bleeding heart

Is the government not already IN our sugar, through subsidy programs (including corn, much of which is used for its sugar), which is exactly why sugary foods are often so cheap, which is certainly one of the reasons we consume so much of it?

Not in this world. Simply not going to happen.

Uh, back in the "good old days," before such a thing as a "lefty" or a "socialist" existed, sexually abusing a child was usually a let's-not- look type of deal. Sure, it's a correlation-doesn't-prove-causation sort of thing. But in the conservative paradise, when men were men & co &co....it seems to have been a libertarian paradise for child rapists. Just sayin.'

Can't we do "progressive fining" in the same way we do "progressive taxation"? I'm not being coy; I'm quite serious. In terms of punishing people for wrongdoing, why should the poor get hit harder and suffer more for the same misdemeanor that doesn't even faze their more well-off compatriots?

I'm a little ambivalent. Harper's not exactly my guy, but in this, I don't think he's batting way below average.

Yes, it is a seriously underreported issue, as is domestic violence committed against men. And yes, it's doubtless the fault of lesbian feminists, leftists, unwed mothers, and other social ills.

I have no desire to quibble pedantically about the numbers--especially with folks here who think men are the Really True Victims of Sex Crimes When You Get Down To It--but it's an uncontroversial truth that most rapes are unreported. Another poster told me I shouldn't be pointing out that Western nations commit and support terrorism, because it "muddies the waters" of debate.... ...sorry, Cyber, I just don't get it.

Yes, it's really an old Detective Story theme, going at least as far back as Edgar Allen Poe. Speaking of old detective story themes...I had been wondering (well, a little) why the show was called "True Detective." Seems odd, or even trite, when you think on it. but the other day I read a little piece about the show...and yes, of course, it's an homage to the old "True Crime" salacious stories and novels: such stories always had police detectives who were dedicated, even zealous...but were also deeply troubled men, awash in inebriation and bad sexual experiences. And as if to underline this, Marty even told the other cop (not truthfully, no) that he was writing "true crime" stories.

Oh, I agree, BC, without reservation. It's interesting to watch people tie themselves into knots trying to explain little tiny matters like Haiti away....but more often, they choose simply not to discuss it at all. In my more generous moments, I think those are splendid times for self-reflection, to navigate which cows are Sacred, and which are "sacred."

It's idiotic. Men on this very thread are convinced that false allegations of rape is the crucial issue. But--as they well know, or should--false allegations of rape, especially those that lead to charges (much less convictions) are a rarity. (That they don't know this salient fact begs a question or two, since they are so eager to propound on the matter.) It's not that I don't take false allegations of rape seriously--I can scarcely imagine anything I'd less wish to be accused of, personally--and false allegations are, properly, a criminal act. But false allegations of rape are in the same range as false allegations of other crimes...and that's if we don't factor in the number of rapes not reported (the majority of them, that is). In other words, rape is arguably falsely alleged less than most other crimes. So in the context of sexual assault, this "war on men" meme doesn't exist. It's an interesting phenomenon that reactionary-tending men (and their "cool girl" cohorts, like Wente and Paglia) feel so aggrieved by the injustices perpetrated by false rape allegations...which are in fact exceedingly rare. Meanwhile, that the majority of rapes go unreported (for reasons that are obvious to those not mentally subdued by silly ideological impulses)...well, none of these guys spends a nanosecond thinking about them....much less posting repeatedly on the subject, and--like our inimitable TimG--claiming that I "don't take rape seriously." (I don't mind slapping around these cute little attack dogs when they post stuff they don't believe...but I do admit I'm getting bored with the little fellers.) So let's get to the heart of this "outrage" that has spawned this debate: a decision by student groups to conduct a campus educational campaign uses a couple rhetorical flights that are, in my personal view, not the best word-choices; but after all, they are trying to get through to the knuckleheads who don't even know what rape is, for chrissake. So there's no issue. Until some people decide that they are the "victims" of all this. Frigging laughable, man. And what's the response here? Well, a PC-infested criminal justice system, evidently, and presumably the End of Manhood as we know it... ...all thanks to "feminists"...and (thank you, Argus), "lesbians," of course.

R2P is on the surface a notion with which very few liberals (Western, not just Canadian) feel is disputable. But that's because Western liberals tend to take the myths of benign intervention (and benign imperialism, since Ignatieff was brought up) at face value, having "learned" that nationalistic masturbation is a high virtue Discussed By Very Serious Men. But when engaged in actually-serious debate and discussion, and without a chorus of talented interventionist fistfighters like Christopher Hitchens to back them up, they tend to get pummelled in debate. I read with interest a debate between R2P-enthusiast Ian Williams (UK) versus a still-living fistfighter, Noam Chomsky (US) on this subject in Foreign Policy in Focus. At the time, I was quite ready to side with Williams, but I think it's pretty apparent that Chomsky more or less eats him for breakfast. He comes out somewhat ahead on the question of Kosovo; and absolutely destroys Williams on the discussion about East Timor. Others might disagree with my assessment, so I leave it for people to decide for themselves: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20090803.htm

Well, TimG, your opinion of me, which is self-evidently petty, ugly, and objectively incorrect, is of little consequence.

For god's sake, it is a campus educational campaign--whatever one thinks of it, that is exactly and only what it is. Just as they have "Awareness campaigns" for the plight of impoverished women in developing countries; or the "Men's groups" campaign (which I personally witnessed) which said "Masculinity is undergoing a type of Genocide." As preposterous as the last one might be, it uses language very much a part of criminal and international law. But it is not advocating in any way for changes to the criminal code. Nor is this one. And it's fascinating that, given your stated concerns here, you'd imply even jokingly that I don't take rape seriously.

Well, sure, and this reaches right down to the depths of criminal law. People who can afford good lawyers have a better chance of lighter sentences. QED.

Student groups composing an advocacy campaign, no matter what language they use, is not a call for "an expansion of the basis for criminal charge." It isn't, because it cannot be. There's no connection, no legal basis, no legal power. And if you're going to be suggesting that I don't understand the English language, then "trying actually reading it" is almost too good to be true, isn't it?

Are they worse? I'm not disputing...it's an honest question.

YOU said that the "campaign is about changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid." A point never made in the OP--to which I was responding. And a point which I wasn't addressing in any case. Whatever changes should--or should not--be made in terms of criminal charges, I certainly would not advocate that they be based on one of the continual and numerous "campaigns" which are made in terms of campus culture generally, and which are separate from criminal matters in any case. That is, I agree that criminal charges in rape cases must be done with care, with a robust determination to ensure justice is done--with the accused's rights central. And since nothing of the sort appears anywhere in the linked article...I commit the heresy of not commenting on something that is not existing, and which I wouldn't agree with if it did exist.

But Tim, if "the campaign is about changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid"--and including your subsequent remarks about juries, "reasonable doubt," and so on....from where are you getting this? I was responding to remarks and responses on this thread...and as generated by the article in the OP. There's nothing there about "criminal charges."

Oh, sure, that was transparent, and I consciously chose to ignore the implication. But the larger story is certainly significant, and Canada's role can hardly be downplayed.

Aren't Svoboda a party of neo-fascists? (And no, I don't mean that as a slur for "right-wing"--I mean, literally, "neo-fascists")

The evidence for this is quite overwhelming, as three "partners in democracy" (Canada, France, the U.S.) decided that democracy is little more than an irritant. It is an especially strong exposure of Canadian foreign policy hypocrisy. I agree with Shady that, by our own standards, it could be reasonably argued that we be subject to attack (had Haiti the means and the will, that is); France and the United States would also be legitimate targets under this formulation. Food for thought, as they say.

They do pride themselves on that. And just incidentally, to disabuse people of the misconception, that notion is in fact incorrect. "Libertarianism," if anything, began on the left wing of the political spectrum, and for most people was more or less synonymous with anarchism. The "libertarian socialists" believe not only in limited government...but in limits to all hierarchical and authoritarian forms of power, including those generated from wealth.

Argus, The US did not "give the Iraqi people a chance." This kind of self-indulgent thinking, plagiarized from ancient, nationalist epic poems and children's tales, does nothing to illuminate the facts, or history. On the contrary, the coalition's behaviour precipitated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people...again, as was extensively and continually predicted by those soberly opposed to the war....warnings which were mocked by the war's supporters, as we all remember quite well. Under the Nuremberg principles (that were, incidentally, or not, proposed and codified by rational American voices, remember) the "supreme international crime" is war of aggression...because all the subsequent horrors extrapolate from that aggression. This is understood at an elementary level, and for good reason. Further, the sectarian violence itself was explicitly exacerbated, and intentionally so. There was "mismanagement," as you say, but that is the lesser crime. And even given that...why are you quick to dismiss as unimportant "bad management," when the consequences have been so dire? This was a war of choice, after all; so at what point do you consider "bad management" to be an actual crime? (I'll give you a hint: in this case, it is a crime from first blush, automatically and by definition.) For the record, I am the one who is stating the obvious truth of "shared responsibility" (as I said earlier); you, on the other hand, desire to omit some of the offending parties, out of ideological convenience. Yours is a relatively radical stance, as apologetics generally is.

The point wasn't about next day regrets, it was about a person changing her mind during the sexual activity, presumably as things start to get, say, a bit too "rough" for her liking. In other words, consent has to be ongoing, not just in the initiation of sexual activity. And to clear things up, because there is obviously some concern here about false allegations of rape (which, according to police, is rare): the fact is that, for men who are not knuckledragging morons, consent or lack thereof DOES tend to be very clear. The advice and suggestions being offered are for the sake of the knuckledragging morons, who can't read body language, who can't read (clear) signals, who think drunkenness or mild flirtation is itself a "yes." Judging from the tenor of the responses here, I suspect there's a misbegotten belief that false allegations of rape are common, and that these "guidelines" will increase the problem.

Oh, it's certainly not that succumbing to blackmail does not make perfect sense, and is not quite understandable. It only irks that people feel forced into this position.