Sir Bandelot

Oh is that how it happened? How nice. "Joined together..." Joe Clark has a different view. Orchard says merged party 'born in betrayal' Fri Oct. 17 2003 Former Tory leadership candidate David Orchard is railing against a proposed merger of his party with the Canadian Alliance, calling the marriage deal "conceived in deception and born in betrayal" and vowing to fight it. Orchard told an Ottawa press conference Friday that Tory leader Peter MacKay had broken a written agreement signed at the Progressive Conservative leadership convention when he agreed to the merger this week. "I told him it was a complete and utter betrayal of our agreement," Orchard said. "This creature ... is an illegitimate creation conceived in deception and born in betrayal." MacKay's predecessor and one-time prime minister Joe Clark issued a statement Thursday saying he couldn't support the merger. "This is about more than a name and a history. It is about a hard-won reputation as a party that is both inclusive and pan-Canadian. Speaking personally, I cannot support a proposal which would close down that party, and put at risk that reputation." Harper, Mackay et al are children of the "Calgary School", the followers of Straussian neoconservative philosophy: The Canadian Alliance was a right-wing party, with strong grassroots and neoconservative leanings. Its origin was in the Reform Party of Canada, which was a social conservative and populist party founded in 1987. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Canadian:Alliance.html Neoconservatives... arise from the populist tradition of the Reform Party of Canada which was succeeded by the Canadian Alliance and now the Conservative Party of Canada. http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ne/neoconservatism_and_neoliberalism_in_canada.htm So what's the problem with calling them neocons? Is there something in it that you're afraid of? Like maybe the general public will come to uderstand the important but subtle difference. No need to worry about that, as long as there are good movies to watch...

Harper was a Progressive Conservative?

My comment about the word "aboot" was poking fun at Americans, some of whom hear things quite differently when we pronounce certain words. It's not always obvious to all y'all.

A person should be allowed to wear a symbol of their religious belief if they wish to do so, or even post an image on the wall of their office at work, even if they work in a government building. The state has no right to ban it.

The Greeks had a word for it, "catharsis", the effect that drama in the theatre has upon human emotions. According to Aristotle, catharsis has the effect of pacifying the human mind. By releasing pent up emotions the human soul is purged of its "excess passions". Thus we may conclude that entertainment has a pacifying effect that, when taken to extremes transforms men to mere zoned-out dullards; it acts as a distraction to keep them from knowing or caring about the problems of the real world, and from taking action against them. Richard Wagner, the great musico-dramatological philosopher writes in his work "On Music and Drama". Here he speaks of commercial art, as compared to classical tragedies, and the use of art as a pacifying influence: Our theatre merely provides the convenient locale for the tempting exhibition of the heterogeneous wares of art manufacture. On the one hand, the spoken play can never, with but few exceptions, lift itself up to the ideal flight of poetry; but for very reason of the poverty of its utterance -to say nothing of the demoralizing influence of our public life- must fall from height to depth, from the warm atmosphere of passion into the cold element of intrigue. On the other hand, the opera becomes a chaos of sensuous impressions jostling one another without rhyme or reason, from which each person may choose at will what pleases best his fancy; here the alluring movements of the dancer, there the bravura passage of a singer, here the dazzling effect of a triumphant scene painter, there the astounding efforts of a volcanic orchestra. Do we not read from day to day that this or that new opera is a masterpiece because it contains a good number of fine songs and duets, the instrumentation is brilliant and so on? The aim which alone can justify the employment of such complex means - the great dramatic aim- people never give it so much as a thought. Such verdicts as these are shallow, but honest. They show exactly what is the position of the audience. There are even many of our most popular artists who do not in the least conceal the fact that they have no ambition other than to satisfy this shallow audience. They are wise in their generation; for when the Prince leaves a heavy dinner, the banker a fatiguing financial operation, the workingman a weary day of toil, and go to the theatre, they ask for rest, distraction, and amusement, and are in no mood for renewed effort and fresh expenditure of force. This argument is so convincing that we can reply only by saying: It would be more decorous to employ for this purpose any other thing in the whole world, but not the body and soul of art. We shall then be told however, that if we do not employ art in this manner, it must perish from out our public life, that is, that the artist will lose the means of living. On this side everything is lamentable, indeed, but candid, genuine and honest; civilized corruption, and dullness! What serves it us that Shakespeare, like a second creator, has opened for us the endless realm of human nature? What serves it that Beethoven has lent to music the manly, independent strength of poetry? Ask the threadbare charicatures of your theatres, ask the street-minstrel commonplaces of your operas; and ye have your answer! But do ye ask? Alas, no! Ye know it right well; indeed, ye would not have it otherwise; ye give yourselves only the air as if you knew it not! What then is our modern art, and what is our drama? The revolution of February 1830 deprived the Paris theatres of public support; many were on the brink of bankruptcy. After the events of June, Cavaignac, busied with the maintenance of the existing order of society, came to their aid and demanded a grant of money for their continuance. Why? Because the breadless classes, the proletariat, would be bolstered by the closing of the theatres. So, this interest alone has the state in the stage! It sees in it an industrial workshop, and, to boot, an influence that may calm the passions, absorb the excitement, and divert the threatening agitation of the heated public mind; which broods in deepest discontent, seeking for the way by which dishonored human nature may return to its true self, even though it be at cost to the continuance of our so-called theatrical institutions! Mercury, God of Merchants, reigns over modern culture

What? Harper reportedly gave the beer as a gift to charity? How magnanimous. Hope some of the rubbys down at the soup kitchen get to enjoy it. Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake..." Stephen Harper: "Let them drink beer..."

Probably more because women are abhorred by the catholic church as soul-less abominations. Hence there are no female priests.

I understand, but you know what? Animals poo on everything. Not just dogs and cats, but birds. They don't even wipe their bums, and they sit on picnic tables. And FISH too, like when you go swimming! In fact, the whole outside world is covered in poo poo. Think about it.

Here's a word you should maybe learn to use- "Goosfraba ..."

I did not know that Stephen Harper had a license to distribute beer.

It does say that the extradition cannot be politically motivated. Refusal in extradition agreement 46. (1)The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character. The crime must also be a punishable crime in Canada. 47. The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that (a) the person would be entitled, if that person were tried in Canada, to be discharged under the laws of Canada because of a previous acquittal or conviction; They should have arrested him since they must have known about his illegal activities. He continually informed them directly and through the media, for years. Had they done so then section D below would probably apply- (d) the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/E-23.01/page-2.html?noCookie

I'm against the suppression of religion, any religion by the state. In a free and multicultural society all people should be allowed to celebrate their religion, christians, jews, muslims, hindus. Suppression only causes these problems we see now, making it illegal to show or wear a religious symbol on your clothes. I read that in France a woman cannot even wear a cross on her necklace, apparently. That's absurd. The state has no place to dictate what people are allowed to wear, or whether they can believe in religion. Now as to revisionism, that's done for political manipulation and has probably been ongoing since the dawn of history. In order to strengthen their position, the new king will change what happened and was decreed by the old king. The problem is it creates a conflict in the minds of people who can remember. And anyone who thinks this sort of thing is "good" is just another part of the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Oleg is an artist and a thinker. His posts are not partisan or dishonest, and he has no specific political agenda. He observes the world around him and draws his own conclusions. In some cases, they are entirely his own... But so what. We need thinkers and dreamers. People who question, who step outside the box. Though I don't agree with everything he says, some of his observations make good sense to me. Technology and "progress", if it can even be called that today, have taken away our dreams. People are bombarded by multimedia, such as in modern movies with special effects and sounds design to psychologically disturb the human mind. Such an over-stimulated brain has no room left to be creative on its own. The minds of the masses who indulge in these forms of entertainment are left placated, and dulled. "Entertainment is the opium of the masses." - SB

The point is not to get arrested and simply disappear from view while spending time in jail, as so many have done before. The point is to make as much publicity out of it as possible, to raise public awareness of the injustice of pot laws and imprisonment of people over a plant. Emery is not the typical seed seller or underground pot dealer you might think he is. If you read the article a few posts back you'll note his activities were intended to be highly visible, he flaunted what he was doing very publicly. He has made several tours across Canada as a public speaker, he started his own political party, has run in several elections municipal, provincial and federal. He has had meetings with political leaders including but not only Jack Layton. He sold many seeds and donated a lot of his money, millions according to him to fund pro-marijuana legalization efforts in both Canada and the United States. Things like rallies, magazines, dispensaries, support for political groups and bail money for activists. This is one reason why he is being singled out by the US, as the US prosecutor DA himself proclaimed, the imprisonment of Marc Emery strikes a blow to the legalization movement. And I can provide you the links to that quote if you don't believe it. Because that is where Emery's main efforts have been directed. "In 2002, Emery founded the Iboga Therapy House, an ibogaine-assisted detoxification therapy program located on BC's Sunshine Coast. Emery and his staff offered free ibogaine therapy to volunteer heroin and cocaine addicts with a plant-based alkaloid called ibogaine, which eliminates withdrawal symptoms and helps produce the mental change needed to quit using." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery#Iboga_Therapy_House "Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group -- is a signficant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement." Karen Tandy, American DEA Administrator (Same link as above) From the 60 minutes interview/ transcript: "I am blessed by what the DEA has done," Emery said. "I'd rather see marijuana legalized than me being saved from a U.S. jail." "Your language is pretty much that of a martyr," Simon remarked. "The language I like to use is one of a person, a leader who's confident and prepared to accept the punishment that noble purpose will bring about," Emery replied. http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4686.html If he's a just a drug dealer, why do all this to bring so much attention to himself, to make himself so visible in breaking the law? Because he believes it is unjust, and wants the law to be struck down. Al Capone would never agree.

I don't get the comparison of emery to Al Capone. Didn;t Al Capone run an organized gang of violent killers? Please explain this statement. The real violent ones today are the motorcycle gangs and the organized criminals, who are enabled by drug prohibition. They are the equivalent of Al Capone, and they aint giving away no turkeys. I think people like Marc Emery want to see that sort of violence go away.

Interesting article, TrueMetis. That answers a lot of my questions. American Woman, you should read it. Although it doesn't claim that Emery wanted to be arrested, I think it shows that he wasn't hiding anything and his motives were largely political, to reform the drug laws. Also read somewhere that Emery was active in setting up programs to help drug addicted street youth, such as "Insight", providing a safe haven for heroin addicts, needle exchange, open doors toward rehab, which the CPC government closed down.

That's what I understand as well, he wanted to do it. He wanted to get caught. But if he wanted only to get rich, then he wouldn't have wanted to get caught, so I think your conclusion about his motives is incorrect. But regardless of the motive, he broke the laws in Canada and apparently did so for quite a few years, he claims he declared it on his taxes and payed large sums of money to the Canadian government. Yet no one from Revenue Canada or the RCMP made a move to arrest him. I read his blog, in it he claims that Health Canada referred medical marijuana patients to his site for a source of seeds. There is no way to independantly verify this. But if that's inconceivable, still the previous point remains unanswered, why he was not arrested under Canadian law and instead is being handed over to the United States? I think it's because, no court in Canada would convict him, or if they did then he would get a fairly light sentence and be out of jail in a short time, to do it again. If you agree with this theory, then it implies that Canadian authorities are using US courts and laws to circumvent the problem of getting a conviction. It's more than likely that he will face a much longer prison term in the US than he would ever get for the same crime here in Canada.

Thats true in theory, but money is what really talks. There is little hope of Canada dropping it's own prohibition laws, as much as the people of Canada and even previous governments wanted to do, as long as the war on drugs is so important to America. Even if there are many in the United States who would like to see prohibition come to an end, the country is so polarized by what looks like mass media hysteria in almost every issue, they are become democratically paralyzed. Witness the hype and rhetoric of the recent health care debate. Not that we don't have the same problem in our politics of course, but there are things I believe we as a nation would like to do, that seem reasonable and forward thinking, but can't because of obligations to our international "partners".

The "war on drugs" has become an industry unto itself. There's billions of dollars tied into it, and thousands of jobs, police, judges, guards and prisons holding thousands or even millions of drug war prisoners. Peoples livelihoods depend on it. Ending prohibition would have a substantial economic cost. It is part of the very lifeblood of the US economy. The land of the free

Well I was only asking a question. Since you started the thread and thus consider yourself an expert, I want to hear your answer to these democratic talking points. I think your answer seems to hold some truth, and I'm not surprised that the Dems are playing their own game of manipulation. In this age of disinformation it's useful to look at both arguments and see who is really lying. More often than not it seems both are lying. Sorry, Thomas Jefferson.

If it's illegal in Canada, then I don't understood why he is not being charged here. Why does it take extradition to have him face charges? Let him be charged for his crimes in Canada. Or is there something else behind this case that we don't know about...

What about this then- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced his party's legislative game plan in a letter today to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). "We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times," Sen. Reid wrote. In budget reconciliation, lawmakers adjust spending and revenue lines in the annual federal budget. Both parties have relied on the technique to pass legislation when they controlled Congress. A Republican Congress, for example, enacted major tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration this way. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718388?src=rss

Patriotism aside, why was he not charged under Canadian law for what he did? He must have sold his "products" in Canada as well.

It sounds like you are not alone in experiencing this problem. When I googled it, there were many links relating to "windows 7 paste not working". There appear to be many different causes and solutions, but mostly relating to conflicts in the computer configuration. The problem could be to do with a third-party extension in IE (eg. toolbar) You might need to remove them and reset your internet explorer settings. Here's one link that might help to start with

Seem to recall some women being arrested not too long ago in Toronto, for exposing their breasts on Yonge Street. Can't find an article now, but found one from Winnipeg- Female Flasher begs to be free Second time she's been convicted The Winnipeg Sun, SUN MEDIA, by DEAN PRITCHARD, May 29, 2008 A 21-year-old woman convicted for the second time of exposing herself in front of school children begged to be released from jail yesterday, claiming she has learned her lesson. "I promise I won't do it again, I mean it this time," said the woman... Police arrested the woman May 12 after she exposed her breasts to a passing truck at the intersection of St. John's Avenue and Charles Street, in plain view of a nine-year-old boy a short distance away. "I didn't mean to do that in front of the kid, I didn't see him," the woman said. Court heard the woman "frequently acts impulsively" and lives on her own with the support of around-the-clock social workers. At the time of her arrest, the woman was bound by a strict probation order in connection with a similar incident two months earlier. The woman was standing across the street from an elementary school at 8:30 a.m. when she exposed her breasts to three passing school buses and dozens of children walking on the sidewalk, community prosecutor Susan Helenchilde told court. Not saying this should be condoned, but seems to me she was wearing some clothing. What court allows these men to go free for what is essentially full frontal nudity in public, where anyone inclding kids would see it, while this womam went to jail for showing her breasts? I'll tell you why, because the queers are in the hen-house.