere.
So what if Crosby (as an example), came back to Canada after his hockey career in the U.S., and then got involved in politics... would you not vote for him based on him leaving for the U.S. for career purposes?
Because that is basically why Ignatieff lived overseas. He was a "top player" in his field and went to the "majors" basically.
Crosby didn't have a choice. He was drafted by a USA team and it he didn't play there he wouldn't play at all. I suspect Crosby, as most Canadian players, would have been thrilled to have been drafted by a Canadian team and continuing his playing career in Canada. Unlike Ignatieff, he didn't have a choice.
Why does it always seem to be the choice of the lesser of the evils in Canadian politics?
Because one side will always vilify the other so that it seems that way?
See Rerun's "I suspect he will..."
On an internet forum I'm free to say that "I suspect in 10 years Stephen Harper will rape cats and eat babies". I don't need anything to back up what I'm saying. Don't need to say anything more than "I suspect" and I'm in the free and clear. And then people say things like "Why do I have to choose between a traitor and cat rapist? Canadian politics sucks."
Because one side will always vilify the other so that it seems that way?
See Rerun's "I suspect he will..."
On an internet forum I'm free to say that "I suspect in 10 years Stephen Harper will rape cats and eat babies". I don't need anything to back up what I'm saying. Don't need to say anything more than "I suspect" and I'm in the free and clear. And then people say things like "Why do I have to choose between a traitor and cat rapist? Canadian politics sucks."
Canadian politics does suck, and I don't need the words of anonymous internet forum posters to tell me that.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Somehow I don't believe that making Canada a better place is Ignatieff's motivation. I suspect his motivation is somewhat more personal and once he fails in his quest for the PM office
I suspect any person running under the Liberal banner would get the same benefit of the doubt from you.
Honestly, there are at least three reasons that the "Ignatieff isn't Canadian" argument is dumb.
1. Academics have to travel around. It's a great career as long as you don't mind not getting to live where you want to live. So the idea that he had a lot of "choices" is just naive and silly. Of course he followed his career path to the best job--as anyone would. As a matter of fact, I moved to the U.S. for 10 years to pursue an academic career. It sucked, but it's a bread-and-butter decision--there's just more money down there for that sort of thing. The equivalent would be if you were trained as a CPA, but you couldn't get a job in your field without moving to New York. Would that make you less Canadian?
2. It's not like the U.S. is that different a place to live. Ignatieff lived in Boston, not Belgrade. Believe it or not, Americans are pretty similar to us. They face some of the same practical challenges in every day life that we do. Pretending that Ignatieff's experience makes him unable to understand daily life in Canada is... dumb. I'm sorry, but that's what it is.
3. It's nativist BS. We should be finding the most qualified people to run our country, not the most "Canadian."
The fact that Harper trotted out this weak nativist argument last year reeks of desperation--as if he doesn't feel that his qualifications compare. Why not make this an election about ideas and not about what city people chose to work in before entering politics.
Seriously, there are good and bad reasons to make any particular electoral choice. This is one of the bad ones--because it has nothing to do with what politics is really supposed to be about--the competition of ideas in a public forum.
For the record, I lived in the U.S. for 10 years, and came close to staying another 5. I never considered myself less Canadian--in fact, I consider the notion that I "gave up" any part of my Canadian identity preposterous and offensive.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
I just don't get it. I just don't. Why does it matter that he lived in the US or wherever? It makes no sense to me. My grandma always told me that travel and/or living in other places is the best education that you get, but I guess my grandma is wrong.
There is lots that you can criticize Ignatieff for. But really, living in different parts of the world? Makes no sense.
And, since we seem to be having a lot of hockey analogies here, I guess we should not let this guy, below, play on the Olympic team. Not only has he played his career in the US (where yes, he has choice - he can leave as a free agent, demand a trade, etc), but yikes he is also American now!
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=508358
Brodeur now U.S. citizen, but remains loyal to Canada
Don't worry Canada, Martin Brodeur still belongs to you. Now, though, the New Jersey Devils goalie also officially can have a say in whether Barack Obama will deserve a second term as President of the United States.
Brodeur on Tuesday morning in a quiet ceremony inside the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building here officially became a U.S. citizen.
He correctly answered all six questions asked of him on the citizenship exam and then raised his right hand and pledged allegiance to the country he has been living and working in since the mid-1990s
...
It won't, however, change his allegiance to his country of birth.
Last edited by RedHot25; 01-16-2010 at 09:26 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to RedHot25 For This Useful Post:
Somehow I'm going to doubt Rick's idea that no matter what happens in the future, we will always, always, always have a Conservative minority government.
Crosby didn't have a choice. He was drafted by a USA team and it he didn't play there he wouldn't play at all. I suspect Crosby, as most Canadian players, would have been thrilled to have been drafted by a Canadian team and continuing his playing career in Canada. Unlike Ignatieff, he didn't have a choice.
Sure Crosby had a choice. Drafted players don't need to play in the NHL. He could have gimped his career and played in some serior league in Canada. Nobody would ever realistically expect him to do that... someone accepting international success is fine. Personally, I wouldn't want to vote for someone who didn't try to go as far as they could with their god-given talents. In Ignatieff's field, going to England to work at a top university was in the same ballpark as going to the majors.
Getting selected by a world's leading university to be a researcher is like being drafted into the NHL if you're in the academia field.
BTW, I don't even really like Ignatieff that much. His vocal support of George Bush's invasion of Iraq turned me off of him years ago. I just think it's shortsighted to knock the guy for taking his career to an international level.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 01-16-2010 at 02:19 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Sure Crosby had a choice. Drafted players don't need to play in the NHL. He could have gimped his career and played in some serior league in Canada. Nobody would ever realistically expect him to do that... someone accepting international success is fine. Personally, I wouldn't want to vote for someone who didn't try to go as far as they could with their god-given talents. In Ignatieff's field, going to England to work at a top university was in the same ballpark as going to the majors.
Getting selected by a world's leading university to be a researcher is like being drafted into the NHL if you're in the academia field.
BTW, I don't even really like Ignatieff that much. His vocal support of George Bush's invasion of Iraq turned me off of him years ago. I just think it's shortsighted to knock the guy for taking his career to an international level.
Yeah, I think there are a lot of reasons to be critical of Ignatieff without getting into his personal history of residences. Like you, I have serious reservations about the foreign policy that he's advocated in the past, although that's mellowed considerably since he's become involved in federal politics. Which isn't particularly surprising: every politician moves toward a more moderate viewpoint out of need to appeal to a broader viewpoint: even Harper's perspectives as a leader are more moderate than what they were when he was simply a policy advisor in the reform party.
Well, this should surprise nobody. From the latest EKOS poll:
Quote:
People in Alberta, Canadians 65 and older, and those with a high school education or less are more likely to believe the government is moving in the right direction. Those with a university-level education are more likely to think the government is moving in the wrong direction.
