Michael Hardner

April 4th is "history" ? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11 I guess there's a different standard for your favourite politicians.

Yes, from the banner holders of personal responsibility we hear that he's done enough. His promise to make amends can be broken and that's completely fine. At least the NDP made Svend Robinson resign when he did something wrong. Oh well...

The first example is an excellent example of how the left DOESN'T get it. The legality of birth control -> do you really think that this is an issue worth spending time on ? That's a 1960s argument and as I said, the left needs to move on. Safe needle sites is a better example of how the left can present alternatives to a knee-jerk, emotive response and they have been doing just that. By showing that such sites are a practical way to reduce disease, they are building a rational argument for the existence of these sites.

I don't think that Dion's plan sounds that imaginative, but as someone who has been on the sidelines of the environmental debate, I think it's better than no plan at all - which is what Harper is offering. 4 out of 5 Canadians believe global warming exists, according to this poll from last year: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/22/...nment-poll.html

I'm wondering that too. I started posting at Blogspot because some of the forums I post on have disappeared now and again. Perhaps I should just post the article there, then link to it here with a thread topic for discussion, as it it were an article in a newspaper ?

Deleted the offending post.

Uh... Gay marriage is an OLD battle. Even in the US, the beachhead has been secured and it's in the COURTS. Falling unionization rates ? Is that the real problem or is it falling income ? And isn't income a concern for everyone ? Layton's confused schedule is a reflection of the patchwork that is the NDP's core audience, otherwise known as "the converted". The left WON the important battles of the 20th century, and they don't understand that.

My apologies... this was a cross post, which is against the rules.

The left needs to connect people to government again. They need to start talking from the brain and not just the heart. They need to drop their old alliances and realize that it's not the 1930s any more. They need to promote the efficient delivery of services, and improvements to services even if that means the private option. They need to work with corporations to get a better deal for Canadians, rather than demonize them. They need to recognize that the social battles fought in the past have largely been won, and that there are new battles to be won. They need to base foreign policy on something better than doing the opposite of what the Americans want to do. They need to measure baselines for those on the margins, to publicize where those baselines are and to never let them degenerate further. They need to keep their academics, wonks, and crackpots on the sidelines. They need to recognize and believe that their core values are actually mainstream. They need to elevate level-headedness, practicality, experience in importance. A few of the things the "left" needs to do...

PBS and NPR aren't as necessary as the CBC because they're competing against American private networks. If CBC goes down, then there would be a major loss of Canadian identity. I'm not a big fan of the idea of "countries" but if we're going to have them, then we still need to promote Canadian culture in our collective mindspace.

er... uh.... Firstly, I was thinking of Uruk, so I should have said 6000 years. Are those other examples true ? I stand corrected then...

I mean pre-3,500 years ago before cities existed. But socialism isn't about making people equal, it's about 'to each according to his needs'. Capitalism, together with 'Special interests' have created a tiny class of very wealthy people, so the system has worked well for them. Well, depending on how you define 'class', you're right. If a society has no money then power is derived from other means. Again, you're assuming that the 'rich' always exist which is incorrect. Socialism's end goal is for no government to exist, so maybe you're more socialistic than you think.

Incorrect. There is more social mobility in a country like Canada than in a country that has barriers to mobility, due to the class you were born into. Yes, socialism will get rid of all the evils of capitalism. All the injustices of having to work to get ahead of your neighbour or to rise to higher standards. There will be one standard. There will be no necessity to work because there will be no wealth to attain. If you do work, there is no necessity to be materialistic because all have a right to share in your production equally and they will. Just think no private property to look after. Some one to haul away your garbage at no expense to you. but you will have very little garbage because things will be run so efficiently. Only what is needed will be produced. No wasteful Hollywood glam, no extra pair of underwear. How thrifty! How frugal! You make it sound quite crazy, however - communal living is the situation in which humans evolved so in a certain sense it's very natural to us. People do work to help the community, not simply because they're greedy. This is a both a true and a nonsensical statement, because a 'station', or a class doesn't exist in a classless society. I could say something similar like, "only in a classless society can you beg your boss for enough overtime pay to cover your doctor's bill".

Too young...

My point is that these countries were used by the superpowers. I suppose you could blame the Cuban people for supporting a popular revolution, or the Vietnamese for wanting their own country. The US and USSR, by and large, had their way with such places. In some cases it worked out better than others. Was it smart for the US to support any despot that opposed communism ? At the time maybe it was, but I would say that the long term costs were probably underestimated. Wouldn't you ?

You don't think Cuba would have faced an invasion by the US if they didn't have an ally in the USSR ? That's just one example.

Well... those countries had to pick a side... the powers in the game were the US and USSR.

What are you saying ? That Iraq was complicit in allowing themselves to be taken over by Hussein ? That the strongmen and corruption that kept puppet states going long enough to inflict cold war era damage were legitimate means to an end ?

Granted, but doesn't it seem that the cost of a pawn such as Afghanistan has soared over the past 30 years ?

Hear, hear, aw. Another pattern might be how the USSR and USA played countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba as chess pieces in a larger game and how several of the pawns turned against their own king in those games.

jbq, I know a lot about 'patterns' otherwise known as causation. Your idea is that someone's religion causes them to behave violently, and therefore that people who adhere to that religion are not human. It is pure and unadulterated bunk.

In other words, if Al Quaida strikes in Iraq, then we should cease negotiations with Palestine... and I guess by extension... Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, uh... Dubai... uh... Saudi Arabia... and... Iraq ? I know that you have a strong sense of outrage of what happened, but something gets confused when people try to flip an emotional response into an instant policy idea.

Of course, the bombings are horrifying but to suggest that because a bombing happened in Iraq, there shouldn't be negotiations in Israel is ridiculous.

Morris there is something distinctly fishy about that picture.

Magrace, I'd have to say I agree with WD here. Does the fact that there were no women visible at the press conference tell us anything substantive ? If there were nothing but women with Mr. Harper what would that tell us ?