BHS

So what you're saying is that if he was ordered to deploy for an illegal war, it would be his responsibility to disobey? For "shooting an unarmed man" I'll take the most extreme scenario, where a soldier shoots a civilian who is clearly unarmed and cooperative for no apparent reason. Such an act is against the Geneva Conventions and is agains the rules of modern warfare ("illegal"). As I iterated in my previous post, you have no evidence of the "illegality" of this war. In fact, existing Security Council resolutions clearly allow for the Iraq invasion, a fact which none of the Security Council member nations ever seriously disputed. (France, Russia and China were of the opinion that further resolutions should be made on top of those already existing, whether they were necessary or not.) So you're trying to build a logical arguement using two incompatible scenarios.

Um, who sits in judgement as to whether the US military has met it's commitments? I don't recall that decision coming down from any international body with an official capacity to render such a decision. The only international body that has the ability to authorize war in an international capacity is the UN Security Council, which authorized the use of any and all necessary means (including invasion) to see to it that Iraq comply with the ceasefire agreement of 1991. Iraq provided casus belli numerous times after the ceasefire was signed. It was fully legitimate for the US to invade the country and confirm that Iraq was in compliance, which is what has happened. (If you think this is a rough and terrible way to handle international relations, it is. It's also often the only way to get the job done. Here's hoping the international community gets around to performing a similar act of rough justice in Sudan before the janjaweed finish their job. Or do you think they'll just stop once they've had their fill of rape and murder?) Besides which, all of this talk of international law constraining war or defining a particular military action as "illegal" is meaningless. The concept of international law is itself predicated on the the idea that signatories face international sanctions, including war, if they fail to live up to their agreements. There is no such thing as a legitimate international governing authority, other than the UN (which is an international governing body in the same way that an Elks lodge is a municipal town council). There is no International Constitution (other than the UN Charter, which is a nifty set of outdated idealisms, but doesn't carry any meaningful legal weight). Some may read the above paragraphs and think, "But what about the International Criminal Court in the Hague?" What indeed? The US doesn't recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court over it's own citizens. Period. It's against their law to cede such authority to an outside judiciary. So, if the ICC were to decide that the United States acted illegally when prosecuting a war, it wouldn't mean anything to the Americans unless you actually started rounding up American diplomats and charging them. Which the Americans would consider an act of war, regardless of the opinions and motives of the ICC's supporters. And good luck with that. The only people who have ended up in the ICC are people who were sent with the consent of their own governments. If you'd like to prosecute a sitting dictator for genocide, you pretty much have to do it in absentia, which is a meaningless waste of time if you refuse to do what it takes to go and get him, and there's no possibility he's ever going to be arrested. War is the basest form of international relations. It's the physical solution for a conflict for which talk has provided no satisfactory resolution. It's ugly and horrible, but it does resolve the dispute.

Congratulations! Enjoy this time, it passes quickly! I hereby swear to be no less civilized than usual.

Okay, fine. Your opinion appears to be that young students who go to medical school in Canada should be under no illusion that they have any more freedom to choose their work conditions than social workers (absolutely) or of teachers (in the majority)*. But how does forcing the entire profession directly onto the government payroll (as opposed to the current pay-per-service model) improve the situation? For the life of me, I can't see any potential for improvement at all. *Acknowledging that social workers can choose which city to live in and which level or branch of government to work for, and likewise that teachers apply directly to the particular public school board that eventually employs them.

I don't know what you're talking about. Clinton wasn't in a wheelchair...and what do wheelchairs have to do with being a chickenhawk? Didn't you ever watch Foghorn Leghorn? Must be a more local concept than I realized. When I was in highschool, we referred to really good pot as "wheelchair weed". You see, Clinton and FDR were Democrats and therefore, by the common formulation, "liberals". The chickenhawk smear is directed specifically at conservatives who are in favour of military action but who've never served in uniform. My post points out two things: that liberals are as likely to make war without the requisite personal experience as are conservatives, and (indirectly) that if only those who served were allowed to make military decisions, the likelihood is that those decisions would only be made by Republicans. Just something to chew on.

I don't feel guilty for having tons of crap and a big house to put it in; I feel guilty for others, through no fault of their own, who don't have a chance for anything other than a bleak day-to-day struggle in a gang-infested neighbourhood. I'm talking specifically about mentally and physically disabled people who don't have the chance to make a decent living for themselves--not 22-year-old guys who don't want to work at Burger King because it's beneath them. That's why I don't mind paying the taxes I do, so long as they're directed efficiently enough to take care of those who really need it. And, presumably, not paying for wine tasting junkets to Iceland for 60 or so of Canada's self-described "elites".

You're the second member of this forum I've seen arguing for higher taxes from a position of wealth, against people who live modest lives and would prefer the government keep their hands out of their pockets no matter what "benefits" it offers in return. The other one is Err. Maybe you two should hang out or something.

There are other programs, outside of basic welfare, to assist people who are truly incapable of taking responsibility of their own financial health. The term "nanny state", as it is most commonly used among righties, refers to a model of government that would make children of us all, and is in no way intended to denegrate the needy in particular.

Please, say it ain't so. Only the most ardent Castro fart-catcher would see forcing doctors into a payed slavery arrangement with the state as an improvement. Which the junkies routinely avoid, prefering, as I stated, to slam junk closer to "home" and away from authority.

I agree. We used to have safety nets to keep mentally ill people from living on the streets. Then the definitions for voluntary and involuntary treatment were redefined, giving the mentally ill the right to choose whether or not to be treated, and now the only way to get them into help and healthcare is to wait until they try to harm themselves or others. In Ontario, anyway. See The Mental Health Act RSO 1990.

That's true they are often republican (at least the white ones), but hey, they signed up to be in the U.S. Army. I didn't say they were bright. It would be interesting to know how many soldiers in Iraq still think the war is a good idea, but we're not allowed to know that. Add another slander to the pile. We don't know now how they feel, but we will in time. Those soldiers will return to civilian life and will be free to reminisce about their experiences in whichever way they choose. Will they be John Kerrys, or will they be Swift Vets? Time will tell.

So, eye care and dental (and theraputic massage and ear candling and others ad nauseum)are to be added to the list of things fully covered by government spending, and this will improve how the system works? Somehow I get the feeling that the unwritten part of this paragraph involves tax brackets climbing to 90+% to pay for the increased services. Oh, if only we were more like the blessed Swedes! I don't recall anyone on the pro-capitalism side saying anything about the market correcting inequalities. That's not a function of the market, that's a function of government intervention. (Aside: most socialist schemes I've seen ultimately boil down to easing the suffering of the less fortunate by increasing the suffering of everyone else, so that the difference is less stark. As in our beloved health care system.) What if we don't have don't have enough military capacity to meet our UN requirements, as is currently the case? By your reasoning, I guess it's time to increase defence spending, nah? I'm all for legalizing pot. Heck, I'm halfway to legalizing heroin. But I don't think that, to paraphrase Trudeau, "the government has no business in the opium dens of the nation". You suggest that people be allowed to ingest at will in their homes. Fine. Homeless people live in parks, and the notion of equality holds that they have the right to behave in the park where your kids play at 2 in the afternoon the way you behave in your livingroom after your kids are safely ensconced in bed at grandma & grandpas'. Is that okay with you? You'd better be sure. The law of unforeseen consequences always applies.

What if defending Canada means, as it has traditionally meant, defending Canada's interests and the interests of our allies overseas? It's an easier decision, to pick up a gun and fight an enemy invading your home town, like in Red Dawn. Are you willing to take up arms to fight a battle in another country, if called to do so?

Hmmm.....false dichotomy?

I thought the chickenhawk insult went out of fashion a couple of years ago, around the time that it was pointed out it just as easily applies to FDR (in a wheelchair, from polio) and WJC (in a wheelchair, from weed). Maybe you slept through that. But then again, maybe I'm not entirely up to date on the ongoing non-trends in liberal rhetoric. It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the American Armed Forces personnel poll overwhelmingly Republican, so apparently Republican "chickenhawkery" is popular among people who walk the walk. That might have something to do with Democrats "supporting the troops" by calling them murderers and rapists (a la Presidential candidate Kerry's well known and unregretted testimony before Congress) and by referring to their mission in the most denegrating, demoralizing terms they can muster.

I've been through this before and I'm not gonna get into it again. Sufice it to say, I think patriotism is a scam designed to give people a reason to die, even as their sacrifice benefits the very people who sent them. to their deaths "Die so that others can profit" just doesn't make for good recruitment slogans. You just made me think of a poem: UPDATE: for those of you not up to speed in Latin, the final line is something like "Sweet and sublime is a death in the name of one's country".

This is, perhaps, the most perfect Black Dog post ever. The Zen of Black Dog. It ties together and explains, in a fundamental way, every post I've ever read from you.

I just need to point out that one of Stephen Harper's so-called five points is a big gawdamn handout. If you support Harper's childcare plan, then you've no business whinging about handouts. It only highlights your hypocricy. Actually, it was a bigger handout proposal than the Liberal's handout proposal. I was disappointed with "going to the left" of the Liberals on spending and childcare in this way, but it did neutralize both issues, making the Conservatives look kinder than what the Liberals were trying to portray them. The "beer and popcorn" gaffe was the final element that made the whole end-run work as well as it did. I wonder how that will look on Scott Reid's political resume. This is partly why I though Layton ran a better campaign - at least when he promises to make a gift of your own money to you, it sits comfortably with his other long-stated values.

This is interesting. If WW3 broke out in the Middle East, do you think that more than 10% leftists (globally) would say anything other than "It's the American Republican party's fault. Let them fix it."? If, on the other hand, WW3 were to start in Europe again, what do you think would trigger it this time? The Big Powers of Europe are more unified than ever under the EU, but I suppose that could change. A more likely scenario is the "clash of civilizations" between European muslims and non-muslims, which would be viscious and bloody from the very outset as both sides are currently intermingled. Personally, I doubt that 10% of any demographic would want to get involved with that one, if they could avoid it. I sure as hell know that I'd be in favour of letting the Europeans sort it out for themselves. I have a feeling that the issue would spread globally anyway, so it probably won't be an option.

I agree. Much as I dislike his politics, I thought Layton ran the best campaign of all of the leaders and I was surprised that the NDP didn't do better at the Liberals' expense. The Libs are a spent force, and they know it. Look at how all of the potential heavy hitter candidates to replace PMPM have said "no thanks". Maybe Graham will end up keeping the job after all, unless he bales too. I wonder what Michael Ignatieff is thinking right now. My earlier prediction was that the Conservatives would win a minority, face continual harrassment and obstructionism from the Opposition, and go down in defeat after 2 years or so, to be replaced by another Liberal majority. Now it looks as though the Liberals aren't up for the job. The infighting that brought Martin to power was a prelude (perhaps) for a period of the Liberals being lost in the woods. The Liberals actually did better in the election than many pundits (both left and right) predicted, and it seems ironic that they now look so weak. Here's my updated prediction: If the Liberals can't get unified under a strong new leader with the traditional media back onside within the next 6 months, they will continue to lose seats to both the Conservatives and the NDP in the next election, resulting in a likely Conservative majority. They absolutely have to begin attacking Harper as soon as possible if there's to be any hope for them. (Aside: Harper's likely defense against this strategy is his election strategy reprised: to play it cool, stay away from anything the least bit controversial, and give the fledgling Liberal caucus enough hyperbolic rope to hang themselves.)

Yeah, I know. I'm jumping into this thread way too late to be relevant. Oh well. Couldn't let this one slip by. I've seen variations of this sentiment expressed around the web (or at least those portions I'm familiar with). Here's my reply: Sure, I probably won't ever fully realize the maximum benefit that conservative economic policies might bring.* But I still aspire to be wealthy (or at least comfortable, which by global standards means wealthy). To take the most benefit from socialist economic policies I would have to completely reverse my aspirations, and be as helpless and pathetic a person as possible. So, wealth and comfort, or decrepitude. Seems like an easy choice, when picking your aspirations. *Barring, of course, the effect an economic policy geared toward wealth creation has on the overall economy (including my part of it) versus the effect of an economic policy geared toward making as many citizens as possible dependant upon the state's largesse to one degree or another. (Hint: I think the former is more positive than the latter, from the perspective of any taxpaying citizen, myself included. And since a wealth-generating economy is inherently more capable of generating tax revenue than one geared toward government dependence, it helps the welfare cases in the long run more as well.)

I say, bring on the headless clones. Seriously. I have no problem with organ farming at all; I don't even know why it's an issue. Doctors in France recently removed the face of a living (well, braindead) person for transplant - how can growing a mindless corpse for medical consumption be any worse?

Except that Ted Kennedy is an elected Senator who has a constitutional responsibility to provide or withhold consent based on his best judgment. Not only does he "deserve" a response, but he is entitled to one and damn-sight sure better get one from the nominee. You're not doing any favors to anybody by muddying the waters with boring (not to mention hypocritical) rants about how "degenerate" Kennedy is. He's not in the chair seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the USA and you'll have plenty of opportunities to take your grievances to voters in the next MA Senate election -- something that none of us will have after Alito is confirmed and turns out to be a dreadful and unethical jurist (as seems virtually certain). You also are setting precedent for later on, when a Senate Majority leader Ted Kennedy can set ground rules to ensure that President Hillary Clinton's nomination of Janet Reno to Chief Justice can be rushed through with similar rhetoric against Republican Senators who express concerns as part of THEIR job in the Senate. I was going to post something snarky about your clairvoyant abilities with regards to Justice Alito's future decisions, but when I got to the part about "Senate Majority leader Ted Kennedy" I figured I probably couldn't say anything worse about your ESP than you'd already written yourself. Does your vision of the future include Karl Rove being made into some sort of furniture? Or perhaps giant alien squirrels enslaving mankind? (I, for one, welcome our new rodent overlords.)

Granted, all. Just be careful who you lump in with partisan Republicans. There are a lot of people currently on the fringes of the Republican camp, who were Democrats before and are looking for a way to jump back to that ship, whose advice for the Dems is genuine. I didn't mean to imply that you were. "I think better of the Dems than you do of the Republicans" was meant only to convey that I don't experience the revulsion you do, which I guess from your point of view makes sense, as you dislike both parties (perhaps considering them too much alike?). 1) I guess we can go ahead and get rid of the CBC, since you've effectively rebutted it's raison d'etre. (Yay!) 2) I take free media to include anyone who expresses their opinion publicly by whatever means are available to them. The laws protecting the media apply to all of the citizenry on equal terms. (The current brouhaha in the US about journalists claiming a privilege for protecting their sources is a matter for another thread.) For Peter Mansbridge the media is his perch on the CBC and his columns in Macleans. For you and me it's this political forum and our blogs (or whatever else you endeavour in). You may denegrate the latter, but the internet has had (and will increasingly have) a role in the free expression and spread of political idea(l)s. We're just early adapters. (Or, we're CB radio geeks who haven't figured out yet that we're actually objects of ridicule. You decide.) 3) I know you're concerned about low voting levels, and that concern arises from your feeling that people are disaffected with the political process. I assume that you vote, and perhaps your concern and your efforts make you unusual. Also, I don't buy that you can be bought off with propaganda, and perhaps that makes you unusual too. Are the two ways that you're unusual connected? If enough people are like you, does that not make a difference? If so, how many is "enough"? 4) I'm trying to figure out your last point. I think you're referring to the Romans going from an elected Senate to an imperial dictatorship, and perhaps to post Great War Germany sinking into Nazism. I don't agree that either of the two situations bare enough resemblance to today's US to make the analogy work.

What's the difference between a commentator and someone who's merely opinionated? I guess, that a commentator gets paid for her opinion. Which is what Coulter does. I don't know of anyone who emulates Coulter. She certainly emulates others, many of whom write for the comments section on Kos, and Zuniga himself. If you want to read vile bile, that's a good place to start looking. As I've said before, it's easy for me to imagine Coulter switching sides and attacking Republicans without missing a beat, based strictly on her style. Howard Stern has had his moments of comic genius, but they're buried under heaping mounds of crap. I don't understand why anyone would consider him a liberal though. He practically worshipped Giuliani. His anti-conservative stance is directed at the christian control freaks and their enablers in the FCC, a stance which is for him mostly self-interested (as opposed to idealistic).