Shwa

Methinks your analysis has had a wing clipping effect on MLW's hawks. Either that or the 'arm-chair generals' went for a lengthy bathroom break.

Hmmm. So are you using the fact that she was caught at a crime - here, by our standards - as distinguising "these people" from all the others or are you suggesting that all the others are prone to "honour killing cases?" I am still trying to narrow it down since I am sure you are not painting a particular people with a broad brush. You know, like some ignoramus equating the "honour killings" in gangland with the general condition of our society.

Nothing sticks to Teflon Ford - Warmington, Toronto Sun Now Joe Warmington seems to think that the "disgraceful gravy train" of the "money grubbing left" will be the ultimate victim of Mayor Fordo, and that may be true, but it will be replaced with some pretty funny antics and "jovial everyman" shenanigans which just might spawn a new reality TV series. Do you hear me CTV spies of MLW? You had your chance and the best you can do is a recycled Hank. Now CityTV will come up with "Ford for Mayor."

So when you say "these people" are you referring to those who want to emigrate away from that sort of thing or are you referring to the people in power who enact those sorts of laws? Or is it something in between>? It seems the phrase "these people" is too broad a definition, but I am confident that should we narrow it down a bit we can clarify a few things including your attempt at irony.

I never liked Uriah Heap because of my Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd chauvenism. Zep & Floyd took time to record spectacular music and the Heap churned the stuff out. I could hear a Heap tune on the radio and not know it was them. Queen did the same thing as Heap, but they had more going for them I think and overcame the stigma of being a fill-in band.

Which reminds me of a beauty quote from an eminent Canadian, Northrop Frye: “Americans like to make money; Canadians like to audit it. I know no other country where accountants have a higher social and moral status.”

Come on now, really? "The Institute also maintains an Editorial Advisory Board, a panel of scholars from Canada, the United States and Europe. The panel is the final arbiter in the Institute’s peer review process." Come on now Nicky: And I am just saying that you have yet to prove - in the very least - that the "likes and dislikes" that are being used as input into legislation are NOT based on tried and true information. Which goes to show, based on the foregoing, that whether you make the claim or not, it is apparent that you have a value system and lean toward a particular ideology. And what is stopping them from being one in the same? That is, the probability is informed by ideology. You appear to firmly believe that social science research is somehow like chemisty with the amoral atoms and emotionless covalent bonds presenting themselves as objective view of reality. I don't think so. But you do confirm the requirement for interpretation of social science data, by making this statement: "Nothing in any science outside of mathematics and physics is really "proven." And that interpretability is especially extended to any "well defined social trend" which was noticed through research that was driven by or otherwise influenced by one ideological form or another. See: Fraser Institute. (or CD Howe Institute if you swing that way) "...we do what we think is best no matter what..." There, you have just slide pragmatism underneath ideology since most conservatives, especially the CPC types, believe they are doing what they think is best no matter what. And they will tell you they have the proven data and, up to this point, you have not shown they do not. So...um... are you saying that because the thread title - or your OP opinion - is clearly proof of what the government does or doesn't believe in? We can't really go with the article because that was successfully deconstructed into its constituent absurdities several pages ago. Well, as the little weblurb from the Fraser Institute says, they have scholars peer reviewing their material and if they conclude differently from you are they immediately in error?

Based on what?

Yes, we are saying the same thing I think - ideology is nothing without people. However, even some research is started and funded by an ideological impetus.

Fraser Insitutes Research Topics - have at 'em. Try and detect a conservative bias and then try and convince conservatives that this bias even exists and, if it does, it is relevant or even bad. But you are presupposing that what you finally see is the representative of the whole process when there could have been years of background debate. But when it comes to policy between opposing parties, we know some of those debates have been going on for years. This is especially true for issues that touch the justice system no matter what party. And, in the end, ideology counts. And you are free to do so, argue whether they are morals at all, or it is good or not. But you would only be representing YOUR values and ethics, the basis of YOUR ideology. And if you would supplant their values and ethics as not moral or not good, then you leave the door open for them to claim the right to do the same to you. But you would have a very difficult time trying to prove anything about crime, social aspects of disease and addiction using a purely scientific basis, which is amoral. Eventually you are going to have to say, "probably." I would strongly disagree, but that is neither here nor there since you confirm that social science data are open to interpretation and one's ideology will come into play when making such determinations. Whatever, but even your view of the Liberals being "pragmatic" is ideological in nature, moreso since their pramatism has got them firmly where they are. If that were so, then there would be no need for question period. What "other sciences" do people look down on? I am not saying that because the liberal arts and social sciences cannot claim the same sort of repeatability as hard science, that people (or I) look down on them, of course not. However, people ought not claim that such liberal sciences are free from political bias in the same way that physics or geology is. That is a big mistake and only goes to further entrench people in partisan politics.

I think it is ultimately both when we are talking social sciences - the actual input to the application and the application itself are affected by ideology. That is not to say that a 'conservative' policy cannot be derived from a 'liberal art' nor a 'liberal' program informed by 'conservative' study of a particular phenomena.

With apologies to Neil Young, but: You can't be forrr-tyyyy and live-on Sugar Mounnnntain... Meh, life begins at 40 and that's the truth. As for Motohead, well, Fast Eddie Clarke, say no more. I have most of the Floyd too, but favourite is still Dark Side of the Moon (with Wish You Were Here a close second)

Don't forget the Stinking Rich, who are related to the Filthy Rich in a way. Then there are the lottery winners...

Are you kidding me?? Are you saying that one's ideological perspective does not count when it comes time to select what criteria to observe or in deciding what observations are relevant? And let's not get into the whole thing about statistics. Social sciences are not hard science including the ability to predict based on the data at hand. Is this true for all regions of Canada and can all regions be compared in an equal fashion? Is this true for all ethnic and culture groups? What does "throwing...in prison mean?" Does it include other restraint or restictive measures? How about restorative justice? If it is fair for you to evolve your policy based upon the statistics and numbers you had - which are based upon the criteria you selected to support your theory - then it is only fair that I be allowed to do the same. You have only proved that safe injection sites work for Vancouver. But where does your statistical analysis show what is moral and what is good? Ha! Even you do not trust your own analysis since you say "probably" based on "proven results." The introduction of doubt and speculation is yours. See what I mean? You say facts, but you modify that with "probably" facts. Now you are contradicting yourself because earlier you said that, and I quote: "Ideology counts for squat." Come on now - every science on the planet - to be considered a science of any worth - undergoes peer review. Reviewing work with critical thinking is not an attempt to destroy. Well, usually not. Every intelligent person knows economics is a social science, especially Economists. But economics is not exempt from peer review, critical thinking or questions of ideology.

I just finally realized what your signature was all about! And for some confounded reason when I glanced at it I always thought in terms of the Marshall Plan. I still have my Yamaha 2X10 from the early 80's, that used to put Marshalls to shame. I dunno how many beers were spilled into it, but the only repair was when something shook loose in the amp because a stupid bass player thought he could use it as a bass amp for Motorhead tunes. My kid uses it now and she is still LOUD. PS - HA! You guys are old too!

Oh no, no, no, not so easy. What Adscam proves is that even the Liberals are accustomed to ignoring experts, intellectuals, elites, etc for their own benefit. As I said from the beginning, it is an ethic of power and always has been regardless of political stripe. The other side of it - for those that wish to defend the 'liberal arts and social sciences' as if they are hard science is that any opinion or decision can be deconstructed into a compendium of facts and each fact can be deconstructed into selective speculation or guesswork. The liberal arts requires critical thinking, but can't slink away when it is applied, but must recognize its limitations. In other words, ideology counts.

Do you mean being called a Bloc head? Or a tête carré? LOL, been there, been called that! Until I had a frank discussion with my accuser. Otherwise, if a political party is a no-go, could we have a Canada Block Party? Maybe turn July 1st into something fun and neighbourly and at the same time collectivist...

And when exactly did the Liberal party admit they were wrong during Adscam? Seems to me that Allan Cutler and the good people at Ernst&Young - some pretty intelligent folks - had some "developing research" that might have influenced some powerful opinions and decisions eh? How many years did it take to get those Liberals to admit they were wrong?

Wow, another one! LOL, ... now I have to go to bittorent the record store to see if I can find 'The Piper...' just to satisfy a sudden nostalgic craving.

Here is Obama's Audi Plant

Someone on MLW has actually heard Interstellar Overdrive?? Whoa. That's cool. That was one of our 'lights-out' tunes back in the day although we played it with a slightly more metallic tone. Worked great when the singer was too drunk to sing and we needed to fill the last 15 minutes.

No I think your collectivist and statist labels are pretty right on and are indeed (mostly) off the left-right axis, which (in appearance) is why and how the BLOC operate, and have have been operating with, since their inception. It could be that the BLOC started out as a narrow purpose expression of an ideal which has either embraced to become - or was craftily shifted towards - more of a collectivist view with regard to federal issues. In other words, Quebec, being a collectivist or statist polity, would naturally (or logically) lean toward federal representation that reflects that ethic when it failed to be expressed in the mainstream parties. If so, then relevancy is not the question, but inevitability is. The interesting thing - and why Quebec is certainly not (and never will be) irrelevant to mainstream politics - is this ethic can be easily extended into other regions because Canada was born from the concept of collectivist or statist ideals in the first place. I believe those core beliefs are still there and transcend the petty politics of left/right, this-or-that region, liberal/conservative, etc. Perhaps we are now far enough removed from 'confederation' to require a review of it and it's meaning in relation to how federal politics operates and what we mean when we smugly say that our politics is all somewhat 'centrist.' Maybe one day there will be a BLOC Canada party.

I heard the Saudis were going to build some miltary bases in New Jersey. I just knew it was Obama all along. Damn. Oh well... Which way is Mecca from here?

I don't think that it is a coincidence at all Michael. For one I heard that some British government officials monitor this site on a regular basis and they probably relayed your o-gov & e-gov concerns to the senior bureaucrats at the UK National Archives who rushed this service into action. I can almost hear them now: "Lord Burley, a Mr. Hardner in Canada wants to see more open government initiatives, shall we release the new legislation website soon and further embarass the Canadians over their tardiness in enacting e-government services?" Lord Burley, sips his tea and thoughtfully replies, "Canada you say? Pity."