BHS

It's only astonishing if one buys all of your arguments. I don't. As I've mentioned before, Jews and Palestinian Arabs are very closely genetically related. This is not a case of transplanted Europeans dominating put-upon locals of an entirely different genetic lineage. The Jews find their genetic ancestry springing from the area surrounding the Dead Sea. While you may get a kick out of barking about "whites" dominating "dark skinned hordes" this simply isn't the case. It is rather a case of ethnicism, which while damning (I'll admit) doesn't have the same visceral effect as accusing the nation of racism, which is why you opt for the latter. That, and the entire ME is full of ethnic strife, of which the case of the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs is but one case. But getting all hotted up about how the Hashemites mistreat their Palestinian majority isn't really your forte, is it? So, the Jews helped South Africa build nuclear reactors, which I'll note didn't result in nuclear armed Afrikaaners. I guess they beat the Candu people in our own Government of Canada out on that contract. Which is a solid guess on my part, considering how we otherwise helped many third world governments down the nuclear proliferation road. In this regard we're certainly in no position to question Israel's choice in client states. Also, I haven't read one, one, single defense of apartheid on any conservative blog or other website in the five years that I've reading blogs. If such defenses exist they are certainly not held by main stream conservatives. For you to throw that line in as if it were a common conservative viewpoint at the end of your post is utter bs. And hypocritical, when you consider that the opposite scenario, say, the leftist defense of Castro's Cuba and the monstrous Che Guevera, is commonplace on lefty blogs.

Further to the earlier repartee on this thread, here's Mickey Kaus' take on what McCain might do in 2008: http://www.slate.com/id/2142693/ (second item)

The more important question is; how high will the investigation go up the chain of commands? Good God. Do you honestly believe that the higher-ups ordered the troops to avenge the deaths of their fellow marines by massacring women and children?

This suggests that any change in values must be unidirectional. I disagree, though I favour the more modern definitions. This is ridiculous. A lot of values, outside of religion, are based on faith or gut feeling or common sense. Political decisions are as often as not based on emotions as they are rationality. Environmental concerns are based almost entirely on the irrational concept that the environment as it presently exists must be kept in stasis for the rest of eternity. Are you saying Bush shouldn't promote environmental concerns? This is wrong in two ways. i) "Christian values" are not "Christianity". Promoting any set of ethical or moral values does not inherently mean promoting any belief system that may have informed them. ii) As often as not, "Christian values" are entirely compatible with the values cherished by other religions, and so promoting "Christian values" necessarily means promoting at least some of the values held by, say, Muslims. In fact, I leave it to you to point out which are the values specifically ascribed to by Christians that Muslims might find offensive. On the other side of the same coin, suggesting that he promote no religious values whatsoever means that he promote no ethical or moral values whatsoever by default, as any given moral or ethical value set is a probable subset of some pre-existing religious values set. I'm not entirely against the idea that the government should keep it's nose out of legislating morality, but why are these arguments only brought up when a Republican is in the White House, or when Christianity is the informing system of belief?

This is the first thread I found on the topic of global warming, so I'm posting this link here: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_a...sponse_to_.html Scott Burgess is an American blogger living in England. He's been having a bit of a back and forth with a reporter for the Independant about global warming, and about the work of Bjorn Lomborg in particular. I've changed my mind about the nature of global warming recently, and what Scott explains as his own beliefs on the matter in this post is more or less in line with what I currently believe, for those who care to know.

What "our forces" might you be referring to?

What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying private property causes theft? Isn't that like saying beauty causes jealousy? If that's your opinion, perhaps the world could be made a better place by disfiguring beautiful people. Only one of the examples August provided was of copper being stolen from private property. Is theft of public property not a crime? What you're saying here is that wealth is zero-sum: if one person is made wealthy, it is only because many others have been rendered poor in the process. This is provably untrue, and one of the most popular canards repeated by socialists who don't understand basic economics. Briefly: your wealth exists because other people place value on the things you possess (real property, personal property, specialized skills, etc.) that make you wealthy. In other words, skills and possesions do not have intrinsic value as concerns wealth creation. If other people did not value your skills and possessions you would not have any wealth. The value of possessions is arbitrary and transitory over time, such that what is valuable today might become valueless tomorrow and vice versa. That some people have more possessions or skills that others is not the point. Wealth creation is circular in nature, such that having wealth affords more opportunities to accrue further wealth. But the rich getting richer cannot be said to occur soley at the cost of the poor becoming poorer. That theft and abuse of power are methods for accumulating the material goods that may constitute wealth does not mean that wealth can only be accumulated by this method, or even that this is the primary way in which wealth is generated. Again, stealing leads to zero wealth creation if the property stolen is of no value to outside parties. A wealthy society is wealthy because it's people both inside and outside of that society place a higher premium on the holdings and labour of members of that society than those outside of that society, and NOT because that society has "stolen" wealth from outsiders. The stock market is a good example of the nature of wealth creation. The fiscal value of stocks is established directly on an ongoing basis by the value that investors assume for a given company. Enormous amouts of value can be created and lost in a single session based on nothing more than arbitrary assumptions. Wealth creation is also directly analogus to law creation. Both rely on a strong civil society to succeed. A large portion of society must follow the assumption that it is to their own individual benefit to recognize the value that others place on i) obeying laws and ii) assigning broadly recognized fiscal value to particular holdings and skills. Without those recognitions laws and wealth cease to have meaning within that society. That the US imposes tarriffs on steel products is contrary to NAFTA. It is wrong of them to do so. It is debatable whether we should play this game as well, but doing so on a regular basis means scrapping NAFTA in practice.

Here's a link to the Act: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statute...ish/94t10_e.htm There's nothing in there regulating smoking in a private home or car where children are present. Whether or not a court would still see such smoking as child endangerment is another matter. Sahara: your healthcare worker can refuse to come to your home under the new law, regardless of the government's responsibility to provide you with health care. Something to consider next time she asks you not to smoke. crazymf: you can still smoke out on the street, so I imagine you can smoke out in some scrubby tract of Crown land. I believe the prohibition is limited to any enclosed public space. scriblett: good question about the truck driver. The question boils down to: is the truck his workplace or his residence? If he doesn't own the truck that he's driving he's out of luck. If he owns the truck, the law might still apply, depending on whether he's driving or resting in the sleeper. But of course, an unlawful act that is too difficult prove in court to is more or less unenforceable, so as long as he doesn't admit to smoking while driving he's pretty much bulletproof.

Presumably, for the same reason you're posting. To be a nuisance. Refresh my memory: was Harper asked about the story, or was he just commenting out of hand? If he was asked, and he'd said, "No comment", would you appreciate his tact or would you rag on him for being secretive? I mean, aren't you one of the people beaking about him not talking to the media? Also, who gives a rat's rectum what Iran thinks? "Touchy diplomacy" my foot. When did their opinions, and our diplomatic relationship with them, come to be of any significance whatsoever, aside from us keeping them from nuking Israel and Western Europe, and not killing our reporters? How come our Prime Minister can't make comment about a newspaper article that illustrates what a bunch of troglodytes they have for a government in Iran, but the Amadinejhad can rail on endlessly about how evil Western civilization is, how we're all the Little Satans to America's Great Satan? Why are you defending these people? It's almost like you'd rather be over on their side.

So, an accurate and well-sourced accounting Murtha's own words and actions now counts as a personal attack against him? Is that how lowly we are to view him, as if he has he become a parody of himself? And this is the guy you're arguing we should view as the unvarnished, unpartisan flag-bearer of truth?

If you read Adam Parfrey's Apocalypse Culture (1990 edition) you'll find letters written by people with schizophrenia who believe that every facial expression they see on the news is a secret coded message meant for them. I think a lot of unmedicated schizophrenics must be posting comments on the blog you linked to. The first comment reads, and I quote: "he is the spawn of satan." That pretty much sets the tone for every comment that comes after it.

Thanks gerry. I don't think I need to post any more here at this point.

Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's rip the caskets open when they unload them from the transports and splash the images of the war dead across the national news! Then press freedom will be completely complete!!!

Reagan was neither senile nor dim-witted when he was elected. He accomplished many of his goals, even with a Democratic Congress. In retrospect he is a highly regarded former President. Even those who despised him at the time have to admit that their predictions of calamity were wrong, and that he made few mistakes in his eight years in office. Schwarzenegger speaks better English than Chretien does. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Schwarzenegger are the political heirs of the Barry Goldwater Republicans. Chretien and Martin are the political heirs of the Pierre Trudeau Liberals. Which party, which country, made out better in the long run? That you have a higher regard for the lawyers who typically infest politics than for citizens from other professions is your issue to deal with. Also, Reagan was governor of California before becoming president. Saying they elected an actor President is akin to saying the Bank of Montreal hired a paperboy as CEO.

rover: You got the story mixed up. The incident has been under investigation for two months. The investigation is nearly completed. The general was sent Iraq to 'steady his charges" - in other words, to boost the moral of marines not involved in the incident. lost: I Googled "CNN white phosphorus". This is the first item that came up in the search, a CNN story about white phosphorus use in Iraq from November 2005. If they aren't reporting the story using exactly the details and terminology that you would prefer, it might be because your prefered sources are full of bs.

First of all, the only poll that counts for anything is the one that is open to all Americans. Saying that asking carefully worded questions of a random sampling of the public is definitive of public sentiment is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to mislead. 71% of American's don't "hate" George Bush. You're turning political disagreement into a broadly held personal sentinment to justify your own emotional response to the man. The Armed Forces are only an option for adults. There is no conscription. The service personel who are in Iraq chose to be there. When their tours end they are re-upping and going back. The wishes of their parents have nothing to do with this. America did not send it's children off to war. Suggesting that the parents of soldiers are no longer willing to do so is a denigration to the free-willed, responsible decisions of their sons and daughters to follow through on a cause that they believe in. It's positively ghastly that RMC prefers to hand out it's honorary doctorates to failures like Zinni when there are so many more deserving American officers that they deliberately ignore. The only quote you provide from Zinni himself proves how far off of the mark he was. By any rational assessment the war in Iraq has been the most successful military intervention in the history of the world. Saying that the "neo-cons" have never been proven on the ground is completely wrong. (Note to BD: half a million troops isn't "gutted".)

rogue state: You're talking through your hat. The article you linked to as "evidence" that Europe has a more efficient economy is nothing but short snippets of opinion from ordinary people who haven't given any thought to what the ecomonic repercussions of their dream work conditions would actually entail. Not only does it not prove your point, it makes you look ridiculous. It's like answering a serious question about public policy by saying you're in favour of yogic flying and group hugs. The main reason that Europe is crying out for foreign labour is that the key countries typically have double digit unemployment. There aren't enough jobs to go around for the people who are already there. In France high unemployment is driven by the fact that employers face a strong disincentive to new hiring. France recently attempted to reform it's labour laws in an attempt to reduce youth unemployment. Riots ensued and the government backed down. Not only did this episode not fix the problem, it made it worse. The rioters know that their tactic works. Furthermore, WWII is not "ancient history". The events of WWII have a direct, linear connection to the state of affairs in Europe and the Middle East today. As I pointed out, the low immigration levels during the war are the only existing example of the circumstances you're talking about, and if anything they prove the opposite of what you're saying. Dismissing the events of a mere five decades ago as "ancient history" does nothing to strengthen your argument. It makes your argument look weaker.

Every post you've made in this thread has blown the importance of this story way out of proportion. Now, you accuse me of changing the subject with one breath (without any regard for the explanation I provided for doing so) while changing the subject yourself in the next. Turning this into a Jewish conspiracy does kind of make sense, though. I get the feeling it might have been your underlying motivation all along.

So here's a tangental question: would this guy end up being mummified up there? Is there enough bacteria activity to decomposed a body, or would it just dehydrate? In other words, is this guy's corpse going to be acting like a landmark and keeping climbers company for the next thousand years?

Interesting. The Dems have proven themselves quite expert a redistricting as well (when they get the opportunity) and yet seats in both chambers do change hands. If Democrats were truly concerned about the redistricting issue they make a major case out of it. But of course they don't, at least not above the grass roots level.

The Nazis were the acme of European technological and organisational achievement in the early to mid 20th century. They also enslaved huge numbers of people. Your argument suggesting that achievement in one sphere necessarily negates the need for the other holds no water. Anglo countries are among the most technologically advanced on Earth. There's nothing done in Continental Europe that isn't done in the Anglosphere. Your contention that Anglo economies would "stop functioning" without immigration goes completely against actual historical events. During the Second World War North American immigration grounded to a halt, and yet military spending and the integration of women into the workforce pulled the economy out of what had been it's worst period of depression up until that point. The economy actually improved without immigration. Find me one example where decreased immigration caused attributable economic problems. (Note: Let me reiterate that I'm actually in favour of increased immigration.) Your final contention, that the European economy(ies) is/are more efficient is hogwash. Please provide the GNP data or whatever other analysis you can find that proves otherwise.

America's leaders of the early 20th century saw the looming disaster of socialism that today's Euro leaders can't even recognize in hindsight, even as they continue to wallow in it. That they also fail to see that Americans are even less likely to fall for "socialism through the back door" a hundred years later is illustrative of their retarded parochialism.

While I sympathize with Harper wanting to stick it to the media, I think this whole strategy is going to backfire on him in the long run. He'd be better off playing by the journos' rules, and getting humourous and contemptuous little digs in at their expense as opportunities present themselves. On the other hand, this is an interesting test case for conservative leaders throughout the West. If Harper can get away with ignoring the wants and needs of the news media he might start a trend. He may even provoke a paradigm shift in government / media relations.

Your second, fourth and fifth points are all inter-related and tied to the first. There is no possible way you can attribute them to Presidential action. There is nothing a President can to to make these things happen directly. He/she simply doesn't have that sort of control over the economy, and more than he/she has control over the weather. A President can take actions that will directly impede economic growth. He/she can also take actions that lay the groundwork for future economic growth. It is to Clinton's credit that he didn't screw with the economy enough to wreck it. His time was taken with screwing up other things. Your third point point ties indirectly to the first, in that prosperity and criminal activity are inversely related. In any case, it's far more likely that American law enforcement's habit of throwing criminals in jail, taking them off of the streets, had more to do with a reduction in crime rates than anything Clinton did. Note too that he and Hillary were both concerned about high incarceration rates, as if there was no connection between putting offenders in jail and the reduction in the rates of offences. Your sixth point is a good one. I have no complaint about paying down debt. As Alan Greenspan once said, (I paraphrase) paying down debt like putting money in the bank. It reduces your debt servicing charges and you can always borrow the money back again in the case of an emergency. Your seventh point is flat wrong. Ronald Reagan ran up the biggest deficit in US history in 1987. Since there were five intervening, smaller deficits between 1987 and Clinton's first budget, it's not possible for Clinton to have gone from the largest deficit to the largest surplus. But I quibble.

Because, believe it or not, genocide is very difficult to prove as a criminal matter. Heads of states, particularly authoritarian states, have enormous power to pass laws that justify their actions and to otherwise cover their tracks. The world is aware of some of what went on in Iraq. We are aware that Saddam committed acts that we consider genocide against broad segments of the citizenry nominally under his protection. Ironically, it is because we "know" that Saddam is a genocidal tyrant that any criminal trial focused on him is a farce. For a trial to be just and to have meaning, there has to be a presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. There has to exist the possibility that the accused will walk out of court a free man, and that society will accept the court's decision to set him free. In this case, the court has decided to go with a single event that occurred, where there is bountiful evidence and testimony, because it will be easier to "prove" Saddam's "criminality". But we already know that Saddam will be found guilty. There is no other acceptable outcome. A trial that results in a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence and testimony presented occurs in what is called a "kangaroo court" because it jumps from accusation to sentencing without the need for all the tricky middle bits. It is a travesty of justice. We insist on having trials for dictators because the formal familiarity of the courtroom eases our conscience, and becuase we don't have the stomach for the rougher justice they deserve. It would be better to have a truth and reconcilliation tribunal for the people of Iraq to air their grievances against Saddam, and to end it with his summary execution. Because really, that's what his trial (such as it is) will amount to, except that it will take longer, cost more, and tarnish the good reputation of courtly justice in the process. We need, as an international community, to realize that it is faulty to confuse genocidal tyranny with common criminality. No matter how many people he kills, no matter what his twisted motives may be, the worst serial killer is incapable of genocide. This is a barbarity reserved soley for people who hold the reigns of the State. It does us no good to treat Saddam as we would a criminal, because by the nature of his position he was far beyond what even the worst criminal could be. (PS: For those of you already thinking that you'd like to see this argument applied to GWB, I say go for it. I would enjoy seeing a country like, say, Greece trying to arrest and summarily execute an American President for genocide. It goes without saying that my entire argument rests on a warm, freshly baked crust of Victor's Justice. Incidentally, so does the current trial. But to get to the point where Victor's Justice applies you first need a victory. And, damned unfair though it may be, there isn't going to be that kind of victory for whinging, hypocritical, irresponsible little pissant Euro-weeny states against the US any time soon.)