BHS

Can anyone remember the last president that was NOT criticized??? There was that guy who died after thirty days in office, but I think people criticized his lack of stamina.

The horrors of global warming revealed: red salmon in Alaska outpacing maximum return rates.

gc: (also, newbie) My apologies. I've gone back looking for the deficit information I found last year and have been unable to locate it. I didn't link to it at the time. It seems my information was incorrect in any case, and that in unadjusted dollar values the current President has the highest deficits on record. Though interestingly, I've found another link that suggests Reagan's budget deficits composed the largest percentage of GDP. Though, surfing around, those figures also seem to be in some dispute.

By invading Iraq? Call it the Pax Americana. By not allowing a re-count in Florida? That's democracy? In Canada, there would have been an automatic recount. Come on gc. There were three recounts in Florida, all of which confirmed that Bush won. The SC decision meant that there could not be unlimited recounts because of time constraints on certifying a result. Further, a private organisation paid for another state-wide recount (after the vote had been certified) and it confirmed again that Bush had won. With record-breaking deficits? Sure the economy is doing alright, but it's doing so on borrowed money. That money will have to be repaid, and that will hurt the economy. Not record-breaking. Reagan still holds the record from his 1987 deficit. Anyway, this argument is largely driven by people who, if given the option, would outspend Bush and for whom stratospheric deficits used to be justified by a lop-sided Keynsian economic viewpoint (back before they completely fell out of power). Bush cut taxes for everybody...but much more so for high income people, not low income families. So? The people who pay the most into the IRS' coffers are paying a little less, which only makes sense. A tax break that cuts across the progressive board is by it's nature going to have a larger effect on thos who pay the most taxes. Besides which, those living under the poverty line already pay almost no federal income tax, and so handing them their own seperate tax break is largely meaningless. And killed over 100,000 people at a cost of $300 billion? With no end in sight, and possible civil war? That same 300 billion dollars could have saved a lot more lives if spent effectively. I could write pages about how the iraq war was a bad idea, but I will keep in concise. You're going to have to do better than relying on made-up statistics for how many civilians have died. Civil war, by the way, would mean that the Americans had pulled out: it won't happen until they've left, and so "with no end in sight, and a possible civil war" is oxymoronic from an American standpoint. The 300 billion being spent other ways and "saving lives" is a pipe dream and ultimately self-defeating: American vigilence and defense spending has made the world a safer place for the democratic West. American isolationism would be essentially handing the world over the the most insane and agressive regimes. Pol Pot killed a million people for crimes such as being too educated. Imagine a world full of Khmer Rouges. Only if americans drastically change their opinions of bush, considering his approval rating is so low. Agreed. During his first administration I felt that history would overlook some of his weaker aspects in favour of his strength of purpose in the fight against terrorism. Ironically, his success in taking the terrorism fight back to it's roots has left him enough room to screw everthing else up so badly that even his base is turning on him. (The anti-war anti-Bush people love to jump on the assumption bandwagon and pretend that his low approval ratings are only related to foreign policy. Not true, at all. Foreign policy is the only thing keeping his approval ratings up and away from zero. It's his non-stop bungling of domestic politics that have driven once loyal supporters out of his camp. His approval ratings split neatly along 2004 voting patterns until the Harriet Myers fiasco.)

Maybe Al-Qaeda simply employs better security techniques than the current White House administration Well, the incentives are right. If you out the secret programs of a Presidential Administration unpopular among the blueblood coastal press, and you get caught, you're the toast of the blue states and an in-demand talk show commodity. If you out the secret plans of Al Qaeda, and you get caught, you're just toast. As much as a headless, raped and tortured corpse can be considered a metaphor for a breakfast foodstuff.

Apparently she spends quite a bit of time in Australia these days. Tim Blair has had a lot of posts on his blog about her.

This calls to mind a second and somewhat more important question: does a change in election procedure require a change in the Charter? If so, do the Liberals have the authority to make that change? Could the change then be subject to an SCC challenge? I took the time to breeze over the Elections Act for the Province of Ontario. It appears to assume that the first-past-the-post system is a given, and merely regulates the nuts and bolts of holding elections under that system.

Dunno. My guess is that in some meetings the membership is completely ethical in repeating what medical information they know, and in others they'll tell a newly dry member anything that it takes to keep them sober. True, this is pure conjecture on my part, but without a system of certification how can anyone prove otherwise? Is anyone being advised or ordered to attend this counselling by legal or medical professionals? Or are people seeking it for their own piece of mind? What you're talking about here is curtailing free speech rights. If these counselling places are giving out medical information that is demostrably false, they should be held to account for that. Perhaps certification is in order, but you still haven't proven to me that AA shouldn't also be certified for the same reasons. Well, the first thing a newly dry person hears at an AA meeting is that they suffer from a disease (a diagnosis is presented). Then they are told that by strictly adhering to the proposed course of action (treatment) they can overcome this disease. This despite the fact that an actual diagnosis of alcoholism according to DSM IV requires a good deal more in the way of symtomatic behaviour than merely admitting you are an alcoholic. Adding to the first answer above, I'm pretty sure that the DSM IV definition of alcoholism isn't brought up at a lot of meetings.

Russia and China are on the security council, and both are unrepentant killers of millions of their own citizens. As has been pointed out, the Americans flattened two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands in both instances. Britain carpet bombed Germany mercilessly, and France is only on the council as a swing vote because they have no measureable sense of loyalty to anyone other than themselves. If you go back far enough, nearly every nation has engaged in disgraceful activites of one form or another. For the record, I think expanding the Security Council is a bad idea no matter who you propose to add to it.

Your characterization of AA is correct, to my knowledge, but it's also irrelevant. I don't think that I've added ambiguity by pointing out that part of the AA philosophy includes a cherry-picked smattering of medical knowledge, and that both the legal and medical communities have been known to advise patients to seek counselling from that group. Abortion is for pregnant and want not to be. It's elective. Counselling for people who are considering need not include a certifiable medical opinion of the patient's unique prognosis. Again, since both groups are offering medically-based counselling (without genuine medical opinions) on subjects that are medical in nature, how can you argue that one group needs certification whereas the other does not?

Procedural or Constitutional changes regularly require a "super-majority" in modern democratic systems because of their importance. They aren't flavour-of-the-month legislation; they are intended to be long-term and consequently require a greater measure of agreement for their implementation. Furthermore, we're talking about a referendum here, aren't we? As in, a non-binding plebiscite to determine public opinion? Does it really matter what arbitrary rules the government chooses to apply to a glorified opinion poll?

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that both the legal and medical communities regard AA as a legitimate form of group therapy, to the extent that both communities advise and/or order individuals to attend the program? And that AA does present a quasi-medical view of addiction as part of that therapy?

wth? You're comparing Bush to Bill Clinton now? Bush has f'd up the USA, it's sense of self, it's relationship with the world, it's legal ethics, Iraq, terrorism, the list could go on. He's the most arrogant and power-grubbing and just plain WORSE President EVER. His simplistic "visions" are messing up the planet. You could put that on a poll question and get about 65% of Americans agreeing with you. So don't even bother. The same level of overblown nonsense that Gerry brings to every thread. Hey Gerry: Trudeau was the worst Canadian Prime Minister ever. He destroyed the whole damn country. We were on par with the Yanks before him, and now we'll forever live in their shadow. He wasn't fit to carry GWB's chamber pot.

The Supreme Court ruled as it did based on the premise that flag burning is protected free speech. As a result, flag burning would only violate an open burning bylaw if the perp had a big pile of flags he was trying to dispose of by burning, but a group of protestors burning flags at a rally would not be violating that bylaw - any charges pressed against them would get tossed.

For what it's worth, here' the Wikipedia entry on global cooling.

(Brackets added.) Holy. I guess I been served.

I don't think AA fits in the same catagory as these "counselling" services. Not to beat a dead horse, but how would you differentiate between different types of counselling services for the purposes of licensing?

If this werein the US, this would be considered "conduct", which is not protected, rather than "speech", which is. You mean conduct like burning a flag?

You're the guy who started it, so do you?

For the second time tonight, I'll remind you that accusing other members of trolling is against forum rules. Besides which, you only started this thread so you could shill for Gore's movie, which is spamming. (Oh goodness - did I just accuse you of spamming? That's also against the rules. Oh well. Maybe two wrongs can make a right, just this once.) Tell it to these people. (I love how the site is called "Al Gore 2008" but the url is "algore04.com". You get a real sense of history from details like that.) You are one of the most nakedly partisan posters I've ever seen on every other thread, so it's just hilarious to see you demand that partisanship be considered verbotten for your own pet topic. Besides which, everyone knows Gore is just using the green movement to climb his way back up the greased pole in Washington, the same as he always has.

Say August, any word on if this scheme is actually working out?

Where else is this topic posted? USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF TROLLING/FLAMING ME. I COULD COPY THE RULES ON TROLLING/FLAMING FOR YOU, BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE RULES SO GO READ THEM AND THEN CEASE YOUR IMMATURE LITTLE GAMES PLEASE. Another little rule you both could profit from hearing again is that calling another member a troll is also forbidden.

Why do I get the feeling that this will lead inexorably to a "free speech" defense at the Supreme Court?

I actually laughed out loud when I read this post. UPDATE: What would have made it even better would have been if you'd ended the post, "GORE FOR PRESIDENT!!!"

Geoffrey: If you're going to slap someone down, only to discover that they've already sidestepped your argument, the least you could do is acknowledge that they've done so. Do you not have anything to say about the evolution rebuttal? Further, I don't see Charles arguing that rape victims are net beneficiaries. I see him arguing that someone of a religious bent could choose to see the life resulting from a rape as God turning lemons into lemonade. Overcoming tragedy by turning it into a source of strength and thereby a means of coping with life's negative aspects is the goal of secular mental therapy, so why should it be argued away if the theraputic guidance is rooted in religious beliefs? Do you not see that as a double standard? Now, as far as using the religious belief to justify a refusal to perform abortions - I'm personally against that. I simply am arguing that a religious viewpoint shouldn't exclude you from the debate.