Black Dog

Um...the poll data contradicts the thread title. The question was "Do you think Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country." Respondents are not being asked whether the West should “separate": they are being asked whether they should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country. There’s a considerable difference between “separating” and “beginning to explore the idea” of separating. In other words, the question's mealy-mouthed, indecisive phrasing indicates it is designed to elicit a high positive response rate. Put even more plainly, the poll itself is good for grabbing headlines and that's about it.

Neocon guru? Who knew? The funny thing about people who predicted a quagmire before the occupation began was how right they were proven. In fact, on just about every front, the anti-war crowd has been right and the war hawks/chickenhawks dead wrong. It's just too bad it's the Iraqi people who are paying the biggest price for the neocons' hubris and "positive thinking".

Not to say anything one way or another about mirror's livable income for all, I will say this: while we're talking about ideas that are duds, we'd be remiss in not including:

That's great that you have your own definition of words, but words are defined by common usage. The common usage and accepted meaning of "neoliberal" is at odds with your own. Keep using it, if you want, but no one will know what you're talking about and you'll look, well, like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. For example, you claim neoliberals believe inprotectionism and isolationism. Yet isolationism would be distinctly at odds with the belief in the total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services that is part of the neoliberal ideology, as are protectionist measures such as price controls or government regulation. Neoliberalism is primarily a economic, market-centred concept. Neoconservatvism is primarily a political concept. The two are not mutually exclusive. Basically, the people you are calling neoliberals are not neoliberals in the accepted sense of the word.

I don't buy this for a second. First, I don't think there's any more idealogical diversity among journalists than there used to be. What's more, I don't think the indiovidual political stances of reporters matters all that much. Bias also operates among the editors, managers, and owners who call the shots. It's called structural bias, and its neither left nor right. Look no further than CBS, former home of "liberal" Dan Rather, and who's president pledged support for Bush in '04. If there is a bias in media it is towards official power and policy. WOOSH! That was the point. You missed it. Here it is for you again: because FOX is a business it sells people what they want. In Fox News, that is conservative, Christian outrage. On Fox network, its titilating, "edgy", sex and violence programming: in other words, the same content culture war conservatives detest. Does the content of FOX the network demonstrate a liberal bias in FOX news? Nope. It just shows that they know how to work the rubes.

Twist?

Hey Shady: do you know what a neoliberal is? I think its cute that you guys are trying to invent a term to counteract the neoconservative label worn by so many Bush administration figures, but you should adopt one that isn't already in use. Neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy (that complements private initiative), focusing instead on achieving progress by encouraging free-market methods and fewer restrictions on business operations and economic development. The "neo" in this case refers to the revitalization of the term over the past few decades after the brief dominance of kenysian economic theories. It has nothing to do with socialism or progressive ideas.

a) If FOX News is "mainstream" then any one on Fox News (especially one with his own show) would, by extension, be mainstream. Hannity and Limbaugh are also mainstream, for the same reasons as above. ? I suppose this would be true if one thought of the mainstream media as a cabal of radical hippies in some star chamber in Hollywood that filtered every bit of content through their leftist vision. But that's not the case. The media is a business: their only ideaology is to make a profit. FOX is a perfect case: peddling red-state culture war backlash conservativism on one network and the raunchiest, filthiest, most morally bankrupt programming in the country on the other.

Anecdote is not the plural of data. Personally, I'd rather see a ban on SUVs than cell phones (I'm also betting there's a strong correlation to reckless cellphone users and SUV drivers). Doesn't that apply to anyone who's driving? The best thing people can do is to pay attention to what they're doing behind the wheel and to their surroundings. And if you see someone on a cell phone and driving carelessly or recklessly, get their license number and call the cops. But then what do I know? I take transit.

But first we'd have to see if they are really dangerous. If cell phones are dangerous enough to warrant a blanket ban, surely there would be a relationship between the rise in cell phone use and traffic deaths and injuries. Yet the statistics show that deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents are declining. So there doesn't seem to be a correlation between cell phone useage (going up) and traffic accidents (going down). Stats. So, why the special treatment for cell phones? People still speed. People still drive drunk. People still refrain from wearing their seatbelt. People still do things that are illegal because they think they can get away with it. People will know a cell phone ban will be hard to enforce, and will act accordingly by not changing their behaviours. In 2001, New York became the first state to prohibit drivers from talking on hand-held devices while operating a motor vehicle. A subsequent study found the rate of drivers chatting on cellphones declined from 2.3% before the law went into effect to 1.1% during the first few months after the law was passed. But one year later, the rate had risen to 2.1%.

No because careless driving (for example, not paying attention) is differnt from being physically incapable of properly operating a vehicle because of impairment. But as I said, if there are already laws in place, why bother with new ones. Enforce the laws we have. Why stop there? Why not ban coffee cups, vanity mirrors, radios and other potentially distracting things from cars? All a cell phone specific ban would do is stretch the already taxed resources of law enforcement. In practice, it would be almost impossible to enforce. I think laws need to be assessed partially on their practicality. Since a cellphone ban would be extremely difficult to enforce, it doesn't make much sense to me. Sure it would have some benefit, but then, so would increased enforcement of existing traffic laws.

Um...I hate to burst the bubble, but FOXNews is the mainstream media, as much as the New York Times and CBS and given to the same editorializing.

Agreed. But why do we need new laws? If you're not paying attention because you're yapping on your cel, or not paying atention because your drinking coffee or (as I have seen) reading a book, then you're being careless. Careless driving is already an offense. If this is a huge issue, then the cops should simply step up enforcement.

Hey IMR, do you know what a neoliberal is?

There's already laws on the books for such things as careless driving and driving without due care and attention. Surely those would suffice if enforced. Perhaps the problem is one of resources. Maybe we'd have more cops on the street enforcing the current laws if they weren't busy enforcing marijuana prohibition.

So her race and background were considerations. So? Why not also mention the fact she's kinda hot? Has as much bearing on the appointment and the position of GG. Personally, it's too bad that, if they are filling a shallow position with someone of shallow qualifications, they couldn't find a lesbian. The sound of heads popping from coast to coast would have been worth it.

As I've made clear already, since the GG is a pretty much pointeless position, then the identity of the individual residing in Rideau Hall is pretty much irrelevant. yet for some reason, its clear that some would prefer their useless ceremonial figureheads to be white male useless ceremonial figureheads. Or soemthing. I can't fo rthe life of me figure out why the race, gender or sexual orientation of the person recieving the cynical patronage appointment matters a whit.

Wow. Insightful.

But should every law require a mass upheavel on the part of the populace for it to be changed? I don't think so because, if so, nothing would ever change. What's needed is common sense and a little backbone at the political level. But what of a marriag ecommissioner who refused to perform a ceremony based on his personal beliefs? Martyr or scumbag?' (I realize the limitations of this argument. I believe SSM is a "good" law because it extends freedom and does not limit it. Like pot use, no one is affected by SSM except its participants.) There's a reason that term is problematic. You're making an uneccsary moral judgement on the charater of someone based on their non-compliance with the law, which, as we've established, can be immoral and unjust. Nonsense. The law was unjust from the get go, it just took some time for that fact to be recognized. That recognition didn't suddenly and magically transform the law from a "good" law to a "bad" law.

I trust you mean to say the GG is not a check. Since the GG is a partisan appointment , they are ana rbitor of nothing. The GG's job is to pin medals, cut ribbons and dole out rubbber stamps on the taxpayer's tab. Useless, in other words. We could go the BHS republican route. Or we could curb the power of the PMO. either is preferable to the status quo.

That disobeying the law comes with consequenses is self-evident. That's not the issue, which is whether those consequenses are appropriate or the law itself is just. As for people like, well, Jesus, being scumbags, I think that thinking speaks volumes for itself. Well, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having the discussion, now would we? Anyway, like I said, the end result of this thinking is totalitarianism. Any government can enact any ridiculous law and people like you will accept it. I find that view totally at odds with the conservative position you maintain elsewhere. For instance, by your own logic, you should be welcoming same sex marriage with open arms.

This is what is known as a "false dichotomy". Who says if we remove the trappings of our colonial past that we have to replace it with anything? The GG and, by extension, the Monarchy don't "serve us well": they don't serve us at all. They are figureheads, ceremonial relics. That in and of itself would be harmless, but for the fact we pay for these things. What differentiates a "real" GG from a "lightweight" exactly? Do "real" GG's pay their own tab? I doubt it.

But you said yourself the mission is different. We're not going as peacekeepers or rebuilders, but as Uncle Sam's proxy army. In other words: processed to secret detention facilities to be held without charge or trial, or rendered to other nations for interregation including torture. That's not something I as a Canadian want on my conscience.

Again: by your logic, all the historical law-breakers/martyrs described above are "scumbags". The difference is running a stop sign is illegal because of the potential for harm to come to others: that makes it a prime example of a "good" law. It's hard to argue that such a law is immoral because it seeks only to protect individuals from the actions of others, not to protect individuals from themselves. As for "consensus" its hard to reach a consensus when people seem to be rooted to the notion that the law is the law and must be obeyed because it's the law. Smoking dope isn't really the issue so much as allowing what people can or can't do to themselves. Getting pissed drunk isn't a basic human right, yet it is legally sanctioned. Weed is no different.

Nope. (from the initial CBC story) Sure: by the strict definition, disobeying an unjust or immoral law would make one a criminal. Just like, a sthelonius said, Thomas Jefferson, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus Christ were all criminals in their day. Scumbags all, by your logic. Whether you smoke dope or not isn't relevant. The issue still affects you through the taxes you pay to support the police, lawyers, judges and prisons, resources that could otherwise be directed towards real crimes (you know: one's where people are actualy harmed).