BHS

1) Gitmo isn't a quagmire. It's a military holding facility. It would still be a military holding facility if the US pulled all of it's troops out of the Middle East tomorrow. Get your idiot talking points straight. 2) The US isn't above the law. It's entirely beholden to the American legal system. The ICC is a sanctimonius crock dreamed up by people who bear zero responsilibity for keeping the world safe and yet regard themselves to be in a position to sit in judgement. It is beholden to no Constitution. It enforces no system of laws. It makes up law on an ad hoc basis and expects the most likely defendant, the US, to enforce that law. It's complete and utter bs.

I think the suit will fail as well, if Moore challenges it. The guy's laywer is probably hoping Moore will settle quickly to get the story out of the news. When you agree to a TV interview, the interview footage becomes the property of the interviewing entity, in this case NBC. If NBC chose to sell the interview footage to Moore that's between them. I don't think the guy has any option to intervene. What I object to in the Post's story is the line in the first paragraph refering to Moore as a "peacenik". Moore isn't a pacifist. He's an anti-captitalist opportunist who's using using anti-war sentiment to attack his favourite bogeymen and make himself a tidy profit in the process. I went to see United 93 when it came out. The big news story was that their was a shrill little contingent (since disappeared - the MSM knows how to pick 'em) who felt it was too early to do a movie about 911. Here's Moore, mocking the events of that day, two years ago. I don't remember anyone saying it was too early for fat arrogant blohards to make accusations against their own goverment in an election year in 2004.

Good post August. In answer to your last question, it seems obvious to me that even as things stand now, finding DNA evidence at a crime scene is not proof positive that a person was involved with a crime. DNA evidence needs to be corroborated, alibis need to be checked. Having ready identites for the DNA found doesn't change this.

Interesting. A major police raid in London yesterday netted two brothers who were also accused of bomb-building. These two incidents are so close together I'm tempted to think there may be a connection. Ammonium nitrate is a common agricultural product. To purchase 3 tonnes of it isn't unthinkable, but you would need a working farm in order to avoid raising suspicions. Is this further evidence to support the hinterland training facility story? That they've moved the ammonium nitrate into the city indicates that they were close to the point of building and delivering the bomb. I'm keen to hear what their intended target was. The garage of an office building on Bay Street, perhaps? They'd need security clearance to get into the loading area, so perhaps one of the accused worked as a security officer. We'll have to wait for further personal details. It's tempting to think they'd want to attack the biggest high profile target, being the CN tower, but they'd have to know that a cube van fertalizer bomb wouldn't be big enough to do the trick. That thing is frickin' huge at the base, like an office tower build out of solid concrete. As for the Young Offenders Act aspect of this story, I don't think the rest of the world will care. If you've already bought into the concept that terrorism is merely a criminal act, it follows that it is appropriate to treat terrorists like criminals and young terrorists like juvenile delinquents. The only people who will be upset by this are people who don't buy that terrorists are merely criminals ie. American conservatives. And we in Canada hardly go about our business trying to please them.

Plus, as is noted on this Instapundit post (with links) the key points made in the RFK Jr. article have already been debunked by NPR and Mother Jones, two rigidly neo-con organisations if ever there were.

Holy. Funhouse mirrors. I think I'm having an acid flashback. Could you please reply with some original content?

Yeah, 'cause they don't hear that every frickin' day, from people who's own costumes are covered in...say, what is the body fluid associated with false modesty? By the way, this website and organisation appears to be based in England and created by genuine British lefties. Which you would have discovered if you'd followed the link. It was part of the reason I found the whole thing so interesting.

Ah ma dine jhad. Without taking it as given that Clinton is in fact a left-winger, what does any of this have to do with proving Clinton is a lefty? What does any of this have to do with refuting my assertion that Arafat was brought to the White House for reasons other than Carteresque bootlicking?

If Congress had been controlled by the Dems Clinton would have given Kyoto more thought than he did. A Republican controlled Congress meant he could (and did) sign Kyoto knowing full well that Congress would never ratify it. He even went to far as to increase America's greenhouse reduction commitment from what had been initially required, so that he would personally look better on the world stage. Talking about a cynical bastard.

No arguments here. I personally don't buy that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as it is being made out to be. That doesn't change the fact that, as Charles has pointed out, the new legislation specifically designates it as harmful. Worker safety regulations have changed enough in the past century that one now has to know what dangers are present on a worksite in order for him to work there legally. WHMIS training is manditory on unsafe worksites. But the point of such training is to prevent exposure to hazards. No one takes a job knowing they're going to be physically exposed to hazardous chemicals, and in any case the law forbids intentional exposure and severly penalizes accidental exposure. So, how is it again that this legislation is different from all of that? Further, a smell may indicate the presense of a noxious substance such as pig feces but the smell of pig feces doesn't hurt you. Belief that smell causes harm died out after the discovery of bacteria. I'm sure you already know this, but I bring it up because it reminds me of people who claim they are "allergic" to perfume and suffer symptoms of their "allergy" whenever perfume is present, regardless of the chemical makeup of the perfume. It's not possible to be allergic to perfume in general unless you are allergic to many different chemicals found in perfumes. Which is almost never the case with people who claim this allergy. It's all in their heads. But I'm going way off topic. I don't believe that I've ever said that the legislation was to prevent airborn hazards generally. And your conclusion fits hand in glove with mine - this legislation is intended to prevent tobacco use, ergo we should outlaw tobacco use. How is a law aimed at improving workplace safety not moral? If a law were passed to prevent children from bringing peanut butter to school, would that be arbitrary?

Under that bizarre logic, Harper can do no wrong. He can run through Tehran with no pants on cursing Allah and criticizing him would be taking Iran's side. What are you talking about? If anything, you've gotten it completely backward. Look at what you quoted me saying. My conjecture is based entirely on events that have already occurred and doesn't involve any future speculation. I'm saying: that your earlier statement paints Harper alone as being responsible for maintaining the status quo of a shakey international relationship without regard for what the other party does; and that your doing so sets Harper up to take the fall should that relationship deteriorate; and that your taking this position puts you squarely on the side of the Iranians. If Harper were to engage in the lurid activities you fantasize for him, he would most certainly be in the wrong, but it would also be an entirely new situation. Indeed, if a semi-naked tax fetishist of a Canadian Prime Minister is seen howling obsenities at God in downtown Tehran, please, criticize away.

I fail to see how this proves right wing bona fides. Giving money to the Palestinians was never a partisan issue. Despising Hamas as terrorists was likewise neither a left nor right wing position (at least as regards North American politics). It follows that cutting off funding after Hamas took power was possible from either wing's perspective, though I doubt the fence-arsed Libs would have had the stones to do it so quickly. Which proves nothing about Clinton being a lefty. True, his predecessor Carter is a total leftist boob and has displayed an unseamly eagerness to embrace the world's more unsavory tyrants, but Clinton had a nobler goal in mind that was almost achieved at Camp David in 2000. Inviting Mr. Mangey-beard to the White House on a regular basis was part of the cost of achieving that goal.

Whew! You guys have got all the bases covered. No matter what happens, mankind is always "proved" to be the cause. Colour me convinced! Forget everything I wrote earlier! Scratch that - I'm sure you already have. Mankind is the cause the only cause of environmental "degradation" and Kyoto atonement is the only source of absolution for the planet. Are you guys sure you aren't a religion? I mean, come on, you have to see the parallels.

Huh? (I can play this game too.) The law at issue makes it clear that second hand smoking is unquestionably dangerous. Which law is it again that declares smog to be dangerous? Dangerous enough that it needs to be eliminated from the workplace? I don't think Charles used the word "arbitrary". In any case this law isn't arbitrary, it's specific. It's intent is to address the danger of second hand smoke in the workplace. As I pointed out, it's easier to grant rights to workers than it is to take away rights from homeowners, and that is why the distinction has been made at this time. If the law were extended to protect all private non-smoking individuals (including children, obviously) from the dangers of secondhand smoke, only smokers who lived alone or with other smokers would be allowed to smoke in their own homes. Which is more of an affront to the concept of equal protection than is differentiating between workers and private citizens. But even at that, you're just proving my conclusion by declaring it arbitrary. If it's arbitrary, it's clearly deficient and requiring a broader effectiveness. The only equitable solution is to ban smoking everywhere.

Yeah, but the media would just bury it in the back pages. Am I right?

You are so going to eat these words after the next ice age starts.

Your conclusion is correct. As is my conjecture that outlawing smoking altogether is the best way to proceed. You can't argue that secondhand smoke is harmful only when exposure occurs as a result of work - it has to be the case that all secondhand exposure is equally harmful, and should be equally prohibited. The only way to ensure this is to ban smoking. UPDATE: as I think about it, the only logical way for the governments of Ontario and Quebec to proceed at this point is to outlaw smoking as the next step. This legislation makes that conclusion completely unavoidable. Here's hoping they do it sooner rather than later.

Whatever. Two years after my father (who is still alive) was born is ancient history to you. Such is the weight of your opinion. Agreed. Never once disagreed. You're reiterating points that have already been established and discussed, too much really. Again, whatever. Not to offend, but I'll take the Government of Canada's official statistics over your vague guesswork. Which I fail to see the point of anyway, as regards the rest of this thread.

By your simplistic formulation, no war can ever be right. Nothing is worth fighting for if it means people have to die. I wish this were so, I truly do. I'd love for the whole world to sink into a blissful, war-free delerium. Ain't gonna happen. There are things worth fight for, killing for, and dying for. There always were and there always will be, utopian wishes notwithstanding. No one is disagreeing with you on this, especially the American military, who take this sort of thing very seriously. That you conflate the goal of liberating Iraq with the intentional slaughter of women and children speaks more of a pathology on your part than it does on the part of the "war-mongers". Yeah, but not half as much as the European proto-Union dithering for years while the Muslims of Bosnia were decimated. You'll note, with no small degree of irony, that the problem in that case was the lack of American war-mongering. You're arguing with yourself. First you say that Bush should have taken the fight to the terrorists. But he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq - instead he should have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq and 58 other countries. Except he shouldn't have taken the "fight" to those places, but instead he should have gathered intelligence on terrorists. Not to be used to go in and stop them, mind you, but simply... Say, why would you want to gather intelligence if you don't intend to use it?

I stand by my remark. Stating that Harper's response to this story jeapordizes Canadian/Iranian diplomacy makes a number of assumptions, all of which favour the Iranian position. It assumes that only Harper's actions have consequences, regardless of what policies Iran may enact or how it reacts to this story. It sets up in advance the assumption that Harper was to blame, if the diplomacy degenerates further. I call that taking Iran's side on this issue. So what that about muck? Care to come up with a more thoughtful reply than ad hominem mud-flinging?

Charles Anthony: You're missing (or ignoring) the biggest piece of the puzzle as regards protecting children from second hand smoke in private homes: they're private homes. The government is loathe to start telling people that they can't persue a perfectly legal activity within the confines of their own homes. Taking away rights is not generally a vote-getter. It's much easier to pass legislation that grants rights to workers, which is exactly what this legislation does. Even that portion of the legislation that effects private homes doesn't prevent smoking therein. It merely states that healthcare workers can refuse to work if they don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke. The real issue here is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous. There have been some studies that have concluded so, but they've been disputed. There is anecdotal evidence that a danger exists, but in nowhere near the quantity that exists for first hand smoking. You're assuming that smoking around your children is a form of child abuse, and the general public sentiment is heading in that direction over time. But the science isn't there to support that position, and personally I doubt that there ever will be. Perhaps in time smoking around children will be viewed as nothing else but child abuse, and the legislation will be updated to protect children. Until then, it's easier to pass legislation that works on assumptions of a public good that only effects public places than it is to pass legislation that works toward the same public good that negatively effects people's privacy. I think the better solution is to outlaw smoking altogether, and I'll bet that that happens before the secondhand smoke as child abuse legislation happens.

It would be easier for you to post what you think they are, and have the rest of us argue it out from there. I don't think there's any sort of existing standard definition for either word. Catholics view their Christianity different than Quakers do. Family values are generally meant to convey a preference for the old fashioned nuclear family model, but I may not be entirely right about that.

BD: Since you're getting slammed here, I'll throw you a bone. (I know, I know. But I'm seeing one BD post followed by five anti-BD replies, rinse, and repeat.) I'll agree with you that Israel isn't a true liberal democracy. No country can call itself truly free when it restricts the rights of it's citizenry based on ethnicity, regardless of it's motivation to do so. That being said, there remains the question of Western (read American) support for Israel, both economically and militarily. Let's leave aside the existence of the Occupied Territories for a moment. Consider them a seperate country, as they would have been if Arafat had accepted Barak's offer in 2000. (Feel free to bicker at you leisure as to the level of autonomy that the Palestinians would have achieved by their agreement to this proposal - the fact remains that the 2000 offer was a good first step towards complete autonomy, and Arafat rejected it out of hand, preferring furious intifada impotency and the continued subjugation that it would necessarily entail.) I think it's fair to say that of all of the countries in the ME Israel is still the freest, and still the one that treats it's citizens best regardless of their ethnicity. (Remember, this excludes the fact of the occupied lands.) I think that if you had to predict which ME nation was most likely to commit barbarism against it's own citizens, Israel would be at the bottom of the list. Of all of the nations in the ME that need reform, Israel is the most likely to do so and will have the easiest time of it. For all of these reasons, Israel deserves our support. It deserves at least the same support that the completely undemocratic nations in the region are routinely given regardless of their policies.

I'm posting a link to the website of The Euston Manifesto, because I don't think that too many people in the forum have heard of it yet. I only just read of it myself this evening. It's a new call to arms for democratic progressives the world over, to change the direction of the progressive movement(s). I didn't take the time to read the entire manifesto, but I found a lot there that was heartening (even as I tend to maintain disagreement with any number of progressive viewpoints expressed). In fact, some of the declarations almost lead me to believe that there may be some Rovian right-wing trickery afoot. I leave it to the true believers to make that determination. For those who are interested, the website is http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/

The problem is not the judge - it is the laws they are expected to enforce. In our legal system the 'maximum' sentence for any given crime is supposed to apply to the worst examples of the crime so any criminal can ask for a shorter sentence if they can show there are other crimes that were worse. I, like TFB, think this guy deserves to be staked naked on top of a fire ant hill. However, the solution the is to increase the maximum sentance for child abuse to life in prison with no parole. If that was the case, the same judge would have reduced the sentance to 25 years using the same logic. However, I suspect there would still be people who would claim the judge was too lenient even in that case. What sort of person reviews two cases of child rape and assigns a weight to them? Why can't they all be regarded as "the worst"? Any adult who is sexually attracted to children (and I mean pre-pubescent children here, not sexually active teenagers) is incorrigible and should be classified as a dangerous offender on their first conviction and put away forever, or until such a time as a method of treatment is developed that changes their predilections. (Which, needless to say, will never happen - even if the possibility existed in theory, development of such a treatment would be vigorously fought against by homosexuals on the grounds that they too might be forced to undergo it as well.)