Given though that the Senate is essentially a rubber stamp (e.g. they do wordsmithing, legal terminology checking, etc) there's effectively only 3 levels of debate. The liberals tried to railroad the senate in the 1980s, but the PC's just stacked it with more appointed Senate seats.
I'll write my MP, but he's riding on the Liberals reputation and doesn't represent his riding's interests very well. I don't expect alot, but its a start.
Can a knowledgable slashdotter help me identify what the best way to protest this legislation will be?
I want to know about:
a) What party(s) oppose this legislation?
b) What formal protest groups exist to thwart this? Are any activities planned?
I haven't protested since university, but I would make an appearance in a rally for this. I will make donations to well organised groups opposing this legislation.
Its best to defeat the law before it gets into law, fortunately we have 3 readings to defeat it.
As proud as I am to be a Canadian, our society is not without fault and actually is beholden to American foreign policy far more than I would like. More importantly, however, is the fact that I would hope progressive, educated Americans would rather stay at home and fight for a higher ideal. If all such people gave up on the US as a lost hope, then it truly will become a capitalistic police state.
Moderate republicans and progressive democrats need to simply point to the United States' noble origins -- Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, all progressive atheists who believed in the rights of man over the rights of religion. Religion mixed with government is *anti-america*, always has been and always will be!
Note: This does not preclude men of faith from taking office, but their oath is to their country first and faith second. If they can't make this commitment, then they should not be in government.
From Canon, as they refused to cooperate with openRAW and ended their letter with a slap in the face: "If our equipment or software does not meet your needs, you are entirely welcome to seek other suppliers".
This is true, and unfortunately Canon can afford to take this position. In the DSLR market -- the *serious* digital photography market -- Canon has through various reports a 50-70% market share. Their only serious competitor is Nikon who controls anywhere from 30-50% depending upon who you listen to, and the rest make up a very small percentage. Kodak just announced a complete retirement from the DSLR market, Sigma cameras are doing horribly, and although Pentax and Minolta have decent offerings their market penetration is relatively weak. Canon can throw around threats since Nikon is WORSE in their disregard for RAW, actively encrypting (weakly) the white balance data. Nikon knows the encryption is a joke, but its enough to have legal teeth via the DCMA and thus Adobe won't translate it.
Personally I'm more concerned with the retirement of RAW formats than the current vendor specificity. When you by a Canon EOS system or a Nikon F-mount you're buying into a closed, proprietary hardware system. Extending it to the software realm is crappy, but not surprising. Microsoft is best positioned to bust this wide open, and its in Adobe's best interests to open RAW or see the success of DNG. My guess is once the balance of power starts shifting heavily in favour of Canon or Nikon (towards virtual monopoly) the lesser company will open up their RAW format to be more accomodating.
Low end? Game consoles, dumb terminals
Desktop? Macs (this is the best they can do, the Wintel monopoly is tough to crack).
High end? RISC unix, Linux if so desired -- the basis of their AIX platform.
The portability of the PPC architecture is fantastic, and taking a long view IBM has a great strategy in place.
The 12 step program is pseudo science at best. Ultimately if the individual either faces enough social pressure (e.g. court sentence) or has the strength of will to go through the 12 step process, they could quit a habit of their own.
Your example prooves it... insert "sex", "drugs", "e-mail", "eating", whatever you wish; most likely the 'method' is adaptable. Of course if the process is so generic as to be applicable to anything, its most likely a truism and actually has little inherent value.
I agree. Even if this product does fairly well, Intel still loses due to the credibility gap it introduces -- we follow Apple, we don't lead PCs. Anyone who understands AMD knows this has been the case for awhile, but this is an exceedingly shortsighted move by Intel. Heck, the PC market would have provided this solution if there was a significant demand for it... I think the Mini is smart since it carves out a small niche for increased Apple sales, while not being overly revolutionary. Its like the VW Bug... some people like it alot, but everyone doesn't want to drive a Beetle.
PS I thought the mini was a good enough idea that I seriously looked into getting one as a 'stepping stone' out of the Wintel world...couldn't quite bring myself to do it, but its a good attempt by Apple to be entry-level friendly. Maybe the next generation or two will be better.
1. Denholm Elliot unfortunately has been dead for a number of years now...
2. Sassy love interest? Calista Flockhart will be the female lead, I don't think she can do sassy.
3. booby (traps). See #2.
Given your low slashdot number I'll assume you were making an attempt at humour, and not trolling.
Anyone who has followed Ebert knows that for decades he has hated the star rating system, but subjects himself to it since its whats expected by newspapers. His 'thumbs up, thumbs down' was an attempt to abstract this a bit, saying "its worth watching on its merits" or not. You can't compare Citizen Kane to Die Hard...both are 'good' movies, but one clearly transcends its medium whereas the other is just good ass-kicking goodness.
Sorry, you get Elisha Cuthbert, Pamela Anderson, and Celine Dion as a *set*. You can't return one without the others.
If you'd like to take advantage of our no-questions-asked return policy, I will forward to you my home address for the addressing label for Cuthbert...
As a Canadian citizen, I have *NO* fears that the US will be invading us anytime soon. Despite some questionable foreign policy decisions in recent years, the American leadership has not suffered the equivalent to a lobotomy or head injury anytime recently. It would be an economically suicidal move, would isolate the US diplomatically, and really offers no benefits...with free trade Canada provides -- competitively -- all the resources and services the US requires.
What's going to happen, the US invades Canada to go from 80% to 100% of our exports? Its a ridiculous notion. Despite some of our mainstream political differences, our two nations have the largest border in the world, undefended the longest...it would be difficult to find a relationship between two nations more prosperous, equitable, and peaceful in human history.
Well, I guess I lost that bet but my point still stands: there's no way on God's green earth that ROTS is anywhere comparable to La Strada, Spartacus, Brazil, Groundhog Day, 8 1/2, Network, etc -- all movies its beaten on the top 250 list.
Re:Should be called "Top 100 List - According to 2
on
Time Picks Top 100 Films
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Relying upon the IMDB to determine the top 250 movies of all time is like walking into a grade 2 classroom and asking them "Which Power Ranger is the best-est?"
Although widespread popularity is one mark of a significant film, its not the only. Lots of solid classics were complete bombs, and took years to gain an appreciation. I'm willing to bet money without looking at the rankings that Revenge of the Sith gets rated in the top 50 after the first weekend...even though its excrement whose only redeeming feature is that its not Attack of the Clones.
Ebert's list of "Great Movies", which isn't limited by a fixed number, is a good sample of cinema's finest pieces. A top 100 list (or top 10, or top 50) is a mechanism to prompt discussion, nothing more...art cannot be subjected to an evaluative criteria, otherwise every movie would be shot in B&W, be a biography, and end with a burning sled.;)
This is of course COMPLETELY different from the studio system pre-WWII that persisted from silent to talkies to colour. Oh wait, no, its always been this way.
Good independent work will always come to the fore. When people started getting sick of John Wayne movies and musicals and yet another damn Rock Hudson movie, along came Coppola, Scorcese, DePalma, Polanski, etc to bust it wide open.
I figure we need another year or two of ABSOLUTE DRECK before studios will start taking chances again on new work. Lucas used to be the counter-culture rebel...who is going to overthrow him? its inevitable, sooner or later 'our' generation will come out with an alternative. (Hint: Watch movies by David Fincher, Spike Jonze, and Christopher Nolan to get a sense of the new post-modern digital film future)
...and the US has trade agreements and military alliances with far worse countries, while simultaneously working to deliberately undermine democratic countries with strong human rights records. (see: South America)
Oh, and the US is using Cuba as a detention point for hundreds of non-charged people to whom the US has applied a designation that holds no international recognition.
What was your point again?
I can just as conveniently look only at the good qualities of Cuba, as easily as you can ignore the self-serving nature of US policy regarding Cuba. Personally I think US' policy has had the effect of prolonging Castro's reign whereas the country would have reverted to democracy before now otherwise. I'm looking forward to the day when Castro dies as that will be a turning point for the country when they have to decide 'what next', and won't have a charismatic leader to prolong communism.
Okay smart guy, so why are so many people will to RISK DEATH to escape from Mexico (a democratic nation), Dominican Republic, Jamacia, etc? The horatio alger lure of a better life.
Its tough to leave Cuba, its true, but even if you could leave Cuba would the US willingly accept everyone, provide them with green cards and citizenship etc? People risk death for a multitude of reasons, and its not just to escape the Castro boogey-man. I also submit that Cuban boat-people refugees make good media copy, but represent a small statistical segment of a) refugees risking entry to the US and b) segment of the Cuban population.
For the record, I've been to Cuba, toured the countryside ~alone~, and have been invited into people's homes and had dinner with 'normal' people. They're not living in constant fear of the Gestapo, they're not starving poor, and they're not uneducated hicks.
Actually they have quite a positive image in most countries of the world other than the US. Given that they've been US embargoed for several decades and yet still can offer some of the best healthcare and social services in the Caribbean says alot to their efficiency. Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.
Linux is a good deal for Cuba, as they can't legally buy Windows given the US embargo...actually they can't buy most software under the circumstances. Also, their currency weakness doesn't allow them to trade for services very well. Given that Linux will make the every-day person's life more productive I can't see anyone reasonably opposing Linux adoption in Cuba...the government won't benefit from this directly.
You have of course registered yourself with Homeland Security for your "Free Thinking" license, have you not? Oh, well, its easy, you just show up at your local office and two nice burly gentlemen will show you to your waiting cell -- whoops, i mean cubicle -- and you can then fill out all your confess -- i mean application...
Although you are factually correct in most cases, I'll respectfully have to disagree with your assessment. Given this is my 3rd post on the topic, I'll disclose I'm Canadian and wrote an 3rd year history thesis on this subject.:) I assume you're American and thus we've both be exposed to different historcial interpretations I suspect, neither of which are necessarily wrong.
My take is: Trading within the colonies was a policy of the British Empire, but it was just as much a policy to support Britain while thwarting Prussia, France, and Russia at the same time...it wasn't inherently anti-American (although had that effect). The US economy was not stagnating as you suggest as they could continue to trade w/ France, Spain, Portugal, etc...just not Upper Canada/Nova Scotia, which was a fraction of the US size ALREADY at this time (500,000 Canadians to 6 million Americans).
In addition to 'free trade' I offer the following additional motivations, which have similar if not more weight historically:
- Western expansion: a desire to continue westward expansion at the expense of treaties with Britain and by warfare with Native Americans (who were British Allies).
- 54-40 or fight!: warhawks in US wanting to take advantage of British distraction w/ Napoleon, and a desire to dominate North America. This deliberate, imperialistic urge cannot be ignored historically.
Finally, the Treaty of Ghent was signed before the Battle of Orleans was complete. I see the British loss there to be advantageous to all sides...it helped maintain the status quo and removed any pretense for future British/American hostilities in the future. Worst case scenario would have been Britain taking New Orleans and thus having the US 'surrounded' territorially...the US would have been compelled to act under such circumstances I believe. Long term the US would win a North American conflict I believe, barring Wellington showing up with a seasoned army of 100,000 Napoelonic War-hardened troops. Highly unlikely!
PS American naval successes were largely limited to the Great Lakes, not the Atlantic as you suggest. Britain continued to be the pre-eminent world naval power until the 1870s at the very least. Britain could probably not take the ports of Boston or New York (already heavily fortified in this era), but once outside Britain could dominate if it so desired.
1812 is one of those wars that's tough to assess since it was poorly conceived and fought half heartedly by both sides. Arguably both sides won given the poor rationale and lack of predefined victory conditions.
Militarily the US 'lost' since they could not defeat 2nd line garrison troops and irregular militia, while Britain was busy w/ Napoleon in Europe. Politically, however, the US could claim a victory since they were able to stop impressment and dealt a serious blow to the Native threat with the death of Tecumseh. But Britain could also claim political victory as Upper & Lower Canada were preserved, and a sense of national identitiy was instilled in the local populace that established a permanent alliance with Britain. Here's the short truth: no war of 1812, Upper Canada (Ontario) voluntarily joins the United States by 1850.
Madison may have been a good political mind, but the war was ill conceived. Impressement wasn't the only reason for the war, its just one of the more easily justifiable -- just like the common reason used to explain the civil war is 'slavery', even though 'slavery' was barely an issue till 2 years into the campaign. Realisitcally the US wanted to continue western exapnsion, and the French, English, and Native presence on the continent was a undesireable to the warhawks of the day.
I find this quote by Madison circumspect, because I see him responsible for manufacturing a case for war with Britain out of specious reasons. He's guily of what he's preaching against. For comparison's sake, his predecessor Jefferson would not have done so under similar circumstances.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison
Isn't Madison the guy who deliberately provoked the war of 1812 with Britain over some fairly flimsy rationale? Resulted in the burning of the White House, loss of Detroit, etc? Most historians look at the formation of Canada only out of opposition to early American Imperialism.
Given this background I think you have to consider the quote in a larger context...
Slashdot Mirror
Given though that the Senate is essentially a rubber stamp (e.g. they do wordsmithing, legal terminology checking, etc) there's effectively only 3 levels of debate. The liberals tried to railroad the senate in the 1980s, but the PC's just stacked it with more appointed Senate seats.
I'll write my MP, but he's riding on the Liberals reputation and doesn't represent his riding's interests very well. I don't expect alot, but its a start.
Can a knowledgable slashdotter help me identify what the best way to protest this legislation will be?
I want to know about:
a) What party(s) oppose this legislation?
b) What formal protest groups exist to thwart this? Are any activities planned?
I haven't protested since university, but I would make an appearance in a rally for this. I will make donations to well organised groups opposing this legislation.
Its best to defeat the law before it gets into law, fortunately we have 3 readings to defeat it.
As proud as I am to be a Canadian, our society is not without fault and actually is beholden to American foreign policy far more than I would like. More importantly, however, is the fact that I would hope progressive, educated Americans would rather stay at home and fight for a higher ideal. If all such people gave up on the US as a lost hope, then it truly will become a capitalistic police state.
Moderate republicans and progressive democrats need to simply point to the United States' noble origins -- Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, all progressive atheists who believed in the rights of man over the rights of religion. Religion mixed with government is *anti-america*, always has been and always will be!
Note: This does not preclude men of faith from taking office, but their oath is to their country first and faith second. If they can't make this commitment, then they should not be in government.
From Canon, as they refused to cooperate with openRAW and ended their letter with a slap in the face: "If our equipment or software does not meet your needs, you are entirely welcome to seek other suppliers".
This is true, and unfortunately Canon can afford to take this position. In the DSLR market -- the *serious* digital photography market -- Canon has through various reports a 50-70% market share. Their only serious competitor is Nikon who controls anywhere from 30-50% depending upon who you listen to, and the rest make up a very small percentage. Kodak just announced a complete retirement from the DSLR market, Sigma cameras are doing horribly, and although Pentax and Minolta have decent offerings their market penetration is relatively weak. Canon can throw around threats since Nikon is WORSE in their disregard for RAW, actively encrypting (weakly) the white balance data. Nikon knows the encryption is a joke, but its enough to have legal teeth via the DCMA and thus Adobe won't translate it.
Personally I'm more concerned with the retirement of RAW formats than the current vendor specificity. When you by a Canon EOS system or a Nikon F-mount you're buying into a closed, proprietary hardware system. Extending it to the software realm is crappy, but not surprising. Microsoft is best positioned to bust this wide open, and its in Adobe's best interests to open RAW or see the success of DNG. My guess is once the balance of power starts shifting heavily in favour of Canon or Nikon (towards virtual monopoly) the lesser company will open up their RAW format to be more accomodating.
We either work at the same company, or the world is damned.
The later would explain all the smog...
PPC roadmap is brilliant.
Low end? Game consoles, dumb terminals
Desktop? Macs (this is the best they can do, the Wintel monopoly is tough to crack).
High end? RISC unix, Linux if so desired -- the basis of their AIX platform.
The portability of the PPC architecture is fantastic, and taking a long view IBM has a great strategy in place.
Hey, U.N.I.T. is involved.... why don't they just send The Doctor back to WW2 to confirm whether these bombs were planted deliberately or not?
The 12 step program is pseudo science at best. Ultimately if the individual either faces enough social pressure (e.g. court sentence) or has the strength of will to go through the 12 step process, they could quit a habit of their own.
Your example prooves it... insert "sex", "drugs", "e-mail", "eating", whatever you wish; most likely the 'method' is adaptable. Of course if the process is so generic as to be applicable to anything, its most likely a truism and actually has little inherent value.
I agree. Even if this product does fairly well, Intel still loses due to the credibility gap it introduces -- we follow Apple, we don't lead PCs. Anyone who understands AMD knows this has been the case for awhile, but this is an exceedingly shortsighted move by Intel. Heck, the PC market would have provided this solution if there was a significant demand for it... I think the Mini is smart since it carves out a small niche for increased Apple sales, while not being overly revolutionary. Its like the VW Bug... some people like it alot, but everyone doesn't want to drive a Beetle.
PS I thought the mini was a good enough idea that I seriously looked into getting one as a 'stepping stone' out of the Wintel world...couldn't quite bring myself to do it, but its a good attempt by Apple to be entry-level friendly. Maybe the next generation or two will be better.
A few notes...
1. Denholm Elliot unfortunately has been dead for a number of years now...
2. Sassy love interest? Calista Flockhart will be the female lead, I don't think she can do sassy.
3. booby (traps). See #2.
You're confusing physical age w/ emotional age.
I personally think we need more Tele-tubbies stories.
Why stop there?
Cedric the Entertainer!
Given your low slashdot number I'll assume you were making an attempt at humour, and not trolling.
Anyone who has followed Ebert knows that for decades he has hated the star rating system, but subjects himself to it since its whats expected by newspapers. His 'thumbs up, thumbs down' was an attempt to abstract this a bit, saying "its worth watching on its merits" or not. You can't compare Citizen Kane to Die Hard...both are 'good' movies, but one clearly transcends its medium whereas the other is just good ass-kicking goodness.
Kiss kiss, bang bang.
Sorry, you get Elisha Cuthbert, Pamela Anderson, and Celine Dion as a *set*. You can't return one without the others.
If you'd like to take advantage of our no-questions-asked return policy, I will forward to you my home address for the addressing label for Cuthbert...
As a Canadian citizen, I have *NO* fears that the US will be invading us anytime soon. Despite some questionable foreign policy decisions in recent years, the American leadership has not suffered the equivalent to a lobotomy or head injury anytime recently. It would be an economically suicidal move, would isolate the US diplomatically, and really offers no benefits...with free trade Canada provides -- competitively -- all the resources and services the US requires.
What's going to happen, the US invades Canada to go from 80% to 100% of our exports? Its a ridiculous notion. Despite some of our mainstream political differences, our two nations have the largest border in the world, undefended the longest...it would be difficult to find a relationship between two nations more prosperous, equitable, and peaceful in human history.
Well, I guess I lost that bet but my point still stands: there's no way on God's green earth that ROTS is anywhere comparable to La Strada, Spartacus, Brazil, Groundhog Day, 8 1/2, Network, etc -- all movies its beaten on the top 250 list.
Relying upon the IMDB to determine the top 250 movies of all time is like walking into a grade 2 classroom and asking them "Which Power Ranger is the best-est?"
;)
Although widespread popularity is one mark of a significant film, its not the only. Lots of solid classics were complete bombs, and took years to gain an appreciation. I'm willing to bet money without looking at the rankings that Revenge of the Sith gets rated in the top 50 after the first weekend...even though its excrement whose only redeeming feature is that its not Attack of the Clones.
Ebert's list of "Great Movies", which isn't limited by a fixed number, is a good sample of cinema's finest pieces. A top 100 list (or top 10, or top 50) is a mechanism to prompt discussion, nothing more...art cannot be subjected to an evaluative criteria, otherwise every movie would be shot in B&W, be a biography, and end with a burning sled.
This is of course COMPLETELY different from the studio system pre-WWII that persisted from silent to talkies to colour. Oh wait, no, its always been this way.
Good independent work will always come to the fore. When people started getting sick of John Wayne movies and musicals and yet another damn Rock Hudson movie, along came Coppola, Scorcese, DePalma, Polanski, etc to bust it wide open.
I figure we need another year or two of ABSOLUTE DRECK before studios will start taking chances again on new work. Lucas used to be the counter-culture rebel...who is going to overthrow him? its inevitable, sooner or later 'our' generation will come out with an alternative. (Hint: Watch movies by David Fincher, Spike Jonze, and Christopher Nolan to get a sense of the new post-modern digital film future)
...and the US has trade agreements and military alliances with far worse countries, while simultaneously working to deliberately undermine democratic countries with strong human rights records. (see: South America)
Oh, and the US is using Cuba as a detention point for hundreds of non-charged people to whom the US has applied a designation that holds no international recognition.
What was your point again?
I can just as conveniently look only at the good qualities of Cuba, as easily as you can ignore the self-serving nature of US policy regarding Cuba. Personally I think US' policy has had the effect of prolonging Castro's reign whereas the country would have reverted to democracy before now otherwise. I'm looking forward to the day when Castro dies as that will be a turning point for the country when they have to decide 'what next', and won't have a charismatic leader to prolong communism.
Okay smart guy, so why are so many people will to RISK DEATH to escape from Mexico (a democratic nation), Dominican Republic, Jamacia, etc? The horatio alger lure of a better life.
Its tough to leave Cuba, its true, but even if you could leave Cuba would the US willingly accept everyone, provide them with green cards and citizenship etc? People risk death for a multitude of reasons, and its not just to escape the Castro boogey-man. I also submit that Cuban boat-people refugees make good media copy, but represent a small statistical segment of a) refugees risking entry to the US and b) segment of the Cuban population.
For the record, I've been to Cuba, toured the countryside ~alone~, and have been invited into people's homes and had dinner with 'normal' people. They're not living in constant fear of the Gestapo, they're not starving poor, and they're not uneducated hicks.
Actually they have quite a positive image in most countries of the world other than the US. Given that they've been US embargoed for several decades and yet still can offer some of the best healthcare and social services in the Caribbean says alot to their efficiency. Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.
Linux is a good deal for Cuba, as they can't legally buy Windows given the US embargo...actually they can't buy most software under the circumstances. Also, their currency weakness doesn't allow them to trade for services very well. Given that Linux will make the every-day person's life more productive I can't see anyone reasonably opposing Linux adoption in Cuba...the government won't benefit from this directly.
You have of course registered yourself with Homeland Security for your "Free Thinking" license, have you not? Oh, well, its easy, you just show up at your local office and two nice burly gentlemen will show you to your waiting cell -- whoops, i mean cubicle -- and you can then fill out all your confess -- i mean application...
Although you are factually correct in most cases, I'll respectfully have to disagree with your assessment. Given this is my 3rd post on the topic, I'll disclose I'm Canadian and wrote an 3rd year history thesis on this subject. :) I assume you're American and thus we've both be exposed to different historcial interpretations I suspect, neither of which are necessarily wrong.
My take is: Trading within the colonies was a policy of the British Empire, but it was just as much a policy to support Britain while thwarting Prussia, France, and Russia at the same time...it wasn't inherently anti-American (although had that effect). The US economy was not stagnating as you suggest as they could continue to trade w/ France, Spain, Portugal, etc...just not Upper Canada/Nova Scotia, which was a fraction of the US size ALREADY at this time (500,000 Canadians to 6 million Americans).
In addition to 'free trade' I offer the following additional motivations, which have similar if not more weight historically:
- Western expansion: a desire to continue westward expansion at the expense of treaties with Britain and by warfare with Native Americans (who were British Allies).
- 54-40 or fight!: warhawks in US wanting to take advantage of British distraction w/ Napoleon, and a desire to dominate North America. This deliberate, imperialistic urge cannot be ignored historically.
Finally, the Treaty of Ghent was signed before the Battle of Orleans was complete. I see the British loss there to be advantageous to all sides...it helped maintain the status quo and removed any pretense for future British/American hostilities in the future. Worst case scenario would have been Britain taking New Orleans and thus having the US 'surrounded' territorially...the US would have been compelled to act under such circumstances I believe. Long term the US would win a North American conflict I believe, barring Wellington showing up with a seasoned army of 100,000 Napoelonic War-hardened troops. Highly unlikely!
PS American naval successes were largely limited to the Great Lakes, not the Atlantic as you suggest. Britain continued to be the pre-eminent world naval power until the 1870s at the very least. Britain could probably not take the ports of Boston or New York (already heavily fortified in this era), but once outside Britain could dominate if it so desired.
1812 is one of those wars that's tough to assess since it was poorly conceived and fought half heartedly by both sides. Arguably both sides won given the poor rationale and lack of predefined victory conditions.
Militarily the US 'lost' since they could not defeat 2nd line garrison troops and irregular militia, while Britain was busy w/ Napoleon in Europe. Politically, however, the US could claim a victory since they were able to stop impressment and dealt a serious blow to the Native threat with the death of Tecumseh. But Britain could also claim political victory as Upper & Lower Canada were preserved, and a sense of national identitiy was instilled in the local populace that established a permanent alliance with Britain. Here's the short truth: no war of 1812, Upper Canada (Ontario) voluntarily joins the United States by 1850.
Madison may have been a good political mind, but the war was ill conceived. Impressement wasn't the only reason for the war, its just one of the more easily justifiable -- just like the common reason used to explain the civil war is 'slavery', even though 'slavery' was barely an issue till 2 years into the campaign. Realisitcally the US wanted to continue western exapnsion, and the French, English, and Native presence on the continent was a undesireable to the warhawks of the day.
I find this quote by Madison circumspect, because I see him responsible for manufacturing a case for war with Britain out of specious reasons. He's guily of what he's preaching against. For comparison's sake, his predecessor Jefferson would not have done so under similar circumstances.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison
Isn't Madison the guy who deliberately provoked the war of 1812 with Britain over some fairly flimsy rationale? Resulted in the burning of the White House, loss of Detroit, etc? Most historians look at the formation of Canada only out of opposition to early American Imperialism.
Given this background I think you have to consider the quote in a larger context...