Black Dog

I thought McCarthyism was no longer a perjorative term for the U.S. right? Plus: I suppose you would rather have the process be a simple rubber stamp (given your apparent belief in the doctrine of Presidential Infallibility), but the fact is, these confirmation hearings have always been contensious: they're suppossed to be.

Further to that, while not a top priority, most people would probably generally agree that having an adequate military is a good thing (as Martha would say). But I have a hard time believing that people would consider an elaborate and costly missile defense system to be a requirement. We're more concerened with having helicopters that don't crash and decent pay for the troops. And rightly so. What's pathetic is you getting all that from my earlier statement. First, I'm not suggesting Canada would lose control of its military, I am sugesting that, if some had their way, our political leadership would take its policy cues from the U.S. Nor am I sugesting Canada be disarmed: rather, I'm saying Canada should set its own course for its defense, not blindly jump into whatever scheme the Americans cook up soley for the sake of making nice. In other words: we need an independant foreign policy.

Jesus. This administration can't even spy on its own people right: Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends What? Incompetence under the Bush administration? I thought they were doing a heckuva job. So not only did the program involve spying on American citizens (again, in violation of standing law), it also swamped investigators, which no doubt hindered there ability to track down real leads. Maybe one of the Bush True Believers can explain how a program that led investigators to dead ends and resulted in no arrests or prosecutions can still be so vital and life-saving taht revealing its existence can cause such severe damage to national security. Cause I can't get my head around it. Nor can I grasp why it was necessary to bypass FISA in the first place. And before anyone trys to point out that the apparent inefficiency of the program means it was ultimately harmless, consider the example of the beauracratic apparatus of the Soviet Union and how incompetence flourishes in closed, authoritarian systems.

North Korea hasn't tested a long-range missile since Clinton was in office. The most recent estimates put their stockple of nuclear weapons at around 10 (less than half the number carried by a single American Ohio-class nuclear sub). What's more, even if one assumes the worst-that they have the reliable ability to hit the U.S. with a nuclear-equipped missile- that still doesn't make them immue to the principles of M.A.D. Iran's long range missile capability is even less then North Korea's. And, once again, the same principles re: MAD apply. If we're not paying into it and our involvement is limited to "a seat at the table", we get nothing out of it. It doesn't make us weaker, but it certainly indicates questionable priorities. So you admit the onlything N. Korea has to gain from a nuclear exchange is a small amount of damage and teh cost of its total destruction. So it's not MAD, it's suicide. If North Korea struck first, the U.S. would be perfectly justified in retaliating. Its allies in Japan and S. Korea know that, as do China and Russia. And even if the U.S refrained from nuclear retaliation, they could pummel the North into rubble using its vast conventional might. Either way, the result is the same: North Kore and Kim Jong Il cease to exist as political entities. I think the people who want to bolster the military (like Washington's idealogical allies in the CPC) want to do so in order to turn Canada into a fighting arm of the U.S. military. Beleive me, if this project had any merits, I'd consider them. But, as I said I don't see this as anuthing more than a way of bosting Boeing and friends' bottom lines at teh taxpayer's expense.

Isn't that cute. I'll let you have this one, little guy, because you've been wrong so many times before on pretty much every subject you've posted on (at least every post that wasn't just fawning praise of whatever witticism copied from LGF that Monty Burns trotted out). I'm still curious, though, what I made up. Barring the error over Laura's state when she wiped out her high school sweetie, everything else was true. As far as CAP goes, one has to wonder why Alito was proud enough of his membership to put it on his resume in '85, yet 20 years later can't even remember joining, only to later go on to say that, even though he can't remember joining, he had a good reason for it.

So your defense comes down to: state surevillance of citizens is okay because evrybody does it and besides, some peopel might be guilty of something? I don't think anyone's naive enough to beleive that no administration ever did a bad thing (personally, I'm of the belief that the Presidential honour roll is a rogue's gallery). But I'm not sure anyone has ever witnessed this amount of corruption and criminality in one administration (at least since Nixon). I have to wonder if that's because new comunications technology makes spreading information and exposing the abuses of the state that much easier.

If you want to consider a small country putting its flag on an isolated barren chunk of rock "pushing us around", that's your perogative. I don't think it's a particularily serious issue. As fo rthe rest, the U.S. has been putting subs in Canadian waters for years: bolstering our military won't stop them simply because there's no chance we'd take military action agaisnt the Americans to defend our soverignty. Finally, the Britsish sub deal had nothing todo with our military strength: it was a political screw-up. The U.S. would be shooting missiles into our airspace regardless of our participation, so our participation would simply be for apperances' sake. And what will we do if we had such a place? Tell them "no, you can't shoot down any missiles unles sthey are in your airspace"? Riiight. People keep talking about this "place at the table" as though just sitting down with the U.S. is an end unto itself. But no one seems capable of articulating what's in it for us once we're there. What's the expression I keep hearing? Oh yeah: "the U.S. will never ask permission to defend itself". (Look it up.) Again, I can't see how Canada "having a place at the table" would change anything but the optics. Let me put it this way: if someone is dead set on doing something, and you can't stop them from doing it, giving them your permission to do it is a meaningless gesture. Beasides, on the off chance there was an inbound nuclear missile over Canadian airspace, do you really think we'd say "no, you can't shoot it down"?

Why don't the principles of MAD apply to Norther Korea? If anything, madmen like Kim Jong Il are even more limited than major powers, given their limited ability to strike (they don't have a missile capable of reaching the continental U.S.). In any case, a nuclear attack (whether thwarted by m,issile defense or not) would mean nuclear retaliation, which in turn would be the end of North Korea. Kim Jong may be crazy, but he's not suicidal. Frankly I don't think we need the United States help. If we had a plan to defend our own territory we'd do just fine. I would be in favour of just such a plan (obviously, it would not include BMD) if it meant less integration with the U.S. But I don't believe all the talk of bolstering Canada's military has anything to do with national defense. A simple look at a globe will tell you why Iran and North korea are potential threats to their neighbours, but not North America. False premise. Missile defense doesn't make us stronger. Notwithstanding the fact that the threat missile defense is designed to thwart does not exist, Canada doesn't have the population or economic might to be a superpower. Canada has no nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which restricts who can have nuclear weapons. Again, Canada doesn't have the necessary prerequisites to acheive super power status. BTW, what countries are pushing us around?

Ths the problem with spanking. There's always the risk of things getting out of hand especially when punishment is administered in anger (the catch here is that the less immediate the punishment, the less it is associated with the behaviour and therefore the less effective it becomes. Thus, "cooling off" before spanking defeats the purpose of spanking.)

Sure it can. If it does work, it would give the Americans a strategic advantage. Countries like China and Russia aren't going to play it safe by hoping the thing just doesn't work. They are going to put themselves in a position whereby they can be damn sure that, if it does work, they'll still have the ability to shoot back. Well, they clearly don't need our help with this cockamamie BMD scheme. Even if they developed a system tomorrow that was 100 per cent successful, I'd still think it was a stupid idea for the simple reason that the countries the system is designed to deter (Iran, North Korea in particular) don't pose a threat.

I know, but it's frequently been cited as a reason to join by program proponents. So what? It's their money, let them spend it as they wish. Until someone can make a convincing case as to the necessity of this program, Canada should stay out. None of which is particularily germaine to the subject, save to reinforce my point that participation in missile defense would inevitavbly result in Canada taking the role of junior partner. So much for "having a say". But the heart of the matter is this: the program is useless, a white elephant corporate welfare scam being perpatrated on the American tax payer by the defense industry and its bought and paid for cronies in Congress and the administration. It's no business of ours.

If spanking worked the same way, then you'd only have to do it once. Clearly that's not the case. Or it teaches that violence is sometimes okay. Like when you are bigger than the person you're hitting. Spanking is not a lesson: it is a reaction. It doesn't impart any message as to why the certain behaviours are wrong, only that certain behaviours elicit certain unishments in certain situations.

You mean "families", not "facilities", right? An air campaign would seem to be the obvious choice (even if the rhetoric is sounding mighty familiar to what we heard in the build up to the Iraq war). I wonder, though, what any aggression against Iran would mean for Iraq, given the prominence and popularity of the Iranian-alied Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Certainly, the U.S. is already angling to give the Sunnis more clout in hopes of curbing the insurgency: I wonder if an attack on Iran wouldn't be taken as a sign to Shi'ite Iraqis that the U.S. is turning against them. But then, perhaps I'm overstating the power of sectarian loyalty: these are two countries that spent the better part of a decade trying to wipe each other out.

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying In case you're wondering, the Congressional Research Service is the public policy resear ch arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

While the Tories' new "get tuff on crime" plan means 14 year olds can be tried as adults. So at 14, you're old enough to be held to the same level of responsibility as an adult for a crime, but not old enough to decide who you can have sex with. (BTW, the current age of consent was put in place in 1890 by a Conservative government). Bull. The cops were there hunting stolen goods, not pot.

As I said in another thread, the expectation seems to be that our participation wouldn't cost us a dime. Well, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we want a place at the table and if we want to have any say, chances are we'll be required to pony up. And even then, I sincerly doubt the U.S. would be willing to cede any real decision making authority to Canada. (Also: I think the use of the term "ally" in the context of U.S./Canada military relations is disingeneous: such a term denotes a meeting of equals, which is not the case. Under any scheme to further integrate Canda's defense into the United States' goals, we'd most certainly be the client. Or, less charitably, the "bottom".) Which is something they would do anyway, no? Thing is, I'm not at all worried about missiles being shot down over Canadian airspace. I'm very worried about the potential of Canadian taxpayer dollars going into a program that is little more than a direct grant to U.S. defense contractors.

Well, there's no real consensus on the outcome sof spanking. Personally, it make smore sense to err on teh side of caution, or in this case, not hitting your kids. Or is it that bullying is simply getting more play? In other words, practices that were common place and acceptable a few decades ago are now precieved as harmful. There's so many othe rfactors at work (such as the rise in single parent homes, the decline infamily incomes etc.) that connecting a decline in spanking with social harm is difficult. I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between indifference and corporal punishment. But you're not talking about spanking anymore. There's a difference between teaching school-aged kids how to deal with bullies and teaching toddlers the basics of social interaction. But it's a point unsupported by the evidence. Violent video games and TV have been increasingly prevelant, yet there seems to be a negative correlation with violent crime (eg: U.S. violent crime rate per 100,000: 1974=47.7; 2004=21.1) . Frankly, kids are more likely to be influenced by immediate sources-parents and peers-than the media.

So we should protect our soverignty by giving it away by participating inwhatever cock and bull scheme the Americans deem best for us? Feh. I cannot believe there is so much hand wringing over Canada's unwillingness to participate in a program that doesn't work that is designed to protect us from a threat that doesn't exist.

So let me get this straight: the best way to show kids that hitting is not okay is to hit them? I'd really liek to see the evidence that shows kids who aren't spanked are more likely to commit crimes. I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems.

"Controls" is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say?

Too bad we're both right, given the Roe court's conclusion that the constitutional right of privacy is supported by the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment. Whew. Indeed, why not? As I said, the Constitution is little more than an enumiration of the powers of the federal government. In other words, the government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. Not only does that mean the government has no right to invade individuals' privacy, it has no right to do anything not specifically authorized in the Constitution.

I'll bite: why do you think such a test would fail? Given the potential Constitutional issues here, I wouldn't bet the farm if I were you. Well, if people are willing to accept that distorted view of the issue, sure. But that's why opponents need to work to make it clear that the issue (and I don't know how many times I can say this before it sinks in) is really about the limits on Executive authority and the wisdom of trusting a government with a track record of both monitoring protestors and political groups and attacking any of its political foes as traitors. Put it bluntly, those seeking to minimize this are saying it is ok for George W. Bush to continue to violate the laws of the people and the government of the U.S.A because he says it's ok.

I like Paul Wells' suggestion:

I'm still trying to see what this case has to do with judicial activism.

You should be ashame dof yourself. Not for rascism, not for appropriating black culture, but for using "izzle". That shit went out in 2004, man.