bleeding heart

True. Here in NB, the voters overwhelmingly turfed out the Liberal Premier after one term...which is exceptionally rare in New Brunswick. It was because he was going to sell the Energy utility to a private Quebec company. I'm not overstating: that was virtually the entire election issue. Whether the idea was good or bad, it was a more than usual and obvious example of democratic will at work. Maybe, at least in some cases. I do think the Chretien government stayed out of the Iraq War (well...sort of!) more or less exclusively because they figured the public was angry at the idea. They probably would have been happier to join the coalition, if they could...but considered it politically dangerous.

I'm not opposed to the idea on any fundamental level; But it would be a major undertaking, and would require a lot of restructuring and revamping. And between people who support the Monarchy, and those who aren't bothered by it and so don't wish to expend the time, energy, debates, discussions, and rejigging of the system...there's no real political capital for the idea.

Well said.

Well, as you undoubtedly are now aware, I have made some effort to understand your view, while your preferred "debate" method is to avoid such sedulous weakness of your own rock-solid position. Better to mock a caricature of your own invention. Bravo.

Yes, and as I understand it, this is Wilber's and Wild Bill's stance as well. Not to torture, or support it; but to use information already accumulated through torture. Problematic or not, I understand the principle here. But there is another issue. The issue--and someone else pointed this out on this thread, I believe--is that Canada would have done this anyway. Does anyone even doubt it? That we would...and have? Public statements, then, can plausibly be seen as a message to the torturers, pretty thinly-veiled, but stinking of Plausible Deniability.. In effect that we "officially" don't condone such behaviour...but in a way, wink wink, sure we do, and are willing to listen if you got something for us. Future tense, you see. It is condoning it, in my view...why else go public with what is already occurring, if not to send a message?

That's my understanding, as well. For what it's worth, and based on admittedly sparse reading, I personally don't consider Nietzche to be all great shakes either. But I have little doubt it's superior to Rand, by a longshot.

I agree. No one is weaker than the snivelling cowards who support torture; except maybe the "kinda/sorta" supporters, who think it should be done elsewhere, and then given (or sold) to us...so that Canada can keep its hands "clean" (lol!), while other countries seeking our approval can torture on our behalf. sure, these little sadists think they're "hard" and tough. But really they're just...weaklings!

Yes, as Punked's pointing out about your MSNBC "minority" bit; or Biden's remark about "chains." Fortunately you stand above this type of discourse.

Oh, boy......

The book is sold as a "novel." She called it a "novel," and her admirers concede that it is a "novel." So, the first--and most important--judgement is on its quality...as the entity which it decidedly is. That's more important than the "philosophy" (to dumb down the term) itself. See, my politics doesn't matter to my view of the movie Avatar. I don't much like the movie. At any rate, as someone once said: if you want some Rand-like philosophy that's actually good, insightful, nuanced, and interesting....read Nietzche.

??? Unlike your "ticking time bomb" hypothesis--a mostly discredited theme, incidentally (or not so incidentally).

......

Rare? That's putting it pretty generously...though your concession to pedants' arguments is appreciated and fair, your point is generally true, obviously. A handful of exceptions doesn't change that. And daughters taking sexual advantage of their fathers? That's about as rare a sexual crime as anyone is likely to find, anywhere.

That's it. Exactly.

Don't you mean some Americans are made fun of, by some Canadians? Is this not your go-to pedant's response in most of your conversations? Standards, AW, standards!

Sure. And there's usually no way to know either way, particularly on anonymous internet forums. (Now and then they'll catch themselves out...but more not than often.) As a rule, and for the sake of civil debate, I assume people are telling the truth, unless and until it becomes painfully obvious that they are not. By the same token, I take it as a given that I am "believing" people's lies from time to time.

If there were no such Scriptural personages as Solomon and Abraham, then ok. But you undoubtedly know better than I: did God ever remonstrate with the polygamists?

Yes, the massive victimization of the Conservatives continues apace. They're too good for this fallen world.

Since there's no reason to suppose that innocent poeple don't get tortured, and give false information to stop the suffering; and since there's every reason to suppose that guilty people who are tortured also would give false information to alleviate their suffering...that throws a wrench into it. to put it generously. In the former case(s), it raises its own ethical questions, doesn't it? Hell, I'd bet money that it happen quite frequently; the countries that most often commit torture are not generally known for their adherence to accountability for government wrongdoing. And we're not talking primarily even of people who have been tried and convicted...they're tortured on the auspices of "intel." We've all heard of the Afghan cases where people were awarded money for offering up names. So, the abuses and corruption and lies are self-evident...and innocent people are tortured. And then we justify it in the name of...wait for it..."protecting the innocent." The disconnect is more than profound; the train is right off the rails. S'what happens when people start justifying the very worst aspects of human behaviour. I'm surprised so many people reflexively trust the torturers, honestly. They're as bad as any sociopaths, and their authority does not decrease their culpability.

Maybe it's some sort of combination, I don't know. There's no question that the reluctance exists; and there appears to be a real public appetite for more crackdowns on such behaviour.

Just as a slight side-point: Oh, the poor baby. Thankfully the man was shot, so that this fellow doesn't have to "go through...a trial." A much quicker, better, more efficient form of justice, undoubtedly. The police should take note and act accordingly. (And yes, yes, the fellow's friend was hurt and in shock, and he was no doubt outraged and worried about her. I get that. But still, an interesting comment.)

No, I saw them in the late eighties, at the cusp of their creative powers. They had put out four truly excellent albums in a row--a major achievement for any band. They've not been as good since. Nowhere even close. Period. We're talking more than twenty years. However, I happily grant them the Awesome tag anyway, because bands with such longevity are pretty much always shadows of their former selves, creatively. And of course their good stuff remains good, no matter what else happens. The Rolling Stones, too are genuinely awesome, and they likewise have been producing substandard material...and they have been substandard for longer than Metallica has. Their golden period, for me, was 1968-1972, in which they released five albums which remain genuine rock classics. So, to recap, I like Metallica and the Rolling Stones, while you like Metallica and hate the Rolling Stoners. But I'm the one being too harsh, evidently. As for "credibility" when it comes to music...don't be too quick to make such judgements about something as subjective as rock music. That's silly. Now, if I had lauded the artistic genius of "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies, you might have had a point.....

Oh, sure...the motives aren't pure altruism, but there's nothing wrong with the motives, either. A $5 concert is a $5 concert. Incidentally (and irrelevantly, I know) I still probably wouldn't go, or at least wouldn't make a great effort. The shine faded off these guys a long time ago, for me. And they irritate me, though I'm not 100% sure why. They're essentially a vaudeville act at this point--on the other hand, that's not a bad thing in itself (hell, I like the Rolling Stones; the Rolling Stones, for chrissake! ). No, true, "moron" is the wrong word.

I've noticed this as well. I doubt you'll have any takers on this point, interestingly.