Black Dog

Really? When the age of consent law was put in in 1890 (under Conservative John A. McDonald) 14 was considered prime marrying age. So are you tellling me that kids are less informed and capable of making decisions today than they were 115 years ago? Who said I did? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, save that the distinction between 14 and 16 is arbitrary and that no law will prevent kids from being exploited by someone who is inclined to do so. Who said I was a Liberal? In fact, I made a point above of stipulating I am not. Way to put the notion of a Conservative "hidden agenda" back into play, champ.

This is where it gets silly for me. If a 44 year old having sex with a 14 year ld is so heinous, what makes that same 44 year old having sex with a 16 year old any better? The two year increase seems like such a half measure. Maybe we should adopt the following formula for determining age of consent: A= X/2+7 (where X is your age)

Wow. Get a sense of humour. Correlation does not equal causation. As for enduring republics, how about that U.S.A. Here's some alternatives discussed by Australia during its bid to dump the monarchy: Links. Personally, I like the Irish Republican model. I know. But ditching the Queen is a two birds with one stone scenario. Any proof to turn the conjecture that she's so well informed of the political goings on in those 32 countries she rules in name? I wonder when these updates take place: between ribbon cuttings? As you say, in a crisis, it would be up to the G.G. (a political appointee). Which leads me to the notion that "every one of your questions and concerns could be equally applied to a president, and a president may well be a CBC talking head, former sports star, or entertainer, only elected instead of appointed." Which, to me, as much of an indictment of the current system as it is of a republican system: an admission of the political nature of the G.G. So under the current system, the vice regent is a political office with the added bonus of perpetuating a archaic and antidemocratic system of hereditary privilege.

DISCLAIMER: No friend of the Liberals am I. But... The age of consent in this country has been 14 years since 1890. Why do you want to mess with traditional values? Actually no. So sexual predation/exploitation is illegal. The problem is that there's no matter where you draw the line, some healthy sexual activity will end up criminalized and some harmful activity will be permitted. It's all pretty arbitrary. Prsotitution is already legal. Soliciting the service of a prostitute is illegal. I am curious, though: prostitution is the world's oldest profession: what formula do you have that will make it go away? And you plan on stopping them...how? Moral panic indeed.... I'm sure the federal Liberals wish they had the kind of power to change social attitudes that thei ropponnents ascribe to them. According to the CPC vision, canadaians are, apparently, helpless lumps of clay to be molded by the evil secular socialist Liberals and tehir mighty propaganda machine. I wonder if the notion that government actually reflects the values of its people on social issues has ever occurred to them...

Last rebellion: 1885. See also: 1970. Overthrow of the government: Monday A dictator: Uhh...Monday. Constitutional crisis: 1980, 1987, 1995. Which is all well and good, but not really a testament to the value of the monarchy. I'd rather take my chances. Whatever. Such one-way cynicism. Personally I don't see nonpartisanship as a requirement. Rather, I see the republican alternative as a check on the power of the prime minister, and a means of creating a greater separation of political powers. To borrow your analogy, a president would be less a fire extinguisher as a smoke alarm. Bollocks. The Queen is a dilletante, an outsider. Non-partisan or not, I don't trust her to have the knowledge required to make important decisions for this country. In fact, in order to make those decisions, she would doubtless be forced to rely on advice from thiose close to the situation who would inevitably have partisan leanings. So I doubt there's any way she can escape partisan politics.

Here's why Canadians don't consider the military a priority: it isn't. Health care, education, taxes, jobs: these are the day-to-day things that occupy people's minds. I doubt the state of the armed forces is even a top 10 concern for most people. Canada's military tradition is of answering the bell when called; unlike our southern neighbours, we don't get our rocks off on a strong standing military force. Frankly, I don't think the problem is one of funding (Canada is one of the highest military spenders in the world), but of the mismanagement and lack of priorities of the military. Millions of dollars have been squandered already on useless aquisitions like the submarines: I'd hate to see us throw good money after bad.

Only inasmuch as all deaths are a direct result of the U.S. invasion. But mostly I was highlighting the stupidity in claiming that Iraq is safer than Detroit. There's no car bombs going off on a daily basis in Detroit. Once again, your oft-repeated denouncement of the left';s alleged inability to differntiate between form and content comes back to bite you in the ass. See, America needn't fit the old mold of imperial domination. But you have to be blind to not see the echoes of the white man's burden in the stated desire to democratize the Middle East (and thus bring civilization to the heathens), to see that America's domination owes just as much to its military might as it does its democratic values. First of all, your formulation is incorrect. Neither country was much of threat before (at least to America). And today Iran and North Korea are pretty much where they were before 9-11. In fact Iran is probably the big winner of the U.S.' intervention, as it's long time enemy in Sunni Iraq has been replaced by a potentially friendly Shiite-dominated regime. Really? 'sfunny, becasue the norm for dealing with psychopathic dictators is to support them (so long as they renmain "our" psychopathic dictators). Clifford Olsen has what to do with this discussion? WTF?

So, on the one hand, the idea of allowing people to return to the land their forefathers of one or two genarations ago once called home is "ridiculous". On the other, letting people from the Bronx return to the land their forefathers lived in around 2,000 years ago is perfectly reasonable...

Uh.... Really, you're jumpin to conclusions and taking this into territory (immigration) that has little bearing on the issue at hand (the kidnaping of two Canadian humanitarian workers).

Comedy. Gold. Of course, let's not mention the hundreds of Iraqis who died that same month... Don't forget Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon and many other countries the U.S. has attacked without provocation in the past 60 years. Oh wait: I see, these past imperial ventures are supposed to justify the latest one? Uh...why? Actually, no he hasn't. North Korea is as much of a nuclear threat as ever, as is Iran. Libya was looking at giving up its nuclear ambitions and get back in the west's good books for some time. And according to Iraqi PM, human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein. Um...it's been 3 years.

It's a good thing you had zero credibility prior to this post, because this single statement would have wiped it out. Iraq overview

I wonder: are these the same chaps who were predicting a quick and bloodless conflict, with U.S. troops welcomed with rose petals? I mean, take a sampling of the headlines from Iraq on any given day and you'd hardly be left with the impression that the U.S. is the Thin Khaki Line standing between order and total chaos in Iraq.

Global warming is no more "faith-based" than evolution: that is, the scientific community's consensus is overwhelming. But I see you concede that point. Right. Far better to trust the opinions of the oil industry-backed global warming denial lobby and popcult "experts" like Michael Chricton. I'll take my chances with the geeks.

Who said this? Why, it was a chap named George Coyne, chief astronomer for that bastion of secular liberal thinking known as the Vatican.

Social Libertarian 4.5% Economical Authoritarian 36.4%

Um....science's supermacy over religion in terms of explaining the natural world and bettering human lives is pretty much self evident. Without science we'd still be squatting in tree branches, throwing our crap at each other and wondering why the thunder god was angry everytime we saw soem lightning. I'd be hard pressed to name any human achievment that was made possible by religion. And both should not be taught because ID is not a theory. Edit: just came across a great line on the subject of teaching ID in schools (and really, when we're talking ID, we're really talking a kind of creationism): "I’m sure all the aerospace companies are just salivating at the prospect of hiring someone who’ll believe the bible over his calculator, and I for one can’t wait to ride in one of the planes they design."

In case you've been napping for the past, oh, 136 years, stability and unity haven't exactly been hallmarks of Confederation under the British Crown. You seem to be labouring in some fantasy world where it is impossible for an elected head of state to be neutral, but a political appointee like the G.G. will always be. Get real. We're a democracy. Submitting to the authority (even in a ceremonial way) to an unelected ruler of a foreign country is antithetical to the principles of democracy.

That's what's great about science. It's open to change, theories can be reformulated or even rejected as new evidence come sto light. However, ID doesn't offer any evidence. It puts forward a hypothesis using only the unavoidable shortcomings of evolutionary theory as its evidence. In other words, ID advocates bring nothing new to the table, and offer nothing but a critique of the current body of scientific knowledge. And that's just not science. (Also: wot Rocket said.) As to "science is the modern humans' way of trying to figure out something that none of us truly understand", well, duh. As a method of inquiry about the world and universe it's batting average is way better than religon's.

I'm really sick of all these faith-based theories. This is a good example: we're told that pulling out the U.S. troops would be a horrible mistake. But we're not told why. Oh I know: "civil war". Too bad there's already a civil war underway. Here's another one. We're told the opponnents of the war are "aiding" the insurgency, but we're not told how. Now, call me crazy, but I'd say the prescence of a foreign army on your countries soil and the death of thousands of your countrymen at their hands is motivation enough. I'd be pretty happy if I thought my support of Iraqi's legitimate resitance to the occupier made a difference to them. But it doesn't. May I point out your quote: Nope. They'll be there as long as they are going to be there. Calling for their withdrawl won't change the length of their deployment. The distinction between withdrawl and redeployment is important. The foremer means a complete pull out, the latter a shift in manpower and priorities. Murtha's plan:

Fact: the Queen is the unelected head of state of a foreign country. That alone is reason enough for me to want her gone. Which is precisely why I think the monarchy is a dumb idea. In the event of a crisis, I want important decisions to be made by someone with political savvy and an in-depth knowledge of Canadian politics. Not some old biddy with a hat fetish. Note the word: "elected".

Did I say complete withdrawl? No. As for the shot at the Dems not backing their own wishes for a complete withdrawl, that's just false as well. No Democrat has called for an immediate pull out. Huh? Pulling Americans out of harm's way will cost lives? But I expect such logical contortions from someone who prefaces their opinion with "It is simply a fact..." (while neglecting to provide any supporting evidence). Also: "inevitable victory"? How is such a victory to be measured? Give me a break. Neither the North Vietnemese or Iraqi insurgents need any "moral support" for their fight. What you need to realize is that it was the conduct of the war by the U.S. that lost Vietnam and is losing Iraq, not some long hairs holding signs. (By the way, what about the Iraqi lawmakers who just announced that killing Americans is part of Iraqis' "legitimate right of resistance"? I'll wager those folks have a lot more clout than a thousand Cindy Sheehans.)

What are they signing on to, exactly?

Wishful thinking indeed. The ND's are the only national party that has maintained a consistent level of support over the past year. Layton's safe, and I'll wager they are in a position to, at minimum, hold their gains of 2004.

Atually it was not specifically relating to the RalphBucks Bonus, but the surplus spending as a whole. It's a question of accountability. Currently, the government is spending the extra dough however it pleases with no oversight whatsoever. Sounds a lot like the bunch in Ottawa. I can't for the life of me understand why Albertans whinge about Ontario's voting habits. "Why oh why do those stupid easterners keep voting for a corrupt government that throws away heir tax dollars?" is the cry. Talk about yer pot calling the kettle black.

Ralph is telling the truth. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Ralph: "Are you calling me a liar? Are you calling me a liar?" Yes sir, I am. Ralph actually governs a lot like the federal Liberals. There's no government in this country (including the feds) that is less accountable to its citizens and more secretive in how it makes its decisions. Take the recent talk over the surplus as an example: Ralph explicitly said how much money the government has, and what it does with it, is the government's business, not the opposition's, and by extension, not the people's. There's a real populist sentiment for ya...