bleeding heart

Well, with one's family, matters are different. A country is not a "Family," whatever indoctrinaiton is attempted...but fine, an argument can be made (weakly) for "shared values," or some such thing... But allies? Allies are a political concoction, and in most cases are committed to without any democratic will. So that's just obedience to the decisions of powerful men. Funny, I rarely hear anyone here defending our (quite close) ally: France. So it's pick and choose at will, I guess. If it comes to survival, yes...though if our country started such a dangerouys war, needlessly, then the leaders should be deemed criminals. But when Canada blows Libyans to bits, it's pretty hard for you to argue that it's a matter of national survival! At any rate, if your stance is "my country right or wrong," then we're debating from different planets, rather than from different political positions.

Yes, but it's not as if they can make no choices. Have we reached such a saturation point of ideologically-driven capitalism, that the single entity in the country who has "no choice" is the Employers? Everyone else is responsible for their own actions, mind--including poverty-stricken immigrants. But employers? Nope. They can't help it. It's "just business," and that answers everything. Agreed, and agreed. That's because--by definition of what you say--too many employers couldn't give a rat's ass about the working conditions of the human beings in their employ. That's a choice. A sociopathic one, dressed up as "capitalism." And interestingly, no less a hallowed capitalist hero as Adam Smith warned presciently of just this sort of abuse by "the Masters of Mankind."

I love dogs, but you make a good point. Almost every victim of dog attack was bitten by a dog that "wouldn't hurt a fly."

No...and as of yet, there is no American intervention in Syria. All I'm saying is that we are naive--adolescently stupid, in fact--to think that if the US, or Canada, or anyone else intervenes, it is automatically for benign purposes. History doesn't tell us that...so it must be nationalism and indoctrination. As Hemingway wrote, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" But self-aggrandizing wishes are not good enough. And this whole "who cares about motives?" bit is a little strange, given the (admittedly unfounded) premise that we all should strive to understand the truth of what goes on.

Yep. The conventional pieties, as I see you have noted.

Correct. I forgot about the neurotic obssessive...also mocking views that aren't in evidence on this thread. I get what you mean, but it's not so simple. The West shares gladly and exuberantly in mass butchery, if not procreation.

Oh man, I had poster "socialist" (remember him?) siding with me, and making my arguments very difficult, so I get it.

I can't speak to your second point, which at bottom is about cultural differences I know nothing about. But your first point is 100% and unequivocally the fault of the employers, not of those desperately seeking work. Why not kick out the employers, rather than the immigrants? (I kid...but it is thei employers' fault. )

Christ. First you use the analogy of "strippers = cocaine dealers," and now you analogize them with rapists. As you say: "Weak."

No, I don't; hence my parenthetical remark in my post. How so?

I get it; in fact, I suspect the sex-workers' advocates would agree. Like I said, I'd be interested to hear them.

1. You said (correctly, by the way, in my opinion) that if the US were to intervene, they would receive criticism "about oil and imperialism and all that." Well, first of all, these are legtimiate complaints and concerns. But more to the point, you imply that you disagree with them..meaning you think it would be for humanitarian motives. (An extreme rarity, despite the numerous interventions and attacks, so I don't know why you'd believe that). 2. If a country attacks another for reasons that aren't humanitarian, then there is less chance of a humanitarian success. Since it's not the goal, it will not be forefront of the policy. Therefore it's unlikely to happen. Look at the catastrophe in Iraq: hundreds of thousands dead, sectarian violence, and the biggest refugee problem on Earth. (Mostly unreported, but a massive tragedy.) Now, it could well be true that a selfish intervention could achieve good results, or ones preferable to the status quo; but the chances decrease along with a lack of genuine goodwill, since that will be part of policy's focus, should humanitarianism exist. And just to clarify, I'm not even talking about the United States, who are perfectly ordinary, and whose evils are, like ours, a matter of institutional lunacy, not a peculiar evil. So it extrapolates generally to everybody.

Sounds right.

More anti-Big Pharma politics? S'ok, I dont completely disagree.

Oh yes, I understood this immediately, in part because of things I've learned from you about the Parliamentary system and the PMO on this site. My point was that he (the PM, not Harper specifically) has power, by the very definition that he contantly uses it. And if and when PM's misuse power...they are misusing power. Period. I don't think you're disputing the tautology! I just wanted to clarify. Look at it this way: we have two definitions of what a Canadian government "does." One is a statement of principle, the other an assessment of objective, occurring reality. There is "does" in how it's supposed to be; and then there is the "does" which they do. The second overrides the first, in immediacy at least, as in a man beating his child is more crucial than proposing that, as principle, "a man doesn't beat his child."

Since this topic is very much about what's best for the sex-trade workers themselves, I'd be interested in hearing their advocates' take on it; advocates for sex workers, as long-term interested (and generally sober and compassionate) voices on the subject, might have some important viewpoints on this.

You said it was "not really hypocrisy" and that "it's tough to stand on principles when your kids are hungry." I'm asking if that applies to, say, the Taliban, The Soviets, the Chinese, Saddam's Iraq, Iran.....and so on. If not, why not? And if yes, and we're working on straight power concepts, principles be damned....then we can no longer denounce the evils of enemies. After all, they got kids to feed, too.

So let me get this straight...you think that if the US intervened, it would automatically be for good, humanitarian reasons...reasons of principle. As it always is, such as....um...... And yet they'd meet with all sorts of crazy protests....however, they also can't undergo this principled stance...because it's an election year. So...it's not about principle, is what you're saying.

Like that sober realist Charest, whom has long been admired by the same people who despise the protesters. Evidently, all a hated Liberal has to do is to start cracking protesters' heads, and infringing on their right to asembly...and then he's the go-to guy for rational adulthood and responsible leadership.

Who said "be allowed"? I fully support the right of any frightened, creepy little reactionary to run for public office, if he wishes to do so. For me to lament the choice is not an attack on his rights. At all. We all have our impressions, based both on honest observation and on our own peculiar biases. Your claim requires actual study, and it's a monumental undertaking.

Or to proclaim (correctly) "The Liberals did it too!"...thus declaring their solidarity with the Party they have so long professed to despise. It takes some tricky moral and intellectual acrobatics to agree and to disagree with Harper simultaneously, and on the exact same issue. But I have faith they can do so with ease.

Do you allow the same principle for our official enemies? Or does it only apply to us and to our allies?

Seriously? Ezra has made an entire career out of his knuckledragging beliefs that the Left are nothing but idiots. In other words,he's exactly what you criticize. You think that disputing and disagreeing is "banning all contrary opinions"?

Seconded.

Sure, we can blame the 3rd world dictators (many of whom are our cherished allies, by the way)... ...or, we could take the elementary moral and intellectual step of holding ourselves accountable. The most powerful and influential UN members are major democracies. They unquestionably share the blame for the problems. A tinfoil hat??? American giant Unocal, along with a Saudi company, signed an agreement with Turkmenistan--and with the Taliban--to build a major pipeline in the region. This was halted after the Taliban declared support for bin Laden...but was resurrected in 2002, under a slightly different consortium. That's not conspiracy theory--that's public record. The new deal was considered awesome, because it allowed the transport of energy through the Asian Republics without any Russian interference; like much of our foreign policy, geostrategic intiatives are intrinsically tied to major financial interests. They are not separable, and thoroughly institutionalized. The project stalled because of the ongoing nature of the conflict, but will be resurrected again if and when the place stabilizes, though the exact companies involved remains (perhaps) unknown. And I'm not claiming that a Russian-free pipeline is the prime motivator of the war, either. Things are rarely that simple. But to say it has no relevance, that the project doesn't exist and never did, and that it's "tinfoil hat" material, is misleading. At any rate, there is a much more popular, and wild-eyed, conspiracy theory afoot: that Western leaders, planners, policymakers, innately benevolent souls, actively flit our armed forces around the Earth solely to do good, to commit to humanitarian motives, but are forever thwarted by Sinister third-worlders and weak-kneed allies. Now that's some batshit crazy talk--self-aggrandizing nonsense plagiarized from children't tales about Good Kingdoms in an Evil world, etc. etc.