Bob

Awesome. Wish they had YouTube videos of those kills.

I find this type of argumentation barely a notch above the "my dad can beat up your dad" level of argumentation we see in elementary school. And I am absolutely serious.

Obviously it wasn't a real quote, it was a joking paraphrase. Like I said, I paraphrased what that paragraph was really saying. It's not problem you're taking my mocking quote seriously, although I did seriously intend to distil that paragraph to its fundamental message - which was along the lines of opposing increased incarceration of "non-violent" criminals because of concerns of them getting embittered and disengranchised upon release. That's a ridiculous position to hold, by any standard.

I've stated specifically that I've only read through parts of the manifesto. The political elements that I've come across in the manifesto, specifically the first hundred-ish pages, I agree with.

In my view, this paragraph: "The new laws will actually provide less public safety, not more. Hundreds of non-violent offenders will now attend “con college,” learning many dubious skills. Inmates will come back to the street bitter and angry at the treatment they have received. And many more of them will be released without any supervision whatsoever." ...can be paraphrased to: "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed bitterness and resent towards society." That's my estimation.

Thanks for reminding me of another of her stupid arguments, which was literally, "don't send criminals to jail because that'll breed bitterness and resent towards society". Seriously? Having a law degree doesn't insulate one from criticism of stupid argumentation. You're acting like her credentials are some sort of teflon coating.

If we are to take that article seriously, then the logical conclusion is not to send people to prison because they will come out worse than when they went it, and that we shouldn't pres charges against more criminals because it's too expensive in the form of bail hearings, trials, and incarcerations. It's a painfully stupid article from a predictably politicized organization. That's literally what the argumentation boils down - sending "non-violent" criminals to jail is a bad idea because jail is "con college". Well, if it's "con college", why not reform it? She also states that since crime rates have allegedly been dropping for many years, that we shouldn't invest more in the criminal justice system. Is that really an argument we can take seriously? What's next waiting times for certain medial procedures have been reduced, so we shouldn't spend/invest anymore into the healthcare system? It's painful to see such stupidity from a self-described policy research centre, and then advanced by someone like yourself as if it's worth the metaphorical paper it's been written on.

As a general rule of thumb with history, the further in the past a phenomenon. the less relevant it is today. And as time goes on, the colonial experience of Arab countries becomes less and less relevant to today's situation. Also, the colonial experience varies between nations/states. As far as geography, it is hugely relevant, if not the most important factor. Geography determines resources and climatic conditions for agriculture and harvesting of domesticable animals, and it includes topography which affects potential for development. From my humble research into the current failures in Africa's poorest states, colonialism plays little role in the perpetuation of poverty and its associated problems. A much bigger problem is the failed current implementation of foreign aid.

Thanks for the lies. Nobody is being an "apologist" for this mass murderer.

If you view Zionism in a negative light based on your own ignorance and false narratives, that's your problem. Zionism is, simply, an emancipation movement for the Jewish people which has led us and continues to preserve a homeland which acts as the vehicle through which we actualize our national rights to independence and self-determination. It's too bad that so many people have such a negative emotional reaction to this beautiful movement, which is a testament to how effective the anti-Semitic propaganda campaign against Zionism has been, where even completely unaffected and detached individuals like yourself perhaps view Zionism as some sort of international banking, media, and Hollywood conspiracy for world domination by the evil two-one-hundredths of a percent of the world's population composed of by Jews.

When I mention colonialism, I am including the after-effects of its conclusion and withdrawal. I don't think anyone is advocating for colonialism 2.0, because such a thing should be a voluntary endeavour for relevant stakeholders, but I am not fiercely opposed to colonialism, either. I think there are possibilities to practise colonialism in "softer" manner that is no oppressive. Anyways, I'm taking the thread off-topic - I reject Moonlight Graham's simplistic excuse-making for ongoing failures in many impoverished African states.

Oh, be serious. Colonialism, while an important event to understand when considering contemporary African history and challenges/issues, is not an excuse for ongoing failures. If anything, much of the blame for ongoing failures rests on the current system of foreign aid. Most foreign aid perpetuates the problems it claims to address. Moreover, many former colonies with more intimate experiences with colonialism are faring far better than many failed African states. If anything is to be used as an excuse for ongoing failures, it should be geographical curses.

You're being way too overly sensitive. I find Curb Your Enthusiasm pokes fun at all sorts of things, including Jewish thingsa. I like the show. Your description of is as unfairly poking fun at Christians while sparing Jews, in my view, is ridiculous.

So an article from The Economist citing a handful of African countries with a higher rate of GDP growth than most other countries disproves my assertion that foreign aid has done little good, and much more harm, for the most impoverished African countries? Case closed, eh? In your world of high-school education, GDP figures from a handful of are all we need to know. Pathetic. Let's forget about looking at disease statistics, literacy rates, infant mortality, essential infrastructure, security, life expectancy, and on and on and on. All we need are GDP figures from a handful of African countries to demonstrate that foreign aid to Africa is doing more good than harm! Only on MLW can complex issues be dumbed down to the nth degree. complete with cheerleading.

The responsibility for this monster's reprehensible crimes lie with one person and one person alone - himself. He radicalized himself - he details it in his manifesto. Download his manifesto and use the ctrl-f function to search for 'indoctrination', eventually you'll get to the part where he talks about self-indoctrination, including visualizing the act, imagining the future interrogation, philosophizing and meditating about the issues, listening to motivational music, overcoming fear, etc... it's quite frightening. Anyways, he is responsible for himself, although the usual suspects will undoubtedly try to blame conservative/right-wing politics and critics of Islamism for this monster's crime. Typical.

Things haven't improved. They've gotten worse. At least in the context of most impoverished African countries. Many diseases are WAY up. Life expectancy certainly hasn't risen in many countries. Poverty is up. Violence is up. You're making shit up. Good luck providing ANY evidence and meaningful context to your broad claims. Trillions of dollars have been poured into Africa since the 60s. And for what? For virtually nothing. On balance, the effect has been negative. But of course you march like a good leftist soldiers parroting the claim of benefits, without having a shred of knowledge about any of these issues. Everything you say is an assumption based on "common knowledge".

"The west has a huge agricultural surplus"? What does that mean, exactly, that foods produced aren't being completely purchased by consumers? Are we supposed to be surprised by that? Go look at at grocery store and you'll see tons of food get wasted, that's normal and it's nothing to be embarrassed about. So let's send the Somalians the foods after they begin to decompose in the local Loblaws, how's that sound? Manufacturers produce what they can and try to sell the foods until they can no longer sell them (when the food spoils). You're trying to paint this picture of us overproducing, so we might as well send over "the surplus", even though there's no "we" involved in this at all - food manufacturing is privatised. It's not your food to give. So unless you want the taxpayer to food the bill and buy these foods as market price in order to ship them over to Somalia (I certainly don't, we shouldn't send them anything for free), and perpetuate the problem, stop whining about it. I certainly don't care about Somalia. Let them figure it out on their own. I'd rather ten cents go to give a Canadian child a lollipop than ten cents go to Somalia.

His self-indoctrination made him a killer, not his views. I share his views, and I certainly have no sympathy for mass murder. There are many millions of people like myself that share many of Anders Breivik's views, and we are not sympathetic in any way whatsoever of what this monster did. Don't forget, these views are not Anders Breivik's originals, they've been around long before the day he did what he did. Your attempt to smear those of us who hold those views as being murderous, which you describe as the logical conclusion of such views, is a typical attempt to smear views you don't like. Basically, rather than engage in debate, you just conveniently suggest that what I really want is mass murder of youth, since I agree with the mass murderer's politics.

It was probably a speech to address lax sentencing laws in Canada. You made the claim, you can back it up. If Harper is trying to sell this spending/investment as a "tough on crime" endeavour and NOT as a movement to address "overcrowding in prisons", as you're alleging, feel free to prove it.

Why don't you provide us with the full context of that quote, considering none of us really trust your free-style editorializing?

Instead of writing off his politics because of his reprehensible act of mass murder, why not take some time to peruse his manifesto and watch his video? His opposition to contemporary policies of multiculturalism and immigration in Norway and broader Europe, in my view, is very justified. He accurately describes a complex and multifaceted disinformation campaign waged against the public by a loose coalition of intellectuals, media, politicians, and interest groups - who he defines a "cultural Marxists". From what I've read in his manifesto, at leas the first 100-ish pages I skimmed through, he's bang on. It gets quite frightening when you get to the part where he describes self-indoctrination and planning of such an attack. Truly chilling. To compare him to people like Berkowitz, however, is misleading. He's not that category of criminal.

The implication in your OP is clear, and now you're backtracking. Assuming there is a big shortage of prison space available for the existing need to house criminals, then this political endeavour is worthwhile. Michael Hardner's link suggests that this is the case, and I'm sure those of us who actually consume a lot of Canadian media have come across articles discussing the shortage of prison availability, leading to overcrowding and poor-sentencing resulting from lack of supply of prison openings. Your position was stupid, and it remains stupid, and it's a transparent partisan attack because you have resentment towards Harper and/or the CPC. Grow up.

As much as I despise Layton's politics and party platform, I sure hope he does well. My intuition leads me to agree with capricorn and Topaz - perhaps his decision to campaign contributed to his illness, as stress is a huge aggravating factor for cancer, and many other illnesses. He sure look unwell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwP943O30Vo

I don't think I really care about this Somalian famine. It's certainly not our responsibility to feed them money to address their own failures. Let them engage in a mass exodus to a better place if they really want to save themselves. It's a failed state and will experience famine after famine unless they get their act together. I admit my apathy. Let Somalian ex-pats fix this problem on their own with their own fundraising efforts.

I agree with your assessment on gun issues - I immediately thought that this tragedy could have perhaps been lessened in the event of more prevalent gun ownership. But remember, that the majority of the victims of this massacre occurred on an isolated island. I'm not sure liberalized gun control could have made a difference. As far as him being a nutcase, well, there is no question there is something deeply wrong with a man who can do something so horrific. That doesn't take away from the validity of his politics. Keep in mind that he is not particularly original, the positions he advances in his manifesto (about half of which was not written by him), are not new. I would not compare him to Bernardo, although he perhaps has some similarities to Lepine - in the sense that he self-radicalized and made himself into a monster. Lastly, I do not accept Lepine's anti-feminist narrative, but I accept and agree with Breivik's opposition to existing immigration/multiculturalism policies in Europe, particularly with respect to what he views as the Islamisation of Europe and the unholy alliance between Islamism and what he describes as "cultural Marxists".