Black Dog

I see. So August 1991 refers to the peiod in the past you've travelled from to be here today. FYI, seperatism is pretty much off the national agenda. And while seperatist sentiment is still strong in Qubec and occassionally rears its ugly head in the West, I think the issue of electoral reform is an impiortant one for the future of democracy in this country. In the meantime, though where'd you get the time machine?

I would mostly agree, but beg to differ on the causes of this moral decay. I believe the problems in society don't arise from some assault on traditional values (which could more acturately be referred to as the traditional power-structure) by the forces of secularism or the bugbear of "political correctness". Rather the qualities you speak of have been systematically undermined by the growth of consumer capitalism, which relegates individuals to the dual role of worker/consumer, where personal fulfillment is said to be reached through the aquisition of material goods, where family time is sacrificed to 80 hour work weeks in order to pay for the new SUV, where greed and self-interest are the new religion. God isn't dead: he drives a Lexus. How did this happen? Easy. Greed, self-interest are part of human nature. When you have a system that touts greed as a value, it may work for a time, but it's bound to break down as it makes the natural progression from promoting benign self-interest to complete disinterest in anyone else. So the problem isn't outside the system: it's the system itself.

The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.

The whole problem with this thread is that there's a huge gulf between the theories being espoused and their application in the real world. Take the above as an example. Politicians keep the support of the people by making good policy, providing leadership and doing thethings that leaders are supposed to do. I don't think people really care how much a politician gives to charity. However, that raises an interesting aside on the role of money in democratic capitalism. As we've seen corporations become larger and more powerful than ever before, more and more politicians are becoming beholden to these economic interests (look at the U.S. where both parties are deep in the pockets of their contributers). How thios cozy relationship benefits the average Joe is certainly unclear. The fact is, the face of capitalism has changed since the days of Ben Franklin and Adam Smith. We're no longer talking about the rugged individualists pulling their own weight blah blah blah. The reality of today is that democratic capitalism (if such a thing ever existed) has been supplanted as the dominant ideaology by corporatism, which centeralizes economic power in the hands of a few. Corporations are among the world's largest economies and they seldom have any interest in mind beyond the bottom-line and a healthy return for shareholders. The cozy relationship between government and their corporate donors is well-documented and poses a far greater threat to democracy than andy Al-Q'aeda terrorist ever could dream.

You know, Elder, I think the biggest problem I have is that you seem unwilling to accept that people in same-sex relationships can be as caring, complimentary and as loving as heterosexual ones. As Martin Luther King said with respect to interracial marriages: 'It's not races that marry, it's people." The same goes for same-sex marriages. Gay people are, well, people too. They have the same range of human experience as anyone else. They are just as capable of loving and respecting one another, of working hard at their relationship and basically fulfilling all your considerations of what makes a good marriage. I don't see why we can deny a segment of the population a chance to experience the kind of relationship you cited simply because we may not be comfortable with the idea of two men or two women living together, raising families and so forth. There's a lot of bad marriages out there between men and women and a lot of seriously f----d up "traditional" families. Basically I don't think you can root an argument against gay marriage on such broad generalizations as "a man has certain attributes which a woman doesn't, and a woman has certain attributes that a man doesn't. Neither being superior to the other, they make the perfect team, their skills complimenting each other." If anything, your eloquent summary of what marriage is actually helps my argument.

Please do back this statement up. Enron. Actually, that's sort of correct. Disasters can be good for the economy, at least as its currently measured in terms of GDP. the U.S GDp went up after 9-11. Now the long term effects can be ambiguouis, and large economies deal with disasters better than smaller ones, but there's some ambiguity as to whther or not the GDP is a accurate reflection or economic value. What is a corporation but a "badly organized collective"?The notion that private corporations are inherently better organized than public institutions is a myth. This statement makes absoultely no sense. capitalists cooperate becaus ethey compete? huh?

But why stop at two? Surely multiple wives would be a more efficient way to run a household and ensure that children are raised by an attentive set of parents. Meanwhile having more than one husband would also have the advantage of multiple breadwinners and, were something to happen to one, there would be others to step in. But in all seriousness, I think the rise of non-traditional families is an indication that the traditional family model doesn't work. It's a sexual contract rooted in monogamy, patriarchy and the preservation of property that historically hasn't worked very well, especially for women. If you have some evidence to back this statement up, by all means, produce it. Otherwise, that's not a fact, but simply your opinion.

No one mentioned Bush. Bush's personal stake in Haiti is neglegible. However, again if you'd bothered to read any of the links, you'd see that top figures in this administration's State Department have been gunning for Aristede's head. Furthermore, it's certainly not absurd to suggest that the U.S would have a strategic interest in a country which lies right on its doorstep, a country that it has a 200 year history of intervention in, dating back to President John Adams and continuing through to Clinton. The fact that you would think that a U.S. president, even one of Bush's poor calibre, would not spend "even 5 nanoseconds thinking about Haiti and Aristide" demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of the situation in Haiti, its historical context and foreign policy in general. Uh no. Again, Bush was barely mentioned at all. If anything, he's merely continuing a longstanding U.S. policy of protecting U.S. interests abroad by any means necessary. In other words, on this, Bush is acting like any other President in U.S. history. However, let's not get sidetracked by a meta argument concerning the bile that Bush elicits in many opponents, but keep the discussion focused on the continuing tragedy that is Haiti. (edited to add) the original FT link isn't working, but here's a pdf of the article: Don't fall for Washington's spin on Haiti

Elder, your assertion that the so-called "traditional" definition of marriage is "the traditional family is the best place for creating a family, for contributing healthy members of society" is a tautology. What exactly makes the traditional family is the most effective family?

Well, geez, maybe that's because the government has the power, ability, infrastructure etc. to do more good than I could ever do by dropping a few loonies in the jar at Safeway. State intervention is necessary simply because there are too many important issues out there to be left to the iffy charitable impulses of a select few. If history has shown anything about capitalism, it sthat the average capitalists favorite charity is themselves.

Actually they don't have the right to enter into state-sanctioned legal partnerships (aka: "marriages") with members of the same sex. Uh...no. Only the state has th epower to issue marriage licences and, therefore, only the state can determine who gets married. There are 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to couples in a heterosexual marriage: Here's a few: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veteran’s Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison As for semantics, my question is this: what's the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"? Since marriages are only legal when recognized by civil authorities, then aren't all marriages civil unions. therefore, wouldn't gay civil unions be considered marriages?

Why? Can you articulate a reason or is this just a typical knee-jerk "drus are bad and bad people do drugs" reaction. What's your point? That, simply because we're not certain of a new project's success, we shouldn't give it a try? As I said, it's pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes and a brain behind them that the status quo isn't working. What would you propose? Apples and oranges issues. The Iraq war was a matter for the UNSC. As for the International Narcotics Control Board, which is complaining about the Vancouver SIR, here's a bit of info from their web site: And who are the members of this group? I guess we can expect members from the US, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, Nigeria, India and Mexico to be oh-so-open minded on drug issues, hmm. Again, apples and oranges. One can be considered a medical problem, the other criminal. Finally, about harm reduction.

Your link's dead. Here's the GAM's article. BC safe injection site worries UN Heroin abuse is a huge problem in Vancouver and across North America. A drug strategy focussed on prevention would do little to help those people already hooked. Check this out. Keep in mind, SIR's are a relatively new concept, so we've yet to see what kind of effect they'll have. But its pretty clear that the existing strategy, which treats drug use a sa criminal, rather than a medical matter is an abject failure. Safe injection sites typically provide sterile injection equipment, information about drugs and health care, treatment referrals, and access to medical staff. The idea is to keep people safe and hopefully get them on the road to recovery. people who use these types of sights already have "long-term dependency" issues. That's the nature of heroin. Regarding the UN report, it seems to me to be just another example of the misguided, outdated thinking that has driven western drug policies for the past hundred years or so. Those policies have totally, utterly failed. The system needs to be overhauled and to do that, we need new ideas, including SIRs.

Read the articles I posted: Again, this is addressed by Williams: Your missing the point completely. This isn't a matter of "should the U.S. intervene to restore stability or not". The question is what role did the U.S. play in overturning a democratically elected (and yes, heavily flawed) regime. Both articles I originally posted detailed this point of view in great detail. Another view.

You missed the point, Galahad. I'm not interested in the semantics of the word marriage, simply wondering why we need to have seperate institutions for gays and straights. (Edited to add) You know, the more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the question of "Why marriage, anyway?" In other words, why, in a democratic soceity, is it okay to extend services and benefits to only a certain segment of the population. I'm talking of course about married people in general. With the number of unmarrieds outnumbering the wedded, the rise of "non-traditional" families, why should we continue to support marriage as the primary mode of social organization?

Hold on there. Before you get carried away with slapping yourself on the back for your briliant rhetorical gymnastics, let's not forget you didn't show a damn thing. I'm certainly not interested in going around the same circles where you maintain that pedophiles and homosexuals are the same thing, because I've no interest in digging up arguments I've used on deaf ears a million times before. But keep building little straw men out of pedophiles and polygamists. Just remember it isn't exactly the work of genius you imagine it to be. Why should they have to?

Uh, no. That's never been mentioned at all. Hell, even the White House hasn't tried to peddle that steaming pile of an argument. First, Bush's unit was never intended to head to 'Nam anyway. Second, the questions on Bush's service derive from the gaps in his service record, including his refusal to take a physical and his no-show at his Alabama ANG unit. AWOL Bush Bush's credibility gap. This story goes back to the 2000 election. Bush has chosen to present himself as a war president. It should come as no surprise that his own military service (or lack thereof) should be called into question. Who can forget the scourging Bill Clinton received for his student deferment (to say nothing of the hummer affair). But at least we knew where he was. So you'll excuse me if I don't feel to bad about poor Georgie and his problems with those nasty reporters who keep asking him questions with the big words. If you can't take the heat, Junior, stay out of the kitchen. (edited to add the following) Oh yeah... Nope, Gore filed a suit after Bush's lawyers went to court to stop the recount. As to fault, you could argue it was Gore's lacklustre campaign. Or Nader. Or you could argue, as I do, that Gore's loss was due to the disenfranchisment of thousands of voters prior to the election, the irregularities rampant in the U.S.'s voting system, Katherine Harris, Gov. Jeb Bush who "promised" his brother Florida, the Bush lawyers who went to court to stop the recount and the U.S. Supreme Court, which voted on partisan lines in a unprecedented and never-to-be cited decision. But hey, I'm sure if it had been five Democrat justices overturning a Republican victory, y'all would have "gotten over" that, I'm sure. Get in your wayback machines for a trip to 2000.

If Stronach wins the CP leadership, exect a ful-out ND offensive to paint both the CP's and Liberals as special-interest parties beholden to the rich and popwerful. I can see the ads now: "He's a coal baron who inheretited his millions from his father. She's the former CEO of her father's million dollar company. Which of these millionaires is better equipped to understand the average Canadian? The answer is neither."

Do you ever run out of straw for these little men you keep building? The "slipppery slope" argument simply doesn't wash. We're talking about choices available between consenting adults, which rules out your pedophila argument. As for polygamy: if all parties are of legal age and conset to the arraingment, sure, why not allow that too? Big frigging deal. I'd like to pose the following to all the anti-SSMers here: how, exactly, will gay marriage undermine or damage the integrity of heterosexual unions? Also, if gays are allowed civil unions, which most folks here seem okay with, what is the diffrence between such an arrangment and a marriage? What do you think people will say: "Oh did you hear that Bill and Dave just got civil union'd? I wanted to go to the ceremony, but didn't have time to buy a civil unioning gift."

In strife-ridden Haiti, we've seen a democratically-elected leadership overthrown by mobs of armed thugs. Yet the Western press has been curiously recitent when it comes to digging into the story, while the usual self-styled champions of democracy and freedom have been silent. Well, it turns out the whole affair was another made-in-Washington special. An interesting analyisis from CounterPunch. And another from that notorious lefty rag, the Financial Times.

Look, it was a previous popster to indicated SSM was some sort of scheme by gay people to get the same financial benefits as hetero married couple. if you want to know what they are, ask him. To me, though, it's irrelevant: the only thing that does is that we have, in our so-called egalitarian society, a segment of the population that is being denied the same rights as others by virtue of something hat's beyond thei control (sexual orientation). That must be corrected, period.

Well, I see religion is a personal matter and not one for a public school system. yeah, I see nothing wrong with offering religion courses that would cover a range of different theologies (who knows, it could actually promote a little understanding), but relgion is best left to the individual and the church.

So now the contribution of a singular IndyMedia writer is indicative of the monolithic "left's" push for pedophilia. Uh-huh. Sure. Info on Canada's age of consent. As for the rest:

Wall=land grab. Explain why the "security" wall veers so far off the Green Line, gobbling up land and cutting Palestinian settlements off from one another? Notwithstanding your strawman generalizations about the nebulous Palestinan "them", the fact is that under the occupation, the Palestinian population has been unable to develop a civil society (thanks in part to their corrupt leadership). Your opinion is classic example of blaming the victim. In your book, it's not a brutal and oppressive occupation that's keeping Paletinian society down, it's their own laziness. What a crock. It's Israel that holds all the cards, economical and militarily. Were Israel to dismantle the wall, pull out of the OT and start spending a fraction of what they spend on maintaining the occupation on building a civil society for the Palestinians, terrorism would dry up. The fact that they have not done so betrays the Likudniks true goal: the expansion of israel and the total expulsion or subjugation of the Paletinian people. (emphasis mine) Uh, what's wrong with this picture?

It's stuff like this that makes Canada better than the U.S.A. Yikes.