Michael Hardner

This thread, the media coverage, and political discussion in general doesn't pay enough attention to ideas. Everybody likes a great story ( and there have been lots of stories about the leaders) but where's the substance ? I'd be interested in hearing what a tax-and-spend politician would plan to do differently this time around...

The government uses everything to its advantage, as arguably people do as well. Do they cause it, though ? Now back to Charles: When reconstructing a crime, knowing a motive helps frame the investigation, I believe. If you want to explore the chances of an American non-Islamist (I assume this is what we're speaking of) 'helping' on the day, let's take motives 3,4, and 5. 4) 5) Mental Illness/Possession by the Devil A person who is affected in these ways cannot be counted above in times of stress, so it's unlikely the plotters would approach such a person for assistance in the plot. 3) McVeigh/White Supremecist/Some Kind of non-Islamist Axe to Grind This is far a more likely scenario than above, but the questions start to pop up: Why would the plotters trust such a person with their plot ? How could they be sure he/she would join in, indeed that they wouldn't tell authorities ? How would they make contact with such a person ? Why did this person need to be a non-Islamist American and not an Islamist American ? What was their role ?

What would their motive be ?

In order for you to say that, you'd have to know how many exercises happen a year, and how many days they last for. It's easy to scour all the myriad events that happen on the day of a disaster and come up with a handful of oddities. If you try to attribute those oddities to some kind of government planned conspiracy, you will need to find a clear motive to justify the enormous risk involved. Almost all of the 9/11 conspiracies fail that test.

Well Quebec realize, though, how far below the radar any of this is in Ontario ? I mean, Ontario is barely aware of anything that happens in Quebec these days. I'm not even sure that a 'yes' vote on separation would stir much interest these days.

This thread has descended into a sort of surreal vulgarity, but I do enjoy the humour. Now, back to the discussion ... ?

Ricki, you must admit that the first post in this thread is a classic drive-by...

It's very sad how much traction this conspiracy garbage gets. It's a warning sign to all of us that our institutions are under deep suspicion. Thanks, BD, for doing a good job of addressing the points raised.

Wong has a maid so we should ignore her ? Strange.

Renegade - I agree. But there's some kind of contradiction there. If the government is concerned with higher wages, aren't they also concerned with productivity - ie. production per hours of labour ? Certainly, there's a balance at play. Wouldn't it be nice if we understood what that balance was, and how our government tries to achieve it ?

I checked out a few articles in the Globe and Mail. There was an article about the theories of Mark Ames, who submits that the world is simply a crueller place, and seems to place blame on globalization et al. Jan Wong imlpies that Quebec language laws are a factor. Jeffrey Simpson's piece calls for calm, and quotes statistics (Ames' ideas would benefit from more evidence) to show that things aren't as bad as they seem. The editorial states that the current legislation wouldn't have prevented the disaster, and asks for dialogue to come up with better gun control policies. As I suspected, the paper tends to take a top-down view - ie. how policy changes can prevent these incidents - rather than dobbin and Argus' more ground-level view.

From jdobbin and Argus' posts above, they pointed out social factors such as isolation and values as having an impact. The unsettling thing about those ideas is perhaps that we can't blame the government for that, or start a new program to deal with it - the responsibility is on us. I'm going to pay closer attention to the MSM and see whether they're more likely to suggest programs and top-down policy initiatives, just as an experiment.

Rénégade: Not at all. Maybe a deep discussion of what education is supposed to achieve would be a good idea, though. For example, your post seems to say the desired outcome is higher wages - is that indeed true ?

I have been posting for over six years (3 years here, I think) and have seen some remarkable changes in people. The medium can't be ignored - it will eventually find its place.

Money buys TV time, ie. time on a crusty old medium whose influence decreases every year. We're coming.

The question, to me, is when people look for 'root causes' and why. Yes, you're correct - an organized terrorist act by a group is a different sort of crime and might warrant attention based on that alone. If it's a singular act, though, then does it matter ? I'm asking these questions as much of myself as of you. I think that there may be tiny amount of empathy that we feel within a large amount of contempt for these people. If it's a school shooter, for example, I think we naturally empathize a tiny bit more - subconsciously - than with a foreigner who is acting out of rage over a far-away-conflict.

Nothing beats interactivity for learning - Socrates did it well in his day. I now find that reading the newspaper is a frustrating exercise, as the typical article leaves so many questions unanswered. Another side-effect of heavy MLW involvement is frustration with politically-like-minded people whose opinions are rote or uninformed. Such a place will be important to the political process in the future - I have no doubt.

I'd like to add that the education = high wages idea is severely outdated.

Yes, you need mention what policy you refer to in the thread title. If this is just a general dirge and lament about the status of men in society, you should express your feelings through poetry.

Your example - man is now being discouraged from traditional relationships. What do you mean and how does that represent a loss of rights. As for divorce legislation, it doesn't mention gender but instead provides a formula for dividing assets.

I agree... I like all of these and probably a few that I haven't thought of...

August1991 comes to mind. Argus is a solid logical thinker but we don't share the same values at all. Black Dog, theloniusfleabag...

Well, it's still not provable but it seems more reasonable now somehow...

Says Black Dog... Decline of war and violence, decline of religion... You can dispute the former trend if you like. I won't. It doesn't matter either way - you could associate the decline of religion to the decline of the hula hoop without evidence.

To take two social trends and imply they are linked is pure supposition.