The Terrible Sweal

Actually, both Iran and North Korea are recognized sovereign states in international law.

Nonsense. What is corrupt and cynical is a Cabinet member who doesn't support the government's legislation but who nevertheless sees fit to sit in Cabinet. Let him do his duty and resign, if he cannot support the government.

Exactly. If their obligations conflict they have to make a choice, not say I will vote no but be in teh cabinet which recommednts this as good legislation. What do they believe in?

Yeah. It's the 'rough draft' version that really get's the point.

Great questions theloniusfleabag. I see two aspects to an answer. Institutionally, the states of the 'Islamic World', are bound by international law. As long as in pressing our cultural values 'the west' utilizes int'l law and obeys it, it may assure itself it is doing 'the right thing'. (This is why Bushco's trashing of international norms and institutions is so counterproductive and dangerous.) Philosophically, the question is (how) can we accomodate western missionary-liberalism with different claims to legitimacy or sovereignty. I'm not sure we can. I'm not sure we should. But I suppose the method would be to appeal to common values and act with integrity.

fellowtraveller,Dec 17 2004, 07:14 PM] Institutionally, the Cabinet is held to be jointly accountable for the actions of the government. A minister is a sworn officer of the crown whose integrity is staked together with his Cabinet colleagues. If a cabinet minister cannot in conscience advise the Crown that a measure is a good and worthy s/he cannot sit in the cabinet with integrity. It is very similar to many other conflict of interest situations in business. So, it's not really correct to say it's a penalty for cabinet members to vote with the government or bite the bullet and resign. If they are free thinking people who honestly oppose the legistlation, with a sworn obligation to so advise the Crown, it's not a penalty to leave cabinet, it's a duty.

Interestingly, HRDC and Immigration are pretty well known among the civil service to be the worst places to be. People there apply to transfer out as soon as possible. To be transfered to Immigration from anywhere is like falling into hell. Canada's immigration 'system' IS broken. Not in its intent, but in its execution.

Argus Wrote: People who have an urge to molest children but who never indulge the urge are legally innocent. Just like people who have an urge to kill puppies and never indulge it. The laws of Canada address the realm of action, not conjecture. That whole statement depends significantly on what you mean by 'based on'. If you take it as far as I think you mean, then it is not correct to say our laws are 'based on' Christianity or Judeo-Christianity. Taken historically, Canadian law is an amalgam of a variety of inter-connecting sources of law including in various proportions: Roman, Anglo-Saxon, medieval (mostly Norman) French, Danish, Hebrew, Christian ecclesiastic, and a dash of Scots and Danish Viking. Taken as a rational decision-making method it's influences include: ancient Greek, classical liberal, and monarchist parliamentarianism. Because of the common law system of precedent, Canadian law is no doubt also substantially affected by historically imperfect division between church and state, such as the judeo-Christian beliefs of judges and law-makers and the influence of Christian orthodoxy's socio-political preponderance. As a regime claiming a legitimate authority to make law and determine legal outcomes, Canadian law places no reliance on any religious belief or heirarchy.

That's the point in dispute. If the Supreme court had permitted Florida to count its ballots, we would know the answer to that. By fraudulently preventing Florida from concluding its election, the Supreme Court effectively appointed Bush. He was not elected.

You may be right. Somewhat more difficult than a geostationary object, but not that much more. If a spy satelite is in any kind of orbit, unless it adjusts it's vector by some means, it will be completely predictable. Someone targetting it would just need to pick their shot. A balistic missile is harder, because in the time allowed you cannot observe/predict it's flight all that well, and you cannot wait to pick your shot.

If I understand your concern correctly, I think I can give you peace of mind. The reason you don't need to worry about unsupportable mutations of marriage following willynilly from same-sex marriage is that they would not fall within the purposes and definition of marriage, as Parliament (subject to the constitution) defines. Fortunately, our laws are not based (in any sort of logical or authoritatively dependent relationship) on Judeo-Christian religion. Thus you need not worry about their foundations when it seems they differ from religious dogma (of whatever variety).

Wrong, dinosaurs were the summum of evolution some 80 million years ago. In the future, it may well be cockroaches that will be the summum. The only criteria for "evolution" is what works. I would add: Evolution simply means gradual change in response to conditions. On the other hand, progress implies change toward a posited outcome or endpoint. Let's hope that's not true. Otherwise most abstract communication is futile.

If a cabinet member disagrees with his government on an issue of fundamental rights and traditions, perhaps he or she has no place in that cabinet. Cabinet members who don't support the government should vote their conscience, yes. But they should have the courage of their convictions and accept that there may be consequences, just like with other choices in life.

True, and our reason can be flawed in other ways as well. But we don't have any option. Even if we resort to religion as a supposed substitute for the faults of reason, we have no way to eliminate human (i.e. imperfect) mediation.

I'd be interested to see somebody make a strong effort at making an empirical argument on intelligent design. So far all I ever see is the deductive negative argument ... it could not be otherwise. btw, a Panda's critique

I don't find Tolstoy's assertions particularly persuasive. "not reason", he says. Well why not? The reason we hold and seek fellowship with other humans is because our evolution disposes us to. And this is reasonable because it is our fellow man who helps us not be eaten by sabretooth tigers, or stokes the fire so it keeps burning while I'm taking a piss, or today writes the software that keeps my computer safe from viruses, or whatever. Anyway, Kant demonstrated that the golden rule is, in fact, reasonable. You ask, "why would life be better is we have only faith in reason"? But we don't have 'faith' in reason, though we do act on a belief that our reasonING is correct. Reason is a faculty of mind, absent which there is no mind. Reasoning, on the other hand is the process and outcome of applying the faculty.

Yes, the court really threw a monkey wrench into my prefered option: government civil unions (only) for everybody, and marriage a matter of private choice.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate. And what do YOU know about it? Frankly I can't imagine why they'd bother, especially since it is clear that religious freedom would prevent it.

There is a mistaken assumption working in your thought there. If I'm not mistaken, Quebec legislation has virtually done away with much difference in the obligations between splitting married and unmarried spouses.

Explain how, or at least provide an example. Growth is an outward/upward shift in the aggregate demand/supply equilibrium. If the equilibrium is shifting too rapidly, predictability suffers. To avoid this problem central banks constrain the supply of money, thereby slowing or halting the shift of the equilibrium. No, it is not. Deficit spending is when you borrow money and spend it. A government could spend from a deficit without inflating, for instance, by selling bonds. In this case, the expenditure is from a budget deficit but is from real capital. There doesn't seem to be a distinction. Government spending is either based on taxes or borrowing. Taxes take money directly from the economy and so there is no net inflationary pressure, so it must be borrowed money that you are worried about. I don't understand what you mean. Who creates this 'money from nothing'? My point exactly. Then you agree with me? Why did you not tell me how you define inflation? I thought I did. I said inflation is a decrease in the unit purchasing power of currency.

Not with our oil, you don't!

I'm not sure where I was saying differently. Gold-standard inflation is different, being artifically created only by coinage debasement ... In other words, comparison of inflation between gold standard money and our modern money is like comparing apples and oranges. But it doesn't. Economic growth always (initially) follows inflation, it never precedes it. Think about this: do central banks cut the interest rates to stimulate the economy, or do they cut them because the economy was stimulated? As I understand it, when growth is too rapid it can create a destabilizing level of inflation. Central banks act on a continous basis to maintain a balance. No, investment is taking existing capital and investing it for future capital. Inflation is about taking nothing and investing it for future capital. No, that's deficit spending. No, the workers demand more units of currency, but the same amount of money. I'm sorry I didn't make the distinction more clearly. No. Workers demand more value. They know inflation affects their money like everyone else. Well, I guess that concludes our discussion for today ... we're using much different definitions.

I believe that the US and possibly others have 'space- weapons' already in the form of killer-satelites. Small orbital bombs, basically that can manouever alongside ... say a geosyncronous enemy command/control commsat, and detonate itself. I remember this idea was reported in the media years ago and it disappeared so quickly I just assumed it had become true. Anyway, it's such an easy thing to do and so obviously useful I'd be amazed if no-one has done it.

As the Bush Doctrine and this administration continue to make the world a more dangerous place, Canada should definitely improve our independent military capability. In addition to improving our existing forces and equipment, we should develop a small but robust nuclear deterent capability. (I suggest a fleet of maybe a half dozen long-submersion submarines armed with a few nuclear armed ICBMs and cruise missiles.) The important thing, however is to use this ramp up to benefit domestic knowledge and manufacturing -- I.e. develop our own military-industrial complex.