BHS

I disagree. We can do whatever we want, including changing eating habits, through taxation. Tax the crap out of bad food, just like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, and I don't know what we are waiting for to tax mj, and make the good food available to as much of our society as possible through lower costs to the consumer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And when you've taxed everything there is to tax, and some people still live longer and have happier lives, what will you do then to cut them down to size? Also interesting to note: this proposal goes against notion of a pluralist society, in that it creates another way that wealthy people (who can afford to pay the taxes on luxury foods) have it better than poor people (who have to stick with their government-issue boiled turnip or whatever the latest health fad stipulates).

What you mean by your last sentence has escaped me. What action are you talking about now?

But it's my understanding that you weren't fooled the first time. I'm not willing to give an inch past the notion that these are temporary setbacks, at this point. How many cases can you point out of democracy being obtained freely? America fought for it's democracy in three different wars (the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, and the Civil War to prevent illegal secession of the Confederate states). Britain's long climb from the Magna Charta to the Westminster Parliamentary system was plagued by internal strife (think Oliver Cromwell for instance), and took centuries to achieve. Our own democracy was bestowed upon us by the British, who fought for control of British North America against the French and the Americans. Every other democracy I can think of came into being at the cost of ousting whatever came before it. A democracy can freely vote it's way into tyrrany. It doesn't work the other way around.

So, the first free democratic elections in Iraq's history happened in January of this year, but the world isn't perfect yet, so it was all a big mistake? Isn't that a little hasty? Why not wait a couple of years before you decide that democracy in the Middle East is a right-off, and we're all doomed?

Welcome to reality. No amount of government interference is going to change the fact that some people live long and prosper where others fall short and fail.

Black Dog makes an interesting point, the US is sadly ill-prepared to face a real battle. Also, don't forget, Bush and his warhawks have declared that no other country is allowed to even come close to the US in military capability. If boot is halfway correct, the US has no choice but to strike pre-emptively. But, then again, Boot is probably blowing smoke to sell his commodity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't get how America is unprepared for this, aside from the obvious notion that these techniques are more effective against a country that takes civil liberties seriously. Do you know more about the inner workings of the Pentagon than I do? I guess you must. As for pre-emptive action: the idea is to act pre-emptively before your opponent has nuclear arms. Once the nuclear umbrella is in place there's nothing left but praying that MAD works long enough for your opponent to collapse under his own weight.

Excellent, excellent point kimmy.

What does personal responsibilty have to do with social policy exactly? What exactly offended you about what I said? Do you think that companies should still be able to put arsneic in food? they used to you know. You have something against an informed population maybe? Perhaps its the idea of shifting the balance between the economic viability of healthy foods for less the cost that would be returned in savings on healthcare? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personally, I favour putting arsenic in food. Throw a little warfarin in there while you're at it. For those of us who appreciate freedom, personal responsibility is the preferred alternative to government interference. Why invoke public policy where it's not needed? I love how a socialist health care system naturally leads to greater and greater incursions into the private lives of the citizenry. Nothing's off limits, because everything can potentially affect your health.

Yaro: I gather from your last post that you don't vote NDP because they're a little too far to the right for you. Good luck with ever seeing your views realized. As to your last sentence, the word entitlement implies privilege. Keeping your money or giving it to your children isn't a privilege, at least not until you get into the PMO. It's a right, and it's a cornerstone of the capitalist system.

I think a major factor in US health care costs arises from American tort law. While there is an inherently regulatory benefit in allowing patients to sue doctors and pharmaceutical companies over malpractice and drug failures, the awards that have been granted have done little more than to jack the overall costs for healthcare through the ceiling. I don't see the same thing happening in Canada, due to our history of limiting these sorts of awards.

Do you realize that your views on enviromental catastrophe are tantamount to a religion? Elements of an evil influence, reference to the end of the world, self-assured knowledge of the true pathway to salvation... A little facetious of me, I realize. It's just something that strikes me whenever I read or listen to environmental true believers. And then I wonder about how the seperation of church and state might apply to the environmental movement, and then I giggle delightedly.

Reading this, it occurs to me that you probably don't live in Toronto. No one who's had to contend with rush hour on the Gardiner, and who knows the history of how city council has voted on transportation issues could make a statement like that. That people prefer private transportation to public transportation isn't a scheme cooked up by "corporations". It's the way of the world. When people have the freedom to choose, they often opt for privacy. I'd rather use my own washroom than a public one, even if public toilets are more efficient and better for the environment.

Yeah, cause the only transportation we need is from our stack-a-prole concrete housing structures to the government mill and back again, in a perfect world.

I'd vote Rhino first.

Wouldn't allowing some services to be performed in private facilities take pressure off of the public system? Why do we have to be the only democratic country in the world that insists on government control over health care?

I thought this was a little wonky sounding, so I did a little research. The taliban were organised into the form that we recognise in the mid-90's by Pakistan's ISI. They had previously been smaller, scattered groups, and were only one facet of the mujahadeed forces that fought against the Soviets. If the Americans helped them, it was only as these smaller groups of relatively unorganised guerrilla fighters, and not the scary all-powerful religious zealots we saw in blowing up bhudda statues. taliban

That's not entirely accurate. For one reconizing the integrated nature of the global economy means that total isolationism isn't going to help anyone. I've used the term "constructive engagement" which I can summarize thusly: stop selling arms to repressive and undemocratic regimes (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). Reevaluate the western relationship with Israel. Start trading squarely with countries that do meet some standard for human rights. Offer aid incentives to countries that meet those same standards. All of which must be accompanied by a radical shift in our domestic way of life. Basically I'm saying the west should take George Washington's advice: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, about restricting arms sales to repressive regimes. You might have a tough time convincing the Europeans though. I'm all for re-evaluating our relationship with Israel, but can you point out some specifics? I'm a little gun-shy about trying to read your mind just now. I also agree about trade and aid. Your quote leads me to believe that George Washington would not have approved of America being part of the UN, prefering to remain politically isolated from the rest of the world. Is that consistent with your opinion?

I'm not sure what smoking and eating have to do with freedom of expression. I can understand why people would want to curb smoking (to avoid second hand smoke) but why excessive eating?

Black Dog & mirror: Thanks for the argument. I really do appreciate your views, and your knocking holes in my statements. Black Dog: boiling down your last post, is it fair to say that, moving forward, the best strategy for the West is to pull out completely from the Middle East? mirror: if Black Dog affirms the above, do you concur? I'm going to keep my belief that America's strategy of going into Iraq, while perhaps not justified legally or by immediate historical events, was nonetheless the correct first step towards a freer, more peaceful world. If in the next few years it comes to pass that Iraq sinks once again into the tyrrany from which it has been raised, I'll join you in voicing my opinion that we need to pull out completely from that region of the world (assuming my above summation is correct).

mirror: What's with "shut up" all the time? I've seen you post that more than once. It's almost as annoying as your tendancy to point out that personal attacks and dirty words are forbidden, in between posts where you slander entire demographics (eg. I don't think your use of the term "Christians" was appropriate at all). Why don't you shut up for a change?

Oops. Mea culpa. It's hard to tell you two apart.

My only reference to pleasure was schadenfreude, in a paragraph when I was specifically addressing Black Dog. Read it again.

Why don't we just leave other people alone to run their countries they way they see fit? Since when does the Western world have the answers for everyone? Often we can't even figure out answers for ourselves. I'm really tired of Christianity, and these born-again Christians, who feel they have to save the world when they can't even dsave themselves. What is a really sad indictment of Canadian politicians and our political parties is that not one of the major party leaders in Canada challenged Hillier's comments, yet most Canadians are diametrically opposed to his approach. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does Christianity have to do with any of this? Promoting democracy means giving people, not warlords, the chance to make decisions about how their countries should be run. How can you live in freedom and willfully argue to deny that freedom for others? Who are you to assume that the majority of Canadians are opposed to what Hillier has said and what he proposes?

By the by, if you'd care to reread my post, you'll note that I was suggesting Black Dog would derive that sort of pleasure, not "Canadians". Thanks for twisting my words.

Hmmm. Your argument is that America should cut and run from it's responsibility in Iraq, which I disagree with, and that makes me more of a coward than you?