bleeding heart

Sure, I get that. You know how to shrug off what amounts to the old "why don't you support the troops?" argument...which at bottom means: "why don't you support Government policy devised primarily by civilians?"

??? OK...Seventh: as it is mine. (Especially since it's the identical sentiment.) As is their prerogative.

Fifth: I agree, but was actually quoting his "irrelevant" denunciation directly.

I'm inclined to agree. Another poster has opined that Harper's ultimately dead in the water without Quebec, but...well, the response to that is pretty obvious, isn't it? Here in the Maritimes, Quebec is the single region that has consistently raised people's ire, and it's been going on for a while. Even our Acadians are irritated. Speaking of which--and pointing directly at your penultimate sentence above--the Acadians had some legitimate complaints about their second-class status in NB (I've heard stories of people a single generation ago warning their kids to speak English in public, to avoid harrassment; and I remember the open anti-French bigotry very well myself. And I'm 45 years old. (An Anglo, to clarify.) ) But the Acadians, with reserve, civility and tenacity, managed to achieve language rights in NB. And that ended the matter. That's it. They're done fighting. There's no revolution, and very little anger (most of it emanating from English bigots, quite frankly). It's time for Quebec to change course. It's perfectly do-able.

Yeah, democracy's a bitch for the proper, would-be rulers. At any rate, I propose a popular and mostly uncontroversial idea: the rich can keep getting "soaked," as they whine about (well...actually, as the ideological little sycophants, the courtiers and ideologues whine about...the rich a lot less so); and the world keeps turning!

First: Wyly has no hatred for the military, or at least none that he's stated; Second: the military itself is full of ideologues, at the upper echelons, who understand that matters such as business and PR is more important than practicality; Third: This sort of makes your opinion completely irrelevant.

I have said the same thing about gridiron football.... ...except I was joking. You think that because you don't understand soccer, there's nothing to it? Seriously?

Yes, but Kenney is not providing this analysis; you are. That you view the possibility (which is not a given, despite Kenney's protestation) through a humane filter doesn't mean that Kenney is. Put another way: we don't know that what is here suggested--the determination of judges' motivations--is in fact the case. Not even if we view it more sympathetically, as you are doing.

To be fair, I used to coach little league, and those little bastards were an unruly group.....

Some people "credit" Trudeau for this. Either way......

If so, it's tinfoil created by the Straussians and their neocon students themselves. Here's the late Hitchens--a self-avowed fan of the neocons, admirer of Wolfowitz et al, and staunchest of staunch defenders of the Iraq War (read my comments above, and then read this): [bolding mine] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2002/11/machiavelli_in_mesopotamia.html That is, even if it's nonsense...you're pointing your finger at the wrong culprit.

Already got "dippers." Don't be greedy.

Just so.

Sure, but they seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule. Well, I can't say for sure, no; but it seems to me to have had a big influence, not least Evolutionary theory (which doesn't dismiss religion...only some of the traditional Creation stories, as factual, in the way we understand the word). At any rate, I would guess that science has influenced more people away from religion than towards it.

Yes, but not in the current sense of "liberalism is decadence" sense. I don't like to make too much of the "neocon" phenomenon; mostly, I see them as simply a realtively hawkish aspect of the (long-existing) order, as another poster pointed out. But for what it's worth: the neocons came out of Straussian philosophy...the clearest layman's argument for it comes, I think, from Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind, a preposterous best-seller which attacks "liberalism" wholeheartedly. In essence, the Straussian/Bloomian argument, derived in part from Platonic teaching, is that, yes, "liberalism" is destroying society, thanks to a decline in important cultural institutions such as religious faith, (young) marriage, and extreme patriotism. It's not even that the Straussians care much about religion or marriage; hell, Bloom was a promiscuous homosexual, and Strauss was an atheist. They believe that nihilism is the Objective Truth (borrowed quite heavily from Nietzche, by some accounts). However, most poeple cannot handle the truth, cannot gaze into the Abyss; the Straussians, or "neocons" can do so, because they are the Wise Men, the Philosophers. But the rest of the public needs to embrace religion, patriotism, traditional family mores; they need to believe in these things, and part of the way to do this is to keep them in a state of fear...fear of the dangerous Other. It's not, either, that all "neocons" think this way; even within the strange and airy realm of Straussian philosophy, there are the believers in "surface" truths (the "exoteric"), versus those who understand the "hidden" truths (the "esoteric"). Rather than the Enlightenment value of "invididual freedom," the Straussians believe in the striving for "human excellence" and "political virtue" (which does not denote "honesty," by the way) as the proper direction for society.

When a country attacks another country, for any reason, it is "targeting." I'm not sure what the controversy is here. It's not even in and of itself a criticism, nor is it condoning anything.

Both mainstream, Establishment liberals, solid centrists. And that's fine, but it seems at odds with your expressed views elsewhere. And neither of them are clearly and obviously "great leaders," though I'm willing to have time prove me wrong...I seriously doubt it'll be the case, but......

We've just got to start holding the people not in power to the same standards we're holding the people in power. Look--again--I agree with the ""The Liberals did it too," theme; it's obviously true. I agree with the "The NDP will doubtless act similarly, were they in power" theme. But at some point--this one actually, the point we're currently at--such objections are explicitly diversions, made by tantrum-throwing Conservative partisans who don't want anyone to criticize the Government. It's weak, man, weak, and an embarassment.

Oh yes, I didn't doubt the objective claim, at all. I took Kenney at his word. I was questioning the (highly suspect) implication that judges are all in the pockets of the Big Criminal Immigrant fat-cats, and were intentionally handing down such sentences for the express purpose of aiding immigration claims.

But citizenship, by definition, demands a say in the political process, and at least a possibility of being a part of a larger sphere of people that help determine events. It's not all about income, nor even close. In fact, your scenario only makes sense if there's an actual hierarchy of control and influence; so as I've risen in economic stature, from "working poor" to "middle class," my political influence should obejctively increase as a direct result? Nonsense. I disagree with this, but in fact your premise demands something much more offensive; not only would I exert greater political control thanks to a rise in my income over the years...but someone making substantially more than me would exert greater influence. And a truly wealthy person, more still; and the wildly rich? The greatest of all. At what point do the rich become the de facto rulers...based solely on their ability to acquire money? That's grotesque. Just a disproportionate share of it. Leaving aside the fact that income taxes aren't the only type paid...no. We don't need to increase class barriers, and embrace an elitist society. Fortunately, most elites themselves would agree that they owe something to society at large, and also believe that the poorer among us deserve a say...by virtue of being a member of society, of being a citizen. We can decide that citizenship means somehting...or that it's irrelevant, and that money is the measure of "worth." And I see little evidence that the wealthier members of society are "smarter," though no doubt some self-indulgent, bloated egos embrace the idea.

Were Mall maintenance unionized?

Well said. The very worst criticisms may well turn out to be accurate, but as of yet, we just don't know.

You could well be right. I was referring to a recent post, and hadn't considered that another one might be under discussion.

I was wondering the same thing, Bill, about the Maritimes remark; I've always lived here, and people's opinions on Quebec seem to more or less mirror Westerners' opinions on Quebec, in my view. Hell, even our Acadians aren't thrilled with Quebec!

A truly horrible answer. It's one thing, if one believes it to be factual, to point it out; it's quite another thing to use it as an answer when somebody criticizes the Government. Then it's somewhere between useless and worse than.