Black Dog

The problem with Rand's thaory is that there's a tremendous amount of room between the two extremes. In other words, it is possible to strike a balance between individual rights and the collective good that benefits both. In other words, Rand's equation is a false dichotomy.

Right, when every good Conservative knows it's the corporations who should be calling the shots.

*sigh* Would you give your daughter a copy of Maxim (or worse: Cosmo) to show her what girls are suppossed to be like? If not, why not? The problem isn't with women getting "looked at". It's objectification, which means women aren't desired for their individual traits, but for how closely they resemble the socially crafted (heterocentric, male-driven( ideal. Their personality, their indiviudality is irrelevant. I'm outraged by the suggestion that a state of affairs that is responsible for pre-teen girls wearing thongs and low cut jeans and 8 year olds on diets is a healthy one for society and for the individual's psyche, or at least an acceptable one. Why wouldn't it be? Why do we have a society that tells girls they can be whatever they want (provided its in one of teh areas that "girls" excel at)? Interestingly enough, I'm sure a lot of men don't enter those professions because of the perception that they are "women's work". So it cuts both ways.

Hardly. We respect veterans for what they did (defend against a legitimate threat) and for their individual sacrifices. However equating their struggle with today's realities is, again, ridiculous. We face no threat today on par with the threat of Nazi imperialism. I find that those who use veterans to scor epolitical points today to be quite distasteful. Squawk squawk squak. Opposing aggression is not siding with "Islamo-fascists" (if one can be so dense as to equate a relatively small group of religious extreimists intent on instituting theocracy with real fascism). As for the right wing standing up against atrocities, your self-aggrandizing back patting rings hollow in light of how many atrocities the right wing ignores or sanctions. The case for canada's diminished reputation is weak for two reasons: one, Canada was never the major player people seem to think it was. two, people over the world stil respect canada for its historical contributions and are probably otherwise as ambivilant about Canada as they ever were. The only people I've herad discussing Canadian irrelevance are Canadian pundits. What integrity? As for Canada's military, we already spend a ton on the military. IIRC, we're the sixth highest military spender within NATO, and the sixteenth highest in the world. I'd like to see a stuctural overhaul of the Forces and an audit of expenditures before any new spending is put forward, rather than just throwing money at the shills in the defence lobby and their paymasters. Typical. Social programs (ie. programs that wil make life better for people) are a waste because they take money away from the branch which kills people. Which is why the Cons believe in cutting taxes and throwing money at problems! Small and mid-sized business provide jobs. Corporations stow their loot in teh Cayman's.

I find the uniquely right wing equation of military strength and national vitality to be a bit odd. It seems these folks look back at historic moments liek World War 2 with a kind of wistfullness, as though those were better times. I guess the passing 60 years has a way of making the realities more distant, especially those for who weren't there. I can't speak for veterans, but I doubt many would look back with fondness for the slaughter that was that war, a war we joined because our contribution was needed, not because we wanted to show our strength. To compare the Canada of the 21st Century to the Canada that stood against the legitimate threat of fascism is ridiculous. What's wrong with neutrality? I think such a policy would greatly benefit Canada and boost its reputation as an honest broker. Better that than to be regarded as a lapdog, like Britain. Wine for lunch? Naps? Brilliant food? Shorter work weeks? Sign me up. Seriously though: what are you basing this comparison on?

I would have thought that, with so many Americans voting for Bush, recruitnment for his war machine wouldn't be an issue. But then maybe Bush voters and otehr Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people or other people's kids dying.

Since you continue to fail to demonstrate any proof of the Democrats' allegedly socialist tendancies, I'll take this bizarre rant as a tap-out. (BTW, there's nothing particularly moderate about your anti-union position. I'd consider a new moniker if i were you.)

Actually, the article dates back to before the November election. I also noticed this screamer: It's strange to think that there are still people who believe the Republicans actually want smaller government. I think anyone who espouses such a view should be immediately disregarded as a source of information, as said opinion is indicative of a total disconnect from the rest of the reality-based community.

In the context of this subject it is. Maybe. But there's a fair number of Canadians who think funding for social services (such as, say, women's shelters) are nothing more than-how did one poster describe them? Oh yes: a "waste." I don't think simply saying "oh well, we're doing okay" (when in fact, we aren't) is really a good strategy.

Perhaps. Which, to me, is an indictment of society. I don't agree with the idea that not letting women "face the consequenses of their decisions" (which in this case means getting the shit beat out of them) is treating them like children. If the choice is between staying and getting beaten, or leaving and starving, maybe we need to offer better choices. I can see your agenda. Now let's see you numbers. I chose this bit to cooment on as it shares the same flaws as other parts of your post: its a mile wide an an inch deep. The unspoken assumption here seems to be that because females respond to socially sanctioned objectification, then objectification is A-OK. Objectification and media-perpetuated body expectations play a major role in many social ills, from abuse to eating disorders, to premarital sex, drug and alcohol abuse. The point here is that you are accepting these things at face value without considering the broader consequenses. *sigh* Like Argus, you don't think past the individual's choices at the social factors that influence them. It's easy to say "Gee, maybe girls just don't like science/politics/whatever." But you have to ask why that is. It's not about being "tricked" but simple socialization. I'm not saying women don't enjoy reading Cosmo or its ilk. in fact I know more than a few women who are quite content living their lives as pale copies of Carrie Bradshaw. That's fine for them. I just think we do women in particular and society as a whole a disservice by not questioning existing attitudes towards women.

I get that's his point, I just object to the way he put it. He said: Terms like "gay or "light in the loafers" unquestionably used to secribe (and , particularily in the second case, deride) homosexuals. You can't just decide to divorce a word from its popular usage. Actually it's not even that aspect so much as its just bad writing. If you think Canada is weak and indiscisive, just say so. I remember one moment that reallly made me proud: two years ago, I joined thousands of Canadians in the streets to protest the United States' war on Iraq. We stood up for what we beleved in and what was right and that was a key factor in preventing any significant involvement by our government in that debacle, despite the caterwauling from the right wing. My point here is that I would love it if the Canadian government would represent the strong views of the people of this country. I do, however, find it ironic that the views of the people here tend to run counter to those who bitch the most about Canada's weakness. You know how to make people care? Give them an alternative. Give them a reason to believe their government is actually making things better instead of just not making things worse. Right now, the Canadian political lanscape is essentially fractured into two main parties, neither of whom is capable of firing people's imaginations with anything creative that might actually make things better. Factor in an electoral system that ensures more than half of voters' ballots are wasted, and natutrally people will be cynical. I also fail to see how people's low expectations have anything to do with political correctness. If anything, the relentless assault on our cherished institutions that started in the 1980's have shown us that the government is not interested in working for us. We've become so inured to the derth of political vision in this country that corruption and scandal now just seem par for the course. If you lot were interested in anything mor ethan sloganeering you'd notice that the current obsession with teh U.S. stems not from some sea-change in Candian life, but is a reaction to the changes down south. Whereas before we had a cordial, though sometimes uneasy, relationship with America, that all changed with the rising tide of bellicosity, belligerance and arrogance that accomapnied the rise of the current regime, a adminsitration who's priorities are diametrically oppossed to the views of Canadians. I'm sure if the tide were to shift, relations would quickly normalize. Uh...no. Thos epoints merely illustrate how specious the initial post was. Ignoring key facts about trade disputes to support the view that we've somehow pissed off the Yanks (as oppossed to the reality of protectionist trade policies) is just silly. In any case, I hear a lot of sizzle, but can't see the steak. It would make a helluva lot morse sense if y'all could produce some examples and offer some practical solutions.

Uh...modAm? I asked for evidenc eof the Democratic Prties slide into socialism and you gave me a (extremely biased) story about a union. Democratic Party != AFL-CIO. I'm asking you about party policy, not funding. And by the way, your article is probably in violation of copyright. A link to and a quote from the article would suffice. The article itself is so horrifically biased (hello? It doesn't even quote any representatives from the Union) that I have to question where it's from.

And you're basing this belief on...what, exactly? Certainly not the information I presented, which showed that financial concerns are a barrier to women leaving abusive relationships, not an incentive to stay.\ But I'll tell you what: chances are, there's a women's shelter in your area. Why not go ask soem of the residents why they chose to get beat up despite "knowing the risks?"

Afghan woman stoned to death for talking to a man

Army misses April recruiting goal by 42 percent Come on, gang: Your country needs you!

It's a crap analogy. Sure...if you're intent on blaming the victim, that reasoning makes perfect sense. The steeplejack chooses to enter a certain line of work, knowing the risks. If the risk outweighs the benefits, then chances are, they won' go into that line of work. Women don't choose to be abused. Sure, its "ultimately" up to the victim to leave. But its up to society to help them make that choice by providing them with options once they leave, ensuring their continued safety etc etc. Agreed. These are all problems of society. Serious people (you know, one's who aren';t immediatelty dismissive of any issue they annot relate to) would find any system where women get most of the burden of labour, and most of the unpaid labour, but men collect most of the income and rewards resulting from the labour to be a serious issue. I'm sorry you can't get your head around the fact that there's more to this than who does the vaccumming. Awesome and all she had to do was carry you for nine months (during which time, wone presumes, she was still doing all the housework), push you out through her vagina, feed, clothe and otherwise look after you uuntl such a time as you could assume your duties. of course, there's the question of what about those women who don't want or can't have kids. I guess they should just stop their griping AND get back in the kitchen... Your arbitrary dismmisal of relevant data is a touch farcical. Trends are really all we have to look at when dealing with such broad subjects. There's so many variables to take into account when looking at individual cases, even when one starts with the basic sketch of a white, middle class female. That's why one has to step back and look at the broader numbers to see what trends emerge. Women. And men. And society. But you still ask the wrong questions. The question isn't "who's buying Cosmo?" but "why do women buy Cosmo?"

Huh? You are comparing people who willingly take physical risks for money with people who stay in abusive relationships because of a lack of financial support? What kind of shit is that? Women who are abused don't think "gee, I'll get beaten, but its worth it for the money!" Mostly, these women lack the financial independence which would enable to break away from their abuser.

I don't see anything in that initial anaysiis that hasn't already been pushed out by any one of the countless right-wing pundits in Canada to whom th emodest social engineering programs undertaken by Trudeau (the right-wing's Public Enemy Number One) are regarded as naescent communism and any attempt to practice moderation is reviled as weakness. It's mostl;y empty rhetoric, lacking depth and substance. In what ways? can you expand on this Hey awesome! Homosexuality=weakness. Great way to make your point. Not. Here's a question: what "values" are slipping away? What were we then (in real terms) that we aren't now? And what's the obsession with "Canada's place in the world"? To me, that lamenty often sounds like longing for a simpler time when Canada was a vassal of Imperial Britain, which gave us the illussion of strength and influence. Really, I think most people who complain about Canada's image are really hankering for a return to simpler times when our powerful friends made us feel important by proxy (which is why those same folks usually want closer intergration with the U.S.A.) No Liberal defender I, but seriously, what's the alternative? If you look at polls and surveys analyzing Canadians' values show that the one party most in step with Canadian value sis the NDP, yet they are derided by the media and homegrown punditocracy as one step above Fidel Castro. Instead the only other real alternative is the Conservatives who aren't all that differnt from the Liberals. Agreed, which is why government needs to address the democratic defecit in this country. Again, where's the substance? There's plenty of real problems to contend with (you mentioned some, such as health care), but this talk of "honor" and "standing up for what's right" are just empty platitudes. Parrish was booted from caucus, and I seriously doubt the U.S. was affected by her grandstanding. I would wager that even the most ardent beltway insider would be able to recall any of Parrish's stunts, let alone Parrish herself. Okay here's where things get really dumb. Trade disputes between Canada and the U.S.A are nothing new. However, NAFTA was supposed to curtail them, yet the U.S. continues to kow-tow to domestic special interests at the expense of trade. It's the Americans who've consistenly ignored WTO rulings on softwood lumber, it's the Americans who listened to the beef and cattle lobbys to keep the border shut. It has FA to do with our attiuides and everything to do with the longstanding strain of protectionism running through American political life. Well, mounting a massive misinformatuion and proaganda campaign to paint a weak and devestated country as a grave threat (despite evidence to the contrary) and subsequently invading and occupying said country with little regard for its citizens or planning to help get them back on their feet is pretty bad. How about embarking on a path of global hegemony, a rejection of multilateralism, highly selective support for democracy? I could go on, but your contention that "we're just jealous" is Colonel Klink logic. "I see nozink...." I agree, but I suspect we have very different ideas about how to reform the tax system. I don't think Harper has a hidden agenda. It's just that his agenda as it stands isn't all that appealing.

Fragmented, maybe. But endangered? No. The Republicans only outnumber the Democrats in Congress 233 to 206. The Senate has 55 Republicans to 44 Democrats. They are a mid-term election away from having a good chance to regain one or both houses. Big Business has a tendancy to support both parties (with an edge to the Republicans who are simply more overt than the Dem's when it comes to their business-friendly leanings). As for the religious right, as the Schiavo fiasco showed, the majority of Americans, while religious themselves, are uncomfortable at best with some of the G.O.P.'s uberconservative religious allies. Most Americans, IMO, understand the necessity of the church-state seperateion. Excuse me? What frickin' "landslide"? Bush's election victory was the weakest performance by an incumbent president in history. Not only did Bush receive the lowest percentage of the popular vote of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman, but he captured the lowest percentage of electoral votes of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. He won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman. No landslide there. As for your other accusation I'd be intereste dto see hwat evidenc eyou have this suppossed slide by the Dems into socialism. What positions did Kerry take, for instance, that reeked so strongly of socialism? You've made this ridiculous assertion before with no evidence whatsoever. I'm interested to see if you can manage to pull some out now. Personally, I think the Republicans are primed for a fall. Bush's poll numbers are in the tank, some of the party's Congressional stalwarts are faltering (ie. Tom DeLay), the G.O.P Social Security plan is a non-starter and Iraq is showing no sign of settling down. They've overreached on a number of issues and those issues will make great fodder come '06. And along the way, mention at every oportunity that Bush misled the country and, as head of the party of "individual responsibiluity" should own up and face the consequnses.

So why no acountability? Evidently, accountability is reserved for presidents who get hummers in the Oval Office, not those who mis-lead the nation into a war that costs thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

That's bullshit too as it disregards a host of factors. At best its ignorance, at woprst it come dangerously close to victim blaming. Why don't they just leave? Of course they're not all exclusive. However, poverty issues, for instance, tend to disproportionatly affect women. Oh well, if it's not an issue to you, then I guess it doesn't matter to anyone.... We really need a vomiting smilie. Canada has one of the lowest rates of female representation in the western world. Instead of shrugging one's shoulders, maybe you need to expolore the reasons why women don't enter politics. Individual choices are influenced by cultural norms and and dominant social attitudes. If the underlying culture is racist or sexist, then individual choice is limited. The kind of dismissive crap emanating from you and Argus perpetuates those attitudes. And just because a small fraction of women become successful politicians or any other profession does not indicate that barriers to women's success do not exist. Barriers exist for women. Those barriers are amplified when gender meets race and meets socio-economic standing. A poor, black woman may be more oppressed than a well to do white woman, but that doesn't mean there aren't common barriers. Ask yourself this: who benefits from perpetuating these things? Who owns Cosmo?

While the "liberal" media in the U.S. covers such hard-hitting subjects as "runaway brides" and Laura Bush's scripted wisecracks about her husband jerking off horses, the UK press has dug up evidence of something that the anti-war left has been saying for ages: Bush lied about Iraq. So the questions are: Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, prior to Congress' authorization go to war? Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for war? Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states? Of course, expect those questions to go unanswered and this information, like all the rest, to barely register on the mainstream press' radar. Evidently, people should not concern themselves with such trivialities when the Jackson trial is on.

But neither you, nor I qualify as such. That's why I mentioned fish and water. Race priviledge exists and whites are the overwhelminging beneficiaries. As whites, we are steeped in it whether we acknowledge it or not and indeed, whether we are concious practicioners of systemic rascism or not. Because, as a male, experiences with gender-based discrimination are outside my frame of reference and I beleive one actually has to be a member of such a group to fullly comprehend those challenges. Do you have any statistics to back up your assumption that "most" men experience sexual or physical violence? Same applies in Canada. Here we have a great example of some of the barriers women face. First we have the notion (unsupported, I might add, by any supporting evidence) that women, esssentially, aren't cut out for the manly pursuit of politics (a generalization which neatly ignores many successful female politicians while slotting the motivations and aspirations of 50 per cent of the population into a neat, monolithic category). Second we have an assertion thatr reproductive rights are strong, which ignores the difficulties and barriers women experience in ccessing reproductive services such as abortions and birth control. Then there's the icing on the cake: women "don't mind" being objectified. Next, I suppose, we'll hear that "she was asking for it." This is one of the more offensive statements I've read, but then I'll just chalk it up to basic ignorance of gender hierarchies.

Okay you two: cut it out. Your infantile squabbling is dragging this whole board down and I don't think Greg would be remiss in suspending the both of yous for a while until you cool off. If that doesn't happen, could you at least explain how this exchange of ridiculous insults, spanning god knows how many threads now, adds anything of value to these fora? An dif you can't do that please: STFU.

I just wanted to preserve that for future entry into the Alanis Morrisette Memorial Irony Awards.