Black Dog

Sy Hersh is the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who first broke the story of the massacre at My Lai and its subsequent coverup. He also played a role in exposing the abuses at Abu Ghirab and how the torture there was part of an officialy-sanctioned secret interrogations program. He's spoke to the paper at Berkley recently and relayed this anecdote:

Girls' submissiveness and male dominance are social traits. Wouldn't it make more sense to do something to encourage girls to speak up and boys to be a little more respectful, rather than just surrendering to the social constructs that hamper kids' education? Don't be obtuse. You've never heard of parent/teacher conferences? Report cards? (and for Pete's sake: you don't need to sign all your posts)

Well there's the whiff of sexism about tailoring an education program to advance boys' education. Are they also segregating girls in subjects they "traditionally" do less well in? The message is that boys' educations are more valuable. Furthermore, I question the values of dividing calsses based on genetalia, given that there's a wider range of learning abilities within the sexes than between them. Finally, if a boy is so easily distracted by girls that it compromises his education, shouldn't that be a problem for his parents to address?

Do more parties equal more democracy? Having 5 major parties in Canada gave us the Chretien era of almost autocratic rule. -kimmy That's more symptomatic of the electoral system. The problem with having two parties (and remember, Canada has traditioanlly been dominated by one or two parties as well) is that there's a tendency to clump together in th emiddle. Sure, there's drifts rightward (like the G.O.P or CPC) or leftward (NDP), but for the most part, party politics depends on appealing to the broadest spectrum of the electorate as possible, which invariably results in the creation of watered-down, unprincipled political machines bent only on gaining and retaining power.

I've always wondered how the U.S. could call itself a real, vibrant democracy with only two political parties.

For Argus' benefit, here's more on the Iman al-Hams "sob story". Commander suspended

The detentions also include the "unlawful combatants' ( a designation not recognized under international law) being held at Gitmo and other detention facilities around the world without charge or trial.

Y'know, I've a major problem with this thinking. For one thing, it plays into the hands of the stereotype of the meddling leftist who knows what's good for everybody and will use the power of the state to do enforce their view. It's not helpful. For another, it's manifestly against what a free society should stand for. The beauty of such a society is that we can hold and express differing opinions and have the freedom to turn away from those we violently disagree with. Basically, if you don't like Faux News, don't watch it. The idea that we should ban something because it offends our delicate sensebilities is not a progressive idea. Indeed, it bears a striking resemblence to the kind iof thinking employed by the puritanical right when tilting against a microsecond of exposed flesh at the SuperBowl or any other windmill of indecency.

I personally don't have aproblem with allowing Fox news in. If we can make room on our airwaves for channels like the Food network or the Outdoor Living Network, surely we can allow the Joseph Gobbels Memorial Propaganda Network its place in the pantheon of specialty channels.

More on the "ineffective UN" and the recent report of the Iraq Survey Group. Regime change was the aim

You're correct, he was charged under California's "fetal homicide" statutes, which can be used if the fetus is older than seven weeks, but which also exempt legal abortions. Personally, I don't think he should have been charged with the fetuses' murder. I think fetal hopmicide laws are being used as a wedge to reopen Roe v. Wade.

How about a new born baby and a cluster of tissue? A fertilized embryo? "Laci's Law" as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is known, is a federal law.

Only beacause you edited the last two paragraphs out after the fact, sneaky boy. Well, when the article contains glaring factual errors (the no-fly zone reference) and oversimplifications (such as the false invocation of Article 51), it doesn't do it's job well. Why, would would almost believe that they were pushing a partisan political stance....

You don't have to post the full article (its a copyright violation): a link and some snippets would suffice. Now, to the article: So, it's far better to remain silent rather than criticize bad policy? Give me a break. Interesting how they can simultaneously deride the UN, yet tout the dubious 1441 as the organization's stamp of legitmacy on the Anglo-American invasion. The first clear factual error: the U.N did not endorse the no-fly zones: they were imposed by the US, Britain and France after Gulf War 1. But Iraq never attacked the U.S, therefore the invasion could not be ruled as an act of self-defense, could it? There's no clause for "preemptive war" in the UN CHarter. Annan's job is to represent the UN, not kowtow to the U.S. president. In that capacity, his comment was entirely appropriate. Fie on Fox News.

Marriage Commissioners perform civil ceremonies, not religious ones. The government can dictate the terms of employment to its own employees.

As I pointed out, the Bill in question was not about the draft, but proposed mandatory military service a la Israel. If you're going to make a point, try to do so without lying and resorting to ridiculous ad hominems.

And the judge in question agreed. Case closed.

You even answered your own question: no one votes for politicians who are principled because principled politicans are deemed "unelectable". So you get stuck with amoral suits like Bush and Kerry. When you frame your inquiries with hysterical hyperbole, you can't expect to be taken seriously. I would posit it's your own personal political spectrum that needs a tune up.

But the authority of the Suprem Court derves from Parliment. The Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity, based on Parliment's acceptance of the Charter. The Supreme Court ha sno authority to pass laws on its own. Now, whatever your issues with the Charter might be, but the fact is the Supreme Court is part of the democratic structure of our nation. Religious freedom is protected under the Charter. And the courts have established that a fetus has no inherent right to life and no legal protection as a person until born alive. So you rposition boils down to the following: allowing the courts to do the job they are mandated to do by Parliment to interpret and rule on laws based on the Charter of Rights, (legislation that was passed by the elected government of the time and endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the democratically-elected governments of the provinces) is bad, but only in cases where they going against your personal views. Again, if the same process were applied with differnt results (ie. a Supreme Court ban on abortion), I have no doubt you would be hailing such a decision as a victory for freedom and democracy.

Nope. I don't find Kerry's stand to be all the principled. It seems he'll go whichever way the wind is blowing. SO in that sense he's not a liberal, but a politician. WHoa! Put down the Turner Diaries and back away. Anyone who thinks the US is subservient to the UN is bonkers. The U.S. has consistently ignored, downplayed and run around the UN on issues such as Israel and the Iraq War. As for the "global test" Kerry mentioned, it's pretty clear that the message was that any decision to go to war should only be made after a global (that is: comprehensive) evaluation of whether or not such a course of action is necessary. Well, you're suppositions are wrong.Moderate centrists are the beating heart of the Democrats. Unfortunately, moderate centrism is fundamentally unprincipled. Your point about Wesley Clark actually confirms what I'm saying.

Bump. Charges against RNC protesters dismissed The ACLUs take

That's my point: your outrage is not becaus eyou give a rat's ass about democracy or individual freedom. You're simply having a hissy-fit because you can't have your way. But let's look at your conclusion a little further. The decisions made by courts in interpreting the laws of the land (be it the Charter here or the Constitution down south) are consistent with the values those doumentswere founded upon: that is the requirement of the state to protect minorities from the majority. Those values themselves have evolved over the course of the centuries going back to the Enlightenment and are an important part of western (classical)) liberal democracies. To reverse these decisions would a step backwards in terms of human development.

"Talking points! Getcha G.O.P talking points heeyah!" Tell me: what specific parts of Kerry's platform are so "out there"? (Pssst...Moore initially endosed Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination.) Progressive support for Kerry boils down to an Anybody But Bush approach. No "leftists" I know like Kerry, as he's seen as solidly estbalishment. The biggest complaint among leftists is that there's essentially no differnce between the mainstream Democratic party and the core of moderate Republicans. What I find fascinating is the idea that a Yale-educated, wealthy political establishment player like Kerry can be tarred as "extreme", whil on the other side, folks like Rick Santorum are regarded as indicative of the Republican base. Scary. Stand to recieve your barcode tattoo. It's pretty safe to assume that kerry would govern like Clinton: pay lip service to the Democrat's traditionally liberal approach while still forwarding a conservative agenda. Sure you'd see some minor reforms in areas like health care (assuming they can get past the Republican dominated Houses), but on the majoprity of social, economic and foreign policy matters, a Kerry administration would not stray far from the traditional G.O.P agenda. How loco does one have to be to believe the Democrats are "radical"? I mean, who the hell would be in the middle of that particular political spectrum? Mussolini? Progressives have been abandoning the party in droves for the very reason that they Dems have moved so far to the middle. By attempting to stand for everything, they end up standing for nothing. The Republicans have not shown any similar recitence and have given their party over to their radical fringe, the Christian right and the neocons.

I think quibbling about drugs, prostitution, abortion etc. is beside the point. As was pointed out above, what's good for people is subjective. Furthermore if the Supreme Court was banning abortion or supporting the "traditional" definition of marriage, you'd not hear a peep about "judicial activism".

And they would lose. The same Charter that allows for the creation of gay civil marriages also affords legal protection to religious institutions. The draft bill on same sex marriage which died when PM PM dropped the writ specified that redefinition of marriage as "lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" does not affect the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. Pointless speculation and fear-mongering. You've no evidence of this beyond your own peronal predjudices. I would expect that existing statuates would be enforced. The basis for the Human Rights complaints against Woodside and others of hid ilk are based in the discriminatory nature of their decisions. Woodside did not reject any other applications for proclimations in his 12 years as mayor. More hysterical nonsense. Every year during pride Week, both our local papers are filled with letters deploring the events. And you would not be charged with a hate crime unless you were seen to be inciting violence.