Machjo

We ought to try to use these terms devoid of irrational emotionalisms. And yes, I agree that Harper has made use of emotionally charged wording to influence the simple masses, though again I would not go out and make a blanket accusation against the right in general. This is something I've noticed with harper and it just makes him come across as manipulative and a pure party hack. It is possible to call a person a conservative while using a strict definition of the term. Same with socialist, and even communist and Nazi if it applies. But use the term according to strict definitions and not to manipulate the simple masses.

This is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about. So the politicization of environmental issues is uniquely a leftwing issue?

Another parallel issue is the mantra of reducing government spending or increasing government spending. Certainly if a person says the government needs to reduce spending, that means nothing on its own. By how much should it cut spending, and where? Should we cut it completely and just get rid of government altogether? Same when one says we need to increase government spending. Again, by how much, and how to spend it? Just parroting that we need to reduce or increase spending means nothing on its own; it's too abstract. if a person says the government needs to increase or reduce spending, he should be able to point out where exactly, why, and the pros and cons of the action.

By American, you mean national or continental? just kidding. Oh, and I guess it's natural we catch bugs from our neighbours, being so close and all. We tend to catch otehr continental diseases less frequently owing to the distance I suppose.

Sorry, forgot. And you're a damn libertarian capitalist pig too, you pacifist militarist dovish hawk.

What are you on about, you liberal conservative socialist jewish Muslim commie idiot? Just kidding. I fully agree with you.

I confess that I can get quite irate when a forumite tries to argue a point using lazy ideological stereotypes. For example, problem X is all the 'socialists' fault (as if we even all agreed on the term socialist), and of course problem Y is all the capitalists' fault (again, as if we all agreed on its definition too). And it goes without saying that problem A is the Conservatives' fault, problem B is the Jews' fault, problem C is the Muslims' fault, etc. And of course party D can take all the credit and glory for the success of policy E. praise the party! How has the Canadian brain gone so to mush that the best argument for or against something has become to just label it something with either a positive of negative connotation. What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

Forget his political career. My guess is even if supporting the legalization of hard drugs could win him votes, he'd likely oppose it on principle... if he has so much as half a brain and is aware of just how dangerous those drugs are, of course.

I can certainly agree with the principle behind this. As for the addicts, it ought to be treated as a health and not a criminal issue. The object ought to be not to punish them, but to rehabilitate them. As for the dealers, that's a different matter. They are exploiting the addictions of others, which is outright criminal. For hard drugs like opium, I'd all be for the death penalty for such dealers if necessary. As for the addicts, the police ought not arrest them, but rather remove their freedoms for their own good, take them to hospital even if against their will, and put them into forced treatement if necessary. That is not the same as arresting them. On the surface it is similar, but they get no criminal record and are released once th eaddiciton appears to be under control.

This, if nothing else, shows that no one political party or political ideology has a monopoly on family values. Thanks for the lucid response.

What are you on about? Everything is the commies' fault, or the Reich wing conservatices' fault, or the Liberals' fault, or the Muzzies' fault, or the Christians' fault, or the Jews' fault, etc. etc. etc. Take your pick. And in you your specific case, it's all the socialists' fault. Could we cut past the partisan crap for once and present some facts please? Yes, I agree that lack of faith plays a role in this, but no one particular ideology is responsible for this. If anything, it's our oversimplification stereotyping of the problem along ideological lines that's to blame for this.

Also, reducing divorce bureaucracy and discouraging divorce are two totally separate issues. For example, the government could make it more difficult for people to divorce bureaucratically while eliminating legal restrictions to divorce. Or alternatively, it could introduce legal restrictions on divorce while still making it less cumbersome for those who meet the legal requirements to be allowed to divorce. The two are totally separate issues. Looking at it that way, if the intent of the government is not to make it easier for people to divorce as such, or to encourage divorce, but merely to remove bureaucratic obstacles to divorce, then I can only applaud the government. And I'm assuming this is in fact the government's intent. I remember in Quebec for example, the actual process of divorce is quite straightforward even though you have to be legally separated for a year before being allowed to divorce. That I think is a good example of a good balance between making the procedure easy while still not allowing people to just divorce on a whim without having had some time to think about it.

This article is relevant to the drug discussion too: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/17/marijuana-teen-brain-rats.html How would this affect the increased cost of healthcare to treat depression and other such mental illnesses?

As for the social cost of divorce, the emotional insecurity it can cause especially if it's a particularly ugly divorce can affect how well the child learns in school. Multiply that by a large segment of the population, and it adds up. Also a person divorced once will be more hesitant about marrying and having kids later, meaning a lower birth rate in the country. Also, divorced parents having to live in two houses instead of one, plus the time and money spent to ship the kids back and forth means less time for studying and less money for college. Again, multiply that across the economy, and it certainly affects demographics in terms of access to skilled labour. And with a low birth rate, we may rely more on foreign labour, adding the cost of language training too. It all adds up.

While I can certainly agree with streamlining bureaucracy with regards to divorce, I could still see the needd to require them to be legally separated for a year before being allowed to finally divorce so as to avoid people just divorcing on a whim. It could be viewed as a cooling period for reflection before making the final decision to divorce.

But yest I do agree that if we could share more of our military resources, we and our allies could possibly save money that way too.

Why is it that we always have to take puck shots at this or that party? And no, I'm not defending the Tories here since I'm not a Tory myself and I criticize the left just as much. Could we not focus on the issue at hand which in this case has to do with wasteful government spending without necessarily having to take a puck shot at this or that party? That's why things never move ahead in Canadian politics. Party X is always right, and Party Y is always wrong unless Party X agrees with it. Such a mentality is excessively simplistic. We need to move away from partisan politics and apprach the issues from a more non-partisan standpoint if we want to ever come to any kind of agreement on anything and actually be able to move ahead.

If all of this is true, then maybe legalization might be a good idea. However, I'd want to see the research oon it from other countries first. And i'd want to see the whole picture, so a comprehensive study. It would have to look at not only how much we save on police, but how it affects health and health care, car accidents rates and associated costs, both economic and human (though granted that one is a tough one to put a number to, but that alone does not mean researchers should ignore that and it should still be mentioned in the research with regards to increases in teh rate of addiction, marital breakups caused by it, children affected emotionally or economically by it, etc.) I'm not saying I'm against legalization per se. I'm just saying that legalization, if introduced, ought to be introduced as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the consumption of drugs and not as a surrender. To use a military analogy, it ought to be part of a strategic retreat and not paramount to surrender.

The same could apply to walking and bicicle paths, public transportation infrastructure, etc. Now that we're out of recession, and that inflation is coming on already, now is not the time to add more such projects. But now would be an excellent time to plan such projects so that, come next recession, they could be implemented quickly. Now would not be a good time to implement such projects though other than the ones that are already started of course.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/17/td-calls-recession-over.html This past recession caught us by surprise, with no anti-deflation plan in the works. With no anti-deflation plan in the works, instead of planning for the upcoming inflation, we were just focussed on scrapping up some kind of ad-hock spending spree as a knee-jerk reaction. Now that the recession is officially over, with no plan for the upcoming inflation, we'll likely reach out for some ad hock knee-jerk reaction yet again, with no regard for the next recession. A few months ago, when we were experiencing deflation, many were mocking warnings on this forum about future inflation, as if it would never come again. Now that I'm bringing up the next deflationary recession, I'm sure the same people will now mock the idea saying we now need to focus on the inflation now beginning to rise. Should we not always be one step ahead of the game? One way I could see us preparing for the next recession and fight the rising inflation at the same time could be to either raise taxes, reduce government spending, or some combination of the two, while at the same time passing into legislation a plan for the next recession, that would take effect as soon as certain criteria are met. For example, we might say that any new government programmes to be passed into law are to take effect only when the government debt is paid off, inflation falls below 0%, and the Bank rate falls to 0%. This way, these programmes would not be adding more money into the economy now when we're likely to experience an overheated economy in the next few years. Instead, right now, we'd be focussing on paying off government debt to ensure a strong foundation for the next recession. Then when the next recession comes along, we'd have not only a plan of action, but a clear definition of when it's to take effect. Other things that could be included in this would be purchases for government departments. For example, for now we buy new police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, Catscan machines, military clothing, etc. only when needed. Come next recession, when the criteria mentioned above are met, then we could purchase all the police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, etc. that these various departments may foresee a need for for. Then would be a good time to stock up. Or would we rather just keep repeating the same mistakes again and again and again? Now would be a good time to start planning for the next recession, even if it doesn't appear for another decade or two.

I was wondering your thoughts on this question. Let's say a left-leaning voter, candidate or MP, MPP, city councillor, etc. argues that the more fortunate members of society have a responsibility towards the less fortunate memebrs, and so are expected to pay more taxes or abide by other rules in consideration of the needs of the less fortunate, then should he not also insist that the poor and less fortunate have a responsibility towards their fellow man too? For example, if I'm responsible to help a poor person with his educaiton to reintegrate in the community, does that person allso not have a responsibility to study hard, take care of his health, etc. too. so as to not add a further burden to my taxes for health care costs, etc. for example? And inversely, if a right-leaning or more libertarian candidate, MP, MPP, city councillor voter, etc. insists that we should all have the freedom to do what we want, smoke, drink, etc., with no consideration for otehrs, then does it not stand to reason that we also have the freedom to not pay for his health care costs, etc. In otehr words, if we insist that A has an obligation towars B, then B must also have an obligaiton towards A. It can't be a one-way street. And inversely, if A has no obligation towards B, then why should B have any obligation towards A. One can't take a socialist position one way and then a libertarian one the other way. Clearly it ought to go both ways to be fair. I'm not taking ideological sides here. Whether one is right leaning or left leaning, all I'm asking for is ideological consistency. Of course the same applies to the right. For example, if A has an obligaiton to pay for national defense to protect B, then certainly B has an obligation to ensure A has something to defend too. Again, this is not ideological in favour of either side, but merely saying, whatever side one takes, would a principled stance need to be a consistent one?

The argument goes both ways. A principled libertarian would say that, on the one hand, the smoker, drinker, etc. has no obligation towards us and how he might affect us in terms of health care costs, etc. on the other hand, he'd also say we have no obligation towards him either. So as long as cigarettes, alcohol, etc. are legal, then any sufferer of lung cancer, liver disease, etc. should not have treatment for these illnesses covered by medicare. In other words, he has no obligation towards, us, and neither we towards them. The same applies in reverse of course. A principled social democrat would also say that, if we have an obligation towards them, then they have an obligation towards us. in other words, we have an obligation towards covering their health care, etc. but then they also have an obligation to take care of their health to reduce the burden on us. This is not an ideological issue. I don't care if you're right or left leaning. All I'm saying is, whatever ideology you follow, at least be consistent in it. I can respect libertarians, conservatives, socialists, etc. no problem. My issue is when they contradict themselves or expect responsibility to go one-way, etc. I'm not pointing fingers at any particular group here. Both the left and the right can be guilty of this double standard. But if you are principled in your ideology, you'll be consistent about it. Either we all have obligations towards each other or we don't But it can't just go one way. A decision needs to be made either way.

I think that's a harsh analysis. Though your comment is true, to be fair to them, we can't deny that North American society has become extremely individualistic over the last few decades, with support for extreme freedoms and liberties without restrictions becoming a popular ideology. This ideology proposes that one's actions are his business alone, regardless of how it may impact others, and that no one is responsible for the welfare of anyone but himself. This combination of extreme individualism and extreme liberties has formed the basis of the elevation of extreme self-centredness into an ideology to be actively defended and even aggressively promoted. Within that context, as selfish as they may be, it's not entirely their fault when this same selfishness has been raised to the status of a noble ideology and a worthy cause in their minds. Neither the right nor the left have proven immune from this ideology, though granted it manifests itself differently in both camps.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/16/santa-public-health.html

Meaning we non-smokers must now foot more of the tab for lung cancer treatment, etc.