BHS

I'm surprised no one has come up with the "Bush is holding back on charging the leakers until closer to election time" argument yet. Liam: is devulging state secrets a crime or no? It's a question you've glossed over in your denunciations of the Bush administration and obligatory guesstimates of Al Qaeda's understanding of international banking procedures. It seems to me, that since the administration "asked" the NYT to quash the story, that no crime was being committed when it was published. It's possible that leaking the story wasn't a crime either. I guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out. This is yet another example of a pattern I'm beginning to see illustrated: for all of the hysterics that Bush-haters employ in their attempts to portray the administration as some great destroyer of civil liberties, there is little real evidence that this is actually the case. Sandy Berger clearly committed a crime but only received the mildest of penalties for it. The Whitehouse could have pushed for a much sterner sentence. A number of leaks have occurred in the past four years or so, but the only one that has been investigated is the one that the loyal opposition pushed to have investigated. The only stories I've seen about abuses of the hated Patriot Act have either been blown out of proportion or complete hoaxes. Can anyone come up with a good solid example of the Bush Whitehouse perpetrating a civil liberties infringement? Come on, I know you can.

I reread my reply above and realized I was guilty of doing the same thing that I'd accused the poster I was criticizing of doing, namely making a claim without providing even a single solitary outside reference. Shame on me. Here's the National Academy of Sciences' report to the Whitehouse about the IPCC's third report on climate change. Read through this document and see if you still come away believing that the "concensus" thing is settled business.

The full post: I don't doubt that this claim is made in editorials all the time, but how lazy do you have to be to eschew providing even a single example? To what extent does anthropogenic modification occur? This paragraph suggests that all three organisations have reached a similar hard numbers conclusion, but I've read over reports from them and the reality is that they are far more reserved in their conclusions than the political activists portray them to be. Not mentioned: Naomi Oreskes' faulty search criteria restricted her to only reviewing 928 out of 12000 reports about climate change written within the given timeframe, including many papers that showed no warming occuring. It would be more disheartening if news media bought into the apocolyptic viewpoint wholeheartedly and abdicated their responsibility to report all sides of the story.

You've more or less come to the same conclusion as Mark and Hugh, aside from the sattelite speculation. I don't know if that will make you happy or not.

Sorry. Even as I was typing that post it occurred to me that it might look as if I were pigeonholing you into Kyoto. That wasn't really my intent. Kyoto was meant to be just an example but I was too lazy to reword my argument before I posted. My apologies.

The impact of anthropogenic warming has yet to be established. I think your last sentence is wrong. I think we examine our own values and ways of doing this on a near daily basis. That we've examined environmentalist proposals and rejected them doesn't mean they haven't been thought through, just that they haven't been accepted as a justifiable course of action. I think it's a major conceit on the part of the pro-Kyoto crowd to think that Kyoto isn't being accepted by the general public simply because they haven't thought about it, and that if they did think about it then Kyoto would be the obvious choice. Especially when you consider that our sacrifices under Kyoto would have zero impact on the carbon dioxide load in the atmosphere.

It's funny. I was just reading over David Suzuki's page on global "climate change" skepticism yesterday, and I was thinking to myself afterword, "I wonder how the rainforests are doing these days. We don't really hear much about that catastrophe in the offing any more." Suzuki's page provided some interesting highlights for me: 1) His first sentence refers to the skeptics as being people who don't believe in global "climate change" which is disengenous and misleading at best a malicious fabrication intended to smear at worst. No one is arguing against climate change. To do so would be to presume that climate is static and to deny, for instance, the past occurence of ice ages. The focus of the argument has always been anthropogenic warming, as in, "Are mankind's actions causing global temperatures to increase unnaturally?" 2) For a guy who's quick to point out that he's an "award winning scientist" every chance he gets, he sure is quick to put the science stuff behind him when he's arguing about global "climate change". He's another one of these guys for whom all scientific debate is over, and anyone who disagrees is a corporate shill, and any scientific questions they pose or points they make are made invalid by the source of their funding. It's clear from reading his writing on this topic that his only true interest lies in the politcal activism aspect. 3) Using the metaphor of an ostrich hiding it's head in the sand for your opponents is a cute cliche when it comes from people who are ignorant enough about the natural world that they don't know that ostriches don't actually do that. Not so cute from a guy who's spent the better part of his adult life as a professor of zoology. Though it is itself a good metaphor for how pure rhetoric has replaced hard science in his pursuit of public policy change.

I'm hoping everyone here took the time to at least read over this article, if not review it thoroughly and sit and consider all of the points made. Toward the end of the article the author states that the most important indicator of anthropogenic global warming would be an radiation imbalance, which would ultimately show up as an increased average for the years 2001 to 2010 versus the average for the years 1991 to 2000, and that this average increase should appear regardless of any mitigating factors such as yearly fluctuation. So we should be able to put together a much better picture of the state of the environment before the Kyoto Treaty is terminated in 2012. Of additional interest is the graph in figure 1, which was created in 1999. It's interesting to note that the actual recorded temperature averages post 1999 conform closest to Prediction C, which the author notes was created for the purposes of providing a low extreme.

If eureka wasn't banned he'd be freaking out on you right now. There is no "Queen of England". She's the Queen of Britain. Further, why should the feelings of those of French heritage matter any more than those of Norwegian heritage? Wolfe won the war. Canada has been a British dominion for a long time. Any lasting French sentiment to the contrary is irrelevant.

August: I take it your not a fan of podcasting. Also: what's quicker, reading the book or watching the movie? More accurate to this scenario, which is quicker, reading the report or watching the documentary? Which more accurately conveys the emotional state of the participants? What's funnier, seeing Jerry Seinfeld in person or reading a verbatim transcript of his routine? I think you're unfairly reducing the internet to discussion forums, when in fact it's a great deal more than that, the bulk of which is "throwing something at the cat".

Test firing a long range missle and it hit Alaska? Neat. So why was this not in the MSM? Now countries are testing missles all the time. North Korea is no different. You also heard the U.S. is developing new nuclear weapons to replace their old stockpile, but there is no need to concern about that I guess. And when they say North Korea has the ability to hit U.S. soil, I doubt they are talking about the mainland. More or less NK can reach a couple of the U.S. governed islands in the Pacific. It's all in the wording. IMHV this is more realistic than the Mossad bringing down the Twin Towers. You can call me a conspiracy nut (from some of my other posts) but I really doubt the Mossad had anything to do with it. I was listening to a download of Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt show from last week, and part of the segment was about the push by some politicians to send in jets to destroy a site in NK where a missile is sitting ready to launch on a pad, right now. I don't have CNN or Fox any more and I haven't watched the regular news or read the papers for the last couple of days. Does anyone know what this is about?

I think this is a great tactical move by Harper. He acknowledges Quebec's history and distinctiveness while attacking the seperatists' attempts to frame that history and distinctiveness within their own political narative. To win the fight against seperatism requires a firm stance against seperatism on every issue. Harper has affirmed that the dreaded westerners are aware that Quebecers are not homogenous in their view on seperatism, which is an important point for non-seperatist Quebecers to hear.

Off the teat of Haliburton, and onto the teat of General Electric. Big improvement.

""

It's not so much the stuttering that I found irritating, as the compulsive throat clearing and pen clicking. But it was still a good discussion. The really good conversations so far have been Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus, who are both characters with a really subtle, understated sense of humour and who have good chemistry. They poke at each other without really being offensive, and they have a very deep and broad knowledge of the American political scene so that they can make specific references to other pundits and events in a completely informed but off the cuff way. I find it very entertaining, despite what August says.

I'm creating this thread for information purposes. If it spurs conversation, all the better. I'd heard about this site before, but until yesterday I had never bothered to check it out. It's probably a good idea to have a highspeed connection for maximum effect. The basic premise is a pair of bloggers (almost all Democrats or DINOs) have an hour long rambling webcam conversation. That sounds boring, but it's a lot more interesting than you'd think. There are some really well-informed and clever (if not perfectly well-spoken) people involved. If you like watching panel discussions on cable news you'll love this, because there are no commercials and no host-set agendas, just pure off-the-cuff politics. So far I've watched the latest (at the time of this posting) conversations between Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus (which was the reason I came to the site and which was great, really funny, I'd rate it a must-see) and between Matthew Yglesias and Ed Kilgore which was more of a pure Dem political discussion but really interesting anyway. Next up, Eric Umansky and Steven Cook. If anyone bothers to check this out in between flame attacks on their idealogical enemies, tell me what you think. Bloggingheads

Again, I didn't bring Coulter up. I made a throw away joke reference about you and (I don't even remember who else at this point) "hating" Ann Coulter based solely on the tone of your language. At this point your subsequent vitriol seems to have borne that premise out. The intent of my post was actually to clarify the point that Canadians did in fact serve in Vietnam, which I felt was made unclear by the snippets of the interview that had been quoted. I don't care about Ann Coulter, and again, I'm not defending her. As for running to the moderator, I don't play that game. I've had the moderators come after me a number of times for things I've posted and it's a somewhat irritating way for an argument to end, I know. If I was going to run to the moderators about your trash talk you'd have already heard from them. You are completely off-base when you accused me of being whiny and not being able to take it. The bulk of the thread is me taking it from you and being restrained and civilized in return, which seems to be more of a provocation to you than if I'd just blown up and replied in kind. I get the feeling you're one of those guys at the bar with whom it's a bad idea to make eye contact. And the bill for the English lesson? You should be paying me.

So...the GWB Republicans are direct descendants of the JFK Democrats? I don't think you're going to get a lot of support for that proposition. So, bumper sticker patriots who send their children are still okay though, right? And politicians who lose their seats, and executives who lose their shirts in bad investments, they can sleep soundly too? Your last two sentences seem contradictory. Cindy Sheehan types in the sixties saved lives, and as a result tens of thousands of people died. All's well that ends well? (Ha! I take it from the tone of your overall post that you mean to imply that wealth-generating oil production and tourist resorts are actually bad things for Vietnam.)

1) Impeachment does not mean removal. Clinton was impeached but remained in office for his full term. If you mean removed, say removed. 2) If Bush and Rumsfeld are valid candidates for trial in the Hague, then there is an enormous line of world leaders in front of them who need to go to trial first. (I nearly typed frist. That would have been a funny Freudian slip, no?) The question then becomes, who goes first, Putin or Chirac?

I've stated, emphatically, that the term "love" requires no comparative for proper usage. To which you replied that in every case a comparative is required, which I've proven is simply incorrect. The term "love' can be used to indicate different levels of emotional attachment, that is true, but using the term doesn't imply a requirement to specify the degree to which the attachment manifests. I didn't dodge this question, because my general answer proved that the question is irrelevant and didn't need to be specifically addressed. To recap: I stated that you "hate" Ann Coulter, which by the dictionary definition is an acceptable absolute usage of the term. (By the way, if the work published by Princeton University is unsatisfactory to you, by all means, use any dictionary you like.) Not only am I not required to qualify this statement with a comparative, but for to do so would be unnecessarily verbose. (Not that I'm against being unnecessarily verbose. I love the sound of my own keyboard.)

We're also serial killers.

The current political dynamics in the Arab world will make it impossible for American troops and peace to be present in Iraq at the same time. Was there peace before the current intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan? (I include the latter due to both it's proximity to the Middle East in both geography and the American mindset.) There were American forces based in the Middle East between 1990 and 2003. Was that an era of peace, or do you consider that a low intensity war? In any case, you've qualified your statement in a way that makes it different from the statement I was replying to, in that Charles was stating that peace would never be possible so long as Americans were present, and you are limiting your statement to current events without regard for the long term future. So, do you agree with Charles that peace will never be possible so long as there is an American military presense?

Right back at you asshole. Gonna strike a match like you did and you might get burnt. You sit there and act all innocent with all your gibberish about “ad hominem attacks” as though you were above it, but there is no denying this all started with your cheap shot. You’re like the guy who picks a fight at the bar and then complains because the guy he pissed off is “so violent”, just because he didn’t stop hitting when you figured he should, or that the insults you were throwing his way shouldn’t have warranted a fight at all. When you start something you don’t get to determine when it stops….so, how do they say in Ontario? Oh yeah: “Fuck you”. You can go ahead and whine on and on about MY attacks and MY continuation of this, but here you are --- carrying on after it's long over --- another one of your tits for my tat. Go ahead and pretend you're better I don't really care. You're as bad as the other goof who claims I'm obsessed with Ann because I'm arguing with you about crap besides her....continually using my 7 posts as proof I'm obsessed, meanwhile the dork has about 80 posts dedicated to defending her on another thread....lol.....it's so obvious he's in love with her. Shit. Is there even one honest person here besides me? I was out of this. You came back to start it up. BTW : Exactly what where the 'arguing skills' you were showing off? Man, little whiney crybaby pinheads like you really piss me off. You shouldn't be posting here at all if you're going to start crap then cry about it. Oh, and this: Answer this question: If you love french fries and you love your wife, do you love them equally? I never said it requires another statement, I said it is inherently a relative statement, and you're just trying as hard as your little brain can to find a way to not understand these basics I know you already know. Read the statement again without being such a tit and sooner or later you're going to know exactly what I mean. There is no argument here. I’m right; you’re wrong and not even making sense. That’s all there is to it. It's the plain dynamics of English. If you don't understand then go ask an English teacher. Words like that are value judgments which use the context to determine their relativity. These words like "dislike", and "hate" are indeed relative terms. I'm not going to argue the point; it's like arguing that the sky is in a general 'up' direction. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ‘relative’? I'd really like to see you post back here pretending to not understand the relative difference between the two meanings of the word 'love' in that sentance. . You better watch you language, dude. People have been kicked out of here for that kind of trash. I was going to let the matter drop, but you had to get the last little dig in by chastising me for snottiness after all of crap you'd posted about me, as if you were completely blameless and I was some sort of aggressor. That doesn't stand, especially after this post. I take it as given that for our argument about "like" "dislike" "love" and "hate" being relative or absolute terms you'll accept the definitions provided by Princeton University, since indeed you asked me to resort to a higher educational authority. Go ahead and follow the link, and type any one of those terms into the search engine. Examine all of the verbal definitions for those words, and show me where any one of them is defined in relative terms. You can't, because the words are absolute and require no further qualification. Deal with it.

And you base this conclusion on what? The constant guerilla infighting in Germany? The multiple civil wars that Japan experience after WWII? The economic devestation experienced by Seoul following the ceasefire in the early 50's?

I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Again, the likely scenario is going to be the UN agreeing to what the US has already agreed to. Do you really think the UN is going to approve a war with Iran in any case? If you do, do you think the current American administration believes this? Do you think they believe it enough that they're willing to jump ship in Iraq to lay the groundwork for UN approval?