"Hit the Road" Jack!

[BHS]

What reasons? More handouts and social revolution? Oh yes. Thats it, thats all.

I'll take my tax cuts.

I just need to point out that one of Stephen Harper's so-called five points is a big gawdamn handout. If you support Harper's childcare plan, then you've no business whinging about handouts. It only highlights your hypocricy.

Actually, it was a bigger handout proposal than the Liberal's handout proposal. I was disappointed with "going to the left" of the Liberals on spending and childcare in this way, but it did neutralize both issues, making the Conservatives look kinder than what the Liberals were trying to portray them. The "beer and popcorn" gaffe was the final element that made the whole end-run work as well as it did. I wonder how that will look on Scott Reid's political resume.

This is partly why I though Layton ran a better campaign - at least when he promises to make a gift of your own money to you, it sits comfortably with his other long-stated values.

[BHS]

I don't understand this sudden need for people of the left to show how willing they are to stand up for conervative values like nationalism to show hopw tough they are. Nationalism is anotehr form of chauvanism, an ideology used to conince people to put their lives at risk in the service of a "cause" that only benefits those who stay behind and out of danger.

I wouldn't "defend my country" because I believe the very concept is bullcrap.

This is, perhaps, the most perfect Black Dog post ever. The Zen of Black Dog. It ties together and explains, in a fundamental way, every post I've ever read from you.

[Hicksey]

What reasons? More handouts and social revolution? Oh yes. Thats it, thats all.

I'll take my tax cuts.

I just need to point out that one of Stephen Harper's so-called five points is a big gawdamn handout. If you support Harper's childcare plan, then you've no business whinging about handouts. It only highlights your hypocricy.

Actually, it was a bigger handout proposal than the Liberal's handout proposal. I was disappointed with "going to the left" of the Liberals on spending and childcare in this way, but it did neutralize both issues, making the Conservatives look kinder than what the Liberals were trying to portray them. The "beer and popcorn" gaffe was the final element that made the whole end-run work as well as it did. I wonder how that will look on Scott Reid's political resume.

This is partly why I though Layton ran a better campaign - at least when he promises to make a gift of your own money to you, it sits comfortably with his other long-stated values.

I don't understand how taking your money, filtering it through all the political (read profiteering) channels and a bureaucracy and giving 30% (if we're lucky on most days) back by way of programs that never give people all they need and never fulfill their promises is a GIFT. I call it getting the shaft.

It's kind of like someone taking $20 from your wallet and in return giving you a gift certificate for $5 to a place you never shop at.

[BHS]

There's nothing wrong with patroitism, and respecting what the people before you have done for their country. That they put themselves in harm's way knowing that they very well may not be able to enjoy the benefits of their work is what makes these people true heroes.

I've been through this before and I'm not gonna get into it again. Sufice it to say, I think patriotism is a scam designed to give people a reason to die, even as their sacrifice benefits the very people who sent them. to their deaths "Die so that others can profit" just doesn't make for good recruitment slogans.

You just made me think of a poem:

Wilfred Owen

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--

Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

UPDATE: for those of you not up to speed in Latin, the final line is something like "Sweet and sublime is a death in the name of one's country".

[BHS]

I don't get why conservatives feel they have some kind of honour when it comes to military service. They're generally a bunch of chickenhawks if you ask me. If you look at conservative leadership (the entire Bush administration, Harper, etc.), they like to "support the troops" by facilitating them being blown apart but have "other priorities" when it comes to fighting the fight themselves.

I thought the chickenhawk insult went out of fashion a couple of years ago, around the time that it was pointed out it just as easily applies to FDR (in a wheelchair, from polio) and WJC (in a wheelchair, from weed). Maybe you slept through that. But then again, maybe I'm not entirely up to date on the ongoing non-trends in liberal rhetoric.

It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the American Armed Forces personnel poll overwhelmingly Republican, so apparently Republican "chickenhawkery" is popular among people who walk the walk. That might have something to do with Democrats "supporting the troops" by calling them murderers and rapists (a la Presidential candidate Kerry's well known and unregretted testimony before Congress) and by referring to their mission in the most denegrating, demoralizing terms they can muster.

[BubberMiley]

I don't understand how taking your money, filtering it through all the political (read profiteering) channels and a bureaucracy and giving 30% (if we're lucky on most days) back by way of programs that never give people all they need and never fulfill their promises is a GIFT. I call it getting the shaft.

It's kind of like someone taking $20 from your wallet and in return giving you a gift certificate for $5 to a place you never shop at.

You sound like you're pulling numbers out of your ass, and you are definitely vastly overestimating the amount of money lost to corruption (i.e., political profiteering) in Canada, but even if the bureaucracy did absorb 70% of all monies dedicated to social programs, it's not like that money disappears. It creates jobs, feeds families, and, yes, gets taxed at an agreeably too-high rate right back into the system. In other words, it feeds an economy that is, on the world scale, one of the most successful. I would agree that there is waste, fat to trim, efficiencies to be found all over the place, but that's the problem, not the social programs themselves.

[BHS]

Even if this were the case (which I don't think it is: obviously inefficiency and some degree of corruption are going to be present in any herierarchal, bureaucratic system, but to dismiss the potential good is throwing th baby out with the bathwater), at the end of the day, which system is more destructive? Or, put it another way: your money or your life?

Hmmm.....false dichotomy?

[BubberMiley]

I thought the chickenhawk insult went out of fashion a couple of years ago, around the time that it was pointed out it just as easily applies to FDR (in a wheelchair, from polio) and WJC (in a wheelchair, from weed). Maybe you slept through that. But then again, maybe I'm not entirely up to date on the ongoing non-trends in liberal rhetoric.

I don't know what you're talking about. Clinton wasn't in a wheelchair...and what do wheelchairs have to do with being a chickenhawk? Didn't you ever watch Foghorn Leghorn?

[BHS]

I take exception to the statement that many Canadians would not take up arms to support this country. I believe that if this country was ever under attack by any foreign power, and they came to our soil, it would be very evident that most people would come to Canada's defence. I mean Canadian people, not foreign powers. Canada has a very large mostly quiet population of people who are proud of Canada, and what it stands for. You will not see these people here posting or otherwise making their presence known. But they are there. You find them supporting the legions thru out Canada, you will see these people giving helping hands to those less fortunate, and for many they would give up the ultimate sacrifice if called to do so. Many of these people are friends and relatives of those who have in the past stood up for Canada. It is sad that they will fight for the rights of those who think that Canada is just a pack of left wing hippies, who will always find the worst in people to dwell on, to have their say, but go on silently knowing that these are just the musings of the few and the loud, and not the musing of the many and the proud.

I am 55 years old and if Canad was ever under attack, I would be the first to come to the call for arms. I am sure all of my family would do the same. Just because we are not always present to try and talk down the naysayers, does not mean we are not here. We are here and we are ready to do what ever needs to be done when the time comes. But we also are always hoping that that time never has to come, as the best war is the one that never comes about.

What if defending Canada means, as it has traditionally meant, defending Canada's interests and the interests of our allies overseas? It's an easier decision, to pick up a gun and fight an enemy invading your home town, like in Red Dawn. Are you willing to take up arms to fight a battle in another country, if called to do so?

[BubberMiley]

It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the American Armed Forces personnel poll overwhelmingly Republican, so apparently Republican "chickenhawkery" is popular among people who walk the walk. That might have something to do with Democrats "supporting the troops" by calling them murderers and rapists (a la Presidential candidate Kerry's well known and unregretted testimony before Congress) and by referring to their mission in the most denegrating, demoralizing terms they can muster.

That's true they are often republican (at least the white ones), but hey, they signed up to be in the U.S. Army. I didn't say they were bright.

It would be interesting to know how many soldiers in Iraq still think the war is a good idea, but we're not allowed to know that.

[BHS]

I mostly agree with you although I do believe our health care system isn't all that bad but the main problem with it is that it's a compromise between a private system like in the U.S. and a truly universal system like in Cuba and most European countries. If we fully commit to a universal health care system, I think it can work.

So, eye care and dental (and theraputic massage and ear candling and others ad nauseum)are to be added to the list of things fully covered by government spending, and this will improve how the system works? Somehow I get the feeling that the unwritten part of this paragraph involves tax brackets climbing to 90+% to pay for the increased services. Oh, if only we were more like the blessed Swedes!

In this day and age, we are led to believe that you should look out for yourself and let other people work it out. The level of individualism has increase dramatically in recent times to where we would rather have the market correct inequalities by itself over time and let less fortunate people suffer until then. It doesn't have the be the rat race we've made it out to be.

I don't recall anyone on the pro-capitalism side saying anything about the market correcting inequalities. That's not a function of the market, that's a function of government intervention. (Aside: most socialist schemes I've seen ultimately boil down to easing the suffering of the less fortunate by increasing the suffering of everyone else, so that the difference is less stark. As in our beloved health care system.)

As for a having a strong military, I'm one of those UN pussies and so I'm of the opinion that we do not need a bigger presence than what our UN obligations require us to have. Then we have the drug issue. I still to this day do not understand the people on the right who are trying to control what people do in their own home. Whether that's the use of drugs or just about anything else. And I pretty sure that's what Jack Layton and the NDP believes in too.

Again, it's a matter of opinions...

What if we don't have don't have enough military capacity to meet our UN requirements, as is currently the case? By your reasoning, I guess it's time to increase defence spending, nah?

I'm all for legalizing pot. Heck, I'm halfway to legalizing heroin. But I don't think that, to paraphrase Trudeau, "the government has no business in the opium dens of the nation". You suggest that people be allowed to ingest at will in their homes. Fine. Homeless people live in parks, and the notion of equality holds that they have the right to behave in the park where your kids play at 2 in the afternoon the way you behave in your livingroom after your kids are safely ensconced in bed at grandma & grandpas'. Is that okay with you? You'd better be sure. The law of unforeseen consequences always applies.

[BHS]

It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the American Armed Forces personnel poll overwhelmingly Republican, so apparently Republican "chickenhawkery" is popular among people who walk the walk. That might have something to do with Democrats "supporting the troops" by calling them murderers and rapists (a la Presidential candidate Kerry's well known and unregretted testimony before Congress) and by referring to their mission in the most denegrating, demoralizing terms they can muster.

That's true they are often republican (at least the white ones), but hey, they signed up to be in the U.S. Army. I didn't say they were bright.

It would be interesting to know how many soldiers in Iraq still think the war is a good idea, but we're not allowed to know that.

Add another slander to the pile.

We don't know now how they feel, but we will in time. Those soldiers will return to civilian life and will be free to reminisce about their experiences in whichever way they choose. Will they be John Kerrys, or will they be Swift Vets? Time will tell.

[tml12]

It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the American Armed Forces personnel poll overwhelmingly Republican, so apparently Republican "chickenhawkery" is popular among people who walk the walk. That might have something to do with Democrats "supporting the troops" by calling them murderers and rapists (a la Presidential candidate Kerry's well known and unregretted testimony before Congress) and by referring to their mission in the most denegrating, demoralizing terms they can muster.

That's true they are often republican (at least the white ones), but hey, they signed up to be in the U.S. Army. I didn't say they were bright.

It would be interesting to know how many soldiers in Iraq still think the war is a good idea, but we're not allowed to know that.

Add another slander to the pile.

We don't know now how they feel, but we will in time. Those soldiers will return to civilian life and will be free to reminisce about their experiences in whichever way they choose. Will they be John Kerrys, or will they be Swift Vets? Time will tell.

John Kerry is a sad man...not to mention the biggest flip-flopper there is.

I am no fan of Bush, but Kerry?

Kerry???

[BubberMiley]

So, eye care and dental (and theraputic massage and ear candling and others ad nauseum)are to be added to the list of things fully covered by government spending, and this will improve how the system works? Somehow I get the feeling that the unwritten part of this paragraph involves tax brackets climbing to 90+% to pay for the increased services. Oh, if only we were more like the blessed Swedes!

I think he meant that our health care system is a mix of private and public: your doctor runs his office like a private clinic and then bills the government. If it were truly public, he would be an employee of the government.

Homeless people live in parks, and the notion of equality holds that they have the right to behave in the park where your kids play at 2 in the afternoon the way you behave in your livingroom after your kids are safely ensconced in bed at grandma & grandpas'. Is that okay with you? You'd better be sure. The law of unforeseen consequences always applies.

That's why god invented shooting galleries--er, safe injection sites.

[BHS]

The problem is alot of people do fall through the cracks of our system. Most "full time" homeless people in Canada are mentally handicap.

I agree. We used to have safety nets to keep mentally ill people from living on the streets. Then the definitions for voluntary and involuntary treatment were redefined, giving the mentally ill the right to choose whether or not to be treated, and now the only way to get them into help and healthcare is to wait until they try to harm themselves or others. In Ontario, anyway. See The Mental Health Act RSO 1990.

[BHS]

I think he meant that our health care system is a mix of private and public: your doctor runs his office like a private clinic and then bills the government. If it were truly public, he would be an employee of the government.

Please, say it ain't so. Only the most ardent Castro fart-catcher would see forcing doctors into a payed slavery arrangement with the state as an improvement.

That's why god invented shooting galleries--er, safe injection sites.

Which the junkies routinely avoid, prefering, as I stated, to slam junk closer to "home" and away from authority.

[geoffrey]

What reasons? More handouts and social revolution? Oh yes. Thats it, thats all.

I'll take my tax cuts.

I just need to point out that one of Stephen Harper's so-called five points is a big gawdamn handout. If you support Harper's childcare plan, then you've no business whinging about handouts. It only highlights your hypocricy.

I don't support any childcare plans, just to clarify my non-hypocracy. Harper is just the lesser of 3 evils in socialism, I don't agree with any party's fiscal policy in terms of childcare or healthcare.

[BubberMiley]

How about public education? Are you against that too?

[BHS]

But what about people who can't stand up--say, oh, people with broken backs who simply can't work or walk or whatever. You may sit in your suburban splendour and pretend they're doing just fine, but even with the great taxation sacrifices you're making, they're still barely getting by. I would agree the problem isn't the rate of taxation--I don't think taxes need to be raised to take better care of the most vulnerable; resources just need to be shifted. But talk of a "nanny" state implies that the people who need help are babies, which is horribly condescending. It almost makes me want to see you in that situation so you can better understand what it's like to need help.

There are other programs, outside of basic welfare, to assist people who are truly incapable of taking responsibility of their own financial health.

The term "nanny state", as it is most commonly used among righties, refers to a model of government that would make children of us all, and is in no way intended to denegrate the needy in particular.

[geoffrey]

How about public education? Are you against that too?

Nope, not against public health care either. Just against monopolising a system. If your not happy with the way your treated, take your business elsewhere. That option has to exist.

[BHS]

Well, I have the benefit of suburban splendour and an SUV and I pay over $40,000 in taxes, and I don't think that just because someone is disabled, they should have to live in sh*t with no hope of ever getting out of it. Maybe it's a guilt thing...

You're the second member of this forum I've seen arguing for higher taxes from a position of wealth, against people who live modest lives and would prefer the government keep their hands out of their pockets no matter what "benefits" it offers in return. The other one is Err. Maybe you two should hang out or something.

[BHS]

I really don't understand why we have to feel guilty about achieving and being rewarded for it.

I don't feel guilty for having tons of crap and a big house to put it in; I feel guilty for others, through no fault of their own, who don't have a chance for anything other than a bleak day-to-day struggle in a gang-infested neighbourhood. I'm talking specifically about mentally and physically disabled people who don't have the chance to make a decent living for themselves--not 22-year-old guys who don't want to work at Burger King because it's beneath them. That's why I don't mind paying the taxes I do, so long as they're directed efficiently enough to take care of those who really need it.

And, presumably, not paying for wine tasting junkets to Iceland for 60 or so of Canada's self-described "elites".

[BHS]

I thought the chickenhawk insult went out of fashion a couple of years ago, around the time that it was pointed out it just as easily applies to FDR (in a wheelchair, from polio) and WJC (in a wheelchair, from weed). Maybe you slept through that. But then again, maybe I'm not entirely up to date on the ongoing non-trends in liberal rhetoric.

I don't know what you're talking about. Clinton wasn't in a wheelchair...and what do wheelchairs have to do with being a chickenhawk? Didn't you ever watch Foghorn Leghorn?

Must be a more local concept than I realized. When I was in highschool, we referred to really good pot as "wheelchair weed".

You see, Clinton and FDR were Democrats and therefore, by the common formulation, "liberals". The chickenhawk smear is directed specifically at conservatives who are in favour of military action but who've never served in uniform. My post points out two things: that liberals are as likely to make war without the requisite personal experience as are conservatives, and (indirectly) that if only those who served were allowed to make military decisions, the likelihood is that those decisions would only be made by Republicans.

Just something to chew on.

[BubberMiley]

You're the second member of this forum I've seen arguing for higher taxes from a position of wealth, against people who live modest lives and would prefer the government keep their hands out of their pockets no matter what "benefits" it offers in return. The other one is Err. Maybe you two should hang out or something.

I wouldn't say I'm in a position of wealth, and I'm certainly not advocating higher taxes. I'm just defending social programs and think that with better management, they could be even more effective than they are with the existing resources. So I'm as bitter as the next guy when tax money is squandered; I'm just not bitter at the people who need help, because I don't think they're the ones squandering it.

[BubberMiley]

Must be a more local concept than I realized. When I was in highschool, we referred to really good pot as "wheelchair weed".

No, the reference was just very subtle. We have wheelchair weed where I come from too. Maybe that's what prevented me from understanding.