# Deconstructing "Progressive " thought



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2007)

The political "Left" is violently against many things, and has struck bizzare alliances with shuch charming partners as Hezbollah, but what motivates them? One starting point for discussion from "Just Right"

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2007/07/lefty-mind.



> Friday, July 27, 2007
> The lefty mind
> 
> In an excellent discussion between David Thompson and Ophelia Benson (co-author of ‘Why Truth Matters’) we get some insight into what goes on in lefty heads.
> ...


----------



## vangemeren (28 Jul 2007)

In regards to your emphasis, I would argue that, that is what you get when you try to lump together a vast array of different political thoughts and ideas into a 2 dimensional plane. I can't think of any political group where everybody agrees with each other on absolutely every single issue. If that were the case they would not be human, just clones/robots. Are you suggesting that the political "Right" is monolithic and that only coherent ideas are expressed? I would beg to differ.

P.S The link does not work for me. I always find these readings interesting because it gets the gears grinding even if I don't agree with them.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2007)

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/    July 27, 2007

While neither the "Left" or the "Right" are monolithic entities, the "Left" has a disproportionate influence over us. About 2/3 of Canadian voters support left wing parties like the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green party; most of our electronic and print media comes through a "progressive" filter, discussions in schools and higher education are heavily bent to the left (How many schools are showing students "The Great Global Warming Swindle" either alone or after "An Inconveinient Truth"? Now how many schools plan to show students "An Inconveinient Truth" only?). Most of the Judiciary has been appointed by politicians who come from the Left side of the political spectrum, and I could go on.

Deconstructing this sort of thinking will go a long way to explaining recent history (i.e. the causes of why things are this way today), as well as attempting to predict future trends.

It certainly will pay to do a similar thought exercise on the right, and in fact you can see some of my attempts to do so in this forum (Libertarians, Conservatism needs work, Politics with more Dimensions, etc.).

Bon appitite.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2007)

From "Alice the Camel". An interesting summary of the difference between the "Left" and "Right"

http://alice-the-camel.blogspot.com/2007/09/who-will-save-us.html



> The modern liberal hangs the success of society on the integrity of its institutions. On the other hand, the non-modern-liberal hangs the success of society on the integrity of its citizens.
> 
> [I hadn't thought of it in such a way until reading Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah, which, incidentally, as a camel with 3 curve scoliosis I slouch a lot, but that is neither here nor there and precisely here and there all at once.]
> 
> ...



Of course, the "Progressive" or "liberal" or what have you would seem to make the assumption that the "Institution" exists as a separate entity  from the people who compose its workers and directors, at least so long as it is a government institution. While a private corporation is also a legal person, there is no doubt that the corporate person lives or dies from the integrity of its directors and staff.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2007)

Another interesting article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/death_fears_of_the_boomer_left_1.html



> September 21, 2007
> *Death fears of the Boomer Left*
> By James Lewis
> "Back in the Sixties," sighs an ex-hippie lady I know, "everybody was happy. Really. Everybody."
> ...


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Sep 2007)

Very intresting read.


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Sep 2007)

> I’m inclined to cough and mutter Marx", "Castro", "Chavez" and Che Guevara T-shirts."



Ah yes, psudeo-communism, separating stupid leftists from their money in the most capitalistic way since 1962...  ;D

LOL!!!  While looking for a date to put at the end of my comment I came across this on google...


> Che Guevara - For all your revolutionary needs shop at theCHEstore.com


 LOL


----------



## time expired (22 Sep 2007)

a-majoor,
           Outstanding post,James Lewis has captured my innermost
thoughts.
            Regards


----------



## Flip (22 Sep 2007)

A Majoor,

Nice mini series there......The following leaps out.



> To be sure, conservatives are vulnerable to all the usual human frailties. But to be "conservative" is a near-synonym for being grown-up. A big part of maturity is to come to terms with one's own limits



If circumstances were to change toward the more serious, I suspect there would be
movement to the right. Liberalism is a product of affluence maybe????


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2007)

Those interested in this topic might want to read The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture by the Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey.

He starts from the premise that 20th century America marked the first time in human history that _abundance_ became the norm for most people. He then traces the evolution of American social-political thought and action, especially from 1950 until today.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2007)

Interesting look at abundance as seen by the Left. Mark Steyn is bang on as usual and he also provides a link to another related piece:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzgyZWFiOTkxMTJiMTBlMGNkYTgyOTViZGIxNjQ0YjY=http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y



> *The new poor* [Mark Steyn]
> 
> Over the weekend, I posted a couple of things re Graeme Frost, the Democratic Party's 12-year old healthcare spokesman. Michelle Malkin reports that the blogospheric lefties are all steamed about the wingnuts' Swiftboating of sick kids, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## rw4th (9 Oct 2007)

> Er, yes, it is. One in six people in the Greater Toronto Area visited a food bank? At the very trough of the Depression, one in four American workers was unemployed and the lines at the soup kitchens snaked down the streets. If one in six Torontonians needed food from food banks, you'd notice it.



People who don't need it visit food banks all the time. Some do so because the are just plain cheap and want free shit, others have decent incomes but waste them supporting gambling or drug habits.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (9 Oct 2007)

rw4th said:
			
		

> People who don't need it visit food banks all the time. Some do so because the are just plain cheap and want free crap, others have decent incomes but waste them supporting gambling or drug habits.



Same with the tent city in Edmonton, now that it's getting cold, they are moving indoors, but heck, if you can work, without having to pay rent during the summer, why not? I would like not to pay my mortgage for a few months too, but I can't. Yet the lefties yell about free housing, well sure, for the people who really need it, but for pikers? NO. 

Before you jump on me, I volunteer for a guide dog organization, I see how our most disadvantaged live, and it's not pretty. You try to live on less than $1000 a month. Too bad lefties have money to spend on druggies and needle injection sites, but none on the real people who need our help. 

Great articles presented, food for thought.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2007)

I wonder about the perverse incentives that keep people trapped in Toronto or other cities where their Welfare is less than the amount needed to pay rent or eat. Given the mass pile on of ads extolling the virtues of living and working in Saskatchewan we see right now in Ontario, or the very well known labour shortages in Alberta, where is the stream of poor people moving to where the jobs are?

Perhaps the real question should be "what makes it more attractive to live on welfare in Ontario than moving west?"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Oct 2007)

Interesting, in the 20 & 30's many of the left were willing to go fight in the Spanish Civil War, I somehow doubt our current left has the balls for such sacrifice.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2007)

I visited a friend who runs a fish plant here on the south shore of NS over the weekend. He was telling me that it is really hard to get workers here who have a work ethic anymore. You know the ethic that the forefathers of these people had when they carved a living out of the woods and plyed the waters in dangerous wooden boats to feed their families. He told me that most of them only want enough time "at work" to qualify for their UIC which they live off for the rest of the year. When they are on the job they are, for the most part,  lazy and unmotivated. We are now into the third generation of people who rely on a system of handouts instead of encouragement of hard work in order to put food on the table.
It is really interesting too to listen to the majority of folks down here who hate the current PM for having stated the truth a few years ago that there is "a culture of defeat" in Atlantic Canada. This culture of defeat was created by the Federal Government and there is no sign that it's going to be reversed anytime soon. I'm sure it's all very progressive.  :


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2007)

Well, the Conservatives are being derided for that comment and a whole bunch of other things, so now's the time to make the changes.....one more can't matter.


----------



## warrickdll (9 Oct 2007)

You have to really doubt an article that states the following:



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Another interesting article:
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/death_fears_of_the_boomer_left_1.html
> ...
> ...




And then follows it in the very next paragraph:



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> The greatest flaw of the Boomer Left is to see life through plainly false ideas. Start with a false premise, and you'll end up with false conclusions. Begin with the conviction that we can turn all human conflicts into peace and love just by willing it, and you end up convinced that those who don't agree with you must be evil, or must be forced to obey....
> ...




Extreme left wing ideas can find root in Canada because extreme leftist hide within centre-left parties. 

Centre-right parties almost only ever get voted in here based on the scandal level achieved by the centre-left parties. Canadians justifiably fear right wing extremists; and aside from law-and-order, what else does the centre-right offer that doesn’t have a down side?

We are always going to be stuck with leftist nonsense as long as the Conservatives associate with religious fundamentalists and promote the destruction of government services.

As fun as it is for the right to point out the problems with the left; it won’t matter unless the right can present a valid alternative.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Oct 2007)

I never would have thought that fear of religious beliefs and the prospect of individual freedom and responsibility would be blamed for a tendency to socialism when simple human greed and laziness would serve.


----------



## warrickdll (10 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I never would have thought that fear of religious beliefs and the prospect of individual freedom and responsibility would be blamed for a tendency to socialism when simple human greed and laziness would serve.



Common need is the reason for socialism. We have a common need for defence so we collectively form a military – the same applies for other services. Without some level of socialism you do not have a country.

Using religious and individual freedoms as excuses for shovelling money over to religious organizations, or to treat religious people as if they require special blue parking spaces, is a far greater sign of greed and laziness than keeping Canadians healthy and educated.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2007)

>Without some level of socialism you do not have a country.

You've conflated "socialism" with "government".  While I understand how socialists would dearly love to score a propaganda coup by co-opting all government functions under the socialist umbrella, that sleight-of-mind will only work on the hard of thinking.  "Socialism" is the name for a subset of government functions which is, to a close approximation, welfare (public social spending).

"Freedom" is the excuse for all shovelling of money, generally to provide economic freedom and sometimes to shelter people from consequences of exercising freedom.  For example, the socialist argument for income supplements is to provide individual economic freedom.

Religious people seeking publicly-funded denominational school systems have not asked for special treatment; they have asked to be treated the same as everyone else and to have the educations of their children publicly funded.  Right to education, freedom of choice, freedom of association, and freedom of belief.  The lazy and greedy people are by definition the ones arguing to defund the Catholic schools in Ontario: greedy because they don't want to spend that money on those children; lazy because they aren't willing to make the public spending adjustments necessary to fund all children irrespective of schooling choice.

But I might be wrong about the fear of individual freedom and responsibility.  For all their diversionary noise about freedom and diversity, progressives are so scared sh!tless that some people actually will choose to exercise, practice, and promulgate different beliefs that they act to manoeuvre everyone into one system (which they currently judge, with reason, that they control) in contradiction to our own Charter, a UN statement of principles, and basic human decency and common sense.  Hypocrites to a man.


----------



## warrickdll (10 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Without some level of socialism you do not have a country.
> 
> You've conflated "socialism" with "government".  While I understand how socialists would dearly love to score a propaganda coup by co-opting all government functions under the socialist umbrella, that sleight-of-mind will only work on the hard of thinking.  "Socialism" is the name for a subset of government functions which is, to a close approximation, welfare (public social spending).
> ...




I disagree, if it can be termed “socialized medicine” how can it not be, for example,  “socialized policing”.


Further response here:



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (10 Oct 2007)

Policing is a function of any and all states, medical care by a state is not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2007)

My, what a fun and pointless game to play - adding an adjective as if it could magically change the character of the object.  But in real life, an adjective is chosen to suit the character of the object, not to editorialize it.


----------



## warrickdll (10 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My, what a fun and pointless game to play ...
> ...



We are in a democracy - attempts to label some government services as socialist and others not, are pointless.


This brings us back to your earlier statement:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> ...would be blamed for a tendency to socialism when simple human greed and laziness would serve.



Trying to arbitrarily label some government services as socialism (and therefore to you: as being the result of greed and laziness) is pointless unless you can define why they are socialist and others not.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2007)

Obviously, some background material has to be studied. Here is a list for your perusal:

Conservatism needs work
Putting the Socialism Back Into National Socialism
Libertarians
Politics with more Dimensions

Many detailed discussions and critiques of Socialism in its various forms have filled these threads; be prepared, so many Socialist straw men are inside the site owner may declare this a fire hazard!  

The Left can make some interesting and coherent arguments, although what you will see here is *not* going to please the average Green or NDP voter. You are left to imagine the reaction of Marxist-Leninists, Communists or others of that mind set.

Euston Manifesto


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2007)

>Trying to arbitrarily label some government services as socialism (and therefore to you: as being the result of greed and laziness) is pointless unless you can define why they are socialist and others not.

I'm glad we finally agree.

You: 





> I disagree, if it can be termed “socialized medicine” how can it not be, for example,  “socialized policing”.


 (arbitrary labelling)

Me: 





> But in real life, an adjective is chosen to suit the character of the object, not to editorialize it.


 (define why)

And the "why" (criterion) is simple: socialism is commonly held to be based on redistribution of wealth.  It is a politicized mix of compassion (charitable impulse, although charity is by definition giving of oneself, not giving of others), envy (want), greed (the desire that if something must be paid, others should pay more of it), and laziness (unwillingness to work within private and wholly voluntary means rather than state-backed conscription of resources), although the emphasis is always made on "compassion".


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2007)

Why "Progressives" like Postnationalism:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2007/11/post-nationalism-deficit-of-logic.html



> *Post-Nationalism, A Deficit of Logic*
> 
> Post-nationalism is a concept in which the left -- which lost the battle for the nation-state with the fall of Communism -- argues that the nation-state is an illogical, indefensible and ultimately doomed artifact of history. To the left, which opposes private property, the nation is like a giant sore on the face of the planet because some people have the nerve to describe part of the world as their own. Why it's an outrage! Who do they think they are?
> 
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (5 Nov 2007)

Too late to add replies to previous comments, but still a good read!


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

Arthur Herman: “To Rule The Waves” Harper Perennial 2004. pp 416-417.



> “The defeat of Napoleon had been a dramatic repudiation of *one of the oldest assumptions about government in human history: that maintaining a large standing army, led by a charismatic ruler and serviced by centralized bureaucracy, was a natural and effective way to organize the political community*. Such an organization, it was believed, allowed a community both to defend itself and dominate its neighbours by either physically occupying them or forcing them to pay tribute – the only kind of relations with neighbours worth having. In the final analysis,* all power was about domination,* and all domination about control of land and territory.  This had been the ancient formula for tyranny from Mesopotamia and Persia to Egypt and Rome.  It had underpinned the assumptions about empire under Phillip II of Spain and Louis XIV of France – not to mention the rule of English kings from the Plantagenets to the Stuarts.
> 
> “*The French Revolution and Napoleon had modernized this formula * for land-based empire, and perfected it.  *They stripped it of its traditional religious trappings and harnessed it to objectively progressive forces* – mass mobilization based on ideas about nationalism and citizenship, advanced systems of science and technology, invocations of the General Will, even of the Rights of Man – to pursue an even more impressive and sophisticated grand design *(Thereby creating a non-traditional religion – one without God-Kirkhill*).  This was the complete domination of the world system – the great interlocking network of trade, commerce, and communication that western Europe had created since the Renaissance and the age of exploration.  The stakes were now larger than just Europe, or even Europe’s overseas colonies.  They were coming to include the entire global community.
> 
> ...


Canada has never bought into the standing army aspect of traditional power but large portions of the population do buy into the “charismatic leader and his centralized bureaucracy”.  What word was most often used to describe Trudeau?  Charisma. What quality do the nattering nabobs regularly decry as lacking in his successors? Charisma.  There is comfort in having someone in charge with a plan.  Life becomes simpler then.  And if things go pear-shaped you can always blame them.  You are not responsible for their screw-ups.

It used to be that prior to the 60s the guy in charge was sanctioned by God himself and his servants on Earth. That made the decision of how to select the guy in charge much easier.  Post the 60s God and his servants were rejected and people were thrown back onto their own devices ….. but they still wanted the guy with all the answers to run the place.  That made them susceptible to the most charismatic voice on the airwaves.

We still are subject to the views of those that feel most comfortable in a hierarchical society, the socialists, replete with courtiers and bureaucrats (if not soldiers) and who abhor the mobility that possession of property and the freedom to use it confer upon individuals.  A person with their own means of meeting their own needs and wants is in a position not to need the “protection” of authority, thus doesn’t have to compromise with authority and ultimately doesn’t have to subject themselves to authority.  They can not be coerced or patronized.  Authority is forced to co-operate with them.  And they generally find co-operation with authority in their best interests just as they co-operate with their equals to mutual benefit.

We have ample touchstones here in Canada of the advantages that mobile property confers on individuals – what the Americans define as “rags to riches stories”.  Noteworthy amongst them are Donald Smith – Lord Strathcona, and McGill, and Hugh Allan and Paton and the rest of the Golden Mile set in Montreal.  Contrary to Canadian legend most of those people did NOT have the good fortune of being well born.  They were parish school educated clerks for the HBC, and law firms and banks that made good.

With property and the freedom to use it society has less need of Charismatic Leaders and Bureaucracy – a sound manager will suffice.  And that scares the livingbejasus out of bureaucrats and courtier-lobbyists and the secular clerics of the schools, universities, courts and the media.

I’d like to believe, to quote Mel Brooks that it is as simple as “We've gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs, gentlemen!” Blazing Saddles, 1974.  Unfortunately most of them actually believe “a charismatic ruler and serviced by centralized bureaucracy, (is) a natural and effective way to organize the political community”

Somebody has to have the answers and if God doesn’t have them any more…. Well maybe Al Gore or Pierre or Uncles Adolf, Joe or Hugo have them.

In the meantime, in Canada, we still debate whether or not we have a right to property and if we did have a right to property whether or not we should have the full, free and unencumbered use of that property.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Nov 2007)

Excellent post. Where do you see the present Conservative Government's philosophy in this? It seems that Harper and company have inherited a system that doesn't always fit well with their beliefs. Stephen Harper is not a charismatic leader and they seem to be at odds with the bureaucracy on most items. It's difficult for them to change a lot of the inherited myths because they don't have a majority to start forcing any of the real change that they probably would like to effect.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

It's an interesting point to consider, the Conservative Government's philosophy.  I think, by inclination the PM and his associates are inclined towards "laissez faire" economics and religious and social tolerance - tolerance in the 18th and 19th century version of: "I don't care what path to h*ll you choose. I'll make my own mistakes."  By definition that requires a non-activist mindset.  But to change the establishment requires action or else the establishment prevails by default and the activist, interventionist status quo continues.  So in order to get government, and society, back to the state that allows for a minimalist government requires an activist government, but one that is acting against the flow of both society and the establishment.  

That opposition to the flow creates friction, if not worse, as immovable meets irresistible and not much room to outflank the establishment.  Harper can tackle individuals, like Dion and Layton, and fight them to a conclusion but I don't know if he can fight society and the establishment in the same manner.  I think that fight is a simple battle of attrition, of wearing down.  As the Conservatives confront the flow they wear on people and they are worn by people. The question becomes who wears out first.

I think, ideally, Harper wants to wear out the establishment before society becomes aware that the establishment is worn down.  At the same time he doesn't want his support to be worn down before his endstate is achieved, whatever that may be. Perhaps he just sees himself as one, replaceable, element in the process with more like-minded individuals in reserve to carry on when he gets worn down or broken.  I hope so.  Because the problems begin when leaders see themselves as irreplaceable.

Given the ground that Harper holds now, does he need to make bold moves to break the establishment, moves that would be noticeable to society at large?  Or does he just need to hold his ground and watch the establishment grind against him and wear as it ages and wreck as it weakens?  I think that, given the baby boomer age of the establishment and the retirement plans of the bureaucrats it is a doable project in that he needs 5-10 years in office to make irreversible changes (make that "hard to reverse" - nothing in this world is permanent and I don't know about the next).  In 2 years, as SKT is pointing out, he is making a difference that will limit the options of future governments.  If he manages to rag the puck for the next two years, until the scheduled 2009 election and then gains even another minority for a couple more I think he can significantly alter the way things are done for a very long time.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

Just considering further what I wrote, and as an example of the types of changes that Harper can effect that will outlive him I think we can look at the value of the dollar.

When Jean Chretien beat Kim Campbell back in 1993 Kim lost because she couldn't find a way to create "jobs, jobs, jobs".  I believe she may have been of a "laissez faire" inclination that perceived Adam Smith's invisible hand as an unbeatable force.  Jean Chretien was definitely inclined towards activism.

For the "laissez faire" economists of Britain the Bank of England and monetary policy were sacrosanct.  Government didn't involve themselves in monetary policy.  Canada notionally ascribes to the same philosophy.  However the Government of the Day appoints the Governor of the Bank.  The Governor sets Bank and Monetary policy.   And the Government of the Day gets to set the environment in which the Bank operates. With control of the inputs and control of the mechanism then outputs can be predicted.

Coincidentally the Bank's policies resulted in a low dollar which resulted in Canadian Labour costs being lower than US costs which resulted in US auto manufacturing jobs being created/retained in Canada which resulted in "jobs, jobs, jobs" in Ontario and Quebec.  But this was at the expense of productivity.

Now, coincidental with the Conservative Government, the economic environment is creating a great demand for labour in Alberta.  That is drying up the pool of available labour which is drying up due to retirement of the baby boomers in any event. Coincidentally, again, the Government's policies are creating/allowing a dollar of record buying power.  This increases the buying power of companies when they go to make investments.  They can now afford to buy Japanese manufactured CAD/CAM robots and Swedish centrifuges and pumps and valves and motors from all over to replace employees.  This addresses the productivity gap that was present between Canada and the rest of the G7 and makes Canada more competitive.  It results in job losses that will never be replaced but, given the low fertility of our society generally and baby-boomers, Ontarians and Quebecers in particular we were/are facing a coming shortage of labour.  

The strong dollar is doing more for putting Canada on solid footing when it comes to dealing with the future than a point or two reduction in taxes will ever do.

Unfortunately for labour leaders and politicians their bread and butter comes from "people": being able to marshall them, coerce them, cajole them, patronize them - lead them.  In the absence of people they have no power.  

Buzz Hargrove made his move on the UAW to form the CAW in the "jobs, jobs, jobs " environment.  He had a ready clientele of 45-55 year olds that were deathly afraid of losing their good jobs in the Auto industry before their retirement plans kicked in.  Most of those people are now close enough to retirement that even when the plants shut down they get a bridging buy-out that carries them through until their plan is initiated at 60 or 65.  Bud no longer has a fear-motivated following to lead.

One of the major contributors to US Auto Industry lack of profitability is the cost of carrying all those retirees.  Those companies are just going to have to wait out the storm and wait for their "liabilities" to end.  In the meantime they have stopped digging the hole they are in and are no longer replacing workers with workers.  They are replacing workers with robots that don't need health and retirement plans.  Those companies that can pay off their debts fastest and convert to a low labour regime will win the next "round" in the race for "world dominance".  The strong dollar helps Canadian companies do that faster than American companies lumbered with a weak dollar.  Coupled with a massively strong resource base and an educated if reducing labour force in a relatively politically stable environment we have control of inputs and mechanisms to a greater extent than our competitors.   We can predict outcomes with more surety than say an auto-manufacturer in Iran.  That attracts foreign investment, reducing the cost of borrowing, increasing the ability of companies to compete and provide incomes for all Canadians: retired, employed and future.  

Foreign investment is a good thing.  It built Canada, the US, Japan and Germany.  It also built India, Russia, China, Argentina and the countries of South America - in the early 1900s.  All of those economies collapsed when local politicians destabilized the business environment by nationalizing industry.  Now the environment became less predictable for investors as they were no longer operating with the "natural" forces of the market but, instead, were operating in environments that changed with the electorate, their bureaucracies, their charismatic leaders and their whims.

SKT said Dalton McGuinty looked ill last week.  What I believe Dalton was seeing was the same thing Bud Buzz (oops  :-[ I always was bad with names)  was seeing: the permanent erosion of his power base.  Courtesy of Harper's action or inaction?


----------



## Greymatters (6 Nov 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> When Jean Chretien beat Kim Campbell back in 1993 Kim lost because she couldn't find a way to create "jobs, jobs, jobs".  I believe she may have been of a "laissez faire" inclination that perceived Adam Smith's invisible hand as an unbeatable force.  Jean Chretien was definitely inclined towards activism.



Thats a bit incorrect.  Campbell lost beacause she was set up for failure and had almost zero chance of winning given the conditions that the party was in.  It didnt matter what she did, the Conservatives were on the way out.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

That's fair enough GM, but her insistence that she couldn't create jobs in the face of Chretien's "Jobs, jobs, jobs" (and "Axe the tax") didn't help her situation any.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

PS - We better be buying our pumps and robots in the US because our buying power relative to the Euro, Yen, Pound and various Kronors hasn't increased nearly as much.  When we were at 65 cents to the dollar the Euro was launched at par with the USD with the expectation it would rise to the 1.25 USD/Euro.  The Euro promptly tanked to the 80 cent range.  It is now at 1.46 USD/Euro - a 66/80 increase or 82%.  Our increase, 108 from 65 is a 43/65 increase or 66%. Euro manufactured goods are now more expensive than they were in '93-'95 - to the tune of about 25% over the last decade or so.  US goods by contrast are less expensive - by about 40%.   The US effectively has a half-price sale on capital goods while the Europeans are supporting a 25% service charge for their goods.  

Anybody know how the Yen has tracked?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2007)

More on "Liberal" thought

http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2007/11/pj-on-do-gooding-enviro-nuts-and.html



> Wednesday, November 07, 2007
> *PJ on Do Gooding Enviro-Nuts and Liberals and More*
> 
> The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (8 Nov 2007)

> The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.



I can attest to that.  When I was in uni, the ones that screamed the loudest about clear-cutting and global warming tended to be artsies majoring in geography or political science.  Those who were in the sciences were as far removed from the tree-hugging crowd as you can get.  Sure, those who took forestry and biology were conservationists, but they were not into radical enviro-action like the artsies were.  They were too busy actually working in the field.  ;D


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Nov 2007)

If the arguments in this thread indicate general “conservative” attitudes and levels of discourse the likelihood of the general public ceding a majority is very unlikely. Bashing leftist thought by quoting questionable third party blogs without stating meaningful alternative methods of governance is not going to gain you any new support. 

The secret of the Republicans success in America can’t be repeated in Canada because our electorate is better educated. We have fewer single issue voters. These are voters who are totally caught up in something like gun control, abortion or religion. Republicans promise them the moon (and then don’t deliver generally). The great thing about single issue is they have near 100% voter turnout. So 10% of the populace can seem like 30% at the polls.

As well I really miss the Reform Party, even though I am from Ontario. The Conservatives cater too much to the whims of global capital and not enough to moral values. Sorry but global capital needs moral constraints. Lets face it if someone could sell Uranium to Iran they would. The externalization of costs like pollution, human misery and such should be taken into account. If Conservatism grappled with these core issues they could easily gain the credibility needed to sway the majority of the electorate. Most Centrists go Liberal because they think the Conservatives are tied to corporate purse strings. They may be right, but maybe it is time to change that. Unless of course you like the nanny state,….


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2007)

There is plenty of discussion on "right wing" thought as well, you just have to look at these threads:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64647/post-625891.html#msg625891

As for your comment on Canadian voters being "better educated" or not inclined to be "single issue" voters I have personal experience (as a candidate for office) that contradicts that thesis; moral smugness and anti-American posturing does not make for better voters or politicians.

WRT moral values; the free and unencumbered use of your own property is at the heart of Conservative (Libertarian and "classical liberal" i.e. Edmond Burke etc.) thought. Most variations of Progressiveism and Socialism are _explicitly_ about control of the actions and property of the individual. What is more moral: giving you equal opportunity to meet your needs or moving in and dictating the outcomes of your actions to meet arbitrary and often unsuitable whims from the unelected and unaccountable?


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Nov 2007)

This standard all or nothing posturing guarantees your marginalization in the political landscape.


----------



## Reccesoldier (8 Nov 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This standard all or nothing posturing guarantees your marginalization in the political landscape.



Do you have anything to add to the debate or are you going to troll just for fun?

How about a "better idea"...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2007)

As the Blogger says, it is amusing to see cultural relativists fighting against each other. (How do relativeists define what is worth fighting for anyway?)

http://unambig.blogspot.com/2007/11/but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than.html



> Wednesday, November 14, 2007
> *But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others...*
> 
> Quebec's Council on the Status of Women (CSF) is in trouble with another status group, the Montreal Multicultural Women's Coalition, for allegedly creating a "hierarchy" of human rights. It's incredible when you can get one social relativist fighting against a cultural relativist over the same thing: the advancement of a people based on their gender. It's an interesting thing to talk about equality, when one belongs to a group which seeks the improvement of status of one kind of human being alone. Nevertheless, I agree with the general thrust of the CSF in context with the multicultural disagreement.
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (15 Nov 2007)

"The red herring is the same tried and tired argument of the multiculturalists who use cultural relativism to devalue Canadian rights by accusing those who disagree of being ethnocentric neo-colonialists, racist and xenophobic, or other rhetorical garbage. Ms.Lessard argues that a Muslim teacher in a burqa presents an obvious conflict of interest from one who is responsible to provide an education of sexual equality while clothed in the fabric of a symbol of gender oppression.  In essence, Muslims want the right to subjugate women as their religious traditions and customs require, while Canadians want the rights of secular gender equality to supersede. It's not about a hierarchy of rights. It is a basic Canadian right to be free from the religious influence of a culture which seeks to use "cultural equality" in a relativist triumph to give them the right to treat women like garbage."

Well written!


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Nov 2007)

This example (the burka'd teacher) doesn't pass the test of logic.  If she (the teacher) were truly an example of Islamic subjugation of women she not only would not be in a classroom (either as a teacher or as a student) but she would certainly not have a job.

Seems to me that the decision to wear the burka (in this individual example) is more correctly tied to culture rather than discrimination.

Is the wearing of a yamika also a sign of religious intolerance?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Nov 2007)

or a crucifix?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2007)

Apparently, the NDP are taking "group rights" to is logical conclusion. No mention in this plan of the individual qualifications of the proposed candidates:

http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2007/11/good-news-for.html



> Good news for...
> 
> *Wheelchair-bound, Tongan, lesbian immigrants with an interest in politics...*
> 
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (18 Nov 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Apparently, the NDP are taking "group rights" to is logical conclusion. No mention in this plan of the individual qualifications of the proposed candidates:
> http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2007/11/good-news-for.html



That makes limited sense.  Its commendable to promote the rights of groups of minority groups, but there needs to be (a) some qualities and credentials to back them up, not just a niche in the Human Rights Act, and (b) not everybody will want to vote for a candidate who got nominated just because they filled a blank spot on the chart.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Nov 2007)

I look at this way, it will keep them limited to the fringes of the political spectrum where they belong.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2007)

Group and identity politics in its full, toxic, bloom. HT to Jonathan Kay for being able to sit through this and report:

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/11/18/jonathan-kay-adventures-among-the-anti-racists.aspx



> Full Comment
> *Jonathan Kay: Adventures among the anti-racists*
> 
> One of the nice things about writing an op-ed column for this newspaper is that you get invited to speak on a lot of "media panels" at academic conferences. I flatter myself to think people are genuinely interested in what I have to say. But I suspect the main reason I get invited is that I provide "balance": Even when a confab is wall-to-wall campus lefties and CBC types, the words National Post on my podium placard signal there's at least one right-wing maniac in the house.
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (21 Nov 2007)

Good article - is a sad day when asking people to take responsibility for their problems is equated to racism, and its been going on for far too long.


----------



## DBA (21 Nov 2007)

Indoctrination along those lines seems to becoming more and more widespread. University's indoctrination rates as mind control. Seems like a provocative and overly alarmist title until you read about the details of the program itself and then it seems spot on. (list of materials)

It saddens me since it seems so irrational and counter productive.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2008)

A double header here:

http://voterick.com/wordpress/?p=86



> *We Must Salt the Earth*
> 
> If the Conservatives ever take power, they will have to salt the earth to hold on to it.
> 
> ...



http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2008/02/must-read-book.html



> *A Must Read Book!!!*
> 
> LOL... gotta love this new book out of the States...
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2008)

Spelling out the differences between Liberal Democracy (AKA Classical Liberalism) vs "Progressive" ideology:

http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/02/progressivism-challenges-liberal.html



> Sunday, February 24, 2008
> *Progressivism Challenges Liberal Democracy*
> 
> Liberalism as it is known and understood in western civilization has enabled a kind of evolutionary ideological finality understood as the Liberal Democracy, embraced in conjunction with prosperous capitalism it is a political philosophy which has no peer. It has a universal appeal which is at once superior in ideology to any other mode of failed social systems, yet accommodating of integrated religions and cultures from all over the world. Indeed, it has been considered that Liberal Democracy is the finality of social progression within a tolerant and just society which enables rule of the majority, while taking careful consideration for the importance of the individual strength and spirit. It understands that society is built upon the greatness of bestowing the freedom of the individual, repelling such stagnant notions as National Socialism and Communism, eschewing variants to them for the freedoms which grant the individual the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever it is that makes them happy.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2008)

Looking at Senator Obama's brand of Utopian ideology. Although the context is different here, many of the same ideas are in evidence in the Great White North:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0225fs.html



> Fred Siegel
> *Yes, We Can’t*
> From Ralph Waldo Emerson to Deval Patrick, the politics of hope have been a bust.
> 25 February 2008
> ...


----------



## JBG (27 Feb 2008)

I consider myself"left wing" or progressive. I am a liberal in the sense that I believe in breaking down class and tradition-bound barriers to progress, acheivement and work. The New World is about opportunity, and people showing what they can do and offer. That is the respect in which I am "liberal", i.e. the way Adam Smith and John Locke were. In a more modern context, I regard Harry S. Truman in the US as a true liberal, for starting in a forceful and effective manner the integration of Ameircan society, and recognizing Israel, a force for progress in the world. 

I mean really, in what way does Ted Kennedy, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin stand for progress? At least JFK (who I don't overly admire) was in favor of building infrastructure that would reduce costs and improve the quality of life, as well as letting people handle more of the money they earned. Truman broke down raical and religious barriers so that all could accomplish according to their abilities. And Pelosi, Martin and Chretien? Helps well-connected big shots.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2008)

The source of the "Fascists are right wing" fallacy date back to 1930's Soviet propaganda, but the connections are much deeper and more extensive:

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-fascism-book.html



> Sunday, March 2, 2008
> *“Liberal Fascism” - the book*
> 
> What do you call a conservative who is winning an argument with a leftist? "A fascist!" Thanks to effective leftist propaganda and plain ignorance, fascism is widely held to be a right-wing ideology. This lie has been so successful that even many right-wingers are prone to believing it. However, the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Nazism, Fascism and fascism are distinctly left-wing phenomena. Like most variants of socialism, they are totalitarian ideologies.
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (3 Mar 2008)

Good one, thats the kind of sourcing I was asking about in another thread... thanks for the good info!


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2008)

A good article which explains the mania "Progressives" have for completely ineffectual laws and regulations:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=348428&p=2



> *A Handgun Ban Won't Work*
> 
> Lorne Gunter,  National Post  Published: Monday, March 03, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## JBG (4 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A good article which explains the mania "Progressives" have for completely ineffectual laws and regulations:
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=348428&p=2


I always thought hardened criminals took gun laws very seriously.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2008)

As we can see, empirical evidence is never a consideration when arguing "for" state run schools. Since schools are the key point of indoctrination, there is every incentive for advocates of socialism and stateism to maintian control in every way possible:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/03/homeschoolers-i.html



> *Homeschoolers in trouble*
> 
> Listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day, a woman called in to tell him that, as everyone should know, homeschooled children outperform not just government-schooled children, but their private-schooled counterparts as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2008)

Senator Obama's wife lays it all out for us to see. I wonder how many people are *really* listening:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017003.php



> *The Coming Obama 'Theocracy'*
> 
> People mocked Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney for their religious backgrounds often during the presidential campaigns, but at least they never claimed to be on a mission to save the souls of Americans through government action. Oh, people accused them of wanting to do so -- to impose Southern Baptist or Mormon theology on an America that wants relentless secularism, but in point of fact both men gave stirring speeches on how their faith informs them personally but not their governance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Mar 2008)

The truth hurts.

Form Celestial Junk: http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/03/progressive-cowards-of-first-order.html



> 14 March 2008
> Progressive Cowards of the First Order
> 
> Here's the deal with "progressives", and one of the reasons I mock their politics.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Mar 2008)

Great article from Robert Fulford

Article Link


For me the money quote is this "Is it possible, Hayden asks himself, that Marxism and nationalism won the war but capitalism and nationalism won the peace? *Are "the supposedly scientific models of history long embraced by the left being replaced with a kind of chaos theory of unpredictability? Is this all that was ever possible?"  * "

I have to disagree with Mr. Fulford's closing sentence: "He (Hayden) made his trip, he writes, because "I wanted to understand the long-term lessons." Considered in that light, his journey was a failure."  I would say that Tom Hayden is starting to show signs of understanding. 

Ordnung ist nie.






> What happened to the revolution?
> Vietnam is getting rich. For Tom Hayden and other 1960s-era Marxists, that's bad news
> 
> Robert Fulford, National Post
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2008)

More on how they think:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=402197



> *A convenient untruth*
> 
> Global warming gives the preferences of the left, such as for local produce over fast food, historical importance
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2008)

Comparing religion with the religion of secularism:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=415294&p=2



> *Magdi Allam rejected Islam and atheism*
> Michael Coren, National Post  Published: Wednesday, April 02, 2008
> 
> ROME -The remarkable Indian Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias tells a compelling story of his encounter with a white, liberal American academic who had embraced Buddhism. The professor criticized Ravi for his Christianity: "It's Western and as such is obsessed with single truth," he explained. "I, on the other hand, have embraced an Eastern code and believe in simultaneous truths." Ravi responded: "So what you're really saying is that it's either my Christian way of single truth or your approach of Eastern, simultaneous truth? Either one or the other." A long pause. "Oh I see," from the fatuous prof. "Yes, the Christian, Western approach does seem to emerge."
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Apr 2008)

> While neither the "Left" or the "Right" are monolithic entities, the "Left" has a disproportionate influence over us. About 2/3 of Canadian voters support left wing parties like the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green party; most of our electronic and print media comes through a "progressive" filter, discussions in schools and higher education are heavily bent to the left (How many schools are showing students "The Great Global Warming Swindle" either alone or after "An Inconveinient Truth"? Now how many schools plan to show students "An Inconveinient Truth" only?). Most of the Judiciary has been appointed by politicians who come from the Left side of the political spectrum, and I could go on.



The Liberal Party is actually right of centre. They merely disguise their business oriented policies with social window dressing that they know will not affect the real economic statues quo one bit. And why shouldn't the left have more influence over us? I'm not talking brainless, "the universe will provide" left, I'm talking the rational "progression is good" left. The problem with the "right" is it wants to regress, not progress. Now clearly many developments in Canada are for the worse, but how do you pick and choose? There was a time when the "crazy lefties" thought women should have the vote, and the "rational right" thought that it would lead to anarchy. As for pop culture, while it may appear to be part of the giant left wing conspiracy (all those homosexuals on TV!!!), who do you think owns all of the media outlets? Big business. Those guys sure as shit aren't raving hippies. The point is, for business and government the only ideology is capitalism. That's why they'll give gays the right to marry, and make all sorts of noises about a progressive society when they actually don't care as long as all the right wingers AND the left wingers continue to consume.

As for your second point, why would anyone show the "Great Global Warming Swindle?" If there was a serious debate on global warming, then yes, by all means show it. But there isn't. Many of the scientists now actively doubting global warming actually supported big tobacco in the 1990s, claiming that cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Most, if not all serious scientists acknowledge that man-made climate change is occurring. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change 

I didn't know that the American Institute of Physics was a politically motivated "left wing" organization.  Another surprise, the Royal Meteorological Society is with the lefties too! This is a debate no longer. It's scientific fact. Just because FOX News can dig up a well paid scientist claiming that nothing is wrong, doesn't mean nothing is wrong.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2008)

> why would anyone show the "Great Global Warming Swindle?"



Read the Global Warming Superthread and find out.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2008)

"Group rights" are completely arbitrary, and with a little semantics, even genocide can be waved away......

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/04/09/the_genocide_loophole?page=full&comments=true



> *The Genocide Loophole*
> By Jonah Goldberg
> Wednesday, April 9, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Apr 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The problem with the "right" is it wants to regress, not progress.



That narrow view made anything else you wrote forgettable.



> As for your second point, why would anyone show the "Great Global Warming Swindle?" If there was a serious debate on global warming, then yes, by all means show it. But there isn't.* Many of the scientists now actively doubting global warming actually supported big tobacco in the 1990s, claiming that cigarettes didn't cause cancer*. Most, if not all serious scientists acknowledge that man-made climate change is occurring.



Proof please, other than wikpedia of course. Because I smell bullshit in that line. :


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2008)

Notice the problem is self induced, but the implication is someone else needs to "take care of the problem" (i.e. you and I bail tham out). 

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008538.html



> *"It's Not Fair" And Other Important Rules Of Economics*
> "Trapped" in the spiral of easy debt...
> 
> Tanya Talaga
> ...



Oddly enough!

Posted by Kate at April 22, 2008 12:32 AM


----------



## JBG (24 Apr 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Proof please, other than wikpedia of course. Because I smell bullshit in that line. :


In Canada, *a proof is a proof is a proof is a proof (link for proof of that)*.


----------



## Glorified Ape (24 Apr 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Most variations of Progressiveism and Socialism are _explicitly_ about control of the actions and property of the individual. What is more moral: giving you equal opportunity to meet your needs or moving in and dictating the outcomes of your actions to meet arbitrary and often unsuitable whims from the unelected and unaccountable?






			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As the Blogger says, it is amusing to see cultural relativists fighting against each other. (How do relativeists define what is worth fighting for anyway?)
> 
> http://unambig.blogspot.com/2007/11/but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than.html



I would have thought you'd support cultural relativism as it's the most laissez-faire, non-dictatorial approach to cultural interaction and more in keeping with the libertarian philosophy you support. 

I may be misunderstanding, but if you don't believe in cultural relativism, what is your preferred alternative? Surely not cultural imperialism.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2008)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I would have thought you'd support cultural relativism as it's the most laissez-faire, non-dictatorial approach to cultural interaction and more in keeping with the libertarian philosophy you support.
> 
> I may be misunderstanding, but if you don't believe in cultural relativism, what is your preferred alternative? Surely not cultural imperialism.



Since relativism explicitly denies that anything is or should be more important than anything else, the very idea of cultural relativism is against the ideals of libertarianism or Classical Liberalism. If cultural relativism is "real", then how can you or I defend Freedom of Speech, Free Markets or Property Rights as being ideals for all people to strive towards and take advantage of against those who would restrict or deny these rights? This is not a trick question; these rights are under attack in Canada by various groups and organs of the State. Would you like to take your chances against a potential theocrat promoting Sharia Law or an HRC Star Chamber? (the fact that one is currently using the other is only a marriage of conveinience. Imagine who would go up against the wall if it ever comes to a showdown between the representatives of these two sides).

Incidentally, cultural relativism is imposed by dictatorial means in Universities, notice how students and faculty are force fed certain ideas (the University of Delaware being the most notorious recent case), while other ideas are excluded by force (consider the recent actions against Armed Forces Recruiters, Anti Abortion activists, or supporters of the State of Israel. Try to find a gun club. You get the idea).

As a libertarian, I am quite accomodating. You can practice whatever religion/ideology/diet/music etc. in the comfort of your own home, and I expect you to respect my right to do the same in *my* home. In the public square we may trade to our mutual benefit, and discuss issues to come to agreement (or not) through peaceful means.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2008)

One to nine are valid, I will give point 10 a pass:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2008/04/progressivism-everywhere-in-shambles.html



> *Progressivism Everywhere in Shambles*
> 
> Have you noticed how Progressives everywhere are flailing and wailing because their policies are coming apart? Take these examples:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2008)

Looking at the world through the prism of "Progressive thought", and studying the consequences:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2008/05/feeling-badly-about-burma-think.html



> *Feeling Badly about Burma? Think the Generals are Unbelievable?*
> 
> If you saw the news tonight you undoubtedly saw the pictures of bodies along one stretch of waterway. You saw the weeping children, the shattered villages, the devastation and destruction. Now let me ask you; did you think the Generals running Myanmar are crazy? unbelievable? criminal?
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 May 2008)

This article has it all wrong. Not wrong in the sense that progressives whine and carp but in the end don't do anything, that much is true, but the rest of it's conclusions are dead wrong.



> The fact is the world doesn't work that way. Human nature doesn't work that way. People want power, privilege, sex and status. The generals are very typical individuals; the only thing that distinguishes them is that they're generals.


  

Typical individuals are, for want of a more accurate term "good" and "moral"  would the the author of this article also claim Hitler, Stalin and Mao were typical individuals?



> In the long term we can stop thinking like Progressives. We can start getting hard nosed with dictators (like Saddam), with criminal organizations (like Hezbollah), with criminal countries (like Iran & Burma). We can beef up our military, rescind our anti-gun laws and introduce conscription.



Why?  To ignorantly try to enforce peace/morality/law at the end of a gun.  Thanks, but no thanks. I for one have no desire to see my nation and the world embroiled in wars of occupation from now until I die.

Conscription is a universally bad idea, not only does it weaken the military overall as it is forced to deal with tens of thousands of malcontents within its ranks but it destroys the very freedom of the country that is using it to try to create freedom for others (as ridiculous as that idea has already been pointed out to be).



> That's the key; if you aren't in favour of conscription for Canadians in order to enforce a better world, then you're just another pantywaist Progressive, lost in a dream land of illusion, smoke and wishful thinking.



This is the fatal flaw, the idea that you, we or anyone can force someone to be free.  Bullshit. The people who live under these regimes must *for themselves, and in their own self interest rise up and kill their oppressors.*  This is the way that freedom is won and kept.  Iraq is a perfect example of where this kind of liberationist thinking leads... the road of good intentions.  Don't get me wrong I believe that Saddam and his cronies needed to go, but pushing the ******* out of his chair should have been done by Iraqis for Iraqis.  And we should have lent them the guns and aid they needed to do it in 1991.



> Burma is what you get with a country run by dictators if you don't do what Bush did with Iraq. Did you support the invasion of Iraq? If not, what are you bitching about now in Burma?



The other side of this coin is obviously that Iraq is what you get when you force a solution on the people. this is something that neither Canada nor the rest of the world is ready for.  Count the number of liberal democracies.  Count the number of Dictatorships.  Welcome to the forever war.  Iraq, with no standing army, with no tanks, planes or ships after the invasion has tied up the resources of the worlds most powerful nation for 6 years.  




> You can't have it both ways.



You can't have it the authors way either.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2008)

I fully endorse Reccesoldier's views.

Most people act in such a fashion as to allow them to feel good about themselves.  The "pursuit of happiness" includes feeling good about your actions.  That means justifying your actions as NOT being selfish.  Of course Hitler thought he was beneficial to "Das Volk".

Mesopotamia West's rant reads more like something an HRC troll would deposit.  If that were the definition of non-progressive thought then I would have to line up with the progressives just out of reflex.

Self-interest extends far beyond power, privilege, sex and status.  Perhaps that is as far as Mespot's horizons extend though.


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2008)

I admit I don't agree with Mesopotamia's "solutions", but it is interesting to see how some people will react once the problem (i.e. human nature) is redefined.

Certainly gnashing teeth and appealing to fictional "International Law" is one response if you are of the "Progressive" ilk, suggesting some sort of robust solution may not be popular (and as you can see progressives don't have a monopoly of poorly thought out responses to things), but in many cases may be the only way to effect change.

BTW, virtually every successful revolt against "oppressors" requires some sort of outside help, ranging from safe havens to regroup to logistical support to actual intervention. Even the American Revolution would not have succeeded without outside help from the French. Who to help and through what means is obviously way beyond this thread, but history should tell us that waiting for the masses to rise up and strike down their oppressors isn't going to happen.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> BTW, virtually every successful revolt against "oppressors" requires some sort of outside help, ranging from safe havens to regroup to logistical support to actual intervention. Even the American Revolution would not have succeeded without outside help from the French. Who to help and through what means is obviously way beyond this thread, but history should tell us that waiting for the masses to rise up and strike down their oppressors isn't going to happen.



Absolutely, and I said as much in reference to Iraq.  The spark of revolution must come from within the country though, otherwise the space of a month turns a liberator into an occupier.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2008)

There will be a lot of hungry Democrats at the convention. Perhaps that is to train them for what a real Socialist paradise is like.........

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/05/blog-post.html



> *The green dems*
> 
> An interesting editorial in the Post. It seems the dmes have strict instructions to be green and have only locally grown food etc at their Denver convention. All of that is pretty hard in a cold place like Colorado (or much of Canada). It once agin shows one ignores market forces at one's peril.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2008)

An interesting critique of Multi-culturalism, a philosophy which will undergo violent death throes as more people figure out the true meaning and results (such as the HRC prosecutions of free speech) and react against it while the bottom feeders who advocate it do everything possible to retain their hold on State funding and power in support of these policies. (If _they_ win, the Nation will likey undergo violent death throes as each group fights to secure State power and funding at the expense of everyone else).

http://freedomknowsnolimits.blogspot.com/2008/06/taylors-wrong-but-still-gets-gong.html



> *Taylor's wrong, but still gets gong*
> 
> The award of the so-called "Japanese Nobel" to Charles Taylor, as well as his other countless Canadian and Quebecois gongs, leaves a bittersweet aftertaste. His work is of exceptional quality both in terms of eloquence and scholarity, and he surely is a principal source of inspiration for many policymakers. He is also owed great credit for putting up with months of drivel from his fellow Quebecois jabbering nonsense on immigration and religion and actually milking something sensical out of it. Furthermore, being closely associated with McGill, Mr Taylor brings this award very close to home.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2008)

How "Liberals" think is well documented these days. Look at the HRC's; quasi judicial kidnapping of children and the rampant disrespect for commercial and property rights of individuals that is displayed by governments and bureaucracies:

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2008/07/15/pf-6160221.html



> *Freedom alien notion to liberals*
> By THEO CALDWELL
> 
> In recent days, liberals around the world have made headlines for doing what they do best: Hectoring and bossing.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2008)

The future looks bleak if we don't work to protect our liberty:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=3e1053ae-d70b-4966-94b4-4d62c8bfd604



> *Liberalism: Its own worst enemy*
> 
> George Jonas,  National Post  Published: Saturday, July 26, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## faceman (26 Jul 2008)

Great debate but an important point must be carried in the forefront of such a debate.   Leftist, progressive, conservative are labels and words, and mean nothing beyond their very limited use to describe political positions and political 'movements'.  Often these words mean nothing in the parliament beyond the usual partisan political stands.  Case in point Pierre Trudeau, the only prime minister to enact the war measures act.   Now he was a liberal, but enacting the war measures act seems to be something many people would fear Prime Minister Harper of doing, and certainly not a Stephan Dion.  There are some articles that are so full of crap on this thread my head is almost buried, but I'm not a leftist, I'm a social democrat who is a realist.  And i happened to vote for Harper if you must know, and I'm not totally regretting that choice...yet.  The reality is climate change is happening, whether or not you want to do anything about it or believe that 2 billion displaced and hungry people getting angry in a foreign land is going to affect us in Canada or not.  Unfortunately the only reaction to the radical left can often become very 'Americanized Conservatism', and this is no more rational than those who would have us protect cockroaches from murderous shoe stomping.  Almost half of all Americans believe the world was created in six days, less than 10,000 years ago.  No wonder they don't want to sign Kyoto, i guess they're waiting for Jesus.   Progressive, conservative, liberal  who cares....what matters is the truth, whether you care or not, and whether you have the balls to do anything about it (sorry girls, I'm being metaphorical).  Politicians will disappoint us every time, but our soldiers make us proud everyday they go to work!


----------



## a_majoor (6 Aug 2008)

Words indeed haev meanings, and consequences as well:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/01/uk_must_abandon_growth_to_cut_co2/



> *Greens: Abandon economic growth to beat CO2 offshoring*
> By Lewis Page
> Published Friday 1st August 2008 14:02 GMT
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2008)

Ingsoc seems to be almost complete; in the UK, 1984 has become a "how to" manual rather than a warning:

http://dustmybroom.com/content/view/4946/1/



> *UK Struggles To Control Big Brother Creep*
> Written by WL Mackenzie Redux
> Thursday, 07 August 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2008)

>Survey your home and garden to see if your hedge is too high (Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003).

Nothing any artist or writer has ever contrived as social commentary can possibly compete with reality.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2008)

Where do these ideas come from anyway? Why are they so hard to dislodge from the body politic (aside from Socialists doing the "long march through the institutions" that is?). Steven Den Beste:

http://denbeste.nu/entries/00001160.shtml



> It's amazing where you can end up when you choose an axiom incorrectly. John Calvin began with the axiom "God is omniscient and omnipotent." His religion didn't admit any other alternative; the Bible said that God was all knowing and all powerful and Calvin believed in biblical inerrancy. If God is omnipotent, then God controlled every aspect of the fate of the universe at the moment it was created. If God is omniscient, then at the moment He created it he knew everything that would take place within it to the end of time. But that, in turn, meant that He knew everyone who would be born, what they would do during their lives, when they would die, and most important of all, whether they would go to heaven or hell. But if God knew those things, then it means that they are predetermined. There is nothing any of us can do about it. Some of us will reside in heavenly bliss, some will burn in eternal agony, and nothing whatever that we do while we live will change it. That became known as the "doctrine of predestination", and the creed of "Calvinism" was based on it; several major modern Protestant faiths (such as the Methodist Church in which I was raised) are derived from it. But logically, this means that none of us have free will (because God predetermined what we would all do when He created the universe), and therefore in one sense there can be no sin. "Sin" generally means to act in a way which contradicts God's will for us -- but under predestination that is logically impossible. There is no justice in the unverse; some will be rewarded and some punished, but not for anything that they themselves actually do. And indeed, Calvinism states forthrightly that there is nothing that a person who is condemned to hell can do in their life to change that.
> 
> In academia today, *there exists in some segments of the humanities a new "postmodernist" theory which eschews such concepts as objective reality, logic, right and wrong and instead adopts a universal concept of relativism.* I believe I know where this started: the axiom is, in fact, political correctness: No-one should ever be offended. Never hurt anyone else's feelings, never tell them they're wrong about something. But what if two people actually do fundamentally disagree about something? If neither of them is wrong, then it must be possible for contradictions to exist. Logic says that can't happen, so logic must be wrong. If they make contradictory statements about the real world, then they must both be right, which means that reality is entirely subjective, never objective. (If reality was objective, then at least one of them must be wrong, and no-one is ever wrong, for then it would be necessary to tell them so, which would offend them, and axiomatically we may never offend anyone.) In defense of that axiom, the result is a tower of babble.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2008)

> But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.


  Salon-Paglia

Camille Paglia - Feminist author, and self-described, Libertarian, Atheist Democrat.  A feminist, feminists love to hate - summing up her article in Salon on Sarah Palin. - Generally she supports, or at least does not condemn Palin.

Most curiously I find Paglia's position on Abortion fascinating:



> .... *the pro-life position.... is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer,* making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
> 
> *Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion,* which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.
> 
> ...



Liberals and unexamined dogma and intolerance....... The religion has changed but the religious have not.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

While this might be more appropriate for the election thread, this article really says a lot about where these candidates come from:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080927.BLATCH27/TPStory/National/columnists



> *Fired candidate: Was Liberal lefty clobbered by her own swing?*
> 
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2008)

One of the reasons listening to "Progressives" seems like sitting in an echo chamber is they have such circumscibed world views. As Mark Steyn put it, even "Blue State America really consists of a Red countryside and a few big Blue cities" (paraphrase). In our own experience, we see the same thing with the colours reversed; the Liberalverse is contracting to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, while the CPC paints the suburbs and the rural map blue. The frightening part is in the highlighted paragraph; these people do not know or understand the "real world"; so thier proposed solutions are flawed right out of the box as they have no grounding in reality. The behaviour of the global markets to the various rescue packages put out by national governments should be interpreted as a warning sign; every State effort to create stability decreased market confidence instead.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q4/mail540.html#finances



> *The Withering Away of Manhattan, New York*
> 
> Dear Jerry,
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2008)

More theoretical underpinnings. I tend to agree with the view that many small holdings are better than an oligarchy (or a State sanctioned monopoly), even if you don't understand politics or economics, you can think of agricultural monoculture and the devastating end results when something goes wrong (the Irish potato famine, for example) and use that as an analogy. We need a vibrant economic and political ecology just as we need a viable natural ecology to live, grow and prosper.

http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view541.html#Distributism



> *Distributism vs. Redistributism*
> 
> Obama and the Democrats propose a redistribution of incomes through the "earned income tax credit". This is often confused with the distributist views of Belloc and Chesterton, The differences are profound.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2008)

As jerry points out, it is difficult to define a means of preventing a concentration of wealth, even under a distributive system. Capitalism's answer is the inefficient fail and the able carry on with the resources tha inefficient left behind, which is pretty Darwinian, to say the least. The other problem is in a globalized environment, it is very possible (and even probable) that outside influences which are hostile to free market capitalism can interfere with the market (remember George Soros gained his fortune by generating a run on the British Pound. It is easy to imagine hostile nations using "sovereign wealth funds" to manipulate or destabilize markets, and government mal regulation can cause disasters on a global scale, like we see today).

If there is a solution it would be to encourage the growth of employee shareholder corporations with tight holding rules. Employees will have an incentive to work hard for their companies, and also to hold onto the shares; the downside is these will be relatively illiquid and companies will plateau at a relatively small size (putting them at a disadvantage against giant state owned conglomerates and unable to take advantage of economies of scale in their internal markets). No solution is 100%

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view541.html#Distributism2



> Distributism and Socialism: Part Two
> 
> For those wondering why the short commentary on distributism, I happened to be reading Chesterton on what's wrong with the world and it came to mind. I'm not a convert to distributism, but I Infinitely prefer dispossessing the wealthy to grow the size of the middle class to dispossessing the wealthy to growing the size of the government and bureaucratic redistribution of the wealth. Breaking up the Earl's estates to hand out land to the tenants may or may not be a great idea, but it is infinitely better than making Earl and Tenant alike the tenants of the government in the form of collective farms.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2008)

Why rich people like socialism; indeed:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6377.html



> *Why the Really Rich Love Socialists*
> Posted by Shannon Love on October 30th, 2008 (All posts by Shannon Love)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2008)

It really is all about power (think about "SHARP" training):

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcpherson21-2008nov21,0,4090949.story



> *The sham of sex harassment training*
> It's little more than politically correct indoctrination.
> By Alexander McPherson
> November 21, 2008
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2008)

From Iowahawk:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2003/12/why_i_am_a_demo.html



> *Why I Am a Democrat*
> 
> [ed. note - today's burnt offering in the Satire Clearance is this 2000 CNSNews thingy, my entry in a DNC essay contest.]
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (16 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> From Iowahawk:
> 
> http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2003/12/why_i_am_a_demo.html



Wow. Appalling. You really think that Liberals/Democrats lack a longer attention span and are a bunch of hypocrites with futile ideals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Wow. Appalling. You really think that Liberals/Democrats lack a longer attention span and are a bunch of hypocrites with futile ideals.



C'mon, CogarDaddy, it's a joke - a parody of the worst of the liberal/Dems. I know I've seen similar about Canadian Conservatives and American Republicans.

It really is funny because there is just enough 'truth' in every line to make us shake our heads (sadly) just a wee, tiny bit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Dec 2008)

You need to broaden your Internet reading if you don't already know what to expect from IowaHawk.


----------



## CougarKing (16 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You need to broaden your Internet reading if you don't already know what to expect from IowaHawk.



I'll just settle for the ONION.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2009)

Looking at the friends and allies on both sides of the divide:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2009/01/natural-friends-natural-enemies_16.html



> *Natural Friends, Natural Enemies*
> 
> This essay makes the case that we liberal democrats (conservatives) should cultivate linkages with our natural friends in order to oppose, deflect and ultimately defeat our natural enemies: statists, leftists, Islamists and Progressives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Looking at the friends and allies on both sides of the divide:
> 
> http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2009/01/natural-friends-natural-enemies_16.html



Looking at this got me to thinking that it may be time for us to consider rebuilding the House of Commons on the lines of the Bundestag.

In the Commons the Throne occupies pride of place.  The Government sits to the right.  The opposition sits to the left.

In the Bundestag the parties sit in a horseshoe with the Left on the left and the Right on the right.  

My notion is to complete the horseshoe and turn it into a circle.

Put the Throne at 12,  the Right from 11 to 7, the Left from 1 to 5, with the Libertarians at 7 and the Anarchists at 5.  Between the two factions I would leave an empty chair at 6 - symbolizing that the opposite of governance from the Throne is nothing and consequently that nothing divides Libertarians and Anarchists and Left and Right.

The Statists would cluster around the throne.  The Individualists would cluster around the empty throne.

It would also signify the endless circular argument over when policies and people become so far left that they become right, or vice versa: ie Stalin was so far to the left he was indistinguishable from that ultimate rightist, Hitler.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

This is the 21 century Kirkhill; why bother with tables, chairs and office space when we can create a Distributed Republic and conduct our business over the Internet?

The real issue isn't so much that politicians are heavily infected with the statist meme, but rather that so much real power is no longer in accountable hands:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/2009/01/page/3/



> Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America’s richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run retirement Ponzi scheme called Social Security? Can Buffett and Gates force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Unless they are granted power by politicians, rich people have little power to force us to do anything.
> 
> *A GS-9, or a lowly municipal clerk, has far more life-and-death power over us.* It’s they to whom we must turn to for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant and myriad other activities. It’s government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce and make our lives miserable. *Coercive power goes a long way toward explaining political corruption*.
> 
> Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s hawking of Barack Obama’s vacated U.S. Senate seat; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel’s alleged tax-writing favors; former Rep. William Jefferson’s business bribes; and the Jack Abramoff scandal are mere pimples on the government corruption landscape. We can think of these and similar acts as jailable illegal corruption. They pale in comparison to what’s for all practical purposes the same thing, but simply legal corruption.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is the 21 century Kirkhill; why bother with tables, chairs and office space when we can create a Distributed Republic and conduct our business over the Internet?
> 
> The real issue isn't so much that politicians are heavily infected with the statist meme, but rather that so much real power is no longer in accountable hands:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/2009/01/page/3/



Maybe its that I am old-fashioned but I have to tell you that I still find it easier to get the point across face-to-face, (with much arm-waving and arching of eyebrows) than over these means.  Besides, it is more fun.

 In addition there is the symbolism involved.  

As well there is the notion of representative democracy vice direct democracy.   I think I am far enough up the authoritarian scale, on efficiency grounds as well as on the grounds of dampening the noise of the mob so that the signal is clearer, that I prefer representative democracy over direct participation.

Just take a look at the comments sections of the Globe and the Post and ask yourself if you want your future decided by those with the time and the inclination to participate.  Some of us, like you and I, actually have to make a living.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Some of us, like you and I, actually have to make a living.



We can make a living because we are prepared. We can only hope this sort of thinking is squelched immediately or our future will become a descent into the dark ages:

http://mark-peters.blogspot.com/2009/01/and-people-wonder-why-homeschooling-is.html



> *And people wonder why homeschooling is on the rise*
> 
> _To test fundamentals is to victimize_. Thus saith the British Columbia Teachers' Federation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Jan 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Between the two factions I would leave an empty chair at 6 - symbolizing that the opposite of governance from the Throne is nothing and consequently that nothing divides Libertarians and Anarchists and Left and Right.
> 
> The Statists would cluster around the throne.



I'd place the Objectivists at the 6 o'clock position. 

Sufficiently separated from Libertarians by philosophy, sufficiently separated from anarchists by the recognition for the need of government and directly and diametrically opposed to the idea that any man should hold a position (throne) by virtue of birth.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2009)

We can try out other furniture shapes by looking here


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> We can try out other furniture shapes by looking here



Dammit Thucydides - I'm late to the party again.  ;D

But Zip, the Objectivists at least suffer the concept of a Throne.  The anarchists and the libertarians, not so much.


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Jan 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But Zip, the Objectivists at least suffer the concept of a Throne.  The anarchists and the libertarians, not so much.



I'd never suggest that Objectivists would evade the reality that some people _do_ believe in inherited power.


----------



## JBG (23 Jan 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Wow. Appalling. You really think that Liberals/Democrats lack a longer attention span and are a bunch of hypocrites with futile ideals.


The real question is whether Liberals/Democrats   have any firm convictions. I am a lifelong Democrat and I am really beginning to have my doubts.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2009)

JBG, so far as I can tell, the "Progressive" movement _is_ based on firm convictions, just ones that "Classical Liberals" find appaling:

1. "We" are much smarter than the _hoi polloi_; therefore "we" must direct them
2. The best way to direct the _hoi polloi_ is by coercing them through the power of the State (which "we" must control)
3. Since we are smarter then they and we need to control the machinery of the State, we can and must sieze the wealth of the _hoi polloi_ both to direct it to the places "we" deem as the most effective use of resources and to pay for the State power to direct these resources.
4. Since our ends are noble, any means are justified to reach these ends.

Your confusion WRT Liberals/Democrats having firm convictions is a result of conviction #4.


----------



## john10 (24 Jan 2009)

Do you feel this is the general philosophy of the LPC?

Might I remind you, Thucydides, that it is under Stephen Harper's Conservative government that spending has sky-rocketed to unprecedented levels and that it is he who initially raised income taxes upon coming to power...


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2009)

>that it is he who initially raised income taxes upon coming to power...

Please try to bring some full honesty and disclosure to the debate instead of aiming to misrepresent Harper as a tax-and-spend socialist.

The Liberals promised to drop the rate for the lowest bracket from 16% to 15%, and, because they were the government and the measure could be implemented without recourse to Parliament, did so (for the 2005 tax year).  The Conservatives stated they would lower the rate to 15.5%, and, in the event, made it 15.25% for the 2006 tax year.  It was made 15% for the 2007 tax year.  So for one year, Canadians were burdened with a 0.25 percentage point increase in the lowest bracket, for which the maximum taxable income was $36,378.  Those who reported the maximum taxable income for that bracket paid an extra $90.95, which surely must have crippled them.

>spending has sky-rocketed to unprecedented levels

That is mainly because government revenues have sky-rocketed to unprecedented levels and the Liberals had already established the new high watermark through several years of low-balling estimates to produce surpluses, of which the majority fraction was happily pushed into new spending (one-time or otherwise).  With federal government spending already at its highest level, the only way for the Conservatives to reduce spending is to not only avoid new spending, but to either freeze year-over-year increases to account for routine inflation or cut other spending.  As it happens, a close analysis of recent budgets shows that the Conservatives have not exactly been handing out gravy: in addition to inflationary increases, much of the spending has been in the form of transfers to other levels of government.

The Liberals have adopted the tactic of accusing the Conservatives of being poor fiscal managers.  Rather than the bullsh!t Iggy has been leading with recently which the collectively dim media seem unable to grasp is criticism of his own party, here is the proper perspective:
- the Liberals did not put all year-end surplus amounts toward cutting the federal debt while they governed
- the Liberals did not generate surpluses anywhere near $30 billion
- the proposed coalition did propose to spend $30+ billion on "stimulus" without indicating any measures of consequence that would be taken to prevent it from being deficit spending

The Liberals are basically accusing the Conservatives of managing the finances as did/would the Liberals.  Each time Iggy or Brison aims a salvo at Harper, they are in effect painting themselves in their own sh!t.  There is, however, a difference: unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives cut federal taxation (the GST), thereby transferring responsibility for spending approximately $12 billion from the federal government back to taxpayers.  Economic and moral advantage: Conservatives.

I'd like to see the Conservatives reduce spending further, but I see no point electing Liberals to do the same plus worse: they've already revealed that their proposed new spending wish lists include things which have nothing to do with economic "stimulus".


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...they've already revealed that their proposed new spending wish lists include things which have nothing to do with economic "stimulus".



The true masters of the "bribe them with their own money" school of economics.


----------



## john10 (25 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >that it is he who initially raised income taxes upon coming to power...
> 
> Please try to bring some full honesty and disclosure to the debate instead of aiming to misrepresent Harper as a tax-and-spend socialist.


 My post was clearly in response to Thucydides, who likes to imagine the Liberals as out-of-control tax-and-spenders and the Conservatives as paragons of fiscal restraint. I did not misrepresent Harper as anything, I just stated facts.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The Liberals promised to drop the rate for the lowest bracket from 16% to 15%, and, because they were the government and the measure could be implemented without recourse to Parliament, did so (for the 2005 tax year).  The Conservatives stated they would lower the rate to 15.5%, and, in the event, made it 15.25% for the 2006 tax year.  It was made 15% for the 2007 tax year.  So for one year, Canadians were burdened with a 0.25 percentage point increase in the lowest bracket, for which the maximum taxable income was $36,378.  Those who reported the maximum taxable income for that bracket paid an extra $90.95, which surely must have crippled them.


 All true. So what? All I said was the Conservatives raised income taxes.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >spending has sky-rocketed to unprecedented levels
> 
> That is mainly because government revenues have sky-rocketed to unprecedented levels and the Liberals had already established the new high watermark through several years of low-balling estimates to produce surpluses, of which the majority fraction was happily pushed into new spending (one-time or otherwise).  With federal government spending already at its highest level, the only way for the Conservatives to reduce spending is to not only avoid new spending, but to either freeze year-over-year increases to account for routine inflation or cut other spending.  As it happens, a close analysis of recent budgets shows that the Conservatives have not exactly been handing out gravy: in addition to inflationary increases, much of the spending has been in the form of transfers to other levels of government.


 Stephen Harper's Conservative government is the highest spending in the history of Canada. Why do you consider provincial transfers to be somehow different than regular federal spending?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The Liberals have adopted the tactic of accusing the Conservatives of being poor fiscal managers.  Rather than the bullsh!t Iggy has been leading with recently which the collectively dim media seem unable to grasp is criticism of his own party, here is the proper perspective:
> - the Liberals did not put all year-end surplus amounts toward cutting the federal debt while they governed
> - the Liberals did not generate surpluses anywhere near $30 billion
> - the proposed coalition did propose to spend $30+ billion on "stimulus" without indicating any measures of consequence that would be taken to prevent it from being deficit spending


 Why would it not be deficit spending? The government's fiscal position would dictate that it is. The main criticism comes from the foolish cutting of the GST and the farce that was the November fiscal update (which predicted surpluses for the next five years, might I remind you).



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The Liberals are basically accusing the Conservatives of managing the finances as did/would the Liberals.  Each time Iggy or Brison aims a salvo at Harper, they are in effect painting themselves in their own sh!t.


 I'm not sure what you mean exactly, could you clarify.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There is, however, a difference: unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives cut federal taxation (the GST), thereby transferring responsibility for spending approximately $12 billion from the federal government back to taxpayers.  Economic and moral advantage: Conservatives.


 I completely disagree. Governments need money to deliver basic services. They need to find the optimal ways to raise it, and most economists agree that the GST was a great taxation tool. It was one of Brian Mulroney's greatest legacies (and a startling example, along with the FTA, of how he put the national interest ahead of his political survival, in comparison to Harper) and helped establish the fiscal framework that would allow the Liberals to cut deficits. The Conservatives have no moral or economic advantage for cutting it rather than income taxes (which they raised). Can you find me a serious economist who believes that it was better to cut the GST and dole out trite tax credits rather than cut income taxes? It's certainly not the end of the world, just a reflection of the Conservatives' poor fiscal management.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the Conservatives reduce spending further, but I see no point electing Liberals to do the same plus worse: they've already revealed that their proposed new spending wish lists include things which have nothing to do with economic "stimulus".


  I have not seen any indication that the Conservatives are seriously interested in reducing spending in the long term. What is clear however, is that they like taxation policies that are sub-optimal for the Canadian economy. They favour cutting consumption taxes and implementing trite, piddling tax credits over across-the-board income tax cuts that spur work and productivity. In addition, they prefer an expensive, bureaucratic cap-and-trade system to fight climate change over a simple carbon tax. There is little doubt that the Liberals offered a better fiscal vision.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2009)

> I have not seen any indication that the Conservatives are seriously interested in reducing spending in the long term. What is clear however, is that they like taxation policies that are sub-optimal for the Canadian economy. They favour cutting consumption taxes and implementing trite, piddling tax credits over across-the-board income tax cuts that spur work and productivity. In addition, they prefer an expensive, bureaucratic cap-and-trade system to fight climate change over a simple carbon tax. There is little doubt that the Liberals offered a better fiscal vision.



If I might be so bold- most conservatives prefer no "carbon ponzi schemes" of any kind, because they either won't work, will destroy the economy, massively transfer our wealth off shore (or all three).  The best that can be said about the conservatives is that they are attempting to slow play this whole issue until the masses come to their senses wrt climate change or global warming (or whatever it is called this week).

Sure- the Liberals in the last election offered a better fiscal vision- if you lived in a large city in Ontario or Quebec.  Not so much if your livelihhood depended on the oil and gas industry in BC, Alberta, Sak or NFLD or if you lived in rural "any place"- but whatever.

The best economic stimulus is less taxes- period.  I'm a much better manager of my money than any government is.  If you do not feel that you are taxed enough, feel free to write the Receiver General a cheque for any extra that you feel that Government should have- they will happily accept it from you.  Please, just leave my money alone.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2009)

>I did not misrepresent Harper as anything, I just stated facts.

Please do not assume the readership here to be naive.  Facts void of necessary context are misleading and misrepresentative of truth, leading to incorrect conclusions.  Save the lawyerly approach in the courtroom, where "the whole truth" is something to be avoided if it weakens one's position.  Here, be complete.  "All you said" is the sort of partial truth intended to sway public opinion: suited to the propagandist and the politician, but unseemly and ill-befitting an honest person.

>I'm not sure what you mean exactly, could you clarify.

Brison and Ignatieff have been riding the high horse lately, criticizing the Conservatives for behaving almost exactly as the Liberals did and intend.

I understand the basic arguments favouring income tax cuts over comsumption tax cuts; I agree that a $12 billion income tax cut would be better.  The point - that the return of $12 billion to private spending rather than public is the advantage - stands.

I agree that governments need money to deliver basic services.  I further contend that so long as government spending includes unnecessary services and the government budgets are posting net surpluses, revenues should be returned to the source and the unnecessary spending cut until we have basic services and a modest cushion (surplus).

We also have not seen the Conservatives governing with a majority.  When the Conservatives have a majority and spend profusely, then you may state that the Conservatives are not seriously interested in reducing spending.  Until then, we can't know what "interests" the Conservatives.  But we do know that the Conservatives have not advanced any proposals for major new spending programs.

There is grave doubt that the Liberals offered a better fiscal vision.  Dion's Green Shift involved a lot of hand waving between "take money from here" and "put it there" that made it clear that the Liberals were aiming to restore their vote-buying flexibility: the Green Shift was not truly revenue neutral.  Similar initiatives were announced in the outline spending plan of the coalition.  The Liberals find it hard to sway voters with promises of new spending when there is no margin in the budget, and harder when along with the voter candy they must explain where they intend to cut expenses (spending) or increase revenues (taxes) to make up the difference.  I find it highly unlikely that the Liberals are concerned with sound fiscal management: the Liberals are concerned that the year-end pork fund has been removed from play.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2009)

>The best that can be said about the conservatives is that they are attempting to slow play this whole issue

I agree; situating the estimate on cap-and-trade is the best option if one intends only to stall until it is clear that neither is required, because cap-and-trade is complex and justifies interminable wrangling.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> My post was clearly in response to Thucydides, who likes to imagine the Liberals as out-of-control tax-and-spenders and the Conservatives as paragons of fiscal restraint.



Having been around to observe politics since the 1980's (prior to that I was not equipped to know or understand what was happening; I will go with people like Edward Campbell's observations) I am not _imagining_ anything about how the Liberal Party of Canada operated. In fact, once you start asking the question of where the unaccounted for 20 to 40 million dollars from ADSCAM is, then you can append another descriptor to the Party and its operatives.

You are also quite free to search through the various fora for where I have said the CPC are paragons of fiscal restraint (hint; I didn't); I have said that people who follow the Classical Liberal philosophies (Conservatives, Libertarians, Objectivists, Republicans) fully and to the logical conclusions are indeed for limited government and against unrestrained State power and spending.

Alas, the fact that power corrupts and we live in a mixed system of semi free market capitalism and socialism does tend to skew us away from the desirable outcomes regardless of who is in power.


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I did not misrepresent Harper as anything, I just stated facts.
> 
> Please do not assume the readership here to be naive.  Facts void of necessary context are misleading and misrepresentative of truth, leading to incorrect conclusions.  Save the lawyerly approach in the courtroom, where "the whole truth" is something to be avoided if it weakens one's position.  Here, be complete.  "All you said" is the sort of partial truth intended to sway public opinion: suited to the propagandist and the politician, but unseemly and ill-befitting an honest person.


 I stated two basic, simple facts. Those facts are not a misrepresentation of the truth, they _are _the truth: the Conservatives raised income taxes and are the highest-spending government in the history of the country.

The problem here is that these facts make you uncomfortable. So, when you ask me to provide "context" and to be "honest", what you really want me to do is provide justification. But the thing is there's no need for it. There is nothing inherently wrong with the two facts I stated; unless your political views are that the government should spend less and never raise taxes, in which case of course those facts will be disagreeable. But don't tell me that I'm not being honest for simply stating the truth.

And as I said, my post was specifically in response to Thucydides, who likes to present 'progressives' (the Liberals) as fiscally irresponsible.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I'm not sure what you mean exactly, could you clarify.
> 
> Brison and Ignatieff have been riding the high horse lately, criticizing the Conservatives for behaving almost exactly as the Liberals did and intend.


 What are you referring to specifically? I'm not sure what you mean. Precisely what behaviour are the Liberals reprimanding the Conservatives for?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I understand the basic arguments favouring income tax cuts over comsumption tax cuts; I agree that a $12 billion income tax cut would be better.  The point - that the return of $12 billion to private spending rather than public is the advantage - stands.


 I'm pretty certain that the Martin platform proposed income tax cuts of the same scale, so no, you can't simply say  'well they cut taxes so they have the moral and economic advantage,' especially if those tax cuts are universally decried as stupid, visionless and sub-optimal for the economy.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> We also have not seen the Conservatives governing with a majority.  When the Conservatives have a majority and spend profusely, then you may state that the Conservatives are not seriously interested in reducing spending.  *Until then, we can't know what "interests" the Conservatives. * But we do know that the Conservatives have not advanced any proposals for major new spending programs.


 The Conservatives have been in government for almost three years now. Don't you think we can use that as a measure of how they govern? As I said, I have not seen any indication that the Conservatives are interested in cutting spending seriously. Is there anything really incorrect with that statement? Other than token amounts of a few dozen millions here and there (arts subsidy programs), what major programs do you think the Conservatives would cut if they had a majority?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There is grave doubt that the Liberals offered a better fiscal vision.  Dion's Green Shift involved a lot of hand waving between "take money from here" and "put it there" that made it clear that the Liberals were aiming to restore their vote-buying flexibility: the Green Shift was not truly revenue neutral.  Similar initiatives were announced in the outline spending plan of the coalition. The Liberals find it hard to sway voters with promises of new spending when there is no margin in the budget, and harder when along with the voter candy they must explain where they intend to cut expenses (spending) or increase revenues (taxes) to make up the difference.  I find it highly unlikely that the Liberals are concerned with sound fiscal management: the Liberals are concerned that the year-end pork fund has been removed from play.


 I find it very likely. There is scarcely a better example of fiscal responsibility in the Western world than the way they governed from 1993 to 2006. In comparison, the Conservatives have exhibited very poor fiscal management from the get-go: income tax increases, GST tax cuts, diesel fuel tax cuts, tax credits that have largely inframarginal impacts and are thus basically subsidies (for schoolbooks, public transit, sports registration fees, low-income children's artistic activities). None of these things are egregiously bad by themselves, but together, they illustrate how bereft of fiscal vision this government really is.


----------



## Fabius (27 Jan 2009)

John10
        You continue to state that the Conservatives have raised income taxes. Yes the tax rate was 15.25% in 2006 vice 15% in 2005. However that was the only year that the basic income tax rate went up. Further it returned to 15% in 2007 and has remained there. To say that the Conservatives have raised the income tax rate is to imply that that rate is now higher than it was when they first formed the government and that is inaccurate.


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The best that can be said about the conservatives is that they are attempting to slow play this whole issue
> 
> I agree; situating the estimate on cap-and-trade is the best option if one intends only to stall until it is clear that neither is required, because cap-and-trade is complex and justifies interminable wrangling.


Look, I'm not a scientist so I don't have the background, knowledge and training to evaluate competing claims about climate change. As a layman, all I can do is trust the experts to conduct rigorous research, debate, criticize the methodology and look to the policymakers to implement appropriate policy to deal with it. The current scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is indeed a problem and that it needs to be dealt with.

The fact is that the Conservatives publicly agree with this consensus, have participated in all the international conferences about it, and have put forth a plan for dealing with it. Given this, what is more likely? 

That they think climate change is an important issue and want to deal with it.

OR

that they believe it's basically a hoax, that the scientific consensus is wrong, that according to their own rigorous scientific evaluation, the world is hurtling down an expensive path to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

If you truly believe the second option, and they are in fact concealing their real views and think that it is absolutely wrong-headed to do anything about carbon emissions and bad for Canada, why are they going along with something they think is really bad for the country? What kind of leadership is that? Why wouldn't they have just presented their view and its scientific basis (criticism of the climate change believers' methodology, alternate explanations, etc.)? That would be leadership. If the government of a G7 country announced that according to the evaluation of its scientists, man-made climate change is not a problem, and that they were withdrawing from Kyoto/Bali because it has no scientific basis, people would take notice.

But no, instead, the Conservatives have said they agree with the international scientific consensus and want to tackle climate change. This leads me to believe that they do indeed think it's a problem, but maybe I'm just silly.


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

Fabius said:
			
		

> John10
> You continue to state that the Conservatives have raised income taxes. Yes the tax rate was 15.25% in 2006 vice 15% in 2005. However that was the only year that the basic income tax rate went up. Further it returned to 15% in 2007 and has remained there. To say that the Conservatives have raised the income tax rate is to imply that that rate is now higher than it was when they first formed the government and that is inaccurate.


 No, it doesn't imply anything, it's just a statement of fact. It's a fact. A fact.


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Having been around to observe politics since the 1980's (prior to that I was not equipped to know or understand what was happening; I will go with people like Edward Campbell's observations) I am not _imagining_ anything about how the Liberal Party of Canada operated. In fact, once you start asking the question of where the unaccounted for 20 to 40 million dollars from ADSCAM is, then you can append another descriptor to the Party and its operatives.


 Actually, I don't. The Liberals were great fiscal managers. They took the measures to balance the government's books and pay down some of the debt.

The fact that an insignificant (that's right, insignificant) amount of money ($20-40m) was wasted or unaccounted for does not change that.

Speaking of adscam, do you still contend that Paul Martin knew about it?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> You are also quite free to search through the various fora for where I have said the CPC are paragons of fiscal restraint (hint; I didn't);


 My mistake, sorry. But for the sake of everybody knowing each others' positions, you would certainly disagree with me that the Liberals have been great fiscal managers whereas the Conservatives have been putrid and feckless, no?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2009)

John10:

I have to admire you.  In the same sense that I admire salmon. Both of you exercise yourselves swimming upstream.  

Have you ever seen a spawned out salmon?  Pretty rough shape.   

It's not the kind of exercise I choose to indulge in.


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't. The Liberals were great fiscal managers. They took the measures to balance the government's books and pay down some of the debt.



Cutting transfer payments is an easy way to balance a budget. You pay my mortage and I will now claim to be debt free. :



> The fact that an insignificant (that's right, insignificant) amount of money ($20-40m) was wasted or unaccounted for does not change that.



Only a Liberal apologist would consider 20-40 MILLION an insignificant sum of money. What would you call a BILLION wasted on a useless registry that accomplished nothing.





> Speaking of adscam, do you still contend that Paul Martin knew about it?
> My mistake, sorry. But for the sake of everybody knowing each others' positions, you would certainly disagree with me that the Liberals have been great fiscal managers whereas the Conservatives have been putrid and feckless, no?



See above ref. fiscal managment. :


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> John10:
> 
> I have to admire you.  In the same sense that I admire salmon. Both of you exercise yourselves swimming upstream.
> 
> ...


 Well, it's just talking on an internet message forum. What's the worst that can happen?


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Cutting transfer payments is an easy way to balance a budget. You pay my mortage and I will now claim to be debt free. :


 Sure, the provinces were burdened, but those are the choices that have to be made when you're spending more than is coming in. What do you suggest they could have done to get rid of the deficit while maintaining the same level of welfare and and health services (the things that were cut in those provincial transfers)? Raise taxes? Perhaps, but they already had to raise them a fair bit.

In the end, the Liberals got the job done, and Canadians seem to appreciate it, re-electing them to two majority governments.



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Only a Liberal apologist would consider 20-40 MILLION an insignificant sum of money. What would you call a BILLION wasted on a useless registry that accomplished nothing.


 20-40 million is an insignificant amount of money. Consider that the total spending of the federal government is about $200bn. So 20m is 1% of 1% of total spending in a year. The gun registry was indeed a big waste of money. Overall, the Liberals were great fiscal managers, getting rid of our annual $30bn+ deficits and paying down some debt.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> 20-40 million is an insignificant amount of money.



As a taxpayer, that amount is not insignificant. The circumstances of the disappearance of that money make it even more significant.




> Overall, the Liberals were great fiscal managers, getting rid of our annual $30bn+ deficits and paying down some debt.



I paid down allot of my debt this past year but i think you will have a tough time finding someone to agree that i am a great fiscal manager. I don't spend money i don't have but that doesn't mean that the money i do spend, is spent wisely.


----------



## john10 (27 Jan 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> As a taxpayer, that amount is not insignificant. The circumstances of the disappearance of that money make it even more significant.


 It is insignificant in the context of a $200bn budget. Yes, of course it's terrible what happened and I agree the culprits should be held to account. But in the end, the scale of the theft/abuse/loss is an insignificant amount of money.

It's like calling someone who makes $40,000 and pays his mortgage, provides for his family, and saves in an RRSP a bad fiscal manager because three years ago he threw $4 down into the toilet. That's what $20-40m is --- 1-2% of 1% the budget.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (27 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> It is insignificant in the context of a $200bn budget. Yes, of course it's terrible what happened and I agree the culprits should be held to account. But in the end, the scale of the theft/abuse/loss is an insignificant amount of money.
> 
> It's like calling someone who makes $40,000 and pays his mortgage, provides for his family, and saves in an RRSP a bad fiscal manager because three years ago he threw $4 down into the toilet. That's what $20-40m is --- 1-2% of 1% the budget.



If it was his own money, he can do whatever he wants with it; if he stole the $4 from his neighbor and flushed it down, then I'd expect him to be accountable.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jan 2009)

>The problem here is that these facts make you uncomfortable.

Not at all.  I understand how the spending was increased, and I am delighted when the causes of most of an increase are intergovernmental transfers (restoring some of what was cut a few years back) and inflation adjustment.  I am not delighted when the cause is a year-end candy shower.  I understand those additional, detailed "facts".  I understand what happened to the income tax "increase", how much it cost, and how long it persisted.  Now that we've established the meaning behind your snapshot-in-time facts and how relevant they are to a useful debate on government finances, we can move on to the Liberal record as fiscal managers.


YearRevenueExpenditureOp Balance"Interest"NetYoY % Spending IncreaseSpending as %GDP"BoC Rate"1990119,685108,55011,135 45,034-33,8994.59222.612.061991126,086114,54411,542 43,861-32,3195.522 23.18.401992124,486122,1732,313 41,332-39,0196.660 23.36.171993123,873122,3041,569 40,099-38,5300.107 22.34.751994130,791123,2387,553 44,185-36,6320.764 21.75.151995140,257120,85619,401 49,407-30,006-1.933 216.831996149,889111,32738,562 47,281-8,719-7.885 194.261997160,864114,78546,079 43,1202,9593.106 17.93.151998165,520116,43849,082 43,3035,7791.440 17.54.671999176,408118,76657,642 43,38414,2581.999 16.54.502000194,349130,56663,783 43,89219,8919.936 16.25.272001183,930136,23147,699 39,6518,0484.339 15.94.102002190,570146,67943,891 37,2706,6217.669 162.462003198,590153,67644,914 35,7699,1454.770 15.62.942004211,943176,36235,581 34,1181,46314.762 16.32.272005222,203175,21346,990 33,77213,218-0.652 15.22.632006235,966188,26947,697 33,94513,7527.452 15.43.94

Dollar figures (revenues, expenditures, op balance, interest, net) are in millions of dollars.

The government revenue/expenditure/cost of debt figures are from the Dept of Finance's web site.  I can't remember from where I pulled historical Bank of Canada rates.  "Interest" is what the government states as the cost of servicing its debt.  What I euphemistically call the "BoC Rate" is the average obtained by summing the rate as it was for each month and dividing by 12.  I don't remember exactly which rate; I included them to illustrate the trend in the cost of debt.  (The value for 1981 was 16.71, which was about the highest in the last 35 years.)

So what qualifies the Liberals as great money managers?  Well, they inherited a healthy operating surplus from the Conservatives except for the pre-election dip (which I don't think had much to do with the election; see the anemic revenue growth compared to preceding years - Gulf War I and other interesting events, perhaps).  The Conservatives firmly established a general trend in which each successive year's revenues increased more than the expenditures.  The Liberals cut expenditures in exactly three years - 1995/96, 1996/97, 2005/06 - for a whopping $11 billion and everything else is the magic of falling interest rates and productivity growth (revenue growth).  The explosive year-over-year spending growth from 2000 onward speaks for itself.  Basically, the Liberals rode a healthy economy and spent heavily.  If they had been great, or even merely good, money managers, then more of those net surpluses would have been used to lower the net federal debt.

I took those figures and ran a what-if: historical revenues, hold the year-over-year spending growth to 2% [edit: from 1999 onward], $10 billion revenue growth in 2007 and 2008 and respective interest rates averaging around 3.5% and 3.0%.  Given that, the 2008-09 budget would have had a $100+ billion surplus and the debt would be reversed to a nearly $80 billion capital fund.  Of course, long before that there would have been calls for significant tax cuts.  But it shows what real fiscal discipline and good management could have done.


----------



## john10 (28 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the table Brad, very informative.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> *Not at all. * I understand how the spending was increased, and I am delighted when the causes of most of an increase are intergovernmental transfers (restoring some of what was cut a few years back) and inflation adjustment.  I am not delighted when the cause is a year-end candy shower.  I understand those additional, detailed "facts".  I understand what happened to the income tax "increase", how much it cost, and how long it persisted.  Now that we've established the meaning behind your snapshot-in-time facts and how relevant they are to a useful debate on government finances, we can move on to the Liberal record as fiscal managers.


 Yes, clearly they have, since you've been telling me that I have to be honest and do 'full-disclosure', when all I was doing was making a few statements in response to Thucydides. When I write basic facts like the Conservatives being the highest spending government in history and raising income taxes, I do not have to qualify them. The only reason you think I should have to is because in your view, those things are negative.

Specifically, what do you mean by "end of year candy"? Which Liberal spending would you qualify as belonging to this category? Would you qualify the Conservative tax credits for sports registration fees as similar candy?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So what qualifies the Liberals as great money managers?


  They balanced the budget. They had to do unpopular things to get it done (cutting provincial transfers and raising taxes), but they forged ahead and did it for the country's fiscal health. By comparison, the Conservatives have squandered the surpluses on a stupid GST tax cut that is almost universally decried by economists.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Well, they inherited a healthy operating surplus from the Conservatives except for the pre-election dip (which I don't think had much to do with the election; see the anemic revenue growth compared to preceding years - Gulf War I and other interesting events, perhaps).  The Conservatives firmly established a general trend in which each successive year's revenues increased more than the expenditures.  The Liberals cut expenditures in exactly three years - 1995/96, 1996/97, 2005/06 - for a whopping $11 billion and everything else is the magic of falling interest rates and productivity growth (revenue growth).  *The explosive year-over-year spending growth from 2000 onward speaks for itself.*  Basically, the Liberals rode a healthy economy and spent heavily.  If they had been great, or even merely good, money managers, then more of those net surpluses would have been used to lower the net federal debt.


 As your table showed, under the Liberals, spending as a percentage of GDP declined from 22% in the Mulroney years to 16%. Most of the spending increases were inflationary (just as much of the increases under the Conservatives today have been inflationary) or simply keeping up with the rate of economic growth, so I really don't see why you have a problem with that. In any case, why do you like provincial spending but not federal spending? That I really don't understand.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I took those figures and ran a what-if: historical revenues, hold the year-over-year spending growth to 2% [edit: from 1999 onward], $10 billion revenue growth in 2007 and 2008 and respective interest rates averaging around 3.5% and 3.0%.  Given that, the 2008-09 budget would have had a $100+ billion surplus and the debt would be reversed to a nearly $80 billion capital fund.  Of course, long before that there would have been calls for significant tax cuts.  But it shows what real fiscal discipline and good management could have done.


 The Liberals did exhibit good fiscal discipline and management. That they did not do exactly you wanted them to in terms of debt reduction does not change that overall, they managed very well. Given the standard you have given for good fiscal management, you must think the Conservatives have been absolutely terrible. But no, you praise them for the GST tax cut ("economic and moral advantage" as you say). How do you square that?

Also, I'd like to know specifically what you're referring to when you say the Liberals are reprimanding the Conservatives for what they would do themselves, and if you truly believe that the Conservatives are concealing their true beliefs about climate change.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2009)

Deconstructing john10's arguments, they are clearly based on the premise that taxpayers wealth belongs to the State, to be disposed of as the State sees fit. (This is also the source of Micheal Ignatieff's "argument" that tax cuts limit the ability of the State to raise revenues. Thats the whole point of cutting taxes.)

As a small l libertarian, and following classical liberal thinking, I see taxpayer wealth as belonging to the taxpayer, who is buying certain services that are more efficiently provided by a third party, such as a neutral arbitrator (the courts) and full time protection (the Police force and the Military); since I am paying *my* wealth, then I do have every right to be outraged when it is misappropriated, regardless of what percentage it is of the budget. I also have every right to be outraged when the State uses its power to seize more of my wealth to pay for things that can (and should) be provided by the private sector, and political pork paid to political supporters or to buy voter support is also inappropriate use of *my* wealth.

As well, playing bugetary shell games, like offloading spending of the provinces, peanalizes me, since I have to use *my* wealth to pay for these services, regardless if I am paying the Federal government, the Provincial government or the Municipal government. A local city politician (Councilor Gina Barber, for those who like to Google these things) actually said that London's $200 + million dollar wish list for Federal funding should go to items that would otherwise be funded by London taxpayers. Although she said this without irony, she was not seriously proposing taxing citizens of other nations. There is only one taxpayer, and politicians shifting the blame for tax increases on other politicians rather than cutting spending and reducing overall State intervention in the economy *is* the mark of responsible fiscal management.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jan 2009)

>When I write basic facts like the Conservatives being the highest spending government in history and raising income taxes, I do not have to qualify them. The only reason you think I should have to is because in your view, those things are negative.

They aren't necessarily negative; details matter.  You and I understand your facts to be essentially meaningless trivia, but I don't like other readers to get wrong impressions from throwaway sound bites.  Readers who make it this far should no longer be in any danger of mistaking whether the Conservative record is "positive" or "negative".  The title "highest spending government in history", even in constant dollars, is unexceptional: there seem to be only 6 budget years in the past 48 for which that year's budget did not crown anew the current government with that title.  If I find figures going back longer, I am confident the trend is similar.  By a more important measure - spending as a % of GDP (ie. what we can afford) we can see that the "highest spending government in history" is not to be claimed by any recent governments.

>Would you qualify the Conservative tax credits for sports registration fees as similar candy?

Was it announced as new spending charged to the current FY as the year end approached?

>They balanced the budget.

"They" did not.   Stated your way, the implication is that 100% of the historical imbalance was redressed by "their" action.  It is a tiresome myth.  The numbers show it not to be the case.   As I've written here and elsewhere, now and before, the move from net deficit into net surplus resulted from a combination of government policies and legislative and economic change over a period spanning more than 10 years.  The last person to carry the torch is not credited with the entire journey.

The surplus was not "squandered"; the budget was brought closer into balance.  Overtaxation is poor fiscal management along with overspending.  If the Liberals had resolutely paid every surplus dollar against the debt, then I would not consider it overtaxation.  But they did not, and accordingly can only be assessed "weak C-" as fiscal managers.

What I wrote amounts to this: if the purpose of taxation in excess of today's spending is not to pay for yesterday's spending, then a GST cut is better than no tax cut at all.  By all means, raise the GST and cut income taxes.  Regardless, if the GST cut "squandered", then so did Martin's various income tax cuts.

Ignatieff and his minions have been whining about the projected deficit, but the amount of spending is close enough to what they proposed.  My message to them is not to b!tch about deficits and debt when they talk about spending at least $30 billion and failed to lessen the debt when they had control.


----------



## john10 (8 Feb 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Deconstructing john10's arguments, they are clearly based on the premise that taxpayers wealth belongs to the State, to be disposed of as the State sees fit.


 Nope. Precisely what makes you think that? Because I criticize bad tax policies and tax cuts that are basically subsidies (GST instead of income tax cuts, tax credits for sports registration fees, etc.)?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> (This is also the source of Micheal Ignatieff's "argument" that tax cuts limit the ability of the State to raise revenues. Thats the whole point of cutting taxes.)


 The argument is a very good one. If the Harper budget was to cut taxes that undercut the government's ability to raise revenues, you need to propose proportionate spending reductions. Otherwise, what you get is what happened in the US: large tax cuts with no attendant spending reductions leading to huge deficits, even without the war spending. In any event, the point is moot, since the Harper government acted in a responsible way by not proposing substantial tax cuts that were not accompanied by proportionate long-term spending cuts.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a small l libertarian, and following classical liberal thinking, I see taxpayer wealth as belonging to the taxpayer, who is buying certain services that are more efficiently provided by a third party, such as a neutral arbitrator (the courts) and full time protection (the Police force and the Military); since I am paying *my* wealth, then I do have every right to be outraged when it is misappropriated, regardless of what percentage it is of the budget.


 Of course you can be outraged. Did I ever say the opposite? No, of course not.

I said it's silly to say the Liberals were bad fiscal managers on the basis of a completely insignificant (that's right, insignificant) amount of money being stolen. And I'm right, it is silly. But your hatred of the Liberals blinds you, in the same way that you say that Paul Martin knew about the theft, on the basis of absolutely nothing, and that you seem unable to hold the Conservatives to the same standards in terms of government spending and taxation.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I also have every right to be outraged when the State uses its power to seize more of my wealth to pay for things that can (and should) be provided by the private sector, and political pork paid to political supporters or to buy voter support is also inappropriate use of *my* wealth.


 That's just democracy, Thucydides. Canadians have voted for governments (Liberal and Conservative) that believe in these levels of government spending, and have indicated through the democratic process that they are willing to bear the attendant taxation levels.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As well, playing bugetary shell games, like offloading spending of the provinces, peanalizes me, since I have to use *my* wealth to pay for these services, regardless if I am paying the Federal government, the Provincial government or the Municipal government.


 I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I know a lot of conservatives complain about the Liberals' reduction of transfer payments, but didn't these affect areas (welfare and healthcare) that conservatives would precisely like to see less public spending on?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> There is only one taxpayer, and politicians shifting the blame for tax increases on other politicians rather than cutting spending and reducing overall State intervention in the economy *is* the mark of responsible fiscal management.


 Isn't that what the Liberals did by reducing transfer payments? Since when are transfer payments these sacred items that should never be touched?

And please answer this question, how would you characterize the Harper Conservatives' record in terms of fiscal management?


----------



## john10 (8 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows,
I have the feeling I'm discussing with shadows here. You have no consistent approach to what you think constitutes good fiscal governance. On the one hand, the Liberals did not cut the debt enough. On the other, having surpluses indicates overtaxation and the Conservatives have the "economic and moral advantage" for cutting the GST, against the universal advice of economists. If the Liberals increase spending, they're irresponsible. If the Conservatives propose a fiscal stimulus package, it's the fault of the "talking heads on TV".



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> They aren't necessarily negative; details matter.  You and I understand your facts to be essentially meaningless trivia, but I don't like other readers to get wrong impressions from throwaway sound bites.  Readers who make it this far should no longer be in any danger of mistaking whether the Conservative record is "positive" or "negative".  The title "highest spending government in history", even in constant dollars, is unexceptional: there seem to be only 6 budget years in the past 48 for which that year's budget did not crown anew the current government with that title.  If I find figures going back longer, I am confident the trend is similar.  By a more important measure - spending as a % of GDP (ie. what we can afford) we can see that the "highest spending government in history" is not to be claimed by any recent governments.


 You don't seem to understand that my post was directly at Thucydides in a thread started by him in which he derisively expresses his views of "progressives." I just gave him some food for thought about those more ideologically in line with him. The only reason you're being so uptight about that precise statement (rather than any other one) is because it makes you uncomfortable, and you think it needs to be 'clarified'. Why would you deny this? I have no problem with talking about it, but please don't act as though it doesn't make you uncomfortable that the Conservatives are the highest spending government in history.

Of course it's no big deal that the conservatives are the highest spending government in the history of Canada in nominal dollars. It's completely normal, and most of their spending has been utterly reasonable and responsible. Note that I have no opinion on the question of the fiscal stimulus. I simply do not have the advanced macroeconomic knowledge to have an informed opinion on the matter.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Would you qualify the Conservative tax credits for sports registration fees as similar candy?
> 
> Was it announced as new spending charged to the current FY as the year end approached?


 The time of the year it was announced is irrelevant, no? What matters is whether it was policy that had real benefits and whose aim was to get votes. It's not any better if it's announced in one month rather than the other. So I'll ask my question again. Do you think tax credits for sports registration fees is good policy, or basically just "candy"?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They balanced the budget.
> 
> "They" did not.   Stated your way, the implication is that 100% of the historical imbalance was redressed by "their" action.  It is a tiresome myth.  The numbers show it not to be the case.   As I've written here and elsewhere, now and before, the move from net deficit into net surplus resulted from a combination of government policies and legislative and economic change over a period spanning more than 10 years.  The last person to carry the torch is not credited with the entire journey.


 Sure the Mulroney Conservatives got the ball rolling with the great GST tax implementation, but in the end, the Liberals balanced the budget. You need to stop being so wary of reality and the facts. The Liberals balanced the budget. The statement needs no qualification. It's just the truth. Really. The Liberals did a great job balancing the budget. The Mulroney conservatives did a great job pushing through terrifically unpopular but sound and wise policy tools to help them do it (the FTA, GST, NAFTA).



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The surplus was not "squandered"; the budget was brought closer into balance.  Overtaxation is poor fiscal management along with overspending.  If the Liberals had resolutely paid every surplus dollar against the debt, then I would not consider it overtaxation.  But they did not, and accordingly can only be assessed "weak C-" as fiscal managers.


 The Conservatives had the choice to use the surplus to pay off the debt, and chose a GST tax cut instead (and instead of an income tax cut). What grade do you give them?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What I wrote amounts to this: if the purpose of taxation in excess of today's spending is not to pay for yesterday's spending, then a GST cut is better than no tax cut at all.  By all means, raise the GST and cut income taxes.  Regardless, if the GST cut "squandered", then so did Martin's various income tax cuts.


 No, because income taxes are more productive and beneficial to the economy than GST tax cuts. There is no "economic and moral advantage" to doing bad taxation policy.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Ignatieff and his minions have been whining about the projected deficit, but the amount of spending is close enough to what they proposed.  My message to them is not to b!tch about deficits and debt when they talk about spending at least $30 billion and failed to lessen the debt when they had control.


 Precisely what whining are you talking about? I haven't seen them whine about the projected deficit -- they're the ones who have been asking for it.

Again, I have to ask, what do you think is the Conservative leadership's true opinion about climate change? Is it a serious issue that must be dealt with soon (their public position) or is it a scientifically unfounded and exaggerated scare that will soon blow over?


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2009)

The false dilemma does not stand.  There is no "on the one/other hand"; you misunderstand what I thought was explained clearly: "if the purpose of taxation in excess of today's spending is not to pay for yesterday's spending, then a GST cut is better than no tax cut at all."

1) Good fiscal policy for any person or organization is: revenues >= operating expenses + cost of debt (interest) + principal payment against debt.  2) Good fiscal policy for governments includes: spend the least necessary amount, and leave the balance of economic activity to private spending.

In accordance with those principles, here are some approaches to fiscal policy ranked least to most preferable:
1) deficit operating balance (revenues < operating expenses) (F)
2) deficit net balance (revenues < operating expenses + cost of debt) (D)
3) surplus net balance, but with much of expended on "March Madness" (end of FY contingency or other spending) (C-)
4) surplus net balance matching within a reasonable margin of error a modest contingency (a couple of billion dollars) planned at start of fiscal year, with any sizeable excess returned to taxpayers as rebates and removed from following budgets (C)
5) surplus net balance, with overwhelming fraction of surplus paid against debt principal (B)
6) As (4), but with no significant debt (A)

Note that (3) is not the same as planned spending, such as announcing for the next year a new tax credit.  (3) is only possible at fiscal year-end, by definition.

From the data I have from the Public Accounts, going back to FY 61-62, these are the general patterns:
1961-1974: (2)
1975-1986: (1)
1987-1996: (2)
1997-2008: (3)

The accumulated federal deficit stood at $487,524 million at the end of 1993; at $562,881 M at the end of 1996; at $481,499 M at the end of 2005, and at $457,637 M at the end of 2007.  That amount represents the 1975-1986 and prior deficit operating balances, plus interest, minus some modest recent principal payments.  It represents public overspending from 20-30 years ago.  I believe it was a mistake not to reduce that amount further during favourable economic times; therefore, I do believe the Liberals did not cut the debt enough; since the unforecasted surplus amounts that were not paid against the debt were not destroyed, it follows that the government overspent.

You have a gift for leaving out the details in order to state what you imagine to be "facts" or statements of argumentation.  Surpluses are overtaxation only if the surplus amounts are not used to close accounts on prior spending.  Deficit spending is simply a transfer of future revenues (taxation) into the present.  The only proper use (and requirement) for a surplus is to effect that transfer of revenues when the future becomes the present.  As long as current revenues (taxes) pay for budgeted current and past spending, that is not overtaxation. If, however, the government is too weak-minded to eschew the temptation of "March Madness", then it is simply overtaxation.

If a government finds its budgets result in overtaxation, it has a moral obligation to return the excess to taxpayers.  It is also widely accepted - the CPC, LPC, and NDP all agree - that private spending in a free market economy is preferable to public spending when the publc agency doesn't have any particular - which is to say, at minimum planned and budgeted - purpose.  I haven't disputed that an income tax cut was preferable to a GST cut in the prevailing economic circumstances.  Had the Conservatives done so, it would only have increased the economic advantage.

Since you don't occupy my mind, it would be safer for you to not claim to understand my emotional state - you will be less the fool than you currently are making yourself out to be.  It isn't the fact of the Conservatives being the highest spending federal government (in raw dollars) in history that disconcerts me; the superficial prating of morons, promulgating myths for other morons to cherish, does.  I have no problem bringing more complete truth to half-truths, and context to facile sophomorism.  If you're not bothered or uncomfortable or in any other distressed emotional state due to additional data and conclusions, then we are in agreement: both of us are "comfortable", and the discussion doesn't need to end with the last "fact" with which one person happens to be "comfortable", without the addition of other "facts" which make him "less comfortable".

If we may set aside the amateur hour psychology, I consider tax credits for sports registration fees, and many of the other credits (which are, really, public spending) are "candy".  But my point, to get back on it, wasn't about the issue of whether governments spend on voter "candy": my point was the immorality and poor economic practice of end-of-fiscal-year spending sprees when the money should be either paid against debt, or returned to the taxpayers from which it came.

I realize the Liberals balanced the budget.  For those unclear: the Liberals balanced the budget; the Liberals balanced the budget; the Liberals balanced the budget.  Yet the discussion need not end there, although doubtless there are many - Ignatieff comes to mind - who would like people to just take away that single statement and chant it like a mantra.  What interests me is not that the Liberals balanced the budget, but that so many people should believe it was an exceptional achievement.  Economic circumstances brought the net deficit within reach (within the limitations of what was politically possible), and the government of the time took the obvious action.  In the event, it took an 8% spending cut.  Two years earlier, during the first budget year of Chretien's government, it would have taken a 30% spending cut.  I find it much more interesting to understand that evolution of circumstances than to simply be a Liberal cheerleader.

And with the announcement of recent job loss figures, I see the Liberals are now whining that even more should be spent, and it should have been spent sooner.  You can forget about deflecting me from my opinion that the Liberals are doing anything more productive than whining about what should or could be done; it is all electioneering.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2009)

I don't consider myself a Conservative cheerleader, but how strong are the claims pointing to current CPC policies when you consider that they have operated under a minority government the entire time.  The Liberals governed under over a decade with a solid minority and, as Brad Sallows pointed out, governed "good" but not "super".  The Conservatives have governed for a few years and, as a minority government, have been somewhat beholden to those Liberals that are so eager to point and sneer.  Should the Libs (and the NDP) be somewhat accountable for the accusations you lob at Harper's government seeing how they had a very real hand in actually put the budget through?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> From the data I have from the Public Accounts, going back to FY 61-62, these are the general patterns:
> 1961-1974: (2)
> 1975-1986: (1)
> 1987-1996: (2)
> 1997-2008: (3)



So, in other words, Canadian governments have for the last 50 years been quite poor fiscal managers.  Why is this so?  Ideology?  Poor political structure in Ottawa?  The nature of the beast?


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2009)

>Again, I have to ask, what do you think is the Conservative leadership's true opinion about climate change? Is it a serious issue that must be dealt with soon (their public position) or is it a scientifically unfounded and exaggerated scare that will soon blow over?

My opinion is that they either don't buy the assertion that current climate trends are overwhelmingly of anthropogenic origin, or that the alleged trends are a crock of sh!t, or that (consequence of the first possibility) that there is anything that can be realistically done to avert or mitigate trends.

But since I'm not them, my opinion is only informed by the actions they take - or do not take.

My own opinion on the matter is that the climate scientists haven't a f#cking clue, but have staked their positions where the funding money currently lies.  In the larger sphere, the debate is being pushed by the people who believe a crisis is a good opportunity to get things done that would not otherwise be possible.  (My thanks to Rahm Emanuel for bringing that turn of phrase and philosophy into the sunlight.)  And, of course, there is the that tiresome gang for which life would just have no meaning if there weren't some man-made global catastrophe imminent.  Fortunately, a new one can be found every decade or so as the previous one becomes increasingly discredited.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2009)

>So, in other words, Canadian governments have for the last 50 years been quite poor fiscal managers.  Why is this so?  Ideology?  Poor political structure in Ottawa?  The nature of the beast?

Short answer: all three.

The overriding problem is that the intellectual elite - people gifted with raw intelligence horsepower, coupled with an extensive and rigorous education - are nowhere near as gifted and educated as they believe themselves to be.  And, in many cases, what measurable positive attributes exist are often corroded by mindlessness.  I tire of reading how well-educated are people such as Dion and Ignatieff, or even Harper the "Master's in Economics", because as soon as they open their mouths to utter the usual political half-truths and lies, I know how they really stand.  I have learned that it is very, very difficult for a person to set intelligence and education above base ambitions and emotions.  Therefore, when I hear the bullsh!t, I assume it is the dominant motivator.

In another thread, I made an observation to the effect that government is to the free market as bataille conduit is to manoeuvre warfare.  By that, I mean that the politicians and mandarins and lesser bureaucrats will never be able to outperform, or even to come within orders of magnitude of, the "decision cycle" of anything resembling a free society and economy.

There are no Hari Seldons; there is no discipline of psychohistory.  But there is no end of people who see flaws - of which I don't dispute the existence - and imagine themselves capable of resolving the problems.  There is also no end of people who follow the money/power.  Somewhere in there is a small minority of people who intend to do good, do not desire to enrich or empower themselves or their acquaintances, and understand their limitations.  I don't buy the line of apologists that there are many people in politics and government who fall into the latter category: if they existed in sufficient number and had the courage of their convictions to act, then they would be wielding a stiff broom and we would know it.

Getting back to the specifics, I don't believe ideology is the greatest problem.  If politicians cleaved heavily to ideology, there would be a greater distinction in governing behaviour between Conservatives/Liberals and Republicans/Democrats than we have recently observed.

Ottawa definitely has a poor political structure.  There is too much power concentrated in the PMO, and no real balance between the upper and lower houses.  I favour a Senate in which each province has an equal number of representatives - even PEI - who are appointed by provincial legislatures based on whatever criteria they see fit.  I favour it because I want the provinces to be able to yank Parliament and its First among Equals by a very strong chain.  There simply aren't that many social and economic issues on which I feel a desire to compromise with Quebec or Newfoundland, irrespective of their cultural and other trappings in which I delight.

The "nature of the beast" is the dominant issue.  The "nature" is the self-reinforcement of a system structured to accumulate power and authority.  The more power and authority government has, the more people it will attract who are drawn to power and authority.  The bigger the prize, the worse the catastrophe of losing it; hence, the more vicious and partisan the politics.

The centralized power structure can either be gutted and its teeth drawn peaceably, or it will ultimately happen with great bloodshed - which is usually the course.


----------



## JBG (8 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't consider myself a Conservative cheerleader, but how strong are the claims pointing to current CPC policies when you consider that they have operated under a minority government the entire time.  The Liberals governed under over a decade with a solid minority and, as Brad Sallows pointed out, governed "good" but not "super".  The Conservatives have governed for a few years and, as a minority government, have been somewhat beholden to those Liberals that are so eager to point and sneer.  Should the Libs (and the NDP) be somewhat accountable for the accusations you lob at Harper's government seeing how they had a very real hand in actually put the budget through?


As far as the CPC being "somewhat beholden", I'll add that the LPC "had the option" (to quote Brian Mulroney in another context) to vote down the CPC budgets and chose not to do so. Now they wear it along with the CPC.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2009)

Brad, the only quibble I have with you is on this:



> Somewhere in there is a small minority of people who intend to do good, do not desire to enrich or empower themselves or their acquaintances, and understand their limitations.  I don't buy the line of apologists that there are many people in politics and government who fall into the latter category: if they existed in sufficient number and had the courage of their convictions to act, then they would be wielding a stiff broom and we would know it.



I think you have been hanging around soldiers over long.

I believe, in most folks life, principle plays second fiddle to family and as a consequence a lot of good men and women find themselves tending to do the easy thing rather than the right thing because the easy thing can be justified as not inflicting hardship on their family.   

And, as well, the laws of mean tendency and the reasonable man also play their role.  The easy solution is always to allow oneself to be eased back into the centre of the well travelled rut.

I believe that there are many people there with the best of intentions, but perhaps over many of them are over reasonable ........ then again do we want to be governed by unreasonable people.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2009)

I have had plenty of time to observe the behaviour of people in organizations.  I have explained point-blank to people why something was unethical, and they have proceeded without contesting the validity of my argument.  I found that only the military has a high immunity, which I attribute to the general culture of self-sacrifice and merit, and also to the fact that there isn't much influence to peddle to enrich oneself or others.  As a general corollary, the smaller the stakes, the less the malfeasance.  But from experience, I stand by my belief that the selfless and ethical in positions of power and authority are emphatically a minority.

I find the "unreasonable man" to be the one who thinks I should tolerate his weakness, or his petty tyranny and busymindedness, or submit to his governance.  I don't expect politics to be entirely free of partisanship and factional self-serving, but I am particularly at an end to my patience with opposition politicians bleating for more and faster spending while their apologists weave myths about how things were or would be if they were in charge.  People can fabricate all the alleged motives and likelihoods and what-ifs they wish, but these two historical facts stand out:

1) Prior to December, the government message was reassurance and the prospect of a modest deficit (a few billion).

2) It is the opposition parties that started playing up imminent economic catastrophe and put the figurative gun to the government's head.

Now we have proposed budgets mirroring the opposition parties' wishes, and calls from them for more.  It would be best for their apologists not to besh!t themselves any more by trying to blame anyone except the opposition parties for the spending or the erosion of consumer confidence.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2009)

John Kerry (remember him?) suggests that tax cuts would confer too much freedom on the general population. Can't have than now, when "The One" is there to "organize" the American community:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/john_kerry_you_know_whats_the.asp



> *John Kerry: You Know What's the Problem With Stimulus Tax Cuts? All That Freedom.*
> 
> Sen. John Kerry took to the Senate floor today to pace, rant, and raise his voice in a monotone simulation of human passion as he spoke up for the massive spending bill the Democrats want to pass today under the guise of "stimulus."
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2009)

Brad, I share your opinion of the military.  That's what I meant by my comment. Self-sacrifice and altruism are not as readily found outside the military.


Thucydides, who knows what mischief the masses might get up to without the guiding hand of the intellectual elite to order their thoughts.


----------



## john10 (21 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The false dilemma does not stand.  There is no "on the one/other hand"; you misunderstand what I thought was explained clearly: "if the purpose of taxation in excess of today's spending is not to pay for yesterday's spending, then a GST cut is better than no tax cut at all."


 But there was no dilemma between a GST tax cut and not tax cut. They had a range of policy choices (debt reduction, income taxes, more spending, various other tax cuts), and they chose a sub-optimal one (and they raised income taxes too). And your reaction? "Economic and moral advantage"! That's what I mean when I say it's like arguing with shadows. On the one hand, you criticize the Liberals for not sufficiently pursuing the most optimal option (debt reduction), yet when the Conservatives are faced with the same policy choices and opt for a distinctly poor one, "economic and moral advantage" you proclaim! Which is particularly galling given that the Liberals were proposing equivalent tax relief but in income tax cuts IIRC correctly. But by going ahead with the GST cut, the Conservatives have the "economic and moral advantage"!



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You have a gift for leaving out the details in order to state what you imagine to be "facts" or statements of argumentation.


 I don't imagine them to be facts, that's what they are. But they are facts that leave you uncomfortable – call it amateur-hour psychology if you want, why not. Why would you deny that when I state basic, simple truths like "The Conservatives raised income taxes." or  "The Liberals balanced the budget.", you don't like it.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If a government finds its budgets result in overtaxation, it has a moral obligation to return the excess to taxpayers.  It is also widely accepted - the CPC, LPC, and NDP all agree - that private spending in a free market economy is preferable to public spending when the publc agency doesn't have any particular - which is to say, at minimum planned and budgeted - purpose.  I haven't disputed that an income tax cut was preferable to a GST cut in the prevailing economic circumstances.  Had the Conservatives done so, it would only have increased the economic advantage.



The advantage over what? They were in government and made the choice to make a GST tax cut. Where is the economic and moral advantage in that? They could have cut the debt or made income taxes but they didn't. Where's the moral and economic advantage?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Since you don't occupy my mind, it would be safer for you to not claim to understand my emotional state - you will be less the fool than you currently are making yourself out to be.  It isn't the fact of the Conservatives being the highest spending federal government (in raw dollars) in history that disconcerts me; the superficial prating of morons, promulgating myths for other morons to cherish, does.  I have no problem bringing more complete truth to half-truths, and context to facile sophomorism.  If you're not bothered or uncomfortable or in any other distressed emotional state due to additional data and conclusions, then we are in agreement: both of us are "comfortable", and the discussion doesn't need to end with the last "fact" with which one person happens to be "comfortable", without the addition of other "facts" which make him "less comfortable".


 What myths? The notion that the Liberals balanced the budget? That the Conservatives raised income taxes?

Your contributions of figures have been great --- where have I complained about them? You're the one who isn't comfortable with me stating simple facts.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I realize the Liberals balanced the budget.  For those unclear: the Liberals balanced the budget; the Liberals balanced the budget; the Liberals balanced the budget.


 Well, that's good, because just a few posts ago, you were denying precisely that fact. See, this is what I mean when I say some facts make you uncomfortable. The notion that Liberals balanced the budget is an indisputable, incontrovertible fact. Yet, your initial reaction was to deny it.

Nothing in me stating these basic simple truths should stop us from being able to discuss their value and larger meaning (such as the circumstances of the occurrence, the respective role of Conservatives and Liberals, the great fiscal framework left in place by Mulroney, etc.).



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And with the announcement of recent job loss figures, I see the Liberals are now whining that even more should be spent, and it should have been spent sooner.  You can forget about deflecting me from my opinion that the Liberals are doing anything more productive than whining about what should or could be done; it is all electioneering.


 I'm not trying to deflect you from your opinion, I want you to specify what whining of Ignatieff and Brison's it is that you find so objectionable.


----------



## john10 (21 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't consider myself a Conservative cheerleader, but how strong are the claims pointing to current CPC policies when you consider that they have operated under a minority government the entire time.


 They are very strong. The Conservatives have been in government for three years now. The fiscal vision they have shown is dispiriting after the work done in the Mulroney and Chrétien years.

My specific claims are utterly irrelevant to the question of majority or minority governments. They chose to raise income taxes and cut the GST. Nothing stopped them from doing the opposite. Similarly, they've been throwing tax credits around like confetti for silly infra-marginal items (sports registration fees, diesel, etc.).


----------



## john10 (21 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Again, I have to ask, what do you think is the Conservative leadership's true opinion about climate change? Is it a serious issue that must be dealt with soon (their public position) or is it a scientifically unfounded and exaggerated scare that will soon blow over?
> 
> My opinion is that they either don't buy the assertion that current climate trends are overwhelmingly of anthropogenic origin, or that the alleged trends are a crock of sh!t, or that (consequence of the first possibility) that there is anything that can be realistically done to avert or mitigate trends.
> 
> ...


 So when do you think they're going to come out with their real view instead of carrying on with the charade? In a year? Five years? Never?

What is their advantage in continuing to go along with something they don't believe in? What kind of leadership does it indicate if they're just going along with it because that's the popular thing to do, knowing full well that it's a complete crock that will cost a lot?


----------



## john10 (21 Feb 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I find the "unreasonable man" to be the one who thinks I should tolerate his weakness, or his petty tyranny and busymindedness, or submit to his governance.  I don't expect politics to be entirely free of partisanship and factional self-serving, but I am particularly at an end to my patience with opposition politicians bleating for more and faster spending while their apologists weave myths about how things were or would be if they were in charge.  People can fabricate all the alleged motives and likelihoods and what-ifs they wish, but these two historical facts stand out:
> 
> 1) Prior to December, the government message was reassurance and the prospect of a modest deficit (a few billion).
> 
> ...


 How about the party that is in government and delivered the budget?

If the Conservatives believed that the best way to deal with the situation was fiscal prudence, then why didn't they make the case to Canadians, explain that the recession won't affect Canada as badly as the US, and that the most responsible, optimal solution is in continuing with the November fiscal update? Aren't they the ones who were elected to govern?

It's comical how you are trying to blame the opposition parties solely when the Conservatives have become vocal advocates of stimulus spending.


----------



## john10 (21 Feb 2009)

Thucydides, I will infer from your refusal to address my points and questions that you have seen the light and now recognize that Paul Martin was a great finance minister and was not involved in ADSCAM, and have renounced the previous garbage you spouted about him.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2009)

Kirkhill has it right, I think, in pointing out the motives of people are generally to follow the paths of least effort and to maximize their personal and familial benefits. In more traditional societies that are based on clan and tribal structures, power and influence flows along family/clan/tribal lines. In modern societies, the blood ties are replaced by ties of mutual interest represented by fraternal societies, political parties, Facebook social networking groups and other self selecting organizations.

The growth of State power amplifies the negative influences that Brad and Kirkhill have indicated, the temptation to help yourself for the benefit of yourself and your family becomes quite large when you have the ability to ( for example) make tax exemptions to the company you own or make non arm's length sales to your immediate family while still exerting a position of public influence and trust. In the United States, the Generational Wealth Transfer Bill (AKA the Stimulus Package) has only about 5% of the $800 billion plus actually identified as fiscal stimulus, while much of the remainder is being showered as "gifts" to the supporters of the current political elites (such as ACORN, Unions, lower tier politicians etc.) 

As Edward Campbell pointed out in different threads, cutting the GST was a politically astute move, since unlike most other taxes it is not easily returned to previous rates, so government is permanently constrained by reduced incomes, with the long term potential of reducing State power. (One can suggest the imposition of a $30 billion dollar Canadian "stimulus" package under threat is an attempt to increase State power through the side door, circumventing the effects of the GST tax cut).

Obviously, so long as the Progressive movement has the ability to grasp and manipulate the levers of State power, our rights and freedoms are at risk. The unencumbered use of property is most directly threatened by the antics of municipal governments, while freedom of speech is under attack by groups like the CHRC. Politicizing institutions like the US Census is another step in the wrong direction. Freedom loving people have a lot of work ahead of them.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Feb 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> So when do you think they're going to come out with their real view instead of carrying on with the charade? In a year? Five years? Never?
> 
> What is their advantage in continuing to go along with something they don't believe in? What kind of leadership does it indicate if they're just going along with it because that's the popular thing to do, knowing full well that it's a complete crock that will cost a lot?



I'm regretting this as I type it.

John,  I note that you are applying for a commission.  I trust that you find the art of leading at some point in the not to distant future.

You cannot lead where they will not follow.  Ralph Klein recognized that and exploited it to his advantage "find which way the parade is going and get out in front of it".  

Leading where your troops will not go will make for a very uncomfortable, and short, career.  If you choose to stand on principle then you throw away all chance of influencing the course of events.

Military Maxim repeated:  Never give an order you don't expect to be obeyed.


----------



## JBG (22 Feb 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> Thucydides, I will infer from your refusal to address my points and questions that you have seen the light and now recognize that Paul Martin was a great finance minister and was not involved in ADSCAM, and have renounced the previous garbage you spouted about him.


If Paul Martin knew about ADSCAM he was responsible; if he didn't know about ADSCAM he was irresponsible.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Feb 2009)

>But there was no dilemma between a GST tax cut and not tax cut.
>Where's the moral and economic advantage?

I don't claim that there was such a (false) dilemma.  You misunderstand the difference between "better" and "best".  All I claim is that the GST cut was better than retaining the revenue and casting about for ways to spend it.  "Debt reduction" would have been "best".  The "advantage" is relative with respect to Liberal actions, not absolute.  What the Liberals promised should not be galling to anyone; we can only judge governments by their actions.  It is foolish to attach any value to election promises, for which the track record of all parties is extremely poor.  The Liberals had several years of majority government to select a post-deficit fiscal path and chose a poor one.  Promises during an election campaign can not be weighed.

>Well, that's good, because just a few posts ago, you were denying precisely that fact. 

No.  My point is still that the Liberals took the final step in a chain of events: they were not giants, they merely stood on the shoulders of circumstances and the achievements of others.  It is simple to understand: one looks at the deficit at its peak and follows its evolution; one observes the respective changes due to increases in revenue, falling interest rates, balanced operating budgets, restrained spending growth, and spending cuts.  One does not, save that one is a fool or a shill, attribute the change to only the final item except as a trivial observation.  So understand: when I write "the Liberals balanced the budget", I do so in mockery of anyone so shallow-minded as to believe it represents either truth or fact.  If the spending cuts had been made in the same amounts a few years earlier, the same fool would be led to observe at the instant of shift from deficit to surplus that a combination of increasing revenues and falling interest rates balanced the budget.

>My specific claims are utterly irrelevant to the question of majority or minority governments.

Every significant action taken by a minority government is in consideration and respect of the reality of the division of seats in Parliament, to say nothing of the tidal pull of election campaigns and the run-up to an expected election call.  To claim "utterly irrelevant" is to dream in a frictionless political universe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Feb 2009)

>If the Conservatives believed that the best way to deal with the situation was fiscal prudence, then why didn't they make the case to Canadians, explain that the recession won't affect Canada as badly as the US, and that the most responsible, optimal solution is in continuing with the November fiscal update?

They did make that case.  But the political reality is that the Opposition parties agreed to replace the Conservative government given an opportunity and to spend approximately $30 billion, so the Conservative government prorogued the opportunity and proposed - in general outline - the Opposition's budget, in order to remain the governing party.  The Liberal fraction of the Opposition is satisfied that enough of its demands have been met, so this Parliament continues.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2009)

Back to the issue at hand: looking at the nature and meaning of Progressiveism. This article goes about it in reverse, since Progressives notionally "love" the poor, disadvantaged and opressed, but want the State to actually do something about it. The writer makes the point that Love is personal, and the sort of abstract "love of the people" is disconnected from real people, hence real solutions as well:

http://jwherring.com/TOWM/2009/02/21/love-doesnt-scale/



> *Love Doesn’t Scale*
> Filed under: politics — Joshua @ 8:59 pm
> 
> I’m always on the lookout for neat aphorisms that nicely encapsulate important points of Libertarian thought. This is because I think Libertarianism argues from a weak position in modern society. There aren’t very many of us to begin with, and our views are rarely, if ever, given a fair hearing in the public forum, so anything that can get the point across sucintly is helpful.
> ...


----------



## 2 Cdo (23 Feb 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> Thucydides, I will infer from your refusal to address my points and questions that you have seen the light and now recognize that Paul Martin was a great finance minister and was not involved in ADSCAM, and have renounced the previous garbage you spouted about him.



John I will leave you with my final reply to anything you post here. Ref. Liberal balancing the budget, you ignore the FACT (which you like to brag of) that the budget was balanced a big extent to the elimination of a large portion of federal transfer payments to the provinces. Again, easy to balance a bidget if you have someone else pay for it.

Your idea of FACTS is to support the portion that agrees with you and ignore the FACTS that shows your argument is false. 

Lastly, your selective memory in regards to facts and the idea of you becoming an infantry officer make me glad I am retired and would never have the "pleasure" of serving under your command. Assuming you actually do intend to join and if you make it through your phase training


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2009)

Looking for motive here:

http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2122



> *Proving Reagan wrong*
> Byline: bob | Category: Economy, Culture | Posted at: 12:11 pm
> 
> “Why are they doing all this when they have to know that it isn’t going to work?” was the question my wife asked about the stimulus package.  My answer to her:  “*It’s not about fixing the economy; it’s about proving Reagan wrong*.”  It’s about proving that an enlightened government is superior to a country led by tens of millions of individual sovereign decision makers.
> ...



We have plenty of historical examples of "a country led by...individual sovereign decision makers" outperforming centralized governments, enlightened or not, from Classical Greece to the _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ to Elizabethan England, and on and on. America _is_ exceptional since it seems to have achieved a critical mass of individual sovereign decision makers coupled to the the resource wealth of the Continental United States and historical isolation from predatory military powers.

Can the Americans survive? Most likely, but there will be a great deal of detritus to sweep away in 2010 and 2012.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2009)

On CNN this morning I saw yet another panel of pundits.

The memorable line in this case from one of the experts "They don't know what will work so they have to try everything". There was real fear in her eyes as she said this.

I'm just wondering how that line would work with the DS on your next exercise.  "I don't know Warrant.  My plan is to go left, right and retreat and hope for the best."


----------



## wannabe SF member (24 Feb 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Can the Americans survive? Most likely, but there will be a great deal of detritus to sweep away in 2010 and 2012.



Detritus?
Are we talking people here?


----------



## Reccesoldier (24 Feb 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Detritus?
> Are we talking people here?



Almost certainly...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2009)

The failed business, banks and "zombie enterprises" that political rent seekers will create using stimulus package money, and the activities of rent seeking political organizations like ACORN (and the damage they will cause) are the detritus that will have to be cleared away.

The unfortunate fact is many of the rent seekers will take down large numbers of ordinary citizens with them, and only clearing the regulatory and legal decks will allow capital and labour to flow quickly and provide the jobs and economic growth and recovery that is really needed.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2009)

Of course Progressive ideology isn't monolithic either, and there are stress points that can be exploited, either internally for the advantage of one or the other faction, or externally...

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00630-democrats-could-face-internal-civil-war-gentry-and-populist-factions-square-off



> *Democrats Could Face an Internal Civil War as Gentry and Populist Factions Square Off*
> by Joel Kotkin 02/28/2009
> iStock_000007192286XSmall.jpg
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2009)

Book review "On The Future of Liberalism by Alan Wolfe" 

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Wolfe-in-sheep-s-clothing--4027



> *Wolfe in sheep’s clothing?*
> 
> by William D Gairdner
> 
> ...



Read the rest on the link!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2009)

And Progressiveism faces the ultimate test:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/Obama-is-in-trouble-40864502.html



> *Obama is in trouble*
> 
> POSTED March 6, 2009 | 5:13 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2009)

Progressives and charitable giving:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604548985015461.html



> *Philanthropy and Its Enemies*
> Activists want to redistribute foundation wealth based on racial quotas.
> 
> By NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2009)

Progressiveism has consequences:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6907.html



> *Government and Moral Hazards*
> Posted by Shannon Love on March 17th, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love)
> 
> Print This Post
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2009)

More on cause and effect:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/03/summing-up-socialism-perfectly.html



> *Summing Up Socialism Perfectly*
> 
> From Theo Spark:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2009)

Something I had always suspected is now confirmed: the "Progressives" use Freikorps tactics to try and shut down discussion and possible dissent:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/rules-for-conservative-radicals/



> *BREITBART: Online activists on the right, unite!*
> Andrew Breitbart
> 
> ANALYSIS/OPINION:
> ...


----------



## JBG (30 Mar 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >If the Conservatives believed that the best way to deal with the situation was fiscal prudence, then why didn't they make the case to Canadians, explain that the recession won't affect Canada as badly as the US, and that the most responsible, optimal solution is in continuing with the November fiscal update?
> 
> They did make that case.  But the political reality is that the Opposition parties agreed to replace the Conservative government given an opportunity and to spend approximately $30 billion, so the Conservative government prorogued the opportunity and proposed - in general outline - the Opposition's budget, in order to remain the governing party.  The Liberal fraction of the Opposition is satisfied that enough of its demands have been met, so this Parliament continues.


I also believe that allowing a recession to morph into a depression is a terrible idea, regardless of party affiliation. For my money I'd take the stagflation of the 1970's over a repeat of the Great Depression (or for that matter the Panic of 1907) any day.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2009)

I grew up during the Stagflation, and now that I understand what was happening, I wouldn't take that either.

The Obama administration, the McGuinty government and the Federal parties (all of them) have given us an unsustainable bill, and here are the end results:

http://www.briangardiner.ca/hespeler/?p=1791



> To my Daughter
> 
> It’s difficult to express how proud I am of you. You are a remarkable, pretty, smart and talented young woman. A number of years ago we started you on piano lessons. You decided it wasn’t for you and stopped, but a seed was clearly planted. A couple of years later you began piano again, impressively teaching yourself. As I sit and listen to you play music that is well beyond a difficulty level any reasonable person would expect, and playing it well, I am awed at what you have accomplished.
> 
> ...



Now imagine the effects of compound interest on my children who are 8 and 13 respectively....


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2009)

Without comment:

http://www.thereturnofscipio.com/?p=1471



> *Future Present*
> 
> Posted on March 29th, 2009 by Scipio
> 
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (31 Mar 2009)

What the ghost really showed the archaeologist about what happened to America...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsTzWBSDRas&feature=related


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2009)

Ayn Rand meets George Orwell:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6235.html



> Topic: Censorship
> *"Atlas Shrugged": Why has Wikipedia Removed Key Elements?*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



IF Wikipedia continues with its practice of banning members who attempt to undo these revisions (like they did when scrubbing Barack Obama's page) then it will be very difficult to undo these changes, and the Wikipedia staff will be able to stuff Atlas Shrugged down the memory hole. Luckily, sales of Atlas Shrugged are going through the roof, but how many others are not as lucky?


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Apr 2009)

>I also believe that allowing a recession to morph into a depression is a terrible idea, regardless of party affiliation.

I agree.  But the Depression was largely created and prolonged by bad government policy.  While not all of the policy mistakes of the Depression are being repeated, some are.  There will also be new mistakes.  The colossal movement to spend is going to create problems for ordinary people now (and more in the future) and, when the cracks appear, exacerbate international tensions.  I see the headlines today bragging about promised "injections of $1 trillion" by the G20 (assuming it is not some April Fools' joke), as if there was a way governments could conjure money out of nothing to "inject".  All they can do is reallocate current and future revenues, or print money (and thus devalue the "$1 trillion" even as they attempt to fabricate its existence as anything other than arbitrary reassignment of possession).

There seem to be a lot of people who think the politicians and mandarins know what they are doing.  They don't.  They have no predictive science to speak of, or prior examples matching these circumstances, to show the correct path.  They are pig-ignorant, and willing to spend any amount of money to avoid being thrown out of office or held to account.  What they are not willing to do is allow events to unfold without being seen to be in charge.  With luck, most of the new fascists will earn Mussolini's reward well before they have a chance to grow old in peace and be forgotten by the generation that has to pay for this.

In the mid-'80s, as the federal government gripped the revenue vs expenditure imbalance but was helpless to cover the cost of existing debt, I assumed I would be taxed throughout my adult life to pay for whatever programs and assets and other "positives" we might have gained during the massive overspending of the prior decade.  As the revenue vs expenditure + deb cost gap closed to where it could be strangled by a relatively modest spending cut in the late '90s, I assumed 20 years of healthy surpluses would see the net debt extinguished.  I did not imagine that we would not only punt that debt again, but punt a second one right behind it.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2009)

The real story behind George Galloway's Canadian visit. Notice the difference between what was commonly reported and what actually happened:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/christopher-hitchens-is-wrong.html



> *This Is Not A Story About Free Speech. This Is Not A Story About National Security.*
> 
> (UPDATE: The full half-hour CHQR World Tonight radio interview version of this post's contents is here).
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2009)

But we worked so hard to elect "the one"....





> The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog
> Big Liberal Bloggers Tee Off On Progressive Groups For Not Sharing Ad Wealth
> Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.
> 
> ...


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Apr 2009)

The Baby boomers and every generation since then didn't have the privilege of living through a depression, so most don't know what the hell their talking about in terms of what to do now. They only have history to fall back on and sometimes history is not always the best measure in which to gauge a problem, because all history is different, even if it is similar to what is happening now. 
I read the papers, watch the news and listen to dozens of economists, politicians and academics who are baffled as to what is the best course of action to take to fix this problem. The bottom line is, no one knows unless of course someone has a crystal ball. 
I also have to chuckle at half these columnists who basically write, well about nothing. You have some from the right and some from the left, but there's no-one meeting in the middle and no common ground, because each side is to busy trying to contradict the other. *Please bring in the fools...*

The only difference between "what is happening now and a depression" Is with one you pay for now and the other you pay for later, so either way in the end someone has to pay the fiddler his due.


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2009)

A small event; a disproportionate reaction. What if it was airstrikes against villages, bills of attender, strong arming bond holders and secured creditors in favor of political supporters, appointing tax cheats to senior positions in the administration or running trillion dollar deficits rather than Dijon mustard?

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/thou-shall-not-mock-obamas-mustard.html



> Thursday, May 7, 2009
> *Thou Shall Not Mock Obama's Mustard*
> 
> My post the other day, MSNBC Hides Obama's Dijon Mustard (aka Dijongate), has hit a nerve unlike anything else I have written.
> ...


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (7 May 2009)

The lefty nutbars are at it again. The more they behave in this manner the more they alienate themselves, but again maybe that's a good thing...

"Stupid is - Stupid does"


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2009)

A Liberal cabinet minister lays it out for all to see:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html



> *A 'liberal' state of mind*
> 
> Governments will decide which businesses are 'winners,' says a senior Ontario cabinet minister
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2009)

Do as I say.......

http://deceiver.com/2009/05/12/oprah-to-planet-earth-drop-dead/



> *Oprah to Planet Earth: Drop Dead*
> By Simon Scowl
> 
> Categories: Environmentalists, Television Stars and U.S. Left-wing Politicos
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2009)

And the results are in for Progressiveism in action:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/free_states_study/2009/05/06/211385.html?utm_medium=RSS



> *Study: Most Liberal States Are Least Free*
> 
> Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:03 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 May 2009)

Keeping the attention of the proles focused elsewhere......

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/7168.html



> How Sex Sells the Loss of Freedom
> Posted by Shannon Love on May 24th, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love)
> 
> Print This Post
> ...


----------



## c_canuk (26 May 2009)

I have a problem with this article, it's more than a little biased.

they are refering to the US political system from what I gather....




> Freedom                Left Right
> 
> Speech                 R     B


the left didn't come up with free speech zones, or calling dissenting voices demanding debate un-American, while they are going after what they consider hate speech, and classify some of what they disagree with as hate speech... this seems more gray to me



> Work                    R     B


depends on the argument, the left pushes for affirmative action, while the right sometimes pushes for the right to discriminate by any criteria and/or paying illegal immigrants less than minimum wage, depending on which group of people you are in you could be oppressed by left or right. Also mileage on these items varies by politician; this should be a gray area.



> Business                R     B


Depends on what the business does. The left is for the legalization of drugs and prostitution while they are against gun ownership. The right is the opposite. 

This should also be gray as the arguments for one can generally be applied to all. The deregulation of the US financial system was done by all political spectrums.

Pornographic material and sexual aids merchants are a favourite target of the “moral” right as are strip clubs and in some really uptight areas, just plain old pubs.



> Food                    R     B


I see the left looking to ban items that have known carcinogens I suppose, however they want access to more organics and less restrictions in how food is processed. And they more restrictions on what people can put on packaging and what has to be put on packaging to give the buyer more information

The right seems to think we should just trust big business to regulate itself. 

I feel this is again a gray area, maybe leaning towards the left a little considering the latest Chinese food export fiascos.



> Housing                R     B


the right is complaining that the recession is caused by the left forcing companies to provide loans to people who couldn't afford them, so in one point of view they are providing freedom to own a house regardless of if you can afford it or not, though the left usually likes to tax everything they can, so again I see gray, 

HOAs make my skin crawl but they aren't the sole domain of the left.



> Consumer Goods     R     B


Other than guns, I'm not sure what consumer goods left is legislating against or attempting to regulate.

As mentioned previously the pornography industry frequently has issues with the right as well as medical narcotics users and producers and even sometimes businesses that serve alcohol.



> Medical Care          R    B



see now here is a very complex issue, there are many people who don't have coverage because they can't afford it, and you have to decide if the better off should be obligated to help out... should membership in a federal medical insurance plan come with citizenship, or is it something personal? Should equal access to healthcare resources be a right?



> Education             R     B



This is where I have a big beef with the left, there is too much preaching, and not enough focus on critical thinking. It's gotten to levels that I think is criminal.

Teachers are there to teach the course curriculum, not push politics on our children in the guise of civic duty. This ranges from issues of global warming, gun control, parenting techniques, organic food stuffs (dangerous), alternate fuels, misuse of antibiotic products.

They frequently push activities to raise awareness of issues. Activities to “raise awareness” are frequently intellectual masturbatory exercises and result in the politicalisation of our children who are effectively a captive audience. These events condition children to bandwagon jumping and accepting what their told as fact without looking into the matter for themselves.

However the right has also tried to trump scientific theory based on observation with religious dogma.

I gotta say gray here as well.



> Free Trade            R     B


Buy American tends to be the mantra of the right, not the left; Obama excepted, and I'm pretty sure that there are some things in free trade that are counter productive to all countries.



> Self-Defense         R     B


no arguments here, the left seem to fear their neighbours so much that they want to eliminate their neighbour’s ability to self defend. They are more afraid of their neighbours having more power than they do than they are of criminals.

If gun confiscation is ever successful, look for the banning of chain saws next as the new scary object to ban while gang related crime and smuggling go unchecked.



> Property Rights      R     B


Didn’t we already cover this with housing/goods/food?

The left does seem to think all material goods should belong to the state and how you use them should be regulated by the state; however the right seems to think your body should belong to the state and how you use it should be regulated by the state


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2009)

A comparison of the Classical Liberal vs the Progressive philosophies in action:

http://patriotroom.com/article/rich-gov-poor-gov-why-obama-can-t-fix-the-economy



> *Rich Gov, Poor Gov: Why Obama can't Fix the Economy*
> by: Scott Martin   posted: 2009-06-15 22:08:00
> Viewed 3573 times. 3 Comments.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jun 2009)

Another example of entitlement thinking and its practical application:

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2009/06/remember-this-clown-now-hes-putting.html



> *Remember this Clown.. now he's putting everyone's lives at risk*
> 
> So, after going out of bounds at a ski hill that he had never been to, getting lost, and then wandering away from his "SOS" signs.. resulting in the death of his wife, Gilles Blackburn has sued the B.C. Search and Rescue, together with the R.C.M.P. and the B.C. Government.
> 
> ...


----------



## JBG (18 Jun 2009)

For a lot of reasons I expect Osama Obama to be a one-term President.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2009)

Perhaps the political "Left" doesn't need ideas, since vague promises seem to have worked south of the border. Still it is interesting that neither the Liberals or NDP have come up with anything resembling public policy for quite some time now. (I will admit the Conservative parties of Canada, both Provincial and Federal are also in the same boat, although they certainly will have enough work ahead of them if they suck in their guts and apply "conservative" principles to governing. In this era that would mean wading through thousands of pages of legislation and eliminating much of it...)

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=2025



> *Guess Who’s Dissing the NDP?*
> 
> A political screed, published in the Globe and Mail, that pummels today’s NDP? Not a surprise.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2009)

The idea behind "progressiveim" is the all knowing State can regulate everything. Canada and in particular the UK have gone very far down this road already. Here is the downside:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248668478



> *If You're Reading This, You're Probably a Federal Criminal:*
> 
> Radley Balko has an interesting post discussing the ever-expanding reach of federal criminal law. As he points out, the problem is not just that federal criminal law has expanded to cover many areas that are better left to state or local governments. *It is that the scope of federal criminal law is so broad that the feds could probably find a crime to pin on almost any American adult.*
> 
> ...



We might note that the victims of our own CHRC and Provincial HRC's are politically and economically powerless, note how fast they backed down from Rogers Communications and how Ezra Levant has managed to use the court of public opinion to disable their prosecution of himself; how many of us have these options (or the writing skills of Mark Steyn?).


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2009)

So what happens when progressive ideology is seen to be bankrupt by the masses?

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/07/a_slow_burn_rad.html



> *A slow burn radicalisation*
> Philip Chaston (London)  European affairs
> 
> Although we have had one of the most savage downturns since the 1930s, an analysis of the crisis would conclude that we have still not met its full political or social effects. Indeed, the whole experience has been dampened by fiscal stimulus and an air of artificial normality. Economists still call for green shoots and implore the broken totem of consumer spending and house prices to merge, giving a new impetus to the economy. Salient voices say that the model is broken, but 'debt and spend' is only postponing the inevitable.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2009)

What do Progressives believe?

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/do_progressives.html



> *Do Progressives Believe This?*
> Arnold Kling
> 
> The Economics and Philosophy o...	From Poverty to Prosperity<...
> ...



Perhaps the greatest flaw in progressive thought is the ideas encapsulated in points 2, 3 and 4. What is an improved outcome for you may not be an improved outcome for me, indeed it might even be negative. Free markets allow everyone to make decisions based on their own decisions of what the optimal outcome is, and in general also reduces conflict through the efficient allocation of resources.

Generally, almost all sub optimal outcomes that progressives point out can be traced back to regulatory failure, in other words, the very powers of the State that are supposed to improve outcomes are causing the sub optimal outcomes being complained about.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2009)

Regulatory failure in action. Hiow many other unelected and overreaching government agencies are out there (and this agency makes our own HRC's look like pikers). You can imagine for yourself the consequences of having such an agency interfering with private property matters (or since this is California, their current economic record and pattern of outmigration from the state can be easily investigated) along with the entire slew of other bureaucratic and regulatory wieghts around the collective necks of Californians.

http://reason.com/news/show/135445.html



> *The California Coastal Commission vs. Its Critics*
> 
> The "most formidable player" in California land regulation demands a documentarian's raw footage
> Brian Doherty | August 17, 2009
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2009)

The reaction the the WSJ opinion piece is interesting. Especially considering that the CEO who wrote the piece owns "Whole Food", an organic supermarket chain. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/boycotting-the-boycotters/



> *BREITBART: Boycotting the boycotters
> *
> Andrew Breitbart
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2009)

Hilarious video by Steven Crowder on the subject of who the "real" astroturft brigade is. Interesting observation near the end on how the "Progressives" can recruit an army of Brownshirt's on university campus; they offer a starting wage of @ $30,000.

The other startling observation is the result of long term Democrat state and local  control in Michigan and Detroit; the city is being overrun with bears (and I thought the bear problem was confined to Gagetown....)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46X3J7ZFuk


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2009)

Forced urbanization? Read the comments section as well:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2009/08/reversing_our_suburban_commuti.html



> *Reversing our suburban, commuting lifestyle*
> 
> The National Research Council will release a congressionally mandated report next week that looks at "suburbanization" and how it impacts driving habits, reliance on petroleum, and greenhouse emissions.
> 
> ...





> "I absolutely ^%#@ing guarantee that not ONE of the people who wrote this report lives in an urban high-rise or walks to work."
> 
> Irrelevant. Rules are for the proles.
> 
> ...





> I'll wager they will conclude that moving to denser living will reduce CO2 emissions, without taking into account that whole picture. In reality, it won't, because:
> 
> 1. Denser population means greater heat island effect, meaning a need for more air conditioning (which uses electricity and hence creates CO2).
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2009)

Urbanization makes it much easier to impose law and order.

Washington DC, Detroit, Jane & Finch and East Hastings all prove that.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2009)

Ironically, decades of Democrat controlled civic governments in Detroit have not only de-urbanized the city, the outlying areas are starting to become overrun by bears....


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2009)

A great critique of "Progressiveism"

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/14/cass-sunstein-bill-of-rights-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html



> *Sunstein's Second Bill Of Rights?*
> Richard A. Epstein, 09.15.09, 12:00 AM EDT
> Why one is quite enough.
> 
> ...


 In a world of major uncertainty, these questions have no fixed answer. But in a political setting, we devised schemes then to assure living wages to autoworkers, only to see Roosevelt's rickety structure comes crashing down on our heads. But do we learn humility from failure? Of course not, if we think that now is the time to implement a regime of positive rights to health care--oops, to health care insurance--funded by punitive and self-destructive taxes on the rich. 

In short, there is no way to translate Roosevelt's--or Sunstein's vision--into sustainable social practices. But that's just what the First Bill of Rights can do with its bloodless protection of private property and freedom of contract, speech and religion. Now we can specify the correlative duties with precision: keep off the property of others, and don't meddle in their agreements. Follow these rules and you can stimulate investment and reward hard labor. By keeping our aspirations modest, we can keep our achievements high--which is why we don't want to undermine the first Bill of Rights by adopting the second. 

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall distinguished service professor of law, the University of Chicago; the Peter and Kirsten Bedford senior fellow, the Hoover Institution; and a visiting professor at New York University Law School. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. 
[/quote]


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A great critique of "Progressiveism"
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/14/cass-sunstein-bill-of-rights-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html




But it is also a devastating critique of e.g. Glenn beck and all the other _cretin conservatives_ who now dominate the American _right_'s new and old media.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But it is also a devastating critique of e.g. Glenn beck and all the other _cretin conservatives_ who now dominate the American _right_'s new and old media.



Well that is why we have the "Conservatism needs work" thread  ;D

MEanwhile, here are some more "Progressives" right here in Canada flying into a metaphysical fog....

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/so-the-national-capital-commission-doesnt-want-to-offend-communists-eh.html



> *So the National Capital Commission doesn’t want to offend communists, eh?*
> 
> A group called Tribute to Liberty (that has the support of most ethnic communities who have fled to Canada to get away from the ravages of communism) seeks to set up a memorial in Ottawa to commemorate the 100 million people who have been purposely killed by communist governments around the world. The various Holocaust museums in world capitals are clearly their model. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper “strongly supports” such this monument, apparently a majority of the members of the National Capital Commission (NCC), which oversees such things, is a little less enthusiastic.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2009)

Supporting the Constitution is a _conspiracy_? What will the Progressives think of next?

http://reason.com/blog/show/136201.html



> *The "Tenther" Smear*
> Radley Balko | September 21, 2009, 4:39pm
> 
> The American Prospect, The New Republic, and other left-of-center outlets are pushing the "Tenther" smear, aimed at lumping those who, horrors!, still take seriously the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in with the Obama birth certificate deniers and 9/11 truthers.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2009)

Self help evidently isn't an option:

http://reason.com/blog/show/136356.html



> *And Don't Let Us Catch You Being Neighborly Again*
> Radley Balko | September 26, 2009, 1:16pm
> 
> State bureaucrats threaten to fine, jail a Michigan woman for watching her neighbors' kids.
> ...



Notice how the other main effect of this is to break down the bonds between neighbours. After all, someone "snitched", now everyone will probably be wondering who did it and if they will be harassed by authorities because some neibourhood busybody takes a dislike to them.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2009)

A great essay by Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q3/view588.html#Tuesday



> *Fascism, Socialism, and Freedom*
> 
> Thomas Frank's weekly "Tilting Yard" column in the Wall Street Journal is said to present the most persuasive arguments the liberal opposition can make to the Wall Street Journal's generally conservative/libertarian editorial views. Alas, the arguments are often shallow, and there is no historical perspective at all. I show you as an example, today's essay "The Left Should Reclaim 'Freedom'".
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2009)

*The Solution* 
by Bertolt Brecht

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11calif.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss



> *Top Judge Calls Calif. Government ‘Dysfunctional’*
> By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
> 
> LOS ANGELES — In a rare public rebuke of state government and policies delivered by a sitting judge, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court scathingly criticized the state’s reliance on the referendum process, arguing that it has “rendered our state government dysfunctional.”
> ...



Reader William Harrington emails:

[





> In your post you comment that the judge is stating the obvious in calling California government dysfunctional. But it’s important to note that he apparently doesn’t consider the elected officials to be dysfunctional. Instead, he blames the voters. Government is dysfunctional in the judge’s eyes principally because California voters, using the referendum process, created a requirement of a supermajority to raise taxes and consequently “California’s lawmakers, and the state itself, have been placed in a fiscal straitjacket by a steep two-thirds-vote requirement — imposed at the ballot box — for raising taxes.”
> 
> It apparently didn’t occur to the judge that Californians might not want to make it easy for their legislature to enact confiscatory taxes, or that California’s fiscal mess could be resolved through cuts to profligate spending rather than to continue to shovel ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer dollars into government’s gaping maw. Rather, he sees the voters and the referendum process as impediments to unrestrained government spending.
> 
> It’s astonishing to see how many of our public officials appear to be firmly convinced that the people work for the government, and not the other way around.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2009)

Final proof that Fascism is the philosophy of the Left:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/26/alone/



> *Alone*
> 
> Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz surveys the British political scene and muses on whether the recent rise of the British National Party tells us anything about how a European society can be infatuated with the Left one year and switch over to fascism in a relatively short period.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2009)

Movies as a means of teaching....or not

http://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/hollywoods-missing-movies



> *Hollywood's Missing Movies*
> Why American films have ignored life under communism.
> 
> Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley from the June 2000 issue
> ...



More on link


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2009)

Without comment:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_left_and_terror.html



> *The left and terror*
> By J.R. Dunn
> 
> The Jihadis will return. We know this, in the same way that we know about death and taxes. Thanks in large part to the weakening of our defensive efforts under the new administration, there will be further attacks against this country's population, perhaps even worse than those of 9/11.  (This week's attack by Nidal Malik Hasan serves to underline the threat.)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2009)

A satirical(?) look:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=4309&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=



> *Local Man Claims Responsibility For Own Problems  *
> By Opiate of the People
> 11/7/2009, 10:42 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2009)

Take the Liberal Guilt quiz here  ;D ;D ;D

BTW, my score is a respectable 635.....


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2009)

Most sorry Enlightened One for I scored a paltry 610  > ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Nov 2009)

I am obviously mellowing for I scored 560. But that was without closing the disengaged eye.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Nov 2009)

345 - Do I need to increase this score in order to keep posting, or just do some sort of penance?


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Nov 2009)

Score 380.  I liked this question:

29. If your home is invaded by a burglar, how would you most likely respond?

Of course, I chose "I would aim for the head".   :threat:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2009)

The lowdown on this administration's attempt to create the "Minisry of Truth". Lots of embedded links in article

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/12/01/new-documents-reveal-white-house-nea-had-big-plans-in-motion-before-being-exposed/



> *NEW DOCUMENTS REVEAL: White House, NEA Had Big Plans In Motion Before Being Exposed*
> by Patrick Courrielche
> 
> Inciting is usually a telegraphed endeavor, with rhetoric yelled to an audience through a megaphone held by a coarse, weathered hand. But it can also be delivered subtly, with a soft voice and a wink, in the name of doing good.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2009)

Magical thinking guides progressives everywhere:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/



> *Government by Wishful Thinking*
> posted at 6:00 pm on December 6, 2009 by Steven Den Beste
> 
> Share on Facebook | printer-friendly Way back in the depths of time, Greek philosophers ended up with two basic and incompatible ways of looking at the universe. One way was materialism, which says that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2009)

Here we see how the "Progressives" treat young minds:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234906/State-schools-admit-push-gifted-pupils-dont-want-promote-elitism.html#



> *State schools admit they do not push gifted pupils because they don't want to promote 'elitism'*
> 
> By Laura Clark
> Last updated at 9:30 AM on 11th December 2009
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2009)

"A separate study has called for the introduction of academic selection at the age of 13 or 14 to identify pupils who excel at science"

Lessee - I emigrated to Canada in 1966 at age 10 - The last year at which (IIRC) students wrote a state-wide exam called "11+".  It was eliminated under Labour as it streamed children into either Academics (Grammar Schools) or Trades (Polytechnics) and was seen to foster Class Divisions. School leaving age at the time was 14.

So here we are 43 years later and Labour wants to reinstate the 11+ -  I do so love politicians - the memories of gnats and the foresight of moles.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2009)

Going from Red to Green. It is interesting to remember the "Red" Socialists managed to kill over 100 million human beings in the 20th century. The "Green" Socialists are pretty openly suggesting one billion + human being should be "culled" to save the environment...

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/12/11/the_new_socialism?page=full&comments=true



> *The New Socialism *
> by Charles Krauthammer
> 0 Charles Krauthammer's Email | Charles Krauthammer | Author Biography Read Comments | Post Comments
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2010)

A history lesson from Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2010/Q1/view604.html



> Actually, I don't need to do an essay today if you have access to National Review. The four articles on American Progressivism in the December 31 issue are very much worth your time. Alas, apparently you have to be a National Review subscriber to read them. I'd rather you subscribed here, but once you've done that...
> 
> Anyway, I recommend the articles. American Progressivism -- which had many similarities to Mussolini's Fascism (but not so much to the parody of Fascism, Germany's National Socialist German Worker's Party after Hitler was finished with it) -- has been very influential among American intellectuals and remains so although many of those influenced by it do not know they have been, and may know nothing of Progressivism. Hillary Clinton calls herself a Progressive, but it's pretty clear she doesn't know much about the Progressive movement.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2010)

Note how the same "effect" (providing money to keep a functioning economy going in Haiti and providing jobs) becomes good or bad depending on the "cause".

Via Instapundit 18 Jan 2010



> SO SOME PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY THAT CRUISE SHIPS ARE STILL DOCKING AT HAITI, outside the earthquake zone. But Haiti is also suffering from economic devastation, and this is a significant source of desperately needed income and foreign exchange. Stopping these visits might help rich people in developed countries feel better about themselves, but it won’t do anything for Haiti, which still needs money. We saw something like this after the Indian Ocean tsunami, too. The locals made clear that they really, really wanted tourists to come back, while Western pundits sneered at the idea of vacationing in a place where people were desperate for the business.
> 
> UPDATE: Reader Leo Jiang explains: “Not all money is the same. Rich people on cruise ships give Haiti money through evil capitalism. What they really need is handout money given though compassion. See the difference?”
> 
> ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Rob Crawford writes: “Leo Jiang almost has it. Rich people on cruise ships give Haiti money voluntarily through evil capitalism. What they really need is handout money confiscated by force from the middle class and given through government compassion.”


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2010)

The war against suburbia (listen to civic politicians in many larger Canadian cities and you hear the same things). Long article, more at link:

http://american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia



> *The War Against Suburbia*
> By Joel Kotkin
> Thursday, January 21, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2010)

A long article on Saul Alinsky and his influence on modern politics. Soem say Alinsky is a Communist, his political philosophy seems to resemble Nhilism more than anything else:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/53923/sec_id/53923



> *Saul Alinsky and the Rise of Amorality in American Politics*
> by D. L. Adams (January 2010)
> 
> Saul Alinsky and his "community organizing" methods and philosophy have had a profound influence on the politics of the United States. Recent history would suggest that this influence is just short of catastrophic.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2010)

The end result:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/16/the-green-death/



> *The Green Death*
> posted at 12:58 am on February 16, 2010 by Doctor Zero
> printer-friendly
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2010)

Your "betters" are speaking:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/columnists/article/ED-HINKLE19_20100218-181204/325227/



> *HINKLE—Politics: Proles Have Gotten Under the Egalitarians’ Skin*
> A. BARTON HINKLE TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
> Published: February 19, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2010)

For the uninformed, here is the complete list:
ALINSKY's RULES FOR RADICALS
"Personalize it"

Saul Alinsky's rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Feb 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For the uninformed, here is the complete list:
> ALINSKY's RULES FOR RADICALS
> "Personalize it"
> 
> ...



It occurs to me that some of them (2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12) apply, in various ways, to our experience in Afghanistan:

•	It was 'outside the experience' of most Canadians - at least of those below, say, 50 years of age (2);

•	We were forced to live up to our 'book of rules' by then enemy's apologists and by high-minded Canadians, alike (4);

•	Our people, the majority of Canadians, 'enjoyed' the safe, friendly operations in Kabul - Kandahar and combat came as a shock (6);

•	The whole thing became a drag by about 2005/06. By 2010 it is a boat anchor (7);

•	The 'pressure to win now or quit now,' from the media and the 'left' has been relentless (8);

•	We, the government and the CF, failed to keep the pressure on th opposition - in part because we, Canada, never committed enough combat power to Kandahar (10);

•	The 'negatives' have been pushed so hard, by the media and the left that they, those negatives, not the mission, became the dominant political issue (11); and

•	We never 'sold' the 'alternative' - nation building - to Canadians in part because most of the media treated Kandahar as a death watch. The only 'really good' story, for most journalists, was a ramp ceremony (12).


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2010)

You really can't make this stuff up:

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2010/02/15/atlanta-progressive-news-fires-reporter-for-trying-to-be-objective/



> Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective
> February 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm by Andisheh Nouraee in News
> 
> Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2010)

Objective reality catching up with another bastion of progressivism:

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-symptom-of-problem-detroit.html



> *Another symptom of the problem: Detroit school board President Otis Mathis can't write (seriously!)*
> 
> It's bad enough that Detroit Public Schools (DPS) graduates a pathetic 1 in 4 students, the worst in the nation. That obscene graduation rate is only that high because DPS commits 'social promotion' - the practice of passing students onto the next grade who are not ready, a practice that DPS emergency financial manager Robert Bobb has just ended (Detroit Public Schools Finally Ends "Social Promotion" - Passing Students That Can't Read Their Diplomas). That same Robert Bobb has been fighting with the teachers union and with the Detroit school board for academic control of the district. The school board is led by Otis Mathis, who wrote a mass email last August:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2010)

More surreal "reasoning". I would blame lazy and incurious bureaucrats, "crony capitalism" and regulatory failure (i.e. using regulations to direct investment money into the hands of political rent seekers [the CRA and Freddie Mac and Fannie May come to mind]) as the true causes of the crisis. You will note that the information was there all along (which supports the Efficient Market Hypothesis), but since regulators could not be bothered to look, and the bulk of investors believe the regulators find the investment sound (or are not sounding warnings), the train carried along even further down the track:

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2010/03/efficient-markets-after-the-financial-crisis.html



> *Efficient Markets after the Financial Crisis*
> Posted by Gordon Smith
> 
> In thinking about ways to integrate the financial crisis into the basic business associations course, the topic that keeps coming to mind is the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). What does the recent financial crisis tell us about EMH? And what are the implications of our newfound knowledge on market regulation?
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2010)

Change we can believe in indeed. Just shoot the messenger....

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/267291



> *Democrats Try to Smother the Bad News*
> Jennifer Rubin - 03.27.2010 - 9:00 AM
> 
> As I’ve noted during the week, the ObamaCare steamroller is already flattening the bottom lines of a number of large employers. Not content to see billions of losses pile up, the Democrats have now begun to berate employers for accurately accounting for the anticipated losses. The Wall Street Journal editors note:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2010)

OMG is about the only way to react to this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2758413



> *White & guilty*
> 
> 'Whiteness' workshop helps expose your inner racist
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (4 Apr 2010)

I read that yesterday and thought "The end is near!"


----------



## uptheglens (5 Apr 2010)

I just read the cut and paste posted, and I thought "This has _got_ to be an April Fools story", but I clicked the link and saw that it was printed on the 3rd. IMO, people like that are...... fcuk, I can't even put it into words...... all I know is that their fate should be painful and lingering. They would make perfect slaves, as they obviously think that they're _untermensch_ to their political desires. Dunces (ooooooh, is that racist? After all, he was a Scotsman, and they're _yattety, yattety, yattety_........


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

The Progressives vs the TEA party:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/04/16/out-of-the-box/



> *Out of the Box*
> 
> After the leaders of three major British political parties concluded the UK’s first-ever televised debate before a handpicked studio audience there was some regret over how yet another vulgar American political practice had corrupted British culture. To the reality show and the “idol” contests was now added the dismal American practice of selecting leaders in a political beauty contest. But that was to miss the point.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

And something to scare Progressives everywhere:

http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-believe-results-in-canada-would-be.html



> *I believe the results in Canada would Be the Same*
> 
> April 15, 2010
> The Battleground Poll and the Hiding Elites
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2010)

Frank Rich wrote an (unintentionally) hilarious op ed for the NYT; deconstructing it lays out a lot of what the "Progressives" have become:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/04/18/whistlin%e2%80%99-%e2%80%9cdixie%e2%80%9d-with-frank-rich/?singlepage=true



> *Whistlin’ “Dixie” with Frank Rich*
> 
> “Just Whistlin’ ‘Dixie’”:  that is (as The American Heritage Dictionary puts it), engaging in “unrealistically rosy fantasizing.” But “Dixie” is also a name for the American South, you know the magical “land of cotton”— and, never forget, the land of slavery.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2010)

Creeping socialism. an exerpt from a longer article:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama--15421



> *What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?*
> Jonah Goldberg
> May 2010
> 
> ...



I will say the sort of Socialist Mr Obama is is a Fascist, or more preciecly; a proponent of the Fascist Corporate State.


----------



## SeanNewman (23 Apr 2010)

The conversation goes like this:

"Do you agree with paying taxes to have government-funded schools?"  "Yes"
"Do you agree with paying taxes to have government-funded roads?"  "Yes"
"Do you agree with paying taxes to have government-funded police and fire services?"  "Yes"
"Do you agree with paying taxes to have government-funded defence?"  "Yes"
"Do you agree with paying taxes to have government-funded infrastructure?"  "Yes"
"Do you agree with paying taxes to have government-funded health care?"  "You socialist sonova...!!"

Pretty much every developed country in the world has some sort of tax = services for the many aspects, and that is all socialism.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2010)

Sigh

Taxation for services is not the issue. Certain services should be provided by the State i.e. monopoly of force (military and police) and inpartial arbitration (the Courts).

After that, many, if not all of the services on the list can be provided by the private sector. In the past, roads, schools, infrastructure (even large scale infrastructure like railways and canals), healthcare and communications were *exclusively* provided by the private sector. In some cases, should the State decide there was a strategic rational for certain items, they might purchase the service or infrastructure (usually by poviding opportunities for open bids on the good or service desired). Canada's first railroad was built under this sort of arrangement (no railway=no British Columbia as part of Confederation), and soon after there was an explosion of railway building by private investors seeking to capitalize on the new markets and opportunities. On a smaller scale, toll roads preceeded "Interstate" highways by centuries, and even the ones built in the early 20tyh centuyry in the United States were not rivaled until the creation of the Interstate Defence highway system in the 1950's. The next step down would be municipalities which have private garbage collection or bus services, generally at a far lower dollar cost that comparable "public" garbage collection and bus services. (London paid something on the order of $60/ton for public garbage collection vs Kitchener which paid $35/ton for private garbage collection based on figures from several years ago, I doubt the ratio has changed much since.

Governemnt funded healthcare is the most intrusive example yet of overweening State power into your and my private lives. Think of the many, many, many rules and regulations designed to limit our options and freedoms in the name of "public health". We might agree that some are actually useful, but I can and will argue that similar effeccts could be achieved with greater compliance and lower costs through private enterprise. Example: seatbelt and helmet laws. I would say that if Insurance companies were justified and able to adjust premiums or deny coverage based on the policy holder's failure to use common saftey devices, then people would be wearing saftey devices in a big hurry.  Cost to the taxpayer = $0. Freed up police resources could be use for investigating and preventing crimes of violence against people and property.

There are many, many threads here discussing these points, so I leave you to the search function so I don't have to rehash old arguments.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2010)

Party vs Government. I admit I had never seen the argument parsed this way before, but once you look at it it makes a lot of sense:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/more_than_just_government.html 



> *More Than Just Government (American Thinker)*
> 
> By Bruce Walker
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2010)

While not strictly speaking "Progressiveism" (Bureaucracy existed in Ancient Egypt and Sumaria, after all), progressives have found a powerful ally to enable and enforce their schemes by increasing the scale and scope of an unelected and unaccountable bureacracy:

http://blog.american.com/?p=13936



> *Bureaucracy and Tyranny*
> By Alex J. Pollock
> 
> May 12, 2010, 2:51 pm
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2010)

More "progressive" manipulation of media and public opinion:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-trouble-with-wikipedia-a-cautionary-tale/?singlepage=true



> *The Trouble with Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale*
> 
> In February, PJM published an article on German government subsidies of English-language cinema. Why is an American translator from Berlin not allowing the information to appear on Wikipedia?
> July 1, 2010 - by John Rosenthal
> ...


----------



## TimBit (2 Jul 2010)

> Governemnt funded healthcare is the most intrusive example yet of overweening State power into your and my private lives. Think of the many, many, many rules and regulations designed to limit our options and freedoms in the name of "public health". We might agree that some are actually useful, but I can and will argue that similar effeccts could be achieved with greater compliance and lower costs through private enterprise. Example: seatbelt and helmet laws. I would say that if Insurance companies were justified and able to adjust premiums or deny coverage based on the policy holder's failure to use common saftey devices, then people would be wearing saftey devices in a big hurry.  Cost to the taxpayer = $0. Freed up police resources could be use for investigating and preventing crimes of violence against people and property.



Oh well... seatbelt and helmet laws. My favorite examples. Ok please deconstruct this.
Option 1: This is about the state. How does being told/forced to do something by the private sector makes you free-er? That one boggles my mind. The cops pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt - tyranny. The insurer refuses your claim because you didn't - good business. That my friend, is ideology, not a cold hard fact. You have yours, others have different ones.
2: This is about freedom. Ever heard of limited rationality? It is a very interesting, logical theory that seems to demonstrate that one cannot know everything. In that case, it is logical that an organization, i.e. an insurer or, surprise, the state, would be able to pool more knowledge demonstrating that something is dangerous, i.e. not wearing a helmet. You would never be able, as an individual, to gather all the stats to know that for a fact. Same thing, say, pesticids. Can you test every single one to determine their toxic potential? No. The state can, for a minute amount of $$$/person. Companies also can, but would you trust that? Now that an organization has pooled knowledge and proven it, it is much easier to reinforce, reward or punish behaviours that minimize/increase the risk.

And we also both know that some of  the happiest and/or more economically successful countries on the planet are mixed economies, like Scandinavian ones or German economy. Again, balance, the key ingredient. They seem to be living with "infringements" on their freedom or liberties alright.

In the end, libertarianism is an interesting idea not shared by a lot of people. And, this is democracy. Bad ideas shared by many rule.


----------



## TimBit (2 Jul 2010)

I also forgot to add to my argument, which is just for debate's sake as we all know:

The infamous Quebec snow tire law, a favorite irk or Quebec libertarians. They argue, quite rightly so (I believe), that increasing insurance premiums for those who don't put on snow tires would have had the same effect, put money in the economy, freed police resources, and all that without the restrictive state-imposed deprivation of freedom. I think it's an excellent argument, but...

1. Why didn't the insurers do it? They could have, but didn't. Therefore, maybe the State is in a better place for doing it.
2. How do you enforce it? I mean, "sure I'll put them up" he told his insurer. Really? How do you verify that? If the guy has an accident and didn't have them he's not covered? Or, the garage has to file a conformity report. What then if you change your own tires at home, by yourself? Do you have to send a conformity proof? That, again, does not seem free-er.

Again, I really am not trying to draw hatred or fire, even though I will. This is a good discussion, I think.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2010)

TimBit:

Not firing here.  But perhaps a bit of sparring is in order.

I believe that Thucydides underlying point is about freedom of choice and whether the individual has a right to make an idiot of themselves, or (in the best/worst case) improve the gene pool by absenting their heirs from consideration as a a result of their folly.

The difference between the state decreeing "thou shalt wear a helmet" and an insurance company decreeing the same is that I can choose to go to an insurer with more liberal policies.  Or I can choose to go to an insurer that will charge higher premiums.  Or I can choose to "self-insure" and cover the costs of the consequences (including funeral and estate fees).

Why does the state mandate that drivers must wear seatbelts and yet remain silent on wearing helmets on ski-slopes?  For that matter why does the state permit ski-slopes?  Or back country bicycling? Or parachuting? Or snowmobiling? Or 16 year old girls to go sailing around the world on their own?

In most of those cases high risk activities put unnecessary demands on state services that were designed to benefit those that toiled in dangerous conditions to gather resources for the state - and its people - whether those resources were centrally collected by the state (a 100% tax rate) and redistributed by the state or collected by individuals (a 0% tax rate) and redistributed by the market.

Shouldn't the state outlaw bicycles with knobby tires, snowboards and water skis because they encourage people to indulge in risky activities that potentially deprive the state of a productive citizen and impose a cost on the rest of society when the risk becomes reality?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2010)

Timbit, you are actually talking about the Local Knowledge Problem; which demonstrates that the State is in a _far worse_ position to make wide ranging decisions or control large aspects of the economy, since no one can know all the facts in any detail or reasonable amount of time. You can make personal decisions which affect you, the amount of local knowledge is far more manageable and positive and negative consequences accrue largely to you.

The trivial proof is comparing free market economies with "command" economies (the most extreme examples being comparing the Republic of Korea with the DPRK). So long as the State remains outside the realm of the market and confines itself to protecting the people and providing an impartial arbitration service to settle disputes, then personal and economic freedom can reign. Historical examples show smaller polities with high degrees of freedom out competing far larger and richer polities; Athens vs the Persian Empire; Elizabethan England vs the Spanish Empire; Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta vs the Ottoman Empire or the Asian "Tiger" economies competing against China.

Progressivism fails since it ignores the local knowledge problem and assumes (against all evidence) that people are largely interchangeable and predictable.


----------



## wannabe SF member (4 Jul 2010)

Thucydides, you say that the state should provide impartial mediation. In your opinion, does that mean that Lobbying like we see in the US is an illiberal practice?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jul 2010)

I don't believe "Lobbying" to be illiberal.

According to the 1689 "Bill of Rights", which we inherited, every individual (and corporations are individuals) has a right to petition the crown for any purpose at all,  whether that be for a redress of grievance, a request to change the law, or to attempt to influence a contract award.

The issue, for me, is two-fold.

First: that all transactions and communications should be considered in the public domain and transparent (and in that regard a business should expect to foreswear proprietary rights to secrecy when seeking a public contract).

Second: that the "Crown" should be limited in the number of public contracts it awards as each award impacts on the economy as the Crown competes for resources with the citizenry thereby driving up the cost of the resources, including money.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2010)

I'm more with Kirkhill on this, so long as the process is open and transparent, and liited in size and scope, lobbying and government contracts for the goods and services the State needs to provide State services (i.e. buying police cars, building courts and prisons, paying and equipping service people) is perfectly logical and moral.

Lobbying by providing lawmakers with below market mortgages (Friends of Angleo) or other underhanded tricks is not, and should be exposed and punished with the full force of the Law. Since public trust and funds are involved, swift police action andlong prison sentences should be demanded whenever shuch things are uncovered (not the length of time between the exposure of ADSCAM and the RCMP investigations; even now, no politician has yet to face Justice).

As for impartial arbitration, that really is a reference to the Rule of Law and the provisions of an impartial court to mediate disputes (i.e. civil, contract and commercial law) and criminal justice (so there can be no personal or family vendettas or vigilante action [sorry Batman])


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jul 2010)

Ok please deconstruct this.
>How does being told/forced to do something by the private sector makes you free-er?

Firstly, the "private sector" might offer the option of insuring higher risks for higher premiums, which negates the notion of being "forced" to do anything.  Secondly, a private insurer might deny a claim after the fact of an injury - which you might never have; the government will fine you right now and has created grounds for further intrusions into everyday activities.

For "ignorance of the law is no excuse" to be a sensible legal principle, the law in respect of everyday activities must be comprehensible and common sense to a person of average intelligence and education.

Here is the essential problem of "freedom": for some people, "freedom" doesn't extend much further than the privacy of the bedroom and the liberty to ingest recreational chemicals.  When they have a misadventure, they want the public purse to pay to make it better and are alarmed at the possibility that other, irresponsible people - users of plain tobacco, gourmands and gluttons, motorsport enthusiasts, etc - might have drained the treasury.  The problem is multidirectional - one person's enthusiasm is another's unnecessary indulgence which needs to be forbidden or restrained by law for no reason other than simply to cut public costs.  "Freedom" doesn't mean "proof from consequences".


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2010)

An interesting article on the Progressive mythology:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/08/a-momentary-lapse-of-reason/



> *A Momentary Lapse of Reason*
> Share
> posted at 8:52 pm on July 8, 2010 by Ed Driscoll
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2010)

More on the coming divide. Hyper credentialism, centralization and ever expanding State power vs disintermediation, local knowledge and response:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html



> *The Neo-Reactionaries*
> 
> Angelo M. Codevilla writes,
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2010)

Revenge of the Bureaucrats (via SDA)

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014555.html



> *Fearless advice you can't refuse*
> 
> In the Ottawa Citizen, U of Ottawa professor Errol Mendes expresses his thinly-veiled outrage over Stephen Harper's attempts to wrest control of public policy from a deeply-embedded shadow government of unelected bureaucrats:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2010)

An unsettling thought:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/fascism_as_sadism.html



> August 29, 2010
> *Fascism as Sadism*
> By James Lewis
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Sep 2010)

Sadism isn't necessarily a defining characteristic of fascism.

It's not that I care to defend fascism, but by allowing people to evoke sadism and militarism and some of the other really nasty aspects of extremist forms of government and then claim or insinuate those are what define fascism*, we allow the less flashy fascists to propagate and claim they aren't really fascists.

[Add: *Or, to define away other -isms which exhibit sadism, militarism, etc as fascism and "not really communism" or "not really socialism" in attempts to whitewash the practical - as in human - application and implementation of the other systems.]


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2010)

Loss of "status" is probably as big of a motivator as loss of taxpayer funded perques; maybe even more so:

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/09/12/palin-pops-the-lefts-status-sphere/



> *Palin Pops the Left’s Status-Sphere*
> September 12, 2010 - by Ed Driscoll
> 
> Tom Wolfe’s whole career has been defined by his search for new status-spheres to explore, from the worlds of test pilots and NASCAR races, to the self-described “Masters of the Universe” on Wall Street in the mid-1980s. This is how he defined what makes up a status-sphere to an interviewer in 1980:
> ...



Disintermediation will make far reaching changes to society (beyond just toppling the old "left-right" division)


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2010)

Remember when sending your paycheck to the government was only a joke?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847



> *UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First*
> Published: Monday, 20 Sep 2010 | 7:57 AM ET
> Text Size
> By: Robin Knight
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2010)

History. There are still people who will speak for the dead:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/september/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310.html



> *Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was it genocide?*
> 
> When it comes to use of the word "genocide," public opinion has been kinder to Stalin than Hitler. But one historian looks at Stalin's mass killings and urges that the definition of genocide be widened.
> Jack Hubbard
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2010)

Another view of how the "Progressives" operate. From experience I know that the sudden reveal ("When _I_ was in Afghanistan..." or similar statements) has about the same effect as dropping a grenade in the room; "they" have been chatting about war crimes, pipelines across Afghanistan or whatever with the implicit assumption that everyone in the room thinks and feels the same way. When confronted by a differing opinion or factual evidence,they are unhinged, they literally react as if_ it never occured to them_ that there are different opinions or what they are saying is not backed by factual evidence.

Since most "Progressive" tropes are based on the idea of "group" rights and enforced by group think, the sudden appearance of large numbers of people who do not fit their definitions of patterns of belief must be very unsettling:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/%E2%80%98please%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98thank-you%E2%80%99-said-the-left%E2%80%99s-bogeyman/?singlepage=true



> *‘Please’ and ‘Thank You,’ Said the Left’s Bogeyman*
> 
> Posted By David Steinberg On October 4, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 8 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2010)

Progressives fall into the pit of their own arrogance. As Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) suggests, these people are not educated, rather they are "credentialed", hence their inability to recognize basic facts of American history, or even do a quick Google search to fact check (although if they were to use Wikipedia for fact checking, they would have a nasty surprise):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hubris-nemesis-and-partying-like-its-1773/?singlepage=true



> *Hubris, Nemesis, and Partying Like It’s 1773*
> The hunters get captured by the game.
> October 21, 2010 - by Neo-Neocon
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2010)

On the origins of Political Correctness:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/political-correctness-and-the-thought-police/?singlepage=true



> *Political Correctness and the Thought Police*
> 
> Posted By Gary Wickert On November 1, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Culture, Free Speech, History, Opinion, Politics, Race Issues, Religion | 3 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2010)

Thucydides, 

Given the number of highly educated Baby Boomers (of a certain age) railing against us morons that don't appreciate their greatness (Obama, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Heinbecker, Miller, Fowler - Iggy's sensibly keeping quiet but his supporters aren't) it seems that there may not be much need to further deconstruct progressive thought, except in a forensic sense, as they themselves seem to be deconstructing.

I think though, I will give my fellow, though highly credentialled and thus arguably superior, baby-boomers the benefit of the doubt and adopt their tactics.  Coming from such well-educated sources they must be a proven cure.

The next time that I run into a balky customer that decides he likes my competitor's product I will jump on his desk, berate him for being an ignoramus that doesn't understand the scientific beauty of my solution and accuse him of being religious.  I am confident that that will improve my sales no end.  Consider the expert quality of the examples I am being given.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2010)

I have changed my mind about that sales job for you..... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2010)

U of T demonstrates how the "Progressive" world view continues by accepting and publishing an anti-Semetic "master's thesis". If that can pass supposedly critical scrutiny, imagine what else is being passed , praised and supported by these institutions:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/u-of-toronto-posts-anti-semitic-tripe/?singlepage=true



> *U. of Toronto Posts Anti-Semitic Tripe*
> The school accepts and posts a revolting master's thesis.
> November 19, 2010 - by P. David Hornik
> Share |
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2010)

What the Left is becoming:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=614D156E-0B19-FA2C-D0D7D6DB76388F79



> *How Liberalism self-destructed*
> By: Joel Kotkin
> November 19, 2010 04:29 AM EST
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2010)

I've just finished reading a book that I recently came into possession: a 1913 edition of John Galt's "The Provost".

John Galt is John Galt of the Canada Lands Company, Galt and Guelph Ontario and a prolific author.  His son was Alexander Galt of Confederation and Lethbridge, Alberta.

He came from Irvine, Ayrshire, in Scotland and he had a "radical" "liberal" bent.

The Provost is a position in many Scottish towns broadly equivalent to mayor, in the same sense that the Governor-General is broadly equivalent to a president.  Mayors and presidents are generally elected officials.  Provosts and Governors-General were traditionally appointed to the position by the Crown's authority.

"The Provost" describes the rise of a young chap on the make who sets up a clothing store for the smart set in Irvine and then cajoles his way on to a position with the town council.  He then finagles his way up through various offices to the position of Provost.  All along the way he manages to use various public funded projects to ensure that his own interests are furthered - donations of town land, free walls to enclose them, free houses built by the contractor refurbishing the church....minor gratuities no more than his due for the exemplary and impartial service he rendered the community.

Unfortunately he gets caught up in the tenor of the times and has to negotiate the democratizing tendencies of the American and French revolutions and the subsequent Napoleonic wars. One of the most powerful influences, interestingly enough, were the militias - or Volunteers.  The early volunteers were called out by the Crown to repel marauding Frenchmen at the time of the French Revolution.  The second set of Volunteers forced themselves on the Crown at the time of the Napoleonic Unpleasantries.  The government was not  particularly grateful to have bunches of organized and armed commoners scattered around the country.  They might be inclined to reconsider their offers to the Crown and act in their own interests.  So the Crown did a Ralph Klein.  On perceiving a parade it ran hard to get to its accustomed position of leadership at the front.

The sharp young commoner, th Provost, piked up on this strategy and soon discovered that democracy could be a marvellous thing.  It opened up many new tactical channels which could be used to advantage.  Consequently he managed to retain his position as Provost and continued claiming town lands, getting them walled at the towns expense and ultimately organizing his retirement party and his pension.  The book was written in 1821.

It seems to me that damall has changed.  Those in power strive to stay in power.  If staying in power means joining the opposition, so be it.  Once on the Board you can redirect the institution to your advantage.  Ultimately the label the institution carries bears no resemblance to the intentions of the originators.  It becomes a haven for the powerful.

Or, in the words of that inveterate shape changer, Henry III of Navarre, the protestant Basque who wanted to become  King Henry IV of France, "Paris is worth a Mass" - thus founding that highly principled Bourbon dynasty of which the Stewarts were so fond.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2010)

"I can" is good. "You must" is the use of force:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/27/when-i-can-becomes-you-must/



> *When “I Can” Becomes “You Must”*
> 
> 
> Breitbart’s news site has an interesting article about how nearly 2000 very rich people are lobbying the Democrats to raise taxes on “the rich”, defined as those people who make over $250,000 a year. Laying aside the issue of whether a small business owner who reports that income on an individual tax return (and there are quite a few of those folks) is “rich, I’d like to issue a challenge to the wealthy letter-signers who feel it’s okay to force other people to live under their moral code.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2010)

This needs no coment: http://dmefat.blogspot.com/2010/08/despotism-made-easy_24.html


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2010)

The way the "Left" goes silent on things like "honour killing" and other human rights abuses is very disturbing. What do they believe will happen to society or to them should a resurgent militant Islam come to dominate our society or world?:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-with-evil-the-unholy-alliance-between-islamic-jihad-and-utopian-socialism/?singlepage=true



> *The ‘Unholy Alliance’ Between Islamic Jihad and Utopian Socialism*
> A review of Jamie Glazov’s Showdown With Evil.
> December 5, 2010 - by David Solway
> Share |
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2010)

Ever wonder why it is so hard to talk to "Progressives?"

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/11/30/the-ghost-in-the-machine/



> *The Ghost in the Machine*
> 
> Closed loops, then…
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2010)

The meltdown of Progressiveism is drawing lots of interesting comment and analysis. Of course, what may come after the collapse of Progressiveism is hard to say, in the chaos of a sudden collapse of the Social Welfare State (animated as it is by Progressive ideals) we may see a desperate turn to the "man on the white horse" rather than the rebuilding of "Classical Liberal" principles:

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/12/11/rage-inside-the-machine/?singlepage=true



> *Rage Inside the Machine*
> December 11, 2010 - by Ed Driscoll
> 
> Back in mid-2008, Jim Geraghty spotted the white-hot anger that Obama-supporting “progressives” aimed towards Hillary Clinton, her husband Bill, Hillary-supporting Geraldine Ferraro, and even Hillary’s voters in the presidential primaries, and wondered just what was going on. This was only a year and half after the left attempted to sandbag Joe Lieberman, going so far as to picture him in blackface at the Huffington Post, just six years after nominating him to be Al Gore’s veep. And it was months before Sarah Palin became a household name, in part because of the left’s wrath being directed at her. One expects the tolerant, progressive, diversity-obsessed left to cling bitterly towards its anger to conservatives, but not towards each other — and certainly not with this level of vitriol.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2010)

It is all about power. The Internet allowed people to disintermediate news, economic activity and political activity, reducing the power of centralized organizations and leading to massive reordering of the political and economic landscape. The old powers that be are fighting back by trying to control the internet. (I might note that on the Future Military Technologies thread, there are many examples of high bandwidth wireless technologies with long range and coverage that might allow a Samizdat Internet to develop. Net anonymity software, P2P filesharing, servers in the back of vans and other means to evade the Internet censors will also flourish)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?mod=rss_opinion_main



> *The Net Neutrality Coup*
> The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.
> By JOHN FUND
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Dec 2010)

The Green agenda gets results alright:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/manmade_famine_in_america.html



> *Manmade famine in America*
> Thomas Lifson
> 
> It seems inconceivable, but people in America are going hungry en masse due to a famine caused by political authorities. Fresno, California is not yet a sister city of Kiev, Ukraine, but the two cities, capitals of rich agricultural regions, share a history of mass hunger caused by central governments indifferent to the suffering of their people, in the pursuit of ideological goals. Investor's Business Daily explains:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jan 2011)

A breif discussion of Anarchism:

http://moelane.com/2011/01/01/rsrh-blackshirts-on-the-march/



> *Blackshirts on the march.*
> 
> I have to take issue with the title of Richard Fernandez’s article on the coming, temporary rise of anarchism within the Left (“The Crusade of Innocents“): there’s nothing particularly innocent about the anti-globo anarchist blackshirt Left.  Then again, there’s nothing particularly ‘anarchistic’ about those fools, either: if you want proper anarchism (not to mention a more moral one) go look up the more… committed… anarcho-capitalist libertarians, who at least have the saving grace of not routinely going out and throwing Molotov cocktails at the police.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2011)

Propagandists who manipulate the legacy media to promote the "narrative" and supress other voices:

http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/2011/01/journolist-membership.html



> *The JournoList Membership*
> Here is a long list of those people who belonged to JournoList and the news organizations they were/are employed by.  POLITICO.com has a number of them...which shows just how far left Politico has gone.  When it was launched it was a centrist new reporting organization, but it has become yet another MSM style mouth peice for the left.  The shooting last week in Tucson is merely another nail in it's MSM leftist coffin.
> 
> JournoList: 151 Names Confirmed (with News Organizations)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2011)

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a "how to" manuel:

http://generalbrock.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/30000-school-children-recorded-as-racists-and-homophobes-for-life/



> *30,000 school children recorded as racists and homophobes for life*
> January 19, 2011 by generalbrock
> 
> It seems that recently, progressives are no longer content just having their agendas’s ‘accepted’ by society. More and more, they are going out of their way to find people that disagree with their agenda, and either punish them through quasi-legal methods or attempts to label them as a racist, homophobic, or any of the other dreaded ‘isms’.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2011)

Governor Palin has been a lightning rod of Progressive hatred all out of proportion to her actual standing and achievements (something like Obi-Wan warning "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.") The question is "why?". Here is a possible answer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091962633206964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



> *Palinoia, the Destroyer*
> What's behind the left's deranged hatred.
> 
> By JAMES TARANTO
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2011)

First page of a long article. "Progressives" have moved off the reservation with the assertation that Human Rights=Imperialism:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/01/21/human-rights-imperialism/



> *Human Rights Imperialism: Leftist Satire or Moral Collapse?*
> January 21, 2011 - by Zombie
> Page 1 of 4  Next ->   View as Single Page
> Share |
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2011)

The curtain keeps getting pulled back. Notice how the actual content of Piven's talk is never discussed by the legacy media, rather the narrative is to attack the messenger. So there is no mistake or misunderstanding, I will highlight Piven's own words in bold:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028190.php



> *The Left's Tucson Strategy: Stage Two*
> Share107   Share Post   Print
> January 22, 2011 Posted by John at 6:18 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (24 Jan 2011)

Wait, so Piven, an academic on the fringe of any sort of movement, makes some comments (something called Constitutionally-protected speech, incidentally), and it's okay to excuse people who send her death threats?  

Okay. Just checking.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The curtain keeps getting pulled back. Notice how the actual content of Piven's talk is never discussed by the legacy media, rather the narrative is to attack the messenger. So there is no mistake or misunderstanding, I will highlight Piven's own words in bold:
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028190.php


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2011)

Kindly re read the highlighted portion.

If you know and understand history, Piven is explicitly calling for a violent uprising (and just to refresh your memory, the Greek "riots" resulted in the murder of several people, killed during an arson attack on a bank branch). Sedation and calling for the violent overthrow of the government is NOT protected speech, however rather than discussing the content of the speech (and suggesting the appropriate means of dealing with it; i.e. a long prison sentence), the Legacy media chooses to attack the person who highlighted her speech.

Priorities, don't you know.....


----------



## Redeye (24 Jan 2011)

You'll have to forgive me for wanting the entire context of what she said, and I notice that even if that's exactly what she said, that in no way justifies death threats.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jan 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sedation and calling for the violent overthrow of the government is NOT protected speech...



I think you wanted to use "sedition" there. A bunch of sedated folks are unlikely to overthrow anything.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think you wanted to use "sedition" there. A bunch of sedated folks are unlikely to overthrow anything.



Luckily for most of us, sheeple _are_ "sedated". Unfortunatly spellcheck does not understand intentions


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2011)

I'm going to do my best to feign being shocked that a right wing nutcase like Beck would rip a tiny part of an editorial out of its context, but the reality is of course that there's no reason whatsoever to be surprised by that.

The entire piece is here:

http://www.thenation.com/article/157292/mobilizing-jobless

And it's worth reading.  I don't really agree with Piven's views, but in reading the whole thing and her hearing her subsequent comments it's clear that what she is advocating is an organization of the disenfranchised to demand action that will improve their lot - which is essentially what a strike is.  Read with the complete piece (in particular, the last paragraph as a whole about the Civil Rights movement) it's clear that while Piven thinks is ideal is a major, attention grabbing, nationally organized but locally focused movement, there's nothing that especially suggests an affinity for violence unless you read one line of a large article.  Is her point of view rather radical?  Sure.  Do I agree with her?  Not really (other than her highlighting that the "solutions" proposed by politicians are nonsense).  Is she calling for some massive violent revolution?  No.  Not even remotely.

By contrast, those who make death threats against her, spurred on by the vile rhetoric of the deluded cult figure Beck, have no excuse.  Also from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/157900/glenn-beck-targets-frances-fox-piven


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jan 2011)

Small Dead Animals  http://smalldeadanimals.com/

Watch: How Liberal Journalists Think


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2011)

>You'll have to forgive me for wanting the entire context of what she said, and I notice that even if that's exactly what she said, that in no way justifies death threats.

Do you have a nomination for a person who defended death threats?

>but in reading the whole thing and her hearing her subsequent comments it's clear that what she is advocating is an organization of the disenfranchised to demand action that will improve their lot 

And how do those demands for actions usually turn out in practice?  Are we supposed to pretend that she meant her comments in the context of some sort of idealized frictionless universe where protests by even relatively well-off people such as Greek civil servants and British students don't turn violent?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2011)

Frankly, this is like dropping a hand grenade into a barrel of fish  >

From Instapundit 25 Jan 11:



> PROFESSOR ANN ALTHOUSE DELIVERS A SOUND THRASHING: “History tells us” something that history doesn’t tell us, say sociologists stumbling to protect Frances Fox Piven.
> 
> So vigorous debate about Piven’s ideas is really important, but it better be the right kind of debate by the right kind of people and most certainly not that terrible, terrible man Glenn Beck. She’s very lofty and serious, so, while she should be challenged, she must be challenged only by lofty and serious individuals, and of course, Glenn Beck is not one. . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (26 Jan 2011)

And this idiotic piece repeats the "left wing radical" canard, immediately rendering it pretty much too stupid to be worth reading.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jan 2011)

Piven is one of the two advocates of the well-known Cloward-Piven strategy.  A strategy calling for the deliberate induction of a political / economic / social breakdown or crisis is certainly radical.  A strategic aim of a national minimum income is certainly leftist.   "Left wing radical" isn't a canard; it's an accurate truthful description.


----------



## Redeye (27 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And this idiotic piece repeats the "left wing radical" canard, immediately rendering it pretty much too stupid to be worth reading.



Except in this case from the article making specific reference to Jared Lee Loughner.  Referring to him as a left wing radical is idiotic.  I  incidentally wouldn't even refer to him as a right wing radical, because despite there being more evidence of that than his being left wing, I don't think it mattered - he was just plain nuts.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jan 2011)

Seen.  I thought the reference was to Piven.  Agree; Loughner has no ideology which is discernably coherent except to another mind operating in the same fashion as his.  Lindgren's argument doesn't make sense with the invalid premise.

But there is an overlying oddity: the TP, which mustered at its gatherings in an overwhelmingly orderly, peacable, and tidy manner and then went about effecting change through the primary and electoral systems, is castigated by many as an irrational aberration rather than the example to follow.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2011)

More on "hateful" political speech. Eliminationist rhetoric embedded in popular culture?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110100251027150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



> *Curt Olds, the Lord High Executioner*
> Eliminationist rhetoric against Sarah Palin: a production of the Missoula Children's Theater.
> By JAMES TARANTO
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (29 Jan 2011)

Once again, the Right clutches at straws to find a moral equivalency on the "left" for the likes of Glenn Beck, etc.  And once again, it looks really rather ridiculous.

So a play put on by a school in a small town in Montana includes an off-colour joke about Sarah Palin (who, as far as politicians go, is something of a joke, though she's getting rather well upstaged by Michele Bachmann lately), and I'm supposed to believe that is as serious a problem as various media outlets churning out what essentially amounts to agitprop?  That's really how the WSJ is making their argument?

Being the butt of jokes, like Palin was in the article as it continues, is a part of public life.  Quite honestly, the jokes made about her, as about any politician, are based on her real life traits, and there is nothing wrong with that.  That's been a basis of political humour for a very long time.  Palin, like all politicians, and her supporters are going to have to deal with the fact that people don't like her.  A lot of people.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on "hateful" political speech. Eliminationist rhetoric embedded in popular culture?
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110100251027150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2011)

So politicians using words like "target" a district for voters to upend an incumbent is hateful and violent rhetoric, while calling for Governor Palin to be beheaded because "no one would miss her" should be treated as a joke?

Legal scholars can argue what the exact definition of calling for an identifiable living person to be murdered is.  If there were people publicly calling for Redeye to be beheaded because "no one would miss him", I doubt you would take or treat this as a "joke".

I think you've just summed yourself up.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Palin, like all politicians, and her supporters are going to have to deal with the fact that people don't like her.  A lot of people.




And her detractors, such as yourself, are going to have to deal with the fact that people do like her. A lot of people.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Jan 2011)

The Left are always Right.

Time never well spent discussing anything with the left.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2011)

To true R62. Despite mountains of documentary evidence across decades of time, we are expected to close our eyes or only look where the "narrative" points. (No one has ever disputed what Piven ACTUALLY said, its just "move along, nothing to see here". Raising loud distractions and misdirection to take attention away from the content relives them from having to actually debate the content.)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/clarices_pieces_she_wouldnt_ev.html



> *Clarice's Pieces: She Wouldn't Harm a Fly*
> By Clarice Feldman
> 
> Frances Fox Piven is a sociology professor who for four decades has advocated violent social upheaval as a means of effecting the radical change she believes in.  Her notion of appropriate change is quite obviously the displacement of the productive class and elected public leaders in favor of people like -- ahem -- herself.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (31 Jan 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> And her detractors, such as yourself, are going to have to deal with the fact that people do like her. A lot of people.



Yep, people do.  About 20% of the American population in a poll I read not too long ago.  And what's even better is that the more she talks, the more she acts the way she does, the further she gets from any actual shot at power and influence.  That's why I'm really enjoying the "Democrats for Palin" movement I've seen start up (mainly as a social media joke), because the harder she tries, the better Obama's chances for a second term look.


----------



## Redeye (31 Jan 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So politicians using words like "target" a district for voters to upend an incumbent is hateful and violent rhetoric, while calling for Governor Palin to be beheaded because "no one would miss her" should be treated as a joke?



Actually, I have no problem with "targeting" a district, not at all.  I've seen the Palin poster blamed initially for the shooting, and it was pretty innocuous in and of itself, and I think the counterswing is going a little ridiculous with political correctness.  However, when I listen to rhetoric spouted by so many on the right, whether it's Glenn "Shoot them in the head" Beck talking about some insidious conspiracy to bring violent revolution to America, or Sharron "Second Amendment Remedies" Angle saying - well - all sorts of stupid things, I start to worry about the aggregate effects.  This sort of thing is not productive discourse, it in no way moves the political process forward, and it distracts from any real discussion of how to fix the myriad of very real problems that are faced by the USA - by Canada even (though I think we do a much better job of a civil discussion here), etc.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Legal scholars can argue what the exact definition of calling for an identifiable living person to be murdered is.  If there were people publicly calling for Redeye to be beheaded because "no one would miss him", I doubt you would take or treat this as a "joke".



As far as a comment in a play in a tiny town in Montana, I don't think any legal scholar would try to advance the argument that it was anything other than humor.  Tasteless humour, perhaps, to some - but in no way an actual incitement.  What's presented in the context of a show on a "news network" is a little different, though.  Hence my bellylaugh at the depths people will sink to find moral equivalency.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think you've just summed yourself up.



I haven't even warmed up yet.

(quickly edited to fix quotes, and flesh out my last para a bit better)


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jan 2011)

> ------------ thought you were Trolling and noted "Once again you attack the left without attacking the arguement. The same could be said for the right, blah blah blah." about your post titled Re: Deconstructing \\\"Progressive \\\" thought.


Why, thanks for the -100 points again.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2011)

Sometimes, indoctrination can backfire:

http://spinassassin.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-first-encounter-with-progressive.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SpinAssassin+%28Spin+Assassin%29



> *My First Encounter With A Progressive*
> 
> A couple of weeks ago I was scandalized but not surprised to read about a Quebec child that was punished because his parents put his lunch in a plastic ziplock bag.  It’s the expected result of the eco-religion’s ascension but no less frightening and appalling for being so easily predicted.  Hysteria coupled with righteous zeal is not new after all.  We’ve seen it again and again, from dogmatic institutionalization and oppression all the way to rejection and rebellion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2011)

>I start to worry about the aggregate effects. 

Why?  If the eight-year collective temper tantrum over the election and re-election of GW Bush didn't trigger mass firefights in the streets, nothing is likely to.  And to judge by events of the past couple of weeks, the centre-left/left's timeout for civility is over.


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I start to worry about the aggregate effects.
> 
> Why?  If the eight-year collective temper tantrum over the election and re-election of GW Bush didn't trigger mass firefights in the streets, nothing is likely to.  And to judge by events of the past couple of weeks, the centre-left/left's timeout for civility is over.



What events are those?

Right now I'm trying to understand that "Tea Party" outrage at unions standing up to "Big Government" in Wisconsin trying to take away their rights to bargain collectively, when those unions have a) already negotiated concessions to help WI balance its budget and b) seem to have been willing to sit down to talk more.  What I don't get is that teabaggers (I used that term because they applied it as a label to themselves oblivious to its other meaning, which is shining example of the ignorance many I've seen/engaged with display) are standing up for government trying to crack down on people exercising their rights.  It makes little sense until you realize that few of them really think for themselves, and weakening organized labour is a fairly clear objective of the Astroturf organizations that fund their "grassroots" movement.

I generally have little time or patience for unions.  Having lived for a while in Oshawa and watched the CAW basically bargain their members out of jobs while making rather ridiculous claims about what the real problems were (like blaming South Korean laws for not being able to export Oshawa-built cars to the ROK, where there is no market for them laws or not), defending those who should be sacked and so on, I have little patience most of the time for their concerns.  However, I find the idea of government scapegoating unions for all their woes to be contemptible as well, and thus I'm glad they are standing up.  In the new America post "Citizens United" where corporations now basically can pour unlimited amounts of money into the political process with relative anonymity, only unions have the clout to counterbalance that.  What a tragic state of affairs indeed.


----------



## cybercheck (19 Feb 2011)

Those who oppose the Tea Party and conservatives in America are aware that the liberal government cannot uplift them from dire poverty because they know they remain salaried employees after a left revolution. But that is what they have been inculcating to their kids that their lot will improve for the better. It is good if they are not only wrong and they made a mistake in assessing the rewards of a leftist revolution. But they deliberately 'do not want to consider the truth' because they are just ultimate evil. Look how incorrigible Obaama is. The whole world knows all his misdeeds (against American national security), he still has the gall to discredit the political Right...I do not like to offend people but that is the truth..Less taxes means more investments..More investments means more employment and revenues..More revenues means more welfare..It is axiomatic..


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2011)

Well, when they realize it was conservative ideas that put them into poverty in the first place and makes it hard for them to actually lift themselves out, you'll find few people actually accept that logic.

 :facepalm:

The "less taxes = more revenue" claim, which is backed by a model called the "Laffer Curve" doesn't actually stack up with history.  And given that America is presently beyond broke, it's not an option.  To the extent that the Laffer Curve model holds any water, it's all about the location on the curve what impact tax changes have to national revenue.  Arguable conservatives believe they're on one side of the parabola, liberals the other.  I tend to take the liberal view given empirical evidence.  The Bush tax cuts, for example, neither increased national revenue, nor did they have any really identifiable impact on economic growth.  They did, however, dramatically worsen the US Budget position, particularly once the Dems took Congress in 2006 and forced Iraq War spending (which had, as I understand it, been kept "off the books" to be accounted for.

The rhetorical idea of a "left revolution" is utter nonsense.  What is described as "the left" in the US are barely left of centre in any conventional assessment when put in a global context.  The idea of wanting to put the brakes on healthcare cost inflation by reforming insurance is hardly a far left idea.  Nor is it revolutionary to believe that the rich getting richer while the poor make no progress is probably bad for a nation in the long run.

The fact is neither "side" (and claiming there are just two "sides" is stupid to begin with) has all the answers to fix the problems the USA - or by extension the rest of the world face - but it seems like there's almost nowhere to start when people like me - who sit pretty much in the middle and wouldn't mind hearing a constructive discussion - can't get anywhere because the debate is dominated by nonsense (like your post, cybercheck, which contains a lot of words but really says not much of anything of substance), or worse, is skewed by propaganda which shifts discussions from real issues to complete BS.

To actually face their problems, it's going to take a mixture of a few things - reforming the tax system to increase revenues in some way as to not impede growth, and formidable spending cuts which will include the sacred cow that is the military.  You'll also need to look at major reforms to entitlement programs, but it doesn't seem like either side of the spectrum has any interest in a realistic discussion on that... hence they don't really get anywhere but deeper in debt.





			
				cybercheck said:
			
		

> Those who oppose the Tea Party and conservatives in America are aware that the liberal government cannot uplift them from dire poverty because they know they remain salaried employees after a left revolution. But that is what they have been inculcating to their kids that their lot will improve for the better. It is good if they are not only wrong and they made a mistake in assessing the rewards of a leftist revolution. But they deliberately 'do not want to consider the truth' because they are just ultimate evil. Look how incorrigible Obaama is. The whole world knows all his misdeeds (against American national security), he still has the gall to discredit the political Right...I do not like to offend people but that is the truth..Less taxes means more investments..More investments means more employment and revenues..More revenues means more welfare..It is axiomatic..


----------



## cybercheck (19 Feb 2011)

I admit I am not an authority because I only finished university with biology as major. Lee Kwan Yew is the most important economic adviser US now has. He turned a country named Singapore which was threatened with Leftist and communist subversion into a paradise. He opened the economy to foreign investments. Cut taxes and banned trade unions. Now they are the envy of European nations which are burdened with debt. Singapore has a 40 billion dollar surplus. Taiwan is another example with a 20 billion surplus. Welfare checks are now overflowing in the two countries plus they enjoy budget surpluses. They follow the dictum: less taxes lead to more investments; more investments lead to more employment and revenues; more revenues tend toward more welfare. 

Obama does intend to radically overhaul the whole American economy to socialism (not communism). Universal health care or Obama care is a feature of socialist. Good that the Conservatives and Tea partiers were able to repeal his Obama care.

Why not consult Lee Kwan Yew..or rather why not Dalton McGuinty seek advise from Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore..?

Bill Clinton earned 700 billion dollars as surplus after the Cold war..because Congress was dominated by Conservatives..He was not able to table heavy progressive taxation in Congress.


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2011)

cybercheck said:
			
		

> I admit I am not an authority because I only finished university with biology as major. Lee Kwan Yew is the most important economic adviser US now has. He turned a country named Singapore which was threatened with Leftist and communist subversion into a paradise. He opened the economy to foreign investments. Cut taxes and banned trade unions. Now they are the envy of European nations which are burdened with debt. Singapore has a 40 billion dollar surplus. Taiwan is another example with a 20 billion surplus. Welfare checks are now overflowing in the two countries plus they enjoy budget surpluses. They follow the dictum: less taxes lead to more investments; more investments lead to more employment and revenues; more revenues tend toward more welfare.



Singapore isn't particularly good economy to compare with America's, I wouldn't think.  Infrastructure costs in what amounts to a city-state are remarkably different for a start.  Further, things like "banning trade unions" would run afoul of something called "The Bill of Rights" in the States, so that's pretty much a non-starter.  As for Taiwan, I'm not an expert on their economy, but I suspect an export-based economy focused on comparatively cheap labour helped quite a bit, and that's not something that the USA can emulate either. 



			
				cybercheck said:
			
		

> Obama does intend to radically overhaul the whole American economy to socialism (not communism). Universal health care or Obama care is a feature of socialist. Good that the Conservatives and Tea partiers were able to repeal his Obama care.



Two points here.  First of all, a system of healthcare reform which essentially delivers more clients to a private, for profit insurance market isn't exactly something I'd call "socialist".  Universal healthcare is a feature of all other industrialized countries in the world, and several non-industrialized ones as well, delivered through a variety of means using a mix of public and private sector providers.  No two countries use the same system.  Second, I don't know how much you know about how US politics works, but the Tea Party accomplished absolutely nothing with their repeal bill.  Why?  Well, it won't pass in the Senate, which won't even waste their time on it, and even if some how it did, the President of the United States enjoys something called a veto, and to expect that he would sign a bill repealing what he hopes will be his greatest accomplishment is laughable.  In fact, as Teabagger nutcase Michele Bachmann was recently schooled on, they can't even carry out their fallback plan of defunding it effectively.  So since the Republicans triumphantly retook the House, they have done nothing to create jobs, nothing to help the US economy recover, they really have done nothing at all notable toward what Americans want them to do, and I suspect voters will remember that in 2012.

Sidenote: yesterday the House of Representatives defunded Planned Parenthood, an organization that delivers a wide array of healthcare services to people - including many young Americans - which will have a number of highly expensive effects for the US down the road in all probability.  They do, however, continue to fund NASCAR.  Figure that one out and get back to me.



			
				cybercheck said:
			
		

> Bill Clinton earned 700 billion dollars as surplus after the Cold war..because Congress was dominated by Conservatives..He was not able to table heavy progressive taxation in Congress.



Nor did he have any plans to - he didn't need to because tax rates were reasonable and the economy was growing.  Know what else he also didn't do?  Start a foreign war based entirely on lies that cost the US Treasury into the billions while simultaneously slashing taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, in a move that proved the Laffer Curve model doesn't work.  That, of course, was Bush.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> .... the debate is dominated by nonsense (like your post, cybercheck, which contains a lot of words but really says not much of anything of substance....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Feb 2011)

cybercheck said:
			
		

> I admit I am not an authority because I only finished university with biology as major. Lee Kwan Yew is the most important economic adviser US now has. He turned a country named Singapore which was threatened with Leftist and communist subversion into a paradise. He opened the economy to foreign investments. Cut taxes and banned trade unions. Now they are the envy of European nations which are burdened with debt. Singapore has a 40 billion dollar surplus. Taiwan is another example with a 20 billion surplus. Welfare checks are now overflowing in the two countries plus they enjoy budget surpluses. They follow the dictum: less taxes lead to more investments; more investments lead to more employment and revenues; more revenues tend toward more welfare.
> 
> Obama does intend to radically overhaul the whole American economy to socialism (not communism). Universal health care or Obama care is a feature of socialist. Good that the Conservatives and Tea partiers were able to repeal his Obama care.
> 
> ...




The person Lee Kuan Yew advises most often (they have, at least, annual private sessions) is Hu Jintao. Lee did several smart things: foremost amongst them was preserving and strengthening the established _institutions_ like courts so that the very *conservative* democracy that exists there can function in a way that ensures that Singapore is always listed amongst the top few "most honest" countries. Lee believed in protecting all the fundamental rights: life, liberty, conscience and *property*.

Lee's ideas cannot, as Redeye suggested, be taken up, hollus bollus, by America because it is a *liberal* democracy and 'rights' (like association and assembly), which do not exist in *conservative* Singapore, are important to Americans (and Canadians).

Singapore works; no question abut that; but it works in that place for those people. Drop kick Christianity, for example, out through the goal posts of North America and replace it with Confucian values (and then do hundreds of other equally outrageous things) and the Singapore model _might_ work here.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2011)

Ann Althouse receives a death threat for posting a video of Wisconson unionized government workers at a protest rally (when they were supposed to be on the job); more civility at work:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-receive-at-threat-whoever-video-taped.html



> *I receive a threat: "whoever video taped this has no life and needs to be shot in the head."*
> 
> That's a comment on my YouTube video about the salt trucks that circled the Wisconsin Capitol yesterday, blowing horns, apparently in support of the protesters. (I blogged the video here.)
> 
> ...



Props to the Supervisor for his response; we will see how effective his action will be and if it can stick.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

Oooh an anonymous YouTube comment.  I forgot, right wing nuts in the US never ever do things like that.

:facepalm:

That said, the supervisor's reponse seems to be the right one - though it's hardly surprising to me that other public workers would join in to show some support.

Governor Walker's position, for those who haven't been following the story, is rather ridiculous.  The "budget crisis" he is on about is hardly the mess he'd like everyone to think it is.  And he obviously didn't think it was serious enough to stop him from signing into law $3.8 billion in tax cuts which are almost entirely aimed at the wealthiest people in Wisconsin, not the middle class. (Source: http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/blog/2010/10/walker-pledges-nearly-4-billion-in-tax-cuts-to-wealthiest-as-gap-between-rich-poor-widens-to-the-lar.html).  It is true that these cuts aren't the cause of Wisconsin's budget woes, but when you couple them with the fact that the public sector unions have signalled - repeatedly - that they are willing to make some pretty dramatic concessions in terms of pay & benefits, it becomes clear that none of this has anything to do with money.

It has everything to do with an effort by the Right in the USA to very strategically target the sources of funding and organization for the Democratic Party.  The implications of that for democracy are rather disturbing indeed, regardless of where you sit on any spectrum.

A few days ago, I wish I had the link, someone posted an article about the hallmarks of fascist regimes.  The similiarities in policies and points of view to some of the more extreme positions of the GOP - including those that are attracting funding from the likes of the Kochs - are chilling.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ann Althouse receives a death threat for posting a video of Wisconson unionized government workers at a protest rally (when they were supposed to be on the job); more civility at work:
> 
> http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-receive-at-threat-whoever-video-taped.html
> 
> Props to the Supervisor for his response; we will see how effective his action will be and if it can stick.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Feb 2011)

A Blog: http://www.norcalblogs.com/gate/2011/02/obama-administration-creating-fake-supporters-online-via-social-networks-to-fool-americans.php
*
Obama Administration Creating Fake Supporters Online Via Social Networks To Fool Americans*

Another Blog: http://f2bbs.com/bbs/show_topic/366870

*Obama Adminstration Creates 'Fake People' on Social Networks to Promote Propaganda'*

And there are others. Don't know if there is a project to create fake people or not, but I thought I would post it anyway. Obama with a billion bucks could finance it, or the administration could use "black" funds for the project.

I do have a suspicion that the name is Project Scarletstare


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

Oh, oops:

http://www.marktalk.com/blog/2011/02/20/fight-the-seiu-with-tactic-they-use-against-us-this-week/

(Except Mark doesn't seem to have any example of this actually being used "against him".)

Do the morons who write those blogs expect that people won't dig into their claims?  The "Persona Management System" RFP was from the US Air Force.  Where, exactly, does the claim that this is going to be some great big propaganda tool come from?  Maybe a recruiting tool for the Air Force?

If there was some such plot (which, any fool should be able to see, is laughable), why would it be done through a public tender through the USAF?  Surely there are better ways to go about doing something like that.

There's a reason I tend to dismiss the opinions of bloggers (regardless of what they might be), and it's shown well here - because their claims are usually absolute shyte.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A Blog: http://www.norcalblogs.com/gate/2011/02/obama-administration-creating-fake-supporters-online-via-social-networks-to-fool-americans.php
> *
> Obama Administration Creating Fake Supporters Online Via Social Networks To Fool Americans*
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Governor Walker's position, for those who haven't been following the story, is rather ridiculous.  The "budget crisis" he is on about is hardly the mess he'd like everyone to think it is.  And he obviously didn't think it was serious enough to stop him from signing into law $3.8 billion in tax cuts which are almost entirely aimed at the wealthiest people in Wisconsin, not the middle class. (Source: http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/blog/2010/10/walker-pledges-nearly-4-billion-in-tax-cuts-to-wealthiest-as-gap-between-rich-poor-widens-to-the-lar.html).
> 
> Now there's an unbiased organization who we can trust to unbiased, to never torque a story, twist a tale and yell into the union's echo chamber.



We can only hope Canada will eventually grow some politicians like Walker & Christie in NJ who will take on the bloat and waste in our multiple layers of coddled public services.

Wisconsin is going to a watershed moment in President Community Organizer's time in office. His true colors as a radical unionista are being exposed and his political flanks are already being hacked at in Congress.

He can give all the hopey-changey speeches he likes.  But he no longer controls the American wallet, or more specifically, the American VISA card.

His time has passed, all he can do now is continue to obfuscate and tap dance on the  head of his radical political agenda he hid from the American people in the election campaign.

Americans are on to him now.  And to the fat cat public sector unions who, like famous Canadian Liberals, believe deep in their greedy, cold hearts they are entitled to their entitlements.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Feb 2011)

Not Canadian politics, though tied in, and to add to previous post:


----------



## TheHead (22 Feb 2011)

Yeah I sure do miss a President who invaded a country because of a hunch of weapons of mass destruction.   Sorry Iraq!


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Not Canadian politics, though tied in, and to add to previous post:



I think a fair number of Americans think the "hopey changey" thing is starting, albeit slowly, to work.  And I doubt anyone who isn't a complete moron misses Bush.  His ineptitude as POTUS is pretty clear, his legacy includes around a trillion dollars borrowed from China to kill 4500 American soldiers in Iraq to settle a personal score and enrich his cronies, justified only by lies.  Oh, and there's tens of thousands of Iraqi civilains killed or maimed as well.

What's Obama accomplished?

- A start to meaningful healthcare reform (which polls before the repeal vote showed most Americans do not in fact want repealed).

- A start to meaningful financial reform that is necessary to prevent the mess of 2008 from recurring.

- Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed by legislative means, not just tossed out in the courts (though, for good measure, the courts have also ruled it unconstitutional).

- Operations in Iraq scaled down substantially, and plans to wind up operations in Afghanistan

- New START Treaty about to be ratified

- Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB (I like this one- a good move indeed, wonder where he got the idea)

- Related: Reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base (when the family consents)

- Added $4.6 billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals

- Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years (like this one a lot too)

The complete list is at http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/ - I just cherrypicked a few good ones.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Feb 2011)

Why is it all of your commentaries seem to start with you calling those who have a contrary view morons or idiots?


----------



## Haletown (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I think a fair number of Americans think the "hopey changey" thing is starting, albeit slowly, to work.



Those must the min0rity of  Americans who voted for his Party &  political program last November, when he got, in his own words, "a shellacking".

He has one talent - he makes great speeches.

Otherwise he seems to have some severe limitations.  His handling of the US economy is tragic.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

After which polls actually showed his popularity being higher than where both Clinton and Reagan were at their first midterm.  He got a strong message sent - great.  So did the GOP, and they don't seem to have acted well on it.  What have they done to address the deficit?  What have they done to create jobs?  They claimed that if the Bush tax cuts were extended somehow businesses would be relieved of "uncertainty" and suddenly start hiring.  That hasn't happened.  What have they done to actually deal with the economy, which is what it seemed voters wanted in November?



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Those must the min0rity of  Americans who voted for his Party &  political program last November, when he got, in his own words, "a shellacking".
> 
> He has one talent - he makes great speeches.
> 
> Otherwise he seems to have some severe limitations.  His handling of the US economy is tragic.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Why is it all of your commentaries seem to start with you calling those who have a contrary view morons or idiots?



When the contrary view isn't a view based on a reasonable position of fact, but on an asinine argument (or one that is false), as in the case of the blog to which I referred, I don't deem them worthy of any particular respect.  I have no problem with contrary opinions when they're presented reasonably and based on fact.  Some idiotic claim that "ZOMG OBAMA IS GOING TO GET AN ARMY OF BOTS TO PROPAGANDIZE PEOPLE" deserves the respect I give it: none.


----------



## Haletown (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> After which polls actually showed his popularity being higher than where both Clinton and Reagan were at their first midterm.



Tuscon happened, he does what he does best, he makes a nice speech.  He gets a bump in the polls.

CNN just released a poll that says Donald Trump is within 2 points of Obama in a presidential preference poll.

2 points off without even campaigning !  Wouldn't it be sweet to see The Donald lean forward across his boardroom table and say "Barack, your Fired !!"

Americans will rue the day they drank the bathwater of closet marxist/Community Organizer/Unionista and voted for him to be their president.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Americans will rue the day they drank the bathwater of closet marxist/Community Organizer/Unionista and voted for him to be their president.



Speaking of moronic comments...

As to your claim about his handling of the US economy being "tragic", let's actually discuss something of substance, because that'd be refreshing.  What, in your opinion, has been tragic?  Bear in mind the economy he inherited (and I'm even going to make a concession to not blame anyone in particular for it, because the roots of the mess are varied), and the state of fiscal policy when he took office.

The idea some people had that he could wave some kind of magic wand and fix the US economy, which has been a complete basket case for a couple of years, or the US budget, which has been a mess since the last administration, was ridiculous.  However, for all their complaining, I have yet to see how his opponents plan to do anything.  They talk of "spending cuts" but when pressed on what _specifically_ they will cut, they offer nothing.  What have the GOP accomplished since taking the House?  A pointless repeal of ACA (a bill which, according to the non-partisan CBO, would actually decrease the deficit).  A pointless attack on women by defunding Planned Parenthood the other night?  Sure, that'll save a princely $75 million/year.  Except that the long term social costs of reducing access to preventative healthcare, contraception and sexual education will probably cost a lot more in the long run.  What else have they done? Defunded NPR and PBS?  Yeah, another huge savings.

What have they done that promotes economic recovery?  Nothing.  What plans do they have that will do so?

Tell me, Haletown, since apparently I'm missing something, what exactly should the President be doing differently?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2011)

What should the President be doing to promote economic recovery?

Absolutely nothing.

Stop helping.

Edit;"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."  Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations 1776


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Feb 2011)

Rifleman62 talking to himself:



> The Left are always Right.
> 
> Time never well spent discussing anything with the left.





> Blog: Obama Adminstration Creates 'Fake People' on Social Networks to Promote Propaganda.
> 
> Project Scarletstare


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> When the contrary view isn't a view based on a reasonable position of fact, but on an asinine argument (or one that is false), as in the case of the blog to which I referred, I don't deem them worthy of any particular respect.  I have no problem with contrary opinions when they're presented reasonably and based on fact.  Some idiotic claim that "ZOMG OBAMA IS GOING TO GET AN ARMY OF BOTS TO PROPAGANDIZE PEOPLE" deserves the respect I give it: none.



You need to understand something very clearly. Not everyone holds your opinion. No one is obligated to engage you or your views or try convince you they are right in their opinion. No one is obligated to cite sources or proof for their beliefs because you say so. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, uneducated or not, whether you like it or not. 

Your general and all encompassing use of morons and imbeciles, and any other detractors, to anyone not of your persuasion is to cease now.

Keep presenting your case and facts as you wish, but you'll keep the descriptive comments to yourself.

That goes for anyone else here that wants to tread that path.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And I doubt anyone who isn't a complete moron misses Bush.



Actually, I'm going one further than RG, you can consider this your freebie warning.

Bruce
Staff


----------



## Haletown (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Tell me, Haletown, since apparently I'm missing something, what exactly should the President be doing differently?



Let's see . . . just off the top

300 - 400% increase in the US deficit, 3 budgets in a row . . . just for comparison purposes the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada figures Canada will have a deficit this fiscal of about $35 billion. Using the standard 10:1 conversion ratio, the US deficit, to be equivalent, would be $350 Billion.  Obama just released a budget that calls for a deficit of $1.57 Trillion, that's trillion with a "T".

If Harper put forward a budget with a $350 Billion deficit, he'd be gone in weeks, if not days.

Obamacare . . .  massive cost increases, massive paperwork burden on businesses, massive over regulation of health delivery services. Let there be Death Panels.

Unemployment - officially north of 9% but when you factor in the folks who have quite looking, probably in the 20% range

Real Estate market collapse - Obama refuses to reform Fanny & Freddy and the egregious race based laws requiring mortgage lenders to make loans to unqualified people.


Card Check legislation . . .   so Unions can intimidate when they organize - really a pro business action that will make employers want to hire. Not.

Unknown  tens or hundreds billions wasted on boondoggle projects like High Speed Rail and useless Greenie Climate change projects.

The list could go on an on . . .   

The only good news  for Americans is he doesn't control the American purse strings anymore . . .  the Republicans do and they can and appear to be slowing down the Democrats/Obama's spendthrift ways.


Look, I get you like the guy and his policies.  I don't dislike him - I think he is a very slick sales guy for what he believes in.  But his policies aren't working and they'll never work, just like they didn't work in Greece.

Borrowing your way to prosperity?

Un huh.


----------



## TheHead (22 Feb 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Rifleman62 talking to himself:



  Did you even bother reading the site you posted?  This is all speculation and hearsay something you would find on an Alex Jones website or Fox News.  .  I understand it's easy to skim over an article and think it's fact but please do a little critical thinking.  Also the writer of this blog loses all credablity by calling President Obama a communist.   I can't believe this shit is allowed on this website (army.ca)  as a source.   If I posted a website accusing Bush or Harper of being Hitler or a facist I would be laughed at and banned.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Speaking of moronic comments...
> 
> As to your claim about his handling of the US economy being "tragic", let's actually discuss something of substance, because that'd be refreshing.  What, in your opinion, has been tragic?  Bear in mind the economy he inherited (and I'm even going to make a concession to not blame anyone in particular for it, because the roots of the mess are varied), and the state of fiscal policy when he took office.
> 
> ...




The POTUS *should* have and *could* have sent the Congress a budget that served the people's needs: major cuts to unaffordable 'entitlements,' major cuts to the defence budget - including, probably, a _strategic_ plan to disengage from West Asia and, yes, < gasp > a new, national VAT, modeled on Canada's reasonably (not perfectly, not even well) structured HST. That would have been *leading*. Instead Obama choses to play politics - to fiddle while America burns.

Look, Bush was not a good president, he wasn't even just an OK president; but Obama is not any, not one iota, better.

Political irresponsibility in the USA has reached epic proportions - amongst both the Democrats and the Republicans, including some/many/most of the Tea Party people.

Obama is America's Pierre Trudeau - a dilettante; someone, additionally, who has, in the great Isiah Berlin's model, the intellectual characteristics of a hedgehog: one "big" idea that precludes considering lesser things, like the economy or the national interest. For Trudeau it was destructive nationalism - something which never, much, existed in Canada, _hors de Québec_; for Obama it is redressing some of the grievances of poor, urban, black Americans. Trudeau managed to reduce Canada from a prosperous, 'leading' middle power to a debt ridden international lightweight (in fairness, he didn't do it alone and Mulroney did not reverse the "project' when he could have done so - Canadians liked Trudeau's vision, poisonous to their own best interests though it was); Obama may do the same for America; charisma is a terrible thing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2011)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Did you even bother reading the site you posted?  This is all speculation and hearsay something you would find on an Alex Jones website or Fox News.  .  I understand it's easy to skim over an article and think it's fact but please do a little critical thinking.  Also the writer of this blog loses all credablity by calling President Obama a communist.   I can't believe this shit is allowed on this website (army.ca)  as a source.   If I posted a website accusing Bush or Harper of being Hitler or a facist I would be laughed at and banned.



Actually as repulsive as that guy is, we have links all the time to CBC stories [comments] that call Mr. Harper and Mr. Bush a lot worse than that, so I believe you to be quite incorrect.

Bruce


----------



## TheHead (22 Feb 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Actually as repulsive as that guy is, we have links all the time to CBC stories [comments] that call Mr. Harper and Mr. Bush a lot worse than that, so I believe you to be quite incorrect.
> 
> Bruce


 Yes the comments sections which has nothing to do with the content of the article itself but assholes in the peanut gallary.  Should that shit be allowed on CBC?  Of course not whoever moderates the site is obviously a moron and has the same mental capacity as idiot who call Obama a socialist or communist, regardless.   If I posted a SOURCE calling Mr. Harper or Mr. Bush, Hitler and accusing George Bush of going to war in Iraq for oil I would be doggie piled and banned.    I'm saying the user who posted the blog should be banned, he obviously didn't read it.  A little care from not only the Liberals but the Conservatives also on this site need to be taken when posting sources that are nothing but bullshit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2011)

I'm sorry but I must ask who considers a 'blogger' a source anyway?

IMO, a blog is no more, or less, a source than the comments section of CBC so here we are again......


----------



## TheHead (22 Feb 2011)

Exactly,  that garbage has ZERO credablity when backing ones views up.   Thank you.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Let's see . . . just off the top
> 
> 300 - 400% increase in the US deficit, 3 budgets in a row . . . just for comparison purposes the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada figures Canada will have a deficit this fiscal of about $35 billion. Using the standard 10:1 conversion ratio, the US deficit, to be equivalent, would be $350 Billion.  Obama just released a budget that calls for a deficit of $1.57 Trillion, that's trillion with a "T".



A direct comparison of Canadian and US budgets isn't really apt, though.  Canada doesn't channel anywhere near as much money to defence as the US does, for example.  Defence spending is a massive, massive contributor to the US deficit, and it is a very difficult political animal to tackle.  Obama's budget did include some cuts to program spending, but without tackling the might military budget and trying to figure out further reforms to entitlement programs, which is a substantial undertaking, there's little room for him to move.

Remember, part of what forced up the US deficit was the Democratic Congress elected in 2006 forcing the Iraq War to be included in the budget instead of keeping it "off the books".  Many on the right seem to like to claim that this means that the Dems caused the deficit.  They didn't.  They just forced it to be recognized.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Obamacare . . .  massive cost increases, massive paperwork burden on businesses, massive over regulation of health delivery services. Let there be Death Panels.



The CBO (which is non-partisan) disagrees with you on the cost increases, if you have a source countering them I'd be interested to see it.  The paperwork burden on businesses, again, I think that's an inflated claim as well.  Of course, my solution to that would be a single-payer system of some sort.  Massive over-regulation?  In what specific ways?  And death panels?  Are you serious?  The closest thing to a death panel one faces in the US is the prospect of your private insurer rescinding your healthcare because their post-claim underwriters find some way to declare your condition "pre-existing".  Incidentally, this happens primarily to people not in group plans - ie entrepreneurs, the engine that drives the economy.  In the US there are some 119 million people who have such "pre-exisitng conditions" who would find themselves at risk of this.  Since ACA ("Obamacare") passed, that's no longer going to be a risk.  



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Unemployment - officially north of 9% but when you factor in the folks who have quite looking, probably in the 20% range



Well, that's how unemployment numbers are measured.  That is the way it is - to be classified as unemployed you need to be actively seeking a job.  We use the same methodology (basically) in Canada.  The US job market is terrible, that's beyond question.  The fact is that in order to get going, the US economy is going to have to fundamentally change, that's simply reality.  The "green economy" concept, knowledge based industries, these are the things that will HAVE to lead the US economy forward, because the days of manufacturing in the US are gone.  Those jobs have been exported overseas and they are not coming back.  This is a challenge anyone in office would face, regardless of their party.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jan/21/judging-job-killing/ - interesting notes on some of the sillier GOP claims on "job killing"



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Real Estate market collapse - Obama refuses to reform Fanny & Freddy and the egregious race based laws requiring mortgage lenders to make loans to unqualified people.



Er, this is false.  Obama's much-vilified financial reform bill actually deals with this, to an extent.  "Race based laws" is a not-so-slight exaggeration of the "Equal Housing Lender" program, which was itself established to deal with egregious discrimination in the mortgage market.  Both sides of the spectrum bear responsibility for the mess in the US mortgage markets, and more reforms are needed.  One thing I'd like to see proposed to deal with the deficit is the end to mortgage interest deductibility in the US - but it, like the military, is political kryptonite.  Not so long ago I read an interesting article, I think in The Economist, about all the policy efforts in the US to encourage home ownership - it contrasted them with Canada, which hasn't got things like deductibility and noted that home ownership rates in Canada are about the same.

Interestingly, as a Senator, Obama saw the problem on the horizon and sent a letter to the Treasury about it.  See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-sounded-the-alarm-on-subprimes/



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Card Check legislation . . .   so Unions can intimidate when they organize - really a pro business action that will make employers want to hire. Not.



I'm not a fan of Card Check (or unions, generally), but I think the impact of business of it is dramatically exaggerated.  If you have some facts that suggest otherwise, let's see them.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Unknown  tens or hundreds billions wasted on boondoggle projects like High Speed Rail and useless Greenie Climate change projects.



Well, a lot of that money hasn't even been spent.  As far as stimulus type projects go, infrastructure is generally where you want to spend the money, assuming that the projects are beneficial.  A shining example exists in Halifax where under the grand "Economic Action Plan", Halifax spent inordinate amounts of money to build a highway underpass to nowhere that went way over budget and really makes no sense.  Some of the rail projects seem to be that way and not all of them will go forward.  That being said, there are examples (like Amtrak's Acela service on the Northeast Corridor) of rail service being profitable, more fuel/energy efficient etc.  One would have to look at the projects on a case-by-case basis, but there certainly seems to be an argument for some of the projects anyhow.  As for your comment about climate change, I will simply say that amongst the scientific community there is about as much dissent about the realities of climate change being an issue as there is about the theory of evolution: pretty much none.  Therefore, I am fine with investing in technologies that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (especially petroleum, but also coal - moreso coal in some ways because it's such an environmental nightmare even ignoring CO2).  I'll further tie this back to the point above that development of such technologies will probably be vital for the US economy to adapt to the changing world.  There's big market for them, after all.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> The only good news  for Americans is he doesn't control the American purse strings anymore . . .  the Republicans do and they can and appear to be slowing down the Democrats/Obama's spendthrift ways.



Really?  Again I ask, in what tangible ways have they done anything meaningful about spending so far? Or about job creation?  Or about the economy in general?




			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Look, I get you like the guy and his policies.  I don't dislike him - I think he is a very slick sales guy for what he believes in.  But his policies aren't working and they'll never work, just like they didn't work in Greece.



Actually, I'm fairly ambivalent about the guy.  I think his policies are better than the ruinous policies of the last administration.  But they don't go nearly far enough, the USA has to accept some very, very tough realities that both parties seem content to ignore.  I don't get the comparison to Greece, because, well, Greece is nothing like the USA - the problems it faced, and the roots thereof, have little similarity.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Borrowing your way to prosperity?
> 
> Un huh.



Well, that's been the Republicans' plan as much as anyone else's - and look what they blew the money they borrowed on.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The POTUS *should* have and *could* have sent the Congress a budget that served the people's needs: major cuts to unaffordable 'entitlements,' major cuts to the defence budget - including, probably, a _strategic_ plan to disengage from West Asia and, yes, < gasp > a new, national VAT, modeled on Canada's reasonably (not perfectly, not even well) structured HST. That would have been *leading*. Instead Obama choses to play politics - to fiddle while America burns.
> 
> Look, Bush was not a good president, he wasn't even just an OK president; but Obama is not any, not one iota, better.
> 
> ...



I agree with much of this - as I suggested in the post responding to Haletown, the problems facing the USA are broad, and they need a lot of bold - and likely extremely unpopular, some would say politically suicidal moves to accomplish - including a VAT of some sort for example - a move which allowed Canada to deal with its budget problems.  In fact, when we look at the deficit we face now, the two GST cuts made by the Harper government, which did little to improve the position of the vast majority of Canadians, seem silly.  I did a little bit of math a while back on how much those cuts did for me in terms of my actual disposable income (and I make a pretty good amount of money), and it was negligible.  In many cases, retailers just sucked up the difference on a lot of small ticket items anyhow, and even with the income I have, a big chunk of it goes to things like my mortgage and groceries, or into long term savings, and what's left at the end that's "discretionary spending" accounts for not a tremendous savings.  It certainly didn't have any stimulative effect in terms of changing my consumption preferences - but the aggregate impact on the federal budget was still large.  I'd have been content with large surpluses paying down the national debt over a cut - or at least, an income tax cut - ideally in the form of raising the basic personal exemption.

Obama was elected, in part at least, as sort of a "pendulum" effect.  He was charismatic when the nation needed it - but I think a large part of his shortcomings come from the reality that many had unrealistic expectations about what he could actually accomplish in the political reality of the US.


----------



## Redeye (22 Feb 2011)

Exactly, Bruce.

The tirade (which I admit I got a little too wound up about, mea culpa and I will watch my tone going forward) I made wasn't attacking any individual's posting, but rather the recurring theme particularly in discussing American politics, when a blogger makes a ridiculous claim (which is the case in the blog post being discussed, which turned a RFP from the USAF for some sort of means of managing virtual personas, the reason for which isn't discussed), into some sort of drivelous claim that Obama intends to create some sort of army of propaganda bots on the internet.  The source of this claim was indeed a blog reflecting little intelligence, and it was presented by whomever as some sort of serious subject to discuss.  Thus I mildly lost my mind.

It seems, however, that we've gotten back on track, which is good.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I must ask who considers a 'blogger' a source anyway?
> 
> IMO, a blog is no more, or less, a source than the comments section of CBC so here we are again......


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ... Defence spending is a massive, massive contributor to the US deficit, and it is a very difficult political animal to tackle.  Obama's budget did include some cuts to program spending, but without tackling the might military budget and trying to figure out further reforms to entitlement programs, which is a substantial undertaking, there's little room for him to move.
> 
> "Defence" is a very important sector of the US economy - a HUGE employer and, indirectly, a large "earner" of export dollars - although they are, in[color] about[/color=yellow] 60% of cases, subsidies from the US taxpayer "laundered' through foreign aid and foreign capitals. Major cuts to US defence spending are on a par with a major cut to oil ands production in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2011)

I'll only note the interesting contrast in reactions between a verified and publicly displayed death threat to Conservative blogger Ann Althouse and the reaction to alleged threats (which oddly no one seems to have screen shots of) to Professor Piven after her speech advocating political violence was highlighted by Andrew Breitbart.


----------



## Redeye (23 Feb 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'll only note the interesting contrast in reactions between a verified and publicly displayed death threat to Conservative blogger Ann Althouse and the reaction to alleged threats (which oddly no one seems to have screen shots of) to Professor Piven after her speech advocating political violence was highlighted by Andrew Breitbart.



False: Here's the screen shots: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101140032


----------



## Redeye (24 Feb 2011)

Even better, though, is the case of Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox, who was just sacked for a series of blog and Twitter posts, including one suggesting that "live ammunition" be used against protestors in Wisconsin, comparisons of the SEIU to the Sturmabteilung (SA), and various other totally inappropriate remarks which he actually claimed he would defend when exposed by Mother Jones magazine.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters

Interestingly, he didn't reveal his position or in any way make the suggestion that he was officially representing his office, which could allow him some sort of redress... however, the fact that he - a government official - was making those statements at all, even on his "own time" is still disturbing, and I suspect that's why he's been "invited to pursue other employment opportunities".


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Feb 2011)

TheHead 





> I'm saying the user who posted the blog should be banned, he obviously didn't read it.



I am the user who posted. You voiced your concern twice via deduction of points.  Getting incensed at postings in a forum is your privilege. 

Speak to management re banning.

In case you missed it, the post stated "A Blog" and "Another Blog" with links, not a reference for, example, like QR & O's. 

You also missed that the post was tongue in cheek.

I will continue to watch FOX News thank-you very much as well as subscribe to FNN in March.

Happy trails!


----------



## TheHead (24 Feb 2011)

Actually I made a typo.  "Shouldn't"  be banned.  Also don't backpeddle now you and I know it wasn't meant to be tongue and cheek.   You thought the blogger was serious and now when proven wrong you're trying to play it down.   Trust me I know people like you watch Fox. Tides go in, Tides go out. Can't explain that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Feb 2011)

No reasonable amount of increased taxation is going to save the US from its overspending problem - and that is the problem.  In terms of basic governance, the Obama administration has failed, in epic proportions.  It wasn't necessary to have Sun Tzu or Clausewitz available to select the aim for the single most critical problem facing the US in the final months leading up to the 2008 election cycle.  Guess what - if you're that stupid or ideologically hidebound, you don't get to claim credit for brilliance, no matter how many ivy-league fartcatchers run around polishing your knob: you're incompetent.

Politicians partake of two skill sets: "campaign", and "govern".  Successful politicians by definition must have the former.  Not all have the latter.  Obama does not have the latter.  All he knows how to do well is sell himself.

The claim that the US deficit was "forced up" by Congress putting the war costs "on budget" is merely amusing to the informed.  Bush's budget submissions to Congress - which are requests, not orders - did not include the costs; but the appropriations were passed quite openly and the costs of the war were always "on budget" at year end.  People who are serious about discussing US federal finances need to stop pretending the president's budget submission is anything other than a starting point for discussion.  What matters are the resolutions and appropriations passed by Congress and the legislation signed by the president, and the year-end financial statements.  It is like the mythology that Bush is somehow responsible for the FY 2009 budget - yes, he submitted a budget proposal on schedule (Feb 2008); then Congress punted on 9 of the 12 appropriations until after the 2008 presidential election and Obama signed the final bill.  It takes rock-bottom stupidity to promulgate myths like "off-budget Iraq war spending" and "Bush's FY 2009 deficit".  Guess what: when the budget is in your party's hands for over 12 months and you sign it into law, your party owns it.

Regarding PPACA, what the CBO said is that given the assumptions, the legislation reduces the deficit.  The CBO also essentially said, in their own circumscribed way, that the assumptions are horsesh!t and not to be taken seriously.

There is a point at which it is helpful to cut away the bullsh!t and see what is actually there.  Some commentators on this thread aren't there yet and are merely spinning plausible tales based on talking points and less than starkly truthful creative representations of the facts.


----------



## Redeye (1 Mar 2011)

Brad: you've made some good points here.  The reality is that the situation faced by the US is complex and there are no easy solutions, and certainly no one party has all the answers.  The problem is that for politicians, they're only ever in "campaign" mode, governing is rarely done by anyone.  There's a reason that the civil service exists, it actually looks after most of the day-to-day operations of any given country.

It's precisely for this reason that the US' situtation looks bleak: no one who is realistically just campaigning can afford, politically, to make the bold suggestions that need to be made to make the changes necessary to try to put the financial house in order.  Those things include massive cuts to the military, pushing ahead with even more healthcare reform, making some sort of changes to entitlements like social security, etc.  While politicians might talk about these things, it's not really popular to do them.

Imagine the shock I had listening to The Current the other day when Rand Paul was being interviewed and finding myself agreeing with him on several points.  He's basically something of a fringe wingnut, but has the privilege of having enough "fame" to be able to make bold statements about things that most others simply won't.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2011)

IF there is independent confirmation, then this is the most toxic story I have come across in a long time (stay tuned):

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/07/oregon-state-republican-candidates-children-expelled-as-retribution/



> *Oregon State: Republican candidate’s children expelled as retribution?*
> 
> Update: I’m looking for more information, and if possible, independent confirmation of this story.  Email me at crmpjm AT gmail DOT com if you can get me anything.  Confidentiality will be respected if desired.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheHead (8 Mar 2011)

Maybe you should wait till stories are confirmed before you post them.   Some users may think they're true.  Well looks like the conservative blogosphere has blown up and is already reporting this as fact.  Not very suprising there.


----------



## TheHead (8 Mar 2011)

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/mar/statement-regarding-recent-internet-postings-art-robinson


> Statement regarding Internet postings by Art Robinson
> 3-7-11
> 
> Note: A more concise version of this statement is available at http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/mar/statement-regarding-recent-internet-postings-art-robinson-0.
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2011)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Maybe you should wait till stories are confirmed before you post them.   Some users may think they're true.  Well looks like the conservative blogosphere has blown up and is already reporting this as fact.  Not very suprising there.


And then, Oregon State [the accused] reports "we can't actually say anything substantive, but 'nothing to see here'," and because it agrees with your worldview, you deem that as "confirmed" and worthy of post. 

Feel free to Google "double standard." As you have said, not very surprising there.


Back to <ignore>


----------



## TheHead (8 Mar 2011)

When did I ever confirm Oregon's post?  I'm mearly posting their response to the allegations made against them.  Don't jump to conclusions.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2011)

So you see absolutely no dichotomy between telling Thucydides not to post unconfirmed information, yet 12 minutes later you post an equally unsubstantiated report, saying you're not confirming or denying the info?

 :facepalm:



Since you obviously didn't look up "double standard," I suspect "dichotomy" will elude you as well.


----------



## TheHead (8 Mar 2011)

You mean to tell me there is no difference between a posting of an official source and a source that doubts its own validity?

  Yikes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2011)

For what it's worth. I don't believe for a minute the obsfucation coming from the University. It is a typical hide behind protocol, CYA piece IMO. I would expect if they were blameless, they'd have a court order against Robinson, or at least a statement from thier lawyers.

So you tell Thucydides not to post something because _you _ refuse to believe it, I guess I can tell you the same about _ your article._

Good for the goose and all that.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2011)

For my having pointed out the vacuous logic of your slam at Thucydides, your 'rational and informed' response is to.....


> MilPoints // -150 // TheHead thought you were Trolling and noted "" about your post titled Re: Deconstructing \\\"Progressive \\\" thought.


...take MilPoints, with an implied "oh...oh _ya_!"  
:rofl:

Thank you for proving my point regarding the fact that your emperor is intellectually naked _much_ more eloquently than I ever could.


----------



## TheHead (8 Mar 2011)

That was for your constant condecending tone 

  I responded.  You just ignored my question.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2011)

Journeyman, you are not the only one to suffer _the curse of: TheHead!!_


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Mar 2011)

Regardless of one's political persuasion, you have to admit that ending the studies of all three members of the same family has a certain suspicious quality behind it. Particularly as they all seem to be high achievers who have enriched their departments and the university. Worth watching this one unfold.


----------



## Dissident (8 Mar 2011)

Tag for fun.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2011)

IF you were to actually, you know, read the article, the first paragraphs are:



> Update: I’m looking for more information, and if possible, independent confirmation of this story.  Email me at crmpjm AT gmail DOT com if you can get me anything.  Confidentiality will be respected if desired.
> 
> Look, this is from World Net Daily, not my favorite source, but a lot of this actually reminds me of things I saw in graduate school.  Here’s the story, think for yourself.  If it’s true, it’s just beyond reprehensible.



And some more character witnessing:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2011/Q1/view665.html#Robinson



> The following is worth your attention:
> 
> Art Robinson article
> 
> ...



Like I said at the beginning, IF there is independent confirmation, this is a horrible story and a horrible example of people drunk on their own sense of entitlement and power abusing power over a difference in political opinion.


----------



## TheHead (10 Mar 2011)

Or it was just an upset-failure of a politican that is mad he lost to a dirty liberal-socialist.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/82bcd5a0f534447fb8e82bbb4897df19/OR--Candidate-OSU/#



> "I don't have definitive proof," Robinson said. "That is what I believe. Basically, I know what happened. I cannot tell you the motives of the people doing it."



  It's no suprise the conservative blog-sphere is reporting this as true.   Who needs facts when you have speculation and hearsay.  I'm suprised Glenn Beck or Bill O hasn't been jumping all over this story yet.


----------



## Redeye (10 Mar 2011)

If you want a real laugh, see if you can find a link to the video of Rachel Maddow attempting to interview Art Robinson on 7 Oct 2010.  It's ridiculous.  As I recall he basically asserted a belief about half way through the interview that the delay caused by the TelePresence video link was some sort of conspiracy.  He appeared completely out of his depth as a candidate.

His campaign actually was a prime example of how horrifying campaign finance rules are.  His campaign was funded by virtually anonymous donors from outside the state (primarily, as I recall, a New York hedge fund manager), and saturated media with vague ads simply designed to get his name into people's heads.  He was obviously flustered by Maddow's questioning on this.



			
				TheHead said:
			
		

> Or it was just an upset-failure of a politican that is mad he lost to a dirty liberal-socialist.
> 
> http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/82bcd5a0f534447fb8e82bbb4897df19/OR--Candidate-OSU/#
> 
> It's no suprise the conservative blog-sphere is reporting this as true.   Who needs facts when you have speculation and hearsay.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Mar 2011)

Redeye and TheHead, you're attacking the messenger and not the message. Does it not strike you odd that three children from the same family face expulsion?


----------



## TheHead (10 Mar 2011)

Really? I don't see this as an attack on Thucydides himself.  He's a well respected member of this board that contributes a lot to other threads.  I agree with him on a lot of other issues.   If you want a 15 page thread attacking progressives at least post factual evidence doing it though.   I have no problem with people deconstructing "progressive" thought but at least do it with some articles or essays that arn't based on hearsay and assumption.  I think that's a pretty fair requirment in any debate and on this website.  

 If there was proof of all three of his children were expelled or were up for expulsion than yes it would be fishy but so far I've seen none other than his word.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2011)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Really? I don't see this as an attack on Thucydides himself.  He's a well respected member of this board that contributes a lot to other threads.  I agree with him on a lot of other issues.   If you want a 15 page thread attacking progressives at least post factual evidence doing it though.   I have no problem with people deconstructing "progressive" thought but at least do it with some articles or essays that arn't based on hearsay and assumption.  I think that's a pretty fair requirment in any debate and on this website.
> 
> If there was proof of all three of his children were expelled or were up for expulsion than yes it would be fishy but so far I've seen none other than his word.



Which brings us back full circle as to why his article isn't factual and has no place here, but we're supposed to take your's, from the university, at face value and as factual?

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Mar 2011)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Really? I don't see this as an attack on Thucydides himself.  He's a well respected member of this board that contributes a lot to other threads.  I agree with him on a lot of other issues.   If you want a 15 page thread attacking progressives at least post factual evidence doing it though.   I have no problem with people deconstructing "progressive" thought but at least do it with some articles or essays that arn't based on hearsay and assumption.  I think that's a pretty fair requirment in any debate and on this website.
> 
> If there was proof of all three of his children were expelled or were up for expulsion than yes it would be fishy but so far I've seen none other than his word.



I wasn't talking about Thucydides, I was talking about Mr Robinson.


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2011)

That Mr (Dr?) Robinson is a fringe loon is fairly well known, and his message is the problem in large part - specifically of interest in the matter of the campaign was the fact that the market was saturated with all sorts of vague policy claims, which when questioned, Robinson didn't seem to know too much about.

The story of his sons is very, very strange indeed.  But it's also being reported from very dodgy sources, and thus I frankly take very little interest in it.  If some sort of decent reporting confirmed the story then perhaps it would merit discussing.

Frankly, I've noticed this to be a fairly alarming trend in terms of "conservative" thought and dissemination.  A source (usually a blog or media outlet of dubious credibility like World Net Daily or the laughable Canada Free Press) will make a claim, generally an outrageous one either entirely fabricated or egregiously exaggerating facts (ie ginning up something minor or taking it out of context).  Note - there are "left/liberal" outlets that engage in this sort of crap too - however, they appear from the left to be far, far less common than the kind of distortions pumped out by right wing outlets.  In any case, what happens is that the ridiculous story spreads like wildfire though the "brain trust", but the retraction/debunking seems to travel less slowly, so when one attempts to engage someone in any sort of intellectual discussion of an issue, most of the time is wasted on just defining terms of reference and screening out the nonsense/noise that feeds in.  This doesn't seem to be accidental, either, but a bona fide effort to distort the debate through messaging.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Mar 2011)

Redeye: 





> This doesn't seem to be accidental, either, but a bona fide effort to distort the debate through messaging.



Does anyone else see the humor in this?


----------



## Journeyman (11 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> > This doesn't seem to be accidental, either, but a bona fide effort to distort the debate through messaging.
> 
> 
> Does anyone else see the humor in this?


   I assure you, there's nothing funny about conspiracy theories....

Oh, who am I kidding?  ;D


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye:
> Does anyone else see the humor in this?



Nope.  It's not funny.  The way issues are framed by media outlets has a huge impact on how any sort of discourse forms.  And when you don't have a well informed public - or worse - a public being fed propaganda - then you do not really have a functioning democracy.  Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."  It's true, and the noise in the media (I'm looking at you, Fox) is making that disturbingly apt.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Mar 2011)

Redeye, do you even subscribe to FOX?


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, do you even subscribe to FOX?



Yes - since it's part of my XM radio package and my cable package to get actual news channels I have no choice.  Occasionally I'll flip over just to see their spin on things, or to listen to Glenn Beck in the hopes I'll hear his final, hilarious meltdown when his vast progressive-Marxist-Islamist-Caliphate theory collapses.  I also enjoy Bill O'Reilly's inability to interview anyone without interrupting them, and his relentless claims that he has a "no spin zone".  That was priceless last night when he described the renewed anti-Muslim HUAC Redux of Peter King as hearing into "Jihad In America".  That's pretty pure spin.  Mainly I get a laugh out of just how ridiculous some of things he says are.

I also enjoy Neil Cavuto's insight into the magical world he lives in where economic history and reality mean nothing.

Of course, there's also Media Matters For America, which aptly captures some of Fox's most egregious and silly moments, and Politifact and Factcheck where you can get insight on the claims across the spectrum.  MMFA is very much a "left" (in the American sense) slanted organization, but they also present Fox hosts, Limbaugh, and other right wing media figures in their own words along with the reality of what they're going on about.  Limbaugh particularly amuses me, for his hypocrisy, his ego, and his ridiculous ability to spin things.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Mar 2011)

Well, I guess you pay the extra freight to get:

INFORMATION PAK:
Channel 149: Book TV
Channel 150: Bold (CBC)
Channel 151: i Channel
*Channel 152: Fox News Channel*
Channel 153: Discovery (ID)
Channel 154: BBC World
Channel 155: MSNBC
Channel 156: CNBC 

Of course you subscribe. Of course you occasionally flip over. Of course, being an extraterrestrial you fully grasp the FOX News messaging. 

There, I have wasted my allocated posts replying.

Rifleman62: 





> > Redeye, I regret not being to be able to refute your latest ramblings. My personal policy is to not post more than three my  .02 cents comments to the currently posted discussion by an individual.
> >
> > I will of course, continue to follow your discussion.
> >
> > Why, oh why is the Left always, always Right???


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2011)

You know, what we have here is our own, Army.ca, version of the American "culture wars."

Thucydides _et al_ have never met a _liberal_*-Democrat they couldn't hate and Redeye and his confrères thoroughly detest religious right, the _Bush_ Republicans and all their fellow travelers.

What fascinates me is the degree to which TV and, worse, TV _personalities_, colour our discourse. It goes back, I think, more than 35 years when PBS, of all people, pioneered the move from talking heads to shouting heads in an effort to "sex up" the news analysis genre. CNN, Fox, CNBC _et al_, having to fill 24 hours with something, _magnified_ the 'shouting heads' phenomenon, making the host's and panelists' opinions, not the news, the main point of the programme. Now we can us Fox News as shorthand for the American right and Katie Couric vs. Sarah Palin as proof positive that the mainstream media, including e.g. the _Globe and Mail_, which consistently endorses Stephen Harper, has a built in _liberal_* left-wing bias. It indicates, I fear that most of us have become accustomed to a diet of predigested _opinions_ and are, now, loath to consider chewing on some _facts_ all by ourselves.


----------
* The one thing I hate with a deep and abiding passion is the flock of lazy, semi-literate Americans, led by William F Buckley Jr, who committed linguistic vandalism on the words "liberal" and "conservative." One despairs for anyone with an inadequate education - including so many historically illiterate bloody Americans with PhDs from Harvard and Yale. Buckley used to refer to himself as a libertarian and/or a conservative; I agree one can be one or the other but one cannot, if one has a single shred of intellectual consistency, use the words almost interchangeably - as Buckley normally did.


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2011)

BBC and to a lesser extent MSNBC being the targets I wanted - unforuntately Al Jazeera isn't carried by Eastlink, but I can stream that off the net anyhow.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Well, I guess you pay the extra freight to get:
> 
> INFORMATION PAK:
> Channel 149: Book TV
> ...


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2011)

Mr Campbell, you're partially right.  I absolutely detest the religious right in particular and have no end of venom for them.  There are, however, some "Bush republicans" and conservatives in general who I find insightful even when I disagree with them, _because they can present a good, solid argument that is worth discussing._  I enjoy reading David Frum's commentary and his site, for example.  He's a moderate Republican, and presents his opinions well.

We share the same concern about how the media shapes public discourse, including the pervasive idea that somehow all media has a strong liberal bias and therefore a shouting head opinion network somehow is a necessary counterbalance.  It was telling to me that Parliament directed CRTC to study revisions to rules about presenting false or misleading news in Canada while a number of Tory connected people were trying to launch a network that surely would need that sort of leeway to be what they hoped to be.

This is, at the end of the day, the problem... it's not that we have different opinions, it's that few people take the time to think for themselves and to try to critically analyze what they here.  There are people who will read the BS posted on a site like WND or listen to the nonsense spewed by the likes of a Glenn Beck and assume it's correct, factual information.  This makes us unable to have the kind of rational discussions necessary to a functioning democracy.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You know, what we have here is our own, Army.ca, version of the American "culture wars."
> 
> Thucydides _et al_ have never met a _liberal_*-Democrat they couldn't hate and Redeye and his confrères thoroughly detest religious right, the _Bush_ Republicans and all their fellow travelers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2011)

At the risk of being deemed trollworthy Redeye, do you not see yourself in your description of those with whom you disagree?

Venom?

I have strong opinions about the actions of many individuals.  I regret the actions of many groups that head off in directions I wouldn't choose.  And sometimes, (more often than I should) I allow myself to express those opinions in overly colourful terms.

But writing off a whole group of people as unworthy of dialogue is unworthy.

Even conservatively socialist liberals deserve to be heard.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Mar 2011)

Redeye implies he can afford the monthly extra freight for the cable TV INFORMATION PAK , and XM radio to occasionally flip to FOX News, but does not submit a pittance for Army.ca to continue his 





> bona fide effort to distort the debate through messaging.



That's one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Mar 2011)

Rifleman-

While I too have a problem with some of Redeye's messaging and world view, I do not believe that we want to go down the road of using financial contributions to Army.ca as a basis for deciding who we should and should not listen too.

Many of Redeye's ideals are not ones that I share, but I do enjoy reading his point of view, if only to make  me reflect upon that which I believe.  I certainly hold him no animous, nor, when I argue counter to him, do I honestly expect to change his mind.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco:



> ...using financial contributions to Army.ca as a basis for deciding who we should and should not listen too.



That was not the point at all. I was attempting to induce him to become a subscriber though.



> I certainly hold him no animosity, nor, when I argue counter to him, do I honestly expect to change his mind.



Me too. That's why I limit myself to three posts to anything he posts.

Regret going overboard. 

Apology to Redeye and others.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> SeaKingTacco:
> 
> That was not the point at all. I was attempting to induce him to become a subscriber though.
> 
> ...



Rifleman62-

My apologies- I misunderstood what you were trying to say.  Hopefully, I did not offend.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2011)

Part of culture wars is how *facts* are interpreted. I still await more details about the individuals at the university, so that story is on hold. Other factual evisdence is always there, even if it is being selectively ignored. I too get CNN, CBC, BBC World News service and it is interesting to note what stories they do not persue.

When looking at this US internal migration map, you see the trends, but you, the reader, will have to do your own overlays of what couties are "Blue", which are "Red", which are in Right to Work states, the levels of indebtedness of the States, % underfundiing of pensions etc. that you wish to track to determins "why" there are net inflows or outflows and why people are going to where they are going. Once you do the work, certain conclusions can be drawn (and I bet most of you know that I have done the work and am drawing conclusions).

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html


----------



## Redeye (14 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> At the risk of being deemed trollworthy Redeye, do you not see yourself in your description of those with whom you disagree?
> 
> Venom?
> 
> ...



Not trollworthy - a decent post.  I freely admit to flying a bit off the handle sometimes - but generally what causes me to do so is when a discussion moves from discussing actual, reasonable ideas to discussing the sort of utter nonsense that pervades the media.  And I'm as apt to do it to those leaning more left to me as to those more right - because "ideologically" I tend to sit somewhat in the centre - even somewhat right of centre on many issues.

The group I write off as unworthy of dialogue isn't people who have right leaning opinions (nor left), it's thsoe whose opinions are not in any way rooted in fact or any sort of reasonable basis.  If your basis of an opinion on an issue is an utterly incorrect or completely spun statement, and you haven't taken the time or made the effort to actually seek more depth on the matter, then yes, I'll probably write you off as being unworthy of any sort of dialogue.  If, on the other hand, you can present an argument which is cogent and rooted in something that isn't just fearmongering from what Mr. Campbell aptly described as "shouting heads", I'll happily discuss an issue and agree to disagree when that's the only conclusion I can come to.

The media infleunce is huge, how they draw people into stories is a marketing decision as much as anything.  Consider, for example, how they're reporting on the ongoing situation in Japan with respect to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima.  While the situation is grave, it seems like the media is playing up the severity massively (to the delight, I suspect, of anti-nuclear activists) because they know that most people simply don't know enough about nuclear power to be able to really understand what's happening.  Blogs do serve an interesting purpose in getting more of the story out (including even things like Twitter, to which I am somewhat addicted), but the problem is that you have to be even more careful about what you believe.  All too often something is thrown up on a blog that has little evidence to support it but is magically transformed into fact and then widely dispersed.

Rifleman62 raises a valid point.  I've been intending to subscribe to the site for a very long time to contribute as I've been using it (and its previous incarnation as a mailing list) since 2000 - but I seem to recall something about the road to hell...  So, having been chirped for it, I'm going to get on with it!!!


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2011)

Thanks for the direct response Redeye.  It seems that we might share more common ground than I had previously inferred from my reading of some of your earlier posts.

I would just raise one point of contention:





> If your basis of an opinion on an issue is an utterly incorrect or completely spun statement, and you haven't taken the time or made the effort to actually seek more depth on the matter, then yes, I'll probably write you off as being unworthy of any sort of dialogue



I can understand anybody that does not suffer fools gladly - mea culpa - but I am having more and more trouble with the "absolutes" in this world.  And the use of "incorrect" suggests a "correct".  I am less and less sure of what "correct" is.  Maybe it is the reason I moved into the sciences - the best I can come up with on most days is "the balance of probabilities suggests".  Which strangely enough means that when I am challenged on a course of action I have decided on weak probabilities I will react more vigorously in defense of that course than if I have strong probabilities in support.....go figure.

Anyway....direct and tangential to your peripheral point about inaccurate reporting of the Japanese nuclear reactors:

CTV had a lovely graphic of a  nuclear reactor showing the pumped water feed and the steam turbine generator.  They were describing the threat of the feed pumps not working.  They chose to focus on the steam turbines....


----------



## Redeye (14 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I can understand anybody that does not suffer fools gladly - mea culpa - but I am having more and more trouble with the "absolutes" in this world.  And the use of "incorrect" suggests a "correct".  I am less and less sure of what "correct" is.  Maybe it is the reason I moved into the sciences - the best I can come up with on most days is "the balance of probabilities suggests".  Which strangely enough means that when I am challenged on a course of action I have decided on weak probabilities I will react more vigorously in defense of that course than if I have strong probabilities in support.....go figure.



I suppose you're right - I don't know that there are absolutes necessarily - but what I meant was factually wrong statements (like what Politifact would label "Pants On Fire" lies).  This happens far too often it seems like, particularly in the "blogosphere".  Consider, for example, the hubris about the "Ground Zero Mosque" which is a) not a mosque and b) not at Ground Zero.  Consider the arguments over "net neutrality" which from the right completely (and I'd say probably deliberately) misrepresented what it is, and conflated it with a completely separate concept called the "Fairness Doctrine" which went nowhere.

I'm honestly trying to find a left wing equivalent to such hyperbole, but I can't really find anything so egregious.  Some of the "key figures" have made statements that are false too - but nowhere near as dramatic - and more importantly - at least in a few occasions I know of they've also retracted them.

The problem, still, getting away from polarity, is that we're too often discussing nonsense rather than what's actually factual and reasonable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2011)

> I'm honestly trying to find a left wing equivalent to such hyperbole, but I can't really find anything so egregious.  Some of the "key figures" have made statements that are false too - but nowhere near as dramatic - and more importantly - at least in a few occasions I know of they've also retracted them.



Global Warming?  

Anti-oil sands activism?

Globalization?

Blood for Oil?

A Canadian example- Harper's "hidden agenda" (an accusation, which, by definition, cannot be refuted)?

Those five are just off the top of my head.


----------



## Redeye (14 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Global Warming?
> 
> Anti-oil sands activism?
> 
> ...



It was looking for something with more depth specifically media spun. The anti-oil sands stuff I'm just starting to read up on, and it's getting a little bit of media play but not really..  I can think of no left-wing media equivalent to the Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, and so on.  They just don't seem to exist.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I can think of no left-wing media equivalent to the Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, and so on.  They just don't seem to exist.



Perhaps because they're so commonplace no single example stands out?


----------



## Redeye (14 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps because they're so commonplace no single example stands out?



Really?  Name one.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Mar 2011)

Kady O'Malley


----------



## Redeye (14 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Kady O'Malley



Yes, a cyncical and somewhat opinionated blogger that no one has ever heard of.  I just googled her and read her stuff a bit.  So far, not seeing anything remotely comparable.

I would have gone with maybe Keith Olbermann as a vague comparison, but even at that it's not really close.


----------



## cavalryman (14 Mar 2011)

Heather Mallick


----------



## Redeye (14 Mar 2011)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Heather Mallick



If you were going to go with Star columnists, I'd probably say Antonia Zerbisias, though again, not the kind of loon in the Limbaugh/Beck/Fox News set that I can see.   She can be ascerbic at times and sometimes not totally informed, but I discovered through an exchange on Twitter and blogs with her that she's willing to learn more about an issue and discuss things in a rational way.

There are good journalists across the spectrum, and that's important.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that there's no such thing as a reporter who's not going to have some degree of bias or spin they'll add to a story, which is why one needs multiple sources to consider.  However, the sources have to be reasonably credible, and the likes of talk radio louts and the major shouting heads at outlets like Fox News (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Cavuto) are not serving that purpose, but still seem to be the primary source of "information" to a very large group of people.  That is not helping the democratic process at all.  Neither is concentration of mainstream media in a small number of owners' hands.  Nor is allowing money to buy so much influence (which is what is happening in the US now with the travesty that was the "Citizens United" decision).


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Mar 2011)

The Rupert Murdochs and Conrad Blacks have done more damage than we know. They took intelligent newspapers and turned them into trash. This draggged down the entire level of debate. Then there was William F Buckley, who could best the left's top minds in relaxed debate. Now there is Rush Limbaugh, a bombastic drug addicted bully.


To paraphrase an editors comment from the time, "They took our readership to a market we didn't believe existed, the functionally illeterate."


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> not the kind of loon in the Limbaugh/Beck/Fox News set that I can see.



Bla, bla, bla....

Your point being ?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2011)

Redeye:

Maybe the problem has to do with "range and bearing".  Your perspective from your firing point may be different from the perspective from my firing point..... From my perspective all the trees out to my left seem to blend into the treeline and become just part of the forest.  

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2011)

Redeye: 


> The group I write off as unworthy of dialogue isn't people who have right leaning opinions (nor left), it's thsoe whose opinions are not in any way rooted in fact or any sort of reasonable basis.  *If your basis of an opinion on an issue is an utterly incorrect or completely spun statement, and you haven't taken the time or made the effort to actually seek more depth on the matter*, then yes, I'll probably write you off as being unworthy of any sort of dialogue.  If, on the other hand, you can present an argument which is cogent and rooted in something that isn't just fearmongering from what Mr. Campbell aptly described as "shouting heads", I'll happily discuss an issue and agree to disagree when that's the only conclusion I can come to.



Oh the intelligentsia!  Guess who makes the decision on the opinion?

That's twice.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2011)

It seems very easy to name call talk radio hosts, yet ignore the free pass the Legacy media gives to such clangers as:

Hillary Clinton; "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Calls Protesters Astroturf"
Andrew Sullivan: virtually anything relating to Governor Palin (and especially her son Trig)
The other examples like Climategate have already been mentioned.

The bloggers are the phampleteers of this era, and have drawn the ire of the powers that be since they easily bypass the "gatekeeper function" the legacy media has tried to assume. There is more out there than whatever "narrative" is being pushed, and if you choose to ignore it, then fine. Trying to shout down the messenger, however, suggests you are actively trying to stop others from hearing the message and making up their own minds.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> The bloggers are the phampleteers of this era ...





Agreed, and like the 17th and 18th, most of what is written is nonsense - for every Thomas Paine there were hundreds and are, now, tens of thousands of cretins. The danger of the 21st century blogs is exactly the same as the danger posed by the earlier _pamphleteers_: there is no established base of *truth* or *fact*; both 'truth' and 'fact' are whatever the blogger decides they need to be suit her purpose. And that applies all across the socio-political and economic spectra.

The problem is that 21st journalism is no better - a goodly share of it, from both the right and left and, indeed, from the so-called centre, is little more than partisan propaganda designed, consciously designed by the journalists, to advance (or retard) one or another point-of-view. Thus, we, the _consumers_ of information, have to work harder and harder to sift through the masses of _bumph_ aimed at us to try to sort out a few kernels of useful "fact" and, ever more rarely, "truth."


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Bla, bla, bla....
> 
> Your point being ?



...and that adds what to the discussion?  If this is the sum total of what you can add, just stay out of the thread.


----------



## Redeye (15 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It seems very easy to name call talk radio hosts, yet ignore the free pass the Legacy media gives to such clangers as:
> 
> Hillary Clinton; "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Calls Protesters Astroturf"
> ...



Well, calling protesters in certain cases Astroturfers makes sense - the term is applicable.  It's called following the money.  So it's an alternate view to the right's.  In the case of many of the "Tea Party" I've tried to get from them a cogent, coherent argument of what specifically they want in terms of policy directions in the United States, and I have come to realize that a good portion of them (though I have no basis to claim any specific proportion) have pretty much no idea.  There is a distinct grain of truth to the idea that they have been co-opted to lobby for the goals of those far wealthier than them.  I ask them, "What spending cuts, specifically, do you want?  What programs get the ax?", rarely is there an answer beyond vague claims about "discretionary spending".

As for Palin, she's a joke, and on her way to obsolescence, thankfully.  However, I don't agree with anyone attacking her family (or any politician's) when she herself is such a rich target.

Climategate?  Been debunked, repeatedly.  However, someone who only watches Fox News or reads right wing blogs would probably not known that because they have never bothered to report it and they trot out the story whenever it suits them.  They're now doing that a lot with "half of Americans don't pay taxes", which is also basically a load of bollocks... or at least, a strikingly deceptive statement.  It fits their meme that the wealthiest deserve tax breaks and somehow unions and working class folks are the problem with America.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The bloggers are the phampleteers of this era, and have drawn the ire of the powers that be since they easily bypass the "gatekeeper function" the legacy media has tried to assume. There is more out there than whatever "narrative" is being pushed, and if you choose to ignore it, then fine. Trying to shout down the messenger, however, suggests you are actively trying to stop others from hearing the message and making up their own minds.



I'm not trying to shout down any messenger particularly, so much as highlight that listening to only certain messengers doesn't give you the whole story.  I'm glad that citizen journalism is alive and well, but when its primary product is deceptive agitprop, then voices against it are necessary.  Somewhere in the mushy middle lies the "truth", so the counterbalance is rather essential.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to shout down any messenger particularly, so much as highlight that listening to only certain messengers doesn't give you the whole story.  I'm glad that citizen journalism is alive and well, but when its primary product is deceptive agitprop, then voices against it are necessary.  Somewhere in the mushy middle lies the "truth", so the counterbalance is rather essential.



So you have simply inverted the premise, since it is the Legacy media that isn't providing the story, amd the citizen journalists of the blogosphere who are hunting for it. Following the money shows lots of well heeled liberal foundations pouring money into events attempting to counter the TEA party movement (and despite many allegations there is little evidence the TEA party movement is externally funded in any way; astroturft is an inversion of what is really happening).

If you don't think the citizen journalists are doing a good job, onsider the following article; every story was broken by the blogosphere and most are still not being followed in any detail (if at all) by the legacy media:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/14/the-aroma-of-illegality/?singlepage=true



> *The Aroma of Illegality*
> Posted By Roger Kimball On March 14, 2011 @ 6:14 am In Uncategorized | 46 Comments
> 
> It’s getting stronger, that stench of illegality, and it’s emanating from places high as well as low.
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Mar 2011)

Didn't Scott Walker just cut corporate taxes in Wisconsin? Then tried to make up the short fall by clawing back wages and benefits from middle class public servants. Wages and benefits that would have been spent in State. This must make him a tea party hero.


----------



## Redeye (16 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (and despite many allegations there is little evidence the TEA party movement is externally funded in any way...).



If you actually believe that, we have little to talk about.  That is complete and utter nonsense.

Yes, there are some liberal organizations (and individuals) that provide funding for projects aimed at advancing their agenda and countering that of the right's.  And I'm pretty glad that's the case.  The fact, however, is that if you look at the influence of money on politics, particularly in the United States, the money pushing agendas is coming from the right much more than from the left, and the efforts in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan to attack unions (and that's what it is, the "fiscal necessity" argument has now been completely refuted especially in WI) is part of an overall effort by the GOP to defeat the only organizations able to counter their financial power.  I'm not a fan of unions at all, but if corporations and lobbies can buy so much influence in the halls of power, I'm glad there's some measure of counterbalance.  We have gotten to the point that "1 man, 1 vote" is now looking more like "$1, 1 vote".  That is very, very ominous indeed.

I find it particularly interesting how Tea Party protests and the union protests in Wisconsin were spun so completely differently by Fox too, as if their agenda wasn't already clear enough.  The way they've described people exercising their civil liberties in a peaceful but deliberate manner is pretty sickening.


----------



## Redeye (16 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So you have simply inverted the premise, since it is the Legacy media that isn't providing the story, amd the citizen journalists of the blogosphere who are hunting for it. Following the money shows lots of well heeled liberal foundations pouring money into events attempting to counter the TEA party movement (and despite many allegations there is little evidence the TEA party movement is externally funded in any way; astroturft is an inversion of what is really happening).
> 
> If you don't think the citizen journalists are doing a good job, onsider the following article; every story was broken by the blogosphere and most are still not being followed in any detail (if at all) by the legacy media:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/14/the-aroma-of-illegality/?singlepage=true



As far as the PJ Media post, it's pretty much laugable.  President Obama declined to defend DOMA because he can, and it seems he believes it to be in his best interest to do so.  There was much ado briefly until it was realized that there are plenty of precedents for what he did.

The Madison protests have been vigourous, but there's been to the best of my knowledge not a single arrest, and mostly trumped up claims of "thuggishness".  I note that there's been no reports of people showing up with guns or anything like that.  Yes, people are angry and expressing their outrage at a baseless attack on the middle class by a governor who's just handed about $3.8bn in tax cuts to his richest constituents.  The fact that his legislature ran through the anti-union bill as a "non-financial bill" getting around the quorum issue shows that his effort is purely union-busting.  Then, of course, there's the prank call from "David Koch" he fell for.  I'll be interested to see how much steam the recall effort gathers, because it seems like WI voters have some pretty serious buyer's remorse.

Then it trots out this nonsense about the "New Black Panthers".  This is another ridiculous RW meme.  There's what, 24 of them nationwide?  Yet you'd think it was an organization of millions that was some serious threat to democracy if you only paid attention to RW media.

Then there's the other meme, about "ObamaCare" - "the public hates it" - this claim is being made very heavily without any sort of empirical evidence.  Polls have shown that to the extent the public is unhappy with it, they are because it doesn't go far enough and takes too long for all the provisions to kick in.

I could go on, but there's not much point is there?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2011)

More citizen journalism:

http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2011/03/union-thugs-destroy-recall-petitions/



> *Union Thugs Destroy Recall Petitions*
> 
> Armed with a bullhorn, thuggery, and the most annoying chants ever, union thugs continued their streak of ‘solidarity’.
> 
> ...



There is an embedded video as well


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2011)

>I'm honestly trying to find a left wing equivalent to such hyperbole

It shouldn't be so hard.  Pay attention to the superlatives the next time some sort of spending cutback is announced.  "Criminal, vicious, heartless, violent..."


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The Madison protests have been vigourous, but there's been to the best of my knowledge not a single arrest, and mostly trumped up claims of "thuggishness".



http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/17/20-days-of-left-wing-thuggery-in-wisconsin-when-will-obama-democrats-and-msm-call-for-civility/

Includes video clips and still photographs of protestor caused damage and vandalism, threats of arson, death threats, mobbing of legislators....As to why there have been no arrests, that is a question that may well be addressed in the future by the Governor and the legislature. The Rule of Law is at stake, and brownshirts trying to overturn the results of an election or using force to prevent the passage of laws they don't like is not the mark of a civil society or a good leading indicator for the future.

Oh, yes, live ammunition was found outside the Legislature as well, so you now have your proof  guns _are_ involved,,,,,,


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/17/20-days-of-left-wing-thuggery-in-wisconsin-when-will-obama-democrats-and-msm-call-for-civility/
> 
> Includes video clips and still photographs of protestor caused damage and vandalism, threats of arson, death threats, mobbing of legislators....As to why there have been no arrests, that is a question that may well be addressed in the future by the Governor and the legislature. The Rule of Law is at stake, and brownshirts trying to overturn the results of an election or using force to prevent the passage of laws they don't like is not the mark of a civil society or a good leading indicator for the future.
> 
> Oh, yes, live ammunition was found outside the Legislature as well, so you now have your proof  guns _are_ involved,,,,,,



Sources?  Andrew Breitbart is not a source.  That man has absolutely zero credibility.

Here's a source I found about the "live ammo" claim: http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2000476.shtml - no firearms seen, no evidence whatsoever of how it got there, who brought it, or why.  So forgive me for not really seeing any reason to place any blame just yet.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sources?  Andrew Breitbart is not a source.  That man has absolutely zero credibility.



Still having a go at the messenger I see.


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Still having a go at the messenger I see.



If the messenger has massive credibility problems, then I try to collaborate the message with other sources.  And I can't.  Did some of the protests get a bit animated?  Yes.  So did Tea Party ones - so do any large group affairs potentially when passions run deep and there's tension.  I'm sure plenty of people would love to have us believe that all Right Wing functions are dignified affairs.  Then someone gets caught on video stomping on a woman's head. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11969522)

Oh, and then there's Tea Party darling Mark Williams' great idea of sending "agents provocateurs" to Madison to act like louts generally so as to discredit any protestors.

Back to Breitbart's credibility problems - they are very, very well documented - the Shirley Sherrod affair, his ties to "prankster" James O'Keefe to whom he tried to give some credibility.  As a funny aside, it was none other than GLENN BECK that outed O'Keefe for his latest stunt.  That is a little twilight-zonish to me.  The funny thing is, as if Huffington Post wasn't having enough problems, he's joined their "staff", which I think has just about finished them off.

As for the protestors in Wisconsin, well, how've they been behaving generally?  Ask the Chief of Police in Madison, Joel DeSpain.  According to the USA Today, "DeSpain said there were no arrests and called the demonstrators "a very civil group."" http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-26-wisconsin-saturday-rally_N.htm

So we can go around in circles with hyperbole some more, or realizing tu quoque doesn't really get anywhere anyhow.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Mar 2011)

And you own a Glock?


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And you own a Glock?



Not anymore.  Someone offered me more than I paid for it so I sold it.  Thought about picking up another one through Police Ordnance Company's Mil/LEO discount program, but I haven't been to the range in quite a while so it hasn't been a priority.  I do have a Ruger MkIII 22/45 that at some point I need to get fixed (I did something horrific to it after cleaning it apparently) and a Chinese Type 56 (SKS).  I sold my Browning Citori Skeet Gun last winter again at a profit, and my Smith M&P .40 because my supply of "free" ammo dried up in NS.  I still have my registered AR-15 lower that some point I'll get around to buying the rest of too.

Oh, was there a point in there somewhere?  Other than perhaps you trying to paint me as something I'm not?  Yeah.  I'm a gun owner.  I used to be a card carrying conservative, and in most elections I've voted in, that's who I voted for.  Until 2006 or so, anyhow.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I used to be a card carrying conservative, and in most elections I've voted in, that's who I voted for.  Until 2006 or so, anyhow.



What happened? Harper? As a true conservative, I consider Harper primarily a pragmatist as opposed to an idealogue.  I believe he would accompany himself in a rousing tune of the Internationale if it would win an election.  He doesn't have to because Iggy and Taliban Jack have a mean duet going on.  Harper keeps winning elections because he tempers his conservatism rather than pushing it.  I think a lot of people like to believe him to be a rabid conservative but he has stayed away from conservative hot button issues.  So what's his biggest failing?  A 403 area code?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Mar 2011)

Dennis has actually asked a really good question.

Redeye- I realize you do not speak for all "Progressives", but could you lay out from your perspective what it is about Harper, exactly, that bothers that faction of political thought?

No BS- I'm truly curious.  This could be a good opportunity to learn.


----------



## observor 69 (18 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I believe he would accompany himself in a rousing tune of the Internationale if it would win an election.



There's part of your answer SKT. Under his management he has led his government in a long list of actions that most "progressives" IMHO consider beyond the norm. I am sure you are quit aware of a most of these acts. Which brings me to wonder where your question comes from?

Edit: I personally reject the label "progressive." In years past I wondered why my poli Sci prof at RMC said he wasn't of any political stripe. I now understand, none of the major parties have won my loyalty.


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2011)

Dennis & SKT - I wrote a facetious answer to that question for a blog a while back on being a "recovering conservative", but I think I will give a more reasoned answer (it was written mainly as a humourous polemic).

First of all, I don't despise Stephen Harper.  I don't think he's a bad person, or a particularly bad leader.  I voted for him after all (well, not him directly, I don't live in Calgary).  I don't consider myself especially a "progressive".  I'm a pragmatist, and more or less in the middle slightly tilted right.  I used to be much more of a far right leaner, a card carrying rabid Tory.  Remember the scandal with the PC Youth on campaign buses for Mike Harris getting drunk and acting like idiots?  I was one of them.

Like you, Dennis, I realize that Harper is generally a pragmatic guy, and he has to be.  If he decided to actually pursue a lot of his personal beliefs in policy he'd be done.  And he has rather eloquently explained that he considers, for example, his views on certain social issues like abortion not appropriate to try to legislate on.  Ditto with gay marriage, he realized it was not in the country's interest (nor that of his political career perhaps) to fight over it so he's basically worked to squelch the social conservative extreme of his party.

That said I have to attribute his staying in office as much to the incompetence of the Liberal Party in selecting leaders as anything else.  I think he's won not so much because people think he's a great leader or like his party, but because the Grits haven't inspired any swing voters from either end of the spectrum to come back.  Running buffoons like Stephane Dion was not a good choice for them.

Harper - like all politicians - has made stupid mistakes (like the two GST cuts) and I think to many on the left (from what I can tell) comes off as being arrogant, as though he has some long standing majority, rather than a minority government.  He seems to have sold some of them on the virtues of a minority government.  He's also a hypocrite (take a look at the Senate), and that doesn't sell well.  He also seems to take credit for things that weren't his doing.  For example, he was all too happy to brag about the stability of Canada's financial system in the wake of the 2008 crash, but it was regulations which I believe were mainly implemented by the Liberals that helped that happen - and Conservatives largely seemed in favour of relaxing a lot of those regulations.  For what it's worth, I've often defended him to more left-leaning folks who'll attack him based on the fact that he's avoided social issues adeptly, and when people attack him for taking positions I can see no realistic alternative to.

Anyhow, I'm a pragmatist because it has become clearer to me that no one has all the right answers, and the only way to appear to do so seems to be to cast one's self against a hypothetical opposite.  To illustrate what I mean by that, consider the reaction many are having to the nuclear disaster presently unfolding in Japan.  Broadly, people (across the spectrum it seems) scream "no more nukes" and "renewable power" and "wind and solar".  They cast nuclear as a horror against perfectly clean renewable power sources - which of course do not exist, or at least not in any way that could replace nuclear, which when one does a more reasoned assessment is superior to the viable options - coal, oil and natural gas.  I could say hydroelectricity has a better safety record which is probably true, but the key there is you need sources.

I mused in some forum that in the event of an election I don't know who I'd vote for.  In the last two federal elections I voted for the Green Party.  I don't agree with their platform terribly strongly (though much of it comes from the right if you actually read into it), but I figured that every vote for them helped them raise money to become a louder voice, and I think they have one worth hearing.  Hell, if the Bloc Quebecois occupies space in the House of Commons, why not them.  I knew they had no chance of winning, but I felt better walking out of the polling station than I would have voting Conservative, and I've never voted Liberal and I'm still not inclined to start.  In the first case it wasn't so much to do with Harper, and everything to do with the actual candidate (Dean Del Mastro), for whom I had no respect from a variety of interactions and his policy ideas.

Alright, I think I'm jumping all over the place and have said enough for one post.  I'm actually heading to the Wardroom for a drink and over to 0ttoDestruct's place to drink his whiskey and eat his food, so I'll end off here for now!


----------



## Jed (18 Mar 2011)

Redeye, I will apologise right from the start for throwing in my 2 cents at this point, as I expect my following comments may illicit a long rambling response that I will have difficulty following the logic.

I too, like D. Ruhl and others, are very curious and wish to understand your point of view. Maybe I have ADD but I can't seem sustain the effort to read through to the end of the posts.

You used the example of a mistake made by Harper as the GST reductions. Why is that a mistake? It seemed to get a lot of votes and make many folks happy west of Thunder Bay?

I may be totally off base here, but my instincts tell me that you have an aversion to the 403 or 780 area codes. That's ok though, I freely admit my aversion to the 613 area code.


----------



## Dissident (18 Mar 2011)

Maybe I am rationalizing (which I despise), but my perspective on the senate is not that PM Harper is a hypocrite. He is merely, as you have pointed out, pragmatic. To get a senate reform passed, he would need the support of the senate, no? Hence it would be logical for him to stack the senate until such time as he can make the changes he longs to do.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Mar 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Maybe I am rationalizing (which I despise), but my perspective on the senate is not that PM Harper is a hypocrite. He is merely, as you have pointed out, pragmatic. To get a senate reform passed, he would need the support of the senate, no? Hence it would be logical for him to stack the senate until such time as he can make the changes he longs to do.



Indeed. What he actually committed to was to abide by the wishes of the electorate in those provinces that held senatorial elections. At no time did he say he wouldn't appoint senators from those provinces that don't hold elections for the senate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Mar 2011)

Redeye-

Thank-you for your post.  I don't agree with much of it, but it is thought provoking.


----------



## Redeye (19 Mar 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Redeye, I will apologise right from the start for throwing in my 2 cents at this point, as I expect my following comments may illicit a long rambling response that I will have difficulty following the logic.



Not in this case, pretty simple.  Cutting the GST was stupid for a few economic reasons, but the simplest explanation is that consumption taxes are generally speaking the fairest taxes, particularly with the exemptions that apply to the tax in Canada.  I am fairly well off in terms of my income but when I did the math on how much of my net income goes things that are GST-taxable, the savings weren't much to write home about, and in a lot of cases businesses simply sucked up the difference.  The place I went to lunch most days at the time simply added the tax cuts to their profit and kept my $7 lunch special the same price.  Sure, it helped on big ticket purchases but I think it worked out to me being lucky to save $300 in a year as a result.  Not chump change, but the aggregate impact was to turn a surplus into a deficit for the country.  If tax cuts were the priority, then cutting personal rates and/or raising the basic personal exemption would have put more money in the pockets of "working families" probably, which would then be spent back into the economy. 

That's a brief explanation, I'm typing on someone else's laptop which I'm hating, so I'm going to leave it at that.  Globe & Mail ran a good op ed piece last week on the topic, and googling Value Added Taxes or consumption taxes should turn up plenty.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> I may be totally off base here, but my instincts tell me that you have an aversion to the 403 or 780 area codes. That's ok though, I freely admit my aversion to the 613 area code.



Yeah, we'll go with totally off base. So ridiculously so that's worth no further comment.


----------



## Redeye (19 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye-
> 
> Thank-you for your post.  I don't agree with much of it, but it is thought provoking.



You're welcome. I only came to the points of view I did by daring to interact with people I disagreed with!  That's how civil society in a democracy is supposed to work.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Mar 2011)

Redeye,

I'm with you (at least partially) on the GST.  Consumptoin taxes are the fairest way to tax and they have the added bonus of encouraging savings.  Although Canada bordering the US (and the bulk of the Canadian population living less than a day's drive from a US outlet mall) one has be very careful at what rate consumption taxes are set.

I believe that Harper was actually playing deeper game with the GST cuts.  My read was that he was trying to get the Federal Government to shrink back to it's traditional areas of concern (Defence, Foreign Affairs, etc) by removing $10 Billion or so/Annum of funding.  This was before the crash in 2008 and deficits coming back into fashion...


----------



## Infanteer (19 Mar 2011)

In a somewhat related vein, I'm reading with interest on the collective breath holding of the British PM's "Big Society".  It seems quite ambitious.  Anyone following this?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Mar 2011)

No- do you have a link?


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No- do you have a link?



http://thebigsociety.co.uk/


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2011)

Criticisms of the GST cut almost always dwell on the fairness/efficiency of consumption vs income taxes and miss the larger point, which was never about fairness or efficiency.  The root of public spending problems is spending growth.  Curtailing the freedom of the opposition parties - all of whom like to spend - to plan whole new spending programs around the expectation of federal budget surpluses is an important achievement.  A GST cut is politically easier (and more advantageous) to do, and politically harder to undo.  The difficulty of turning it back is what makes the cut useful.

Now the parties are compelled to explain where they expect to obtain more money for new programs.  We saw it with Dion's "revenue neutral" (it was not - the arithmetic showed there was going to be extra money for new spending, with a federal child care program at the front of the list) Green Shift, and we see it again with the call for the corporate tax cut rollback (again, child care is the program waiting in the wings).  The Liberals have become tiresomely predictable: if they promise some sort of revenue rearrangement, be sure to look for the barely concealed liberated funding which they will use as the basis of promises to buy votes - buying you with your own money (taxes), in effect.

To a first approximation (allowing for fees and revenue-generating assets), public spending is taxation - now, or future.  The prosperous decade 1997-2007 was when we should have been clearing the books of all the "future" spending of 1975-1985.  The government did a p!ss-poor job of it.  Whenever there is a surplus, it should be used to clear past spending from the books - no end-of-year showers of candy.  If tax cuts are the only way to take the bag of candy away from the irresponsible parties, so be it, until they all agree - preferably in legislation - that budget surpluses may only be used to reduce public debt.


----------



## Redeye (21 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye,
> 
> I'm with you (at least partially) on the GST.  Consumptoin taxes are the fairest way to tax and they have the added bonus of encouraging savings.  Although Canada bordering the US (and the bulk of the Canadian population living less than a day's drive from a US outlet mall) one has be very careful at what rate consumption taxes are set.



Only to a certain extent - GST is still collected on goods imported above the basic personal exemption, so most big ticket items are taxed - and I think in many (most) cases, the difference in price irrespective of the taxes is what attracts shoppers to the the States.  I recently did a bit of a shopping binge in the States and even after paying sales tax when I got back to Canada I was still far ahead.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I believe that Harper was actually playing deeper game with the GST cuts.  My read was that he was trying to get the Federal Government to shrink back to it's traditional areas of concern (Defence, Foreign Affairs, etc) by removing $10 Billion or so/Annum of funding.  This was before the crash in 2008 and deficits coming back into fashion...



To an extent, perhaps - but I'd have been quite happy to leave spending the same and continue to reap large surpluses during a boom to pay down the national debt a fair bit - or at least make the tax changes to income tax instead of consumption taxes.   I think to a great extent that probably echoes what Brad Sallows is saying in his post - the idea of running deficits during recessions is to pay them off during booms, not hand out tax cuts ("candy").


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Mar 2011)

> To an extent, perhaps - but I'd have been quite happy to leave spending the same and continue to reap large surpluses during a boom to pay down the national debt a fair bit - or at least make the tax changes to income tax instead of consumption taxes.   I think to a great extent that probably echoes what Brad Sallows is saying in his post - the idea of running deficits during recessions is to pay them off during booms, not hand out tax cuts ("candy").



You know, if you feel undertaxed, you can always write a cheque to the Government.  I'm pretty sure that they will be more than happy to cash it.


----------



## Redeye (22 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know, if you feel undertaxed, you can always write a cheque to the Government.  I'm pretty sure that they will be more than happy to cash it.



How does my accountant put it?  Everyone has an obligation to pay taxes, but a responsibility to arrange their affairs to pay only what's due.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2011)

Public service unions put on the brown shirts:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576232780047736062.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop



> *Wisconsin Unions Get Ugly *
> 
> Now they're threatening businesses that stay neutral in the state's budget battle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2011)

Maybe I missed something, but since when is boycotting a business (ie, encouraging people to exercise their freedom to choose with whom they wish to do business) considered "thuggery"?

Only in right wing media, I guess.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Public service unions put on the brown shirts:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576232780047736062.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop


----------



## Jed (3 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something, but since when is boycotting a business (ie, encouraging people to exercise their freedom to choose with whom they wish to do business) considered "thuggery"?
> 
> Only in right wing media, I guess.



When a faceless, militant organization of people use wholesale intimidation ala a gang or mob, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, that, in my opinion is 'thuggery'.

Redeye, you were born in the wrong century. TC Douglas would have appreciated your help taking on the RCMP in the 30's.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something, but since when is boycotting a business (ie, encouraging people to exercise their freedom to choose with whom they wish to do business) considered "thuggery"?
> 
> Only in right wing media, I guess.



So individual consumers can exercise freedom of choice, but not business owners? Rather two faced approach.

You missed the "do this or else" part of the piece. 



> "With that we'd ask that you reconsider taking a sign and stance to support public employees in this community. Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members."



Looks like a pretty explicit threat to me.


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So individual consumers can exercise freedom of choice, but not business owners? Rather two faced approach.
> 
> You missed the "do this or else" part of the piece.



Business owners still have their freedom of choice.  They're being informed that a large block of consumers may choose to boycott them.  Yeah, it's perhaps a little aggressive, not something I'd want to be associated with, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it thuggery.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Looks like a pretty explicit threat to me.



A "threat" to take one's business elsewhere?  Yeah, real big threat.  People make those decisions constantly. I do, certainly.  You, I'm sure, do to.  If there was a threat to actually do harm to people or physical damage to their property, that's actual thuggery.


----------



## Northalbertan (3 Apr 2011)

Perhaps extortion would be a better word than thuggery.  Redeye I am not sure how you could possibly support what is a borderline criminal act.  The unions are losing their power and are peeved and threatened so they are lashing out in this way to look for support?  Not a rational act.  And if they were so good for the worker why are so many of them opting out once they are given the option?


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2011)

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> Perhaps extortion would be a better word than thuggery.  Redeye I am not sure how you could possibly support what is a borderline criminal act.



What, exactly, is criminal about informing an organization that if they choose not to support any particular cause, those supporting that cause won't do business with them?  Any business is free to make such choices.  Such boycotts aren't rare, they're done by any number of organizations of any number of political orientations.



			
				Northalbertan said:
			
		

> The unions are losing their power and are peeved and threatened so they are lashing out in this way to look for support?  Not a rational act.  And if they were so good for the worker why are so many of them opting out once they are given the option?



There are several dimensions to the issue in Wisconsin in particular.  The first was the claim that the attack on public sector unions was somehow financially necessary.  That was pretty much debunked by the fact that Governor Scott Walker passed about $3.8bn in tax cuts, most of which benefit his wealthiest constituents.  Beyond that, those public sector unions had already made significant concessions and signalled clearly they were willing to make more to help the budget position.  Walker wasn't willing to negotiate - not with those unions nor with Democrats.  The financial necessity bit was also laid bare when his government removed the financial part (removing the need for a larger majority) to shoehorn the pure union busting effort through.

The fact is, unionization is basically a right.  Free association, free assembly, the freedom to supply or withhold labour, all those are rights fought for for a long time that unions won't give up too easily.  As my wife put it, I hate being forced to side with unions (I'm broadly no fan of them), but frankly, the contrast of unions willing to be reasonable versus what amounts to jackboot thuggery by government puts me on the side of the unions.  

The real reason for the attack on unions is that they're really the only force with the organization and fundraising ability to compete with the corporate interests which own the Republican Party.  You cripple the Democrats' ability to raise money, combine that with the insanity of the Citizens United decision, and the GOP because essentially unstoppable.  That has ominous implications for democracy, and that's why I find myself with no option but to defend the unions.


----------



## Northalbertan (3 Apr 2011)

I suppose it comes down to the manor in which the union suggests that the business owner should change his views or be seen as an opponent.  There is no neutral ground, you are with us or against us.  Smells too much like brown shirt tactics to me.  It just gets my hackles up right away.   I fail to understand why they (the union) can't see that some folks either don't care enough about the issue to have a point of view on it, or don't in fact support the union view.  These kind of tactics aren't going to garner support, in fact it may have the opposite effect as most people will likely see it for what it is.  A high handed attempt at extortion.  

Redeye we are obviously going to continue to disagree on this subject.  I however am not going to boycott your posts on this forum unless you present a nice large banner expressing your support for my point of view at the bottom of your posts.  I think you are entitled to your opinion, and are free to express it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2011)

The bits of "rights" that lay the foundation of collective bargaining and unions are *civil* rights.  If the rights are abused, then in effect - easy come, easy go.  It is ridiculous to have organized labour-supporting political parties controlling one side of a bargaining table and organized labour controlling the other, when public funds are at stake and the public fund-giver and the giver's interests are not fairly represented.  The Democratic Party in the US and the NDP in Canada are vocal, open, and proud of their support for organized labour.  Since my interests as an employee were in my recent ignored and attacked by my contemporary MP and his political colleagues and labour associates at various levels - in favour of organized (private sector) labour - there was not even any suggestion of a neutral stance - this is not a hypothetical problem.  I tolerate it in the private sector because I must - I can always change jobs, and if organized labour effectively controls both sides of the table they are at liberty to fly the company into the ground - but in the public sector I have no alternatives.  I must pay taxes to support whatever agreements are reached between public employees and their employers, even when the latter freely acknowledge and honour political debts and markers owed to the former.

The point of rolling back the gains of government employee unions is not to address current budget shortfalls; it is to mitigate against repetition of the problem.  Kill the roots of the weed; don't just cut off this week's above-ground growth.

If labour-serving political parties will be "crippled" by the loss of their entirely too cozy quid-pro-quo relationship with public sector unions, they are casting their appeals for funding too narrowly.  They should work harder to gain broader public support to prove they deserve existence as a political party.


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2011)

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> I suppose it comes down to the manor in which the union suggests that the business owner should change his views or be seen as an opponent.  There is no neutral ground, you are with us or against us.  Smells too much like brown shirt tactics to me.  It just gets my hackles up right away.   I fail to understand why they (the union) can't see that some folks either don't care enough about the issue to have a point of view on it, or don't in fact support the union view.  These kind of tactics aren't going to garner support, in fact it may have the opposite effect as most people will likely see it for what it is.  A high handed attempt at extortion.



The claim of "extortion" is extreme, and completely unfounded I'd say.  That said, I'm not really in favour of such "tactics" either, and for the reasons you state.  That said, their whole point is to try to get people to care about the issue, that's generally speaking what is most important in politics - lately, it seems, apathy has taken over, and that's what allows a lot of things to happen when it comes to politics - there's no opposition to any particular issue because no one can be bothered to be informed.  There's an old adage, if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention...



			
				Northalbertan said:
			
		

> Redeye we are obviously going to continue to disagree on this subject.  I however am not going to boycott your posts on this forum unless you present a nice large banner expressing your support for my point of view at the bottom of your posts.  I think you are entitled to your opinion, and are free to express it.



Nor would I.  Again, I don't necessarily agree with the tactic in question here, but I also don't consider it thuggery, much less extortion (actually, blackmail would be the term, but still).


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The point of rolling back the gains of government employee unions is not to address current budget shortfalls; it is to mitigate against repetition of the problem.  Kill the roots of the weed; don't just cut off this week's above-ground growth.



While that seems to be the ideological position of parties in the right in general, why then do they lie about it, constantly?  In the case of Wisconsin, the Governor presented it as a budget issue only, it was only when the opposition but an effective blocking strategy in place that the real agenda became clearer, it was then laid totally bare when Governor Walker was stupid enough to fall for a prank call from someone posing as David Koch.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If labour-serving political parties will be "crippled" by the loss of their entirely too cozy quid-pro-quo relationship with public sector unions, they are casting their appeals for funding too narrowly.  They should work harder to gain broader public support to prove they deserve existence as a political party.



They have public support, but they don't have access to the millions in corporate donations that flow almost exclusively into the pockets of the GOP since the Citizens United decision.

My preference, as I think I've stated, is that parties and candidates only be funded by individuals, not corporations, unions, or any other lobby groups, and that such donations be capped at a reasonably low level.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> .... The first was the claim that the attack on public sector unions was somehow financially necessary.  That was pretty much debunked by the fact that Governor Scott Walker passed about $3.8bn in tax cuts, side of the unions.



There is much in your post I find debatable but this line stands out for me because it is often trotted out as a defence of the status quo.

Restated it says that I can afford to continue living the way I am because my employer pays me a steady wage.  It ignores the fact that the employer may not be able to continue paying that wage and is faced with the stark prospect of laying me off, cutting my hours/wages or going out of business.

Yes last year's budget had sufficient funds to support last year's expenditures (- but wait - weren't they in deficit anyway?  and having to borrow money?  despite a very high tax regime?) but revenues were declining as the economy contracted.  This seems to me to be an indicator that the society (the employer) could no longer afford the government (the employee).

The concurrent question to the one about what can we afford is: how do you increase revenues to generate the government services that we want.  And that is where the philosophy enters the discussion and which results in some people saying "attract more entrepreneurs who will circulate more external funds through our economy" while others argue that those with stores of gold should be relieved of their treasure.

And wrt the Citizens United decision - that was only this past year - the  Union-Democrat alliance predates Jimmy Hoffa and Jack Kennedy.  You need a better argument. 


Curiously the Left loves to beat up on the Kochs as exemplars of the evil right but say nothing about their own sugar daddies like Soros, Gates and Buffet, not to mention the PR wing of Spielberg and Oprah.  Not to mention the fat multimillionaire union buster known as Michael Moore.

One of ERCampbells posts on fundraising in Canada points to a similar tendency - the people-friendly Liberal Party of Canada continues to get most of its support from well-heeled donors that can afford the big bucks.  Meanwhile the people are sending what bucks they can afford to the Conservatives, NDP and Greens - in that order.  On that basis popular support is with the Conservatives while the Liberals (and the Democrats) are reliant on institutional support.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2011)

>They have public support, but they don't have access to the millions in corporate donations that flow almost exclusively into the pockets of the GOP since the Citizens United decision.

Really?

OpenSecrets.org: Top Donors by Political Alignment

OpenSecrets.org: Top Donors by Organization

OpenSecrets.org: by Industry

OpenSecrets.org: by Sector

OpenSecrets.org: Business/Labour Ideology Split


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There is much in your post I find debatable but this line stands out for me because it is often trotted out as a defence of the status quo.



Sorry, but none of this argument makes sense.  The cuts made by Walker won't improve the financial position of the state, and are largely aimed at the wealthy (things like cuts to estate taxes, etc).  To suggest that this effort is somehow essential to the financial viability of the state seems an exaggeration at best.  Further, those unions made clear that they were prepared to make even more concessions than they already had.

As for the "union-democratic alliance", yes, it's old.  And?  Citizens United allows more flooding of money into the system - hence my opinion that only individual actors should contribute to funding political parties.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The concurrent question to the one about what can we afford is: how do you increase revenues to generate the government services that we want.  And that is where the philosophy enters the discussion and which results in some people saying "attract more entrepreneurs who will circulate more external funds through our economy" while others argue that those with stores of gold should be relieved of their treasure.



This is the perennial question.  The answer on the surface is pretty simple: encourage more economic activity in order to grow the tax base.  However, the answer constantly trotted out by the right "cut taxes" doesn't seem to do that, and makes the budget situation worse.  Walker cutting estate taxes sure isn't likely to spur economic growth in the state, but it sure will put a hole in the budget, for example.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Curiously the Left loves to beat up on the Kochs as exemplars of the evil right but say nothing about their own sugar daddies like Soros, Gates and Buffet, not to mention the PR wing of Spielberg and Oprah.  Not to mention the fat multimillionaire union buster known as Michael Moore.



There's a reason for that.  I'm okay with living in the kind of world the likes of George Soros, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett would like to help create.  By contrast, the world dreamed of by the likes of the Kochs, where monied interests control government and set policy, where things like environmental protection and sustainability take a back seat to profits, a corporatist world - I don't want that, the very thought of it is frankly disgusting to me.  That's what to me the Kochs and their stooges are evil and the enemy of everything I believe in.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> One of ERCampbells posts on fundraising in Canada points to a similar tendency - the people-friendly Liberal Party of Canada continues to get most of its support from well-heeled donors that can afford the big bucks.  Meanwhile the people are sending what bucks they can afford to the Conservatives, NDP and Greens - in that order.  On that basis popular support is with the Conservatives while the Liberals (and the Democrats) are reliant on institutional support.



I have to wonder how changing funding models will change that, though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> > Quote from: Kirkhill on Today at 11:50:50
> ...




In the particular case of the Liberal Party of Toronto Canada it will not. It will remain the party of big money, big business and big labour because they (the leaders of the "bigs") know that the Liberals can be bought - they will campaign as far "left" as necessary but they will govern to suit Paul Desmarais _et al_. The Conservatives have too many "wild cards" - prairie populists and the like - for the tastes of Bay Street and Victoria Square, plus their roots have, _traditionally_, been in the small towns and in the small business community.

But, eventually, making it impossible for big business and big labour to fund political parties and making less and less and less _direct_ government support available and, simultaneously, making it more beneficial (tax breaks/_indirect_ government support) for individual to make substantial ($500.00+ per year to, say, no more than $1,500.00 per year) will, eventually, force the Liberals to appeal, more and more, to more individual Canadians.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> .....
> There's a reason for that.  I'm okay with living in the kind of world the likes of George Soros, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett would like to help create.  By contrast, the world dreamed of by the likes of the Kochs, where monied interests control government and set policy, where things like environmental protection and sustainability take a back seat to profits, a corporatist world - I don't want that, the very thought of it is frankly disgusting to me.  That's what to me the Kochs and their stooges are evil and the enemy of everything I believe in. .............



And I think there you have it.  The difference between you and me is that Koch, Soros, Gates and Buffet are all birds of a feather.  I see no distinction between a Democrat corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can and a Republican corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can.  They are both playing the game.  Unfortunately I can't afford to play and don't want to be played, which puts me squarely in the Libertarian camp.  Leave me alone to get on with my life and stop telling me how to live it.


----------



## Redeye (7 Apr 2011)

That'd be wonderful, except that Libertarianism strikes me as completely impractical.  The reason we created things like governments was to improve resource allocation and get things done that free markets and laissez faire couldn't accomplish.  It was also to address the fact that one's choices about how to live one's life may have an impact - a strong one - on others, and therefore systems to regulate some behaviours are necessary, even if they might be opined by some to be necessary evils.

Since that option is impractical, I'll take the Gates/Soros/Buffett view of sustainable capitalism over the Kochs' devil-may-care approach.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And I think there you have it.  The difference between you and me is that Koch, Soros, Gates and Buffet are all birds of a feather.  I see no distinction between a Democrat corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can and a Republican corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can.  They are both playing the game.  Unfortunately I can't afford to play and don't want to be played, which puts me squarely in the Libertarian camp.  Leave me alone to get on with my life and stop telling me how to live it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That'd be wonderful, except that Libertarianism strikes me as completely impractical.  The reason we created things like governments was to improve resource allocation and get things done that free markets and laissez faire couldn't accomplish.  It was also to address the fact that one's choices about how to live one's life may have an impact - a strong one - on others, and therefore systems to regulate some behaviours are necessary, even if they might be opined by some to be necessary evils.
> 
> Since that option is impractical, I'll take the Gates/Soros/Buffett view of sustainable capitalism over the Kochs' devil-may-care approach.




Governments ae the worst possible agencies to manage resource allocation - better the barbarian horsemen from the North or the Mafia than any government.

Governments are inept or corrupt, very often both - see the Tragedy of the commons for a peek at the inevitable result when government is allowed to expand beyond a very, very limited range of duties and responsibilities that include, _inter alia_: defending the realm and, to a lesser degree, monopolizing the legal use of force in the society; preventing the creation of improper monopolies - those that required trickery or subterfuge to grow from normal business into into monopolies; controlling the currency - and not debasing it; managing foreign affairs; collecting taxes and tariffs; managing the radio frequency spectrum; and several other similar functions.

There are some things that governments can sometimes, often maybe even usually, do more efficiently than the private sector: building and maintaining roads and sewers, for example - if only because governments have the power to expropriate land (often too much power over private property).

Elected governments can be good (effective and efficient) at balancing competing rights and priorities, but well established law courts in a law abiding society can do at least as good a job, albeit with less visible public input.

But, resource allocation? No; the less governments have to do with resource allocation, in fact the less resources governments have to allocate to anything, then the better for the citizens.


----------



## Dissident (7 Apr 2011)

ER Campbell is spot on as usual. (Although I would add to the list of things the government should do: garbage collection).

I still don't understand where the idea that Libertarianism equate anarchy/anarchism.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> ER Campbell is spot on as usual. (Although I would add to the list of things the government should do: garbage collection).
> 
> I still don't understand where the idea that Libertarianism equate anarchy/anarchism.



Mostly by people who are creating strawmen to shut down debate. There is an entire thread on Libertarianism 

Governments exist for one purpose only; to protect their citizens. Western Civilization has settled on providing two sets of forces to deal with internal and external threats (the Police and the Military), Courts of Law to provide impartial mediation in disputes between two or more parties and various rights (of which the most important are Free Speech and unfettered ownership of property). An entire thread about Libertarian thought exists on this site here


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mostly by people who are creating strawmen to shut down debate. There is an entire thread on Libertarianism
> 
> Governments exist for one purpose only; to protect their citizens. Western Civilization has settled on providing two sets of forces to deal with internal and external threats (the Police and the Military), Courts of Law to provide impartial mediation in disputes between two or more parties and various rights (of which the most important are Free Speech and unfettered ownership of property). An entire thread about Libertarian thought exists on this site here




I disagree. There are three fundamental "natural" rights: life, liberty (by which John Locke _et al_ really meant security of the person from the power of the sovereign and the state) and property. Freedom of expression _might_ be a subset of liberty in some, mainly Western, societies but it cannot, in my opinion rank with life and liberty. It is possible that "free expression" might be a _cultural_ artifact - something which has helped us to create and maintain a _liberal_ democracy but which is not essential to the business.

Consider what a libertarian hero, Alfred Jay Nock, had to say:

http://mises.org/daily/2412


> Life, Liberty, and ...
> 
> Mises Daily: Saturday, December 30, 2006 by Albert Jay Nock
> 
> ...



Now, I don;t agree, fully with Nock any more than I agree with you, Thucydides, but I think he is closer to the mark. Closer still is Locke.


----------



## Redeye (8 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Governments ae the worst possible agencies to manage resource allocation - better the barbarian horsemen from the North or the Mafia than any government.



I think I didn't make clear what I meant by resource allocation - and perhaps chose an inadequate term.  Of course, governments don't provide allocative efficiency, a look at any command economy will illustrate that.  By contrast, however, "free markets" don't do the job perfectly either, which is why mixed economies are what are found in the largest economies in the world.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Governments are inept or corrupt, very often both - see the Tragedy of the commons for a peek at the inevitable result when government is allowed to expand beyond a very, very limited range of duties and responsibilities that include, _inter alia_: defending the realm and, to a lesser degree, monopolizing the legal use of force in the society; preventing the creation of improper monopolies - those that required trickery or subterfuge to grow from normal business into into monopolies; controlling the currency - and not debasing it; managing foreign affairs; collecting taxes and tariffs; managing the radio frequency spectrum; and several other similar functions.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are some things that governments can sometimes, often maybe even usually, do more efficiently than the private sector: building and maintaining roads and sewers, for example - if only because governments have the power to expropriate land (often too much power over private property).



I'd argue it's not just the power to expropriate.  A lot of things like roads and sewers simply wouldn't come about through free markets, or wouldn't come about with any sort of efficiency.  In the case of things like policing, for example, there's a free rider problem, which would limit the interest of any private sector actors in providing the service (or, insofar as they might be interested, the effects might be quite perverse - look at what happens with private sector prisons!)


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'd argue it's not just the power to expropriate.  A lot of things like roads and sewers simply wouldn't come about through free markets, or wouldn't come about with any sort of efficiency.  In the case of things like policing, for example, there's a free rider problem, which would limit the interest of any private sector actors in providing the service (or, insofar as they might be interested, the effects might be quite perverse - look at what happens with private sector prisons!)



With respect, I believe that you may be overly influenced by Canadian history where Canada developed as a daughter of late Victorian Britain.  The late Victorians were much of the same "improving" mindset as yourself - and I am sure that the promise of toll free turnpikes probably converted a few newly minted voters to the support of the government of the day.  However, much of the infrastructure developed during the early industrial revolution, the Georgian and Pre Reform era (pre 1832), turnpikes, canals and railways, were actually entirely developed with private funds.  Even in Canada there were  private toll roads and privately funded railways.  

Government funded infrastructure was very late to the game.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Apr 2011)

I think rescinding the last thirty years of catering to plutocrats and going back to representational Democracy would be nice. Does wanting to tax the rich and corporations at previous rates make me a progressive? I am pretty much a centrist with libertarian leanings and I think the moneyed elite has corrupted our system. It serves them not me. I see our golden age between 1950 to the late 70's. Now we are going backwards IMO. Corporations are not our saviors. Their amoral rapaciousness will be our undoing. Laissez faire was a mistake and Regan was wrong IMO. The attitude of "business is business" makes no sense to me. Why is business magically exempt from moral behavior? Checks and balances are needed obviously. Not the dismantling of all government institutions and leaving it all to the mythical "invisible hands".


----------



## Journeyman (9 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I think rescinding the last thirty years of catering to plutocrats and going back to representational Democracy would be nice.


Nemo, how many more posts are you going to make in the various political threads, decrying "plutocracy" and "Reaganomics," based on having seen a Bill Moyers _YouTube_ video? Take a breath.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2011)

Here is another look at how things are working out at ground level in Wisconsin:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/04/07/union-thuggery-playing-hardball-in-wisconsin/



> *Union Thuggery: Playing Hardball in Wisconsin*
> By Gary Larson, on April 7th, 2011
> Tooth-'n-nail battle of public unions to save self-proclaimed "rights" that are privileges is a struggle against fiscal sanity and against ordinary tax-paying Americans.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Apr 2011)

Sadly, Liberalism may be a genetic predisposition or physiological brain disorder.



> Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study
> 
> By Agence France-Presse
> Thursday, April 7th, 2011 -- 3:55 pm
> ...


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/brain-structure-differs-in-liberals-conservatives-study/


----------



## Sgt_McWatt (10 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Sadly, Liberalism may be a genetic predisposition or physiological brain disorder.
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/brain-structure-differs-in-liberals-conservatives-study/



Without getting to academic I feel obligated to point out that one might question the reliability and validity of a one time study that only had a sample size of 90.

Additionally, after reading the article three times I found no reference to one "side" being equated with a brain disorder, just differant brain structure. If you're going to participate in meaningful debate an open mind and fairness are required. Otherwise this will just become question period in the House of Commons where everyone yells louder to show how right they are.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2011)

When "progressive" ideas meet the real world, the results are never as they expect:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wal-mart-goes-back-to-basics-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-left/?print=1



> *Wal-Mart Goes ‘Back to Basics’: A Cautionary Tale for the Left*
> 
> Posted By Richard Pollock On April 11, 2011 @ 10:16 am In Uncategorized | 62 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2011)

An interesting take on "tax the rich". To his credit, he makes no secret of his place on the political right. Still, the math boggles the mind, and I think puts paid to core liberal/socialist idea that the "rich" actually do have all the money. Even if you discount his data by 50%, he still makes a good point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=player_embedded

PS: make sure you have a bucket nearby, Michael Moore makes an appearance.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2011)

Attitudes at Bowdoin today:

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/04/us_history_as_taught_at_bowdoi.html



> *U.S. History as Taught at Bowdoin (Ugh)*
> 
> Posted by John Leo
> 
> “There are any number of courses that deal with some group aspect of America, but virtually none that deals with America as a whole. For example, there is African-American history from 1619 to 1865 and from 1865 to the present, but there is no comparable sequence on America. Every course is social or cultural history that looks at the world through the prism of race, class, and gender. Even a course on the environment (offered in the history department) examines the links between ecology and race, class, and gender.” Do Bowdoin alumni know their alma mater offers not one history course in American political, military, diplomatic, constitutional, or intellectual history, and nothing at all on the American Founding or the Constitution; that the one Civil War course is essentially African-American history (it is offered also in African Studies); and that there are more courses on gay and lesbian subjects than on American history? Is it possible this is one reason why some conservatives are disinclined to send their children to Bowdoin? Mr. (Barry) Mills (president of Bowdoin) did not inquire."



and as imagined by one of its most famous instructors (later president of the college and Governor of Maine):

[/quote]
Many of us volunteered to fight for the Union. Some came mainly because we were bored at home and this looked like it might be fun. Some came because we were ashamed not to. Many came because it was the right thing to do. 

This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you'll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we're here for something new. This hasn't happened much in the history of the world. We are an army out to set other men free. America should be free ground, from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow, no man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here you can be something. Here you can build a home. But it's not the land. There's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value, you and me. What we're fighting for, in the end, is each other. 
[/quote]

Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

From Micheal Sharra's "The Killer Angels"


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2011)

Brownshirts vs free speech:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/14-year-old-girl-speaks-at-tea-party.html



> A 14-year-old girl speaks at the Tea Party rally in Madison and is drowned out by chants, boos, and cowbells.
> 
> This video — shot by Meade and edited by me — begins with a little boy banging on a plastic bucket "drum." A man with a guitar is performing — amplified — on the stage, but we can barely hear him over the crowd noise. There is incessant ringing of cowbells. Then, we can hear that a young woman is speaking from the stage to the Tea Party crowd as the protesters do what they can to drown her out. She finishes — "God bless America" — and the tea partiers cheer but the protesters overwhelm them with boos. The emcee comes to the mike and we hear that the speaker was only 14 years old.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2011)

The speaker at the TEA party event in Madison speaks out:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/email-from-tricia-willoughby-14-year.html



> *Email from Tricia Willoughby, the 14-year-old girl who spoke at Saturday's Tea Party rally.*
> 
> As I've shown in other posts — here, here, and here — there were anti-Tea Party protesters who were shouting and noisemaking throughout her speech. She writes:
> 
> ...


----------



## littleprairie (21 Apr 2011)

Put a single mom on welfare for the amount of 800 dollars together with subsidized apartment and believe me, they would not attempt to find work despite being able. I know of one. Ladies who get married early and start having themselves impregnated with two or three children would circumvent responsible behaviour by filing legal separation or divorce to take advantage of the government's single mom welfare privileges. Bob Raei and the New Democrats were respoonsible for such legislation by buying votes through being suckers by way giving doles. Result? We are 900 billion dollars in debt..In some countries there are laws on economic sabotage. We too have. The only way to indict and convict them is to establish criminal intent. They were successful in the FBI by finding too many with Obama...I am sorry to say this but the man whom many have adored is a candidate for lethal injection..


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2011)

littleprairie said:
			
		

> Put a single mom on welfare for the amount of 800 dollars together with subsidized apartment and believe me, they would not attempt to find work despite being able. I know of one. Ladies who get married early and start having themselves impregnated with two or three children would circumvent responsible behaviour by filing legal separation or divorce to take advantage of the government's single mom welfare privileges. Bob Raei and the New Democrats were respoonsible for such legislation by buying votes through being suckers by way giving doles. Result? We are 900 billion dollars in debt..In some countries there are laws on economic sabotage. We too have. The only way to indict and convict them is to establish criminal intent. They were successful in the FBI by finding too many with Obama...I am sorry to say this but the man whom many have adored is a candidate for lethal injection..



littleprairie, having an opinion on any number of issues is one thing, espousing harm to someone, whomever they may be, is against the Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines.

Consider this you one and only free warning to align your conduct with the site guidelines.  Subsequent warning will be through the site's formal Warning System.


*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## littleprairie (22 Apr 2011)

I am not espousing harm to someone. That is the truth and solely but the truth. He can condone people who threw pies at Ann Coulter's face or condone those libelous cartoons on Bush and Harper, why cannot I tell the truth. The man would be facing so many counts of treason...Egypt, attempting to overthrow foreigne governments, like Tunisia..Stalling the defensive attacks on Libya or delaying counterattacks on countries who coddle terrorists or are bias to the Left..Plus so many counts of Cuban and Soviet espionage..This might be my last post. I can easily accept defeat in a debate. But this time I am not going to get banned without saying a word. I have been banned so many times due some posters' provocation..Why, I am the only one singled out as one who cannot participate in heated debates while the rest can..Ban me if youi like but I tell the truth..


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2011)

So, we've banned you before and you admit it. Then you come back doing the same shit?

Guess what.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Apr 2011)

littleprairie said:
			
		

> I am not espousing harm to someone. That is the truth and solely but the truth. He can condone people who threw pies at Ann Coulter's face or condone those libelous cartoons on Bush and Harper, why cannot I tell the truth. The man would be facing so many counts of treason...Egypt, attempting to overthrow foreigne governments, like Tunisia..Stalling the defensive attacks on Libya or delaying counterattacks on countries who coddle terrorists or are bias to the Left..Plus so many counts of Cuban and Soviet espionage..This might be my last post. I can easily accept defeat in a debate. But this time I am not going to get banned without saying a word. I have been banned so many times due some posters' provocation..Why, I am the only one singled out as one who cannot participate in heated debates while the rest can..Ban me if youi like but I tell the truth..



No, it is your opinion.  And this forum has been quite clear with its members that promoting an opinion suggesting someone be killed is not acceptable. If you are incapable of existing within the site guidelines, and refuse to cease such commentary, you will be banned. 

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2011)

The National Post unearths the NDP's "members only" Constitution and looks at their hidden and not so hidden agenda. Better late than never:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/29/terence-corcoran-jack-layton’s-hidden-agenda/



> *Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda*
> Comments Twitter LinkedIn Email
> Terence Corcoran  Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2011)

Further to Thuc's post above and also the subject of internal tensions within parties I present the following:

The New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus.  Their website and manifesto.

Conveniently summarized at Wikipedia

Some bon mots from the Manifesto (Adopted 1999):



> Manifesto for a Socialist Canada
> SOCIALISTS AROUND THE WORLD believe in the establishment of a society where the exploitation of one class by another will no longer exist. *Our aim and ongoing struggle as New Democrats must be to establish a Socialist Canada.* We believe that the achievement of this goal requires a socialist party that, together with the self-organized mass struggles of working people, can win government for the purpose of transforming Canada into a socialist society. *Our objective as members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) is to make our party into one that fights for government, and when in government, actually implements socialist policies *
> 
> 
> ...



Given that this appears to me to be a fairly uncompromising hard left stance and that Jack seeks to protray himself and his party as a moderate centrist party I believe a fair question to him would be whether or not he supports the NDP Socialist Caucus and their manifesto.  


Whose side are you on Jack?


Bring on the Property Rights debate.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2011)

If they want to be socialists, that s OK. Just be open about what you seek and what you stand for.

Personally, I'd feel a lot more comfortable is the NDP were to follow the principles of the Euston Manifesto[/quote] than see stuff like [url=http://www.ndpsocialists.ca/]The New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus.[/co;or] popping out of the woodwork.


----------



## Nemo888 (6 May 2011)

I just want to tax rich people more.* Does that make me socialist?

*By rich I mean those who own homes over 2 million dollars. Roughly the top 3.5% of Canadians.


----------



## Infanteer (6 May 2011)

Why should they pay more relative to you or me?  It seems to me that if a citizen is entitled to one vote, has equal rights and responsibilities and has equal access to services than he shouldn't be responsible to pay more or less than another citizen.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 May 2011)

Nemo888, not every "rich" person was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

A person who works very hard, invents a product etc, or whatever should not pay more tax just because they became successful. You cannot penalize the successful just because they or their family are successful. A kid grows up, finds out his mom was rich, so you tax the kid turned adult?

Why not tax all the successful entertainers, actors, sports people who head down south to enhance their career and fortunes? There are lots of those people. I mean, after all, they used the Canadian "system" until they moved.

Start with Iggy. He owes for the thirty years he was just visiting the US and GB.


----------



## Dissident (6 May 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I just want to tax rich people more.* Does that make me socialist?
> 
> *By rich I mean those who own homes over 2 million dollars. Roughly the top 3.5% of Canadians.



I vaguely remember reading about how income taxes came about in the states. Something about people agreeing to tax the rich to pay for WWI or WWII. Then the "rich" found a way to shelter their income, they are good with money that's why they got rich in the first place. The government still needed the money and kept lowering the tax threshold to keep the money coming in. All the people that clamored to "tax the rich" little by little found themselves in the "rich" category, according to the government.

People who want to tax the rich invariably think money is evil. They think it is evil because they hate it. They hate it because they see it (or more accurately the lack of it) as the source of their problems. So they despise people who accumulate it (and profits).


----------



## Infanteer (6 May 2011)

Consumption taxes are a more effective way to tax wealth (and wealthy people) - buy expensive stuff, pay more taxes.  If a person makes money and stores it in a bank/investment, then everyone is benefitting from additional money supply.  That being said, consumption taxes are (and should be) equal; I don't pay double the GST on my second Ferrari.  Nor should I.  Nor should I pay extra income tax on income that some people seem to think is in excess.

Edit:  Clarity.


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I vaguely remember reading about how income taxes came about in the states. Something about people agreeing to tax the rich to pay for WWI or WWII.



The "Share Our Wealth" plan in the U.S. goes back to 1934.
"Huey Long: Share the Wealth; Every man a King; Income Redistribution; Tax the Rich": 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYOHDM7SN5U&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long#Share_Our_Wealth

Highlight  mine.


----------



## cavalryman (6 May 2011)

The main problem with a "progressive" income tax system such as is prevalent in most democracies (other than being crass socialism, a.k.a. the politics of envy in action), is that governments of whatever stripe have been using fiscal policy to effect social engineering - and conservatives are far from immune.   Through deductions, exemptions, surtaxes, etc, governments try to modify the behaviour of taxpayers to conform to their views of the world (including the view that the party in power should be relected).  Going to the fairest tax system, i.e. a flat tax for everyone with no deductions or exemptions, would mean governments lose a powerful means to control people, and the envious lose their means of socking it to those who through hard work and effort have made themselves wealthier.  Never mind that study after study has shown that a flat tax would at worst be revenue neutral and most likely increase tax revenues as well as reduce government operating expenditures through the virtual elimination of the Canada Revene Agency and its 40,000 well-paid staff.


----------



## Infanteer (6 May 2011)

Revenue Canada seems like a good place to start reducing government when you consider that most of that organization is dedicated to maintaining a self-inflicted wound of a cumbersome tax system.  I remember a proposal by an organization (CTF?) for a single, brochure sized income tax return, but I can't find it.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2011)

This is probably anathema coming from a resident of Alberta but I would just as soon have an HST imposed out here IF the trade-off were the elimination of the Income Tax in its entirety.  I wouldn't even mind if the rationale for the tax were carbon credits (buy gas = buy carbon, dispose of fecal matter = sell carbon to the municipality).

The convenience of not having to fill out a tax form at all would sell it to me.  As for the disadvantaged.... those that don't meet a certain income standard.... they could apply for a review of their case to see if they merit a top up.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I wouldn't even mind if the rationale for the tax were carbon credits (buy gas = buy carbon, dispose of fecal matter = sell carbon to the municipality).



I could care less if taxation was based on carbon as opposed to a measure of income as opposed to sales.  Unlike Jack's rantings, a carbon tax has to replace existing taxes not supplement them.  The loony left is looking for a solution to the missing money tree and they see it in a carbon tax.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I could care less if taxation was based on carbon as opposed to a measure of income as opposed to sales.  Unlike Jack's rantings, a carbon tax has to replace existing taxes not supplement them.  The loony left is looking for a solution to the missing money tree and they see it in a carbon tax.



Agreed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 May 2011)

Taxing people based on assets held isn't practical.  Some people accumulate assets because they spend very little.  I don't think very highly of a double jeopardy system: tax your income, and then tax it again if you don't spend it.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 May 2011)

Two enduring truisms of socialism:

Eventually you run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher

You can only steal a man's property once.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2011)

Further to the NDP, its constitution and internal party tensions:

Resolutions of the New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus
To be tabled at the New Democratic Party Convention in Vancouver June 17-19, 2011

1. Enhance the Canada Pension Plan
2. Out of Libya
3. Nationalize U.S. Steel
4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands 
5. Institute Proportional Representation Within the NDP
6. Make Mother Earth a Legal Entity
7. Legalize Cannabis
8. Out of NATO and Out of Afghanistan
9. Out of Haiti
10. Boycott Israel
11. Nationalize the Auto Industry
12. Nationalize Big Banks and Insurance Companies
13. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
14. No Coalition with Liberals, BQ or Greens (or any other Business oriented party)
15. More policy discussions at conventions
16. Enforcement of NDP policies on NDP governments
17. End One Member One Vote decision making
18. Nationalize Telecommunications
19. Stop enforcing immigration laws
20. Out of NAFTA, FTAA, FTA, GATS and WTO
21. Excuse Student Debt
22. Raise the Minimum Wage to $17/hr
23. Build Social Housing
24. Repeal the Clarity Act
25. Share the work and shorten the work week to 32 hours
26. Extend the Right to Strike
27. Strengthen Affiliations of NDP with Unions
28. 25% of Public Funding to go to Ridings to support grassroots activity
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia
31. Focus on Food Safety to justify government activity
32. Social ownership (Nationalization) of banking, manufacturing, communications, energy, health 
care, insurance, medical drugs, natural resources, and mass transportation
33. Social ownership (Nationalization) of primary industries such as forestry, mining, and fishing
34. Incorporate Gender Identity in the Human Rights Act.


Should be a fascinating Convention - assuming the press is invited.

Whose side are you on Jack?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2011)

That agenda isn't left of centre or even left wing... its out in left field. People voted for these crackpots?!


----------



## Redeye (7 May 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That agenda isn't left of centre or even left wing... its out in left field. People voted for these crackpots?!



That's one caucus within the party, I doubt most regular members (much less most of their candidates) would agree with any of that nonsense.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2011)

Further to my last - and regrouping

Carrots

1 Enhance the Canada Pension Plan
21. Excuse Student Debt
22. Raise the Minimum Wage to $17/hr
25. Share the work and shorten the work week to 32 hours
23. Build Social Housing 
31. Focus on Food Safety to justify government activity
34. Incorporate Gender Identity in the Human Rights Act.
19. Stop enforcing immigration laws
24. Repeal the Clarity Act
7. Legalize Cannabis

International Relations

2 Out of Libya
8. Out of NATO and Out of Afghanistan
9. Out of Haiti
20. Out of NAFTA, FTAA, FTA, GATS and WTO
10. Boycott Israel
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia
6. Make Mother Earth a Legal Entity



The Economy

4.Close the Alberta Tar Sands 
3 Nationalize U.S. Steel
11. Nationalize the Auto Industry
12. Nationalize Big Banks and Insurance Companies
13. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
18. Nationalize Telecommunications
32. Social ownership (Nationalization) of banking, manufacturing, communications, energy, health 
care, insurance, medical drugs, natural resources, and mass transportation
33. Social ownership (Nationalization) of primary industries such as forestry, mining, and fishing

Organizing

28. 25% of Public Funding to go to Ridings to support grassroots activity
27. Strengthen Affiliations of NDP with Unions
26. Extend the Right to Strike
14. No Coalition with Liberals, BQ or Greens (or any other Business oriented party)

Democracy

5. Institute Proportional Representation Within the NDP
15. More policy discussions at conventions
16. Enforcement of NDP policies on NDP governments
17. End One Member One Vote decision making

And let us keep in mind that the sponsors of these resolutions also believe this:



> Class Politics
> 
> The NDP must also commit itself to becoming a party that represents and leads the self-organized fight for the interests of wage earners, the unemployed, self-employed people and family farmers. These popular sectors encompass the overwhelming majority of Canada's population. Excluded are only the owners of industrial and finance capital, their political and administrative managers, and the enforcers of their rule. The notion of a party that represents and seeks to govern in the interests of "all the people" is not only wrong in principle, but is in fact quite impossible. This is because the interests of workers and small farmers can never be reconciled with the interests of the owners of Capital.



Democracy seems to be a relative term for these democrats.

And Redeye - this caucus within the NDP is no less inconsequential to NDP policy than social conservatives are to Conservative party policy.

The Rose in Fist insignia is the registered trademark of the Socialist International which elects many goverments which actively campaign on just these issues and win elections and set policy.


----------



## Dissident (7 May 2011)

Fair enough, if that is the Socialist side of the caucus, what about the rest of the NDP? What is their agenda?

I wouldn't mind us disengaging from Libya. Aside from that most of those talking points are completely retarded.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2011)

And for more consideration:

The Declaration of Principles  of the Socialist International (Stockholm 1989)

And the leadership:

PRESIDIUM of the SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL 

PRESIDENT

George A. Papandreou (Greece)

Curious that the leader is the first of the PIIGS.


----------



## Redeye (7 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And Redeye - this caucus within the NDP is no less inconsequential to NDP policy than social connservatives are to Conservative party policy.



Let's hope both remain politically utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Gimpy (7 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Rose in Fist insignia is the regiseterd trademark of the Socialist International which elects many goverments which actively campaign on just these issues and win elections and set policy.



What does that have to do with anything? Would you mind showing me some of these governments that are part of Socialist International that have implemented any of the more radical elements of the NDP Socialist's platform?

Also, how do you know about the levels of influence that the NDP Socialist holds in the party? Do you have any sources on that?


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with anything? Would you mind showing me some of these governments that are part of Socialist International that have implemented any of the more radical elements of the NDP Socialist Party's platform?



Gimpy:

Kindly define which of the above proposals you find acceptable, which you find radical and which you find more radical and I shall do my best to oblige.  I don't think it would take more than a couple of hours of Googling to supply you with the answers.


----------



## Gimpy (7 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Gimpy:
> 
> Kindly define which of the above proposals you find acceptable, which you find radical and which you find more radical and I shall do my best to oblige.  I don't think it would take more than a couple of hours of Googling to supply you with the answers.



Alright, obviously this is personal ideals, but I'll put them in point for point the ones I believe are radical.

4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands
6. Make Mother Earth a legal entity
8. Out of NATO (note: not out of Afghanistan though)
9. Out of Haiti
10. Boycott Israel
20. Out of NAFTA, etc.
25. Share the work and shorten the work week
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez's Venezula and Morale's Bolivia

Overall I believe the majority of the radical elements of their platform falls under the international relations portion of their platform. These are the things I don't believe are prevalent in Socialist International government's IR strategy because they aren't realistic. But on the rest of the platform I find nothing is inherently radical or ridiculous. There are definitely things there that are most likely un-doable, but not necessarily radical. Anyways, radical is a perception and the things that are radical to one are not radical to others.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2011)

Entirely agree that radicalism is in the eye of the beholder.

With respect to your list of radical solutions -

Do I really need to go point by point to find governments that:

29. (Show) Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez's Venezula and Morale's Bolivia

or governments that are:

8. Out of NATO 
9. Out of Haiti

25. Share the work and shorten the work week is French Government policy and has been since the late 1990s

20. Out of NAFTA - hard to get an outside example as there are only three members - but other SI governments have withdrawn from equivalent organizations like EFTA.

4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands - equally hard to find an external reference as this is obviously an internal resource.  However I would argue that the Europeans, French and German, who fought three wars over possession of the coal fields of the lower Rhine, did the equivalent by, in the terms of the Northern Ireland peace agreement, putting their coal reserves "beyond use" thereby precipitating their current energy crises.

Coincidentally those same coal fields are likely to be reopened as sources of deep shale gas..... hence the environmental movement's agitation.   See, historically the labour movement could rely on the widows of dead miners for inspiration.....unfortunately for them extracting shale gas is unlikely to produce the same crop of corpses.

And as to Mother Earth?  I give you this....


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2011)

> 30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia



Ummmm, these people understand that Morales' and Chavez's regimes maintain amongst the world's worst disparities of wealth between the elite rich and the poor?   ???

According to UN data (tabulated through Wikipedia), Bolivia has the worst distribution of wealth, where the top 10% of the rich friends of Morales have 168 times more wealth than the least wealthy 10% of Bolivians.  The top 10% richest Venezuelans have 48 times greater wealth than the poorest 10% of Venezuelans.  As a reference point, Canada's top 10% rich have only 9.4 times greater wealth (five times more equitable than Venezuela) than the poorest 10%.

Not that there aren't issues with a large number of policy elements within their platform, but is the NDP endorsing that Canada move towards a dictatorial socialist regime that on the surface espouses 'equality' yet actually supports greater inequality to the benefit of the country's richest?

Seriously?  People should be ashamed for actually thinking that there is something right about that!


----------



## Gimpy (7 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With respect to your list of radical solutions -
> 
> Do I really need to go point by point to find governments that:
> 
> ...



Definitely not, these were the parts of their platform I believe the majority of people will find radical (not to mention stupid), myself included.



> 25. Share the work and shorten the work week is French Government policy and has been since the late 1990s



Right and they dropped in by only four hours so in retrospect I'd remove that from what I consider radical because from my readings I haven't seen any blatant problems that arose from the shortening of the work week. Not to mention that recent French laws have also increased the number of overtime hours.



> 20. Out of NAFTA - hard to get an outside example as there are only three members - but other SI governments have withdrawn from equivalent organizations like EFTA.



On this point, when I said NAFTA, etc. I meant all of the other parties listed in their platform point. Sorry for the confusion, but I would like to know about the ones that pulled out of EFTA because the only reason I'm seeing for the leaving of several members was because they joined the EEC and eventually the EU.



> 4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands - equally hard to find an external reference as this is obviously an internal resource.  However I would argue that the Europeans, French and German, who fought three wars over possession of the coal fields of the lower Rhine, did the equivalent by, in the terms of the Northern Ireland peace agreement, putting their coal reserves "beyond use" thereby precipitating their current energy crises.



I agree with you on this point, and that is why I believe it is radical.

On the whole I don't necessarily agree with all their economic platform points, but overall I don't find them inherently radical. Overall I'm just trying to grasp why some people believe that socialism is evil and will destroy the world when there are many countries governed by said socialists that haven't succumbed to a Bolshevik Revolution.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not that there aren't issues with a large number of policy elements within their platform, but is the NDP endorsing that Canada move towards a dictatorial socialist regime that on the surface espouses 'equality' yet actually supports greater inequality to the benefit of the country's richest?



No, the NDP are not endorsing these policies. One party within the NDP's caucus supports these policies. Whether or not the majority of the NDP supports them is yet to be seen, but my hunch would be that the NDP will not be publicly or even privately supporting the majority of those points. And like I said earlier the points on IR, which the Chavez and Morales points fall under, will not even be heard because they are ridiculous.

I've been trying to find the number of members in this party as well, but haven't had much luck so far. For all we know they could be a very small fringe party within the caucus and have very little pull. Or they could have many members and be influential in policy making. Given the lack of information on their website it is hard to discern the level of sway they have within the NDP.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> ...I've been trying to find the number of members in this party as well, but haven't had much luck so far. For all we know they could be a very small fringe party within the caucus and have very little pull. Or they could have many members and be influential in policy making. Given the lack of information on their website it is hard to discern the level of sway they have within the NDP.



And, in point of fact Gimpy, that is the real problem here, as far as I am concerned.  For a democratic party that espouses transparency there is a decided lack of transparency (and for that matter democracy) when it comes to internal party matters -  starting with the lack of a published constitution and statement of principles.  It gives me pause when I consider that this mindset might one day carry over into government (I lived in BC for a number of years as well).

You brought up the "Bolsheviks" - need I remind you that the "Bolsheviks" or "Majority" - were actually the minority and lost the only election they competed in?  They declared themselves to be representatives of the Majority and took over the government at gun point.   Not that I expect Jack to be that well organized.


----------



## wannabe SF member (7 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Right and they dropped in by only four hours so in retrospect I'd remove that from what I consider radical because from my readings I haven't seen any blatant problems that arose from the shortening of the work week. Not to mention that recent French laws have also increased the number of overtime hours.



The "share the work" initiative was absolutely disastrous and did not have the intended effect at all. By shortening the working week, the government wanted too create an hour deficit that companies would have to compensate for by hiring extra employees, therefore stimulating employment levels. The problem is that the governement insisted that wokers keep the same wages for "La semaine de 35 heures" as they had for the 39 hour week, therefore, businesses had to pay their employees more for less hours. 

The effect of that second part was that instead of hiring more, businesses did not plug in the missing hours and compensated by trying to enhance productivity.

The overall effect of that policy was to make businesses less competitive, and to actually discourage the hiring of new workers. It was simply a governement enforced salary hike disguised as a social program. It was diastrous for prices and productivity and contributed a lot to France's "lazy workers" stereotype.


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2011)

Point 25 should also be recognizable to Ontario residents as "Rae Days", an involuntary work sharing program...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

And here is where things could be come interesting:

When the Left can't win within the rules it may seek to change the rules.  If it can't win on the conventional battlefield (the House of Commons) it may seek to launch an assymetric assault on the Government by "taking it to the streets".

I predict an uptick in protest marches and civil disobedience.

Murray Dobbins, Judy Rebick and Svend Robinson seem to be counselling just such an approach as appropriate.  

i would argue that that move is decidedly dangerous.  It is precisely the reason we have parliaments and elections - to confine, contain and control animus.  To ensure civil debates and stability.  

Taking it to the streets does the exact opposite.

Can the Left accept the results of an election they didn't win?

Source.



> Will the NDP become the new Liberal Party?
> By Murray Dobbin 8 May 2011 COMMENTS(0) Vancouver Sun Community of Interest
> Filed under: NDP, NPI, Green party, New Politics Initiative, extraparliamentary politics, official opposition, CCF, Labouriberal Party, Jack Layto, civil society
> Almost since he was elected NDP leader in 2003, Jack Layton has mused about replacing the Liberal Party as the official opposition. He was roundly ridiculed for this fantasy and can now, if he chooses, tell us all that he told us so. But for the NDP and the country it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. Just what does it mean for Canadian politics for the NDP to replace the Liberals?
> ...


----------



## Redeye (8 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> When the Left can't win within the rules it may seek to change the rules.



And that's different from "the Right" how exactly?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

It may not be.... but the Right has a tradition of making rules and abiding by them.   The Left has a tradition of complaining about the rules that the Right abides by and then fighting to change the rules to suit them.  And thus Progress.......

Also the Left is based on an activist tradition and it is important to maintain that activist base by keeping them engaged pursuing Progress.  

One of the Right's problems is that a significant portion of their base actively seeks to disengage and not Progress.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 May 2011)

It may be more accurate to say that the right seeks to effect change from within, where the left seeks to effect change from without.


----------



## Redeye (8 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It may be more accurate to say that the right seeks to effect change from within, where the left seeks to effect change from within and  without.



That's probably a fairer assessment. - or rather - it would be with the modification that I've made.


----------



## GR66 (9 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Further to the NDP, its constitution and internal party tensions:
> 
> Resolutions of the New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus
> To be tabled at the New Democratic Party Convention in Vancouver June 17-19, 2011
> ...



Many years ago in my youth I had the opportunity to attended a couple of meetings and conventions for both the Liberal Party of Canada and the (then) Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.  There were always a number of equally "idealistic" but ill-conceived policy resolutions put forward at these events (usually by the youth wing delegates).  These resolutions received the attention they were due and had no impact on the actual policies put forward by the party.

While the vast majority of us might roll our eyes at some (many?) of the suggestions we see put forward at policy conventions (of any party) we shouldn't get too bent out of shape over them.  Policy conventions are a great opportunity for rank and file members to actually get together and talk about issues and ideals with many people with different backgrounds, experiences and ideas.  Democracy in action.

Political parties however are like any other large organization and usually change direction pretty slowly and incrementally.  The most radical ideas get weeded out and even the good ones get watered down to the happy medium of the collective opinion of the whole group.  Jack Layton's about as likely to steer the NDP to the far left as Steven Harper is to steer the Conservatives hard to the Right.  The larger a party gets and the more public support they attract, the more "moderate" they will become.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 May 2011)

"The prospect for a merger between the Liberals and the NDP is virtually zero. _Neither party will ever put the country ahead of their own narrow interests. This is simply the perverse nature of party politics. Their entire reason for being is to get as many seats as possible: full stop. They are constitutionally and culturally incapable of any other goal._ Efforts before the 2008 election to get the Greens and the NDP to co-operate by strategically withdrawing from some ridings to help defeat Conservatives got absolutely nowhere. Layton’s triumphalism, on election night – speaking to a country (not only his own party) facing the most destructive government in its history – just reinforced the point."

My question for the author is how exactly going to a proportional representation system would change the nature of party politics.  I would think it would make it worse.  Under our current system, MPs are at least tied to their ridings and held responsible by those who elected them for implementing laws or policies which harm them.  For example, look at all the MPs who faced the wrath of their electorate for implementing the long arm registry.  Under proportional, there would be no accountability to anyone but the party for those elected.  IMHO, this would just lead to more regionalism in the country, and would further alienate people from regions without as much influence as others (see Alberta or Quebec).


----------



## Kirkhill (9 May 2011)

Agree entirely BG45 ..... and so, apparently do the ex MPs ....



> Some of the greatest frustrations these MPs faced during their political careers came from their own parties. *MPs repeatedly spoke of how decisions from their leadership were opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional, and how their party's demands often ran counter to the MPs' desires to practise politics constructively.*
> 
> It would be easy to dismiss these as words of a few bitter partisans, but that would be inaccurate. Almost without exception, these former Parliamentarians spoke with reverence at the opportunity to serve in Parliament, and looked back on their experience as time well spent. In fact, they consistently said that the work of Parliament was critical to the way Canadians live together.



Source


Why on earth would we entrust more power to organizations that their own lead members declare to be "opaque, arbitrary and unprofessional"?  

PR enshrines control by unelected, unaccountable, "arbitrary and unprofessional" apparatchiks that never have to see the light of day, much less justify their actions.


----------



## Redeye (10 May 2011)

That is the biggest problem with most PR systems, because the redistribution of seats impedes regional representation that seems so key.  At the same time, given that party discipline is such that it's rare that any elected MP actually really does anything specifically to fight for their riding, especially against their party, I don't know how big a problem it really is either.  In theory our MPs are supposed to represent us in Ottawa, but it really seems to work the other way around in practice.

I've been looking at the AV system the UK just voted on (but didn't accept), it's an interesting concept which doesn't have the regional representation problem.


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> In theory our MPs are supposed to represent us in Ottawa, but it really seems to work the other way around in practice.



Ahh...are they supposed to represent us in Parliament, or be our Representatives in Parliament.  The difference is slight, but important.

One of my favorite statements from Edmund Burke
_“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”_

Parties are an organizational appendage of our electoral system, not the raison d'etre itself of the system.  The fact that X percent voted this party or that is irrelevant as all a person votes for is a representative in his riding.  This is a fact the PR crowd seems to forget; each similiarly sized group of people (and we've discussed the issues with this) gets an equal say in the House - that say is decided by a plurality of the vote.  The only way I could see majorities being achieved and this principal remaining intact was run-off elections; this would generally result in second elections for most ridings.

As for regional representation, that would be best served by a triple-E Senate as Australia has done.  The only trick is how do we define a region?  The default is by province, and this may be applicable to smaller provinces such as PEI or New Brunswick, but there are great differences between the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and its interior.


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

Triple E Senates that represent "regions" would have to be modeled after the pre 1913 US Senate. Prior to the 17th amendment in 1913, Senators were elected by the State legislature and reported to the Statehouse, not the population of the State in question.

Direct election of Senators under a Triple E or other system would have most of the pitfalls of any other direct election system, but magnified since there would be far fewer Senators in the upper house. The main advantage to a Triple E senate is each Province would have the same amount of "clout" since each province would have the same number of Senators. This situation obtains in the United States since there are only two senators per State, Texas has the same amount of votes in the upper house as Delaware so smaller States are not at the mercy of larger ones.


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2011)

Although probably better off in the Electoral Reform thread, the 17th amendment was a good amendment.  I am opposed to provincial government selection of Senators on two reasons:

1.  A popular vote is better than a provincial executive decision at deciding whom the electorate of a region wish to represent them in the upper house.  I may not have voted for my NDP government in my Province, but I sure as hell will vote for my Senator(s) (as I voted for my MP).

2.  Allowing the Provincial Governments to appoint Senators gives the province a claw in Federal government which, to me at least, seems to violate the principles of federalism in Canada.  Picture how the provinces would feel if the Federal government decided who could be in a provincial cabinet?

Giving provinces equal "clout" is, as stated, the purpose of a triple E upper house.  However, my reason for proposing (in another thread) that major cities be considered regions separate from their provinces is that the major cities have too much "clout" within provinces.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

More on the inner workings of the NDP. Even I, as a political junkie, am surprised at some of this stuff. Imagine how the severely normal people who don't follow politics would react once they get past the "HOAG' image of Jack Layton and see what he really stands for:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2011/05/ndps-greatest-threat-reality-and-common.html



> *NDP's Greatest Threat: Reality And Common Sense*
> 
> The NDP are full voting members of Socialist International (SI): a global organization with members in over 160 countries.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on the inner workings of the NDP. Even I, as a political junkie, am surprised at some of this stuff. Imagine how the severely normal people who don't follow politics would react once they get past the "HOAG' image of Jack Layton and see what he really stands for:



That is a terrible blog post. The writer is clearly implying that all members of the NDP caucus are part of the New Democract Party Socialist Caucus. Anyways, we've gone over this point earlier on and in no way does the Socialist faction within the NDP caucus hold as much (or any) sway as these fear-mongers are saying (in the last leadership election their candidate won a whopping 1.1% of the vote). Honestly, you make some good points on some issues, but you really lower the level of discourse when you post utterly ridiculous blogs. Not to mention how obviously biased this particular blogger is. The writer makes zero attempt at any kind of integrity by invoking the possible loss of "freedoms". That is the hallmark of a fear-monger.

Furthermore, how can you even label this "the inner workings of the NDP"? Does this blogger have insider access to the NDP caucus? How can he or anyone else possibly understand what occurs in the caucus through looking at a fringe groups website? Because from what I've been reading this guy sounds like he would have a heart attack/vomit uncontrollably if he was anywhere near a congregation of "socialists".


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2011)

The slant of that blog seems in line with all the people speaking of Harper's "hidden agenda" and how he was going to steer the Conservative Party and Canada into the right.  People trying to make the most out of the fringe of his parties caucus.

It goes in the lame fearmongering pile.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Honestly, you make some good points on some issues, but you really lower the level of discourse when you post utterly ridiculous blogs.



Not so sure about that.  I don't know that you would find many NDP politicians denying that they are social democrats considering that the roots are unambiguously socialistic.


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that.  I don't know that you would find many NDP politicians denying that they are social democrats considering that the roots are unambiguously socialistic.



I never stated that though, I'm fully aware that most or all NDP politicians (the ones that don't have some explaining to do) say they are social democrats, but there are few who would freely admit that they are in line with the NDP Socialist Caucus' ultra-left socialism. Anyways, that's not really relevant to my point on blogs lowering discourse.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The slant of that blog seems in line with all the people speaking of Harper's "hidden agenda" and how he was going to steer the Conservative Party and Canada into the right.  People trying to make the most out of the fringe of his parties caucus.
> 
> It goes in the lame fearmongering pile.



I like both my geese and my ganders well sauced.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2011)

If a group representing about 40% of the party is "fringe", then your definitions are quite different from most definitons of "fringe". 40% is close to the amount of voters needed to get Prime Minister Harper a majority mandate, and given the rather complex voting structure internal to the NDP, it may be more than enough to provide a "majority" of direction to the Party and their Caucus.

At any rate, people can look at this as a place to start their research, or can attack the messenger. I would rather have clear knowledge of what is on offer to voters.


----------



## Redeye (12 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that.  I don't know that you would find many NDP politicians denying that they are social democrats considering that the roots are unambiguously socialistic.



You likely would find few denying that they're social democrats, of course - since the party is basically a social democratic party.  You would, however, find very, very few that agree with the "Socialist Caucus of the NDP" point of view, because they're a tiny fringe of the party and in no way do they represent the whole.  It is, as several have pointed out, no different than the varied caucuses one finds in any political party's organization.  Having been a Young Tory and attended quite a few conventions, I saw the variety of caucuses who developed their own ideas and tried to steer the party toward them.  There's no difference.  I'd say these folks are just like the rapid social conservative fringe in the Conservative Party of Canada - slightly disturbing, but also pretty much irrelevant, except to ignorant clowns who read ridiculous blog posts and don't actually seem to be able to give any sort of critical thought to them.


----------



## Journeyman (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Anyways, that's not really relevant to my point on blogs lowering discourse.


Are no bloggers informed? 

Personally, I try to judge information by its content rather than its delivery media  _~shrug~_


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2011)

Growth of another disturbing trend, Brownshirt tactics in the United States. We have also seen this happening in Canada (Anne Coulter event in Ottawa comes to mind, but I have heard first hand accounts of email "bombing" of the Dean and University President's office demanding the removal of two professors on several separate occasions based on public pronouncements or writings quite unrelated to their work at the University.)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029018.php



> *THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL INTIMIDATION*
> 
> May 11, 2011 Posted by John at 7:36 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (12 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Growth of another disturbing trend, Brownshirt tactics in the United States. We have also seen this happening in Canada (Anne Coulter event in Ottawa comes to mind, but I have heard first hand accounts of email "bombing" of the Dean and University President's office demanding the removal of two professors on several separate occasions based on public pronouncements or writings quite unrelated to their work at the University.)
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029018.php



Just so we're clear, slandering "wealthy benefactors" of the "left" like George Soros is okay, but calling out the secretive (and frankly, quite disturbingly influential) Koch Brothers isn't.  Right.  I'm sure that's going to garner lots of sympathy.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2011)

Does use of the term "Brownshirt Tactics" count for Godwin's Law?


----------



## Redeye (12 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Does use of the term "Brownshirt Tactics" count for Godwin's Law?



I'd say so, yes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Does use of the term "Brownshirt Tactics" count for Godwin's Law?




Yes, because the "Brownshirts" did, didn't just lead to, actually did this:







.
The morning after Kristallnacht, 1938


But, "brownshirst tactics" is pretty close to this:





Poster for Israeli Apartheid Week which is "celebrated" at several Canadian universities.


Is Israel mean and nasty to the Arabs? Yes. Does Israel want to _separate_ 'Palestine' from Israel, proper? Yes. Does Israel discriminate for and against its own citizens based on religion? Yes. Does Israel practice _apartheid_? No. 

Does Canada discriminate for and against its own citizens based on religion? Yes. Consider, just for starters, that Christmas and Easter are public holidays but e.g. Diwali is not. (I advocate fewer, not more, religiously based holidays. I have nothing against the winter and spring festivals, just the recent (1,500 or so years old) religious connotations assigned to ancient and perfectly respectable pagan festivals.)


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Are no bloggers informed?
> 
> Personally, I try to judge information by its content rather than its delivery media  _~shrug~_



Unless the blogger clearly identifies themselve or can be identified as a credible source and provide primary or even secondary references on work written, or even shows to have some kind of information others have than absolutely I believe they can be informed. That posting however was your typical nutjob blog post. From my many hours spent in research at university I immediately judge blogs as non-credible unless they can 100% prove they are.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If a group representing about 40% of the party is "fringe", then your definitions are quite different from most definitons of "fringe". 40% is close to the amount of voters needed to get Prime Minister Harper a majority mandate, and given the rather complex voting structure internal to the NDP, it may be more than enough to provide a "majority" of direction to the Party and their Caucus.



Do you have any sources to back up that 40% of the party is involved in the NDP Socialist Caucus? Because in the last NDP leadership election the NDP Socialist candidate received 1.1% of the vote. If you have the actual numbers I'd love to see them because I haven't found any reliable information on them.


----------



## Redeye (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Do you have any sources to back up that 40% of the party is involved in the NDP Socialist Caucus? Because in the last NDP leadership election the NDP Socialist candidate received 1.1% of the vote. If you have the actual numbers I'd love to see them because I haven't found any reliable information on them.



I'll save you the trouble of waiting for an answer, because we've been down this road before, many times.

He doesn't.  He won't offer anything, most likely, unless it's another, completely non-credible blog claim.


----------



## Journeyman (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> From my many hours spent in research at university I immediately judge blogs as non-credible unless they can 100% prove they are.


Ah well, if you want to be the guy in _Good Will Hunting_ who can quote one author, until he discovers the next 'expert' the year following, then limiting ones reading to peer-reviewed and footnoted publications is definitely the way to go.    :nod:


I suspect, however, you may have stumbled upon one of the downfalls of "many hours spent in research at university," to the detriment of living and thinking independently.


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah well, if you want to be the guy in _Good Will Hunting_ who can quote one author, until he discovers the next 'expert' the year following, then limiting ones reading to peer-reviewed and footnoted publications is definitely the way to go.    :nod:
> 
> 
> I suspect, however, you may have stumbled upon one of the downfalls of "many hours spent in research at university," to the detriment of living and thinking independently.



It's not purely about footnotes and peer reviews, but whether or not I can quickly google a writer and see if I can find other works and other publications they've written in. For instance if a recognized journalist had a blog, it would have credibility, but go and google the author of the initial blog I posted about and tell me if you believe that author to be a credible source on information related to the NDP. I will admit though that I was a bit hyperbolic on the whole blog issue and I probably should have stated that unsubstantiated and ridiculous blogs lower discourse!


----------



## observor 69 (12 May 2011)

Last weeks light bulb moment ...

Some of the most educated people I know aren't smart.


----------



## Journeyman (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> ....if a recognized journalist had a blog, it would have credibility


I assure you that just because someone is cashing their "recognized journalist" paycheque from, say, the _Toronto Star_.....name recognition, because of personal bias and publications' political stance, has a very tenuous link with credibility.

Now, I suspect we'll go through a couple more iterations of back-peddling, refining what you think you believe, allow for the tossing in of the term "discourse" a few more times.....and you'll come to the point where you say, "I read through it, thought about it in comparison with my currently held beliefs, and found it lacked credibility." Which is to say, you judged it based on the content rather than merely because it was in blog format (by a "non-recognized journalist" at any rate).


Let's just pretend we've reached that stage already.


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I assure you that just because someone is cashing their "recognized journalist" paycheque from, say, the _Toronto Star_.....name recognition, because of personal bias and publications' political stance, has a very tenuous link with credibility.
> 
> Now, I suspect we'll go through a couple more iterations of back-peddling, refining what you think you believe, allow for the tossing in of the term "discourse" a few more times.....and you'll come to the point where you say, "I read through it, thought about it in comparison with my currently held beliefs, and found it lacked credibility." Which is to say, you judged it based on the content rather than merely because it was in blog format (by a "non-recognized journalist" at any rate).
> 
> ...



Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allow to use the word discourse. I'll try and remember that for the future. How about you do me a favour and cut the condescending tone and go back to the original blog I quoted and point me towards any credibility that the author has with regards to his topic? 

You also talk about judging based on content and personal beliefs when you are doing the exact same thing with your comment about the Toronto Star. I guess I'm just an idiot for putting more credibility in a recognized journalist, irrelevant of political beliefs, than an unknown blogger.


----------



## Journeyman (12 May 2011)

I can see how encouraging someone to consider the logic of their posts could be considered condescending in some circles.

I wasn't remotely defending the initial blog, merely questioning your statements that: 
- "Anyways, that's not really relevant to my point on blogs lowering discourse," 
- [bloggers must] "provide primary or even secondary references on work written," and
- "I immediately judge blogs as non-credible unless they can 100% prove they are."

Hey, they're your words; I was merely contrinbuting to the discourse by questioning your logic. 

     op:


Perhaps I should have used proper citations.   :-[


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just an idiot for putting more credibility in a recognized journalist, irrelevant of political beliefs, than an unknown blogger.



Finally something I can agree with on either side of this ideological mudfest..............


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2011)

...and that wasn't just specifically aimed at you Gimpy, it just happened to be your quote.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2011)

MOD POST

Folks,
I think what I'm getting at here is when the conversation turns towards anything "Nazi" or "apartheid", etc., then its time I put on my Moderator hat and issue a warning to all that this thread is devolving into a cesspool worthy of one of those 'lower-class' websites and not army.ca.

I also apologize for being part of it.




Now, as just a regular poster.

As far as blogs and the media and their credibility, I guess anything and everything can be credible if supports your point of view. :-X


----------



## dinicthus (12 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Last weeks light bulb moment ...
> 
> Some of the most educated people I know aren't smart.



I got that revelation so long ago it was a "greasy bullrush torch" moment.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2011)

I simply have to go back to the blog post about the NDP and Socialist International.  To my mind, I can find no error and can appreciate the author's  argument.  To quote the founders of the CCF "WE AIM TO REPLACE the present capitalist system."  Need more be said?

http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5373-ReginaManifesto.htm

I freely admit to being a Conservative and don't deny its capitalistic message.  I simply cannot believe that there would be a denial that the NDP would not hold itself to be a proud member of international socialism.  Perhaps some supporters cannot handle the label socialist.  Those used to be called Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I simply have to go back to the blog post about the NDP and Socialist International.  To my mind, I can find no error and can appreciate the author's  argument.  To quote the founders of the CCF "WE AIM TO REPLACE the present capitalist system."  Need more be said?
> 
> http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5373-ReginaManifesto.htm
> 
> I freely admit to being a Conservative and don't deny its capitalistic message.  I simply cannot believe that there would be a denial that the NDP would not hold itself to be a proud member of international socialism.  Perhaps some supporters cannot handle the label socialist.  Those used to be called Liberals.




In fairness, _"the present capitalist system"_ that existed in 1932 has been replaced, probably two or three times, by various and sundry forms of increasingly regulated, welfare state capitalism. The CCF were in good and bad company in the 1930s - more bad than good, sad to say.


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I freely admit to being a Conservative and don't deny its capitalistic message.  I simply cannot believe that there would be a denial that the NDP would not hold itself to be a proud member of international socialism.  Perhaps some supporters cannot handle the label socialist.  Those used to be called Liberals.



Who is denying that the NDP are part of Socialist International? I'm certainly not, nor would anyone who knows anything about the NDP. There is a massive difference between contemporary socialism and historic socialism. The blog posted is falsely stating that SI are giving instructions to the NDP when the posted platform points are from the NDP Socialist Caucus. Several people discussed this pages ago, and people keep rehashing these issues when it is clearly evident that the NDP Socialist Caucus is a fringe group within the NDP Caucus whose leadership candidates received 1.1% of the vote in the 2003 NDP Leadership election and 11% of the vote in the 2009 Ontario NDP election. They won't be contributing any radical ideas to the NDP's platform or contribute in any meaningful way to the direction of the party.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Who is denying that the NDP are part of Socialist International? I'm certainly not, nor would anyone who knows anything about the NDP. There is a massive difference between contemporary socialism and historic socialism. The blog posted is falsely stating that SI are giving instructions to the NDP when the posted platform points are from the NDP Socialist Caucus. Several people discussed this pages ago, and people keep rehashing these issues when it is clearly evident that the NDP Socialist Caucus is a fringe group within the NDP Caucus whose leadership candidates received 1.1% of the vote in the 2003 NDP Leadership election and 11% of the vote in the 2009 Ontario NDP election. They won't be contributing any radical ideas to the NDP's platform or contribute in any meaningful way to the direction of the party.



Perhaps instead of throwing labels around, you can defend your point in a non-combative nature.  What does the NDP stand for?  What is their position on the economy, military, and society that will improve our lives?  Old socialism, ie- the great "bell curve" of life, has been a failure to this point (Please see USSR, Cuba, China when they still practiced true socialist economic policy) and new socialism in the western model hasn't seemed to have been a huge success either (Please see the PIIGS or the financial and moral bankruptcy of western Europe).


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps instead of throwing labels around, you can defend your point in a non-combative nature.  What does the NDP stand for?  What is their position on the economy, military, and society that will improve our lives?  Old socialism, ie- the great "bell curve" of life, has been a failure to this point (Please see USSR, Cuba, China when they still practiced true socialist economic policy) and new socialism in the western model hasn't seemed to have been a huge success either (Please see the PIIGS or the financial and moral bankruptcy of western Europe).



If you want to know what the NDP stands for read their platform. http://www.ndp.ca/platform. All of the positions you seek are in that platform and the benefits are clearly defined. For the military section specifically look at 6.4 and 6.5. The rest of the platform is on the economic and social points. I could regurgitate their platform points, but for me the NDP is a social democratic party and not a pure socialist party.

In my opinion contemporary socialism is more focused on the social structures in place for citizens and much less (read: minimal) to do with controlling economies. Old socialism as you put it is a failure, and I agree completely. But the modern forms of socialism such as social democracy combine a capitalist means of production with providing strong social well-being for citizens. I don't see how this type can be classified as a failure when the countries that practice it have some of the highest life expectancies, the best standards of living, and the highest education results just to name a few.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2011)

TV,

Your excerpt seems to me to provide a perfect one-line explanation of the NDP.


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This brings me back to my previous post about sources for information, vice the author, as a source of soundness of an argument.
> 
> 
> Now, remembering that I have no dog in this fight, could you provide some examples of countries that have these traits?
> ...



No problem! Here are the numbers for standard of living, life expectancy, and education index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Indicator_tables.pdf

We can see that many of the countries listed in the top 10 countries either have a social democratic party leading the country (Norway's Labour Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Labour_Party and Iceland's Social Democratic Alliance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Alliance) or are in the opposition and not far behind the government (Sweden's Social Democrat Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party and Finland's Social Democratic Party:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Finland)

Those were the examples of the Scandinavia countries listed in the rankings (which are the hallmark of social democracy), but we can also see Australia in there while their current government is the Australian Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party) who are also a who a member of Socialist International.

Furthermore, I very much agree with your point on what social democrats are and along with Infanteer's point, what the NDP stands for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2011)

_From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs._
Karl Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Program_, 1875

It's a wonderful sentiment and it lies as the very foundation of all socialist projects: Fabian, Marxist-Leninist and Maoist alike. It has only one flaw: it depends upon the perfectibility of mankind. Given that man is not perfect and that human perfection is impossible, then socialism, in all its forms, including _democratic socialism_, cannot work and is, therefore, a silly political doctrine. See e.g. Sweden and, now, Greece _et al_.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2011)

That little thing called "laziness", along with "desire", tends to get in the way....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 May 2011)

I have, in fact, had the "pleasure" of reading the NDP platform.  It's an interesting document, but like any of these sites, is more of a window glossing, and not exactly the "communist manifesto" (As some would suggest that the NDP are).

What the platform lacks is the real "guts" of the political thought.  For example, in the defence statement it says, 

"We will draft a Defence White Paper, redefining our military’s role, its priorities and needs, to be completed within 12 months. During that time, all major defence projects will be reviewed".  So my question is thus- what does a redefinging of our military's role mean to the NDP.  More peacekeeping? Out of NATO? Out of NORAD?  And if so, where does the NDP see projecting military strength?

As for economics.  I would disagree that socialism in the modern sense can truly be separate from capitalism as you seem to suggest.  For example, for all the NDP additions to tax, EI, and pension benefits, the companies paying the bill have to either recoup the losses or raise prices, hurting the poorest part of the population.  Adding more social programs by taxing the rich (or the people actually taking risks) DOES and ALWAYS WILL have an impact on the economy.  

As for your assessment of the western European socialist experiement... I would suggest that Greece being bailed out by the Germans could, and should  be, considered a horrible failure. The saddest thing I have ever seen is people protesting for their "right" to retire at 55 while their country goes bankrupt.  The ties between the NDP and the unions are similar in creating an entitled society.  And end the same.... the money provider going bankrupt (see the CAW)


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, Gimpy.
> 
> Anyway, I would offer that further analysis of the causes of life expectancy, etc in those countries would need scrutiny.  I mean, if it's only coincidental that the _current_ governments are Social Democrats and the life expectancy is _x_, then those stats mean nothing.  But, if it's the case that Social Democratic regimes cause longer lives, etc, then of course that's just more appeal to that political stripe.
> 
> ...



I agree... the Blue Jays haven't won a world series since Princess Diana died either... DAMN HER!!!


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 May 2011)

Most of the countries in the top 10 which often elect social democratic governments are culturally homogeneous and have long-established habits of hard work and self-sufficiency.  It is easier to share and agree with people with whom one shares many ideals.  The election of social democratic governments is probably a consequence of well-being, not vice versa.


----------



## Gimpy (12 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Most of the countries in the top 10 which often elect social democratic governments are culturally homogeneous and have long-established habits of hard work and self-sufficiency.  It is easier to share and agree with people with whom one shares many ideals.  The election of social democratic governments is probably a consequence of well-being, not vice versa.



Acknowledged, but where did this well-being originate and do these social democratic governments not maintain the well-being through social democratic policies and funding? Even if their election is a consequence of well-being they are still supporting the social structures in place that allow for the citizens well-being to thrive through social democratic methods.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 May 2011)

My point is that the well-being originates with the people because they are industrious and there is an essential willingness to extend trust and cooperation beyond the boundaries of the family/clan/tribe; they would be prosperous under any system of government which does not treat people brutally.  I am confident the system breaks down when there enters into the citizenry any significant number of people who eschew contribution and effort, exploit benefits, and adopt the position of "my race/religion/ethnicity before theirs".


----------



## dinicthus (13 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Most of the countries in the top 10 which often elect social democratic governments are culturally homogeneous



"Culturally homogeneous" countries that are abject failures in every possible imaginable way of measuring success abound, however. It all depends on which culture is the one pervading the country.

I realized, while travelling in Central America, that Canada is a great place, BECAUSE of the Canadians historically making it a great place. 

I used to view despotic or crummy countries as being full of nice people who were being oppressed by a few. But, I realized that people create whatever environment they live in. Thus Central America is loaded with people gibbering in fear behind locked gates at night, and in Canada, in most places, flimsy wooden fences are mainly necessary to keep our pets in our space. Yes, I know that Canada has places that are more suited to locked and barred iron gates, but not the entire country, and in Latin America, at least the parts I've seen, it's universal.

I never really appreciated my country until I travelled and lived quite a bit in theirs. Now I REALLY appreciate Canada. Especially the RCMP. And our ways of doing things make a lot more sense, now that I've seen more of the world out there.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2011)

I hope JM has lots more popcorn.   It seems to have been an interesting day.

I think one of the possibilities that the relative demise of the Liberals has created is the discovery that despite "radical" thinking by supporters of the Left and the Right there is the possibility of reasonable accomodation by reasonable men (and women) of the Left and reasonable women (and men) of the right.

The secret to the success of the Liberal Party of Canada was that they arrogated to themselves the mantle of the "reasonable man".  They argued that only they had a reasonable, central path.

They arrived at that reasonable path behind closed doors and then presented a united front in public.  With that united front and a reasonable path they maintained the active support of 30 to 40% of the population and the implicit support of the 30% of the population that wasn't exercised enough to vote at all.  In the process they managed to relegate both "Dippers" and "Neanderthals" to the lunatic fringes.

Now there is no "Reasonable" Liberal hogging the camera to voice the centrist position arrived at "in camera".  Now the debates that were had in caucus will (I hope) be had in the open, in committee, in the House, in the Senate and in the Press.  And (I hope) the resultant policies - whether reasonable accomodation where possible - or majority decision when divided on principle - will be clear to Canadians. 

And with that clarity an understanding that no party has a monopoly on reason.

I believe that the reason for the Liberals downfall was that people never saw the debates, therefore never understood the debates and therfore never understood the principles at stake.  With that the public lost faith in the Liberals decisions.  Over time their policies seemed to be more arbitrary, less rational, more scattered and while it can be argued that one faction seemed to get the best of most of those internal arguments, the overwhelming impression left was not one of reasonable accomodation by rational people but, instead, government on whim with the sole purpose of staying in power.

I believe (hope)  that loud and vigorous debate  in the House, with the bellowing of the fringes in the Galleries and the Press in the background, will make  the argument for the necessity of reasonable accomodation.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My point is that the well-being originates with the people because they are industrious and there is an essential willingness to extend trust and cooperation beyond the boundaries of the family/clan/tribe; they would be prosperous under any system of government which does not treat people brutally.  I am confident the system breaks down when there enters into the citizenry any significant number of people who eschew contribution and effort, exploit benefits, and adopt the position of "my race/religion/ethnicity before theirs".


Are you saying that people are naturally social and cooperative? That leads down an interesting road politically.

Do you think multinational corporations would fall into the first group or the second? If a CEO of a corporation took the first stance they could be put in prison for failing to ensure shareholder rights. But by ruthlessly following the second get a multimillion dollar bonus. I like to think that limited liability may have been a huge error allowing these immortal entities, soulless by design, to rule our destinies.

I worked for a major corporation before I joined the Army. If you want to feel soulless and expendable that is where you want to work. Love the Army by comparison. Treated much more humanely.


----------



## Redeye (13 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, remembering that I have no dog in this fight, could you provide some examples of countries that have these traits?



Scandinavian countries would come to top of mind, as well as Germany, The Netherlands,  and France.  There aare inherent challenges (France in particular provides ready examples), but generally speaking they're good examples.  It's important to note that you have to look at what the systems have been historically, vice what the current "government of the day" is.


----------



## Redeye (13 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My point is that the well-being originates with the people because they are industrious and there is an essential willingness to extend trust and cooperation beyond the boundaries of the family/clan/tribe; they would be prosperous under any system of government which does not treat people brutally.  I am confident the system breaks down when there enters into the citizenry any significant number of people who eschew contribution and effort, exploit benefits, and adopt the position of "my race/religion/ethnicity before theirs".



To the points in both of your posts - there's a good argument to be made that the nature of the structure of politics of social democracies could be a cultural product - in fact most systems of governance and economic structures are.  There's a reason we can't "export" democracy effectively to a place like Afghanistan or any of a myriad of other states - the civil society that allows it to function is something that developed and evolved over centuries in Europe primarily.  Likewise, feudal/tribal societies evolved elsewhere and have strong roots.

That being said, most people, I'd think, are possessed of at least a certain degree of altruism and concern for community which makes us pure greed repulsive and was the basis of the sort of "social contract" we all accept that we have a responsibility to contribute to our communities.  The argument that seems to flow from that is that if that were purely true, a government wouldn't be required to make it happen - but the reality in my view is that there are some whose greed will allow them to do things that in the absence of some manner of controls would be too much of a detriment to us all, and thus we accept some manner of governance to protect our own interests.


----------



## Redeye (13 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that it's the government _du jour_ that causes a high rating on the HDI.  I'm quite certain that there is more at play.  Australia and Canada are two prime examples in this list, at 3 and 4 resepectively.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2011)

A country can pay for whatever it (its people, actually) wants: education, health care, tanks and guns, social welfare, highways and subways ... for a while, anyway.

There are, essentially no really successful models - the Americans started with a pretty pure, tooth and claw, capitalist system but they now have a thoroughgoing welfare state which they cannot afford. Singapore is still a capitalist bastion of private property but it, too, has a very advanced and very expensive welfare state - so far they can afford it but it is not clear to me that many other countries could. Sweden led the world in _social programmes_, for a while, but it had to back away because it could no longer afford everything the people wanted.

So did Canada, back in the 1960s. Mike Pearson wanted to, finally, create a welfare state but he knew he needed money for it - the *primary* aim of Paul Hellyer's integration/unification fiasco was to _contain_ the growth of the defence budget - Canada could not afford St Laurent style _internationalism_ and Pearson and Paul Martin Sr's dream of a welfare state. Pierre Trudeau plunged us into a downward spiral of deficits and debts to pay for an ever expanding family of entitlements.

Everything costs money; everything governments do costs *us* real money - twice: once in the taxes we pay to pay for whatever services the governments provide (troops in Afghanistan, health care, roads and sewers, and so on) and once again in _lost_ 'opportunities,' the things we _might_ have done with that money. How much we are willing to pay determines how much we get from each level of government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2011)

dinicthus said:
			
		

> I realized, while travelling in Central America, that Canada is a great place, BECAUSE of the Canadians historically making it a great place.



Hence the part about "and have long-established habits of hard work and self-sufficiency".


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Are you saying that people are naturally social and cooperative? ...
> 
> Do you think multinational corporations would fall into the first group or the second? If a CEO of a corporation took the first stance they could be put in prison for failing to ensure shareholder rights. But by ruthlessly following the second get a multimillion dollar bonus. I like to think that limited liability may have been a huge error allowing these immortal entities, soulless by design, to rule our destinies.
> 
> I worked for a major corporation before I joined the Army. If you want to feel soulless and expendable that is where you want to work. Love the Army by comparison. Treated much more humanely.



People are certainly naturally cooperative, because nature seems to apply at least enough pressure that people inevitably fall into cooperative bands and work up from there.  People are certainly naturally social, because few choose to be true loners.

Corporations are not naturally "social", but CEOs are not hanged for exercising social initiatives.  The corporation I work for pursues charitable donation, public service, and "green" initiatives - means other than pure delivery of services - to establish itself as a preferred brand.

Limited liability is an immense social good.  Many fewer people would take investment risks if their entire personal wealth was always at stake.  Corporations are an immense social good.  Many fewer people would be able to exercise their talents at advanced levels of specialization in the absence of corporations.  Our entire base of technology and services would be lagging well behind its current state.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 May 2011)

And now the concept of fair trade is called into question. The following article from today's National Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Lawrence Solomon: Fair-trade coffee producers often end up poorer
May 14, 2011 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: May 14, 2011 10:37 AM ET


Coffee is one of our guilty pleasures, and not only because of the calories that can be packed into a double latte. Many of us feel guilty that our pleasure is coming at the expense of the Third World coffee farmer, so much so that we gladly pay more for “fair-trade” coffee, which certifies that farmers receive more revenue for their crop.

Saturday, on World Fair Trade Day, we have something else to feel guilty about. That fair-trade cup of coffee we savour may not only fail to ease the lot of poor farmers, it may actually help to impoverish them, according to a study out recently from Germany’s University of Hohenheim. 

The study, which followed hundreds of Nicaraguan coffee farmers over a decade, concluded that farmers producing for the fair-trade market “are more often found below the absolute poverty line than conventional producers.

“Over a period of 10 years, our analysis shows that organic and organic-fair trade farmers have become poorer relative to conventional producers.”

These findings do not surprise me. I speak as someone who has had contact with various Third World producers in my capacity as president of Green Beanery, a company I founded seven years ago to raise funds for Energy Probe Research Foundation, a federal charity that I manage. Green Beanery sells more varieties of coffee, including fair trade and organic coffees, than any other company in Canada, giving me occasion to witness the nature of the fair-trade business, and hear first hand of its impact on small producers that supply us.

The fair-trade business is filled with contradictions.

For starters, it discriminates against the very poorest of the world’s coffee farmers, most of whom are African, by requiring them to pay high certification fees. These fees — one of the factors that the German study cites as contributing to the farmers’ impoverishment — are especially perverse, given that the majority of Third World farmers are not only too poor to pay the certification fees, they’re also too poor to pay for the fertilizers and the pesticides that would disqualify coffee as certified organic.

Their coffee is organic by default, but because the farmers can’t provide the fees that certification agencies demand to fly down and check on their operations, the farmers lose out on the premium prices that can be fetched by certified coffee.

To add to the perversity, it’s an open secret that the certification process is lax and almost impossible to police, making it little more than a high-priced honour system. Although the certification associations have done their best to tighten flaws in the system, farmers and middlemen who want to get around the system inevitably do, bagging unearned profits. Those who remain scrupulous and follow the onerous and costly regulations — another source of inefficiency the German study notes in its analysis — lose out.

The study, published in the journal Ecological Economics, recommends that policy “move from certification schemes to investments in the farm and business management skills of producers” — in other words, phase out the certification fees.

Most merchants of certified coffees are aware of these contradictions, but most won’t be aware of other problems in the certification business. For Third World farmers to qualify as fair-trade producers, and thus obtain higher prices for their coffee, farmers must join co-operatives. In some Third World societies, farmers readily accept the compromises of communal enterprise. In others, they balk. In patriarchal African societies, for example, the small coffee farm is the family business, its management a source of pride to the male head of the household. Joining a co-operative, and being told when and what and how to plant entails loss of dignity.

The contradictions are acknowledged even by many fair-trade merchants, who often refer instead to anecdotal reports of less quantifiable benefits such as better health care or schooling in a village or even, most tangentially, improved habitat for birds or wildlife.

The contradictions extend to consumers of coffee in the West. Several years ago, I received a call from a church in Kingston, inquiring whether Green Beanery could supply it with freshly roasted fair-trade coffee on a weekly basis.

Along the way, the church officer mentioned that the parishioners wanted to do what they could to help poor farmers in the Third World. I replied that I’d be happy to supply the church, but I also advised him that fair-trade coffee would not help the poorest of farmers — these smallholders are actually hurt when Western consumers forsake them for coffee produced by better-off farmers who can afford the certification fees.

I also mentioned that various coffees produced by small farmers in some of the neediest parts of Africa would taste superb while costing the church less, allowing it to spend the difference on some other worthwhile cause.

After a long pause, the church official replied something like: “I still think the parishioners would feel better knowing that they were drinking fair-trade coffee.”

Some believe that certified coffee is superior in some way. But it is not always so. The small-scale farms whose local ecologies produce distinctive, niche coffee beans can’t operate on a scale that would justify official certification. As the German study notes, “Certified coffees have distinct production and marketing systems with different associated costs than the conventional system.”

Neither is certified coffee different at all. In fact, at Green Beanery we have received bags of coffee, some labelled fair trade, some not, grown on the very same farm and identical in every respect. The fair-trade certified farmer himself can’t tell which beans will be sold as fair trade and which not — that decision is made by the higher-ups.

Because the fair-trade associations are intent on keeping the price of fair-trade coffee up, they limit the supply of coffee that can be labelled as certified. To the certified farmer’s chagrin, most of his fair-trade certified crop could end up being sold as uncertified conventional coffee.

And in this well-intentioned price-fixing game, the fair-trade farmer is the pawn and the joke is on the customer.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 May 2011)

Everything politically correct, green, fair trade, etc. is a business.  David Suzuki is a businessman as are the Greenpeace etc. people.  While they may judge themselves to be morally superior, they are all simply flogging their product.  Al Gore, while not profiting from inventing the internet 8), might end up being among the first green billionaires.


----------



## Redeye (16 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Hence the part about "and have long-established habits of hard work and self-sufficiency".



Interestingly, my observation spending a whole lot of time in Central America - in Costa Rica in particular, was that wealth indeed doesn't make people happy - where I spent a lot of time there was in a small town in the southern part of the country, mainly agricultural, coffee plantations being probably the main business but also a variety of orchards and so on.  What I discovered there is that what they didn't have in material wealth, they made up for in their sense of community and the amount of time and effort they put into doing things together.

Costa Rica in particular has an interesting history though - following a civil war in 1948 they decided to abolish their military altogether and plow the savings into a universal healthcare system and education, with the result being that they've lived in peace since, and generally enjoyed a better standard of living than their neighbours.  I'm reasonably certain that they're fairly well up on the HDI for the region.  They certainly seem to be a lot happier than a lot of people I know of much more wealth here.

The fair trade argument and social responsibility - now that's interesting stuff, but I'll have to come back to it I suppose...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Interestingly, my observation spending a whole lot of time in Central America - in Costa Rica in particular, was that wealth indeed doesn't make people happy - where I spent a lot of time there was in a small town in the southern part of the country, mainly agricultural, coffee plantations being probably the main business but also a variety of orchards and so on.  What I discovered there is that what they didn't have in material wealth, they made up for in their sense of community and the amount of time and effort they put into doing things together.



Than I guess you're against the NDP's plan to tax the rich more and give it to the poor.... You wouldn't want to make all the poor people in Canada miserable by giving them money.  That's the perfect argument against the NDPs desire to create a "nanny state".  Allow the community to take responsibility over it's own development... empower the people to create for themselves the reality they want, instead of having a socialist goverment decide it's norms.


----------



## Redeye (17 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Than I guess you're against the NDP's plan to tax the rich more and give it to the poor.... You wouldn't want to make all the poor people in Canada miserable by giving them money.  That's the perfect argument against the NDPs desire to create a "nanny state".  Allow the community to take responsibility over it's own development... empower the people to create for themselves the reality they want, instead of having a socialist goverment decide it's norms.



It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out I'm not a fan of much of anything the NDP says.  I don't think taxation should be punitive, there's nothing wrong with being rich or enjoying the fruits of one's labours, but at the same time, it's also not unreasonable to suggest that the wealthiest need to pay a fair share of tax.  Of course, I like consumption taxes because for the most part they tend to be fairest and capture a good deal of revenue from the wealthiest while being difficult to avoid and not onerous.

A good social safety net is of course important, but it shouldn't provide for anything more than a basic existence, however, it also must provide the support necessarily to enable people to get off the system and out of poverty - which is why we need to ensure we provide for good education, good healthcare, and opportunities to help people succeed.  What I'd hate to see is a system like our neighbours to the south have where poverty has become endemic and generational, and the prospects for the average person who finds themselves down on their luck are very poor indeed.  Sure, every now and there's some great success story of someone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but they're still rare exceptions.  When public education erodes to the point that you've got massive swathes of the population functionally illiterate, and unable to get good jobs, then you've set conditions for a very grim reality indeed.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon



Nice quote Ricky! *lol*.

But in all seriousness, I concur in that the point of social security is to provide a basic existence.  Same as a pension system.  What I fear is the creation of a European type socialist state, as these have proven to be utterly unsustainable.  I believe we would be better to work on the development and strengthening of the middle class, but not at the expense of the richest of Canadians.  After all, it's THEIR money that drives business and trade development, and they are the ones who take the risks in the economy.  

That said, a large percentage of Canadians don't pay any tax, so a consumption tax COULD provide a way of ensuring that ALL Canadians contribute to Canadian society.


----------



## Redeye (18 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Nice quote Ricky! *lol*.



Does he say that?  I'm not a huge TPB fan - but when I was on Phase III most of our nicknames, codewords, etc were built around TPB.  I picked that up many years ago from my father.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> But in all seriousness, I concur in that the point of social security is to provide a basic existence.  Same as a pension system.  What I fear is the creation of a European type socialist state, as these have proven to be utterly unsustainable.  I believe we would be better to work on the development and strengthening of the middle class, but not at the expense of the richest of Canadians.  After all, it's THEIR money that drives business and trade development, and they are the ones who take the risks in the economy.



I don't think we're likely to see any appetite to construct a European style state - Canadians aren't that left leaning I don't think.  However, I disagree with your second statement.  I think the middle class likely is the main driver of the economy - if you look, for example, at our neighbours to the south, pandering to the interests of the richest hasn't gotten them anywhere, and the middle class is watching their standard of living erode.  In fact, what seems to have happened is an acceleration of concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, the destruction of the middle class, and the creation of a sort of underclass I fear could become a permanent, with poverty becoming generational.  If you don't have a strong middle class who are consumers and can afford to live comfortably rather than subsist, you don't really have the basis of a strong economy.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That said, a large percentage of Canadians don't pay any tax, so a consumption tax COULD provide a way of ensuring that ALL Canadians contribute to Canadian society.



Really?  Like who?  I don't think you could find a single Canadian who doesn't pay any tax.  Find me a single Canadian who never smokes, drinks, or buys anything that's not basic essentials and I'll be pretty impressed.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> In fact, what seems to have happened is an acceleration of concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, the destruction of the middle class, and the creation of a sort of underclass I fear could become a permanent, with poverty becoming generational.



From 1921:

The rich get rich and the poor get children
In the meantime
In the between time
Ain't we got fun.

I's funny that the rich don't have it all by now.  I suspect little has changed over time in the US.  Like Canada it has a multi-generational underclass and a thriving middle class.  It's interesting how the rhetoric doesn't change as everyone gets wealthier.


----------



## Redeye (18 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> From 1921:
> 
> The rich get rich and the poor get children
> In the meantime
> ...



The middle class in the USA is hardly thriving now - it's seen sharp unemployment, a protracted recession, and there's little good on the horizon.  Should any real inflation take hold in the USA it'll get worse, too.  The recession impacts the middle class most, I'd suspect, because the impact of drops in income for them is more drastic - they stop buying as much because they don't have the wealth to rely on, which drops aggregate demand in the economy and makes the recession worse potentially absent some kind of stimulative intervention (whether fiscal or monetary).  Worse still in the USA, most people's main asset is their home, and it's often heavily leveraged - to say nothing of having dropped substantially in value in the last couple of years.

The best measurement of income inequality is called the Gini Coefficient.   The higher the coefficient, the higher the income disparity/inequality.  It's been rising steadily in the USA.  Interestingly, enough, in the 1920s it was almost as high as it is now, and it dropped during the Great Depression.  It stayed relatively flat through the 1970s before starting to grow in the 1980s.  It peaked in 2006 at 0.47, dipped, and then has started to rise again.  In 2008 it stood at 0.468.  In Canada, it sits in the low 30s, having peaked the early 1990s, dropped during that recession, and stayed level since.  Most of Western Europe seems similar.  The Gini Coefficient has some problems in measurement but still is a decent approximator.  There's also the UN Poverty Index - but I can't find a ready source to look at trend movement in the USA - but I suspect it's also been increasing.


----------



## observor 69 (18 May 2011)

And this is the economy you recommend investing in?


----------



## Redeye (18 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> And this is the economy you recommend investing in?



Done cautiously, yes. There's lots of money being made - but you have to be pretty careful.  The worst market damage has done and been mostly recovered from - people who invested aggressively in 2009 did pretty well for themselves.

I think there's still prospects for a slow recovery in the USA, and frankly, in the rest of the world there's lots of money to be made.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Really?  Like who?  I don't think you could find a single Canadian who doesn't pay any tax.  Find me a single Canadian who never smokes, drinks, or buys anything that's not basic essentials and I'll be pretty impressed.



Approx 33% of adults working will pay no INCOME tax, which is what was meant, and 40% of Canadians pay none at all (for varying reasons which are intuitive, and dont require debating).  

Income taxes is a terrible means of creating anything resembling an equitable taxation system.  Corporate taxation has even less utility, as, mentioned earlier in one of the threads, corporate income tax is essentially paid for by the people who buy products, ie- the consumer.


----------



## Redeye (18 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Approx 33% of adults working will pay no INCOME tax, which is what was meant, and 40% of Canadians pay none at all (for varying reasons which are intuitive, and dont require debating).
> 
> Income taxes is a terrible means of creating anything resembling an equitable taxation system.  Corporate taxation has even less utility, as, mentioned earlier in one of the threads, corporate income tax is essentially paid for by the people who buy products, ie- the consumer.



Intuitive, how so?  I find it highly unlikely - everyone winds up paying sales taxes, excise taxes in some form, etc.  I do agree about corporate taxes, they're essentially meaningless and the tax burden can be shifted elsewhere.  As for your "33%" claim, cite a source, because I don't see that being all that likely.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> As for your "33%" claim, cite a source, because I don't see that being all that likely.



It's what I do.  33% of adults paying no income tax sounds reasonable.  About half of retired people pay none plus non-working spouses, students, and anyone making under about $12,000 per annum and there are a whack of those.  A stereotypical single mother with 2 kids earning under about $25 grand pays no tax.


----------



## Redeye (18 May 2011)

Ahh, but he said 33% of those working - so I would exclude retired people, etc.  There's lots who don't pay income tax to be sure, but I think 1/3 of the working population is probably a very, very generous estimate.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 May 2011)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/30/18087141.html

There's the link to oen of many article which references this.  Also note, that it is 2009, AND that 45% of US adults pay no income tax.  

The intuitive part, was as Mr. Ruhl stated... stay at home mothers, injured, unemployed, low income earners, etc.  Also, with many medium earners, the tax burden is significantly lowered, or negated, by a number of factors, including child tax credits, RRSP credits, spousal benefit, etc.


----------



## Bass ackwards (18 May 2011)

I remember reading the article BG45 has linked to when it first appeared. My original impression was that it referred largely to people who, at the end of April, did not owe anything to the government. This is reinforced by this quote from the article:

after a U.S. study found 69 million Americans, or 45% of households, will end up owing Washington no income tax this year. 

Throughout the year, roughly a third of my gross income goes to taxes but I usually get a few hundred back at the end of the year. Could this be what they're referring to ? Twenty thousand odd bucks of what I made last year were immediately siphoned off to Ottawa, but I didn't wind up owing anything, so I didn't "pay" taxes last year.
  
Maybe I'm just being cynical about the press and their penchant for spinning things, but my take was that li'l ole middle class me was the culprit in this article.


----------



## Redeye (19 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/30/18087141.html
> 
> There's the link to oen of many article which references this.  Also note, that it is 2009, AND that 45% of US adults pay no income tax.
> 
> The intuitive part, was as Mr. Ruhl stated... stay at home mothers, injured, unemployed, low income earners, etc.  Also, with many medium earners, the tax burden is significantly lowered, or negated, by a number of factors, including child tax credits, RRSP credits, spousal benefit, etc.



Interesting article, thanks for the link.  I still dispute the use of "workers" as the descriptor as I suspect it's 33% of filers of tax returns who may or may not be working.  In any case, they still will pay things like sales taxes, gas and other excise taxes, etc.  And it's still essentially a meaningless number.

As far as the US system goes, well, that's a whole other nightmarish matter.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2011)

The nanny state running amok Alert readers should recognize the milk issue as also having taken place in Ontario:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/obamas-war-on-fun



> *Obama's War on Fun*
> The president breathes new life into the Nanny State
> 
> Gene Healy | May 17, 2011
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 May 2011)

So, I'm guessing this makes, unquestionably, Ontario's McGuinty government Obama Lite?


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, I'm guessing this makes, unquestionably, Ontario's McGuinty government Obama Lite?



Or just plain stupid and officious.  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Or just plain stupid and officious.  >



I would'nt say 'Or' I would say 'plus'.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 May 2011)

Isn't bashing Mr. Obama just for the sake of bashing Mr. Obama getting old?

Wake me up when there's a good reason to bash......................


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Isn't bashing Mr. Obama just for the sake of bashing Mr. Obama getting old?
> 
> Wake me up when there's a good reason to bash......................



Wakey, wakey.   M..c..G..U..I..N..T..Y


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 May 2011)

Now HIM I can bash,.......I don't think Mr. Obama would get away with the fibs Mr. McGuinty has told.


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2011)

Confiscate higher GPA's and redistribute them to deserving students. Priceless:

http://exposingleftists.com/archives/153


----------



## observor 69 (27 May 2011)

Matt Gurney: Tim Hudak the pretender wants Ontario back on the chain gang

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/27/matt-gurney-tim-hudak-the-pretender-wants-ontario-back-on-the-chain-gang/


----------



## Jed (27 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Thank you for sharing this demonstration of the overwhelming, borderline mental illness stupidity of the American Right.  What's next?



No, Thank you for sharing your true feelings and the complete block that you have maintained when it comes to logic that does not fit the world you have made for yourself.


----------



## Gimpy (27 May 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> No, Thank you for sharing your true feelings and the complete block that you have maintained when it comes to logic that does not fit the world you have made for yourself.



I'm not sure if you misquoted or something else, but the quote you posted doesn't exist in this thread. What was it in reference to?

Edit: Nevermind, appears to be a deleted post.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Matt Gurney: Tim Hudak the pretender wants Ontario back on the chain gang
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/27/matt-gurney-tim-hudak-the-pretender-wants-ontario-back-on-the-chain-gang/



I think only Sheriff Joe runs one of those, and it is voluntary:
"Chain gangs were reintroduced by a few states during the "get tough on crime" 1990s, with Alabama being the first state to revive them in 1995. The experiment ended after about one year in all states except Arizona, where in Maricopa County inmates can still volunteer for a chain gang to earn credit toward a high school diploma or avoid disciplinary lockdowns for rule infractions.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gang

Nice old song on the subject by Sam Cooke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmZdvVnMXCc


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Matt Gurney: Tim Hudak the pretender wants Ontario back on the chain gang
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/27/matt-gurney-tim-hudak-the-pretender-wants-ontario-back-on-the-chain-gang/



I kinda like the idea. Ever seen how clean and manicured the roads and highways in Georgia are? Yup, chain gangs. If our sensibilities can't stand the sight of criminals being made to work, there is lots of stuff they can do indoors. Enough of the free rides. And no voting while they are incarcerated either.

Hudak may not have though the whole thing through, but I think the idea has some merit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I kinda like the idea. Ever seen how clean and manicured the roads and highways in Georgia are? Yup, chain gangs. If our sensibilities can't stand the sight of criminals being made to work, there is lots of stuff they can do indoors. Enough of the free rides. And no voting while they are incarcerated either.
> 
> Hudak may not have though the whole thing through, but I think the idea has some merit.




As long as folks know there is no money savings doing this,......in fact the whole thing becomes quite pricey when you factor in various security things that must happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> As long as folks know there is no money savings doing this,......in fact the whole thing becomes quite pricey when you factor in various security things that must happen.



So what have they got inside Bruce? Satellite TV, computers, reading rooms and movies? Do they really have to do anything or can they just sit around sleeping and shooting the shit with each other?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 May 2011)

Well you can't compare where I'm at to a regular setting.     Mind you they must 'earn' the right to stay here.

All they really have is cable television in the Ontario system.........now I haven't worked in the Federal system however I'm told all those things, and more, are available. 

Remember neither side ever wants the public to know that jail time isn't all that bad, in fact the 'Con Code' forbids it. Hard to play on the legal system and the public's sympathies if the truth be revealed.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2011)

They made a DVD on the subject ( Chain Gangs ), if interested:
http://chaingangpictures.com/ACFILMPAGE.htm


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2011)

Chain gang

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2G1801PAo


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2011)

...............or this ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0


----------



## PMedMoe (28 May 2011)

How about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3uf5V0pDA

 ;D


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2011)

I actually recoiled at the idea of chain gangs when it was foirst presented, mostly due to the usual Legacy Media spin which implied that it was involuntary servitude (i.e. slavery). Now if the cons can volunteer to join a chain gang to earn credits towards various good things (which is what the program is really all about), then it is indeed a positive step.

As noted above, it won't be cheap, but if there is a positive correlation between serving on the chain gang and reduced instances of re-offending then it is worth going for. In fact I'd be all for a comprehensive review of all aspects of the prison system to identify what factors work to prevent re offending and strengthen them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2011)

Please see this. These debates about _progressives_ vs the _Tea Party_ are sterile because neither group matters - not one tiny little bit. The Americans have abandoned responsible government in favour of a clash of increasingly narrow interest groups. Canadians are in danger of doing the same. Obama, Boehner and Paul are all clowns in face paint and fancy dress; they are leading a parade of court jesters round and round a May pole.


----------



## Redeye (28 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you misquoted or something else, but the quote you posted doesn't exist in this thread. What was it in reference to?
> 
> Edit: Nevermind, appears to be a deleted post.



He must have been quick, the post was up for maybe three minutes before I thought better of it and pulled it.  However, it doesn't change my opinion of the drivel which I responded to.  I really need to stop interacting with such stupidity.


----------



## observor 69 (28 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I really need to stop interacting with such stupidity.




OK take a deep  breath and go to your "Happy Place."    >


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2011)

Here is an interesting exercise; a Conservative blogger interpreting the principles of the NDP. Since there is no publicly available party constitution, this is based mostly on interpretation of public statements, policy and election platforms that are out there for everyone to read. So far as I have been able to determine, this seems to be a fair assessment of what is being presented to us:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2011/05/quite-possibly-most-logical-argument.html



> *Quite possibly the most logical argument ever from an "NDPer". (Sadly, written by a conservative)*
> 
> The NDP will not release their constitution, and since I have not seen any logical arguments from the NDP that I can 'unpack and dismantle', I have been led to contrive my own argument for NDP's Constitution…as best possible. I am pretending to be a NDPer…so go easy on me. I do think I am working with lots of contradictions, but I am going to do my best to make it as 'logical as possible'.  I used a 'mock name' to hide the author's identity ; )
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2011)

More on appearance vs reality:

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/  06 June 2011



> *JOHN EDWARDS: ILLEGAL CAD?*
> 
> More than anything I am having a hard time understanding why it was wrong for John Edwards to take money from Bunny Mellon but perfectly acceptable for him to take cash and benefits from UNC-Chapel Hill. The trumped up, made up Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity my alma mater provided Edwards between February 2005 and December 2006, specifically.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2011)

Another slight of mind trick:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/06/why-the-hypocrisy-defense-is-political-suicide-for-liberalism/



> *Why the Hypocrisy Defense is political suicide for liberalism*
> Posted By Zombie On June 6, 2011 @ 5:24 pm In Uncategorized | 136 Comments
> 
> All across the internet over the last few hours, liberal commenters and bloggers have fallen back on one of their most trusted logical arguments in situations like this in which a Democrat is caught in a sex scandal: “At least he’s not a hypocrite.”
> ...


----------



## Redeye (8 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another slight of mind trick:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/06/why-the-hypocrisy-defense-is-political-suicide-for-liberalism/



Nonsense.

It's indeed much more a scandal when people who run on "family values" campaigns and the like then get caught in sordid sex scandals, and in recent memory, even without that consideration, it seems that there's a lot more of those happening on the right side (though they happen to both).  The hypocrisy claim that comes from liberals is directly pointed and all the drivel about the "sanctity of marriage" and the "moral majority" nonsense spewed by the right.

Weiner is an idiot - for what he did, and for how he handled it.  His worst offence in the eyes of many of my American liberal friends is legitimizing the scum-sucking bottomfeeder Andrew Breitbart for one brief, shining moment, though.  At the end of the day, he didn't break any laws, he didn't break his oath, and the matter is between him and his wife, and the voters in his district will make their position known come election time.

As one of them says, as long as Republican creep David Vitter still holds office, a man who actually was involved in a sex scandal involving actual sex, with a prostitute who he paid to diaper him no less, Weiner's just going to get on with his job.

The worst thing about this though is it provided a media sideshow distraction from there very, very disturbing revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas, who has committed serious tax offences, and appears to be unable to live up to the impartiality required/expected of a Supreme Court justice.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jun 2011)

Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.


----------



## xena (8 Jun 2011)

I'm thoroughly with TV on this one.

First though, I'll say Christian morality *in it's entirety* only applies to people who call themselves Christian.  Secularists, of course, are free to cherry-pick whatever seems compatible with their philosophy and inclinations.

Now, I generally cringe when I see some half educated TV preacher trying to put forth an argument that everyone has to follow *his* rules.  I just wanted to get that out of the way before anyone tries to be silly and accuse me of being homophobic, or "against" any particular group.  The only thing I'm really against is stupidity, and sadly that cuts across all lines.

But, the assumption that people that hold a belief in the sanctity of marriage, or any other tenent of Christian morality, or a belief even in the existence of a deity, are somehow intellectually or morally (however you may define that) deficient is completely unfounded.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2011)

Morals and religion ought to be wholly private matters; _public_ "morality" ought to be confined to some simple combination of honesty and good manners.

As TV said, Weiner is not in need of any defence for hypocrisy - he never claimed to be anything he isn't. He isn't honest nor does he have good manners but neither need disqualify him from public office in the _good ol' US of A_, nor in Canada for that matter. The charge against which Weiner does need to defend himself is stupidity.


----------



## Redeye (8 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I cannot let this go.  You have just legitimised the argument put forth in the blog.  That "drivel" about "the sanctity of marriage" isn't drivel.  It's a moral stand.  Yes, those who say one thing, yet to the complete opposite are hypocrites.  The blog isn't defending those guys, but instead attacking the defence of Mr. Weiner.
> 
> PS: "Moral Majority?"  Are you serious?  Guess what: 1985 called, they want their word of the day back  :



It is, in the eyes of many, many people in an increasing secular society complete drivel when it's spouted by people who don't take the words seriously themselves.  If marriage is so "sacred", then why aren't the "moral majority" (and the term is still in common use, though mainly in the pejorative sense I use it) after divorce?  I don't really think someone like a David Vitter or a John Ensign has much business talking about sanctity of marriage at all, just as I don't put much stock in attacks on equal rights for gays coming from a party which includes people busted for soliciting in airport restrooms or sending salacious emails to pages while keeping up the "family values" appearance.  Does that somehow mean that what Anthony Weiner did was somehow "less" "wrong"?  No.  It doesn't matter what party he belongs to or what ideology he espouses particularly, but at least he can't be tarred as a hypocrite particularly strongly.

As the always spot on Mr. Campbell said, his main fault in this is the abject stupidity of how he handled himself, and that in no way prevents him from holding office.


----------



## Redeye (8 Jun 2011)

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> But, the assumption that people that hold a belief in the sanctity of marriage, or any other tenent of Christian morality, or a belief even in the existence of a deity, are somehow intellectually or morally (however you may define that) deficient is completely unfounded.



To a degree I accept that - but point out that the reverse is also true.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It is, in the eyes of many, many people in an increasing secular society complete drivel when it's spouted by people who don't take the words seriously themselves.  If marriage is so "sacred", then why aren't the "moral majority" (and the term is still in common use, though mainly in the pejorative sense I use it) after divorce?  I don't really think someone like a David Vitter or a John Ensign has much business talking about sanctity of marriage at all, just as I don't put much stock in attacks on equal rights for gays coming from a party which includes people busted for soliciting in airport restrooms or sending salacious emails to pages while keeping up the "family values" appearance.  Does that somehow mean that what Anthony Weiner did was somehow "less" "wrong"?


So, does the human failure of the messenger make the message any less important to those who support it, or any less valid?  If so, than we should all be jumping off the global warming band wagon, since it's biggest spokesman, Mr. Al Gore, has been noted as a huge hypocrite, living in a house that used 20 x the power of the average american household. 

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2007/02/27/al-gores-carbon-footprint/

I think this demonstrates well the original point... when your poor part time conservative family rights spokesman/part time closet homosexual is caught, he is automatically a hypocrite, but when the same is found on the liberal side, it's always just an attack.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So, does the human failure of the messenger make the message any less important to those who support it, or any less valid?  If so, than we should all be jumping off the global warming band wagon, since it's biggest spokesman, Mr. Al Gore, has been noted as a huge hypocrite, living in a house that used 20 x the power of the average american household.
> 
> http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2007/02/27/al-gores-carbon-footprint/
> 
> I think this demonstrates well the original point... when your poor part time conservative family rights spokesman/part time closet homosexual is caught, he is automatically a hypocrite, but when the same is found on the liberal side, it's always just an attack.



I never got on that particular wagon in the first place. It has all the trappings of a 'honey' wagon (Stinks, leaks and is full of shit)


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As a person who believes in the sanctity of marriage, tenents of Christian morality, and in the existence of a deity, to what degree do you accept that I am not intellectually or morally deficient?  And what "reverse" do you also hold true?
> 
> 
> op:



Well, this is going off from the discussion at hand, but why not?  If nothing else, for the most part, we have some pretty interesting and generally civil and respectful conversations on different opinions on army.ca.

It comes down to this - I respect you have the right - the freedom - to believe whatever you want about the existence of the deities, about moral prinicples, and so on as I would expect my freedom to reject the idea of deity as well.  The key to it, in my view, is that so long as what you believe doesn't in any way impact my life directly, than it doesn't matter particularly.  What riles me is when religious ideas are used to impose a particular set of views on society which are to the detriment of that freedom in others.  That's why I don't want religion in classrooms, I don't want it being set on a pedestal equivalent to science, etc etc, or in any way being promoted (even tacitly) by the state.

The reverse I referred to, of course, is the suggestion that the atheist is amoral or somehow wrong for failing to believe the same as the theist.

The other problem I see frequently is that while some religious folks will suggest that atheists are amoral because morality comes whom whichever god they subscribe to, they seem to have a hard time holding themselves up to the standards they claim others should follow.  To me, it's far more reasonable to say that all people are fallible and accept that - and beyond that, the idea of absolute morality dictated by a supernatural force makes little sense.  There's a fair bit of research that suggests most of those basic ideas are evolved traits and observable in other members of the animal kingdom, for example.  And ultimately, it's social sanction that enforces morality, not a vague promise of eternal retribution (which, conveniently, most religions have a quick way out of).

Consider this: various religions impose rules upon their followers that may be difficult or unreasonable for them to follow, but then have some way out.  I recall a divorced Catholic explaining the process by which they got an annulment in order to be able to remarry and wondering how a marriage of many years that produced children could possibly be considered annulled in the eyes of the church, except to realize it's a matter of convenience to adapt rules to modern circumstances, just as most Christians dismiss most of the Levitical laws (except of course the one about homosexuality).

At the end of the day, though, what one believes is generally irrelevant to me unless they are seeking to impose it on others in any fashion.  In that case, then all bets are off.


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So, does the human failure of the messenger make the message any less important to those who support it, or any less valid?  If so, than we should all be jumping off the global warming band wagon, since it's biggest spokesman, Mr. Al Gore, has been noted as a huge hypocrite, living in a house that used 20 x the power of the average american household.
> 
> http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2007/02/27/al-gores-carbon-footprint/



Oooh, about that, not exactly true - or at least, a rather horrible mischaracterization.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think this demonstrates well the original point... when your poor part time conservative family rights spokesman/part time closet homosexual is caught, he is automatically a hypocrite, but when the same is found on the liberal side, it's always just an attack.



Except there's a difference - was the hypothetical liberal in this case someone who's publicly denounced homosexuality?  Was the hypothetical conservative?  It the former is true, than that person is indeed a hypocrite, if it isn't, then they are not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2011)

One cannot make the case that religion is the exclusive font of morality.

It is likely that some Christian religious people are moral and others are amoral and, indeed, immoral. Ditto for Buddhists, Daoists, Jews, Muslims and so on - *in precisely the same proportions, not even the tiniest iota of variance* - because they are all human with precisely equal human values.

Confucians are also moral, amoral and immoral in precisely the same proportions and, since Confucianism is not a religion, we _may_ say, with the same degree of likelihood, that religion makes no difference to morality.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2011)

And yet religion, like its secular counterpart "the law", both sprigs of the same tree, act as a conservative "drag chain" on the populace.   If society is made of people and people are fallible then society is fallible.  If priests and lawyers are people and people are fallible then their utterances are fallible.

I believe in pragmatic accomodation and so I believe in democracy as a means to managing violent disputes.  Equally I believe that democrats burn witches, stone infidels and guillotine academics and aristocrats.  Therefore democrats need to be curbed with a drag chain.   See the above.

Unfortunately the drag chain is flawed because it was created by people and equally it can used by people to justify roasting Cathars and starving Russian farmers.  From time to time the chain needs to be reworked.  And its application is debated daily in 6,000,000,000 brains.

Despite that it is appropriate that there be a sound "immutable" standard by which actions can be compared,  even if the standard becomes dated.  It is useful to maintain knowledge of how far and how fast you are moving and in what direction.  Then you can make "reasonable" conclusions on a course of action.

Personally I find comfort in a deity, just as I find comfort in the gold standard.  I find comfort in that so many others also find comfort in the same standards.  It makes it easier for me to understand their standards and thus easier for me to predict their actions.

Will they disappoint me and frustrate me?  Absolutely.  As Argyll points out they are equally human.

However I would rather deal with someone whose ethics are measurable and holds themself, however imperfectly, to an external standard, than to deal with someone who has no standard but their own and is capable of rationalizing any action as appropriate.


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> However I would rather deal with someone whose ethics are measurable and holds themself, however imperfectly, to an external standard, than to deal with someone who has no standard but their own and is capable of rationalizing any action as appropriate.



I don't think I personally know any examples of the latter, except that it sounds like a good description of a sociopath.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Jun 2011)

Redeye: How about giving us your concept of ethics and the standards you abide by while leading acting as a Pl Comd of soldiers. I don't give a shidt about your business/personal way of doing things.


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye: How about giving us your concept of ethics and the standards you abide by while leading acting as a Pl Comd of soldiers. I don't give a shidt about your business/personal way of doing things.



Of what particular relevance is any of that?  However, I'll try.

Ethics?  Simple - do no harm - or where no prospect exists of that, do the least harm possible.  Act with integrity at all times - say what you mean, mean what you say, and hold yourself to it. Have the courage to make the difficult decisions and accept responsibility for them.  Don't make decisions based on personal comforts or wants, that is, remember "mission - men - self" - and so on.

Not one of them derives from, or requires any sort of "deity".

And there's no difference between the point of view I have wearing green, or wearing a suit and tie at my civilian job, or just out doing whatever - I take this stuff pretty seriously in all cases.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It comes down to this - I respect you have the right - the freedom - to believe whatever you want about the existence of the deities, about moral prinicples, and so on as I would expect my freedom to reject the idea of deity as well.  The key to it, in my view, is that so long as what you believe doesn't in any way impact my life directly, than it doesn't matter particularly.  What riles me is when religious ideas are used to impose a particular set of views on society which are to the detriment of that freedom in others.  That's why I don't want religion in classrooms, I don't want it being set on a pedestal equivalent to science, etc etc, or in any way being promoted (even tacitly) by the state.



So you respect the right for religious people to have religion as long as it doesn't impact your life directly?  It's an interesting, but not uncommon, hypocritical argument.  What about the rights of the people who believe in this stuff and want to be taught it, or have it taught to their children?  Seemingly in your argument, the assumption is that what you believe is reality, and that the religious types are cute little silly people to be tolerated, but not given any say in society.  It would seem to me that if you believed in true education than you would welcome the teaching of both view points in an enlightened, reasoned manner, to the youth of today in order for them to decide which view point they want to adopt.  

Also, as for Al Gore, it seems that he had some excuses, and upon being caught, quickly changed path.  Here's a list of some more liberal hypocrites, and there are many more where those came from.  The point is- liberals are no more and no less hypocritcal (see case in point you arguing against religion in the classroom because you want to ensure that a particular view point isn't imposed, namely, the one you dont agree with) than their conservative counterparts.

http://listverse.com/2009/05/02/10-cases-of-liberal-hypocrisy/


----------



## TheHead (10 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So you respect the right for religious people to have religion as long as it doesn't impact your life directly?  It's an interesting, but not uncommon, hypocritical argument.  What about the rights of the people who believe in this stuff and want to be taught it, or have it taught to their children?  Seemingly in your argument, the assumption is that what you believe is reality, and that the religious types are cute little silly people to be tolerated, but not given any say in society.  It would seem to me that if you believed in true education than you would welcome the teaching of both view points in an enlightened, reasoned manner, to the youth of today in order for them to decide which view point they want to adopt.
> 
> Also, as for Al Gore, it seems that he had some excuses, and upon being caught, quickly changed path.  Here's a list of some more liberal hypocrites, and there are many more where those came from.  The point is- liberals are no more and no less hypocritcal (see case in point you arguing against religion in the classroom because you want to ensure that a particular view point isn't imposed, namely, the one you dont agree with) than their conservative counterparts.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2009/05/02/10-cases-of-liberal-hypocrisy/



  If parents want their children growing up to believe the Earth is six thousand years old and we lived with dinosaurs than they have every right to believe what they want.   Pseudo-science though does not belong in the classroom.  There isn't a single piece of evidence that supports intelligent design.    Intelligent design and creationism have been all but rejected by the scientific community and therefore shouldn't even be entertained in educational institutes.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2011)

TheHead said:
			
		

> If parents want their children growing up to believe the Earth is six thousand years old and we lived with dinosaurs than they have every right to believe what they want.   Pseudo-science though does not belong in the classroom.  There isn't a single piece of evidence that supports intelligent design.    Intelligent design and creationism have been all but rejected by the scientific community and therefore shouldn't even be entertained in educational institutes.



And you truly believe that.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So you respect the right for religious people to have religion as long as it doesn't impact your life directly?  It's an interesting, but not uncommon, hypocritical argument.  What about the rights of the people who believe in this stuff and want to be taught it, or have it taught to their children?



The allowing of people to think or do what they want as long as it doesn't impact one's own life (ie - causes no harm) is actually a pretty sound philosophy. I see no hypocrisy with that viewpoint. Teaching religion in a public school means forcing a religious viewpoint on people, which is different than not teaching any religion at all. Public schools do not teach "There is no God." 

Parents are free to conduct religious education on their own or through their church. Parents can send their kids to religious schools. This costs more, but it is a choice that they make. What I would not support is making religious education part of general curriculum, which would force it on people who may not want it.

Schools should indeed teach competing views, but those views should have some grounding in science to include the social sciences.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So you respect the right for religious people to have religion as long as it doesn't impact your life directly?  It's an interesting, but not uncommon, hypocritical argument.  What about the rights of the people who believe in this stuff and want to be taught it, or have it taught to their children?  Seemingly in your argument, the assumption is that what you believe is reality, and that the religious types are cute little silly people to be tolerated, but not given any say in society.  It would seem to me that if you believed in true education than you would welcome the teaching of both view points in an enlightened, reasoned manner, to the youth of today in order for them to decide which view point they want to adopt.



There's nothing hypocritical about that at all.  If people want to teach their kids about a religion, fine.  They can do that.  But not in public schools, not in any sort of forum in which anyone else is forced to be exposed to it.  That doesn't mean public schools should "teach atheism" - it means the subject matter doesn't belong there, period, except perhaps in the context of social studies (like comparative cultural studies, I took such a class in high school and it was very, very interesting).  If doesn't mean censoring people or making things such that people who want to explore a particular religion can't.  I don't see any benefit, particularly, from that, since advocating that would indeed be a hypocritical position.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Also, as for Al Gore, it seems that he had some excuses, and upon being caught, quickly changed path.  Here's a list of some more liberal hypocrites, and there are many more where those came from.  The point is- liberals are no more and no less hypocritcal (see case in point you arguing against religion in the classroom because you want to ensure that a particular view point isn't imposed, namely, the one you dont agree with) than their conservative counterparts.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2009/05/02/10-cases-of-liberal-hypocrisy/



I don't seem to recall that I ever did assert that "liberals" had any less propensity to be hypocritical than "conservatives".


----------



## Redeye (10 Jun 2011)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Schools should indeed teach competing views, but those views should have some grounding in science to include the social sciences.



Exactly, and that is why creationism and its cloaked analogue "intelligent design" have no place in schools.  Your "to include the social sciences" would to me say it could be taught in a social science context (ie in a world religions comparative type class as I took in high school), but not taught as "science" in the sense of biology etc.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, there you go.  All this to say that I, a thinking rational being, think that there is some sort of deliberate order to the universe, and this was caused by a greater rational, thinking being.



See, that's a position I can't really complain about - you believe what you believe, and that's fine.  Does it impact my life directly in any adverse way?  Nope.  Not at all. Therefore, I can't see any reason to have a problem with it.

The Roman Catholic Church has been involved in a lot of interesting discussion on this very topic, and certainly, as far as religions go, it's probably a leader in advancing science.  Of course, that's not always been the case as we all know from history (and Monty Python sketches).  However, lately that changed, CBC's "Ideas" recently did a piece on the very, very advanced observatory they own in Arizona (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope).  They seem to look at things with the idea that Steven Jay Gould labelled non-overlapping magisteria, that you can examine the religious/philosophical ideas about the "why" and so on regardless of what science says about the "how" and "when".


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2011)

Scandals really do bring out the worst in people:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/12/rehab-for-all/



> Rehab All Around! It turns out Rep. Anthony Weiner isn’t the only one entering rehab in the wake of his sexting-and-lying scandal. At least three other figures in the affair have followed his example and voluntarily entered 12-step recovery programs.
> 
> Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, said he would request a leave of absence from his popular group blog to learn what he called “partisan aggression management.” ”Twice now–with John Edwards and Anthony Weiner–I’ve defended pretty obviously guilty Democrats by approving nasty arguments attacking their critics–arguments that turned out to be wrong. I thought I was fighting back, but I brought nothing but humiliation and disgrace to myself and my party.  The truth comes out eventually. I hadn’t taken that into account. I have departed this morning to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better blogger and healthier person.”
> 
> ...



While the piece is a satire, the sentiment outlined is really a precis of what actually happened in these various cases. The cognotive dissonance caused by attempting to depict black as white must be diffficult to handle.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jun 2011)

A more complete look at the Liberal Party president's speech and its meaning:

http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.com/2011/06/inside-liberal-hive-mind.html



> *Inside the Liberal hive-mind *
> Liberal Party of Canada president Alfred Apps gave a speech on June 9 in which he outlined his vision of the future. If anyone needed further proof of the ideological bankruptcy of the former Natural Governing Party, they should look no further.
> 
> Mr. Apps begins with a description of the party's roots in the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries:
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jun 2011)

Further to this post about the Socialist Caucus:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64647/post-1043059.html#msg1043059

And this quote:



> That's one caucus within the party, I doubt most regular members (much less most of their candidates) would agree with any of that nonsense.Report


 
There is this



> Earlier on Sunday, New Democrats rejected a proposal to ban merger talks with the federal Liberal party after a heated exchange on the floor of its national convention in Vancouver Sunday.
> 
> Members voted 645 to 464 to reject the motion after two rounds of voting and a standing vote.
> 
> ...



Based on ER Campbell's appreciation of the electorate and Frank Graves comments about Liberals being more likely to run to the NDP than run to the Conservatives, as well as a traditional NDP voter share of 20% I make the following assertion:

Its all good party - 40%
Conservatively inclined - 25%
Stark Staring Loonie Leftists 50% of 20% of 60% or 6% (and all in the NDP)
Liberally inclined - 29% (of whom 6% reside in the NDP)

And then there's Quebec.............

The problem for the NDP is that up to 50% of their party is marching to a drummer that 94% of Canadians don't hear (outside of Quebec - when the wind sets fair from the South East and the moon is in the right house).


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2011)

VDH nailing it, as usual. Notice how many of the "socialist" set don't seem to mind living in mansions, being chauferred in limosines (unless the optics of riding a bike to work is to your electoral advantage  ), and otherwise partaking of the high life. In the former USSR the same things happend for the _nomenklatura_, even Orwell was astute enough to recognize the lay of the land (most notably with the description of how the "Inner Party" lived in 1984). Pick your own example from history, all notionally socialist regimes are the same:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/there-are-no-socialists/?print=1



> *There Are No Socialists*
> Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On June 25, 2011 @ 6:56 pm In Uncategorized | 100 Comments
> 
> Are There Really Socialists?
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2011)

While dumping on organized religions as the font of morality, most people rather impressively miss the point that organized religion historically has been the chief crucible in which morality is fired and the fountain from which it has issued.  Criticizing the process as not being error-free is trivial and inane.  There have been many more steps forward than back.

On the one hand, if a man believes in a religion you can instruct him in what is right by referring to scriptures which say so.  He has faith, and will accept an article of faith (even while he has trouble sticking to it).

On the other hand, if a man believes in no religion you can instruct him in what is right by referring him to [insert irrefutable proof of desired moral and ethical principles here, when you find them].

Now, which of those is more useful (practical) for maintaining a sane and just society?

Parenthetically, children have a right to an education.  Parents have the right to determine that education.  (If you don't believe me, refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)  Whichever levels of government are responsible for education should provide a block grant for each child, to be spent in the school system of the parents' choice regardless whether it is run publicly or privately.


----------



## toyotatundra (30 Jun 2011)

> On the one hand, if a man believes in a religion you can instruct him in what is right by referring to scriptures which say so.  He has faith, and will accept an article of faith (even while he has trouble sticking to it).
> 
> On the other hand, if a man believes in no religion you can instruct him in what is right by referring him to [insert irrefutable proof of desired moral and ethical principles here, when you find them].
> 
> Now, which of those is more useful (practical) for maintaining a sane and just society?



If you look at the most religious region on Earth right now, the Middle East, you would have trouble characterizing it as sane and just.  On the contrary, the fervent religious beliefs of people in that region lead to an almost unfathomable level of human suffering. Especially among women subject to harsh religious laws.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> If you look at the most religious region on Earth right now, the Middle East, you would have trouble characterizing it as sane and just.  On the contrary, the fervent religious beliefs of people in that region lead to an almost unfathomable level of human suffering. Especially among women subject to harsh religious laws.




But the problem is that many of the bad undesirable things you ascribe to religion are, in fact, cultural artifacts and have nothing at all to so with any particular religion.

Islam isn't a problem - but it has problems that are rooted, deeply, in North African, Arab, Persian and West Asian cultures which are badly in need of an _enlightenment_ which, likely, in my opinion needs to be preceded by a religious _reformation_.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2011)

Edward's comments get to the heart of the matter.  I once read a pretty good piece by a Muslim woman who complained that her religion was too "Arabized" and that it took too many trends of 8th century nomads along with the legitimate teachings and words of the Prophet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2011)

>If you look at the most religious region on Earth right now, the Middle East, you would have trouble characterizing it as sane and just.

Islam, in the abstract, is not really worse than most other religions - and pretty much all of the otherwise benign political ideologies - with respect to rights and how people should behave toward others.  Their codes of human rights are acceptable to enlightened; the problems lie with narrow definitions of who qualifies as "human".  Islam's definition is very narrow.

Islam, in the concrete, is emphatically a problem when measured up against the progress of other religions and irreligious ideals of human rights.  Religions originate as aspects of cultures; religions _are_ culture.  To speak of a separation of a religion from its cultural bases is pointless until such time as the cultural codes are actually excised.  We can imagine something that is Islam shorn of its Arabic chauvinism, but that something is by definition not Islam.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Islam, in the concrete, is emphatically a problem when measured up against the progress of other religions and irreligious ideals of human rights.  Religions originate as aspects of cultures; religions _are_ culture.  To speak of a separation of a religion from its cultural bases is pointless until such time as the cultural codes are actually excised.  We can imagine something that is Islam shorn of its Arabic chauvinism, but that something is by definition not Islam.



I don't entirely agree. Islam as practiced in Indonesia and some of the smaller sects like Sufi Islam have ejected Arab chauvinism, but are still recognizably Islam. This does not negate the Religion as Culture argument.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2011)

I have referred to the Kipling poem "The Stranger" before - and found it wanting in something.  Notably disagreeable is his last stanza calling for separation.  When looking for an on-line version to reprint in this discussion I found another poem of his "Two Races" which seems like a bookend to "The Stranger".

Kipling ascribed to genetics the differences that we are all commenting on here and ascribing to religion, particular or general.  Despite the unfashionable allusions to racism and eugenics I think that Kipling fairly describes some home truths.  Beliefs matter.   And if you are raised with differing beliefs to your neighbour there will be difficulties communicating.  It seems to me it doesn't really matter if you put your faith in Jahweh, Eloi or Allah; in King or Parliament; in Church, Court or your own right arm.  If you don't have the same belief system as the person you are talking with there will be misunderstandings.

As it seems unlikely that everybody will subscribe to the same belief system we are stuck with the old liberal sins of toleration and latitudinarianism - and letting every man "gang tae hell his ain gait".

Of course that is easier if distance is maintained - and failing a voluntary maintenance of distance by both parties then the other guarantor of a good neighbour is a good fence.

Here are Kipling's poems intertwined:



> The Stranger  _Two Races_
> 
> 
> The Stranger within my gate,
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Islam, in the abstract, is not really worse than most other religions - and pretty much all of the otherwise benign political ideologies - with respect to rights and how people should behave toward others.  Their codes of human rights are acceptable to enlightened; the problems lie with narrow definitions of who qualifies as "human".  Islam's definition is very narrow.



I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.



My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.

The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.


----------



## wannabe SF member (1 Jul 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.
> 
> The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.



I disagree with this assertion, while it is true that the old testament is filled with genocide and atrocities of all sorts, it is supposed to be seen as a necessary preface to the new testament, a set of stories designed to teach you specific lessons necessary to better understand the teachings of Christ. In the end, that is what the bible is, a way to present the fundamental teachigs of Christianity.

The Qu'ran is, on the other hand, a book of law. It is not meant as a guideline but as a universal code meant to prescribe everything from justice to inheritance to the way to treat unbelievers. I will admit that you can also find these things in Leviticus and numbers but nowhere is the emphasis greater than in the Qu'ran.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2011)

Inky, I appreciate the difference in interpretation, but doesn't that go to the heart of the issue?

If you are building a control panel or a house or a ship there are books of regulations that must be followed.  Unfortunately, with the best will in the world the designer's interpretation of what the regulations require is often at odds with the local inspector at the point of use.  And if that inspector is satisfied you are still likely to have to adjust again to satisfy another local interpreter in another locale.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jul 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.



That's my point.  Your status is fine if you're an Islamic male; not so much, if you are not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jul 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.
> 
> The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.



The difference is that the modernized followers don't abide by those lines of thinking, and even the traditionalists do not seem to wish to put the modern heretics to death.  Islam can not make the same claim.   Islam is still at the "exactly one and only one set of rules" stage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The difference is that the modernized followers don't abide by those lines of thinking, and even the traditionalists do not seem to wish to put the modern heretics to death.  Islam can not make the same claim.   Islam is still at the "exactly one and only one set of rules" stage.




Which is why I continue to believe that all of the Islamic world needs a religious _reformation_ which I think is a necessary precursor to a socio-cultural _enlightenment_ - which is needed in much of the Muslim world.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Jul 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.



Perhaps you should actually read the Koran... then you would know that it's actually a relatively enlightened document that proposes the equality of men and women amongst other things.  You would probably also note that Jesus is noted as a respected messenger of God, and actually mentioned more than Mohammed.  Finally, you may also note that "Jihad" in Islam is used more often to speak of the internal religious struggle of individuals in finding their faith than in the western connotation of a "holy war" also.

As for it being the only religion that you know of that is pro-genocide, you may want to review christian history, namely the crusades, the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquosition, the majority of the history of the treatment of native peoples in the America's, Africa, and Asia by christian preachers, and finally the role of the pope in the Nazi Holocaust.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2011)

>As for it being the only religion that you know of that is pro-genocide, you may want to review christian history

Why?  Are Christians pro-genocide right now?  No?  Then what is your point?

"Tu quoque" only works well if both parties are guilty of the same misdeeds at the same time.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2011)

The problem I have is that for many/most of us "religion" has come to mean "church/synagogue/mosque" and not "belief".  Another problem the discussion faces is that "religion" has come to be identified with "the book".   The Masons and the Courts allow people to swear on their sacred book (Koran, Bible, Talmud or Bhagavad Gita etc) using "the Book" as a totem.  In most instances though, especially historically, the person doing the swearing has/had never read "the Book" and in many instances were actively discouraged from doing so. "The Book" was a prop for the interpreters who used it and use it to support their ability to lead and direct followers in the directions they, the "interpreters" wish them to go.

For me the continuing problem revolves around those three groups of people: the leaders, the led and those that wish to be left alone.  Ideology be damned.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (2 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >As for it being the only religion that you know of that is pro-genocide, you may want to review christian history
> 
> Why?  Are Christians pro-genocide right now?  No?  Then what is your point?
> 
> "Tu quoque" only works well if both parties are guilty of the same misdeeds at the same time.



Srebenica ring a bell?  The point is that Christians are as guilty of any genocides in the name of religion as muslims.  So I guess my point is that the quoted quote is ridiculous if the implication is that islam is the only religion which has used violence to spread itself.


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jul 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should actually read the Koran... then you would know that it's actually a relatively enlightened document that proposes the equality of men and women amongst other things.  You would probably also note that Jesus is noted as a respected messenger of God, and actually mentioned more than Mohammed.  Finally, you may also note that "Jihad" in Islam is used more often to speak of the internal religious struggle of individuals in finding their faith than in the western connotation of a "holy war" also.



You did not read it obviously. I did. Legally speaking women are worth one third of a man. The Koran is everything Mohammed did, so obviously almost every page mentions him. Jesus is mentioned less than thirty times.  

This is where the truth is not what people want to hear. I’ll be quick and blunt like ripping off a bandage. Mohammed was a trader. Had some sort of crazy vision in the desert and tries to be a mystic holy man. He is laughed at and ridiculed. Eventually they throw him out of town and tell him to never come back. He turns to crime. He convinces some bandits that it is the will of God he lead them. He told them it was honourable to attack caravans (like the ones he used to drive) during the cycles of the moon agreed upon to be safe.  Ambushing defenseless merchants funds his fledgling army. The wars go well. Remember pillaging is how you pay your army back then. He returns to the city that threw him out and has everyone murdered who ever said a word against him. 





			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Srebenica ring a bell?  The point is that Christians are as guilty of any genocides in the name of religion as muslims.  So I guess my point is that the quoted quote is ridiculous if the implication is that islam is the only religion which has used violence to spread itself.



Islam is the only religion to actively condone genocide. Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism do not. Talmudic texts have acts of genocide in them, but never actively condones those acts or names groups to wipe out. The Koran does. People not "of the book" are to be exterminated. Sorry if that shocks you. 



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.
> 
> The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.



There is not one case in the huge collected works of the Buddha, perhaps 70 times larger than the bible, where he condones war or murder. That is probably why the Muslim invaders where able to wipe them out so easily. If not for those genocides Buddhism would be the worlds largest religion. Afghanistan was a prosperous kingdom, the treatment of women awed Chinese travelers so much that they journaled about it and the country knew peace when Buddhism reigned there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jul 2011)

>Srebenica ring a bell?

Yes.  Is it your contention that it is representative of a widespread doctrine of Christianity?


----------



## TheNewTeddy (3 Jul 2011)

Evil is not limited to one religion, gender, or race.

There are passages of the bible that one can interpret to condone murder as well. It all depends on interpretation, and nothing about "being muslim" makes one more likely to interpret religious passages as being pro-murder.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2011)

TheNewTeddy said:
			
		

> Evil is not limited to one religion, gender, or race.
> 
> *There are passages of the bible that one can interpret to condone murder[/u]*_ as well. It all depends on interpretation, and nothing about "being muslim" makes one more likely to interpret religious passages as being pro-murder.
> _


_


Yes, indeed, but "we," Jews and Christians in the West, had reformations (the plural matters - there were more than one, especially for the Jews) which led to enlightenments (also plural - and the earlier, Scottish one is far more important and 'better' than the later French/continental one) which allowed most of us to interpret our sacred texts and to reconsider their meanings or lessons in the lights of our socio-cultural norms. Many of our fellow human beings who live in Muslim lands have yet to enjoy the benefits of either religious reformation or socio-cultiral enlightenment.
_


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2011)

Nemo888 - I was not commenting on the works or the leaders.  I was commenting on the followers and their need to have something to follow.

And I agree, as seems often the case, with ERC on the reformation/enlightenment and their centrality in the difference between "the west" and "the east".

I am having difficulty determining cause and effect though.   Did the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment cause our Western attitudes or did our Western attitudes cause/permit the Reformation and Enlightenment?

My own developing opinion is that the attitudes preceded the events and that the attitudes themselves have something to do with Germanic notions of elected kings and mayors; the freedoms that accumulated in the low countries, the valley of the Po and the Rhone-Meuse connectors due to the ability of the citizenry to make money;  the inability of central authority to control the polyglot nation of the seas - Vikings, Corsairs, Sea Beggars and Sea Dogs and Huguenot adventurers like Champlain; and Britain's place as a combination of religious refuge and really large "nest of pirates" as some unfortunate Frenchman or Spaniard described us.  

At all events, for a period of centuries, Britain was seen as a safe place for dissenters from central authority and for holders of capital.  

I believe that a contributing factor was that the "authorities" learned to "hold the reins lightly" much as, again - my belief, had the emperors of the empire that was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.  Every HRE that tried to operate that consortium of mercantile states as an empire came to grief.  The longest tenured dynasties were the ones that let the states/cities go their own ways so long as they didn't disturb the peace and sent in their taxes on time.

There is something about the cultures of the Tiber and the Ardennes that seems to demand they buck against that tendency and try to impose an order on the world, rather than learning to accomodate disorder.

I don't know enough about the internal politics of the rest of the world to be able to be as firm in my belief but I suspect that the Arab Mecca/Medina is to Turkish Mameluke-Ottoman Islam what the Frankish Ardennes were to the Hohenstaufen-Habsburg HRE.    

Is Beijing  Mecca or Istanbul?


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> Is Beijing  Mecca or Istanbul?




It is neither; the culture that Beijing represents for us is far, far older and infinitely more sophisticated and _enlightened_ than anything ever imagined in Mecca or Istanbul, even when the later was Constantinople and the capital of Byzantium and then the caliphate.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2011)

How do you see the role of the Turkic horsemen, which I see as analogous to the Sea Beggars / Corsairs, in the development of the trading emporium that is Beijing?

I guess another way I could ask the question is: Is Beijing the centre of Han culture or is it the interface between Han and Turkic culture (And I use the Turkic reference extremely broadly to embrace all the horse nomads of the steppes).


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2011)

Those nomadic Northern horsemen were, actually, a greater agent of change than were/are the Chinese, themselves.

Left to their own devices the Han Chinese would have preferred to hunker down behind their walls and pursue their own, _sui generis_ cultural pursuits. But the nomads were having none of it; they, too, wanted the "fat of the land" and they pried open both China and the West - what we now know as Russia and the Near East - to each other. The Chinese were not, until midway through the 15th century, opposed to foreign trade - they needed the gold to pay the lean, dry nomads to stay away from their fat, green valleys. But _isolationism_ was never far from the surface in China and many officials were worried that the cost of maintaining (especially maritime) trade routes was greater than the return.

The timely (for us) death of Timur and the consequential upset amongst the Mongols left the great _Golden Horde_ camped in Russia and, eventually Babur used it to conquer Central Asia and set the stage for one, final, thrust into fat, green Europe. Babur gave us the 'modern' Muslim world - a medieval Arabic culture and religion grafted onto a militant Asian imperialist _movement_.



Edit: typo/punctuation


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Srebenica ring a bell?
> 
> Yes.  Is it your contention that it is representative of a widespread doctrine of Christianity?



Nope.  As originally mentioned, it is my contention that genocide and killing in the name of religion is not merely a muslim reality.  Christians, were, are, and will continue to be just as likely to do these things as muslims.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Jul 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Nope.  As originally mentioned, it is my contention that genocide and killing in the name of religion is not merely a muslim reality.  Christians, were, are, and will continue to be just as likely to do these things as muslims.



Some religions actively encourage genocide, like in the Koran. Some are completely steadfast against war and murder, like Buddhism. There has never been a Buddhist genocide. 

People are people, they do bad things. Some people are not completely bad and need an excuse to do the bad things they want to do. If their religion gives them those excuses I don't really think it is a good religion.  Deifying and constructing a religion around a person who by today's standards would be in the Hague facing charges as a war criminal is a bad idea. Good luck reforming that. Gild that turd all you want it will never shine. I draw the line at genocide, theft, vendetta, war and murder masquerading as God's Work.


----------



## Gimpy (4 Jul 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Some religions actively encourage genocide, like in the Koran. Some are completely steadfast against war and murder, like Buddhism. There has never been a Buddhist genocide.
> 
> People are people, they do bad things. Some people are not completely bad and need an excuse to do the bad things they want to do. If their religion gives them those excuses I don't really think it is a good religion.  Deifying and constructing a religion around a person who by today's standards would be in the Hague facing charges as a war criminal is a bad idea. Good luck reforming that. Gild that turd all you want it will never shine. I draw the line at genocide, theft, vendetta, war and murder masquerading as God's Work.



So then if the Quran actively encouraged genocide would you care to give some examples of Muslims actually committing genocide. Since you're talking about holding Muhammad to today's standards maybe you could find examples of pre-modern genocides committed by Muslims that abide by today's standards of what genocide is. (Hopefully in doing so you can see how ridiculous it is to hold events of the past to modern standards.)

Edit: I'll actually get right to my point. My point is that the first genocide, as we understand it, by Muslims was committed in 1915. If the Quran was so adamant in encouraging genocide why did it take them 1300 years to actually put it into practice?

You say yourself that people do bad things and some look for excuses to do the bad things they want to do. That is fine, and I completely agree. But then you go on and single out Islam, when in reality you could have singled out or included any number of factors (other religions being one) that cause people to do bad things. It seems pretty intellectually dishonest to point out that you draw the line at "genocide, theft, vendetta, war and murder masquerading as God's Work" while only speaking of Islam when the exact same things happened in other religions.

Edit #2: One more thing I have to point reading your previous posts is how much you do not know of what you speak. This quote in particular:



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Islam is the only religion to actively condone genocide. Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism do not. Talmudic texts have acts of genocide in them, but never actively condones those acts or names groups to wipe out. The Koran does. People not "of the book" are to be exterminated. Sorry if that shocks you.



People not of the Quran are to be exterminated you say? How in the world do you account for all those Arab Christians who were allowed to practice their faith and enjoy the security of Islamic states? 

Would you also be so kind as to point out the passage that *clearly* condones genocide so that we can all know where the crux of your entire argument lies.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> People not of the Quran are to be exterminated you say? How in the world do you account for all those Arab Christians who were allowed to practice their faith and enjoy the security of Islamic states?



The status of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule is known as Dhimmitude, and is basically a tolerance or sufferance of having non believers living amongst you so long as they pay a tax. or more specifically:

Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).

In the real world, virtually all Jews have been driven from Middle Eastern countries, and Christians are persecuted or attacked (Coptic Christians were recently targeted in Egypt), regardless of what the Quran might say. Muslims are far safer in Canada or Israel than non Muslims are in Egypt or any other Middle Eastern nation.


----------



## Gimpy (4 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The status of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule is known as Dhimmitude, and is basically a tolerance or sufferance of having non believers living amongst you so long as they pay a tax. or more specifically:
> 
> Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).
> 
> In the real world, virtually all Jews have been driven from Middle Eastern countries, and Christians are persecuted or attacked (Coptic Christians were recently targeted in Egypt), regardless of what the Quran might say. Muslims are far safer in Canada or Israel than non Muslims are in Egypt or any other Middle Eastern nation.



Yes I do know the history of it, but you're really just reinforcing my point. I was simply pointing out that the poster was incorrect in stating that people not of the book were to be exterminated. 

exterminate: to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally (Which is obviously not the case)


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Jul 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Yes I do know the history of it, but you're really just reinforcing my point. I was simply pointing out that the poster was incorrect in stating that people not of the book were to be exterminated.
> 
> exterminate: to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally (Which is obviously not the case)


*Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,* Sura  9:5

There is no tolerance of people not "of the book". People of the book being Christians and Jews. Idolaters like Hindus, Buddhists and Pagans were not allowed to convert and were to be killed. If you are correct find me some Buddhists in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was once so advanced it produced one of the wonders of the ancient world, the Buddhas of Bamiyan. If you travel you can see their calling card from Alexandria to the tip of India. Almost every old statue has the nose or entire face smashed off. The first genocide is celebrated yearly. It's buried under this black box called Mecca. The seat of power of a once prosperous polytheistic Pagan society that no longer exists, ie exterminated. The Muslim invasions of India had the occasional genocide. The destruction of the worlds largest Library in Alexandria(Egypt) and Nalanda(India) the worlds largest university (pre-internet) were both completely destroyed by Muslim fanatics. 

Recent history is no exception. Pakistan had a huge Sikh and Hindu population pre 1947, but good luck finding any there now without a shovel. The 1971 genocide by the Pakistani military in what is now Bangladesh killed roughly 2.4 million Hindus. Is that recent enough?

Human nature is what it is. I don't think most people would argue that genocide is a good thing. Unassailable scriptural infallibility for a truly murderous philosophy is always going to end badly. I can't turn a war criminal into a paragon of virtue without warping everything I believe in. I have held this in for almost two decades in the name of tolerance.


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The status of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule is known as Dhimmitude, and is basically a tolerance or sufferance of having non believers living amongst you so long as they pay a tax. or more specifically:
> 
> Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).



Actually, dhimmitude is a neologism coined by a Lebanese Christian in the 1980s and recently rediscovered by the sort of bloviating morons whose blogs you frequently link.  The word and concept of how non-Muslisms live in Muslim states is actually dhimma.  And "dhimmitude", used mostly in a pejorative sense, doesn't really reflect the reality of what the it actually is about.  Dhimmis paid a tax (jizya) but were exempted from military service obligations and zakat (a tithing tax in Islamic states, essentially), and were otherwise free to carry on practicing their religion with relatively few restrictions.  Historically it applied primarily to Christians and Jews, but also to Zoroastrians and other religious groups.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> In the real world, virtually all Jews have been driven from Middle Eastern countries, and Christians are persecuted or attacked (Coptic Christians were recently targeted in Egypt), regardless of what the Quran might say. Muslims are far safer in Canada or Israel than non Muslims are in Egypt or any other Middle Eastern nation.



Really?  I bet a whole lot of Lebanese Christians would disagree with you on that claim.  And Copts and Muslims have coexisted peacefully for centuries in Egypt, recent tensions were probably opportunism during the chaos of the Arab spring.  Significantly, during the events in Egypt, Muslims guarded Copts while they celebrated a mass and wedding at Tahrir Square, and the Coptic community held the Square while Muslims went to their prayers.

Is Islam a great religion of peace?  Probably not especially historically, but neither is virtually any other religion.  All have blood on their hands when you really look.


----------



## toyotatundra (5 Jul 2011)

The original thread was on left of centre thought. In the last few pages, the discussion has drifted pretty heavily towards religious discussion. I am wondering if it would be smart for me begin a new thread entitled "Debating Religion".


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For starters, the phrase "bloviating moron" is now entrenched in my vocabulary ;D
> 
> Anyway, one must attempt to stop branding a religion as of peace or not of peace.  THe thing is, human beings are a pretty crappy race when it comes down to it.  Be it religion, the price of tea in China, or whatever, humans seem to find a way to do really evil things to one another
> 
> So, in the sense that human beings have used pretty well all religions in an attempt to justify their evil ways, yes, they have blood on their hands.


Actually no. There has never been a Jain holy war, or any Jain war for that matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)  They experienced the holy might of Muslim Justice many times. Even so there are over 4 million of them left. Buddhism will take a bit longer to explain. I'm lazy and will let my friend who is rather well read on the subject speak for me.


> While there have certainly been cases where Buddhists have attempted to legitimize their violent behavior, such as many Japanese Buddhists during WWII, an objective look at the Buddha's discourses in the Pali Canon shows that there's absolutely no scriptural basis for violence or violent behavior whatsoever, and most of the justifications for the use of violence are either secular in nature or influenced by ideas foreign to Buddhism proper.
> 
> Buddhism, as with Jainism, is founded on the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness and non-violence.T he Buddha never condoned violence, going so far as to lay down rules expelling monks and nuns who even spoke in favour of killing. For example, from the Vinita Vatthu:
> 
> ...


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/militarycanon.html


This type of cultural relativism is what is so awful about progressive thought. Have some stones and say that any religion that actively approves of and advocates genocide is wrong. To me this is worse than wanting more public funding for counseling teen mothers or wanting to privatize healthcare.  This is not a historical problem either. 
“Everybody does it” is a poor excuse and probably not much solace to the 2.4 million dead Hindus from 1971 or the probably 50 million dead since 1000ce (Hindu,Buddhist,Jain). It is also not true. There are no Jain or Buddhist genocides. These religions are so strongly anti-violence that you would have to quit them to commit such acts. You would never be considered a hero for murdering millions or dropping a nuke on NYC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jul 2011)

>Christians, were, are, and will continue to be just as likely to do these things as muslims.  

Christians are the reason I have to take off my shoes and dump my toothpaste into a trashcan before boarding a plane?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> The original thread was on left of centre thought. In the last few pages, the discussion has drifted pretty heavily towards religious discussion. I am wondering if it would be smart for me begin a new thread entitled "Debating Religion".



It would be very 'unsmart'. Don't bother, don't think about it. I would suggest though, that you just kick back and relax. Go on listening silence, or you may end up on forced rest.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Redeye (6 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For starters, the phrase "bloviating moron" is now entrenched in my vocabulary ;D



I think the word was originally coined to describe Bill O'Reilly - but it's a good one, I like it.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, one must attempt to stop branding a religion as of peace or not of peace.  THe thing is, human beings are a pretty crappy race when it comes down to it.  Be it religion, the price of tea in China, or whatever, humans seem to find a way to do really evil things to one another



For the most part, I agree.  Most adherents of any religion have no interest in using that religion to justify violence or any form of evil.  It's just a tiny fringe that does, really, and when you look at religious extremism of any stripe, there tends to be other factors at play.  Most Islamic extremism is fueled by socioeconomic issues as well, for example.

Blaise Pascal put it well, though: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Though I agree that "Men do evil completely and cheerfully", but I would offer that religion isn't the only game in town.  Witness the period 1930-ish to 1945-ish.  Hitler, Tojo and Stalin were anything but religious people leading religious regimes.
> 
> (As an aside, I mentioned this once to a guy, who came back and said "Hitler was a Roman Catholic".  Perhaps he was baptised as such as an infant, and perhaps he went to mass and did his sacraments and the like growing up, maybe, but as _Führer_ of the German Empire, he never once even pretented to be spreading "the Gospel according to Adolf")



Tojo, Stalin and Hitler may not have offered a religion but they certainly bound followers to them with a creed.  When is a creed not a creed but a religion?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, we're calling nationalism a religion now?  Even if it's atheist?  Christ, I follow a creed that is completely secular in the performance of my military duties, does that mean it's religious?
> 
> 
> So, to answer with an answer (and not with a question), a creed is not a religion would be, oh, I don't know, when it's secular, perhaps.  Or even when it's atheist.




I agree - Loazi's original _Tao_ (way), for example, was not meant to be a religion but it, part of it anyway, _morphed_ into one and elements of Loaizi's _Tao_ found their way into later Confucian and even Buddhist texts and practices.

I think we are best to leave the word "creed" in the religious domain because it refers to a _belief_ but, of course, one can believe in something, like the core _Tao_ for example, that is not religious.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2011)

Hey TV and ERC - accepted I may be stretching a point but my own belief, credo or creed is that regardless of rationale, religious or secular, a person's willingness to accept and act according to that creed can be used by others to find, create and manipulate followers.  Sometimes those manipulators have good intentions and sometimes not so good.  The only safeguard against that kind of manipulation is the kind of independent thought that the entire body of this forum regularly demonstrates. 

Put another way,  I don't see a difference between a sacred religion and a secular religion in the way that they can be used to marshall followers to a cause. 


Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2011)

Fair enough, Kirkhill; I got my idea from am acquaintance who is practicing Taoist but who, also, self describes and registers, formally when necessary, as "no religion." He believes in the _Toa_ (way) but he accepts no gods, of any kind - not even the Three Pure Ones. He simply refers to the _Three Purities_ as the source of all in the universe - a metaphysical representation of the Big Bang, if you like.


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It would be very 'unsmart'. Don't bother, don't think about it. I would suggest though, that you just kick back and relax. Go on listening silence, or you may end up on forced rest.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Sorry, my experience is with forums that had a different set of moderating rules. I will work to adapt.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2011)

It has been noted in the past (and I am sure even somewhere upthread on this page) that many ideologies have elements which mimic religions. Essentially these common factors can be distilled into a core belief system which cannot be challenged (and indeed _must_ be implemented for the "common good"), the branding of dissent or opposition to the core beliefs as "heresy" and the approval of using any means necessary to spread the belief.

A look at the history of the more pathological "brands" of Socialism (especially Bolshevikism and Maoism, world champions in mass murder) or more modern versions of collectivist thought (particularly the more virulent types of Green ideologies) brings us to many of the same ends as intolerant religions in the past


----------



## Redeye (7 Jul 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Though I agree that "Men do evil completely and cheerfully", but I would offer that religion isn't the only game in town.  Witness the period 1930-ish to 1945-ish.  Hitler, Tojo and Stalin were anything but religious people leading religious regimes.



Hitler was very religious, a Catholic in fact, though he warped it to suit his on interests.  Ever see a Nazi belt buckle?  With "Gott Mit Uns" on it?  Similarly, Tojo and and the entire Empire of Japan had a culture built around the Shinto religion.  While Stalin puffed his chest about state atheism in the USSR, when the chips were down, he harnessed religious ideals and loosened restrictions on the Russian Orthodox Church to help reinforce nationalism.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> (As an aside, I mentioned this once to a guy, who came back and said "Hitler was a Roman Catholic".  Perhaps he was baptised as such as an infant, and perhaps he went to mass and did his sacraments and the like growing up, maybe, but as _Führer_ of the German Empire, he never once even pretented to be spreading "the Gospel according to Adolf")



Unfortunately, this argument in no way undermines the fact that Hitler was religious, repeatedly referred to himself as a Catholic, and that Mein Kampf is liberally drenched in Christian references.  Now, granted, it's normally the case that people have to repudiate the oft-trotted out claim that Hitler was an atheist - in this case, I have no problem saying "no, he wasn't a model Catholic", but so suggest religion had no role in his misdeeds is demonstrably false.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Hitler was very religious, a Catholic in fact, though he warped it to suit his on interests.  Ever see a Nazi belt buckle?  With "Gott Mit Uns" on it?  Similarly, Tojo and and the entire Empire of Japan had a culture built around the Shinto religion.  While Stalin puffed his chest about state atheism in the USSR, when the chips were down, he harnessed religious ideals and loosened restrictions on the Russian Orthodox Church to help reinforce nationalism.
> 
> Unfortunately, this argument in no way undermines the fact that Hitler was religious, repeatedly referred to himself as a Catholic, and that Mein Kampf is liberally drenched in Christian references.  Now, granted, it's normally the case that people have to repudiate the oft-trotted out claim that Hitler was an atheist - in this case, I have no problem saying "no, he wasn't a model Catholic", but so suggest religion had no role in his misdeeds is demonstrably false.




In fairness, the "Gott Mit Uns" symbol predates Hilter and the Nazis; it was used in the old German Empire, too.






World War I Imperial German belt buckle.


----------



## larry Strong (7 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In fairness, the "Gott Mit Uns" symbol predates Hilter and the Nazis; it was used in the old German Empire, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Prussian Order of the Crown was Prussia's lowest ranking order of chivalry, and was instituted in 1861. The obverse gilt central disc bore the crown of Prussia, surrounded by a blue enamel ring bearing the motto of the German Empire "Gott Mit Uns".

At the time of the completion of German unification in 1871, the imperial standard bore the motto "Gott mit uns" on the arms of an Iron Cross. Imperial German 3 and 5 mark silver and 20 mark gold coins had "Gott mit uns" inscribed on their edge.

German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" inscribed on their helmets in the First World War. To the Germans it was a rallying cry, "a Protestant as well as an Imperial motto, the expression of German religious, political and ethnic single-mindedness, or the numerous unity of altar, throne and Volk".

And as shown above was used on belt buckles as well.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jul 2011)

It seems opinions on Hitler's religious beliefs are like a..holes. Everybody has one.

I googled Nazi Religious Belief and found a variety of opinions. Without including any Wikipedia entries here are four sites with fairly typical views.

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerQuotesGodReligion.htm

http://histclo.com/act/rel/hist/rh-nazi.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Sorry, my experience is with forums that had a different set of moderating rules. I will work to adapt.



The subject of starting a thread is not an issue here and never was. It is your history here that is the issue. Our moderating rules are designed to reduce the static and white noise of troublesome posters.

If you find our rules to difficult to maintain, without the negative impact you've brought on yourself, perhaps you'd be more comfortable back at your other forums.

Milnet.ca Staff

Aplogies to the others for the tangent.


----------



## Redeye (7 Jul 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It seems opinions on Hitler's religious beliefs are like a..holes. Everybody has one.



It's certainly not a clear subject with a cut and dried answers.


----------



## toyotatundra (7 Jul 2011)

I can't stand the way in which Hitler is employed in order to win political arguments. The most glaring recent example has to be Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, in which American liberals are slimed for being like Hitler. 

The whole game is disgusting because it is so dishonest. Sure, there are elements of American liberalism which are "like Hitler". However, there are many elements of modern liberalism which are absolutely nothing like Hitler.

Hitler was a socialist. Hitler smashed the unions. 

Hitler invaded countries pre-emptively. Hitler was close to the Muslims. 

Hitler attacked Christians. Hitler was close to the Catholic Church.

It doesn't matter what agenda one is promoting. Nazism gives a pile of mud to sling.


----------



## Redeye (7 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I can't stand the way in which Hitler is employed in order to win political arguments. The most glaring recent example has to be Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, in which American liberals are slimed for being like Hitler.



Jonah Goldberg is an idiot, and that book is just a brutal hackjob for people who lack the ability or willingness to actually look deeper into their history or anything else to actually assess his claims.  Most of what he uses to support his case is glaring cases of quotemining.  It's part of a very disturbing effort in the US to move any sort of undesirable political ideology to "the left", conflating various wildly different ideologies while suggesting that the American right is some sort of virtuous ideal.  It isn't.


----------



## toyotatundra (7 Jul 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Most of what he uses to support his case is glaring cases of quotemining.



Haha, quote mining. That is a fantastic term that I've never heard before.



> It's part of a very disturbing effort in the US to move any sort of undesirable political ideology to "the left", conflating various wildly different ideologies while suggesting that the American right is some sort of virtuous ideal.  It isn't.



In fairness, both sides of the aisle engage in such misrepresentation.

In the lead up to the Iraq War, there were no shortage of anti-war activists comparing Bush to Hitler.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2011)

>Jonah Goldberg is an idiot, and that book is just a brutal hackjob for people who lack the ability or willingness to actually look deeper into their history

Have you read it?  If you have, I think you misunderstood it.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2011)

Perhaps Toyotatundra might try looking up where the term "Liberal Fascism" comes from. It was quotemined from a speech by H.G. Wells:



> Excerpts from H.G. Wells Speech to the British Young Liberals organization in 1932:
> 
> “We have seen the Fascisti in Italy and a number of clumsy imitations elsewhere, and we have seen the Russian Communist Party coming into existence to reinforce this idea…I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis…And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you…These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over-they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fasicsts of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”


----------



## toyotatundra (8 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps Toyotatundra might try looking up where the term "Liberal Fascism" comes from. It was quotemined from a speech by H.G. Wells:



Of course, one of the ironies of Goldberg's denunciation of "liberal fascism" is that Hitler was such a passionate enemy of liberalism.

There are no shortage of anti-liberal quotes one can mine from Hitler. A rather humorous presentation of them is available in the Hitler vs. Ann Coulter quiz. The fact that a person struggles to tell Coulter from Hitler, is in my opinion, a rather pointed statement on how nonsensical our pundit rhetoric can become.

http://www.giveupblog.com/hitlercoulterquiz.html


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2011)

And as we attempt to parse the differences amongst philosophies and determine when on the circle counter-clockwise totalitarianism becomes clockwise totalitarianism, libertarianism becomes anarchy and liberty becomes licence,  I offer this partial list  of alternatives......


----------



## toyotatundra (8 Jul 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And as we attempt to parse the differences amongst philosophies and determine when on the circle counter-clockwise totalitarianism becomes clockwise totalitarianism, libertarianism becomes anarchy and liberty becomes licence,  I offer this partial list  of alternatives......



Looking over that list, I think we should design a calendar. A different philosophy for every day of the year. 

July 8th: Mereological nihilism


----------



## Redeye (8 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Jonah Goldberg is an idiot, and that book is just a brutal hackjob for people who lack the ability or willingness to actually look deeper into their history
> 
> Have you read it?  If you have, I think you misunderstood it.



Yes, of course I have.  It was one of the worst written books I've ever read, and more importantly, it contained a lot of nonsense.  Excerpts from speeches and writings removed from their context to fit the book's viewpoint, used over and over again.  It's drivel, nothing more.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2011)

Just the sort of well-reasoned, fact-filled review I expected.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2011)

A look at another "progressive" meme, in this case radical environmentalism. The one sided "documentary" approach is pretty standard fare, but even tht cannot hide the true face of the eco terrorists:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/when-eco-terrorists-attack/?print=1



> *When Eco-Terrorists Attack*
> Posted By Christian Toto On July 9, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 10 Comments
> 
> [1]
> ...


----------



## Redeye (9 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Just the sort of well-reasoned, fact-filled review I expected.



There are a myriad of well-written critical reviews out there, spend 30 secconds on google and you can find commentators from across the spectrum shredding the book.  Why would I waste my time writing out another that you'd ignore anyhow?

Here's a couple good ones:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/morte/2008/01/the-definitive-critique-of-lib.php

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2011)

An interesting article  from George Jonas:


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2011)

>http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/morte/2008/01/the-definitive-critique-of-lib.php

The best part of the review is the opening: "So this was a stupid idea. Obviously I've left myself open to criticism since I admit outright that I haven't read the book."    Then the author commences to review interviews and other reviews, rather than the book directly.  What that does is lead him to criticize the mischaracterizations of others and his own false or incomplete inferences; aka GIGO.  The author believes that "fascism is a style of totalitarianism": yes, if "totalitarianism" is as originally understood by Mussolini and described by Goldberg early in the book, not the novel modern interpretation of the word (which assumes a number of ill attributes which don't necessarily have to be a significant part of a totalitarian, or unified, state).  Likewise, the author wishes to refute the thesis by drawing on concensus that fascism is antithetical to liberalism: this is true if "liberalism" means "classical liberalism", and untrue if it means "modern American liberalism".  Goldberg's thesis is that modern American progressivism/liberalism springs from the same root as fascism, that in the formative years of both there was cross-fertilization, and that the former is still faithful to the core idea of fascism: unity of purpose of all the social classes of the state under the guidance of the leader/elite, without the classless state sought by communists.  There is nothing historically controversial about the first two parts, and it is not difficult to see in the policies of modern progressives the core idea: that the governing class should do what is best for all, especially if the rest can not see the correctness of it, and that no-one should be allowed to stand apart.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2011)

>http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history

This one is worse: three and a half opening paragraphs of valueless invective before the usual critical error: that modern liberalism can't be fascism because fascism is anti-liberal, with no indication of which understanding (definition) of liberalism must be applied to make the latter true.  I suppose this is what happens when people with a tarnished political inheritance resort to Doublespeak to conceal the rotten branches of the family tree - whole generations form garbage conclusions from invalid premises.

If there are still readers here who don't understand this - the difference between classical liberalism and modern American liberalism, and why fascism is antithetical to the former and related to the latter - read this review by Jerry Pournelle linked by Goldberg at NRO.

Goldberg's book isn't an academic work intended for peer review, but it is accurate enough in its history[,] and the contention that modern American liberalism is a variation of fascism is sound.  The negative reviews mainly seem to be the usual indignation and denials that fascism belongs on the political left and [that] its characteristics are shared by other doctrines of the political left.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jul 2011)

Another one - from the conservative POV - that Goldberg's casual coincidences are as common to the right as the left is the crux of this rather well presented review: http://amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/

There's also this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

There's also this amusing polemic about it: http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2008/01/liberal-fascism.html

The problem is the quotemining.  At one point in the book, Goldberg suggests that the New York Times lauded Mussolini for example.  Except that not only did he truncate the quote (at the part where the glorious review of the guy turned negative, of course), but it wasn't actually the NYT the produced the piece, it was a supplement from elsewhere.  He repeated this trick throughout the book to support his rather flimsy and silly case.

It's best described as selectively choosing some coincidences and ignoring a need for causation.  Of course, since Goldberg's book was intended for a sympathetic audience that would agree with whatever he might say, that's hardly surprising.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jul 2011)

Here's the quotemining example to which I was referring.  Turns out MMFA has a bit on it because Glenn Beck did the same thing:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102100001

Here's one of my favourite bits from the book:  

"Nazi attitudes toward homosexuality are also a source of confusion. While it is true that some homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, it is also the case that the early Nazi Party and the constellation of Pan-German organizations in its orbit were rife with homosexuals. It’s well-known, for example, that Ernst Rohm, the head of the SA and his coterie were homosexuals, and openly so."   P.378

Funny enough, Hitler wasn't really much of a part of Drexler's earlier NSDAP - he didn't create the party.  And interestingly, Goldberg seems to forget the fate that Rohm and "his coterie" met on the Night of the Long Knives, orchestrated by Hitler.  Hitler despised Rohm for a number of reasons, including his homosexuality, and the socialist bent of the Sturmabteilung which he felt didn't help his cause.

I don't recall that appearing in the book at all, I'd have to get it from the library again to check, but I do remember reading that section and laughing at how it was excised from historical context so effectively.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2011)

This "rather well presented review" (which also opens as a tirade rather than a review) does not support the contention that "casual coincidences are as common to the right as the left".  Of the four examples given - "both assail communism, exaggerate security threats, rationalize wars of aggression, and uphold nationalism ... and its symbols", the latter three are bread-and-butter for nearly every government: that government will exaggerate its crises to attain its own ends, that it will rationalize wars (and other mistakes) of its own making, and that it will appeal to nationalism.  The first is bread-and-butter for nearly every government which does not consider itself to be communist or a client of a communist state.

That is the same error commonly made by people in the quest to level "fascism" as a charge against Bush, or Harper, or candidates and parties of the political right in general.  "Look, patriotism! Fascists!"  "Look, glorification of the military! Fascists!"  "Look, a law-and-order bill in the legislature! Fascists!".

Taken apart, any one characteristic is likely to be shared by many systems of governments; taken together, there are always going to be a number of characteristics which are part and parcel of government in general.

Critically, it is not whether modern liberalism and fascism overlap on a point of policy (outcome); it is that they overlap on the path to the destination.  Bramwell, for example, picks up the particular example of healthy living.  But Goldberg's point - missed by Bramwell - is not that modern progressivism is fascism because they both happen to share that policy; it is that modern progressivism approaches the end state on the same vector as fascism: everyone must be compelled to submit to the people's will, with the people's will being whatever the well-meaning people in charge say it is (because they are well-meaning and could never get it wrong).

Bramwell's second point is to try to undo the argument that liberalism (late 20th c progressivism) is a descendant of early 20th c progressivism (or fascism), by arguing that because the egregious mistakes have been laid aside, the chain is broken.  That doesn't seem to apply to any other political party, system of government, religion, or social system, and modern liberalism occupies no preferred position that would make it an exception.  The history of the evolution of the political principles and policies is clear enough.  The gap between pre-WWII fascism and modern progressivism is just the interruption caused by Allied victory in WWII and revulsion at the worst excesses of the Nazis, not a complete severing.

And this statement is simply ludicrous in light of the way modern American liberals have been behaving lately: "For example, borrowing heavily from the enthusiasts at the Claremont Institute, Goldberg thinks it significant that progressive intellectuals scorned individual rights and the Declaration of Independence. Well, liberals these days do not. "

Bramwell's third attempt at rebuttal might be summarized by his statement: "The idea that liberals suffer from a “totalitarian temptation” is in any case without merit. " 

"Totalitarian" simply expresses the idea of the unity and overarching authority of the state, with no-one allowed to stand apart.  Really, how far is it necessary to look to find a modern progressive initiative which fits that description without falling within the broadly recognized core functions of the state (security, administration of justice)?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2011)

This one is not really a review of the book, and not really a rebuttal of any particular point of Goldberg's.  It is mainly an acknowledgement of some of the salient points of the political history, interspersed with whinging about the unfairness of Goldberg's relative lack of attention to fascistic events on the political right (in the particular manifestation of Republican presidential administrations).  But Oshinsky, like Bramwell, chooses to touch on a handful of things that politicians everywhere do: promise a chicken for every pot; pose for photo ops.

Mainly, Oshinsky seems to be put out by the idea that the "f" word should revert to its proper meaning.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2011)

That third review makes one useful point at the end: "Because you know you've Hit It Big Time when your words resonate with those ideologically disposed to agree with them."

I bought and read the book a few months ago, but I did indeed have an ideological predisposition to agree, so I was curious to learn whether I was on the correct track.

My understanding of political history and the behaviour of modern progressives over the past decade (in Canada and the US) led me to conclude (on a line of thought initiated by all the "f" bombs being dropped) a number of years ago that if fascism came to pass, it would be at the hands of progressives (Democrats in the US, NDP and perhaps Liberals here in Canada).

I wrote in this thread: "The reason fascism and communism and socialism belong together is that they are all doctrines which emphasize the collective over the individual.  Once that is done, it's really not hard for adherents to find excuses to do almost anything to one person - or several - in the name of many.  Deride it as "slippery slope" you properly may - it's not self-evident that disaster must follow misstep - but it's a slope we've been down several times in the past and the forces of social gravity don't seem to have lessened."

And here: "...just as the meaning of "liberalism" has migrated, so evidently has the meaning of "socialism".  If you accuse a self-identified Canadian socialist of being "communist" or "Stalinist" or "fascist" or "Nazi" or "Maoist" or "Leninist" etc, the first thing he'll do is energetically distance himself from the tyrannical statists by renouncing the Motherland/Fatherland glory trip, the militarism, the "breaking of eggs" (by the millions and tens of millions), and the state ownership, and continue by preening over social welfare programs and policies (including taxation and unionization) designed to reduce wealth and income imbalances, help the needy, and generally give the state a huge involvement in economic outcomes.  His intentions are noble, you see.  How could that possibly be wrong, or go wrong?

Sometimes you can corner a socialist into defending communism, and the morally defensible shred of excuse will be that communism has never really been tried.  By definition, I suppose it hasn't.  But then I look at the list of "isms" that have been tried, and ask myself if that was the original destination or if someone got lost during the search for something else because, well, it just got so hard without bending a few moral straightedges here and there.  A socialist, were there such a thing, is probably harmless; but, socialists have an alarming habit of turning out to be an intermediate developmental stage on the way to something else."

"Progressive" can be substituted for "socialist", and "fascist" for "communist" without compromising the meaning.  And those reflect Goldberg's thesis: modern progressives are not Nazis or even scrupulously orthodox observant fascists in the Italian tradition, but they follow the same path.  Given enough setbacks and frustrations, I do not see why they will be more restrained than predecessors.  We should expect them not to repeat mistakes (eg. eugenics), but we are fools if we do not expect them to make equally grave new ones.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2011)

I do not see any point to adding to the discussion more reviews which are not reviews, or counterarguments which are essentially polemical objections.  I understand the basic objection most of these authors have, and I think I can summarize it with many fewer paragraphs than they use.

"Fascism" is a tainted word because of its association with Nazism.  It not for the latter (which was really a bewildering irrational grab bag of political ideas sewn together like Frankenstein's monster), fascism might occupy a respectable position among political systems - little that Mussolini or Franco did or modern fascists such as Chavez in Venezuela do is irretrievably disreputable when measured against the world in general.

Stalin used it to set apart those with whom he disagreed on the (mainly extreme) left.  This has misled most people to assume that fascism is of the right, instead of what it really is: something else on the left.  People who object in general to the right use it to smear the right (and many no longer have the courtesy to reserve it for use against only the extreme right).

Because it has become such a pejorative, progressives object to restoring "fascism" to the left side.  Essentially, it goes like this: "We know those people near us were bad, and we tried to slander you with it; but can't we all just get along and forget about it now instead of finding fault?"  At the same time, they wish everyone to believe that fascism is not a destination further down the path they have chosen.


Anything new which isn't really a rehash of the above might be welcome to add to discussion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> ... "The reason fascism and communism and socialism belong together is that they are all doctrines which emphasize the collective over the individual.  Once that is done, it's really not hard for adherents to find excuses to do almost anything to one person - or several - in the name of many.  Deride it as "slippery slope" you properly may - it's not self-evident that disaster must follow misstep - but it's a slope we've been down several times in the past and the forces of social gravity don't seem to have lessened."
> ...




*Absolutely correct!* The opposite of liberal is illiberal and all collectivists and statists - _Dippers_ and Greens and many Liberals, too, in Canada, Democrats in the US, Labour in the UK and socialists, however benign, everywhere - are, without a single exception, illiberals, just like communists and fascists in all their various guises. They all want to expropriate my property and redistribute it to someone else because they know, better than I, how to make the best use of my brains and labour.

There are some conservatives out there - some are religious and others are Confucian; I have some respect for the principled beliefs of the latter group but the former, religiously based conservatives, are a problem for me because they, too, want to place something _above_ the conscience of the individual. Most modern religious conservatives are busybodies who want to interfere with my freedom in order to force me to conform to their view of their god's will.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jul 2011)

Brad - you're someone on to something - I think.  Fascism as a loaded term in a way, a pejorative.  Part of the problem stems from trying to fit it on a linear spectrum where it isn't.  And a rise comes out of those tarred with the term because of what it's been associated with.  That, I think, was probably what Goldberg was aiming for, rather than making any particularly sound arguments.

Mr. Campbell, however, goes to an extreme perhaps - from my POV anyhow.  I - and most people I know who tend to track the same thoughts as me (which tend to lie somewhat in the centre, perhaps slightly left of it) don't want to expropriate anything, except, that is, a share of the costs of things that require collective action to build.  Pure individualism, the academic construction of pure classical liberalism, doesn't seem to work in my view, and if it did, our species isn't likely to have dreamed up things like governments to seek to accomplish those ends.

I do like the parallel to religious conservatives, and the comparison is apt and well made, something I'd implicitly accepted but never really understood.  They, too, are determined to expropriate wealth, to redistribute it largely to themselves, essentially.  It is for that reason I don't understand those folks.  They're the type of people who will claim to be free thinkers who've never actually critically considered their religion, for example.

I guess where it really gets me, though, is the abject hypocrisy of the right, in particular south of our border, who see nothing wrong with continuing to borrow against the wealth of future generations to pursue things with don't actually benefit society as a whole - that is, they're collectivists right up to the point of doing anything to the benefit of the collective, you might say.  It is, like Mr. Campbell's last paragraph, perplexing to to me that "rugged individualists" want a "small government" that still will find the time and resources to interfere in people's private reproductive decisions, for exmaple.  It's still richer when they're exposed as hypocrites on the matter, like Rick "frothy" Santorum.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I do like the parallel to religious conservatives, and the comparison is apt and well made, something I'd implicitly accepted but never really understood.  They, too, are determined to expropriate wealth, to redistribute it largely to themselves, essentially.  It is for that reason I don't understand those folks.  They're the type of people who will claim to be free thinkers who've never actually critically considered their religion, for example.



Redeye, why should it come as a surprise to you that there is a connection between religiosity and socialism when the entire socialist project grew out of the work of well meaning Protestants - Methodists amongst others - in Manchester, the Black Country and the Lowlands of Scotland.  Marx went to Manchester to study the Chartists, the Levellers, the Rochdale Co-Ops and all the other related institutions associated with creating Jerusalem among these dark, satanic mills.

Personally I ascribe the overlap between the temperaments to explain the ease with which the Quebec Clergy (to include orphanage and old folks home attendants, nurses and teachers) adjusted to and accomodated the shift from a Church led society to a "Secular" society during the Quiet Revolution.  There was no necessity for the individual to challenge their principles with respect to their relationship to society at large and their neighbours.  All they did was replace a Pope based hierarchy with a Premier based hierarchy.  They still expected manna to flow downwards.  Their role was to distribute manna and have some of it stick to their fingers in the process.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2011)

Expropriation at unreasonable levels is a concern, but a greater worry is social engineering.  I support the promulgation of information, including at public expense - ParticipAction advertising, anti-smoking public service advertising, labelling on prepared food packaging - but once the citizen has the information and elects to continue with the harmful behaviour, the involvement of the state must end there.  If people want to smoke and eat fatty foods and they become a mounting expense to the health care system, tough sh!t: those who want to provide a public charity, expropriate the funds, and discourage or outright forbid alternatives outside the system may not use it as an excuse to meddle just because their scheme isn't working out as they thought it should - not unless all the harmful behaviours in which I am uninterested are equally forbidden as the ones in which I indulge.  It is that meddlesome instinct of progressives to treat people like some sort of project to be perfected which is the totalitarian impetus.

The notion that religious conservatives are determined to expropriate wealth for themselves bemuses me.  Most religious conservatives seem to take their duty to give to others of their wealth and time seriously.

The spending of future generations' wealth south of the border goes right across the political divide.  But it seems that one party is seriously trying to cut that spending while another undertook recent initiatives to remarkably raise it.  And as I noted in another thread, the historical revenue and expense trends show that it is foremost a spending problem.  What is basically happening is that Democrats are following an opposite strategy to "starve the beast" which is "stuff the beast".  They have tied a weight of publicly funded benefits around the neck of government too large to fund, are now using that as an excuse to drive up taxation, and then - since the taxation isn't realistically going to be anywhere near enough - will inflate away the debt to achieve two aims: reduce the cost of servicing debt (they probably think they will get close to an operating balance, but I doubt they will), and wipe out the value of the private holdings of most of the middle class to make it all but impossible for them to resist public programs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> The notion that religious conservatives are determined to expropriate wealth for themselves bemuses me.  Most religious conservatives seem to take their duty to give to others of their wealth and time seriously.
> ...




I have no 'expropriation' of property problems with religious conservatives. I find them intrusive. They want to intrude on my privacy by using the state to impose their beliefs on others. Doesn't matter if they are conservative Christians, or conservative Jews or conservative Buddhists: they all want us to conduct our public and private lives in accordance with what they think their gods want. Buysbodies.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have no 'expropriation' of property problems with religious conservatives. I find them intrusive. They want to intrude on my privacy by using the state to impose their beliefs on others. Doesn't matter if they are conservative Christians, or conservative Jews or conservative Buddhists: they all want us to conduct our public and private lives in accordance with what they think their gods want. Buysbodies.



But why do they want to improve you ERC - not that you need to be, or could be improved  ;D - is it perhaps, that like the victims of the NKVD and the Stasi (or the Inquisition) they fear collective punishment?  Your error will invite wrath on their heads? Or will deny them Jerusalem here on Earth?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2011)

Religious or social conservatives are very much like their "progressive" brethren; they know the TRUTH and wish for you to partake of it. If you are not interested then they will enlist the power of the State to ensure that you _do_ partake (the Church not being so much in the enforcement business these days).

The primary difference between a Religious/social conservative is they seek justification in their religious beliefs, where a Progressive seeks justification in a secular belief system such as Marxism or Green environmentalism. Frankly, the idea that religious or social "conservatives" should be in the same tent as fiscal conservatives, libertarians or other followers of Classical Liberal thought is wrong and counterproductive, fortunately the actual influence of religious conservatives has never been as great as alarmist press would have us believe and their peak was probably back in the 1980's.

I think the main reason they do wish to sit in the Conservative tent is because classical liberal thought is against social engineering and most religious and social conservatives see this as the best place to fight against the sort of social engineering they see/fear Progressives deploying whenever they have the chance. The fact they wish to do some social engineering of their own is one of those little ironies which vex our lives....


----------



## Redeye (12 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Expropriation at unreasonable levels is a concern, but a greater worry is social engineering.  I support the promulgation of information, including at public expense - ParticipAction advertising, anti-smoking public service advertising, labelling on prepared food packaging - but once the citizen has the information and elects to continue with the harmful behaviour, the involvement of the state must end there.  If people want to smoke and eat fatty foods and they become a mounting expense to the health care system, tough sh!t: those who want to provide a public charity, expropriate the funds, and discourage or outright forbid alternatives outside the system may not use it as an excuse to meddle just because their scheme isn't working out as they thought it should - not unless all the harmful behaviours in which I am uninterested are equally forbidden as the ones in which I indulge.  It is that meddlesome instinct of progressives to treat people like some sort of project to be perfected which is the totalitarian impetus.



Generally speaking, I agree.  But I have no problem with the state creating potent incentives and disincentives to behaviours which ultimately cost us all in the long run.  Hence we heavily tax alcohol and tobacco.  I'd love to see some mechanism to further encourage healthier eating and more active lifestyles, but there is indeed a balance that has to be struck.  Some of it could be done through things like expanding tax credits for fitness programs further (and expand them to all, not just children).  Ultimately, if someone wants to eat nothing but crap and smoke and drink themselves into an early grave, there's only so much it's reasonable for the state to try to do.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The notion that religious conservatives are determined to expropriate wealth for themselves bemuses me.  Most religious conservatives seem to take their duty to give to others of their wealth and time seriously.



Are you serious?  Most of the evangelical set is led by people who are very efficient at converting other people's wealth into their own.  How much money to people like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen rake in?  What about the 700 Club set?  They give of their time, perhaps, but they do it because they just happen to become rich in the process.  There's a reason they have the money to funnel into PACs and the like, and to hold their own events to try to influence the political process.  Even to the extent that they collect "charitable donations", those donations are often going to recruiting new donors and supporting their employees.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The spending of future generations' wealth south of the border goes right across the political divide.  But it seems that one party is seriously trying to cut that spending while another undertook recent initiatives to remarkably raise it.



Sorry, which party is seriously trying to cut spending?  Don't say the Republicans, or I'll spit this mouthful of coffee all over my keyboard.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And as I noted in another thread, the historical revenue and expense trends show that it is foremost a spending problem.  What is basically happening is that Democrats are following an opposite strategy to "starve the beast" which is "stuff the beast".  They have tied a weight of publicly funded benefits around the neck of government too large to fund, are now using that as an excuse to drive up taxation, and then - since the taxation isn't realistically going to be anywhere near enough - will inflate away the debt to achieve two aims: reduce the cost of servicing debt (they probably think they will get close to an operating balance, but I doubt they will), and wipe out the value of the private holdings of most of the middle class to make it all but impossible for them to resist public programs.



I've heard this line of reasoning before, and yet, I don't really see that being the case.  What it appears to me is that the Republicans - in particular, their wealthy corporatist backers - see the writing on the wall - that the ship of state in the USA is sinking fast, and they're trying to grab whatever they can.  Let's not forget it was primarily Republican policies that have created most of the massive debt that the USA is grappling with, and it was mainly from borrowing against future revenues to fund things that were really not beneficial at all to anyone to do it - most of the benefit accrued to those corporatists.  The pervasive cult of personality the GOP has built around Ronald Reagan in particular is the clearest symptom of this disease.

I don't know that there are any good answers - and it's made worse by the fact that the GOP know they have no incentive to do anything to fix the situation because they want things to be bad going into the election campaign next year where they can blame it all on the Democrats - and sadly, the largely politically illiterate electorate may just believe them.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2011)

> Let's not forget it was primarily Republican policies that have created most of the massive debt that the USA is grappling with



Which party captured the legislature (which creates and passes money bills) and started the spending spree in 2006?

Which party controlled the House, the Senate and the Administration starting in 2008?

Which party created the Community Reinvestment Act? Which party does US Rep Barney Frank (who opposed regulating Fannie Mae in 2006, saw no impending problems and publicly announced he was "willing to throw the dice" rather than address the then growing mortgage problems) belong to? Which party opposes any attempts to reform entitlement spending?

Interested readers can compare these answers to the above quote and draw their own conclusions......


----------



## Redeye (12 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Which party captured the legislature (which creates and passes money bills) and started the spending spree in 2006?
> 
> Which party controlled the House, the Senate and the Administration starting in 2008?



When did the US national debt start spiralling out of control?  Hint: A long time before 2006. About 26 years before with the election of a certain figure.

Which Administrations caused the largest surges thereof?  Hint: Rhymes with "Reagan" & "Bush".  Significantly, both administrations presided over tax cuts that impacted the revenue base, the other side of the deficit equation.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Which party created the Community Reinvestment Act? Which party does US Rep Barney Frank (who opposed regulating Fannie Mae in 2006, saw no impending problems and publicly announced he was "willing to throw the dice" rather than address the then growing mortgage problems) belong to? Which party opposes any attempts to reform entitlement spending?



Yes, Democrats and Republicans both contributed to the mess, and both failed to see the housing bubble because at the time it was basically inconceivable to anyone that there was any reason to be worried about house prices.  They were horribly wrong - but so was almost everyone.  Some time check out the movie "Inside Job" which is a fairly good documentary on how that particular mess unfolded.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interested readers can compare these answers to the above quote and draw their own conclusions......



Sure.  That no hands are clean is the realistic conclusion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2011)

You gentlemen inhabit a different reality than I.  Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be the most persistent proselytizers, but they go door-to-door on their own.  I have co-workers, friends, acquaintances, and family members who range from "liberal" Christian to fundamental, and in my discussions with them none seem inclined to use the power of the state.  They might talk my ear off if I invited them, but aside from a couple of keystone issues - abortion being one, and it crosses religious boundaries into irreligious philosophies - there simply isn't a fascist impulse among them.  They believe for the most part that God's justice is God's to dispense, not theirs.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2011)

>Are you serious?  Most of the evangelical set is led by people who are very efficient at converting other people's wealth into their own. 

Expropriation is when the state takes something from you to keep or transfer to someone else.  The evangelical set may be salesmen and con artists but they are not - I'll refrain from an absolute denial in case there are some teeny tiny exceptions somewhere - expropriators.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2011)

>Sorry, which party is seriously trying to cut spending?  Don't say the Republicans, or I'll spit this mouthful of coffee all over my keyboard.

If you deny that the Republicans are seriously trying to cut spending, I can't imagine why I should be able to accept anything you ever write again without independent verification - you have just de facto announced your intention to lie.  You may think that the level of spending cut is not "serious" enough, but you can not deny they are serious in their attempts to achieve some spending cuts.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2011)

>Let's not forget it was primarily Republican policies that have created most of the massive debt that the USA is grappling with

Back when we discussed the roles of the presidential administration and Congress of the US in matters fiscal, I thought you understood.  Apparently not.


----------



## Redeye (12 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Sorry, which party is seriously trying to cut spending?  Don't say the Republicans, or I'll spit this mouthful of coffee all over my keyboard.
> 
> If you deny that the Republicans are seriously trying to cut spending, I can't imagine why I should be able to accept anything you ever write again without independent verification - you have just de facto announced your intention to lie.  You may think that the level of spending cut is not "serious" enough, but you can not deny they are serious in their attempts to achieve some spending cuts.



Republicans have offered no real workable ways forward at all (neither, incidentally, have the Democrats especially), and part of that is, I believe, because they have no incentive to do so, the worse they can make the current adminstration look, the better.

I should be clear, they have indeed offered ideas on spending cuts, but none of them that I know of have gotten up and talked about massive cuts to the defense budget, nor about serious and workable tax reform, nor about any real efforts to cut spending.  These are the people who tried to frame an attack on women's health in defunding Planned Parenthood as some kind of major savings when the amount involved is trivial. 

Where's their plan to stimulate the economy?  To create jobs?  To do all the stuff they claimed they were going to do when they won the House in 2010?


----------



## Redeye (12 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Let's not forget it was primarily Republican policies that have created most of the massive debt that the USA is grappling with
> 
> Back when we discussed the roles of the presidential administration and Congress of the US in matters fiscal, I thought you understood.  Apparently not.



And as we discussed there, I find it richly amusing that the President gets credit when it suits people (witness the Cult of Reagan) but not when it doesn't.  Who, exactly, are the GOP going to attack in the 2012 campaign?  I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2011)

The Ryan budget (passed by the House) makes long term spending cuts; not nearly enough by any means, but certainly better than the Democrats, who have failed to propose or pass a budget at all...

There is no plan to "stimulate" the economy (we have already seen how that worked) nor "create" jobs (since that is neither the purpose of government, nor even possible in any realistic sense except for temporary jobs that end when the "stimulus" dries up), rather a series of plans to address the short and long term structural problems caused by out of control spending. 

A structural reform of the tax system would be nice, since even that notorious neocon John F Kennedy recognized that dramatic tax cuts caused the economy to grow (the "Go Go 60's" were ushered in by Kennedy's tax cuts; all that wealth was consumed by LBJ's "Great Society" programs); but fixing the foundation needs to come first.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2011)

Substitute terms like "Hidden Agenda" and "Scary Steven Harper" and the piece would read for our situation as well. The Progressive era is ending (As Margaret Thatcher said, you do run out of other people's money), but they will certainly fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their perques and privilages before they are swept away:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576484303256286950.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion#



> Civility: the Denouement
> 
> By JAMES TARANTO
> Did Vice President Biden liken Tea Party Republicans to terrorists in a meeting with House Democrats? Eyewitnesses say yes, but he denies it, Politico reports:
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2011)

The problem the Progressives in the Democrat Party have is that they now have an equally engaged and vociferous Counter-Caucus in the GOP to balance them.

In the past the Progressives fought on both financial and social fronts.  The main effort was the financial front.  The social front was less critical to the cause.  The "conservatives' wasted their effort fighting the social battle while the Progressives ratcheted the financial debate to the left.   

Now the GOP has traded in social conservative activists for fiscally conservative activists.  This has thrown the Democrats, Republicans and Progressives off balance.  The left know how to demonize social conservatives but they don't know how to demonize fiscal conservatives - although they are trying.  

I believe they will have trouble finding traction however as "most" Americans are comfortably on the fence on most social issues - live and let live is the working motto.  But on fiscal issues "most" Americans are actively engaged in feeding themselves and paying taxes.  They are paying attention to this debate.

The "Tea Party" has won simply by changing the course of the debate and putting a plug in the flow.  Whether the effect is lasting, or results in a catastrophic financial or political blow out, remains to be seen.......

Great spectator sport.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2011)

While the TEA party movement has focused on crony capitalism and the political culture, another movement is planning to protest Wall Street (in a literal manner). This smacks of magical thinking and a total lack of understanding of either how the economy works or even some very basic economic concepts (if Wall Street were to physically be shut down, what would stop the economic activity from moving at light speed to the London Exchange, the TSX, Chicago Mercentile Exchange, Hong Kong, etc. etc.?). 

The other thing it seems intended to do is to reestablish the "Narrative" of evil capitalists exploiting the working class meme. Is it "Spontanious"? All indications would suggest it is more of an astroturf ploy like the "Coffee Party" and other faux groups set up to press Progressive tropes by pretending they were grassroots organizations. How this plays out should be fun and interesting to watch:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27067/?nlid=nldly&nld=2011-08-10



> *Is September 17 America's Own Tahrir Square-Style 'Facebook Revolution'?*
> 
> Protests in the Middle East and elsewhere capitalized on the spontaneity of social media, but can it also be deployed deliberately?
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (13 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the TEA party movement has focused on crony capitalism and the political culture, another movement is planning to protest Wall Street (in a literal manner). This smacks of magical thinking and a total lack of understanding of either how the economy works or even some very basic economic concepts (if Wall Street were to physically be shut down, what would stop the economic activity from moving at light speed to the London Exchange, the TSX, Chicago Mercentile Exchange, Hong Kong, etc. etc.?).



 :facepalm:

Was this intended as some kind of joke?  The Tea Party is a product of crony capitalism - it's a completely faked astroturf movement designed to protect crony capitalism, and its supporters, by and large, are simply too stupid to realize that.  Snippets of the embarrassment of a "debate" held in Ames the other night rather clearly indicates their darlings like Michele Bachmann have no grasp whatsoever of economics and a delusional view of the world.  I think there's enough there in soundbites, hopefully, to keep any of the GOP "frontrunner" clowns out of office.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The other thing it seems intended to do is to reestablish the "Narrative" of evil capitalists exploiting the working class meme. Is it "Spontanious"? All indications would suggest it is more of an astroturf ploy like the "Coffee Party" and other faux groups set up to press Progressive tropes by pretending they were grassroots organizations. How this plays out should be fun and interesting to watch:
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27067/?nlid=nldly&nld=2011-08-10



I don't know how familiar you are with history, but you ought to look into roots of things like the French Revolution, where the rich keep on getting richer and the poor keep paying the bills.  Eventually there's some breaking point.  I don't know where that lies in the US exactly, but as more and more of those "working class" types see their American Dream slip away while those in power suffer not, eventually there will be tensions.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the TEA party movement has focused on crony capitalism and the political culture, another movement is planning to protest Wall Street (in a literal manner). This smacks of magical thinking and a total lack of understanding of either how the economy works or even some very basic economic concepts (if Wall Street were to physically be shut down, what would stop the economic activity from moving at light speed to the London Exchange, the TSX, Chicago Mercentile Exchange, Hong Kong, etc. etc.?).
> 
> The other thing it seems intended to do is to reestablish the "Narrative" of evil capitalists exploiting the working class meme. Is it "Spontanious"? All indications would suggest it is more of an astroturf ploy like the "Coffee Party" and other faux groups set up to press Progressive tropes by pretending they were grassroots organizations. How this plays out should be fun and interesting to watch:
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27067/?nlid=nldly&nld=2011-08-10



So the group that just destroyed the American economy to protect rich people from taxation are the good guys. Those who think that the 12+% of GDP taken by financial services is excessive(used to be around 2%) are the bad guys.

Luckily our PM saw through the Tea Party stupidity and is following sound right wing policies of fiscal Conservatism.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Aug 2011)

Thuc's got a pretty fair grip on history Redeye.  It is just that you and he have different filters.  

You're younger and haven't lived as long as he and I have with people peddling the same solutions to the world's woes while we observed a distinct lack of progress in changing the course of civilization.

The old saw about insanity applies:  We would be insane to continue to support the repeated application of failed policies.   Better by far to try something different, observe the effect and adjust as and if necessary.

And Nemo888 - I don't want to get into a good guy/bad guy debate but I would point out that given the role of the US in the international financial market, where it is in reality a "virtual" chest of gold, where it prints money based on that, where it draws much of its balance of trade from the transfer of funds and the supply of financial services - it doesn't seem to me that a 12% stake of the financial services in the GDP is particularly surprising or remarkable.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Aug 2011)

The Tea Party is still an embarrassment to conservatism. Linking the future of the Republican Party to these religious extremists with little education or sound rational capabilities was a huge mistake. The intellectual wing of the party is gone and rational debate with it. Without the thesis and antithesis of left and right making pragmatic, rational decisions the US will fail. Look at Germany if you want to see how well this works. Socialist Angela Merkel is a great example of what kind of economy you can get if you think about results and not dogma. I hate to break the news but neither left or right is perfect. Each needs the other to make livable societies. Those with a balance of both do the best. Go too far towards extremism and it all falls apart.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2011)

You might PM some of the TEA Party movement menbers of Army.ca to get an understanding of what they are really about. Few Religious of social conservatives are members (because the TEA Party movement is about the reduction of State interference in people's personal lives and choices), while registered Democrats are part of the movement.

Simply quoting the MSM and politiian's "Narrative" about the TEA Party movement suggests a lack of interest or understanding of the subject. Since the movement is set to topple thier construct of privilage and power, you can certainly expect to see a great deal of resistance from politicians, their cronies and enablers.

WRT the French revolution, once again a *real* understanding of history is important. The reson the French Revolution was different was the battle was not the "poor" against the "Rich"; rather the newly emerging Middle Class of merchants and professionals was fighting to protect their new wealth and political privilage against the Aristocracy which was determined to crush the Middle Class and retain their ancient powers and privilages. (Sounds familier when you put it that way). Read The coming of the French Revolution for more details.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The Tea Party is still and embarrassment to conservatism. Linking the future of the Republican Party to these religious extremists with little education or sound rational capabilities was a huge mistake. The intellectual wing of the party is gone and rational debate with it. Without the thesis and antithesis of left and right making pragmatic, rational decisions the US will fail. Look at Germany if you want to see how well this works. Socialist Angela Merkel is a great example of what kind of economy you can get if you think about results and not dogma. I hate to break the news but neither left or right is perfect. Each needs the other to make livable societies. Those with a balance of both do the best. Go too far towards extremism and it all falls apart.



You do know that there are Tea Party members here as forum members right? They also don't fit any of the ridiculous pigeon holes you just blew out of your ass.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The Tea Party is still and embarrassment to conservatism. Linking the future of the Republican Party to these religious extremists with little education or sound rational capabilities was a huge mistake.



Definition of stupid people - those who do not agree with you?


----------



## Redeye (13 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You might PM some of the TEA Party movement menbers of Army.ca to get an understanding of what they are really about. Few Religious of social conservatives are members (because the TEA Party movement is about the reduction of State interference in people's personal lives and choices), while registered Democrats are part of the movement.



Given that I enjoy sparring with them in various forums, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.  In fact one of the greatest ironies of the movement is that these people who oppose "state interference" tend by and large (though by no means exclusively) to be xenophobic, Islamophobic (to a laughable, sickening, paranoid kind of way), and evangelical Christians.  Their frontrunners in office and the Presidential race are included in this group.  To claim otherwise simply doesn't mesh with reality.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Simply quoting the MSM and politiian's "Narrative" about the TEA Party movement suggests a lack of interest or understanding of the subject. Since the movement is set to topple thier construct of privilage and power, you can certainly expect to see a great deal of resistance from politicians, their cronies and enablers.



And their replacement with another batch of cronies and enablers.  How does that stand to make anyone any better off, especially given that the Tea Party's ideas seem rather delusional?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> WRT the French revolution, once again a *real* understanding of history is important. The reson the French Revolution was different was the battle was not the "poor" against the "Rich"; rather the newly emerging Middle Class of merchants and professionals was fighting to protect their new wealth and political privilage against the Aristocracy which was determined to crush the Middle Class and retain their ancient powers and privilages. (Sounds familier when you put it that way). Read The coming of the French Revolution for more details.



It does sound familiar, because that's actually a more articulate explanation of the situation I was describing.  The middle class is seeing their way of life slipping away, and some of them are being duped into supporting the Tea Party, whose masters are actually the very root of the problem.  The assault on democracy as we know it that is unfolding is a serious problem, and hopefully people are starting to notice.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2011)

Since you are obviously not willing to study or understand the TEA Party movement (or even apparently to speak to their members available here on Army.ca), I will treat any future postings from you on the subject with the attention it deserves.

For those of you who know my libertarian leanings, it should interest you to know my favorite reference to the French Revolution was written by a Marxist of all people. The French Revolution is one of the few times that the Class Struggle argument actually tracks with the facts at hand, the obvious issue of there being three classes rather than two, or the fact the newly emergent middle class of the Revolutionary period would self organize to fight for their rights and privileges  in opposition to the  aristocracy and the poor are issues Georges Lefebvre was willing to cover, to his considerable credit.

For people willing to delve deeper into the issue, Victor Davis Hanson's book "The Other Greeks" looks at a similar reorganization of society as middle class farmers and landowners developed the institutions we recognize today as Classical Greece. Even the chosen form of ancient Greek warfare (a massed Phalanx of heavily armoured Hoplites) was specifically evolved to protect the armed citizen farmers from aristocratic cavalry (armed with javelins) or light troops from the lower classes, who could not afford armour and only attack with missile weapons. The fact it worked against the Persians and was useful until the time of Alexander III ("the Great") demonstrates its military utility; most of our political institutions and ideals are also evolved from Classical Greek ideas.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2011)

I have to agree with you Thucydides.

Those that can't attack the policies, attack the people.

Those that attack a group, because they have no other avenue, as xenophobic, Islamophobic (to a laughable, sickening, paranoid kind of way), and evangelical Christians have already lost.

Unfortunately, this same sad, misinformed and delusional group are losing their way. They are now moving from making, or proposing policy, to attacking individuals on the other side.

 It's all over. The great socialist experiment proposed by Trudeau and his communist ilk, is dead in the water.

People are going to start taking back what is their's.

The socialist members of the liebrals and NDP have shot their last wad. Most have grown up, started earning a wage, and become Conservatives.

Make no mistake. There will be riots and condemnation, similar, if not worse than Britian. This will happen when the Government says " We're not paying you to sit in the pub all day or fuck about at the track because we feel bad you pissy pricks can't find a job.

The day of the slack jawed freeloader is coming to an end. 

Riots? Who cares. Long term gain for short term pain.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Aug 2011)

I'm sure this has been covered before but I'm going to circle the mulberry bush one more time:

Those that crave leaders can't seem to perceive of leaderless "movements".

I'll need to try and find out how much time the Stewarts spent trying to locate the leadership of the Covenanters, or the Guise spent searching out the leaders of the Calvinist/Huguenots/Frondes/Cevennes..... before it dawned on them that every individual opponent was a separate "leader".


----------



## Franko (14 Aug 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Definition of stupid people - those who do not agree with you?



How about someone who knowingly gets around site protocols to post thinking he can get away with it?

Buh bye glue bag. 

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I have to agree with you Thucydides.
> 
> Those that can't attack the policies, attack the people.
> 
> ...


Lets contrast socialist Germany with the United States. I know who I am betting on. The Tea Party in the US is making bad decisions based on doctrinaire reasoning. Shrinking GDP will decrease tax revenue and throw the economy into reverse, during a reccession this is punitive. I think you have mixed up who the extremists are. Traditional fiscal Conservatism would keep cuts to less than GDP growth for the foreseeable future until the books were balanced. Slow and steady. Not slashing madly IMO.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Lets contrast socialist  *corporatist* (fixed) Germany with the United States...... Shrinking GDP will decrease tax revenue and throw the economy into reverse  ....  Traditional fiscal Conservatism would keep cuts to less than GDP growth for the foreseeable future until the books were balanced. Slow and steady. Not slashing madly IMO.





> .....the implication is that the U.S., as part of a balanced approach, should begin collecting more taxes to boost revenues.  This analysis seems simple and is allegedly based on Canadian practice, promoted as the balanced Canadian approach. Perhaps, it is said, the United States could split the difference on its looming fiscal crisis. It could raise taxes by, say, 30% while cutting spending by 20%. Such a lack of “ideology” allegedly saved Canada.
> 
> Except that nothing of the sort happened. Taxes did not increase in Canada in 1995 and in the years following, either at the federal level or across the Canadian system. As the chart above shows, spending by all levels of government hit more than 53% of GDP in the early 1990s, and then began a slow slide in the wake of the 1995 spending cuts and a broad ideological consensus in Canada that spending had to be cut. *Taxes were never raised to fight the deficit and, in fact, declined as a percentage of GDP over time  *.


  Terence Corcoran

Edited to fix inconsistent argument on my part.....


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Aug 2011)

In the long run America shouldn't raise taxes. They need to be more efficient like us. Canadians only pay 2% more of GDP in taxes compared to Americans(2010). But the cuts need to be slow so as not to hobble the economy. Taxing those making more than 240,000$ a year at Clinton levels sounds expedient to me if I was American. Not permanently, but the economy is barely treading water. Cut too much now and that boat will sink. 

We did cut 70,000 government jobs last month, but we gained 90,000 private sector ones and 19,000 stopped looking for works. Somewhat worse than projected. But the idea is to not cut faster than growth. Cutting 700,000 public sector jobs would not be 10 times better. The Tea Party idea that cuts magically fix everything is somewhat divorced from reality.  The thesis and antithesis of left and right working together has created the modern Social Capitalist states like Canada and Germany. Going backwards to the robber baron days is only progress to robber barons and monopolists. A few months in Argentina or the Philippines would show you how such ruthless societies really work. I'll take Canada or Germany any day over these corrupt places.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2011)

You continually assert that deep cuts don't work, even though deep cuts were what *did* work in Canada during the 1990's, and the Red and newly Red states that are cutting spending and holding the line on taxation are the ones which are gaining jobs and economic growth today.

Reality has a bad way of derailing ideology. My "conversion" to libertarianism happened in the early 1980's while studying economics, which was heaviy biased towards Keynsianism at the time. It was a strange experience to study models like IS/LM or the Phillips curve but see there was no relationship betwen the economic models being taught and the reality of the Reagan Revolution happening outside the walls. If you took what my professors said seriously, the economic conditions of the late Carter era and the economic recovery of the Reagan era were both totaly impossible; Keynsian economics explicityl denies that such an event as "stagflation" could occur (you can supposedly trade inflation for employment, check the statistics today and see how well that works), yet it happened in the  late 1970's, and is hapening now.

Keynsians also deny the effectiveness of tax and spending cuts (as you do), yet reading the economic statistics of the Thatcher, Reagan or Mike Harris era should give you pause in that argument (assuming you don't choose to ignore it or brush it aside with non sequiters about what sort of jobs were created). The reality is the growth of US GDP during 7 of the 8 years of the Reagan Administration was equal to the entire economic output of then West Germany, a nation usually considered to be an economic powerhouse of its own.

The Progressive era is over. The basic assumptions behind it have been revealed as bankrupt, and attempting to create the progressive state have literally bankrupted us. There will be a period of social disruption as the system collapses, which I find frightening, since history teaches that the usual response to social chaos is people turn the "the man on the white horse" to end the chaos. This wil also mean the end of our liberal democracy and the liberal democratic state for the forseeable future as would be Napoleons (or worse) seize and hold power with the promise of "stability" and "order".


----------



## Redeye (14 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You continually assert that deep cuts don't work, even though deep cuts were what *did* work in Canada during the 1990's, and the Red and newly Red states that are cutting spending and holding the line on taxation are the ones which are gaining jobs and economic growth today.



Did you just conveniently forget, or deliberately ignore the whole Goods and Services Tax thing?


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Aug 2011)

(delete this)


----------



## Redeye (14 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I have to agree with you Thucydides.
> 
> Those that can't attack the policies, attack the people.



Sadly, the two are somewhat inseperable.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Those that attack a group, because they have no other avenue, as xenophobic, Islamophobic (to a laughable, sickening, paranoid kind of way), and evangelical Christians have already lost.



I beg to differ, and I have plenty of avenues to attack the idiocy that is the Tea Party - and have done so.  I won't waste my time supplying a laundry lists of quotes on the matter, but Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, among others, fits the bill.  There are literally thousands of examples of each of those mentioned traits showing up amongst the Tea Party.  I've never, ever discovered a modern movement quite as contemptible, but I do believe we'll see over the next couple of years that they are in fact dead in the water.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this same sad, misinformed and delusional group are losing their way. They are now moving from making, or proposing policy, to attacking individuals on the other side.



Wrong again.  They seem to  have plenty of policy ideas, and to be willing to work to a solution. Not so the dogmatist tea partier types. That was pretty clear during the recent mess over the debt ceiling down south.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It's all over. The great socialist experiment proposed by Trudeau and his communist ilk, is dead in the water.



And that has what to do with anything?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> People are going to start taking back what is their's.



And this is why the Tea Party's corporatist masters are ultimately ******.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The socialist members of the liebrals and NDP have shot their last wad. Most have grown up, started earning a wage, and become Conservatives.



Speculation. Moving right along...



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Make no mistake. There will be riots and condemnation, similar, if not worse than Britian. This will happen when the Government says " We're not paying you to sit in the pub all day or frig about at the track because we feel bad you pissy pricks can't find a job.



Speaking of baseless ad hominem... is that hypocrisy I smell?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The day of the slack jawed freeloader is coming to an end.



Great. Fortunately there's not many of them, but **** 'em. No one likes them anyhow.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Riots? Who cares. Long term gain for short term pain.



 :  :facepalm:


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Aug 2011)

Thucy; If your supply side economic theory(What George Bush senior called Voodoo Economics.) was right then Clinton's deficit reduction plan of raising taxes would not have worked. GDP would have shrunk, budget deficits would have balooned and interest rates would have spiked. Sorry but none of these things happened. Actually EXACTLY the opposite happened.

And even Reagan's Voodoo Economics is not as self destructive as the Tea Party. Reagan never let cuts outstrip GDP growth even at the cost of a ballooning deficit. *Reagan* never let that happen. He thought it was counter productive. So Reagan's economic policies are too left wing for you. I find that rather humorous.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> You continually assert that deep cuts don't work.


No. Deep cuts work great* IF* they do not kill what they are intended to help. You can't cut more than growth without screwing yourself. If you want to cut more encourage the economy. Get the PM out shaking hands and send Industry Canada to drum up some business. (Pretty much what they are already doing.) Increase Asian and South American trade. Sign some free trade agreements.  Then you can cut to the degree you increase GDP.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Did you just conveniently forget, or deliberately ignore the whole Goods and Services Tax thing?



What part of the "GST Thing"?

The Terence Corcoran Part concerning the revenue neutrality of the tax introduced by Mulroney and Wilson 5 years before Chretien and Martin got round to cutting the budget? 



> ....Musing about the detrimental effects of tribal divides in U.S. politics, between big-government Keynesians and small-government Hayekians, he retold the Canadian story. “As various Canadian commentators have been pointing out in recent weeks, Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien slashed spending by 20% and increased tax revenues — largely through the GST, which they had formerly opposed.”
> 
> .....From where comes the idea that tax increases — through the GST — played a role in reversing Canada’s fiscal fortunes in 1995? The first observation is that the GST was brought in by Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives in 1990, five years before the crisis. But more important, there was no increase in tax revenue from the GST.
> 
> ...



Or this  part:  GST cut to 6%  July 1 2006

Or this part: GST cut to 5% Jan 1 2008 ( thereby leaving stimulating funds in the hands of Canadians just ahead of oil spiking over $100 (2 Jan 2008) which precipitated the 2008 crises).

Edit - Further to the above  



> ...The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday (Aug XX 2010) on a $15 million fine levied against an oil trading group for illegal trades it made in pursuit of the very first $100-per-barrel crude oil future contract in 2008.
> 
> The CFTC filed and immediately settled charges against ConAgra Trade Group, the former commodities trading division of mega corporation ConAgra Foods for causing a “non-bona fide price” on the New York Mercantile Exchange oil market on January 2, 2008. According to the CFTC, the NYMEX floor trader for ConAgra had been directed by his superiors to buy the first $100 oil contract for a full three months before the transaction took place. On January 2, the price of crude was rising toward the $100 level, with the electronic price at $99.60 and trading floor prices around $99.90. To ensure winning the golden ticket that was the first $100 contract, the ConAgra trader proceeded to buy up all of the available contracts at $99.90 a barrel, which prompted an offer from a seller at $100 a barrel. The sudden snapping-up of contracts at $99.90 disrupted the oil market, causing widespread confusion over the “true” price of crude and leading another NYMEX floor broker to file a complaint that he was offering the contract at a lower price.
> 
> The disarray the action set off on the oil markets was apparently of little concern to ConAgra, which was obviously focused on the prize of a freshly-minted $100 oil contract. According to the CFTC, a ConAgra trader boasted in an email, “some people collect art prints, we collect price prints.” The ConAgra Trade Group no longer exists, as it was sold off to hedge fund Ospraie Management for $2.8 billion in June of 2008, and now operates as the Gavilon Group.


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Aug 2011)

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” Warren Buffet

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/buffett-urges-congress-to-raise-taxes-on-coddled-billionaires.html

Buffett: Hike Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billionaires

Billionaire Warren Buffett urged Congress to raise taxes on the nation’s wealthiest individuals to help cut the U.S. budget deficit, saying it won’t inhibit investment or job growth.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” the chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) wrote in an opinion article published in the New York Times. “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”

Buffett’s advocacy of higher taxes for the “mega-rich” may reinforce President Barack Obama’s call for an end to tax breaks for corporate-jet owners. In the op-ed, the 80-year-old investor said his federal tax bill last year, or the income tax he paid and payroll taxes paid by him and on his behalf, was $6,938,744.

“That sounds like a lot of money,” Buffett wrote. “But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income -- and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.”

A 12-member panel, formed in the Aug. 2 law that raised the nation’s debt ceiling and averted a possible default, is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in budget savings.

Democratic Representatives James Clyburn, Chris Van Hollen and Xavier Becerra will join Republican counterparts Dave Camp, Fred Upton and Jeb Hensarling. The Senate team includes Republicans Jon Kyl, Pat Toomey and Rob Portman and Democrats Patty Murray, John Kerry and Max Baucus. Murray, of Washington state, and Hensarling, of Texas, will be co-leaders.
Millionaires

Buffett said that for those making more than $1 million -- there were 236,883 such households in 2009 -- he would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including dividends and capital gains. For the 8,274 taxpayers who made $10 million or more, he said they should get an additional increase in the rate.

“While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,” Buffett wrote.

He cited Internal Revenue Service data showing that the tax burden on the nation’s wealthy had fallen for the past two decades.

In 1992 the top 400 American earners had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that amount, he wrote. In 2008, while the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion, the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
Hiring, Investment

Buffett said the notion that high taxes discourage hiring and investment is false.

“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone -- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 -- shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain,” he said.

“People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off,” he said. “And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.”

The U.S. unemployment rate has averaged 9.5 percent in the past two years, dropping to 9.1 percent in July from 9.2 percent a month earlier, a government report showed Aug. 5


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” Warren Buffet
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/buffett-urges-congress-to-raise-taxes-on-coddled-billionaires.html
> 
> ...




The reason Buffet pays tax at a lower rate than the other 20 people in his office is that almost all his income is from investments and investment income is taxed at a lower rate than employment income because "we" (all of us) want to encourage people to invest - to create jobs. It would be interesting to see the unemployment rate after investment income is taxed at the same rate as employment income.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Aug 2011)

Although I am no specialist at Tax Law and Tax Theory, am I a dummy for thinking something like 15% on all money made by a person, regardless of its origin or how much he/she made, is fair or is that just too simple?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2011)

I'm a flat tax fan - but a whole hockey sock full of top flight economists are not, so ... I am happy with the way some of those economists managed my money during 2008/09 so I suppose I should trust their judgement on the flat tax, too.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm a flat tax fan - but a whole hockey sock full of top flight economists are not, so ... I am happy with the way some of those economists managed my money during 2008/09 so I suppose I should trust their judgement on the flat tax, too.



I guess I can live with that....


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2011)

In the Canadian context, a flat tax, single tax, fair tax (call it what you like) will save an extimated 3 billion plus dollars in costs for the taxpayers, who need professional help to file taxes (even non professionals choose to use services like H&R block because they find personal tax returns confusing). Eliminating most or all tax loopholes and deductions also reduces the amount of time as well as resources corporations and individuals need to do tax planning and calculate and process tax returns. Eliminating this cost, plus the time needed to do tax returns will free up time and resources to the productive economy. The cost to the taxpayer to staff and run the Canada Revenue agency will also drop, since flat/single/fair tax returns are much simpler to process and check, requiring far less staff.

Generally speaking this is a win-win situation for the taxpayer, and the government as well (since this sort of tax return will generate much less resistance and tax avoidance behaviour so long as the rate is set at a sensible level), most opposition that I have seen is generally the defense of the status quo, attempting to justify certain tax breaks or behaviours generated by the tax system. Dennis Mills once wrote a book on the subject ("The Single Tax") but it seems to be long out of print and I have not been able to find a copy to see his arguments.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2011)

If there's anything to be learned in Canada from a flat tax, we only need to look at Alberta. There's been a flat tax at the provincial level for several years now.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2011)

Words of wisdom:



> “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.
> 
> “If we run into such debts as that, we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are.
> 
> ...



This predates the arguments of Friedrich von Hayek in The road to Serfdom, but Jefferson was describing the end, while Hayek describes the beginning.


----------



## Redeye (26 Aug 2011)

Here's conservatism at work:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/florida-welfare-drug-test-costs

(shared with the usual provisions)

Rick Scott Takes the Piss Out of Florida Taxpayers
—By Adam Weinstein
| Thu Aug. 25, 2011 10:40 AM PDT Publik15/FlickrFlorida's neophyte Republican governor, tea-party-friendly Rick Scott, signed a bill back in June requiring the state's welfare recipients to undergo drug-testing urinalysis before collecting their monthly assistance check of around $241-to-$303. The measure, he said, would save taxpayer money by barring drug addicts from getting the dole. "Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare," he said.

Florida's welfare recipients are proving that Scott's assumption wasn't worth a warm bucket of pee. Now, the state is effectively being forced to pay for 11.5 gallons of welfare applicants' drug-free urine every month, to the tune of around $34,000.... [continues at link]

So, good old conservatives pissing away publlic money (no pun intended), and there was that whole "Rick Scott's company might benefit from it" problem too...

This is why I quit calling myself a conservative.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2011)

The underpinning of much "Progressive" thought is Keynesian economics, and its alleged impact on the US economy during the Great Depression. (The Forgotten Man tells a quite different story). With that prop gone, the ability to manipulate taxes, regulations and other economic tools to "help" people (usually cronies, although that is rarely admitted in public) will be much reduced:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/keynesianisms-collapse/?singlepage=true



> *Keynesianism’s Collapse*
> 
> Posted By Tom Blumer On August 26, 2011 @ 12:15 am In Uncategorized | 41 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Aug 2011)

The banking failure was the last nail in anarcho capitalism's coffin. The underpinning of the majority of *right wing* politics is Keynesian style economics. Even saintly Reagan was a Keynesian. Compared to you though Reagan looks like Jack Layton. The anarcho capitalism of complete deregulation is considered dangerous for the same reasons dictators are feared. It concentrates too much power in too few hands. Capitalism has a natural tendency to monopolies. Anarcho capitalism is a political extreme and would probably make most people very miserable and a very few immensely happy.

You live in a Social Capitalist state. Almost everyone here loves the hybrid of capitalism and socialism. The most successful nations on earth are Social Capitalists. Left and right working together have made a rather glorious hybrid of both systems. Better than what either side have come up with on their own. We need more practical workable ideas. That is what the right needs right now. Not more dubious theories.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

The banking failure was driven by regulatory failure; the State provided perverse incentives and then blamed the market for doing what was requested i.e the Community Reinvestment Act, the various antics of the mortgage entities "Freddie Mac" and "Fannie Mae" supporting and encouraging malinvestment into the housing and mortgage markets. Many observers were predicting the housing bubble would pop as early as 2006, but Democrat legislators like Barney Frank obstructed efforts by the Bush Administration to change the regulatory environment and stop this malinvestment cycle.

The Reagan Administration was committed to Classical economics, as interpreted by the "Chicago School". The results are clearly and accurately documented, as are the results of the "New Deal", Kennedy tax cuts and "Obamanomics". The record of Socialism is also clearly documented over a very long period of time and many different places, so factors like specific cultural artifacts, climate, natural resources etc. can be averaged out to see the true results. (Even looking at economic growth rates in periods when socialist policies become popular or fall out of favour in the same countries is very instructive).

Anarcho anything is just chaos. The market is probably best described as an ecosystem of information. If State regulation, "crony capitalists", destruction of the rule of law (i.e the GM and Chrysler bondholder debacle), actions of oligarchies etc. distort the flow of information, then capital (money, resources, time, human effort) is diverted to wherever the highest rates of return can be seen. In places where regulatory control or Stte interference is very strong, "black markets" provide conduits between producers and consumers, filling needs that are not otherwise met. Classical economic theory also shows that monopolies only happen/continue to exist where the State uses its power to suppress competition, very few "natural" monopolies can or do exist in the real world. 

Really, this is just history and Economics 101. None of your assertions explains the documented economic results (and actually flies in the face of the historical evidence), so perhaps you should do more research. If you are a student, perhaps you should be asking some very pointed questions of your educators. (Aside; while studying economics during the Reagan revolution I was struck by the total disconnect between our instruction and the outside world. Indeed, Keynseyan economics _*explicitly denies*_ that such things as Stagflation can exist, or the Reagan Revolution could happen, but sadly asking pointed questions mostly got me a STFU response and some nasty comments on my papers....)


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

And yes this is a pile on, but consider the economic indicators in Chile in the last paragraph of the article are not due to State intervention or socialist policies; should these protestors get their way you will see a sharp reduction in economic growth and the various other things provides by living in a wealthy society...
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/583028/201108261859/Chiles-Un-Reagan.htm



> *Chile's Un-Reagan*
> 
> Posted 06:59 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Aug 2011)

The banking regulatory failure that caused the economic meltdown had a name right? Oh yeah, DEREGULATION. Canada had a real Conservative at the helm who refused to bend over backwards and deregulate even under intense pressure. How are Canada’s banks doing by the way? 

You can’t get more Keynesian than deficit spending to get out of a recession.(You really can't. That was his most revolutionary idea.) That was Reagan’s master plan. Increase defense spending to boost America’s economy. 

Chile was the most Socialist country in South America for over 50 years.  They did try the Chicago School after a murderous dictator took over. Markets were liberalized in a dogmatic fashion putting theory above practicality. But unsurprisingly the economy never took off. Not until an all party coalition deposed Pinochet and worked together constructively to make the economy work. They liberalized personal freedoms, helped the poor, improved education, invested in the health system infrastructure and invited foreign investment. Then the economy took off.  The first elected right wing government in Chile was not until 2010. So I can see why you are taking credit for that. 

The system works best when left and right are rational and leave the dogma at home.  Both sides have great ideas that make everyone’s lives better.  Regulation can be annoying,  like not allowing citizens to own the firearms they want. Or rational, like not allowing me to hunt gophers with a Carl G when I am hammered.


----------



## Jed (27 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Regulation can be annoying,  like not allowing citizens to own the firearms they want. Or rational, like not allowing me to hunt gophers with a Karl G when I am hammered.



A Karl G is way too much overkill. A 12 guage shotgun, is pretty cool though.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Aug 2011)

I thought he meant that I shouldn't be allowed to use my Carl G against gophers while the Pubs were open...... I guess I misunderstood.

Note: sarcasm intended.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

Nemo, I am going to say this in a nice way: Hit the books before you post.

President Reagan's domestic policy revolved around tax cuts and market deregulation. This is a clearly established historical fact. Reagan's foreign policy involved rebuilding America's armed forces and challengine or rolling back Soviet expansion. This too is a historic fact. Reagan's attempts to reduce US federal spending outside military renewal was constantly defeated by Democrat politicians in the Senate and House, who constantly worked to ensure the President's budget proposals were "dead on arrival", and continued to fight for maintaining the status quo on Federal spending (Tax cuts were far too popular to defeat). This is also establshed historical fact.

The US economy grew at an amazing pace during the Reagan revolution. You assert this is due to the defictis, yet fail to note that vastly larger deficits starting in 2006 when the Democrats won the Senate and House failed to prevent the economic meltdown, and that the even larger defictis created by the Obama administration have not had a positive impact on economic growth (to put it mildly); yet if Keynseian economics were true, these vast deficits should have the US economy growing at twice the rate of the Reagan era economy. This is clearly not happening, indeed the administration claimed that without the "stimulus", US unemployment would rise to almost 8%. With the stimulus, official unemployment has risen to over 9%, and the Administration and their enablers carefully ensure that the millions of people who have dropped out of the employment market altogether and the additonal millions who are involuntarily underemployed are never mentioned. Real rates of unemployment in the double digits after the largest Keynsian stimulus in history isn't exactly a ringing proof of the theory.

You can also look at just what sorts of economic manipulation the US government was doing through their intervention in the mortgage industry through the CRA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to understand the true cause of the failure of the banking industry (and note that the small "comunity banks" in the United States, with the most limited ability to get into these manipulated markets, suffered the least despite having far smaller cash reserves and assets than the failed institutions).

Finally, you should consider how juridictions all over the world from Chile to Saskatchewan have flourished once they ditched socialist policies. The "Chicago Boys" who rewrote the economic rules in Chile were invited to clear the wreakage of the Adele regime after the overthrow, and Chile's economic resurgence dates to then. Saskatchewan's economic rebirth dates to the more peaceful replacement of decades of NDP rule with the low tax, low regulation Saskatchewan Party. As a checksum, consider that Quebec has abundent natural resources, an educated population and access to the wealthy North American market, but has persued socialist policies for decades and has been (and remains) a "have not" province, or how quickly Ontario went from the economic engine of Confederation to a "have not" province under the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, despite having most of the same advantages as Quebec.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

And more basic information for fact checking. How is the biggest Keynsian stimulus in history working again?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/07/22/jack-mintz-dont-blame-the-west/



> *The Endless Economic Recovery*
> 
> Posted 08/26/2011 06:59 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Aug 2011)

I explained before why the US stimulus was just a parachute. It cushioned the fall. State, local and military cuts were huge. So large that they ate the entire stimulus, then proceeded to eat all the GDP growth and leave GDP in negative territory for the last 3 years. So the tiny US stimulus was worthless. At almost 20% unemployment and 45 million+ on food stamps I think they didn't do enough to create jobs. But hey, screw the poor right. They don't produce anything.

Canada's stimulus worked great though. 2% of GDP in deficit spending like all G20 nations. Only every single country in the G20 thought it was a good idea, but hey what do the worlds 20 strongest economies know about finance.  We didn't drive our economy off the cliff like our American neighbors. Lucky for us Harper is a Keynesian who believes in mixed economies and rational social policies. If you were in charge how would you have handled it? What would your solution look like? Sorry for sounding like a dick but it sounds like you put doctrine before practicality in these matters.

P.S. Please don't post some long article that is mostly unrelated when you could just summarize. No need to drown with verbiage.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2011)

>Or rational, like not allowing me to hunt gophers with a Carl G when I am hammered.

Why would any person with an IQ above room temperature want or need such a regulation?

Regulations must be drafted, published, promulgated, and enforced.  Each new body of regulation must be accompanied by a permanent establishment to maintain it.  It is possible to gridlock society with regulations (ie. too many people watching for infractions and not enough working elsewhere to pay to support the establishment).  We probably have enough regulations already to do that, but we don't enforce all our regulations.  That means we have too many regulations; the pointless ones which address ridiculously contrived situations (see above) and the futile ones which attempt to countermand basic human instincts and freedoms should all be removed - for a start - so that the useful ones can be properly enforced.

Those who think the answer to every problem is a regulation are so lacking in foresight as to be common-sensically blind.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> P.S. Please don't post some long article that is mostly unrelated when you could just summarize. No need to drown with verbiage.



You mean like here, here or here?  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean like here, here or here?  :




This is a very general comment ~ not 'aimed' at anyone. I do not claim to know much about copyright law but my understanding, imperfect though it may be, is that the "Fair Dealing" provisions of the act, which we use to reprint articles here, is for comment and discussion. Although I have, from time to time, posted an article and stated specifically, "without comment," I do that very rarely. I think we are supposed to add something to the article: our thoughts and ideas. I am a bit worried when we have threads that look like just an aggregation of others' work - are we indeed dealing fairly with their copyright?


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2011)

Exactly, which is why it was rather ironic of Nemo888 to be chastising others for something he did several times earlier.  The thing about 'principled positions' is that they should be consistent.

Unless it is a shorter article, a style that takes an excerpt/citation as one would in a published paper is a safe bet to refer to the important/salient points of a larger piece.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Redeye (29 Aug 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean like here, here or here?  :



There's a rather key difference. Nemo's posts as cited come from Bloomberg (a news outlet) and The Economist, not a hack political blog.  Now, that said, the Economist refs are from a blog on its site, but I think that's more an extension of the newspaper, not just some right wing claptrap from Instapundit or Pajamas Media which often has little to do with the discussion at hand.

My $0.02.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's a rather key difference. Nemo's posts as cited come from Bloomberg (a news outlet) and The Economist, not a hack political blog.  Now, that said, the Economist refs are from a blog on its site, but I think that's more an extension of the newspaper, not just some right wing claptrap from Instapundit or Pajamas Media which often has little to do with the discussion at hand.



Still, this is a discussion forum.  Not the peg board at the office.  Although we don't have the strict guidelines of some other sites, we'd appreciate some discussion accompanying article posting.


----------



## Redeye (29 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Still, this is a discussion forum.  Not the peg board at the office.  Although we don't have the strict guidelines of some other sites, we'd appreciate some discussion accompanying article posting.



That I can agree with completely!


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

The growth of "Brownshirt" tactics is a very worrying development (and don't feel too smug about Canada, recall the behaviour of "activists" at the U of O when Anne Coulter was to make a speech there. Obviously the ability to hear and debate ideas ot U of O only meand one side of the debate). The list goes back two years, and can be updated to include the actions of Public Union members in Wisconsen. Next year will be ugly:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_3044f2a0-ff35-5e1f-a3fe-fd70a8fb1809.html



> *Guest commentary: How Obama lost his presidency in August 2009*
> 
> By Andrew Breitbart STLtoday.com | Posted: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:30 am | (146) Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

Interesting. Progressivism has literally banrupted the treasury. The moral rot is on display in the UK riots (and we have seen it too in Vancouver and the G-20). Now Justice Clarence Thomas may well collapse the legal underpinnings of the Progressive State in the United States, and by extension, deligitimize the idea throughout the English speaking world:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/



> *New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Lord of the Rings aficionados know that the evil lord Sauron paid little attention to the danger posed by two hobbits slowly struggling across the mountains and deserts of Mordor until he suddenly realized that the ring on which all his power depended was about to be hurled into the pits of Mount Doom.  All at once the enemy plan became clear; what looked like stupidity was revealed as genius, and Sauron understood everything just when it was too late to act.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (31 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting. Progressivism has literally banrupted the treasury. The moral rot is on display in the UK riots (and we have seen it too in Vancouver and the G-20). Now Justice Clarence Thomas may well collapse the legal underpinnings of the Progressive State in the United States, and by extension, deligitimize the idea throughout the English speaking world:
> 
> http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/



The incredibly corrupt Clarence Thomas, who apparently has no honour whatsoever and hasn't recused himself from decisions which his wife has a direct stake in?  That's why so many people in the United States appear to be getting concerned about the fact that the Supreme Court is becoming the ultimate protector of crony capitalism.  Things like the Citizens United decision are particularly good and disturbing examples.  What is it they call it when business and government become fused?


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...What is it they call it when business and government become fused?



France?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What is it they call it when business and government become fused?





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> France?



Wrong, its fascism.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Wrong, its fascism.



I prefer France......

If you want to be more broad-minded I would suggest:

Corporatism, fascism, national socialism, christian socialism, socialism (generic), mercantilism, colbertism, dirigisme and .... above all ... communism.

The difference is that in some instances the Directors are politicians and in other cases the politicians are directors.   Everything else is sophistry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I prefer France......
> 
> If you want to be more broad-minded I would suggest:
> 
> ...




Yep; sounds like France to me.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2011)

Find me a prosperous country in history where business interests aren't heavily tied to politics.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2011)

>The incredibly corrupt Clarence Thomas

Model of objectivity, you are.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The incredibly corrupt Clarence Thomas
> 
> Model of objectivity, you are.



But actually highlights one of the points of the article; while people have worked on character assassination, they have ignored the changing environment in the SCOTUS, led by Justice Thomas. Spending time in character assassination, ad hominem attacks, misdirection etc. has failed to stop the changes, while the combination of legal scholarship and changing public attitudes towards the interpretation of the Constitution have brought the Second Amendment back to life and may soon revive the Tenth Amendment, with all that it implies to the Federal Bureaucracy and Progressive ideology in general.

With the fiscal, moral and legal legs of Progressivism cut, we really need to consider two things:

a) How to deal with the end state. The elites who feed of Progressiveism will fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their privilege, while a feral underclass of dependents will react violently to the collapse of the Progressive State (the UK is just a foretaste of what we might see).

b) What a Post Progressive State will look like. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville offers one model, a nation of associations. Unfortunately, history offers hundreds of counter examples, where the population turns to the "Man on the White Horse" to impose stability.


----------



## Redeye (1 Sep 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The incredibly corrupt Clarence Thomas
> 
> Model of objectivity, you are.



On this, no. Because it's clear. The man is corrupt. He has been involved in hearing cases where one of the parties to the case is connected to his wife. Did you also miss his little tax problem, about how he hasn't filed disclosures he's supposed to have filed for years?

Google "clarence thomas corruption" and you'll see links to a variety of sources. Here's a fairly good summation:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/24/978540/-Clarence-Thomas-is-a-portrait-of-political-bribery

The fact that this goes on in the USA is deeply disturbing.  The fact that corporate lobbyists now basically own the court system does not bode well for anyone. While big business will always have the ear of governments, and that's just reality, the degree of influence they now stand to exert, in the wake of things like Citizens United, bodes well for no one.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2011)

It never seems to matter how often the "Fascism is right wing" myth is debunked, people will spout it anyway. Here is another article deconstructing that myth for people looking to debunk it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history



> *Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History*
> 
> “The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn
> 
> ...


----------



## Zartan (3 Sep 2011)

Fascism is neither right wing or left wing. It is a revolutionary ideology and does not warrant being compared to either. It is popularly considered a right-wing phenomenon as it opposed the Communists, who considered themselves left-wing and would write the histories of the post-war period, and from that opposition were able to co-opt the traditional conservatives of Germany and Italy along the road to power. Their initial proclamations took ideas from both left-wing and right-wing politics - but by and large were opposed to Marxism and Liberalism in equal measure. They were "the third way."

I should clarify what I mean by "Revolutionary Ideology." Progressivism and Conservatism imply a respect towards an initial state or starting point, deferring in their embrace of change, but accepting that it happens. Revolutionary ideologies, such as Marxism, Fascism, Nazism and Anarchism do not respect the starting point, wishing for that state to be erased completely. They respect that they can not, by fiat, divorce society from its past and culture, which have shaped and been shaped by that state, and instead desire to create "The New Man." Certainly, Marxism, Nazism and Fascism had many things in common, both theoretically (though Fascism was very short on a coherent theory - it was most definately amorphous, compared to Nazism or Marxism) and in practice. However, that does not mean they were similar, in terms of goals, objectives or strategy. 

Simply as one example to parry, the article raises the issue of church and state. Communist states were often officially atheist. Nazi Germany certainly was not, though as it was fractured between protestants and Catholics (whose Zentrum Party was one of the last legal oppositions to the regime) it endeavoured to unify through a German Church. Italy, though run by an Atheist, Mussolini healed the long rift between the Vatican and Italy - in process making Catholicism the official religion, making instruction mandatory in schools, among other policies. Separation of Church and State it was not - though it was hardly integral. It is laughable for the article to imply that Catholicism was hardly important to Franco (who was not a Fascist anyway). The vast majority of what is popularly considered "fascist" embraced religion and integrated it into government.

I don't feel like writting a full rebuttal to this article. There are, I hope, many superior articles when it comes to illuminating Fascism's ambiguous nature. That was not one of them. The writter's incredibly selective picking of facts is on par with saying Nicolae Ceausescu was a Social Conservative, and therefore communism was right wing.


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Sep 2011)

I agree wtih you. Left or right seem somehow less important now when analyzing political structure than the polarity of libertarian and totalitarian. Russia would be a great example. Little has changed after the switch from Communism to robber baron style Captalism. I would consider Putin a fascist dictator. China may be a good example as well. Their swing from Commie to Capitalist has had almost no effect on the political structure.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2011)

In common usage, Left Wing political systems involve vastly expanded power of the State to dictate areas of life and the economy, and the substitution of individual rights by group rights (and negative freedoms for positive freedoms).

Fascism, as commonly understood, involves the State dictating the national economic output through the use of regulation and taxation. This is the main difference between Fascism and Communism, which sees the State as being the owners of the means of production. The absolute control of the population either through detailed regulatory regimes like the "corporate state" or attempting to erase history and create a Socialist "New Man" (or a State Police and networks of informers on a more practical level) is required to prevent any output from escaping the grasp of the State or competing power centers from forming.

In either case, the output is not decided by individual owners, nor are the rewards of production given to specific individuals but are rather directed towards groups (usually social or economic class groups, but National Socialist parties like the Bloc Quebecois or the_ Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei_ directed economic and political rewards to groups based on ethnic origin). The reality is of course rather different, and political operators adjust the program according to what provides political power and the support of the masses (as well as creating elite groups which receive a much greater share of the economic pie).

Any form of Socialism (Corporatism, Fascism, Communism etc.) is impossible to implement given the constraints of human nature (Socialist Men react to incentives the same way other people do), the nature of the market (black markets form as demands are not met and sources of supply outside the State economy are developed to meet them), and the inability of central organs to process the vast quantities of information generated by large economies (the Local Knowledge Problem.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (Let me change that.) ALL political systems involve vastly expanded power of the State to dictate areas of life and the economy, and the substitution of individual rights by group rights (and negative freedoms for positive freedoms).


It didn't seem to make any difference in Russia or China which form the economy took. That is the point. The left/right thing is just a cold war mind game. Every succesful country in the world has a hybrid economy. They take the best of both. Social Capitalism has won in the trenches. Extremism has failed everywhere it was tried.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2011)

My _theory_ is that communism in China was part of an interregnum between the fall of the Qing (1911) and the rise of the new dynasty started by Deng Xiaping in 1977. It, communism, seems to me to be antithetical to the Chinese culture - a _virus_ which, eventually, the body politic expelled.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Sep 2011)

LOL, Many of my Chinese friends say similar things. Some call him Emperor Mao and his rule the Mao Dynasty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2011)

There were a (very) few one emperor dynasties, the first Qin dynasty just barely outlived  Qin Shihuang Di (秦始皇帝) just as the "gag of four' barely outlived Mao. But Mao's rule was different from the Qin dynasty ~ he accomplished little by way of 'growing' China, but Zhou Enlai's social restructuring of China, accomplished only because Mao approved, is a world shattering event.

I have heard people speak of "Emperor Mao," but, generally, in a derogatory manner; that's why I call 1911-1977, which includes and is dominated by Mao's rule, an interregnum, more akin to the Three Kingdoms (220 to 280) than to any dynasty, however short.


----------



## Zartan (4 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There were a (very) few one emperor dynasties, the first Qin dynasty just barely outlived  Qin Shihuang Di (秦始皇帝) just as the "gag of four' barely outlived Mao. But Mao's rule was different from the Qin dynasty ~ he accomplished little by way of 'growing' China, but Zhou Enlai's social restructuring of China, accomplished only because Mao approved, is a world shattering event.
> 
> I have heard people speak of "Emperor Mao," but, generally, in a derogatory manner; that's why I call 1911-1977, which includes and is dominated by Mao's rule, an interregnum, more akin to the Three Kingdoms (220 to 280) than to any dynasty, however short.



I hear the same said among some of Josef Stalin - that he was much more Tsar and much less Lenin's successor.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Fascism, as commonly understood, involves the State dictating the national economic output through the use of regulation and taxation. This is the main difference between Fascism and Communism, which sees the State as being the owners of the means of production.



However, Fascism did not do either. It lowered regulation, as evidenced by the extreme corruption and war profiteering by Italian war industries. Tax evasion was not a crime, but respected - in continuity with the practices of the previous Liberal state, and essential to bringing the conservative elite of the country onside. During the Second World War while Germany was able to keep pace with Great Britain in terms of state influence of the economy - both reaching over 70% by 1943 - poor Fascist Italy was never able to expand taxation, or increase war funding, which increased from about 12% to 20% of GDP as they entered the war - and subsequently hit a brick wall. 

Fascist did not believe in state ownership of the economy. They definately believed that economy should be assembled in such a way that it best serves the interest of the state (and therefore, the people) and this was generally the war footings of their economies. The Western Democracies, forced into war economies far later than in Italy or Germany, would also see increased state control of their economies, directly or indirectly. This effect is not caused by some theoretical construct common to Fascism and Liberalism, merely the demands of a Total War - one that in the case of Germany had been underway since 1933. 

Many regimes come to power spouting some sort of left-wing populist rhetoric. The 25 points of the early Nazi Party are certainly more leftwing than would be popularly considered. Fascism was no different. Of course, communism claimed the ground of a pure left-wing movement. However, once in power this regimes all jetisoned various left-wing policies. Equality? Under the hierarchy. Freedom? From having to think. Women? They're not going anywhere. The economy? Whatever works at the time. What you call "Socialism" is left-wing only if everything else about them is ignored. Let's face it, the Communists were hardly the most extreme form of- left-wing government - they dallied on the right like other dictatorships. Economic policy is not the measuring stick by which to gauge an entire system.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2011)

The idea that Fascism lowered regulation is the best laugh I had in a long time! Thread winner for sure!

Be sure to look up the "total state" next time you want to comment....


----------



## Zartan (5 Sep 2011)

Edit: I had made an assumption based upon seeing that Bill Flax's book had only been issued as ebook, but today found it has in fact been put to paper. Apologies.

I stand by my comment. I know what a total state is. It doesn't happen often. It is debated whether or not it happened in Italy (where Fascism with the capital F took hold). Compared to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin, Italy is hardly in their league (an irony as the term Totalitarian originated there, though not its modern definition), and in my opinion, scarcely deserves the same labelling. Totalitarian as a description of the Fascist state was as generous as its status as a Great Power.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2011)

Arguments about "how well" the various programs of socialist states were carried out ignores the larger picture of what is intended, and what system is left in place. Certainly, if the Axis powers had won WWII, another generation of rulers would eventually have taken over. They may have been more ruthless and less accommodating than those who came before (or perhaps more inept, corrupt etc. The history of the USSR is illustrative). Certainly the potential power vested in the ruling class of the "Total State" would have been noticed and used to greater or lesser extents, powers that don't (or should not) exist in Liberal Democracies or Limited Republics.

Even here, the growth of bureaucracies and regulatory agencies which can operate independently of the Legislature is a very worrying development, and outside the usual framework of political discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2011)

And how do you have political discourse when ideas, facts and figures are willfully ignored?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_democrats_invincible_ignorance.html



> *The Democrats' Invincible Ignorance (American Thinker)*
> 
> September 6, 2011
> By Paul Kengor
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Sep 2011)

Sorry to take this off on a bit of a tangent. But what I want to explain illustrates why privatizing is sometimes unwise.

Hospitals in Toronto have chosen to outsource their surgical sterile processing to a multinational conglomerate based in France. They have built a local facility. Currently this is done in house at all the hospitals. So they are choosing to go from a modestly inefficient public sector model to a private sector monopoly. All surgical instruments will be shipped across town to single central facility. Having worked in various OR's this does not make sense to me for many reasons. 

Decreased accountability. (Did you like those outsourced call to India.)
Technicians are paid about 8 to 10$ less an hour for critical work.
Dr's can no longer rely on having their personal instruments.
Emergency infrastructure reliant on trucking for all essential surgery.
Essential instruments being mixed up and replacements possibly hours away.
All surgical suites shut down if the central processing plant goes down.
Cross contamination from hospital to hospital.
,etc, etc

Can you think of a few more? I feel that I am just scratching the surface. This will only save money until the monopoly we created realizes our in house processing facilities no longer meet standards. 

It could have been so much better with a public/private partnership. Service would still be compromised but cost savings could be found. The hospitals get together and buy their own central facility and then cater to the niche sterile processing of plastic surgeons, private clinics and dentists. Use those profits to help fund the facility. Thereby lowering the cost to taxpayers. Creating a monopoly that provides an inferior service, takes all the profits out of Canada and lowers sterile technicians salaries makes no sense to me.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2011)

Nemo, do you object to the fact that supermarkets use exactly the same system to get their bread delivered, or Tim Horton's gets their baked goods? Should Ford or Toyota stop outsourcing the vast majority of their automotive components? For that matter, would you be willing to pay double or triple the price of your phone service to talk to Dave in North York rather than "Dave" in Bombay (or simply accept the demise of customer service call centers altogether?)

Simply because the corporate entity is a hospital does not exempt them from the laws of economics, or the effects of positive and negative incentives. It is time we got with the 21rst century and move to more flexible delivery of goods and services wherever it makes sense, and not just in health care.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Sep 2011)

Baking bread is not a natural monopoly. IIRC when I worked in an outsourced auto parts plant the allowable limit was 11% of the vehicle. I left the duopoly of Rogers/Bell and now only pay 14$ for my phone per month and talk to a person in Chatham.

I agree the hospital is not exempt from the laws of economics. There are modest inefficiencies in sterile processing departments. But to make them so lean patients miss surgeries or get substandard surgical care is not acceptable IMO. We are creating a monopoly with public funds and the profits accrued will be sent to France not returned to the public purse.

Your knee jerk support for privatization, even when it is the wrong decision, is why I am a closet conservative. This is what I call Tea Party Conservatism. It is all dogma and doctrine and has no situational awareness. We all lose when making the other side always wrong is more important than doing the right thing.


----------



## Redeye (11 Sep 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Your knee jerk support for privatization, even when it is the wrong decision, is why I am a closet conservative. This is what I call Tea Party Conservatism. It is all dogma and doctrine and has no situational awareness. We all lose when making the other side always wrong is more important than doing the right thing.



That's the problem as I see it too. Dogmatic adherence to ideology has replaced, for many people, any semblance of critical, reasonable thinking.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2011)

>It could have been so much better with a public/private partnership

Go through your list of objections again and try to explain for each operationally-relevant one why it is "bad" if the facility is private, but suddenly becomes "OK" or "good" if the facility is public/private.

Note that some - such as wages - are operationally irrelevant.  If the aim is achievable for less cost, it should be done that way.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Sep 2011)

If it was public/private at least my conservative half would be happy because it was saving money even though it was providing a clearly inferior service. (Non-sterile hospital linen is outsourced in this fashion in Ottawa by HLS. It was very profitable at first.) Now it just costs me more and the efficiencies of scale are passed on to share holder in France. Not really where I want my tax dollars going. My tax dollars are also creating a local monopoly. Now both my right hand side and left hand side agree on something. Privatizing in this fashion was stupid IMO.

Wages are somewhat relevant because of the critical implantable devices that the technicians process. You want skilled people handling them.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2011)

I make my living in the food industry.

Food kills. 

Food kills more people per 100,000 in the US than die on the highways (24 vs 19) or die by violence (24 vs 9) or, at a guess, than die from botched surgeries.

That includes bread from bakeries.

Should all bakeries, and other food processors, be nationalized?

I agree with your antipathy to a monopoly.  

I find nothing wrong with Government regulating by setting standards and then employing inspectors to police them.  Once that is done then I would open the business opportunity to all-comers.

Presumably, in this case, you have clearly defined the standards of excellence required.  They would make glorious jumping off points for regulations.
Equally, presumably, you have a qualified QA staff who can monitor the standards.  
They could be taken on strength of the Government, as in the case of CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency).

OR

They could be taken on strength of a PRIVATE standards monitoring organization such as CSA (Canadian Standards Association) or UL (Underwriters Laboratories).

Curious word that: "Underwriters" - as in "underwrites" your loan or your insurance policy.

The laboratory in Underwriters Laboratory, that people rely on to save lives, was initiated in the private sector to save institutions money.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2011)

> Baking bread is not a natural monopoly.



Neither is providing services to hospitals.



> I left the duopoly of Rogers/Bell and now only pay 14$ for my phone per month and talk to a person in Chatham.



So expanding your horizon of consumer choice is good when it saves you money on the phone bill but doing _exactly the same thing_ in a hospital is bad?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2011)

An interesting and provocative view of the "Gunwalker" scandal that is bubbling in the United States. While it is hard to subscribe to all the views expressed here, it is equally difficult to imagine any logical reason that an idea as seriously flawed as "Gunwalker" was ever launched in the first place (or why the administration is trying so hard to cover up when it would be far easier to hang the architects out to dry). Colossal incompetence rather than evil intent?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/cloward-piven-the-ultimate-goal-of-gunwalker/?singlepage=true



> *Cloward-Piven: The Ultimate Goal of Gunwalker?*
> 
> Posted By Bob Owens On September 17, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 145 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2011)

How Progressives see the control of money:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-solyndra-soc-security-say-about-liberalism



> *What Solyndra, Soc. Security say about liberalism*
> 
> If you want to understand how liberals view the relationship between individuals and the government, compare their reactions to the Solyndra scandal to their statements on Social Security reform.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2011)

More proof that the moral foundations of Progressiveism have rotted away; where are the legions of progressives protesting for the rights of Saudi women?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/21/tasha-kheiriddin-saudi-arabias-ethical-oil-issue-leaves-the-left-in-the-lurch/



> *Tasha Kheiriddin: Saudi Arabia’s ‘ethical’ oil issue leaves the left in the lurch*
> 
> Tasha Kheiriddin  Sep 21, 2011 – 1:29 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 23, 2011 8:24 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2011)

This could be equally applicable to the economic superthread:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-does-the-good-life-end/



> *Why Does the Good Life End?*
> Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On September 25, 2011 @ 12:00 pm In Uncategorized | 84 Comments
> 
> A look Back
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2011)

There seems to be a trend happening:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/09/obama-style-democracy-bureaucrats-know-best



> *Obama-style Democracy: Bureaucrats know best*
> By: Examiner Editorial | 09/28/11 8:05 PM
> AP Photo
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2011)

They are stating the issue openly now in the US:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/a-moment-of-candor-from-harry-reid.php



> *A Moment of Candor From Harry Reid*
> 
> Every once in a while a liberal says what he really thinks. Today Harry Reid explained why the Democrats prefer funding public sector jobs rather than permitting private sector job creation:
> 
> ...



What makes this even more of a howler is the people Reid is proposing to "hire" with this federal bill are employees of the State or local governments. Federal monies going through several layers of bureaucracy to "hire" people. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2011)

And the ideological underpinnings of the OWS movement, their political allies and their enablers:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/96415/occupy-wall-street-liberalism-socialism-tnr-1968-bureaucracy-mcgovern



> *Occupy Wall Street and the Return of the McGovernites *
> 
> Fred Siegel
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2011)

Transparency for me, but not for thee.....

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/10/lefty-activist-demands-oped-transparency-hides-own-funding-ties



> *Lefty activist demands oped 'transparency,' but hides own funding ties to Big Green, anti-energy groups*
> By: Mark Tapscott | 10/22/11 11:48 AM
> Editorial Page Editor
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2011)

Socialists evrywhere are only aware of one mechanical device: the ratchet...

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204358004577029832225839826-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMTExNDEyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email



> *The EU's 'Non-Regression' Gambit*
> Environmentalists have found a way to permanently secure their agenda: laws that can't be repealed.
> 
> By JAMES L. HUFFMAN
> ...


----------



## Sythen (22 Nov 2011)

> Pat Martin's recent Twitter rant is one more example of a sad truth: the left can dish it out, but can't take it.



Funny video by Ezra Levant on the hypocrisy of the Left.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/how-uncivil-left/1288376326001


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2011)

The silence of the Media. Luckily there are now many more POV's available, and the interested consumer of news can view (and compare) both the legacy media and upstarts like Fox and Sun, as well as thousands of blogs covering every topic under the sun:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/11/silence-of-mainstream-media.html



> *The Silence of The Mainstream Media*
> 
> Much of the bias of the mainstream media is not displayed by what they say but by what they omit. During the past four years there have plenty of examples of the silence of the media. Remember the media ignoring candidate Obama’s relationship with seedy figures such as terrorist Bill Ayers, Communist scholar/pedophile Frank Marshall Davis or even the fact the future president’s first political office was won in part by earning the support of the Marxist, New Party.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2011)

Free speech, but only if you say what the political class wants to hear:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/28/richmond-va-slaps-local-tea-party-with-a-political-tax-audit/



> *Richmond, VA Slaps Local Tea Party with a (Political) Tax Audit*
> 
> A few weeks back the Richmond, VA Tea Party invoiced their city after they learned that the city had allowed the occupiers to protest without filing any permits or getting insurance. When the Tea Party held its protests in 2009, the city’s permits and insurance requirements cost the Tea Party about $10,000. Since the occupiers were getting preferential treatment, the Tea Party wanted their money back.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2011)

There is nothing really new under the sun; most of these ideas can be traced back to Plato and the ideals of the "Republic" (although the society described in the book was certainly no _Res Publica_):

http://jerrypournelle.com/jerrypournelle.c/chaosmanor/



> *Blood and Gore and Climate*
> Posted: December 14, 2011, 1:34 pm PST - Last updated: December 14, 2011, 1:34 pm PST
> 
> View 705 Wednesday, December 14, 2011
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2011)

Sadly, even great men like Vaclav Havel gat their names dragged through the mud when progressives go to work:

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/12/24/how-the-left-sees-the-life-of-vaclav-havel-and-why-they-do-not-mourn-his-passing/?print=1



> *How the Left sees the Life of Vaclav Havel, and why they Do Not Mourn his Passing*
> 
> Posted By Ron Radosh On December 24, 2011 @ 11:35 am In Uncategorized | 13 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2011)

Interesting find from the 1940's

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/obama-and-the-f-word.php



> *Obama and the F-Word*
> 
> One of my holiday projects is to finish my rereading of the complete corpus of Whittaker Chambers (with a retrospective essay on his overlooked theological interests to follow eventually), and a couple days ago I read through an article Chambers wrote for The American Mercury in 1944 about the rise of Italian fascism.  Somehow this paragraph reminded me of someone . . . familiar (“let’s see, start’s with ‘O’ I think. . .”):
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2011)

A critique of the State:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/deconstructing-the-state/?print=1



> *Deconstructing the State*
> 
> Posted By David Solway On December 28, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Culture Bytes,economy,Education,Europe,Judiciary,Legal,Politics,US News,World News | 19 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Dec 2011)

I have a problem with this thread, "Deconstructing Progressive Thought," and its partner "Conservatism Needs Work." Neither is about Canadian politics. I know this might be the "least bad" place to put them ... but they do not fit here. The "progressive" thought that is being deconstructed is, almost exclusively, American; ditto the "Conservatism" that is thought to be in need of work. Neither Canadian "progressives" nor Canadian "conservatives" are as _extreme_ as their American confreres. A novice, coming to this _Canadian Politics_ forum might think that we, the military family, lump all "progressives" and all 'conservatives" together - that, in my considered opinion, does a disservice to us and them. I don't know where else they can go ... but I reiterate that they, both threads, are out of place here.

 :2c:


----------



## GAP (29 Dec 2011)

:+1:

I rarely even look at this thread because it's nothing but long winding articles about something....I'm sure there's a point there, but I don't have the same empty hours to read and reread them to find it. Enough already.......


----------



## Journeyman (29 Dec 2011)

Perhaps it's time to creat a whole new board, which will include "Deconstructing Progressive Thought," and its partner "Conservatism Needs Work." 

Call it:


> *Thucydides and Redeye*
> If one says 'black,' the other will most assuredly say 'white'  :argue:



         :nod:


----------



## Redeye (29 Dec 2011)

:goodpost:


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2012)

A non-American article that hits a number of harmonics that resonate with me.  I would refer critics to Thomas Reid.  iper:

Posted here in its entirety without further comment under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act.



> The Eurofanatics should join the Marxists in the dustbin of history
> 
> The end of the euro may prove chaotic, but recovery will come – sooner rather than later.
> 
> ...



Link


PS- To the extent that this thread and the sister thread on conservatism don't deal exclusively with Canadian Politics but with politics in general, and political philosophy perhaps they could be ascribed a separate board (or made a superthread under Canadian Politics called Politics and Politicians).


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2012)

This rather reinforces the point in Kirkhills post:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-politics-of-projection-in-the-west/?print=1



> *The Politics of Projection in the West*
> Posted By Dennis Mitzner On January 4, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Egypt,History,Iran,Media,Politics,US News,World News | 21 Comments
> 
> To many on the political left, Europe’s new right-wing parties seem to represent the perils of Europe’s dark history.  The rise of new right parties in Europe during the past decade led to widespread panic among many Western observers.
> ...



The study of political philosophy in general is a highly relevant topic, especially given von Clausewitz dictum: "Krieg folgt die Fortsetzung Politik mit anderen Mitteln". Politics is defined as the means of allocating scarce resources, and operates in every environment, from the inner workings of the Orderly Room to conduct between nations (or even Civilizations a la Samuel Huntington). The main sources of arguments from both sides of the "Progressive" and Classical Liberal schools of thought are American, so I look for examples that are relevant and can be applied universally. (Even in the above example, the use of "Narrative" rather than facts certainly explains the way news gets reported by much of Canada's Legacy Media).


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

Mark Steyn again

Although there are not so many examples of the Canadian chattering class going off the deep end (or at least not as far off the deep and as these people), the level of discourse is declining; the The Toronto Star's Noah Richler ridiculously claimed that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has sex with young boys, while the the Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner claiming that Prime Minister Stephen Harper uses heroin!. 

This isn't supporting a controversial or unpopular opinion with facts, figures, historical examples or documentary evidence, just throwing out some repulsive trigger words for shock value (follow the links and read for yourself)

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/287410



> *The Left’s So-Called Empathy*
> By Mark Steyn
> January 7, 2012 6:00 A.M.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mark Steyn again
> 
> Although there are not so many examples of the Canadian chattering class going off the deep end (or at least not as far off the deep and as these people), the level of discourse is declining; the The Toronto Star's Noah Richler ridiculously claimed that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has sex with young boys, while the the Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner claiming that Prime Minister Stephen Harper uses heroin!.



Wow. This is plumbing new depths, even for you. It would appear you read the first line of Dan Gardner's story and not the rest. Nowhere does it contain anything about Prime Minister Harper using heroin. The "key" involved is that understanding how the government approached Insite in Vancouver show that their claims of being big fans of decentralization are not all they seem, something Gardner uses to start an insightful discussion of CPC relativism. Noah Richler similiarly uses such claims to show how stories are invented to skew campaigns. His piece is written in somewhat poor taste, but hey, it catches the eye of people who might not be interested. Frankly, he raises some good points about how, under the guise of expression it's easy to plant ideas in people's minds. The Cons did this in their campaign against Irwin Cotler, as Richler's piece explains. Again, if you think he was actually accusing anyone of anything, you didn't read the second paragraph which lays bare his point.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> This isn't supporting a controversial or unpopular opinion with facts, figures, historical examples or documentary evidence, just throwing out some repulsive trigger words for shock value (follow the links and read for yourself)



It's funny to throw this in - because while it's a nice bromide, you have to hope someone doesn't actually do so, because if they do, well, it becomes clear that the claims you're attempting to make simply aren't supported by facts.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2012)

Wonderful moment in history; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher owns opposition MP's. "You would rather the poor be poorer" totally sums up their arguments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw&feature=player_embedded


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2012)

F.A. Hayek certainly knew the history of Socialism, worth repeating (especially since we will be seeing a lot of this sort of language on both sides of the border; the US election and shrill cries here by the NDP over changes to OAS and other government programs):

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fa-hayek-great-utopia



> *F.A. Hayek On "The Great Utopia"*
> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/28/2012 19:32 -0500
> 
> While it is hardly necessary to provide commentary to one of F.A. Hayek's timeless observations from his book, The Road To Serfdom, rereading the chapter titled The Great Utopia, in this year of what could possibly be the most important election in the history of the United States, in which the US public will be promised nothing short of utopia by virtually every candidate except the one who really knows that fixing America would require pain and sacrifice, is everyone's duty. Courtesy of the Center for Economic Liberty we recreate it below in its entirety, and urge all readers, regardless of political persuasion of economic beliefs to consider what F.A.Hayek was saying some 70 years earlier, and how very applicable it is to our current situation.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2012)

The real reason "Progressivism" is still around can be summed up in one word: incentives

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/02/its-takers-versus-makers-and-these-days-takers-are-winning/2170511



> *It's takers versus makers and these days the takers are winning*
> By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds | 02/04/12 6:04 PM
> Examiner Contributor
> 
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2012)

I prefer the one on the left myself


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2012)

The person who made that might want to take some English classes though....


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2012)

Detroit as a model of Progressivism in action. Remember, it was explicity touted as the model for the "Great Society", and every progressive trope was enacted there. Despite this, I'm sure there will still be people saying that there is some "x" factor that caused Detroit to fail, or that despite everything, these programs work:

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/12832



> *Detroit: The Triumph of Progressive Public PolicyHow did this great city fall so far?By Jarrett Skorup | Feb. 14, 2012*
> (Editor's note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on July 6, 2009.)
> 
> Imagine a city where all the major economic planks of the statist or "progressive" platform have been enacted:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2012)

Absolute power combined with progressive ideology is pretty ugly to watch in action:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/More-Than-a-Touch-of-Malice



> *More Than a Touch of Malice*
> Paul A. Rahe · 12 hours ago
> 
> When Barack Obama first announced that he intended to force all employers, including Catholic institutions, to provide contraception and abortifacients as part of the healthcare package they offer their employees, my friend Michael Barone observed that the President “was spitting in the eyes of millions of Americans and threatening the existence of charitable programs that help millions of people of all faiths”; and, presuming that the President could not possibly have intended to stir up a hornet’s nest, he suggested that his decision in this matter must have been a function of ignorance and isolation. This was my first instinct as well. It seemed foolish – guaranteed to alienate a constituency that had supported Barack Obama in 2008 and had hailed his election.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2012)

What a surprise to discover who the thin skinned and intolerant ones are:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/13/pew-liberals-most-intolerant-on-line/



> *Pew: Liberals most intolerant online*
> POSTED AT 11:00 AM ON MARCH 13, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY
> 
> It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):
> ...



I see no evidence to suggest that Canadian "Progressives" are any more tolerent (the well known propensity for "progressive" websites like Rabble to erase posts and ban dissenting posters can stand in for the Pew poll), and of course the hysterical campaign to prevent Sun TV from airing is the inverse of trying to force Rush off the air (or the inability of "Progressives" to gain traction in talk radio)


----------



## Sythen (23 Mar 2012)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120323/sentences-native-status-supreme-court-120323/

Title of the article should be, "SCC says racism ok"



> OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that aboriginal background should be a paramount consideration when sentencing violent offenders who have breached long-term supervision orders.
> 
> In a 6-1 decision, the justices ruled on a pair of cases in which offenders on long-term supervision were sentenced after violating the terms of their orders.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Mar 2012)

How long before someone uses this as a precedent to argue the validity of Sharia law?


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Mar 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How long before someone uses this as a precedent to argue the validity of Sharia law?




5...4...3...2...1...


----------



## Redeye (24 Mar 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How long before someone uses this as a precedent to argue the validity of Sharia law?



Not that anyone would, it'd be useless. There's that whole "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" thing.


----------



## Sythen (24 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not that anyone would, it'd be useless. There's that whole "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" thing.



SCC doesn't seem to mind ignoring the Charter when it comes to Aboriginals.. Is it a big stretch to think that other minorities can't do the same thing? Freedom is lost incrementally, and its the small things like this that start making others "more equal" than the rest of us..


----------



## Redeye (24 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> SCC doesn't seem to mind ignoring the Charter when it comes to Aboriginals.. Is it a big stretch to think that other minorities can't do the same thing? Freedom is lost incrementally, and its the small things like this that start making others "more equal" than the rest of us..



Explain to me, in detail please, how the Charter has been violated here. The Courts did their job, which is interpreting an Act of Parliament. Then, explain, again in detail, how this has anything to do with a (non-existent) effort to accommodate a completely different legal system that clearly violates the most basic principles of the Charter.

Once that's done, explain what it has to do with this whole ridiculous thread.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Mar 2012)

This is not really new.

CTV: 





> The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that aboriginal background should be a paramount consideration when *sentencing violent offenders who have breached long-term supervision orders.*



At least a decade ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that aboriginal background should be a paramount consideration when sentencing. The first case was an Indian women who murdered her husband in BC. 

Oldgateboatdriver is a lawyer. He will know the details.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Mar 2012)

http://www.justiceeducation.ca/research/aboriginal-sentencing/gladue-sentencing

*Gladue and Aboriginal Sentencing*

If you have been charged with a crime and are an Aboriginal person, there are special cultural considerations that the court must take into account in assessing your case.  This applies to all Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including status and non-status Indian, Inuit, and Métis and whether living on or off reserve.

What this means is that, as an Aboriginal offender, a restorative justice process may be more appropriate for you.  Such processes focus on healing those affected by the criminal act, including the offender, and so are more in line with traditional Aboriginal justice.  Also, a restorative justice approach will often allow for a solution with no jail time, which helps reduce the drastic over-representation of Aboriginals in Canadian jails.

*Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 have stated that Judges should account for these considerations when making sentencing decisions. * Gladue asks judges to apply a method of analysis that recognizes the adverse background cultural impact factors that many Aboriginals face.  In a Gladue analysis these factors, if present in their personal history, work to mitigate or reduce the culpability of offenders.  Judges are then asked to consider all reasonable alternatives to jail in light of this.  Such an analysis, then, is more likely to lead to a restorative justice remedy being used either in place of a jail sentence or combined with a reduced term.

It is important to keep these considerations in mind before pleading guilty to an offence, even if bail has been denied.  If in doubt, consult your lawyer or duty counsel for legal advice.  You could be entitled to a remedy that is better suited to your needs.

This does not, however, mean that all Aboriginal offenders automatically qualify for lighter sentences than non-Aboriginal offenders.  The principles of sentencing apply to all offenders equally, and so in many situations such a remedy will not be appropriate to the circumstances of the case.


----------



## Redeye (24 Mar 2012)

Great post, thanks a lot Rifleman62!


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2012)

If we could substitute "underprivileged" for "Aboriginal", undoubtedly we would have a great many more just sentences.


----------



## Sythen (24 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Explain to me, in detail please, how the Charter has been violated here. The Courts did their job, which is interpreting an Act of Parliament. Then, explain, again in detail, how this has anything to do with a (non-existent) effort to accommodate a completely different legal system that clearly violates the most basic principles of the Charter.
> 
> Once that's done, explain what it has to do with this whole ridiculous thread.



ok easily done. quote from the article:



> Manasie Ipeelee was caught cycling drunk in Kingston in August 2008 and pleaded guilty to breach of his order. His three-year sentence was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal until it was overturned Friday by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Ipeelee's adult record contained 24 convictions, including sexual assault.



From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (text coloured by me):

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf



> 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the
> right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
> fundamental justice.



So you don't think that allowing a person, convicted 24 times of various criminal offences, a lighter sentence because he was born a certain race breaches everyone elses right to security of person?

From the mandate of the Supreme Court of Canada(text coloured by me):

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/mission/index-eng.asp



> The Court is committed to:
> 
> the rule of law;
> independence and impartiality; and
> access to justice.



Definition of justice(text coloured by me):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice?s=t



> jus·tice   /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Show Spelled[juhs-tis] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
> 2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
> ...



Giving someone special considerations because of their race is the polar opposite of impartiality. Saying one group of people deserve different or less punishing sentences is NOT justice. So no, the courts did not do their job. This is a miscarriage of justice.

Quote from Rifleman62's post(text coloured by me):



> Such processes focus on healing those affected by the criminal act, including the offender, and so are more in line with traditional Aboriginal justice.



How far of a stretch is it to say "more in line with traditional Islamic justice"? As I said, freedom is lost incrementally and usually cheered by the less thoughtful members of society. Multiculturalism in general is a perfect example, and if you like I can post quotes from many world leaders, especially in Europe who agree that its original intention was good, but it was warped by people who don't care about our societies and warp its meaning to take advantage of our good nature. The same thing will happen with this.

Now tell me, in great detail, how does this NOT violate the Charter?  Tell me in great detail how the courts did NOT go outside their mandate? Tell me in great detail how this does NOT accomodate of different legal system that clearly violates the Charter? I am having a great deal of trouble controlling my tone, so if I come across as being snide and having no respect for your opinion, then I am sorry that your opinion has nothing respectable about it.



> Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
> 
> Ronald Reagan


----------



## Redeye (24 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I am having a great deal of trouble controlling my tone, so if I come across as being snide and having no respect for your opinion, then I am sorry that your opinion has nothing respectable about it.



Least we basically have the same POV then.

Nothing in what was said suggests in any way that aboriginals are specifically entitled to lighter sentences. I don't know, without reading the decision in detail, why the SC overturned the sentence. However, the law of the land specifically says that that consideration is to be made, and in many cases (though probably not this one) there's probably good reason for that.

To then go onto this nonsense about Sharia, well, I can't say I'm surprised. This kind of idiocy/hysteria over sharia is emerging down south it seems, and it's sad to see such nonsensical paranoia about it here. It's really, really sad. The idea that there's some realistic prospect that it could somehow subvert the law of the land, especially when Muslims are a pretty tiny minority, and most don't seem particularly interested in the idea, is frankly laughable, and I dismiss it as such.


----------



## Sythen (24 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Nothing in what was said suggests in any way that aboriginals are specifically entitled to lighter sentences.



Quote from the article Rifleman62 posted(text coloured by me):



> If you have been charged with a crime and are an Aboriginal person, there are special cultural considerations that the court must take into account in assessing your case.  This applies to all Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including status and non-status Indian, Inuit, and Métis and whether living on or off reserve.




So in other words, if a non-native and a native both have the EXACT same background, and lived the EXACT same life, when it comes to sentencing the judge can choose to ignore the non-native's mitigating circumstances but not so for the native. That is a two tier justice system. 



> However, the law of the land specifically says that that consideration is to be made, and in many cases (though probably not this one) there's probably good reason for that.



There is absolutely nothing outside of soft racism that allows this "man", and I use that term lightly, to be free. If I had even a quarter of this guy's convictions I would never see the light of day again (and I fully believe that should be the case). Earlier today I checked and posted the actual definition of the word justice, and unless its changed in the last hour or so since I did, punishment is still in there. Rehabilitation is and should remain a primary driver in our courts decisions, but it should never outweigh punishment for crimes. People must, in the end, take responsibility for their actions.



> To then go onto this nonsense about Sharia, well, I can't say I'm surprised. This kind of idiocy/hysteria over sharia is emerging down south it seems, and it's sad to see such nonsensical paranoia about it here. It's really, really sad.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

The typical Left wing mantra: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 20 years ago if someone said there would be a 2 tier sentencing system for natives and non-natives, people like you with their head buried in the sand would have said the exact same thing.



> The idea that there's some realistic prospect that it could somehow subvert the law of the land, especially when Muslims are a pretty tiny minority, and most don't seem particularly interested in the idea, is frankly laughable, and I dismiss it as such.



Highlights in above quote mine. What I love about reading your posts is you love to use terms like most and many and other such terms. You never post proof. You just throw out the typical Left wing "all of you are paranoid and sad because my narrow world view doesn't take reality into account" message. Please, prove me wrong. Help me sleep better at nights. Posting links and doing a little bit of reading takes me about 15 mins to write these replies. I know I won't convince you to pull your head out of the sand, but anyone who is on the fence who reads these will at least take something useful away from them. Shame you can't say the same about your posts.


----------



## Redeye (24 Mar 2012)

Wow. Did you even read the Guardian article you posted? I remember that whole thing, I watched it with interest at the time. The proposal was to allow for a form of arbitration for Muslims - similar to structures that existed for Catholics and Jews who wished to use them. Those arbitration structures would NOT be able to overrule the court system - that is to say they could not reach a decision which fundamentally violated the law of the land. Further, the subset of the Muslim community did have a fairly reasonable leg to stand on in law - there was a case to be made for discrimination if Catholic and Jewish arbitration systems were allowed by law but theirs wasn't.

The best arguments against it - and the reason as I recall that they ultimately went nowhere (key: went nowhere!) was that there was a fairly well-founded concern that recent immigrants in particular, unfamiliar with Canadian/Ontario law could be steered toward them where they might get a "less favourable" result than in the courts. Even then they would still have recourse to the regular court system, so that's not really an issue - but without that information readily available, there was some concern. The idea that Muslim Canadians were going to create a parallel legal structure for themselves divorced from the Charter of Rights and Freedom and Canadian law is a grievous misrepresentation of the report's findings and discussion.

Ultimately, the McGuinty Government simply scrapped all religious tribunals, which is just fine with me.

I have to ask, is your argument for a threat of "sharia law" (which is usually accompanied by the suggestion that all aspects of the legal system would somehow be "replaced", rather than something like this) a FAILED attempt at creating a civil dispute mechanism? Seriously? Is that actually your argument? Because I have to say, if that's the best you have, I think we're done here.


----------



## Redeye (24 Mar 2012)

Incidentally, I never said I agreed with that ruling. I don't. Setting up "special treatment" of a group to attempt to "right past wrongs" or whatever the goal was here doesn't make sense to me. The concept of restorative justice in generally seems to me a good idea and probably has good applications for all Canadians. I also don't think that the referenced case is one that I'm happy with the idea of getting lenient treatment at law because it doesn't sound like this guy has any respect for the law, and I don't care if he's native of not. All cases should be approached the same. However, there's more to the story than was originally represented, including legislation to support what the court said. If you don't like it, then call your MP and demand the law be changed.

What I was criticizing was the OMFGSHARIALAW silliness that followed.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2012)

Obviously you fail to comprehend that Sharia Law is not a "dispute mechanism" but rather a comprehensive system of religious law that underpins the ideas of law and justice in the Islamic mind. Concepts like separation of Church and State do not even exist in the Islamic world view, nor do ideas like the supremacy of an elected legislature (unless they intend to use the "legitimacy" of "one man, one vote, once" to seize power as we are seeing in the aftermath of the Arab Spring).

Allowing differential justice of any kind undermines the concept of "Rule of Law", and the Supreme Court decision should be considered a very shameful episode in our history. To correctly establish a system of Justice (as opposed to fairness) the SC should have properly overturned the provisions in the Criminal Code that established differential sentencing or other forms of discrimination.

The only solution now wold be for this or some future government to strike these provisions from the Criminal Code to reestablish a system of Justice.


----------



## Sythen (24 Mar 2012)

> Because I have to say, if that's the best you have, I think we're done here.



At last, we agree. I had begun typing and again getting links to take your posts apart again, but you will continue posting without saying anything except that we are wrong and you're right, the facts be damned. I'm starting to see why Thucydides stopped replying to your challenges of his posts. 

One thing I will point out, as its obvious that YOU did not read the Guardian article I linked.



> I have to ask, is your argument for a threat of "sharia law" (which is usually accompanied by the suggestion that all aspects of the legal system would somehow be "replaced", rather than something like this) a FAILED attempt at creating a civil dispute mechanism?



Quote from Guardian article:



> During the ensuing outcry, a former attorney general, Marion Boyd, was asked to review how the arbitration act was working and whether it adversely affected vulnerable people, including women, the elderly and people with disabilities.
> 
> Published in December 2004, her report recommended (pdf) that the "Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law."



So it only failed when a Sharia alternative was proposed. A full report done says the Christian and Jewish versions were fine and didn't leave anyone out in the cold, so to speak. ok, I'm done. Replace head in hole and cover with sand.


----------



## Sythen (24 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> To then go onto this nonsense about Sharia, well, I can't say I'm surprised. This kind of idiocy/hysteria over sharia is emerging down south it seems, and it's sad to see such nonsensical paranoia about it here. It's really, really sad. The idea that there's some realistic prospect that it could somehow subvert the law of the land, especially when Muslims are a pretty tiny minority, and most don't seem particularly interested in the idea, is frankly laughable, and I dismiss it as such.



ok, I was done but as if on cue:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/03/20120324-104042.html



> TORONTO - A local bookstore has "sold out" of a controversial marriage guide that advises Muslim men on how to beat their wives.
> 
> The 160-page book, published by Idara Impex in New Delhi, India, is written by Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who's described in the book's foreword as a "prolific writer on almost every topic of Islamic learning."
> 
> The store's manager, who didn't give his name, said the book had been sold out for some time, and the store's owner, whom the manager identified as Shamim Ahmad, refused to comment for the story.



More on link. I guess "most muslims" don't include these ones. I hate to make the Nazi reference, but how much evil do we need to see before we say enough is enough?


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Obviously you fail to comprehend that Sharia Law is not a "dispute mechanism" but rather a comprehensive system of religious law that underpins the ideas of law and justice in the Islamic mind. Concepts like separation of Church and State do not even exist in the Islamic world view, nor do ideas like the supremacy of an elected legislature (unless they intend to use the "legitimacy" of "one man, one vote, once" to seize power as we are seeing in the aftermath of the Arab Spring).



Yes I'm quite aware of that. The issue at hand is the concept of an arbitration system for those who wished to use it which drew principles used to resolve to civil disputes from Sharia - which covers everything from inheritance to criminal justice to contract law - within the context of Canadian law only. And it failed. There is, there was, there never will be any effort with any chance of imposing sharia law in its totality in Canada. It. Will. Never. Happen. Ever. Even that effort failed.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Allowing differential justice of any kind undermines the concept of "Rule of Law", and the Supreme Court decision should be considered a very shameful episode in our history. To correctly establish a system of Justice (as opposed to fairness) the SC should have properly overturned the provisions in the Criminal Code that established differential sentencing or other forms of discrimination.



My understanding, skimming the decision, is that the SC said it doesn't mandate judges sentences differently in all cases. But I tend to agree that at the very least the law needs to be reviewed in the context of the charter.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The only solution now wold be for this or some future government to strike these provisions from the Criminal Code to reestablish a system of Justice.



Hey, look at that. Civics 101. What growth.


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> More on link. I guess "most muslims" don't include these ones. I hate to make the Nazi reference, but how much evil do we need to see before we say enough is enough?



I haven't found any information on statistics on domestic violence by religion (but honestly, I don't even care anymore, and it's irrelevant). I don't know if someone has bothered to, but you could write a book based on the Bible in a similar vein that has the potential to be just about as detestable, incidentally.

I don't know if you're familiar with the concept of free speech, free expression, etc. Nor am I sure you're clear on the concept of freedom of religion as enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, if you say "enough is enough", what exactly are you suggesting is the response?  I'd be pleased as a society if we could do away with all religions, but since that isn't realistic, I'll stick with treating everyone equally, which is what the law of the land requires.


----------



## Sythen (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> My understanding, skimming the decision, is that the SC said it doesn't mandate judges sentences differently in all cases. But I tend to agree that at the very least the law needs to be reviewed in the context of the charter.



How long until every native starts appealing every sentence because they claim their past wasn't adequately taken into account? And when that starts happening, how long until judges just give them a constant slap on the wrist simply to save time and money? Its very easy to see this going very badly. Nothing good comes from decisions like this.



> I don't know if someone has bothered to, but you could write a book based on the Bible in a similar vein that has the potential to be just about as detestable, incidentally.



Yes you COULD write one based on nearly any religious text. Heck an atheist wrote a guide on how to molest kids. ( http://christiangovernance.ca/news/amazon-pulls-%E2%80%98pedophile-guide%E2%80%99-amid-outrage ) Its not the fact that it was written that is so bad, because there is always a few crazies in any group of people. Its the fact this store has sold out of them. And has been sold out for months.

You always claim to be in the center, but I have yet to see you offer even one centrist viewpoint. Your an apologist and a hard Left loonie. I will not claim to be center because I am not trying to fool anyone. That actually brings up another point.. Who says centrist views are a good thing? Any extreme is a bad thing, and there would be extreme centrists.. How does the quote go? If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for anythig? Something like that..


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> How long until every native starts appealing every sentence because they claim their past wasn't adequately taken into account? And when that starts happening, how long until judges just give them a constant slap on the wrist simply to save time and money? Its very easy to see this going very badly. Nothing good comes from decisions like this.
> 
> Yes you COULD write one based on nearly any religious text. Heck an atheist wrote a guide on how to molest kids. ( http://christiangovernance.ca/news/amazon-pulls-%E2%80%98pedophile-guide%E2%80%99-amid-outrage ) Its not the fact that it was written that is so bad, because there is always a few crazies in any group of people. Its the fact this store has sold out of them. And has been sold out for months.
> 
> You always claim to be in the center, but I have yet to see you offer even one centrist viewpoint. Your an apologist and a hard Left loonie. I will not claim to be center because I am not trying to fool anyone. That actually brings up another point.. Who says centrist views are a good thing? Any extreme is a bad thing, and there would be extreme centrists.. How does the quote go? If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for anythig? Something like that..



I share few if any points of view with the Left. As for being a centrist, that doesn't mean standing for nothing. I'm at neither extreme, that's all it means. I'm a fervent social liberal (because most social issues aren't the government's business), I want a sound, sustainable economy, and a country that's decent to live in, for which I don't mind paying the bills as long as they're reasonable. Social liberal, fiscal moderate. Pretty simple. Anyhow, like I said, we're done here.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I share few if any points of view with the Left. As for being a centrist, that doesn't mean standing for nothing. I'm at neither extreme, that's all it means. I'm a fervent social liberal (because most social issues aren't the government's business), I want a sound, sustainable economy, and a country that's decent to live in, for which I don't mind paying the bills as long as they're reasonable. Social liberal, fiscal moderate. Pretty simple. Anyhow, like I said, we're done here.



Stephen Harper has moved his party towards the centre as he realizes that is where most Canadian voters are. The NDP and it's new leader have said that if they want to be elected as the government that they must move toward the centre. I believe most Canadian voters are "Social liberal, fiscal moderate."
You know good grey Canadians.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I share few if any points of view with the Left....



This is me, reading the above


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper has moved his party towards the centre as he realizes that is where most Canadian voters are. The NDP and it's new leader have said that if they want to be elected as the government that they must move toward the centre. I believe most Canadian voters are "Social liberal, fiscal moderate."
> You know good grey Canadians.



Probably a good description. For the most part, I don't want government to have anything to do with people's personal private lives. I want tax dollars spent efficiently to deliver those services that cannot be delivered efficiently by "free markets" (which are at best notional, to begin with). I don't think a tax system should punish success, but I also don't have any interest in society that abandons its most vulnerable, because the ultimate cost is higher than having decent, reasonable "social safety net" structures in place. Generally, I think capitalism, despite its flaws is probably about the best economic system we've ever come up with, and that reasonable, prudent regulation can address most of those flaws. Pretty simple. I'm pretty much one of those good grey Canadians.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much one of those good grey Canadians.



Once again...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2012)

A quick look at how others look at Sharia law (and why):

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/oldarchives/2002_03_24_instapundit_archive.html#75034457



> THE NIGERIAN MINISTRY OF JUSTICE has essentially declared Sharia law unconstitutional by stating that it violates the principle against discriminatory punishments in the Nigerian constitution. This will be very unpopular among the Saudi-backed Muslims in the north who have been pushing the strict Saudi Hanbali version of Sharia (source of the recent stoning-for-adultery sentences) at the Saudis' behest. Stay tuned.


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A quick look at how others look at Sharia law (and why):
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/oldarchives/2002_03_24_instapundit_archive.html#75034457



Okay. So another country has ruled it doesn't fit with its constitution. Kind of like we would were there any significant push for it.

In the 2001 Census, a whopping 2% of Canadians identified themselves as Muslim. 2011 Census data hasn't been released, and I don't care to speculate on it, but I suspect that growth will be minor. Even if every single one of them fervently advocated for Sharia in any form, what exactly would be the impact - never mind that it would be unconstitutional, anyhow?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2012)

Blogger Sarah Hoyt provides one of the best deconstructins of "Progressive" though ever, clearly identifying the Marxist roots and pulling them out:

http://accordingtohoyt.com/2012/03/29/circles-in-thinking/



> *Circles In Thinking*
> Posted on March 29, 2012 | 28 Comments
> 
> Something has been working at me since my post against using stupid slogans instead of thinking (when reality is almost if not actually the opposite – and no, I’m not going to reprise that.  I made all the arguments I wanted to make in that post.  And everyone got a chance to yell at me.  Enough.)  Weirdly, what bothered me most was not the name calling, but a seemingly innocuous comment, which was echoed and repeated by any number of commenters.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2012)

Progressivism will stop at literally nothing to acheive a "New Man". A rundown of the latest musings, and some of the previous ideas on creating a "New Man". Radical eugenics also was a prominent feature of American Progressive thought (and echoed in Canada, including forced sterilization of people with mental disabilities) in the 1930's; Tommy Douglas was a big supporter of eugenics.

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/03/29/re-engineering-humans/?print=1



> *Re-Engineering Humans: An Old Solution to Climate Change*
> 
> Posted By Ed Driscoll On March 29, 2012 @ 2:43 pm In Bobos In Paradise,God And Man At Dupont University,Liberal Fascism,The Assault On Reason,The Future and its Enemies,The New Puritans,The Return of the Primitive | 53 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2012)

Looking at the Ontario and just concluded Alberta election, we can see these same ideas in action. For people on the Classical Liberal/Libertarian/Conservative/conservative side, it is vitally important to know and understand what we are dealing with, and how to carry the fight:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296899/primo-obama-michael-walsh



> *Primo Obama*
> By Michael Walsh
> April 24, 2012 8:34 P.M. Comments38
> Over at PJ Media, the Vodkapundit, Stephen Green, picks up on on something I’ve been saying for a while now:
> ...


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Looking at the Ontario and just concluded Alberta election, we can see these same ideas in action. For people on the Classical Liberal/Libertarian/Conservative/conservative side, it is vitally important to know and understand what we are dealing with, and how to carry the fight:
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296899/primo-obama-michael-walsh



I get a laugh out of these pieces, especially when they throw in terms as laughable as "liberal fascists", referring to Jonah Goldberg's extremely awkward attempt to reinvent the political spectrum and to do his best to quotemine in order to cast fascism as a "left" ideology, when while it doesn't fit on a single axis "left-right" spectrum, it has little in common with the ideas of the left when compared to the ideas of the right. I can only assume that William F. Buckley spins in his grave constantly seeing what a mockery Goldberg has made of the institution he built. The online edition fired columnist John Derbyshire for a racist rant that was originally defended as satire (except without any humour value), but couldn't provide much of an explanation of how it got past editors in the first place.

But what I found most hysterical, the real knee-slapper in this, was the claim that the "Obama Eats Dogs" meme "has legs". It does? Really? Amongst who? A bunch of right wingers who don't actually realize how ridiculous it is to compare the idea that a very young Barack Obama, living in Indonesia, ate what he was served for dinner? Well, if that gets them riled up, what exactly does that accomplish, given that there was no danger of them voting Democratic to begin with? When that meme emerged, it seemed to be a response to the revelation that 2012 Presidential Election Second Place finisher (presumptive) Romney locked his dog in a carrier on the roof of his car while making a day long car trip, something that people thought was pretty outrageous. To suggest that one cancels out the other is a little rich for me. What would actually matter is how voters who aren't decided will take it, and I don't think they'll get much mileage out of that.

To me, here's the difference. The "left" in the States has generally built cases around issues - the "war on women" being one of the most successful issues. Their goal is to make use of whatever means of communicating with potential voters they can to work on issues. The "right" does so as well - but in a lot of cases, they're either defending things that the Democrats can counter somewhat effectively, or they're reacting and generally flailing. If you watch social media, a lot of the "big names" who are GOP supporters tend to have build a lot of ad hominem into their efforts, more than the Democrat supporters do. They'll use a variety of what are aptly referred to as "dog whistles", things that rile up their compatriots, and the content, sadly, tends to have not even subtle racist overtones. The obsession with President Obama's middle name, for example. As though it's somehow a determinant of his character.

In order to accomplish anything, messaging has to cater to the middle - the independents, the undecideds, the wavering. Which ever side can do that more effectively will attract and retain voters. In assessing the messages you have to dismiss the fringes of both sides, and there's loads on both sides, but the cogent messages are what matters. What's interesting is that much of the Democratic rhetoric is based on turning the GOP's rhetoric back on them. For example, recently someone in the Romney camp suggested that the GOP economic plan will be Bush's program, updated. A program which, rather clearly, failed. So rather than having to argue their own platform, the Dems need only say "this guy's plan is to go back to something that already failed, why would we want that?!"

It gives them the ability to be aloof about their own platform, and while we've discussed ad nauseum the relatively low value of polls, it seems to be working.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> To me, here's the difference. The "left" in the States has generally built cases around issues - the "war on women" being one of the most successful issues.




Ummm.. wasn't the most recent salvo in the "war on women" fired by a Democratic staffer against Mrs Romney? A hit that was in my opinion quite significantly below the belt.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Ummm.. wasn't the most recent salvo in the "war on women" fired by a Democratic staffer against Mrs Romney? A hit that was in my opinion quite significantly below the belt.



Yes. It was. And I agree. But that's one tiny sliver of something much bigger.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2012)

This article is very interesting in showing how people on the Liberal/Progressive side of the divide see the world. I can anecdotaly attest to the accuracy of the model from discussions with Canadians on various sides of the political divide as well; NDP and many LPC supporters simply don't "get" what is being said or done by Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives or conservatives. Political operatives for the CPC and small c parties like the Saskatchewan Party and Wildrose Alliance should be able to take advantage of these observations:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-asymmetry-of-ideology/?print=1



> *The Asymmetry of Ideology*
> Posted By Rand Simberg On April 26, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Culture,Politics,US News | 60 Comments
> 
> Last month, former Vice President Cheney got a heart transplant [1], something that he had needed for years. Happily, he’s doing well, which apparently upsets the Left to no end [2]:
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2012)

>awkward attempt to reinvent the political spectrum

Fascism has never properly been on the right.  Fascism is Mussolini's child, and is well summed-up by his dictum: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".  That is not a right-wing doctrine; it has absolutely nothing in it which remotely resembles individualist/minarchist doctrines.  The notion of fascism being "on the right" was championed by Stalin and his dutiful fart-catchers: it was an attempt to set themselves apart in what was really a turf war (pseudo-religious schism) over ownership of the far left of the political spectrum.  That is all well-established, uncontroversial historical fact.  The misuse of "fascism" suits a lot of people today as a paintbrush to associate right-wingers with, pointedly, Nazism - and is why the bullsh!t continues - but the proper nature of the political system remains the same and remains a doctrine of the political left: if there is a "fascism" on the right, it isn't "fascism" as fascism was originally created, just as "gay" today has been co-opted to mean something than it originally did.

People who believe fascism is right-wing - and there are large numbers of them, including some who are very educated and capable of knowing better if they just read the history - are mistaken, if not deliberately dishonest.

The best current example is Hugo Chavez.  Is he a fascist or a socialist?  Basically, he exhibits all the signatures of a fascist right up until the point at which someone (eg. a corporation) fails to follow his dictates, at which point he nationalizes or confiscates whatever is at stake, thus flipping the switch to socialist.  He elegantly illustrates how intimately joined fascism and socialism (or communism, if you prefer) are, differing only on a mere question of ownership.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2012)

>Well, if that gets them riled up, 

You have confused laughter with anger.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2012)

>The "left" in the States has generally built cases around issues - the "war on women" being one of the most successful issues.

If you mean as an appeal to ignorance, you may be correct.  If you mean as a genuine issue worthy of serious debate, I find you in error.  The refusal of Catholic institutions to directly fund contraception had to be twisted pretty hard to be seen as a "war on women", given that a mere refusal to pay does not amount to a forceful denial.  And after that - what exactly is left, except several years of well-documented vitriol perpetrated by (presumably) Democratic party supporters against women whose crime was failing to toe the Democratic party line/narrative/expectation.  This is the party that presented John Edwards as its vice presidential candidate in 2004.


----------



## Redeye (28 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >awkward attempt to reinvent the political spectrum
> 
> Fascism has never properly been on the right.  Fascism is Mussolini's child, and is well summed-up by his dictum: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".  That is not a right-wing doctrine; it has absolutely nothing in it which remotely resembles individualist/minarchist doctrines.  The notion of fascism being "on the right" was championed by Stalin and his dutiful fart-catchers: it was an attempt to set themselves apart in what was really a turf war (pseudo-religious schism) over ownership of the far left of the political spectrum.  That is all well-established, uncontroversial historical fact.  The misuse of "fascism" suits a lot of people today as a paintbrush to associate right-wingers with, pointedly, Nazism - and is why the bullsh!t continues - but the proper nature of the political system remains the same and remains a doctrine of the political left: if there is a "fascism" on the right, it isn't "fascism" as fascism was originally created, just as "gay" today has been co-opted to mean something than it originally did.
> 
> People who believe fascism is right-wing - and there are large numbers of them, including some who are very educated and capable of knowing better if they just read the history - are mistaken, if not deliberately dishonest.



Actually - simplistic conventional political science has basically always but it on the extreme right, just like Nazism which is something of a derivative. It's become a colloquial term for any sort of oppressive governance. It has never been properly mapped on any sort of single access linear spectrum and cannot be, so no, it's not properly on the right. Likewise, it doesn't fit on the left either, despite recent efforts to try to lump it in. It's syncretic, it doesn't fit any easy labeling system we use. However, many of the traits of fascism - fusion of state and business interests, extreme nationalism, etc do not fit the left - and that's what alarms a lot of the "left" - that businesses are at the point of being able to heavily lobby - or by extension even buy governments, courts, etc that suit their fancy. Witness the backlash against ALEC in the States, the continuing debate over Citizens United, etc.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The best current example is Hugo Chavez.  Is he a fascist or a socialist?  Basically, he exhibits all the signatures of a fascist right up until the point at which someone (eg. a corporation) fails to follow his dictates, at which point he nationalizes or confiscates whatever is at stake, thus flipping the switch to socialist.  He elegantly illustrates how intimately joined fascism and socialism (or communism, if you prefer) are, differing only on a mere question of ownership.



They have similiarities - but there's more differences than ownership - the concept of national identity, the view of egalitarianism, etc.

The interesting thing missing with Chavez is a narrow nationalist bent. Chavez often talks in terms of a supranational identity though, of his "Bolivarian socialism", a political approach he feels is uniquely applicable to his region. I can agree with the suggestion that some of his policies look clearly from the fascist playbook, at least at first. His initial efforts were to push private enterprise to better serve the interests of the state - specifically to deal with massive disparity of wealth and widespread poverty. He took some influences from fascism I suspect, and also from Cuba's Revolution (from which the concept of his "Bolivarian Missions" arose - especially things like literacy programs).

One of the defining features of socialism that is opposed by fascism is egalitarianism - Chavez definitely looks like an egalitarian. I don't know how best to label him. His initial platform of wanting to make sure that Venezuelans benefit from their natural resource wealth has gone a little off the rails, but it still gets a fair bit of support - and that shift has happened elsewhere in Latin America over the years - Brazil and Bolivia come to mind.

When it comes to the "war on women" the nonsense over the Catholic church and birth control (which has seemed to die down almost completely) was one thing. Interestingly, it showed the ugly underbelly of a lot of American conservatives, and fanned a lot of flames. It did as I understand it shift poll numbers, and probably got a lot of women more interested in what was going on. There's also been discussion/debate over things like domestic violence, pay equity, and the attack on Obamacare (which removes sex discrimination from insurance policy pricing), and that's got people talking. I don't see how the GOP sees much good coming from alienating a large group of female voters.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2012)

:facepalm:


----------



## Redeye (28 Apr 2012)

Rather than just trying to rehash it, Wikipedia's "Economics of Fascism" does a pretty good job of explaining fascist perspectives on economics, which helps lay out the difference between fascism and socialism. The reason that the left draws comparisons between fascism and what they'll generally label as "neoliberal" or "neoconservative" governments is the privatization of profits and socialization of losses of private businesses. They can then extend that argument to things like environmental policy, for example, by arguing that private profit is protected, but the costs in terms of externalities like pollution are borne by all rather than those who cause them.

No model described therein describes my understanding of Venezuela's politics, but neither does socialism - it's some sort of fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2012)

Actually - "simplistic conventional political science", run by academics (an overwhelmingly pro-left "profession" if ever there was one), is part and parcel of the ongoing effort to stick the label on the forehead of the political right.  They are not disinterested honest brokers in this matter, nor do I trust the objectivity of Wikipedia articles on anything to do with politics except raw data (eg. election results).  Use as a shorthand for "oppressive governance" is sloppy, and means the label is firmly back on the left.  "Oppressive governance" by definition is absent as one starts on the far right with anarchism and proceeds through minarchism, flavours of libertarianism, classical liberalism on a journey toward the political centre.  You can't get to "oppressive governance" on the right, except by mistaking the difference between statist and individualist doctrines.  Those who don't believe facets of fascism such as nationalism belong on the left should consult Stalin on the concept of "rodina"; regardless, the substitution of "party" for "country/motherland" has historically been an easy one to make (see almost any "Communist" regime).  The undesirable aspects of capitalism are the result of the drift of modern governance to the left - you can't have effective lobbying if government hasn't taken a lot of authority and power unto itself to deliver results to the lobbyists.  That too has nothing in common with pro-individual doctrines.

If you look to things like "nationalism" (if you insist it must be considered separately from pro-Party fervour) and egalitarianism, all you have done is show that fascism and socialism are two trains running the same pro-state direction on double tracks.  That is the same tired rationalization tactic used ad nauseum - find some small differences, adopt a posture of solemn exactness, and claim "it isn't really X" as if only "true" socialism and communism belong on the left and everything else must, therefore, belong on the right.  Those factors are nowhere near as significant as the real deciding factor: does the doctrine favour the power and authority of the state, or does the doctrine favour the individual?  If you want to separate the "fused" elements, you need to add a vertical axis.  That will still leave statism on the left where it all belongs in all its flavours and mixtures, but you can feel free to shuffle the pieces apart in the vertical.


----------



## Redeye (28 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Actually - "simplistic conventional political science", run by academics (an overwhelmingly pro-left "profession" if ever there was one), is part and parcel of the ongoing effort to stick the label on the forehead of the political right.  They are not disinterested honest brokers in this matter, nor do I trust the objectivity of Wikipedia articles on anything to do with politics except raw data (eg. election results).  Use as a shorthand for "oppressive governance" is sloppy, and means the label is firmly back on the left.  "Oppressive governance" by definition is absent as one starts on the far right with anarchism and proceeds through minarchism, flavours of libertarianism, classical liberalism on a journey toward the political centre.  You can't get to "oppressive governance" on the right, except by mistaking the difference between statist and individualist doctrines.  Those who don't believe facets of fascism such as nationalism belong on the left should consult Stalin on the concept of "rodina"; regardless, the substitution of "party" for "country/motherland" has historically been an easy one to make (see almost any "Communist" regime).  The undesirable aspects of capitalism are the result of the drift of modern governance to the left - you can't have effective lobbying if government hasn't taken a lot of authority and power unto itself to deliver results to the lobbyists.  That too has nothing in common with pro-individual doctrines.



I love people who dismiss wikipedia out of hand. It's usually because of that long-standing problem of "facts having a known liberal bias". The entry in question cites myriad sources. It's funny to that the people who will make this sort of statement are overwhelmingly the people who get all their "news" from RW blogs etc.

Oppressive governance is absent on the far right? ARE YOU KIDDING? Ever hear of Pinochet? Or the Argentine Junta? Franco? Seriously, in what dream world is that true? And your comments pretty much go downhill from there.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you look to things like "nationalism" (if you insist it must be considered separately from pro-Party fervour) and egalitarianism, all you have done is show that fascism and socialism are two trains running the same pro-state direction on double tracks.  That is the same tired rationalization tactic used ad nauseum - find some small differences, adopt a posture of solemn exactness, and claim "it isn't really X" as if only "true" socialism and communism belong on the left and everything else must, therefore, belong on the right.  Those factors are nowhere near as significant as the real deciding factor: does the doctrine favour the power and authority of the state, or does the doctrine favour the individual?  If you want to separate the "fused" elements, you need to add a vertical axis.  That will still leave statism on the left where it all belongs in all its flavours and mixtures, but you can feel free to shuffle the pieces apart in the vertical.



You realize that I could reverse this argument and it's basically the same.

The vertical axis, when you look at two axes, is normally about state control. Degree of statism is reflected only on the vertical axis, and doesn't bear on right or left. The whole thing about collectivism versus individualism is what muddies a single axis spectrum, because at some point individualism becomes about the interests of a specific group of individuals at the expense of others' liberty. When those interests become like a statist state's they start to look about the same.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2012)

I read the Wikipedia article a long time ago, and all it confirmed to me is that there is a lot of disagreement over canonical fascism as people bend themselves in knots trying not to land in the progressive/socialist part of the single-axis political spectrum.

Pinochet was, I suppose, a fascist.  Franco supposedly was too, or at least claimed to be.  That doesn't make them or fascism right-wing.  It is just another example of begging the question, and again is a symptom of the desire to disavow fascism on the left.  "Oppressive government exists on the right because Franco and Pinochet were oppressive and fascist, and everyone says fascism belongs on the right."

There is no reason people can not progress from individualism to statism.  But it is the people that move, not the spectrum.

If you are so certain fascism belongs on the right, here are some uncontroversial segments of the spectrum on the right; you tell me between which two of them fascism fits with its cult-of-personality leadership, mobilization of people and culture to serve the state, corporatism, overarching totalitarianism, etc.  Explain why it is more pro-individualism and pro-liberty and small-government than whatever you place on its left, and less pro-individualism/pro-liberty/pro-small-government than whatever you place on its right.
- neo-conservativism
- paleo-conservativism
- classical liberalism
- libertarianism
- minarchism
- anarchism


----------



## Redeye (30 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I read the Wikipedia article a long time ago, and all it confirmed to me is that there is a lot of disagreement over canonical fascism as people bend themselves in knots trying not to land in the progressive/socialist part of the single-axis political spectrum.
> 
> Pinochet was, I suppose, a fascist.  Franco supposedly was too, or at least claimed to be.  That doesn't make them or fascism right-wing.  It is just another example of begging the question, and again is a symptom of the desire to disavow fascism on the left.  "Oppressive government exists on the right because Franco and Pinochet were oppressive and fascist, and everyone says fascism belongs on the right."
> 
> ...



Did you even read what I said? It doesn't map "left" or "right" particularly. That said, problematic traits associated with facsism, xenophobic ultranationalism, for example, isn't often a trait of the left - at least, not to the extent that it is associated with the right.

In my opinion, all this pro-liberty and pro-individualism stuff is really BS - or at least, it's an abstraction, because the right is not really interested in that - it's interested in the idea that wealth can shape the state to suit its ends. The "liberty" it would bring is an illusion because the implied social mobility would sound really great, but when all the sudden things like quality education become unavailable to the population except those who can afford it, and society absorbs losses of failed businesses while successful ones prosper unimpeded by taxation, you eventually wind up with a recipe for disaster, because at some point the disenfranchised will decide that they have to find other ways to solve their problems.

The right has been peddling this idea to its base for a long time. I used to think it was great, until I realized that it's just fluff. It's no better than the ideas of the left and extreme egalitarianism - I think the optimum lies somewhere between them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2012)

Xenophobic ultra nationalism on the left ( not an exhaustive list)-

USSR
Maoist China
North Korea
Albania (my personal favorite)
North Vietnam
Cambodia

Yep. It sure is a trait exclusively of the Right....


----------



## Redeye (30 Apr 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Xenophobic ultra nationalism on the left ( not an exhaustive list)-
> 
> USSR
> Maoist China
> ...



 :facepalm:

Never said it was.

However, the USSR? Really? The state that basically tried to create a supranational identity (though it can be argued that it was basically Russification in some ways). They also worked pretty hard at developing client states including bringing people from them to study in the USSR. Not quite what I had in mind. They did, however, also engage in some pretty relentless persecution of Jews for a while too though - I don't know enough about how they framed it though. Russia did have some ultranationalists heavily involved in politics. All on the hard right.

But last time I checked - while the USA is in no way extreme, I don't find too many people on the left attacking the current President because of his middle name or his ancestry. Nor do I look at organizations like National Front in France, or the English Defence League and see them on the left side of any spectrum. I don't find too many left-leaning people who want to push religion into legislation much less try to reframe religion to fit their agendas.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2012)

> That said, problematic traits associated with facsism, xenophobic ultranationalism, for example, isn't often a trait of the left - at least, not to the extent that it is associated with the right.



Pardon me for having difficulty parsing the grammer in this sentence, then.

Say- was that the sound of your strawman exploding?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Pardon me for having difficulty parsing the grammer in this sentence, then.
> 
> Say- was that the sound of your strawman exploding?



S'okay. I understand he orders straw by the round bale.


----------



## Redeye (30 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> S'okay. I understand he orders straw by the round bale.



Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.



Sadly, your posting history says otherwise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.



Careful. You'll make me cry.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2012)

Lest I be seen as unkind-

I don't think the defining nature of a totalitarian regime is whether the regime defines itself as right or left.  Rather, I think dictatorships will wrap themselves in whatever slogans, language, or doctrine that is calculated to best keep them in power.  It doesn't matter that there might be inherent contradictions (from a pure left/right spectrum point of view) in what the Regime says or does.  It is all about the exercise of raw power and the shutting out of opposition.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Actually - "simplistic conventional political science ..... feel free to shuffle the pieces apart in the vertical."



I am now quite convinced that Brad Sallows is actually Stephen Harper.


----------



## Redeye (1 May 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lest I be seen as unkind-
> 
> I don't think the defining nature of a totalitarian regime is whether the regime defines itself as right or left.  Rather, I think dictatorships will wrap themselves in whatever slogans, language, or doctrine that is calculated to best keep them in power.  It doesn't matter that there might be inherent contradictions (from a pure left/right spectrum point of view) in what the Regime says or does.  It is all about the exercise of raw power and the shutting out of opposition.



Which is more or less what I was getting at.

And recceguy, I know I won't make you cry, and I couldn't care any less about your opinion of anything, really. But the fact stands: all of your commentary about "the left" is composed of strawmen, and nothing more. Granted, you're a step about Thuc posting articles so devoid of substance as to make me laugh and shake my head simultaneously.


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2012)

I actually found it rather refreshing that you gave an answer in the "Economic Superthread" with numbers, proper historical context etc. to explain the Canadian government's support of the banks during the height of the 2008 crisis. Oddly you reject historical context, numbers etc. WRT anything else.

In theory, at least, it means redemption _is_ possible.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 May 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Can I get another extra large order of hypocrisy? Okay, that's enough. I'm done with this.





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Which is more or less what I was getting at.
> 
> And recceguy, I know I won't make you cry, and I couldn't care any less about your opinion of anything, really. But the fact stands: all of your commentary about "the left" is composed of strawmen, and nothing more. Granted, you're a step about Thuc posting articles so devoid of substance as to make me laugh and shake my head simultaneously.




Wow, that lasted a long time  

Almost 24 hrs


----------



## DBA (1 May 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> But last time I checked - while the USA is in no way extreme, I don't find too many people on the left attacking the current President because of his middle name or his ancestry. Nor do I look at organizations like National Front in France, or the English Defence League and see them on the left side of any spectrum. I don't find too many left-leaning people who want to push religion into legislation much less try to reframe religion to fit their agendas.



Observer bias, the nuts on our side don't seem as extreme as those on the other side purely because of where we are standing. It's also a common rhetorical tactic to hype this bias to get more support from people. Lots of people get trapped in it even though they often recognize the dishonestly of it when the other side employs it. 

I remember advice from military training along the lines of: "a good plan well executed beats the best plan poorly executed" which I think is very applicable to politics. A plan that matches our political preferences but is poorly executed is not superior to a well executed plan that is less of a match. This is were the Left has it's greatest failing: they are so sure of the superiority of their ideas they don't seem to bother with making sure the execution actually achieves the professed goals. As a result they go too far and make things worse. An example would be rent control: at a basic level it can provide protection to renters from sudden large increases in rent, taken too far and it results in the same thing as all price caps: increased demand and reduced supply which for housing results in increases in the homeless. It benefits those already renting (even 1%ers) while screwing over all those who will be looking for a place in the future.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2012)

Xenophobic ultranationalism isn't often a trait of the right, unless you can find some examples.

>the right is not really interested in that - it's interested in the idea that wealth can shape the state to suit its ends. The "liberty" it would bring is an illusion because the implied social mobility would sound really great, but when all the sudden things like quality education become unavailable to the population except those who can afford it, and society absorbs losses of failed businesses while successful ones prosper unimpeded by taxation, you eventually wind up with a recipe for disaster, because at some point the disenfranchised will decide that they have to find other ways to solve their problems.

That's a nice straw man you have constructed on behalf of "the right".  Socialization of losses seems chiefly to be a problem of socialist states or modern "centrist" states with a healthy dose of left-liberal policies, or really any jurisdiction in which corporatism and crony capitalism have taken sway - the point there is that the state has to be the enabler.  "The right" is not actually in favour of corporatism or crony capitalism, as compared to free competition and capitalism proper.

Totalitarianism (widespread state control and influence) is an almost unavoidable consequence of leftism, and a police state an almost unavoidable consequence of totalitarianism.  The reason is simple enough: many people won't fall in line with the schemes of the rulers voluntarily.


----------



## Redeye (3 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I actually found it rather refreshing that you gave an answer in the "Economic Superthread" with numbers, proper historical context etc. to explain the Canadian government's support of the banks during the height of the 2008 crisis. Oddly you reject historical context, numbers etc. WRT anything else.
> 
> In theory, at least, it means redemption _is_ possible.



Because that's the true story. In most cases, well... I'm sure you can figure it out.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2012)

Political manipulation of racism in the US. The highlighted portion is the heart of how "Progressives" pitch the message. In Canada, you could change some of the wording to read "aborigional" to get the flavour in the Canadian context, and I suspect that this sort of manipulation of the dialogue is just as prevalent here:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/house-dems-trained-make-race-issue/537146



> *House Dems trained to make race the issue *
> by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer Share:
> 
> Maya Wiley is the founder and President of the Center for Social Inclusion. (photo via website)House Democrats received training this week on how to address the issue of race to defend government programs, according to training materials obtained by The Washington Examiner.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2012)

While it may be easy to dismiss this man as a crank or an extremeist, the positions he holds are simply the logical endpoints of this ideology:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-face-genocidal-eco-fascism



> *Guest Post: The Face of Genocidal Eco-Fascism*
> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/18/2012 14:28 -0400
> 
> Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 May 2012)

The problem with people like Pentti Linkola is that they're never willing to lead by example.


----------



## Sythen (31 May 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/05/20120530-214652.html

Adding this link to follow up on an earlier discussion on the SCC decision to make it mandatory an Aboriginal's history must be taken into account.

Quotes from link (text coloured by me):



> TIMMINS, ON - A man portrayed as a sadistic "monster" who sexually abused his young stepdaughter and tortured family pets was sentenced Wednesday to 12 years in jail.
> Michael Murray, 40, of Fox Lake Reserve, was convicted off 12 charges including six counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual exploitation one count of causing unnecessary suffering, and two assaults - one causing bodily harm and the other with a weapon.
> 
> The judge said Murray posed a high risk to re-offend in light of his lengthy criminal record and numerous convictions for violence and weapons offenses.





> Bragagnolo said he surprised Murray received what he viewed to be a harsh sentence of 12 years.
> 
> "I am quite surprised by that," he said. "In my view, the judge did not properly consider his Aboriginal ancestry and that may be grounds for appeal."



So as I said before, how long til every sentence is appealed and the judges just start saying heck with it?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2012)

Really needs no further comment:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/07/14/apocalyptic-daze/



> *Apocalyptic Daze*
> July 14, 2012 - 4:20 pm - by Ed Driscoll
> 
> Back in 2008, James Lileks reflected on his love of midcentury modernism (and its happy-go-lucky offshoots such as Googie) by reflecting back on the fundamental American optimism of that period — even as the long twilight struggle of the Cold War was grinding on:
> ...


----------



## Sythen (17 Jul 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/07/20120717-120837.html



> Muslim cleric highlights SlutWalk hypocrisy
> 
> A Toronto Muslim cleric's comments that laws should make women cover up to avoid rape disgusted me. But what's going to sicken me more is the silence of the left.
> Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, a street preacher, thinks Canadian laws "give too much freedom to women." Excuse me? We need more freedoms for everyone, regardless of gender.
> ...



Its cases like this that make me angry with the Left. Its like the fact Occupiers were mostly made up of middle class kids with iPads and expensive phones, etc.. I forgot though, that only white, English speaking men were able to be bad people worthy of protesting.

EDIT to add: More on link.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/07/20120717-120837.html
> 
> Its cases like this that make me angry with the Left. Its like the fact Occupiers were mostly made up of middle class kids with iPads and expensive phones, etc.. I forgot though, that only white, English speaking men were able to be bad people worthy of protesting.
> 
> EDIT to add: More on link.



They probably won't respond because he's an insignificant figure and those folk don't waste their time watching Sun TV. They, as a blanket rule, tend to ignore the opinions of religious figures in general.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> They probably won't respond because he's an insignificant figure and those folk don't waste their time watching Sun TV. They, as a blanket rule, tend to ignore the opinions of religious figures in general.



What has Sun TV got to do with it?

The story was carried by other newpapers and news organizations also.

You're not learning very quick.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jul 2012)

We should bear in mind that there is a big difference between Antangana and Sanguinetti: 

Antangana is acting in a capacity as a citizen, with all the rights and freedoms that pertain to that status, including the right to free speech, regardless of how backwards its content and so long as it does not become hate speech. He is entitled to put his views out there and everyone else is entitled to treat them and criticize them as they see fit, including simply ignoring him as he is a nobody. The media thought it useful to expose the backwardness of this gentlemen - and now its done and exposed for all to see.

Sanguinetti, on the other hand made a public speech in his capacity as a representative of the state (in the larger sense of the word), and the citizens properly protested his speech, not because its content exceeded what can be said under free speech laws, but because it was said on behalf of "government". Thus, the citizens rose to remind the government that it is not its place to tell people how to live their lives.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Jul 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We should bear in mind that there is a big difference between Antangana and Sanguinetti:
> 
> Antangana is acting in a capacity as a citizen, with all the rights and freedoms that pertain to that status, including the right to free speech, regardless of how backwards its content and so long as it does not become hate speech. He is entitled to put his views out there and everyone else is entitled to treat them and criticize them as they see fit, including simply ignoring him as he is a nobody. The media thought it useful to expose the backwardness of this gentlemen - and now its done and exposed for all to see.
> 
> Sanguinetti, on the other hand made a public speech in his capacity as a representative of the state (in the larger sense of the word), and the citizens properly protested his speech, not because its content exceeded what can be said under free speech laws, but because it was said on behalf of "government". Thus, the citizens rose to remind the government that it is not its place to tell people how to live their lives.



Then the proper comparison would be the Alberta pastor who made the distasteful comments against homosexuals. How'd he make out?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We should bear in mind that there is a big difference between Antangana and Sanguinetti:
> 
> Antangana is acting in a capacity as a citizen, with all the rights and freedoms that pertain to that status, including the right to free speech, regardless of how backwards its content and so long as it does not become hate speech. He is entitled to put his views out there and everyone else is entitled to treat them and criticize them as they see fit, including simply ignoring him as he is a nobody. The media thought it useful to expose the backwardness of this gentlemen - and now its done and exposed for all to see.
> 
> Sanguinetti, on the other hand made a public speech in his capacity as a representative of the state (in the larger sense of the word), and the citizens properly protested his speech, not because its content exceeded what can be said under free speech laws, but because it was said on behalf of "government". Thus, the citizens rose to remind the government that it is not its place to tell people how to live their lives.



:goodpost:


Good, clear explanation; thanks for highlighting those differences.

By the way,with reference to Sanguinetti: I'm with the righteously indignant citizens, he, and the state her serves, has no right to tell us how live our lives, so long as we do so in a lawful manner. With reference to Antangana: I just consider the source; but I am dismayed that anyone _follows_ preachers and other assorted shamans who propagate such stupid ideas.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/07/20120717-120837.html
> 
> Its cases like this that make me angry with the Left ....


It appears at least _some_ folks are dissing the comments in question:





> .... Calling Muslim cleric Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana's proposal to change Canadian laws to require women to cover themselves "offensive," the executive director of the women's shelter Nellie's said how a woman dresses has nothing to do with sexual assaults.
> 
> "I would like to find out the stats in the Muslim countries," Margarita Mendez said.
> 
> ...


More ....





> .... Imam Zijad Delic of the South Nepean Muslim Community said there are three things wrong with Atangana’s position. Firstly, he didn’t consult the Muslim community before making his statements.
> 
> “They shouldn’t carry any weight,” he said.
> 
> ...


Interestingly, though, a search of the imam's name at rabble.ca?
:crickets:

This compared to the hits for "Sanguinetti" at rabble.ca.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We should bear in mind that there is a big difference between Antangana and Sanguinetti:
> 
> Antangana is acting in a capacity as a citizen, with all the rights and freedoms that pertain to that status, including the right to free speech, regardless of how backwards its content and so long as it does not become hate speech. He is entitled to put his views out there and everyone else is entitled to treat them and criticize them as they see fit, including simply ignoring him as he is a nobody. The media thought it useful to expose the backwardness of this gentlemen - and now its done and exposed for all to see.
> 
> Sanguinetti, on the other hand made a public speech in his capacity as a representative of the state (in the larger sense of the word), and the citizens properly protested his speech, not because its content exceeded what can be said under free speech laws, but because it was said on behalf of "government". Thus, the citizens rose to remind the government that it is not its place to tell people how to live their lives.


Well put.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jul 2012)

I've been sitting on this whole poo-show for a few days, trying to collect my thoughts to highlight what I see as idiocy on all sides over this.

There are so many things wrong about what the preacher said, but I think that many have missed the mark.  The first assertion is that he's blaming the victim.  He's not.  That may have been his intent, I don't know nor do I care, but the implied argument, not stated, is that if a man sees a woman's ankle/shoulder/leg/whatever, then that man will have no control over his libido and will revert to the savage and commit rape.  That's what he's saying, whether he meant it or not.  

We all know that this is bunk, and is inflammatory, arguing that all men are unthinking brutes who are a hair's breadth from comitting rape.

As for "blaming the victim", I would offer that a bit of due diligence ought to be at work  Does this mean that there ought to be laws stating that women cannot dress a certain way in public?  Of course not!  That's ludicrous.  (As an aside, I find the "slutwalk" response is as illogical as it would be for car owners, following a rash of car thefts, to parade their parked, unattended and unlocked cars in a shady part of town.)  How people are dressed has nothing to do with it, and as stated, is insulting at best, and ignorant at worst.

You see, rape is not about sex.  It's not at all.  It's about power, a sense of feeling inadequate (by the perpetrator) who takes out his feelings of inadequacy on the innocent.  

So, just as with any crime, the victim of rape is not to blame.  By blaming the  victim you are losing focus.  It's not that society is full of men who are *this close* from raping the women of our society.  It's that in our society we have certain types who for a wide variety of reasons will  commit what I personally consider to be the worst of crimes.  Why I think so is because the criminal treats the other person (the victim) as an object; a means to their own ends of dominating someone.  "Sex" is just the means by which they achieve their sick ends.

The treatment?  I doubt that there is any.  For a serial rapist (e.g. Bernardo types), life in solitary confinement works well for me.  For the drunken frat boy who fails to "stop" when told to stop by his date/girlfriend/whatever, not only would a hefty sentence behind bars work, but considering the nature of the crime as being one of poor judgement vice deliberate planning, but some sort of true rehabilitation _may_ be possible, but prior to release, I believe that the guilty party ought to prove that he is indeed rehabilitated.

As a final note, I did see some points on here and elsewhere on the ARPANET of people saying that they just ignored what he said because he's a religious figure.  That, my dear readers, is dangerous. It's also a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem".  Anyway, it's dangerous for several reasons, the least of which is that you are ignoring _what_ is said and instead focussing on _who_ said it.  The dangerous part is that even though you may be atheist, that's irrelevant, because not everyone is, and some people actually listen to religious leaders.  And if you ignore them, one day you'll be surprised when their followers, rightly or wrongly, impose their moral will on you.  (And it's not just the religious leaders who have the potential to be dangerous).


:2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2012)

Without getting into your whole post, I'll content myself to agree with your final, salient point.



> The dangerous part is that even though you may be atheist, that's irrelevant, because not everyone is, and some people actually listen to religious leaders.  And if you ignore them, one day you'll be surprised when their followers, rightly or wrongly, impose their moral will on you.



That door swings both ways and isn't confined to the religion of the article.

It includes Roman Catholics and any other religious organization out there.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It includes Roman Catholics and any other religious organization out there.


Exactly my point.  (And yes, full disclosure here, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic).  

Also, the point you didn't include in your quote, it's not just the religious leaders.  If a person ignores someone or writes them off as a "whack job" because they don't follow their dogma/politics/religion, don't be surprised when one day you wake up and you get that "uh oh" feeling.

(Edited for grammar)


----------



## Redeye (24 Jul 2012)

Fair point TV. Some people think I'm an asshole and perceive me as a militant atheist. To an extent, I am. That said, I don't especially care what people privately believe. When I get up in arms is when others want to impose those beliefs on people, especially when there's an air of hypocrisy to it which exists with all religions (and, to be fair, with non-religious people - some of the biggest assholes I know are atheists/antitheists who believe that bullying those who believe is the best way to deal with them - and to be fair, I've been guilty of that to some extent in the past when some people have deliberately tried to get under my skin about it). 

When I made the comment that many would ignore what this guy was saying, I don't think I articulated what I meant at all correctly. It's correct in my view that they'd hear it, and, as you suggest, say "meh, he's a crackpot" and move on. And you're correct there's a risk in that too, because crackpots can wind up wielding a lot of power. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, an Austrian Corporal comes to mind. It is indeed far more important to skewer the message itself. And that's why I said many would ignore this guy, because they'd perceive that changing his opinion isn't likely to happen and thus it's not worth wasting time on. Then, however, they act in a way that counters the message. I do think you misinterpreted the Slut Walk concept - it was to illustrate exactly the point you made - that it's not the victim's fault, and how they choose to dress is totally irrelevant. I don't find your comparison to car theft fits. Rather than countering the messenger, displays like "Slut Walks" are aimed in countering the message. And it does indeed apply to all religions - and yes, to non-religious statements of a similar inflammatory nature.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2012)

A breathless example of Canadian progressive thought in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star (where else could it possibly have been published?) The complete disconnect between cause and effect, the absolute conviction that only government can create these effects and of course the obligatory call for the use of force against the duly elected Government encapsulate just about every Progressive trope in one neat package. The fact that many of these tropes like Global Warming and Robocalls has been proven false simply makes no difference to people holding these ideas.

I would use this letter as a call for a reform of the education system, since so many people are clearly lacking in the skills of critical thought (the only difference between this letter and a typical conversation with a comitted progressive is all the tropes came out at once here):

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2012/08/barbara-falby-is-worried/



> *Barbara Falby is worried*
> 
> This might be the most amazing letter-to-the editor I have ever read. It’s to the Toronto Star. The letter is from Barbara Falby of Toronto. In it, she blames Harper’s denial of climate change for hot weather that causes gun violence, blames Harper for the Colorado movie theatre shootings. She cites Canada’s previous laws and regulations on guns for preventing violence, violence which has been renewed as a result of getting rid of the long-gun registry. For good measure, she calls the government illegitimate and asks for the police to remove it by any means necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2012)

The theme of media manipulation is far stronger in the United States, but hardly nonexistent in Canada. Various themes are floated across the Legacy media in a coordinated tide of "outrage" at something the CPC is supposed to ahve done, while the camera rapidly cuts away if similar conduct is dicovered by the other parties. How many headlines have been generated by the Liberals being fined for doing Robocalls in Guelph (compared to the false accusations of the CPC making robocalls) or the NDP gatting over $300,000 in illegal campaign contributions. For that matter, many of the Liberal leadership candidates have yet to pay back their campaign debts (from running against Stephan Dion, so this isn't a recent story) without comment by the media.

This article is probably a forecast of the "worst case" that we might see (especially in the near future when it is possible an NDP government in BC, a PQ government in Quebec and the Liberal/NDP coalition in Ontario square off against Ottawa in an attempt to extort more monies to keep their mismanaged governments afloat), but the promise of this article is these media antics will rip the covers off, and the media's stranglehold as the "gatekeeper" of the narrative will end once and for all (the preference cascade):

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/09/media_madness_and_the_reckoning.html



> *Media Madness, and the Reckoning*
> By Clarice Feldman
> 
> Last week a line was crossed, and full blown insanity manifested itself in the formerly-mainstream media.  My friend JMH is a model of a temperate media consumer, but watching the coverage of the Republican convention, she could not contain her fury:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2012)

While the specific example is the United States, this also reflects the way many on the Canadian political Left think as well. In the Making Canada Again, the Economic Superthread: there is a post about unshackling "the helping industry" from government through the use of alternative funding mechanisms such as "social impact bonds" which pay their coupon by providing a portion of the money that government saves by allowing private and religious charities to do the work: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/20359/post-1188001.html#msg1188001

Naturally rather than examine the idea on merit there was a predictable attack on "government planning to privatize public services". As Lawrence Solomon suggests, the real opposition to charity is because it is competition to the State:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/16/lawrence-solomon-the-obama-war-on-charities/



> *FP Comment Lawrence Solomon: The Obama war on charities*
> Lawrence Solomon | Nov 16, 2012 10:15 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 16, 2012 10:43 PM ET
> More from Lawrence Solomon
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Nov 2012)

The idea that the state is, or should be omnipotent is chilling to say the least.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2012)

>many also believe that the charities should operate without benefit of the exemption, which they see as a government subsidy.

As often happens, "many" have it backwards.  Charities subsidize governments.  Charitable services are mostly those which government might otherwise be compelled/persuaded to offer.  What government provides, is provided chiefly by well-remunerated, often unionized, public employees - or sometimes by well-remunerated, but not unionized, private contractors who have learned to game the government teat.  Charities, however, sometimes (often?) function with a healthy slice of unpaid volunteer labour and goods.

Government saves the cost of every freely donated hour of labour or piece of materiel that it would otherwise have to provide.  I suspect the sum of that labour and the assorted pile of foodstuffs, furnishings, clothing, etc easily exceeds the foregone revenue of charitable tax deductions in any given year.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2012)

There is a second aspect, which I didn't see in the article.  Recently Macleans magazine ran an article about "social justice" topics and the space (time) they occupy in education.  Predictably, supporters of those policies responded strongly (as per the tone of most of the letters chosen for publication in a subsequent issue).

But indoctrinating/educating/persuading children to be compassionate and empathetic is just the "L" ("lecture") part of "LDE".  Without the presence of charitable organizations actively working in places where people can become involved or at least rub shoulders, there is no "demonstration" or "explanation" of how they function and serve, thus driving home the lesson of social responsibility.  Government charitable services are as much unseen by most Canadians as our military.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Nov 2012)

There was a time where charities provided the bulk of social services. These services were by and large provided by religious organizations, most of which did not restrict the services to their own congregations. As we moved through the 60s, 70s and 80s government gradually usurped the role of charity in the name of diminishing "church" power, and centralizing government power. The irony is now that as government looks to offload some degree of service, "churches" are no longer equipped to step into the gap. In our rush to become a secular state have we cut off our nose to spite our face?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Nov 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There was a time where charities provided the bulk of social services. These services were by and large provided by religious organizations, most of which did not restrict the services to their own congregations. As we moved through the 60s, 70s and 80s government gradually usurped the role of charity in the name of diminishing "church" power, and centralizing govisernment power. The irony is now that as government looks to offload some degree of service, "churches" are no longer equipped to step into the gap. In our rush to become a secular state have we cut off our nose to spite our face?



The family also used to player a much larger role in providing services.  it wasn`t that unusual to see 3 generations of a family live together.  Now, the seniors are cast aside, largely, with government expected to pay the bills for living and medical expenses, while young people move back in with their parents, not to assist their parents in any reasonable way, but rather to maintain their standard of living (IPODS, I Phones, drinking, etc) on their parents dime until they can purchase a $300,000 `starter` home.

The diminishment of the family and it`s deference to the government, IMHO, is more troubling than the lesser role of the church.  No matter your religious views, your parents are always your parents and kids your kids.  When this bond was replaced by the government (I can`t even decide when to take my kid out of a car seat anymore!) we, as a society, sold our souls.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Nov 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The family also used to player a much larger role in providing services.  it wasn`t that unusual to see 3 generations of a family live together.  Now, the seniors are cast aside, largely, with government expected to pay the bills for living and medical expenses, while young people move back in with their parents, not to assist their parents in any reasonable way, but rather to maintain their standard of living (IPODS, I Phones, drinking, etc) on their parents dime until they can purchase a $300,000 `starter` home.
> 
> The diminishment of the family and it`s deference to the government, IMHO, is more troubling than the lesser role of the church.  No matter your religious views, your parents are always your parents and kids your kids.  When this bond was replaced by the government (I can`t even decide when to take my kid out of a car seat anymore!) we, as a society, sold our souls.



Yes, I agree and should probably have extended my essay in that direction. But I would also argue that "church" was one of the glues that held the family unit together and promoted family values. I guess the thrust of the message is that charity has been taken out of the hands of those best situated to provide it - the people. Unpaid volunteers that engender a community spirit in those with whom they interact and support will always be more efficient at providing charity than distant, insulated bureaucrats who lack local situational awareness. The state is too monolithic and not sufficiently agile to respond to conditions on the ground like communities are. One only needs to look at how well local "emergencies" are managed by society versus government intervention that often arrives too late to be of real benefit. We regularly marvel at how small towns can respond to crisis, but wonder why larger centers can't do the same. Our power and our will to look after each other has been diminished to such a level that we now can barely look after ourselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2012)

This part of the ongoing _left <> right_ debate in China: where does the _Confucian_ family's responsibility end and _charity_ or <gasp> even the state kick in. Fifty years ago the answer was easy, now, after the greatest migration in human history ~ tens of millions of Chinese have moved to the East coast "rich strip" in just one generation ~ the Confucian family's "reach" is no longer long enough: young people have gone to the East, leaving their elderly parents in the Central and Western provinces with, often no one to care for them. The one child policy (since _circa_ 1980) exacerbates the problem.

Hu Jintao introduced several embryonic _social_ programmes with which we, Canadians, would feel comfortable but which still shock many, many Chinese for whom te idea that one would or could leave his parents to the _mercies_ of charity or, even less conceivable, the state is horrifying.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2012)

Rather brilliant encapsualization of Progressive tropes in this one article:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2012/12/gun-control-thought-control-and-people.html



> *Gun Control, Thought Control and People Control*
> 
> Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2012)

Yup, pencils are the cause of bad spelling and poor math and forks make you fat.


----------



## Dissident (21 Dec 2012)

Did he REALLY need to compare the "left" with Nazi's to help make his point?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Did he REALLY need to compare the "left" with Nazi's to help make his point?




No, of course he didn't, but _conservatism_ is broken. 

Real _conservative_ values like fiscal prudence, social _moderation_ and a cautious foreign policy, backed up by a _sufficient_ military have been displaced by _absolutes_ like Norquist's "no tax increase" pledge, extreme social positions that would make a _Wahhabi_ iman smile and support for every weapons system ever devised, no matter the bank breaking costs.

The conservative _intellectual spring_ that preceded and informed Ronald Reagan's government (except on fiscal policy where he racked up growing debts) has turned to a bleak winter. All US conservatives can manage is to hate President Obama - they have consigned themselves to the political wilderness for a while. They need an Eisenhower - not Ike the war hero/general but Ike the fiscal and social moderate who could *lead* America.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2013)

Walter Russell Mead looks at the disintigration of the "Blue" model in terms of demographics. While we see the more obvious Democrat/Republican stuff from here, there are lots of internal splits within the various parties as well (think back to the Canadian Alliance, or the Chretien/Martin split in the LPC). Here the split is basically over who can seize the tax dollars. Given the growing numbers of "entitled" groups and the larger portion of people collecting vs contributing via taxes, I think the concern is well founded.

Canada's split is also demographic, but also geographic as well, people, especially the productive tax contributing ones, are flowing west and leaving the traditional "core" of Upper and Lower Canada (the Toronto-Montreal axis) behind and scrambling to seize the crumbs left.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/18/the-gray-lady-confirms-blue-civil-war/



> *The Gray Lady Confirms Blue Civil War*
> 
> You know the blue model is in serious trouble when even New York Times writers turn against it. Yesterday dyed-in-the-wool Democrat Thomas Edsall responded to Via Meadia‘s take on blue model collapse. In his response he struggles mightily with the bluer angels of his nature, calling our take “apocalyptic,” but in the end admits that 20th-century liberalism is in serious trouble:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2013)

Nothing like letting Brownshirts run around telling us what is acceptable on Canadian Universities:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/22/not-every-opinion-is-valid-activist-censors-peers-by-tearing-down-universitys-free-speech-wall/



> *‘Not every opinion is valid:’ Carleton University free speech wall torn down within hours*
> 
> Tristin Hopper | Jan 22, 2013 7:04 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 23, 2013 11:04 AM ET
> More from Tristin Hopper | @TristinHopper
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2013)

The damage done by Progressiveism can be thought to be due to the inability or unwillingness of Progressives to understand human nature. (the counterargument is these are the intended results, because Progressives understand human nature only too well):

http://philoofalexandria.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/reynolds-law/



> *Reynolds’ Law*
> 
> September 25, 2010 by philo
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2013)

When government organs become ideological, then we are all in trouble. Does anyone else now have a feeling that other data released by StatsCan may have been "cooked" or spun somehow?

I am starting to think that StatsCan should not be allowed to do anything other than release the tables of raw data, if the end user spins it then at least we know the how and why, but a supposedly non partisan government agency?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/01/28/terence-corcoran-statscan-class-warfarists-latest-volley-adds-little-insight-into-income-debate/#more-26579

[quote
*Terence Corcoran: StatsCan class warfarists’ latest volley adds little insight to income debate*

Terence Corcoran | Jan 28, 2013 8:55 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 28, 2013 9:03 PM ET
More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran

Instead of tracking useful and important data, StatsCan’s occupy activists have been busy tracking Canada’s rich

So, it looks like Statistics Canada has finally worked out the fine points of the complicated business of measuring income inequality in Canada. In a set of statistics published Monday in The Daily, the agency’s routine distribution vehicle, the government of Canada’s official statistics creator and disseminator has distilled Canadians down into two income groups: the “Top 1%” and the “Bottom 99%.”

That, at least, is how Occupied StatsCan divided Canadians in its Monday news release, titled “High-income trends among Canadian tax filers, 1982 to 2010.”

Here’s what StatsCan said: “The top 1% of Canada’s 25.5 million tax filers accounted for 10.6% of the nation’s total income in 2010, down from a peak of 12.1% in 2006. In the early 1980s, the top 1% of tax filers held 7.0% of the total income reported by all tax filers. This proportion edged up to 8.0% in the early 1990s and reached 11.0% by the early 2000s.”

As for the rest of Canadians, referred to as the “Bottom 99%” by StatsCan, the agency apparently has no meaningful data except to say that “the rest” of Canadians had median incomes of $28,000.

What is the point in carving Canadians into two such groups, including a group called “the rest” or the “Bottom 99%”, unless you’re seriously preoccupied with class and income and a little social unrest.

Related
Richest 1% of Canadians earn tenth of nation’s income: StatsCan
Canada’s top earners still a modest lot compared to U.S.
RRSPs all about tax brackets
. 
Ultimately, the news release added nothing to the ongoing ideological debate over inequality or any meaningful new analysis. All it did was reinforce StatsCan’s recent role as one of the country’s leading class warfarists. For a decade of more, StatsCan has been fixated on, even obsessed with, Canada’s rich, tracking their incomes, sex, age, geographical location, taxes paid and marital status.

The latest stalking document contained nothing much new, but grabbed online headlines — Huffington Post: “Income inequality in Canada: Rich Taking Ever Larger Share of the Pie, But Is the Trend Fizzling?” Over at the Toronto Star, there’s no news like old StatsCan news: “Richest one per cent of Canadians earn one-tenth of all income.”

If there’s any shock in such numbers it is how little it takes to become a member of the top 1%: $201,000. Are Canadians really ready to mount a social revolution over such a small number?

StatsCan tried to turn it into an ideological stalking point by noting that the $201,000 is 37% higher than it was in 1982, when the figure was $147,000. StatsCan doesn’t have data that goes back further. The fact that 1982 was the pit of one of the worst recessions in Canadian history, when GDP fell 6.7%, suggests StatsCan is essentially cooking the statistical books.

Another measure is median income, which StatsCan also warps into a meaningless comparison. The median income — the mid-number in which half the 1% earn more and the other half earn less — is a remarkably low $283,400. But StatsCan spins it into a warfare stat by comparing it with the median of “the rest,” $28,400.

The income statistics are based on total income from all sources, including investment income. Such income would have jumped among the 1% before the 2008 crisis. The numbers also suggest that since 2008 the 1% had less investment income.

The agency could also have tracked after-tax income. But it didn’t. Other agendas seem to prevail, ones that have been alive at StatsCan for some time.

Back in 2008, the agency cranked out a paper titled “Income Trajectories of High Income Canadians, 1982-2005.” It contained many of the same preoccupations that appeared in Monday’s release, and at least one of the same authors and number crunchers.

The listed contact for Monday’s release is Brian Murphy, located at the StatsCan complex in Ottawa’s Tunney’s Pasture. Mr. Murphy was co-author of the 2008 paper with Michael Wolfson, former assistant chief statistican at Statistics Canada and now University of Ottawa professor.

Mr. Wolfson appears to be displaying an activist bent since he left StatsCan. In a recent op-ed for The Globe and Mail, he attacked a Fraser Institute paper that appeared to show that Canadians are mobile up the income chain. He called the Fraser results “misleading” and concluded that the bottom was marked by a “reality of precarious jobs among the poor” that belie the Fraser Institute’s Horatio Alger ‘rags to riches’ myth.”

*Unfortunately, neither Mr. Wolfson nor StatsCan has ever presented any detailed analysis of income shifts over time across all income groups. Are Canada’s poor and middle class worse off or better off than they were 30 or 50 years ago?*

Instead of tracking such useful and important data, StatsCan’s occupy activists have been busy tracking Canada’s rich. And you know what? The big discovery is that the 1% are rich (sort of) and pay a lot more taxes than the rest of us: 21.2% in 2010, up from 13% in 1982.
[/quote]


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jan 2013)

...or (statistically speaking)...

"Canada's Rich Pay Almost 12 Times More Tax Per Person Than Other Canadians."

(10.6%tax/1%ofCanadians)/(89.4%tax/99%ofCanadians)=11.7

"Lies, damned lies and statistics." :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2013)

>destroyed in an act of “forceful resistance,”
>declared that “not every opinion is valid, nor deserving of expression.”

One of these days sanctimonious humourless pricks like him are going to wake up and find that people like me have had quite enough sh!t from people like him and our collective response will be, "OK, fu<kers: game on."


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2013)

Steady Brad, people like him will be consumed in the Zombie Apocalypse (if there is no physical eating of flesh, there will be a metaphorical one as these people are ejected into the real world and discover just what their skills, experience and opinions are really worth... >)

The coming collapse of the Progressive model as money runs out will see subsidization of "eight year" undergraduate degrees end as one first order effect, and I think we all know what will happen after that.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2013)

Universities as Brownshirt incubators. Officer candidates need to demonstrate a University education, while the first hand examples that I have taught do not seem to demonstrate the intolerence of the examples mentioned here, I would suggest that the reason they come off as being uneducated (think of the recent story where University students could not locate the Atlantic Ocean on a map) is they spent their time in school having this sort of indoctrination poured into their heads, rather than learning how to think, process data and so on. A cadre of uneducated people has negative long term consequences for society and institutions as well. Since the CF is a "consumer" of University educated people, I think we have a large stake in this debate. We say we want "educated" people, instead we get "indoctrinated" people:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/30/barbara-kay-the-campus-condition/

*Barbara Kay: The Campus Condition*

Barbara Kay | Jan 30, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 29, 2013 5:49 PM ET
More from Barbara Kay | @BarbaraRKay

In his Saturday National Post column, Rex Murphy considers the case of long-time student Arun Smith, who last week enjoyed his 15 minutes of media fame for vandalizing a message board at Ottawa’s Carleton University, because he found some of the postings on abortion and marriage offensive.

Rex poses the question: “How can a person spend seven years in any university studying anything, let alone human rights [with a minor in sexuality], and arrive at so preposterous a position?”

By “preposterous,” he means Arun Smith’s complacent self-anointing as supreme judge and executioner of inadmissible discourse within an allegedly “free speech zone.”

It’s a rhetorical question, for he well knows the answer to it. As Rex concludes, the episode is a “reminder that some universities are in the business more of promoting attitudes than liberating young minds, and more concerned with fleeting ‘correctness’ than lasting truth.”

My only quibble with that statement is the word “some.” I would say that the arts and humanities departments of nearly all Western universities are incubators for the production of ideologically rigid, intolerant clones, for which the smirkily self-righteous Arun Smith serves as the prototype.

Academia has been the intellectual equivalent of a closed union shop for decades, from which only the most critically independent minds emerge unscathed. The rest, the uncritically receptive — the Arun Smiths — are steeped in opiates provided by such radical left-wing gurus as Antonio Gramsci, Paulo Freire, Frantz Fanon and Herbert Marcuse. All were Marxists; all believed westerners are the fountainhead of wickedness. And all believed that the omelet of “social justice” justified the breaking of many classically liberal eggs.

For a glimpse into the epicentre of Arun Smith’s mindset, consider the words of the “father of the New Left,” political theorist Herbert Marcuse. In a 1965 essay entitled Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse inspired generations of academics to embrace a principle of epistemic subversion. “The restoration of freedom of thought,” he argued, “may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions.” 

By “restrictions,” Marcuse was thinking selectively. He meant that in order to inculcate students with (correct) socialist doctrine, it was permissible to impose a moratorium on conservative speech.

Marcuse’s words were taken to heart. Academia is pervaded by a dual message of social mission and cultural blame. Academics believe they have a mission to change society according to their utopian lights. The obstacles en route to social perfection — pesky conservatives, Christians, Zionists, the usual suspects — may not only be blamed for their cretinous views, they may justifiably be denounced or gagged.

Thus, clearing the way for “truth” is made to seem not only a normal perspective, but an admirable one. That’s why Arun Smith is not the least bit conflicted about his act of vandalism. As he put it on his Facebook page, “If everyone speaks freely, we end up simply reinforcing the hierarchies that are created in our society.” As an activist, Arun Smith may be more bullish than his peers, but he is no outlier in the thinking process that guided his actions. For the condemnation of incorrect speech is a commonplace on Canadian campuses.

In October 2012, the conservative-leaning Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms released its 2012 Campus Freedom Index, based on a larger report, The state of campus free speech in 2012. Among the reported incidents: McGill University ordered a Jewish club to refrain from calling a social event “Israel: A Party” for its play on the word “apartheid”; the University of Calgary condoned the obstruction of pro-life displays on campus; and Carleton University — that’s Arun Smith’s home — had members of its pro-life club arrested, handcuffed and charged with “trespassing” for attempting to express their views in a provocative fashion.

Oh, and a few years ago, Simon Fraser University advertised for a professor with these qualifications: “extensive experience in academia, or as an activist” (my emphasis).

It’s the Arun Smiths of Canada whom many universities are looking to hire. The academy is now a natural professional home to left-wing activism. Those students who feel alienated by the prevailing doctrine feel marginalized and uncomfortable. They must achieve a balanced learning portfolio defensively, often in isolation.

For too long, university administrators have been silent or complicit in the promotion of illiberalism. Some soul-searching at the upper echelons of academia is in order. A gesture of good faith would be for Carleton to investigate whether Arun Smith should be charged with vandalism, and thereby subject him to the consequences he would experience in real life, something it is high time he learned about.

National Post
 bkay@videotron.ca
[/quote]

Sub note: even our "own" institutions like RMC are not free of this sort of thing; think of the flap created by an RMC instructor (forget the actual job title) over havng Don Cherry receive an hounourary degree. I'm sure people who work with or associated with RMC may have other examples.


----------



## wannabe SF member (5 Feb 2013)

I would disagree about RMC, at least as far as politics and history, are concerned. We are blessed with extremely balanced and objective staff and I've never felt like speech was being stifled in any way. mind you, the nature of the institution does mean tht a lot of cadets will tend to be right-leaning.

The Don Cherry incident, while regrettable, was due to the actions of only one SLT teacher. Most of the college stuents were highly supportive of him.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2013)

Too true, but a large fraction of officers (or even in the NCO/NCM ranks) are educated in civilian Universities (and this is also where my representative sample comes from).

As "consumers" of this product, we do have a stake in this debate. Some possible solution have been highlighted in the "Education Bubble" thread, and I am sure many people have other ideas on this subject as well.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2013)

While this example and the backpedaling are American, one only has to look at things like unleashing "lawfare" against Mayor Rob Ford (while city council apparently has the time to critique the Edmonton Zoo for how they deqal with animals or declare Toronto a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants without comment), or the never ending stream of faux scandals directed at the CPC (but total silence on similar incidents if committed by Liberal Senators, for example) to understand that these tactics are already in place here in Canada as well. Looking at the list of "nonpartisan" partners also brings to mind Vivian Krause's exposure of the nature and sources of funding for many Canadian "environmental" groups opposed to government policy as well.

As Gelnn Reynolds points out on the Instapundit blog, the best response is to fight fire with fire, and learn,understand and use these tactics against Progressives everywhere:

http://theothermccain.com/2013/02/23/progressive-tax-exempt-groups-secret-plan-to-eviscerate-cripple-gop/



> *Progressive Tax-Exempt Group’s Secret Plan to ‘Eviscerate,’ ‘Cripple’ GOP*
> 
> Posted on | February 23, 2013 | 16 Comments and 0 Reactions
> 
> ...



and the reaction once they were outed:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/24/blueprint-nc-disavows-memo-calling-for-the-evisceration-of-state-republicans/



> *Blueprint NC Disavows Memo Calling For The Evisceration of State Republicans*
> 
> by
> Matt Vespa
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2013)

Mark Steyn nails it as usual:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/11/mark-steyn-pink-is-now-the-colour-of-conformity/



> *Mark Steyn: Pink is now the colour of conformity*
> 
> National Post | Apr 11, 2012 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Apr 10, 2012 5:12 PM ET
> More from National Post
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2013)

Interesting example of how the Legacy media uses misdirection to shape narratives, rather than reporting news. Considering the way the Tides foundation intrudes on Canadian politics without much comment by ourt legacy media (noted in various threads here, but you can also check the work of researcher Vivian Krause), this is more than just an oversight:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-do-the-koch-brothers-get-all-the-sunshine/article/2523869



> *Why do the Koch Brothers get all the sunshine?*
> 
> March 10, 2013 | 9:08 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2013)

Terrance corcan gets down to brass tacks. The attempted siezure of Cypriot bank accounts isn't just an emergency response to a situation (although that may have been the immediate source of the action) but rather a deeper symptom of the world view of the political class. The comments section is also illuminating:





> *Terence Corcoran: We are all Cypriot savers*
> Terence Corcoran | 13/03/18 | Last Updated: 13/03/18 9:27 PM ET
> More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2013)

This piece by George Jonas is perhaps the culmination of several reports in the NP of Universities attacking the rights of Free Speech and attempting to indictrinate students rather than educate them. USing the power of the State to impose a point of view and supress others is not the hallmark of a free and democratic society, yet Canadian Universities are becoming nests of thought controll and anti semitism. I, personally, would suggest removing universities from te pblic purse, so people who do not support these activities do not have to spport them with tax dollars, and Universities would have to cpmpete for tuition and donation dollars. IF a University chooses to compete on the basis of how well they indoctrinate students, and can actually survive then fine (although I would be questioning the actual worth of that universities credentials, which is my right):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/06/george-jonas-when-it-comes-to-free-speech-winners-win-losers-try-to-shut-you-up/



> *George Jonas: When it comes to free speech, winners win. Losers try to shut you up*
> 
> George Jonas | 13/04/06 | Last Updated: 13/04/05 1:48 PM ET
> More from George Jonas
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2013)

Progressives claim ownership of our children. The brazen manner in which this person declares or children are "community" property is quite interesting really; not only does it speak to the depth of belief, but also displays an attitude that roughly says "we will start making this happen" (see embedded video). This is also quite at odds with the "libertarian as a social movement" approach to home, private and charter schools that is growing across America, although you might say this is the Progressive response to the movement to take children away from State schools and other Progressive institutions. Many of the comments noted how similar this is to the programs of the National Socialists and Mao's Communist Party:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/04/04/msnbcs-harris-perry-americas-kids-belong-their-communities



> *MSNBC's Harris-Perry: America's 'Kids Belong to Their Communities'*
> By Ken Shepherd | April 04, 2013 | 18:33
> 
> On March 23, my colleague Mark Finkelstein noted how MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry considers the unborn child a "thing" which takes a "lot of money" to "turn into a human," costing thousands of dollars to care for each year of his/her life. Now it appears that Harris-Perry thinks that, after they're born, children fundamentally belong to the state.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2013)

These people that believe it is their God given right to control, restrict or condone every minutiae of my personal life, and that of my family, are in for a shock when they step foot on my property with their percieved mandate and try to make me, or my family, accept it.

The idea that it 'takes a villiage to raise a child' falls apart when you realise the villiage is controlled, and largely populated, by idiots, synchophants and criminals.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Apr 2013)

Not to worry .... they are not really people anyway, your kids.  I wonder what the acceptable end date for an "after-birth abortion" is?  18? 65?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/03/planned-parenthoods-after-birth-abortion-advocate-has-ties-to-childrens-centers/


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2013)

If kids do not "belong" to their parents, then kids certainly do not "belong" to communities (strangers).  Kids are not a resource to be shaped and exploited.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2013)

How the Classical Liberal and Progressive sides view debate and free speech. George Jonas tells us it is about the content of the debate, while Dana Wagner shows us the Progressive "equalities of outcomes" argument. Since debating is part of the classical  educatrion, I will let the readers judge for themselves:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/25/jonas-2/



> *George Jonas: Promoting liberty, not parity, at the Munk Debates*
> George Jonas | 13/04/25 | Last Updated: 13/04/24 4:47 PM ET
> More from George Jonas
> 
> ...



http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/25/wagner-munk-debate/



> *Dana Wagner: Without women, the debate is always one-sided*
> Dana Wagner, National Post | 13/04/25 | Last Updated: 13/04/24 4:44 PM ET
> More from National Post
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2013)

Sadly for Dana Wagner, Margaret Thatcher is not - and would not have been, in any event - available.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2013)

More regulatory failure. Stepping into the market with incentives, then having to impose extra fees and taxes to make up for the efffect of people following the incentives (then wondering how people will react to the new incentives)...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/13/classic-states-debate-taxing-green-cars-to-recover-lost-gas-tax-revenue/



> *Classic: States debate taxing green cars to recover lost gas tax revenue*
> posted at 9:21 pm on June 13, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham
> 
> So, the government interferes in the market by incentivizing its citizens to buy hybrid and electric with big ol’ tax credits. It’ll be great for consumers and the environment, they say! You’ll save money and the air, it will be sweet with good intentions. But then people actually bought those electric and hybrid cars, car manufacturers responded to government mandates and consumer pushes for increased gas mileage, and the economy and gas prices dictated that a bunch of people start watching how much they drive. And, now you’ve got a revenue problem, what with far less money coming in the form of gas taxes.
> ...



Or the rational response would be to dump the taxes and fees and charge a toll for the use of the road.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jun 2013)

There probably isn't a jurisdiction in North America where 100% of road/fuel taxes actually goes to maintain road infrastructure...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2013)

This could also go in the Global Warming Sperthread, but since the underlying motivation is _power over others_, it properly belongs here:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2013/07/14/the-charning-young-man-in-the-bow-tie/



> *The charning young man in the bow tie*
> 
> I was talking to a charming young man last night, who was dressed in a bow tie at the dinner-dance. He was working for some sort of leftist-progressive think tank in the Harvard area. He explained his group’s opinions. It all seemed rather reasonable to a Canadian, like higher minimum wages, or easier rights for unions to organize. I nodded politely. (I do not agree, I merely think this is the stuff of political life). Thus encouraged, my young friend continued in the confident tones of one who knows where the world is going, that his group was seeking to generate a more carbon-neutral energy policy. I nodded sagely.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Jul 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since, according to Marx, labour input determines the value of anything, then if a capitalist sells a product for more than the costs of the labour and capital inputs, the profit was, by definition, “exploitation”, a form of evil.



What a strange and completely uninformed take on Karl Marx. Marx thought markets determined the value of things. He saw some innate weaknesses to the system and critiqued them. Capitalism produces efficiencies that take people away from sustainable independent lives, like farming. Large labour pools form. Over time going back to sustainable self sufficient lives is no longer possible. Then those who have accumulated capital can demand to pay less for labour. There is no longer "perfect competition" in the labour market as workers have no alternative. Once this happens employers dictate terms. What made North America great was a shortage of labour. We are now seeing that happens when workers become surplus.

Even Marx doubted Communism would work, but his critique of capitalism's flaws is excellent. It is rather dated now. It did not forsee ecological limits to production or  third world exploitation where you can pay less for labour than it costs to support a community(cancer villages in China and such). Marxism has never been tried either. Marx wanted workers to own and control the means of production. Russian and China only had the state take over the means of production. They just used Marx as window dressing.

Currently 22% of our production capacity is sitting unused and the real unemployment rate is at least 13%. This is not free market capitalist efficiency. Marx clearly pointed out the near inevitable process where if capitalism if left unregulated it leads to monopolies and obscene wealth for a few. Crony capitalism is inevitable in Marx's view.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2013)

Frankly Nemo, the real reason large amounts of capital and labour are idle is because of regulatory failure; various levels of Government have made it simply to difficult and expensive to put capital and labour into service in the *West*, and it is no wonder that capital has migrated to where it can reach higher rates of return in Asia.

Want a micro scale example?

I recently discovered that the city council in London ON. (my home town) took the applications for business licences from potential food truck operators and sent them to committee (to report back in September). On of the issue committee was to look at was the "diversity" of the menus on offer.

Consider that London's unemployment rate is a rather dismal 9.6%, yet City Council and the bureaucracy can block about a half dozen small business people from starting a business (food trucks make their money in the summer time), as well as denying perhaps a dozen to twenty spin off jobs as vendors, mechanics and sign painters and other people are engaged by the food truck operators to support their business. I can only wonder at the amount of taxpayer dollars were spent on the wages of the people "studying" the menus, compared to the amount of money the truck owners could have potentially made. It would probably take a huge truck fleet to replicate the amount of money wasted on this travesty. Now multiply this across hundreds of industries and across thousands of municipal, provincial, state and Federal jurisdictions...

This is the critique of the "charming man in the bow tie's" true motivation: _power over others_

As for critiquing labour value theory, Robert A Heinlein did it best in the novel "Starship Troopers":



> Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.



and



> "Value" has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human - "market value" is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average personal values, all of which must be quantitively different or trade would be impossible.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Jul 2013)

Kind of a weird critique that hits none of the vital points. Marx's point was that labour becomes a commodity like any other. For most people their labour is the only commodity they have to barter. I know what people become when I have all the money and they have none.

Capital has migrated to Asia. I loved it because I could be a rich asshole, ignore laws and pay bribes for special treatment.  I had so much more that the average that I could make people do almost anything for the cost of a decent pizza here. The pollution is unbelievable and most are so poor they will do anything for money. Even try to sell their own daughters. If only we could have less regulation like them  > (As long as I get to be the rich asshole I am all for it.)


----------



## Inquisitor (17 Jul 2013)

various levels of Government have made it simply to difficult and expensive to put capital and labour into service in the *West*, 

Soooo, it seems by implication that that nefarious and totally irresistible force  force called "Government" is to blame ???? Tsk Tsk. 

It's not actually invisible, all we have to do is look in the mirror

Funny, in some parts of the world when this nefarious force gets too far out of line, places like Egypt or Brazil for example, people actually do something about it. 

To use the cliche, become the change you want to see. 

BTW the London Example, I agree totally.  

Until there are greater negative results for gross incompetance on the part of Politicians then things are unlikely to change. 

One of the few areas that Recceguy and I are likely to agree is that Dalton Mcguinty's head would look most suitable  mounted on a pike at the entrance to the Ontario Legislature. 

Ford Nation has a lot of valid points, I totally believe that Rob Ford is wasted at city hall and would be the greatest MND ever.  Take Lock-Mart  and some of the others out behind the wood shed and really do a number on them. Same on some of those at Fort Fumble. 

Though with his present levels of empathy, tolerance and Persuasion I doubt that he could sell beer on a troop ship.  at least enough to make a prophet  I mean  profit.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2013)

Heinlein's point is labour is not a commodity. It is not fungible (a kilo of copper from Chile has the same properties as a kilo of copper from a mine in Africa) and varies in value according to factors like time, place level of experience and skill, _in addition to_ the normal dictates of supply and demand.

Capital has migrated to Asis because currently there are opportunities for far higher ROI's on investments there than here. This is only partially due to labour costs, access to resources, the size of the local markets and so on also have a lot to do with this. Change the conditions and you change the outcomes; Chinese business is looking to build new factories in places like Viet Nam for many of the same reasons North American business moved.

AS well, labour regulations have a tremendous effect on employment. France has a huge youth unemployment problem because a half century or more of labour laws makes it effectively impossible to fire underperforming workers and unattractive to hire new workers; French business have collectively decided to do without (i.e. not hire more people) and invest in automation rather than outsource, but the end results are effectively the same. Obamacare in the United States has already changed the shape of the labour market for small and medium business: '49ers is the slang term for business which stops hiring at 49 pers because a larger headcount triggers Obamacare costs and penalties; the vast growth in part time emoployment is due to the fact that anyone under 30hr/week is exampt from Obamacare penalties and costs, go over and the business is now liable.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Jul 2013)

How is labour not a commodity? It has a market price called a wage and a seamstress in Bangladesh is not much different than one in Detroit. The coal too dirty to be burnt in Canada being mined in BC by Chinese guest workers also indicates that labour and environmantal costs are relevant to a commodities cost. 

Rare earth metals are a better example. Rare earths are almost exclusively mined from China. But not because they have the richest deposits. They have the cheapest labour and laxest environmental regulations of countries with known deposits. It takes labour and environmental capital to create fungibles. If you can externalize costs you can maximize profits. In some places I can pay 30 cents a day for labour because the locals will work for a bowl of rice. As a bonus I can pour my toxic sludge straight into the river. My fungible is now cheaper than any that comes  from the regulated first world nations. But I am destroying the place where my factory is located and giving almost nothing back to the locals. I can exhaust the environmental wealth from that particular location and when it is exhausted leave to more fertile grounds.  Fungibles have little value in a wasteland toxic to human life. These are becoming the so called "sacrifice zones" of economic development. I would rather be a basket case of regulation than destroy my children's ability to live a happy, healthy life. 

Randian economics only works for a single generation. We may be remembered as the most profitable generation in history, but it won't be a compliment.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2013)

Perhaps you should sit down and re read Heinlein's quotes. A skilled seamstress in Bangladesh can be worth much more than an untrained one in Quebec. And value to the consumer is relative, not absolute.

You get the same mechanical properties from a material, or the same energy content from a kilogram of coal regardless of where it is mined (don't quibble, you know exactly what I mean), which is why commodity goods are fungible.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Jul 2013)

Fungible simply means interchangeable. It is clear how interchangeable unskilled and semiskilled labourers are  in a global market. There is nothing special about 95% of seamstresses or hard rock miners. I've never had a job where I was not replaceable. If you can easily substitute one labourer for another and you pay them a wage they are by definition fungible. Globalization is mostly dependent on the fungibility of labour and  environmental externalities.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2013)

Detroit is a wonmderful experiment: Ontario or Quebec writ small. After the scale model testing in Detroit, we will have a better idea of how to deal with large scale government bankrupcies:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/18/obama-to-detroit-drop-dead/



> *Obama to Detroit: Drop Dead*
> 
> Update: Detroit files for bankruptcy. More thoughts tomorrow. Below is our post from earlier today.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jul 2013)

When I read this in the Saturday Citizen I thought maybe somebody was having us on, but I soon realized the writer is bemoaning the good, old Trudeau days in the Public Service when there was oodles of other peoples' money to spend. If you wonder why we have a genormous national debt, read on. The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright act.


The good old days of the public service

By Stewart Goodings, Ottawa Citizen July 18, 2013 

What sort of government agency still manages to hold reunions 20 years after it was abolished? Why bother remembering a department so long after it disappeared?

This summer, former staff in the Secretary of State Department held a 20 year party to recognize the year it was eliminated. At this time of angst about civil servants, I started to wonder about memories and loyalties of those who used to work in government agencies, and those who still do.

I spent 13 years in SecState, over two periods, 1971 to 78, and 1986 to 92. I started out as a junior policy officer, and finished as an ADM. While I enjoyed nearly all of my 40 plus years as a civil servant, SecState was the best place I ever worked.

It was a combination of factors; the people, the mission, the challenges, the time.

In the 1970s, it was the era of government expansion and social experimentation — new citizens groups to nurture, new social issues — gender equality — to support, new policies — such as official languages, and multiculturalism — to implement. Canadian culture was on the rise, the afterglow of Expo 67 was still alive, and we had an amazing minister in Gérard Pelletier, who actually respected his civil servants and who had an inquiring and open mind. And as for the bureaucratic leaders in the department, we had Bernard Ostry, Peter Roberts, D’Iberville Fortier, among others — outstanding and creative officials who encouraged their staff to be brave and inventive.

A few days after I arrived, I was called to the under secretary’s office. I viewed Jules Léger almost as a god, in civil service terms. Why did he want to see me, a lowly new hire in a policy shop? Amazingly, he simply wanted to welcome me to the department, and urge me to work hard and enjoy the experience of being a civil servant, as he had been for many years. He was thoughtful to speak in both French and English, a lesson in bilingualism and courtesy I was to observe frequently in SecState.

Can anyone imagine today a deputy minister taking the time to greet a new arrival in the department as Jules Léger did to me in 1971?

Official languages. This was a daily reality in the Secretary of State department. It was never forced, rarely preached, it just happened. There was no other department where the use of both languages seemed so natural and normal. Partly I suppose it was the mandate — we had responsibility for the Translation Bureau, but more than that, it was a reflection of the respect people had for each other and for the languages we had grown up with.

Fast forward to 1987 when I joined the department for the second time. I had spent almost 10 years in the British Columbia civil service before returning to Ottawa and I felt as if I were coming home. This time I was a supposed “big cheese”, but I remembered my Jules Léger lesson and started monthly coffee gatherings for new staff in my education sector.

We had an equally charismatic minister at the time — David Crombie, the former mayor of Toronto. When Deputy Minister Jean Fournier first introduced me to Crombie, I brought a smile to his face when I told him, “Minister, I think you and I will be able to see eye to eye on most issues.” We were both, shall we say, of diminutive stature. Crombie used to frustrate the staff because we would spend hours drafting speeches for him, for which he would thank us most graciously, and then completely put aside as he wove his own brand of off the cuff eloquence. He was a proud patriot and we always knew “Captain Canada” believed in the mission of the department.


In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the issues were more complex, the fiscal pressures more demanding. We did not have the latitude to create as many new programs as we did in the 1970s. But the commitment to serve the citizens of the country was as strong as ever. And when there was a success in one part of the department — for example, the Japanese-Canadian redress initiative — everyone celebrated.

For me, one of the happiest policy files was the Official Languages in Education one, where we helped, along with the provinces and territories, to promote French and English in the schools across the country. I recall visiting tiny francophone communities in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, and Yukon and seeing the pride among parents and grandparents as their offspring regained the use of their mother tongue. I saw the passion of English-speaking Canadians who wanted to give their children the gift of a second language, and now 25 years later, it is gratifying to note the continuing growth of French immersion education in every part of the country.

By the time SecState was abolished in 1993, in one of the system’s great re-organizational convulsions, I had left to join the faculty at the Canadian Centre for Management Development. But I shared the sense of loss felt by my former colleagues as this ancient department, in existence since Confederation, bit the dust.

But astonishingly, arising out of the ashes of this collapse, came annual reunions where former SecState friends met and shared stories of their common pasts, and got caught up on the latest public service gossip. I attended a few in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and found no bitterness, just pleasure at being able to reminisce about “the good old days.” We were fellow veterans of the civil service wars, and we wore our scars and medals happily.

And now, 20 years after the final Day of Destruction, former staff, both senior and junior are acknowledging this “abolition anniversary” of a Department that attracted many of the best and brightest of their generation.

And I wonder whether current public servants will have similar memories and loyalties long after their working days are over?

Stewart Goodings is a retired federal public servant.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2013)

Labour is replaceable, not interchangeable.  This is not well understood by most supervisors today, who speak in terms of "resources".

A desktop computer is a "resource".  If it breaks, you can replace it with one which will function identically.  Good luck finding a person who can exactly replace the functionality of another.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jul 2013)

> ...outstanding and creative officials who encouraged their staff to be brave and inventive...



...with others' money.

Interesting that it was the very same party responsible for the heady days of social experimentation in the late-60s, 70s and early-80s that killed SecState in 93...

Perhaps that's more telling than anything when even those accustomed to largess adopt a more restrained approach...

This piece would be more acceptable/believable as a piece of satire from either extent of the political spectrum than a Liberally-indoctrinated individual...it smacks of inadvertently rubbing most of society's nose in it while trying to paint high-level institutional cronyism as a gallant cause...

...blechhh!...  ( <- Spelled out because I can't find the 'vomiting' icon on my phone.)


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jul 2013)

G2G, exactly why I posted it. I do think the same function - going through oodles of borrowed money - could have been achieved by one person feeding sheets of fifty dollar bills fresh from the Bank of Canada into a shreader.

I fear back in the seventies Ottawa was full of this sort of thinking as money was no issue and careers were being made by inventing ways to spend, spend, spend.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2013)

The _misery index_ was developed by American economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s. Put simply, it adds the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. Both, Okun opined, are dangerous to society: unemployment (too much unemployment, anyway) for obvious reasons but inflation is a danger because it destroys savings.

The Canadian misery index was around 10 for decades until about 1967 - when Pierre Trudeau took office when it began a long, steady climb until, in 1981 and 82, at the end of Trudeau's last government it plateaued at 27. (The worst it ever got in the USA was 22, during the Carter administration.)

Inflation is fuelled, directly, by government spending and Pierre Trudeau spent like a drunken sailor. During his tenure government spending rose from 17.1% of GDP to 24.3% - a 42% increase over the entire period. Both unemployment and inflation increased markedly and steadily while Pierre Trudeau was prime minister; both increased because he, consciously, adopted dangerous, unsound _socialist_ policies that killed both jobs and savings/investment. 

It was, I suppose, a golden age for Stewart Goodings and other poorly educated, irresponsible, silk stocking socialists. And they probably did believe in what they were doing, but: the "best and the brightest?" In a department responsible for bilingual education and the Canada Day ceremonies? It was a sad, sick joke that the Government of Canada played on credulous young Canadians who weren't bright enough to join PCO, Finance or Treasury or even _Public Blunders and Wonders_ (as we used to call Public Buildings and Works, now PWGSC). Secretary of State was a notorious dumping ground for superannuated _has beens_, and D'Iberville Fortier and Jules Léger fit that bill to a T; they were second string diplomats, they rose to the "top," but of the smallest heap - ambassadors to places like Mexico City and Brussels, they were not posted to Washington, Bonn and Tokyo nor even London and Paris.


Edit: capitalization  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _misery index_ was developed by American economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s. Put simply, it adds the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. Both, Okun opined, are dangerous to society: unemployment (too much unemployment, anyway) for obvious reasons but inflation is a danger because it destroys savings.
> 
> The Canadian misery index was around 10 for decades until about 1967 - when Pierre Trudeau took office when it began a long, steady climb until, in 1981 and 82, at the end of Trudeau's last government it plateaued at 27. (The worst it ever got in the USA was 22, during the Carter administration.)
> 
> ...




That's slightly worse than Greece in 2013. Although unemployment is approaching 27% the economy is actually _deflating_ (at (as of May 2013) -0.40%) so the Greek misery index is probably at about 26. The most recent misery index for Canada, in early 2013, was 7.8.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2013)

Sometimes the commentary is even better than the post. This talks about art, but the takeaway line is how "progressives" have set up the institutions of the Progressive State: *to circumvent the preferences of the public and how they’d spend their own money voluntarily.*

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2013/04/aesthetes-take-heed.html?cid=6a00d83451675669e2019102dab52b970c#comment-6a00d83451675669e2019102dab52b970c



> We are heading to the era of ‘Meh’… Art therefore has increasingly no meaning, no relevance and eventually no observers.
> 
> Well, it’s often hard to distinguish between supposedly daring contemporary art and the kind of momentarily amusing tat I sometimes include in the ephemera posts. And while I’m happy to browse tat online, and laugh at it, I’m not so keen to waste an afternoon in a local gallery doing much the same thing, even though I’m forced to pay for it. But I’d imagine there’s always something worth seeing, somewhere. Whether that something ever finds its way into the local modish galleries may be another matter, and whether modish galleries will retain much of a connection with things worth seeing is another matter again. The things that please the eye may not even be recognised by artistic institutions.
> 
> ...



Alternative funding models like Kickstarter and Indigogo will liberate _real_ artists (who have some skill or talent) from having to bootlick for government funding, and with the oncoming era of bankruptcy the fatuous psudo artists (and most other people on the public teat) will be cut free. Crowdfunding and crowdsourcing are marvelous tools because they *circumvent the preferences of the bureaucracy and how they’d spend the public's money involuntarily.*


----------



## pbi (30 Jul 2013)

> Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  (Sir Winston Churchill,)



Having read over this lengthy and interesting thread, and reflected a bit on the evolution of my own political perspective over the years, I'd have to say that I've experienced almost a reverse effect from what Churchill identified above. Almost.

I guess I'm that despicable creature that Righties and Lefties equally hate: a pragmatist. I'm highly suspicious of mouth-foamers, shrill screamers and demagogues from either end of the spectrum. I find that they pretty much all share the same nasty characteristic: they are very sure that they know how everybody else should live their lives, and that anybody who differs from their line of thought is a mindless drone serving evil interests.

While (so far...) our political culture has largely been spared the collapse of reasonable political discourse that seems to have happened in the US over the last few years, it does seem to me to be something to watch out for. If important issues of public policy end up as die-in-the-ditch screaming matches between doctrinaire righties and lefties, with little or no genuine search for common ground to get things done, society suffers.

So here are a few random thoughts :

-"*Other Peoples' Money*": if the fact that an agency is publicly funded somehow cheapens the value of what it does, or calls into question the motives and abilities of its members, where does that leave the military, the police or the fire service?;

-"*The Nanny State*": at what point does reasonable and necessary government regulation for the public good (transportation safety, workplace health and safety, anti-discrimination, etc) become excessive to the point that it actually weakens society and strangles (or, at least, constricts) the economy? But then again, what's the track record for "de-regulation" or letting industry "police itself"?;

-"*Smash the Rich*": why do so many people "out there" on the Left fail to understand that business is the engine of everything, and that squashing business by punitive "feel good" corporate taxes or ridiculous labour policies will slowly shut that engine down, thus removing the goose that lays the funding egg for social programs and general prosperity?;

-"*The Good Old Days*"why do so many people on the Right want to turn the clock back to some imaginary "good old days" that (on closer factual examination, as opposed to fond myth-mongering) either never existed at all, or existed only for those people who "fit in"? Why does this often seem to coexist with deep suspicion (if not outright hatred) for anybody who is "different"? (immigrant, native, gay, whatever...)?;

-"*Death, Prisons and Crime*": Some people need to be executed, right now. They are never going to be rehabilitated and their hideous acts should forfeit their further existence. The spending of public money on them is offensive. On the other hand, what actual good does slamming people into the prison environment achieve, especially young people? If you've ever been inside a penitentiary, or know anybody who works in one, I think you might ask yourself just what kind of person we are putting back on the street after ten or fifteen years. (Maybe we should also ask what kind of a person they were before they went into the digger.) I doubt that the "official" CSC recidivism rate tells the full story: do released prisoners really go on to lead productive, non-threatening lives due to their itme in the prison? Is society really served? Or are these people just "warehoused" for a while, so we feel better about it?  "Get tough on crime" to me rings hollow if doesn't deal with the sources of the problem. It's like extinguishing a burning building but never finding out why it caught fire in the first place, so we can reduce the number of fires;

-"*Watching the Watchers*" Like many social conservatives, I believe that police must have the authority and the weapons to use lethal force when it's needed, and I believe that we must be very fair,careful and precise in how we judge the actions of those men and women we put in harm's way. But, like many on the "liberal" end of the spectrum, I am also 100% sure that we still must judge those actions, and that the police must be subject to broad public scrutiny, and held to a much higher standard of behaviour than Joe Citizen. ;

-"*Education and Society*"shouldn't a public education system be an important part of the social glue that helps to hold us together? Civic virtues; knowldge and love of country; understanding of people who are different, are to me all things that I believe a good public education system produces. If we follow some vocal people on the Right and encourage middle class families (ie: most Canadian families) to hive their children off into private schools, charter schools, home schools, religious schools, etc, who will be left in the public schools other than the sick poor and lazy? If the public education system is damaged, fix it, don't scrap it. On the other end of things, why do so many people on the Left seem to think that "education" means chanting endless paeans to political correctness, avoiding critical thought on social issues, and not teaching children about responsibility, duty and dealing with failure? I went to high school in the 1970's, at the peak of the Leftie madness in education in Ontario, so I have sme idea what I'm talking about here;

That's enough (or too much, maybe...) The older I get, the more I subscribe to that line from the movie "V for Vendetta":

"_People should not fear their governments; governments should fear the people_"

And therein, IMHO, lies the real problem. Governments will fear an educated and politically active population that remembers, thinks critically, and gets out there to vote. Until that accurately describes the Canadian electorate, we will get the government we deserve.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jul 2013)

:goodpost:


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2013)

Best thing I've read in a while.  I'm stealing that.

Milpoints inbound.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2013)

"Respect the dignity of all persons" is my preferred summary.  It essentially precludes exploitation, mistreatment, and dictating how others should live their own lives.  It is a remarkably libertarian principle.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2013)

People without a sense of history are astonished that the Obama Administration is working to muzzel opposing political groups, any press which is not on board with them and otherwise trampling on the Constitutional rights of Americans. A short history lesson from the period of the "New Deal". As an aside, this sort of behaviour really came ito its own with the Wilson Administration...

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/354706/print



> *The New Deal Witch Hunt*
> Federal targeting and intimidation of conservatives is nothing new.
> By  David T. Beito
> 
> ...


----------



## Shrek1985 (25 Aug 2013)

really glad i found this thread


----------



## pbi (28 Aug 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> People without a sense of history are astonished that the Obama Administration is working to muzzel opposing political groups, any press which is not on board with them and otherwise trampling on the Constitutional rights of Americans. A short history lesson from the period of the "New Deal". As an aside, this sort of behaviour really came ito its own with the Wilson Administration...
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/node/354706/print



Sort of like McCarthyism, but in the opposite direction...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2013)

The end of the Progressive project will not occur because of political activists (although they will certaily work hard to achieve that goal), but rather through the collapse of its own institutions through failure, internal contradictions and the sheer drain on other resources that Progressivism entails. This is actually the "good" version of the story; the "bad" ending is when the collapse of the Progressive State in violent and uncontrolled. One can only hope the revulsion of the people will be enough to allow for the controlled drawdown rather than the collapse. The positive note of private insurance exchanges rising in parallel to Obamacare shows one way of achieving the drawdown (markets like this can expand to replace much of Medicare and Medicaid as well. I also like the irony of using Revolutionary Warfare Theory against progressive institutions [the theory of parallel governments]):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579097443230322758.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet



> *Daniel Henninger: Let ObamaCare Collapse Congress can't kill the entitlement state. Only the American people can*.
> By DANIEL HENNINGER
> 
> What the GOP's Defund-ObamaCare Caucus is failing to see is that ObamaCare is no longer just ObamaCare. It is about something that is beyond the reach of a congressional vote.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2013)

A comment from a reader of Instapundit gets it right. The Progressive State wants to eliminate the "small platoons" and leave people naked in front of the Leviathan:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/176843/?show-at-comment=284251#comment-284251



> Joseph White
> The long-term goal of the government's social policies are to flatten society out into one atomized mass. There will be only the state and the individual, and the individual will have no protection, no mediating institutions, between itself and the state. Antipathy towards a wide variety of actors--the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, "special interests" of all types, political parties, private universities--can all be understood in light of this fact. The government reserves special hatred for the family, because the family is older than the state and, unless steps are taken, will outlast it. It gives the individual a locus of attention besides the state, and therefore, must be crushed. The ongoing destruction of the concepts of both marriage and family by the left is intended to remove permanently the transcendent family from the political sphere, leaving only mere biological relationships, which are not enough to inspire resistance to the state.


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Oct 2013)

I'm far more worried about the corporate state than the "entitlement" state. As far as I am concerned, business interests have already won. We are living in the gilded age again, and the the rights won by the labour movement earlier this century have been clawed back. Our governments in the west have largely gone from their traditional role as protectors of capitalism (negotiating with the more radical leftist movements to ensure the survival of the corporate elite) to merely protecting capital. The money and corruption in politics tells the story. I don't think any of us will be enjoying life in Canada if things continue along the current path.

I would add that the idea that Obama is somehow progressive is misguided. He presides over undeclared wars, torture, the massive bail outs of the crooks on Wall Street (probably the greatest upward transfer of wealth in history) and his healthcare package is really just a hand out to pharmaceutical and insurance companies, NOT the American people. I'm with you on the dislike of Obama, but from a left perspective I suppose. I have my problems with what passes for the "left" these days. It's pretty pathetic. So gays can marry? Who cares? That's social window dressing.  That doesn't address the economic catastrophe we are faced with, or the growing inequality that will inevitably cause a collapse of some kind. 

What we need is a REAL left, a radical left that is not afraid of class debate. They should never hold power, and they never really have in a democracy. Their role is to balance the power of capital through negotiating with the state. Is that system perfect? Of course not, but it's preferable to the inverted totalitarianism we have now, and the neo-feudalism we are swiftly approaching.

The irony is that the far right and the far left (of which I suppose I am a part, though I have my problems with Occupy etc etc so I hesitate to define myself on any spectrum) actually agree on many things now. For the right, government is problem, for the left, corporate power is the problem, but we agree there IS a problem. I think the reality is simply that corporate power IS the government and vice versa. It's a revolving door, they're all the same people, and they're breathing different air than us. We are all right to be angry, but let's not head down the destructive road of blaming the poor, blaming social programs, or blaming the _idea_ of government. History has shown us that in times like these, ideas like that are extremely dangerous. In fact we could start a thread titled "Deconstructing Conservative Thought,"  the only problem is what passes as conservative these days is actually extreme economic liberalism. REAL traditional conservatives would be in favour of regulation, more concerned with *conserving *the environment and so on. The fact that the polices being bandied back and forth on this thread would directly aid corporate power only confirms for me that they have won and there is no hope.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2013)

Curious timing - an interesting firestorm in Britain.

Ed Milliband has come out and declared his intention to continue his father's dream and make Britain socialist.

A Daily Mail journalist has revisited Ed's father's record.

Ed has attacked the attack on his father.

Cameron, Johnson and Clegg have piled on the Journalist.

Other journalists point out that the article attacked the father's record, words and beliefs and not the man.

I quote the full article and link to the responses.

Some interesting references - Socialism, LSE, Laski, - walking the same streets as Trudeau the elder.

No points for guessing my positions on the discussion.



> The man who hated Britain: Red Ed's pledge to bring back socialism is a homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country
> By GEOFFREY LEVY
> PUBLISHED: 21:50 GMT, 27 September 2013 | UPDATED: 12:53 GMT, 1 October 2013
> 
> ...



Ed Milliband's Rebuttal
Daily Mail's counter point
Labour's Dan Hodges defends the Daily Mail
Benedict Brogan


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm far more worried about the corporate state than the "entitlement" state. ...



So am I, if we're speaking about the sort of unfettered corporate powers that existed in, say, England or the US prior to the onset of unions and social legislation. I think it's really an exaggeration to claim that that is what we have in Canada today, regardless of what political party is in office. That sid, there is some wisdom in being wary of letting corporations dictate the whole agenda.

Nobody here should forget that unions, as much as we trash them today, arose to deal with horrendous practices by employers, who in turn often tried to bring the full force of the state against those workers who merely wanted some reasonable working conditions that any of us would take for granted today. I find the idea that these employers would "eventually have fixed things anyway" a bit hard to swallow. From time to time today, IMHO we see hints that maybe, if the opportunity were provided, some employers might be tempted to revert to less enlightened conditions.

Unions and the changes they fought for, and beneficial social legislation that was intended to help to deal with poverty, with totally nonexistent medical care, disgusting public sanitation, child labour, etc, all set out in the beginning to do good things for most people. And, in the beginning (and I might argue in many cases still today) these measures did great things, often with very broad popular support.

Take publicly funded medical care, for example. I see nothing wrong with this idea: it's actually a very noble one, again with the best of intent. We certainly expect that things like police service, fire protection, streets and sanitation are contributed to by all, in order to be available to all. I see no logical reason why this principle of "common good" can't apply to medical care as well. Again, the initial impulse in having publicly funded health care was to help, or to do good for people. (How well it actually gets managed could be a separate discussion...)

Utterly destroying the "entitlement state" is a fool's errand. To expect (for example) that a population of a metropolis of millions of people can be expected to revert to some sort of log-cabin rugged individualism and self sufficiency is nonsense. It isn't going to work. And that's where 80% of our people live today: in complex urban centres, where people are dependent upon systems and, ultimately, government managed functions, to survive.

The problem with all this well-meant social good is that we have people who want to abuse it. Some wish to abuse it from the bottom end, by cheating and defrauding the public. Others want to abuse it by giving themselves the power of petty tyrants to push other people around. The answer IMHO is more accountability and visibility at both ends. The answer is not blind, ideologically-driven hacking and slashing of programs without regard for the problems these programs were established to deal with.

There is a balance here, but in the end if I have to make a black-and-white choice between a political system that looks primarily after corporate interests, as opposed to looking primarily after the people, I'm tending toward the latter.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2013)

>And that's where 80% of our people live today: in complex urban centres, where people are dependent upon systems and, ultimately, government managed functions, to survive.

Urban centres are not the only complex things.  Corporations are a social good; they enable people to specialize in complex tasks, which raises productivity and wealth and thus, overall, health and well-being.  A corporation is what enables a machinist to concentrate on machining, instead of machining, advertising, selling his work door-to-door, answering phones, book-keeping, etc.  I agree that the state doesn't need to be organized to see first to the comforts and needs of corporations, but I am firmly set against the political factions and philosophies that set corporations up as some flavour of "evil".  Complex endeavours require complex organizations, which is what both government and corporations are.  Corporations have the advantage of being voluntary, and dissolving/collapsing when they outlive their usefulness, with no requirement for direct intervention - simple consumer neglect serves.  Government, for some reason, seems to be harder to keep in trim.


----------



## pbi (11 Oct 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... Corporations are a social good; they enable people to specialize in complex tasks, which raises productivity and wealth and thus, overall, health and well-being.



I would say rather that "corporations CAN be a social good", for the reasons you offered, provided that the corporation in question is run in an ethical manner, with at least a minimum level of compassion for its work force, and some sense of itself as a "responsible corporate citizen".

The underlying problem IMHO is that the _raison d'etre_ of a corporation is to make money for its owners and shareholders. (That is meant as a statement of fact, not as a judgment.) Therefore, it's hard (if not stupid) for a corporation to totally ignore its bottom line in favour of what might seem like "soft" or "non-core" issues to people sitting around the boardroom table.

Because of that, unless compelled by law or the threat of labour action, most corporations are naturally going to default to their bottom line. That is why I believe that their basic impulses need to be regulated by government.

By "regulate" I don't mean crush under punitive corporate taxes, disastrously stultifying labour law, or acres of stupid red tape. I mean those reasonable and prudent measures, usually taken with broad public support, to ensure that corporations actually demonstrate those characteristics I mentioned in my first paragraph.

Like I said, there is a balance.


----------



## Jed (11 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I would say rather that "corporations CAN be a social good", for the reasons you offered, provided that the corporation in question is run in an ethical manner, with at least a minimum level of compassion for its work force, and some sense of itself as a "responsible corporate citizen".
> 
> The underlying problem IMHO is that the _raison d'etre_ of a corporation is to make money for its owners and shareholders. (That is meant as a statement of fact, not as a judgment.) Therefore, it's hard (if not stupid) for a corporation to totally ignore its bottom line in favour of what might seem like "soft" or "non-core" issues to people sitting around the boardroom table.
> 
> ...



Excellent Post  :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I would say rather that "corporations CAN be a social good", for the reasons you offered, provided that the corporation in question is run in an ethical manner, with at least a minimum level of compassion for its work force, and some sense of itself as a "responsible corporate citizen".
> 
> The underlying problem IMHO is that the _raison d'etre_ of a corporation is to make money for its owners and shareholders. (That is meant as a statement of fact, not as a judgment.) Therefore, it's hard (if not stupid) for a corporation to totally ignore its bottom line in favour of what might seem like "soft" or "non-core" issues to people sitting around the boardroom table.
> 
> ...




In fact it may be illegal for the "people sitting around the boardroom table" to "ignore its bottom line in favour of what might seem like "soft" or "non-core" issues." The _corporation_, as a legal entity, has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and the _directors_ (the "people sitting around the boardroom table") owe a similar fiduciary duty to the corporation.

There are regulations in place today, affirmed, again and again by the Supreme Court of Canada. They are very similar to the regulations in place in America, Britain, Germany, Hong Kong, Norway and Singapore and so on. They do not satisfy the political _left_ ... but the regulations which would satisfy the left might (some very smart people say *would*) destroy the very enterprises they are intending to milk for the "public good."







We, Canada, already take "reasonable and prudent measures, usually taken with broad public support, to ensure that corporations actually [are] run in an ethical manner, with at least a minimum level of compassion for its work force, and some sense of itself as a "responsible corporate citizen"." That's been the general rule, throughout the West, for over 50 years.

There is no evidence that many, much less most, Canadian corporations are anything but ethical and fair in their dealings. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the political left throughout the Euro-America West (which includes Japan and Singapore and so on) is both *a)* ignorant of economics, and *b)* dishonest. the political left actually does want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because it, the left, almost always puts short term gain at the head of its list of socio-economic priorities.

I agree that the "needs" of the bottom 20% of society are not being met. We will never, can never meet the "needs" of the bottom 2% but for the remainer, the 90% of the bottom 20%, there is one simple solution to almost all their problems: a job. Not welfare, not EI, a job. Maybe not a "nice" job, maybe not a "good" job, almost certainly not a clean, warm, "easy" job, but a job that pays enough to keep a (regrettably poor) roof over a small family's head and keep (equally regrettably poor, but adequate) food on the table. Almost all (well intended) social programmes in Canada (and America and Britain, and, and, and ...) are both *a)* a waste of money, and, actually *b* counter productive because they discourage work and make jobs less and less attractive for the _able_ in society.

I, broadly and generally, support a "guaranteed minimum income" for those who are employed for 35 or ore hours per week. I also support lower and lower welfare payments as an essential component of that "guaranteed minimum income" scheme. In my "perfect world"™ those who don't want to work would actually suffer for it. That who cannot work should not, of course, be punished for a disability.


----------



## tomydoom (11 Oct 2013)

ERC, I couldn't agree more with your post. Are you running for "Regent of Canada"?


----------



## GR66 (11 Oct 2013)

Interestingly Conservative Senator Hugh Segal was on CBC Radio this afternoon discussing his support for the idea of a minimum income (http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+180/ID/2411626759/).

I agree that done right a guaranteed minimum income makes more sense than a variety of different income supports that act as disincentives to working.  The biggest problem in implementing such a scheme though will be overcoming the modern idea that the government needs to provide equitable outcomes for people instead of just providing a minimum security net.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Interestingly Conservative Senator Hugh Segal was on CBC Radio this afternoon discussing his support for the idea of a minimum income (http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+180/ID/2411626759/).
> 
> I agree that done right a guaranteed minimum income makes more sense than a variety of different income supports that act as disincentives to working.  The biggest problem in implementing such a scheme though will be overcoming the modern idea that the government needs to provide equitable outcomes for people instead of just providing a minimum security net.




You're right. We, Euro-Americans in general, it seems to me, are reluctant to _enforce_ standards in return for support.

Equitable outcomes are a fantasy. And even if they were possible *~ and they are not ~* they would break the bank ... every bank.

What we can, and in my view should do is: reward effort (work) and punish sloth (idleness) ... at the same time being very careful to distinguish between those who cannot help themselves and those who choose to not help themselves. The former deserve our charity ~ and let's call it what it is ~ and the later do not.

Remember George Bernard Shaw's _undeserving poor_ monologue? He spoke the truth ...


Edit: formatting


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2013)

>Therefore, it's hard (if not stupid) for a corporation to totally ignore its bottom line in favour of what might seem like "soft" or "non-core" issues to people sitting around the boardroom table.

Leaving aside the legal imperatives, even when a corporation pursues best-in-class fiscal and ethical stewardship and praiseworthy ecological and social goals (aimed, I expect, at promoting its image, and thus indirectly the bottom line) - and is widely recognized for its leadership in these respects - it doesn't necessarily generate much gratitude and sympathy among the very people who might clamour for ecological and social responsibility.  Consumers also are bottom-line conscious.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2013)

The money line is in the last paragraph: " and moralism is often a cover for power-seeking". Progressiveism is so often cloaked in moralism; telling us how to live, what to eat, what sorts of transport to take, always for our own good of course:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/15/peter-foster-not-smart/



> *Peter Foster: Not smart!*
> 
> Peter Foster | 15/10/13 | Last Updated: 16/10/13 8:46 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Oct 2013)

Relativism.  And it changes flavour by the day, month, year and decade.


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2013)

I guess it depends on what we think we mean when we say "progressive". Just like, perhaps, determining what we mean when we say "liberal".  IMHO these are being used more as epithets (the political discourse in the US being an extreme example: I can't imagine a political party there calling itself the "Liberal Party"), and less and less as objective descriptors. (If that's an accurate term)

The danger here, I think, is that in the zealous rush to condemn people who come up with silly ideas like overly-designed cities run by Urban Operating Systems, or rabid "Political Correctness" mongers,  we may overlook or forget some of the very good, and, I think, important tenets of what might pass as the "progressive" platform.

Things like:

-protection of the environment. I don't know about you, but I like clean air and clean water. I don't like toxic waste dumps or acid-laden smoke spewing around my community. There are plenty of "brown field sites" around this country to remind us of what went on before we decided to do something about it;

-laws that protect people from being discriminated against for invalid reasons. I have an adult daughter and a gay adult son: I want both of them to be able to work at whatever career they are fit for, or marry whoever they wish to, without having the door slammed in their faces based on prejudice; and

-laws that give people safe places to work, and reasonable wages for that work.

It seems to me that all of these things have had to be put in place by means of laws, which IMHO were originally championed by people who might fall under the classification of "progressive" or even "liberal". Without these progressive or liberal impulses, I fear society might be a much more miserable place for many more people.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2013)

In Europe "liberal" is also an epithet ... but it means "reactionary", "conservative", "fascist" and occasionally "anglo-saxon".


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2013)

Like "Liberal Democrats"?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Like "Liberal Democrats"?



Yahhhh Ptui. Ptui.

I fart in your general direction.

Edit: Besides everybody knows that Europe starts at the other side of the Channel.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2013)

Terms have evolved or been coopted over time. Todays "Conservatives" are espousing the values of "Liberal" philosophers like John Locke, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo, among others. Try applying those philosophies to the "Liberal" party or "Liberals" today.

An amusing anecdote; I once attended a seminar hosted by the "Institute for Liberal Studies" (http://www.liberalstudies.ca/) given at the University of Windsor. During one of the breaks a group of young people came in and sat down to listen to the next session. Many looked confused, and most left after the session. I spoke to one of the ones who remained afterwards, who confessed he and his friends had thought this was a meeting of the "Young Liberals". 

Perhaps the institute did convert one person that day, the young man enthusiastically attended the rest of the sessions and I believe he signed up for membership as well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2013)

"Progressives" are interested mainly in social engineering, based chiefly on speculation about what they think a "better society" might look like.  There is little evidence of empiricism or deep forward thinking to examine possible consequences of their ideas.

I credit technologists - scientists, engineers - for improvements in air and water equality.  People throughout history have always done whatever they needed to in order to survive.  I doubt many were indifferent to living in proximity with garbage and pollution, but they lacked alternatives; as alternatives are developed, they are applied.  The desire for improvement is always there, but not always the means.


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Progressives" are interested mainly in social engineering, based chiefly on speculation about what they think a "better society" might look like.  There is little evidence of empiricism or deep forward thinking to examine possible consequences of their ideas.



And isn't "_a better life_" the goal of most political or social movements? I mean, try having a platform touting "_a worse life_". The question probably is "_whose idea of a better life?"_

I guess it depends on what you mean by "social engineering", but this seems like a pretty sharp dismissal of all those individuals and groups throughout history who fought for changes to make things better for people. Perhaps we have come to take so many things for granted that we have forgotten that somebody once went out and created the social and political pressure to bring about those changes.

It seems like we are living in pretty dismal times when "progressive" or "liberal" are shameful terms.  Perhaps these good words have been hijacked by extremists, or are convenient "attack words" for use by people who themselves don't really engage in any "empiricism or deep forward thinking to examine possible consequences of their ideas."



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I credit technologists - scientists, engineers - for improvements in air and water equality.  People throughout history have always done whatever they needed to in order to survive.  I doubt many were indifferent to living in proximity with garbage and pollution, but they lacked alternatives; as alternatives are developed, they are applied.  The desire for improvement is always there, but not always the means.



Technologists have certainly identified the technical and scientific aspects of the problem (where the issues were technical or scientific in the first place...), and obviously provided the physical means for solutions (water purification, sewage treatment, vaccination, industrial safety systems, etc.) but IMHO they have had little or no power to introduce these measures without social or political support for them.

I agree that people were not indifferent to living next to garbage dumps and pollution, and I also agree that they lacked options. But, IMHO, not only did they lack options, they lacked any belief that anything could be done. It was only when somebody sat up and said "_people shouldn't have to live like this anymore_", and converted it into social or political change (usually involving legislation somewhere along the way), that they had options.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2013)

The problem with "Progressives" is that they require Progress.  Progress demands change.  If change doesn't happen than no progress has occurred.  

But what happens if you have progressed to an Optimum?  Not a maximum or a minimum but simply the best possible.

For the "Progressive" leadership to demonstrate to their "Progressive" followers that they are still worthy of support they have to demonstrate change.  But if you are at an Optimum then all change can only take you further away from "the best possible" situation and render the situation worse. 

But change has been demonstrated.

Ultimately the issue whose ideas will rule your life?  Your own or somebody else's?  Usually the fights occur between two people who want to run your life.

The Greta Garbos of the world don't start wars.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Oct 2013)

"Better society" and "better life" are not synonymous.  One man's necessity is another man's garbage; one man's kink is another man's belly laugh.  Problems begin when people seek to define objectives for others.

The goal of most political and social movements is to acquire status - even if it is merely the status of "see how noble I am".

I am a harsh judge of progressives and activists who fail to account for the opportunity costs and unintended consequences of their actions, and to undo their mistakes without reservations.  I will stipulate that every cause brings some good to someone - just as I will stipulate that every dollar of public spending does some good for someone.  The same question remains to be answered: was it the best possible expenditure of effort/resources, and did it create problems that went unanswered/unexamined because the only thing the disciples could see was their own goal?

"Liberal" has lost its proper meaning in the US, and partly also in Canada, and become synonymous with what most people understand to be "progressive".  But "progressives" can become downright "conservative" once they move the ratchet.  Try talking a Canadian progressive into any health care reform except exactly the reform which the progressive demands (generally, more money), and see how far you change his view.

My key beef with progressives is that if your answer to them is "No, now leave me alone" they won't lay off.  To them, every issue is open for discussion until they get what they want.  Then "the debate is over".

Here are two examples of what progressivism has wrought: destruction of family formation among American blacks, and de-institutionalization of mentally unstable people into the streets of Canada and the US.  I need not reach back into the 1930s.  Progressives have a lot for which to answer.  Good luck even getting them to admit their policies are the causes of the effects.


----------



## pbi (22 Oct 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The problem with "Progressives" is that they require Progress.  Progress demands change.  If change doesn't happen than no progress has occurred.



But what is inherently wrong with either "change" or progress"? 
Not, I hasten to add, the sort of random, wasteful change for change's sake that we sometimes see from time in various places  like...oh...let's see....the military? >



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...But what happens if you have progressed to an Optimum?  Not a maximum or a minimum but simply the best possible...



OK...fine. And who decides what the "Optimum" is? "Optimum" for whom? If "progressives" want to defend a gain or change in society, but reactionary people want to roll it back, who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The goal of most political and social movements is to acquire status - even if it is merely the status of "see how noble I am".



This is a pretty broad condemnation, if you mean "status" in a negative way as in glory-seeking. Would you group the US Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement in the UK, the movement to establish publicly funded healthcare in Canada, all together in the same pot as "most political movements? Just being shameless attention-seekers?

If , on the other hand, by "status" you mean that a movement has recognition, influence and credibility, then I agree with you 100%. Without those things no movement worthy of the name is ever going to change anything anyway.



> Here are two examples of what progressivism has wrought: destruction of family formation among American blacks, and de-institutionalization of mentally unstable people into the streets of Canada and the US.  I need not reach back into the 1930s.  Progressives have a lot for which to answer.  Good luck even getting them to admit their policies are the causes of the effects.



IMHO the social problems of poor black Americans (and, I would add, some Canadian black communities) have lots more causes than just "progressives". I would certainly agree that badly thought- out or badly applied- social programs have not helped, at all, but identifying that is in no way the same as making a blanket condemnation of liberal or progressive thought. After all, it was the "progressives" of the day, first in the UK and then in the US, who ended slavery.

I think that probably the de-institutionalization of people in mental institutions was done with good intentions (and no Provincial government that I'm aware of, "liberal" or "conservative", has ever moved seriously to roll it back in the decades since it happened), but I agree that it looks like a trainwreck now. Either that, or we have a lot more mentally ill people than we did twenty years ago.  I don't know if this was due to "progressive" thinking, or to a simple lack of analysis of cause and effects.

To fire a broadside like that above against "progressives" is like saying that because conservative US politicians in the 1930's, 40s and '50s opposed civil rights reforms (some Southerners even opposed striking down lynch laws) that all conservatives are narrow minded racists defending the status quo. That isn't true either, quite obviously.

I would argue that while progressive thinkers have lots to answer for, they have historically had quite a bit to be proud of, too. And, BTW, good luck getting committed people from either end of the political spectrum to admit to bad effects from their actions. Just look at the political train wreck in the US. Being married to bad ideas isn't the sole property of "progressives".

My guess is that the people we all really hate are not people who want to stand up for making life better by righting real wrongs, but it's those whiny, excessively politically correct people who champion rubbish like the silly university courses sometimes collectively called "Victim Studies" (read "_The Victim's Revolution_" for a good take on this nonsense). The same people who don't want to hear the word "responsibilities" in the same sentence as "rights", or want to call unemployed "unwaged", r don't want to hear about "work for welfare" because it's "demeaning".  These are the real problem.

IMHO most of them do not deserve to share the historical stage with true progressives.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> But what is inherently wrong with either "change" or progress"?


But what is inherently wrong with either "stasis" or regression?



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> OK...fine. And who decides what the "Optimum" is? "Optimum" for whom? If "progressives" want to defend a gain or change in society, but reactionary people want to roll it back, who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"?



That one's easy. I do.  

And if you don't like it, well, one of us will have to lump it.

I am inclined to take a rather liberal view of what is progress while still conserving my ire for what I consider excess.  Equally my conservative nature requires that I am accepting of the status quo and thus more tolerant which in turn makes me more liberal in my associations with others.

Enjoy yourself parsing that one....


----------



## pbi (22 Oct 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Enjoy yourself parsing that one....



Hmmm......you are mocking me in some way, I just know it. ???

I will figure out what way. :rage:

And I will respond with an age-,cultural- and gender-neutral socially appropriate discourse which will allow us to dialogue this meaningful seamless transitional paradigm shift while validating the needs of marginalized communities. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2013)

Aye, I do mock.  But only to take the sting out.

The real issue is that while words have meaning they only have meaning in context.  When discourse is reduced to single words soon it is simplified further to the monosyllabic fricative.

 ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2013)

Further to my last thought:

I just remembered an event that speaks to my "context" argument.  I was on a MITCP course long ago and far away and after a strenuous bout of square bashing and yelling commands over the top of my competing course mates we fell out for a brief rest.  I took myself away from the mob for a bit to enjoy my own company.

A this point our instructor bellows across the parade square at me.  "Mr Kirkhill (name changed to the protect the innocent), are you an_ individual_?"

Now normally I would have responded in the affirmative.  However something in that CAR Sgt's tone suggested to me that that was not the answer he was looking for.  I doubled over and joined the mob.

Context is everything.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Oct 2013)

Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:

Either you're an evil, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:
> 
> Either you're an evil, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.



Care to expand on that?


----------



## pbi (23 Oct 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Context is everything.



Yes, it is. For example, just look at the phrase: "That was smart".

Does it mean it was smart, or stupid, or smartly turned, or had onboard digital guidance systems (as opposed to "dumb").

People get caught by this in e-mails all the time.


----------



## pbi (23 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:
> 
> Either you're an evil, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Care to expand on that?



Yes, I would like to see that, too.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Deconstructing "Conservative" Progressive thought:
> 
> Either you're an evil, selfless, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.



That's exactly how "Progressives" view the world, with themselves in the driver's seat, and the rest of us needing to be nudged, guided or otherwise socially engineered to do what is "good" for us (in _their_ opinion).

Now as Edward, Brad, Kirkhill and many others (me included) have pointed out, there are plenty of busybodies coming at you from many different positions (Socons and religious fundamentalism come to mind), but the common denominator is always they want _power_; the power to impose their values and the power to _make_ you conform, regardless of where on the "political spectrum" they claim to be on. Perhaps the real spectrum isn't "Left" and "Right" but Illiberal and liberal (using the classical definition of liberal).

Going a bit upthread about so called "corporate power", recall corporations are legal entities that exist at the pleasure of the government and only have as much or little power as the State is willing to grant. The fact this power is granted unevenly and often for reasons that are not clear to the public (for example, why are we all forced to pay Bell for the privilege of having CTV news on ordinary cable, but need to pay QMI separately to receive SUN TV?).


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2013)

When I slag "progressives", I mean "progressives" in the contemporary understanding: welfare statists with a strong streak of nannyism (practices they enjoy=protected; practices they don't care about=forbidden).  I don't mean "anyone seeking change".

Many of the successes today's "progressives" like to claim as their doing in fact stemmed from much broader movements, while at the same time they disavow their much more directly tangible relationship with earlier "progressives" responsible for such abominations as eugenics and cultural assimilation programs.  They certainly don't get to have it both ways.

It is noteworthy that the big, unmistakeable successes of change form an intersection squarely in the set of classical liberal and libertarian principles regarding basic human and civil rights: ending slavery, extending voting and other civil rights to 100% of competent adults, etc.


----------



## Shrek1985 (24 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> That's exactly how "Progressives" view the world, with themselves in the driver's seat, and the rest of us needing to be nudged, guided or otherwise socially engineered to do what is "good" for us (in _their_ opinion).



What weird is that at heart they seem to view people as "essentially good" in a bad system, without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. So; we're all good people, but we need lots of rules and watching.

I think you get farther, with better ideas if you understand that human beings are essentially evil, cruel creatures, advanced animals really. And then give them benefit of the doubt.

Progressive ideas seem to stem from a beliefe of inherant goodness in all people in all times and places. Bad histories are the result of a flawed system. Communism is a "good" idea, which "good" people willl prosper under. But every communist government ever "did it wrong", their system was bad, which created bad people who took advantage of the good idea.


----------



## pbi (24 Oct 2013)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> What weird is that at heart they seem to view people as "essentially good" in a bad system...Progressive ideas seem to stem from a beliefe of inherant goodness in all people in all times and places...



The usual anti-"progressive" narrative seems to hold the opposite view: that "progressives" view people as inherently errant, lazy, and negligent beings who must be regulated to death and completely protected from the consequences of their actions.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> When I slag "progressives", I mean "progressives" in the contemporary understanding: welfare statists with a strong streak of nannyism (practices they enjoy=protected; practices they don't care about=forbidden).  I don't mean "anyone seeking change".



Then it's too bad that we sully the word "progressive" by associating it with people like this. It seems similar to the way we have turned "intellectual" or "elite"  from positive terms into epithets, because of associations.

I don't see any more intellectual rigor in it than in associating "conservatives" with racism, homophobia, sexism, anti-labor-ism, anti-environment-ism, pro-corporate-ism, etc. All of which they frequently are tarred with. You can hold "conservative" views on things and not share any of these positions. I'm not really sure how much good these "shotgun" terms do fr us.

For example, I probably hold some positions on things that are considerably to the left (or is that "progressive" ?) of many folks here. On the other hand, I believe in capital punishment, work for welfare, a capable and well-funded military, and selective immigration: all traditionally "conservative" positions. I don't believe in "political correctness", but I do believe that there can be reasonable limits to free speech in a civil society. But, I do not want to be stuck in with either the Left or the Right or unthinkingly subscribe to any dogma. Where does that leave  me?

Confused, yes...I know. 

I thought of that before you did. >


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2013)

You poor reasonable, rational, pragmatic centrist.  You will never know the righteous satisfaction of being correct all the time.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2013)

It seems everyone has caught the bug....



> British politics has now reached the stage where all three main parties stand for the opposite of what their name suggests. The Conservatives wish to change everything: health, schools, welfare, the lot. The Labour Party gave up on the common worker some time ago: it stands for higher welfare, and the preoccupations of trade unions. But the newest misnomer is the Liberal Democrats. As Nick Clegg outlined in a speech yesterday, his party now regards itself as the enemy of liberal reforms and will fight the next election proposing to repeal them.



Fraser Nelson - Daily Telegraph


----------



## pbi (25 Oct 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You poor reasonable, rational, pragmatic centrist.  You will never know the righteous satisfaction of being correct all the time.



Yes I will! I will! :threat:


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2013)

Here is the progressive mindset in its full glory (and operating at two levels); a person shuts down debate when _their own words_ are re-posted, and the opaque rules of Facebook, which allow for people's free speech rights to be eliminated without any form of due process whatsoever. Indeed, since it is quite possible that an attack could be launched anonymously, the effect is Facebook acts as a star chamber, without any ability of the victim to effectively respond, or even know what exactly happened. A fine example of the typical double standard is also there for all to see:

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/10/24/librarian-logic-i-hate-censorship-so-i-censored-you-on-facebook/?singlepage=true



> *Librarian Logic: I Hate Censorship So I Censored You on Facebook*
> Ah! Irony.
> 
> by
> ...



Many of the comments are also illuminating. And it isn't just children's books. Ever try to find an economics textbook about the Austrian school (or by members of the Austrian school)? It is similar to beig "bubbled" by Google; if the information is being withheld, how will you even know?


----------



## pbi (28 Oct 2013)

This isn't really about anybody acting in a progressive manner, ie: doing something that advances society, makes life better, or rights some societal wrong, which to me would be the valid definitions of "progressive".

This is about a silly person overreacting, and being facilitated by a gun shy website.

And I doubt, really, that most or even many librarians "want" children to look at porn.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> This is about a silly person overreacting



They _both_ overreacted.  I personally think Ms. Fox was wrong to point out the person's first name and profession.  Not to mention her zealous, laser-like ability to _assume_ that anything graphic _must_ be pornographic.  And her belief that libraries "actively' want kids to have access to it.




			
				pbi said:
			
		

> And I doubt, really, that most or even many librarians "want" children to look at porn.



I agree.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> They _both_ overreacted.  I personally think Ms. Fox was wrong to point out the person's first name and profession.  Not to mention her zealous, laser-like ability to _assume_ that anything graphic _must_ be pornographic.  And her belief that libraries "actively' want kids to have access to it.



Her song went viral though..... >


----------



## Marchog (29 Oct 2013)

> For example, I probably hold some positions on things that are considerably to the left (or is that "progressive" ?) of many folks here. On the other hand, I believe in capital punishment, work for welfare, a capable and well-funded military, and selective immigration: all traditionally "conservative" positions. I don't believe in "political correctness", but I do believe that there can be reasonable limits to free speech in a civil society. But, I do not want to be stuck in with either the Left or the Right or unthinkingly subscribe to any dogma. Where does that leave  me?


Depending on what exactly you mean by "progressive" (a term that seems to lean on a fallacious "appeal to novelty") , that could potentially leave you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory or even some aspects of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism. 

The conventional left-right spectrum doesn't work for me either. I'm not so much in favour of libertarian social darwinist economic policies (though probably would be considered "centre/centre right" economically) and have a bit of a protectionist streak, but on the other hand am generally culturally and socially conservative and in favour of monarchy. For this reason I feel at odds with every mainstream political party in Canada.


----------



## pbi (29 Oct 2013)

Having read the links you posted, I'd have to say that I really don't identify with almost anything under the "Paleoconservative" banner. From what I can see, their belief system would, if pursued to its ultimate conclusion, roll back most of the major advancements in society that I am in support of. It might be well-intentioned, but then so is communism.
Red Toryism is perhaps closer to where I stand. I probably identify much more with the  "old Tory" party of Diefenbaker and Stanfield,  than with later variations of conservatism that sometimes seem to be informed largely by Fox  Network.

What I do definitely agree with in these philosophies are both "localism" and a strong sense of community as a civil society in which people partake fully, particularly through voluntarism. I believe in buying local and buying Canadian as much as possible, since these strengthen communities.


----------



## Marchog (29 Oct 2013)

I think you and me would get along quite well then politically, at least in some fundemental ways.

 :nod:

I think the old PC party died a few decades too early. Modern Canadian conservatism (such as espoused by the OP and quite a few posters in this thread) is too close to the pseudo-libertarian American brand than I am really comfortable with. I voted for them in the last few elections but honestly, it's more because I dislike the other parties even more.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2013)

As a small "l" libertarian, I am not particularly pleased with the choices on offer either. 

One of the issues is that language has been heavily corrupted: the core principles espoused by the modern "Conservative" party are based on 18th century Liberalism, the "New" Democrats  wish to create a regulatory state where citizens are wards of an unelected bureaucracy, while the Liberal Party is a transactive party with no philosophical core at all. Even "Progressiveism" has transformed, they want to maintain a death grip on social and Political institutions and continue with programs that had their genesis in the late 1800's, essentially date to the 1930's for their large scale introduction and are closely related to Fascism (although no Progressive will _EVER_ admit to that).

Try having a coherent political discussion in this environment, and as you have discovered, traditional political labels are very vague and imprecise.

My hope for the future is two fold:

1. New smal scale technologies that create wealth and communications techniques that bypass traditional "gatekeepers" empower individuals, not bureaucrats or the State, and are moving into more and more people's hands. Even our friend ArmyRick is an example of this, he has a farm and is (in theory) relatively self sufficient (his farming methods deliberately minimize external "inputs"), while he can share his experience and knowledge with the entire world through the Internet. He can also sell his produce through the Internet to a market that would have been inaccessable even a few years ago.

2. The structures and institutions created by the Progressive Project are rapidly running out of both resources and relevance. Financial bankruptcy is causing many of the projects and institutions to be scaled back or dismantled, and people also see the moral and often legal bankruptcy of Progressive ideas, based as they are on calculated _inequality_, such as racial quotas for applications for jobs or school placement or the forced redistribution of wealth from the productive to the idle.

Understanding point 2 is important, Progressives get tied up in knots when confronted with the contradictions and hypocrisy of their positions (which is also why they are champions of restricting free speech through various means like "Political Correctness", Human Rights Tribunals and SLAPP lawsuits, to silence people wh might speak against them). A continuing program of confrontation and education will eventually allow more people to see not only what they have done, but also how to escape them.


----------



## Marchog (29 Oct 2013)

> Try having a coherent political discussion in this environment, and as you have discovered, traditional political labels are very vague and imprecise.


I've known that for a while. I am example of the elusive, majestic _classical conservative_ frolicking in its not-so-natural habitat. 

My main problem with political language is the term  "progressive" which carries connotations of positive change (which it not necessarily the case) and the modern confusion of the terms "change" and "progress" (not synonyms) as well as "justice" and "equality" (also not synonyms). There is also a confusion between "impulse/desire" and "fundemental right", which I think drives a good amount of the entitlement generation that I am a part of, both fiscally and socially. 

(You know, now that I think of it, I should really do more work on my application process for the CF rather than uselessly discussing politics on Army.ca. The internet is a horrible thing for distractions.)


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2013)

Marchog said:
			
		

> (You know, now that I think of it, I should really do more work on my application process for the CF rather than uselessly discussing politics on Army.ca. The internet is a horrible thing for distractions.)



TV Tropes on the Internet is a horrible source of distraction.  

While yes, you should get to work on your application, you should also continue to cultivate a broad and diverse set of interests. It makes you a better and more capable person, and one who is less liekly to become or want to become a ward of the State.


----------



## pbi (30 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a small "l" libertarian, I am not particularly pleased with the choices on offer either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree generally, but to "bureaucrats or the State" I would also add "big corporations with no stake in the community". I look forward to a time when we see the return of local farms, dairies, bakeries, and even manufacturing as bases for strong communities. I know that I am sailing into the prevailing wind of globalisation and macroeconomics, but one can still be hopeful.
A problem with my thinking (yes..these do exist...) is that what seems to work well in a community of 10 or 20 thousand may work less well in a city of 500,000 and not at all in a  metropolis of 4 million.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> 2. The structures and institutions created by the Progressive Project are rapidly running out of both resources and relevance.



I tend to agree. While I don't indulge in a blanket condemnation of social programs, I am sure that they have abuses: these are easy to see all around us. As much as I may have my differences with this current version of Toryism in government, I do applaud their realism when it comes to reforming pensions and in reminding Canadians that things have a price, and that an entitlement mentality is not good for our future.  When  I am gone, I want my two children to inherit a functioning country, not a bankrupt train wreck.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Understanding point 2 is important, Progressives get tied up in knots when confronted with the contradictions and hypocrisy of their positions (which is also why they are champions of restricting free speech through various means like "Political Correctness", Human Rights Tribunals and SLAPP lawsuits, to silence people wh might speak against them). A continuing program of confrontation and education will eventually allow more people to see not only what they have done, but also how to escape them.



Well...you and I will probably never agree on what a "progressive" really is, but I am not a fan of political correctness any more than I am of stupid and inflammatory hate speech. Perhaps the best guardian of free speech is more free speech: let ideas be challenged by other ideas, not pre-emptively shut down in the hopes of not offending some oversensitive soul. That is probably too naive a concept, but I think that in many ways better than some of the travesties that PC engenders.

Like the person who complained in the paper about the village of Tweed, ON's "Adopt a Hydrant" program a few years back. Their politically correct missive in the paper said that the initiative marginalized and demeaned adopted children. That sort of rubbish is what I mean.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Oct 2013)

I think one of the unrecognized failures of progressivism is the usurpation of the volunteer, particularly the faith based volunteer. In the past faith and community based groups provided a significant number of services to people both from within and without their core of parishioners / neighbors. Along comes government that says "you can't do that, but we can" only to find that today government can't and the volunteer organizations have lost the capacity to step into the void.

The result has been a loosening of community bonds to the point of fracture, and the corresponding loss of community self sufficiency and cohesion.


----------



## Marchog (30 Oct 2013)

> I think one of the unrecognized failures of progressivism is the usurpation of the volunteer, particularly the faith based volunteer. In the past faith and community based groups provided a significant number of services to people both from within and without their core of parishioners / neighbors. Along comes government that says "you can't do that, but we can" only to find that today government can't and the volunteer organizations have lost the capacity to step into the void.
> 
> The result has been a loosening of community bonds to the point of fracture, and the corresponding loss of community self sufficiency and cohesion.


Amen to this (pun intended). 

I find that one of the ironies of left-liberalism (and sometimes even right-liberalism) is that it removes traditional institutions and then complains about problems caused by the vacuum that they leave. Not to say that some of those problems didn't exist previously, but the weakening of particularly social institutional bodies (IE the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches) left a gap that so far only the strong arm of the state has replaced.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2013)

At the risk of repeating myself ...

We, humans, who live in _communities_ ~ and that's about 99.99% of us ~ have, over the millennia, and continue, today, to make an explicit agreement with one another: we will sacrifice some fundamental liberties for the good of the community. Stopping at red lights, sending our kids to school and getting flu shots are good examples. Not all of us do all those things and, probably, there is a tiny group who live in communities and do none of them, but ...

The issue is: how many liberties do we agree to surrender?

The state, which is almost the biggest of all _collectives_, is in the business of taking as many liberties as it can; we *ought* to be in the business of denying the state's appropriations of our rights, but too few of us notice or care very much.

I fancy myself an old fashioned _liberal_: I don't think there are many _fundamental rights_; I agree to life, liberty and property, all as defined by John Locke _circa_ 1689, and privacy, as defined, mainly, by Warren and Brandies in the USA in 1890. I believe one of the few fundamental *duties* of the state is to protect the _individual_ from the machinations and depredations of all _collectives_, including groups, churches and the state, itself.

I understand, however, that there are _conservatives_, mainly Confucians, who value families, and families which _extend_ into communities, over individuals and who are willing to sacrifice some rights I consider quite fundamental ~ privacy, mainly ~ and many _privileges_ (which many consider rights) such as freedom of assembly and expression in order to _conserve_ the peace and stability of the community.

I agree with those great voices of the _enlightenment_ that _"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."_

The revolutionaries in the 13 American colonies recognized that, _"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."_

_"But,"_ Jefferson, _et al_ noted, _"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."_

It is important to remember that it is not the transient policies of Barack Obama or Stephen Harper, objectionable as some may find them, that merit revolution; it is not even the policies of a Maurice Duplessis, Huey Long or George Wallace that qualify as _despotism_; we have a functioning democracy, imperfect as it may be and as all others are, and we must try to make it work to guard our "future security."

For me the fundamental issue is: how little must government do? What are its "just powers?" And, of course, how do we strip it of powers that its doesn't need, shouldn't have or which are unjust?


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2013)

More on University "Brown Shirts". Using violence or implied violence to supress free speech is the hallmark of all authoratarians, but what is much more interesting is the historical example of the correct way to deal with opposing ideas. 

Looking at how Canadian Universities treat conservative speakers or people like Israel's Prime Minister, we see pretty much the same reaction here, and this attitude also explains the actions of free speech opponents like the HRC's and people who wage SLAPP lawfare against people who express ideas that the censors can't or won't find counterarguments for.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/brown-prof-recalls-when-a-real-fascist-came-to-campus-calls-ray-kelly-shout-down-a-shameful-day/



> *Brown Prof recalls when a real fascist came to campus, calls Ray Kelly shout down “a shameful day”*
> Posted by William A. Jacobson
> Friday, November 1, 2013 at 8:35pm
> Brown U. Prof. to Kelly protesters: “Yours was an act of cowardice and fear, unworthy of any of the causes you claim to hold dear”
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Nov 2013)

>I find that one of the ironies of left-liberalism (and sometimes even right-liberalism) is that it removes traditional institutions and then complains about problems caused by the vacuum that they leave.

One of my chief complaints also.  They see something wrong; they decide the way things are must be changed so they break the practice/institution; they fail to provide an adequate, functioning replacement.  (Generally, what they do is just move on to their next pet project - the top of their Maslow ladder is "having a cause".)  This is the distinction between the "agitators" and the "leaders/doers".

It is always easy to start renovations by tearing down the old pieces.  But then you have to rebuild/replace.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on University "Brown Shirts". Using violence or implied violence to supress free speech is the hallmark of all authoratarians, but what is much more interesting is the historical example of the correct way to deal with opposing ideas.
> 
> Looking at how Canadian Universities treat conservative speakers or people like Israel's Prime Minister, we see pretty much the same reaction here, and this attitude also explains the actions of free speech opponents like the HRC's and people who wage SLAPP lawfare against people who express ideas that the censors can't or won't find counterarguments for.
> 
> http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/brown-prof-recalls-when-a-real-fascist-came-to-campus-calls-ray-kelly-shout-down-a-shameful-day/



 You might be surprised to find that I agree with you 100%. The way to deal with ideas we may or may not like, in an academic setting, is not to make them go away. And certainly not in the stupid and cowardly way that, say, Anne Coulter was treated. (I don't really hold much with Anne, but I respect her right to speak). This is not education, and is certainly not conducive to critical thinking.

I say "in an academic setting" advisedly, because I don't agree, for example, that anybody should be allowed to set up a soap box on the street corner for the "right" to engage in pedophilia, or to exploit the mentally retarded.

An educational institution IMHO is quite different. It is much more of a controlled environment. And (theoretically...) speakers are more likely to have their ideas (good, silly or evil) exposed to rational debate and critical thinking. 

Theoretically....


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2013)

From today's Telegraph:



> Britons happier than before financial crisis as contentment plummets in Europe – OECD
> OECD says quality of life in the UK has been only “modestly affected” by the global financial crisis with happiness and even trust in government rising – in marked contrast with its neighbours in the Eurozone
> 
> It found that British people enjoy some of the strongest friendship networks and highest levels of income, job security, clean air and water, personal safety and democratic accountability in the OECD - All Goodstuff -
> ...



More at link.


----------



## pbi (10 Nov 2013)

Here is a thought which the mods may find belongs elsewhere, but I wanted to share it here: please move as appropriate.

I just finished reading Niall Ferguson's _The Great Degeneration_, which the author describes as an explanation of "_how institutions decay and economies die_". Although his writing focuses on the US and UK, much of what he has to say resonates with discussions on this thread, as well as on some others.

Ferguson's basic argument (not really revolutionary on the face of it...) is that our way of life is based on four pillars. These are democracy; a free market system; the rule of law; and a civil society. 

Ferguson explains the importance of each to  the success and continued existence of Western life as we currently recognize it, then exposes how each of these has been co-opted, corrupted and weakened over the last century. "Big society"; uncontrolled government spending; and writing IOUs on future generations have all attacked the democratic state and created a constituency of the dependent.  Bad corporate behaviour, aggravated by bad or excessive government regulation, and the "too big to fail" mentality, have seriously distorted the free market we depend on, poisoning true competitiveness.

The rule of law has, in his view, become the "rule of lawyers". He sees that civil liberties have been seriously eroded by the rise of the "national security state"; the infiltration and gradual suppression of English Common Law principles by those of European Civil Law; the extreme and growing complexity of statute law; and finally the outrageous cost of the law.

Finally, Ferguson identifies that the withering of civil society (ie: all those voluntary organizations, activities and relationships that lie between what the government controls and what business controls) as due not only to too much time on Facebook or Twitter instead of face to face relationships, but heavily to  what he called "..._the excessive pretensions of the state_".

He doesn't advocate for a "fire and sword" approach to anything, although he feels that strong measures are needed if we are to salvage our way of life and preserve a meaningful place in the world.

I don't agree with everything Ferguson has to say: in particular I found the "Conclusion" chapter a bit hard to swallow in spots, but overall I think he raises some important warning flags in an intelligent way.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2013)

When magical thinking gets put into action. We have seen quite enough of this in Ontario, and reading the latest pronouncements of the NDP (or past pronouncements) simply shows this in its most extreme form (or at least as extreme as most prople will tolerate. Reading stuff from fringe parties is more entertaining than depressing....)

The real issue highlighted here is that many members of our political, academic, bureaucratic and judicial "elites" share similar conceits, and they are probably implanted in the similar schooling most of them receive (not just the education per se but also the way they are socialized, the networks that are developed); in short, their "culture".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/20/obamas_slow_learning_curve_120723.html



> *Obama's Slow Learning Curve*
> By Peter Berkowitz - November 20, 2013
> 
> Controversy continues to rage about President Obama's announcement at a Nov. 14 press conference that his administration would not compel insurance companies to cancel policies they had changed since passage of the Affordable Care Act and which did not conform to its numerous, costly, and multi-layered requirements.
> ...


----------



## pbi (21 Nov 2013)

> Our colleges and universities should offer, and requires students to take, more courses in political, diplomatic, and military history. They should shift the emphasis in moral education from abstract reasoning and arcane hypothetical dilemmas to the study of the virtues necessary to exercise rights and fulfill responsibilities. They should cease to teach that left-liberalism is the only political orientation a decent person could embrace. And they should give pride of place in the curriculum to study of the American constitutional tradition, which teaches, among other things, that government’s competence and purview are limited and that nothing in politics can succeed without adjustment, balancing, and calibration.



Actually, I think all citizens should study these things, regardless of what field of education or endeavour they go into.

But, I think, this is an outcome that many politicians (of all stripes...) would dread: a politically literate electorate who could apply historical knowledge and critical thinking to their understanding of issues.

OK...that would never happen.....but what if it did?


----------



## Nemo888 (21 Nov 2013)

Saw a few places renaming us Bananada.


----------



## pbi (21 Nov 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Saw a few places renaming us Bananada.



What?


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2014)

Trying to do a rational debate with Progressives is usually an exercise in futility, they have the are of misdirection and evasion down to a science. Here is the science broken down into an easy 8 point chart (substitute Steven Harper for George W Bush when attempting to debate Canadian Progressives):

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/105321-8-things-liberals-avoid-honest-debate-science/



> *8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate – Broken Down to a Science*
> Kyle Becker
> On January 1, 2014
> http://kylenbecker.com
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2014)

Light bulbs make a perfect test case for how Progressives really think and act:

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-light-bulb-ban-provides-useful.html



> *The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals: the debate has nothing to do with which bulb is better, but rather who gets to decide*
> 
> The bulb debate has become a flash point between conservatives and their progressive opponents
> writes Benny Huang of the new law making it illegal to sell or import household bulbs that use more than forty watts and the incandescent light bulb accordingly dying an ignominious death after serving humanity well for fourteen decades. See also Tim Carney's Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs (thanks to Instapundit; plus, thanks for the the link): "consumer choice is no good either for nanny-staters or companies seeking high profit margins."
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2014)

Tungsten filaments are bad!  

Fluorescent bulbs containing poisonous mercury are....ummm....much....safer..."

:not-again:


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2014)

Don't for get to turn up your furnace 60 watts for every incandescent replaced by CFLs or LEDs.

I understand it is getting cold in Toronto.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jan 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Don't for get to turn up your furnace 60 watts for every incandescent replaced by CFLs or LEDs.
> 
> I understand it is getting cold in Toronto.


There was a SUN NEWS article on Facebook about this.  I pointed out that for every unit of heat that light bulbs don't produce because of the switch, to maintain the same level of heat, your furnace will have to work that much more.  Some asked for studies to prove this, I merely pointed out that it was physics, which is a zero sum game.
And of course, mercury isn't *that* bad...


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2014)

A furnace probably transfers energy from another form into heat more efficiently (cost-effectively).

Regardless, the sufficient reason to continue producing and using incandescent bulbs is that there are some applications for which they are superior (eg. frequent on/off, immediate full illumination).


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jan 2014)

Don't forget heat loss in the ducts, and the electricity to run the blower. Etc. Overall, probably not that much difference. 
Still, it's not factored at all when "they" talk about energy savings.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2014)

Another point to take into consideration Brad, is that light's are on, and thus contributing heat, in the spaces people occupy, adding to the heat that people themselves generate (and their computers and TVs - those lovely, energy inefficient, 52" screens function very effectively as a fireplace - regardless of whether or not the Holiday Log is burning)

Most forced air furnace systems distribute heat generally, even into the spaces that people aren't.

A simple solution to energy efficiency is to ditch the open-plan building concept and hang more doors to put plugs in the holes.  Then you can contain the heat locally in the inhabited space.  Top up with space heaters as required.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2014)

>those lovely, energy inefficient, 52" screens function very effectively as a fireplace

Yes, they do.  Very nice in winter, less so during the annual two-week summer heat wave.


----------



## cavalryman (4 Jan 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A simple solution to energy efficiency is to ditch the open-plan building concept and hang more doors to put plugs in the holes.  Then you can contain the heat locally in the inhabited space.  Top up with space heaters as required.



Like every apartment I've inhabited in Germany...  Mind you, every single bathroom ended up freezing cold - made for quick visits ;D


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Jan 2014)

Far too much of the environmental agenda comes from California. There every watt of heat has to be countered by an air conditioner and they often use 100% of the available surface water. They also drain more from their aquifers than they replace annually. These are huge issues there.

In Canada these things are irrelevant. In Canada 5$ of weather stripping can do more than a low flow toilet and mercury laden CFL's to your annual energy consumption. I swap out most of my CFL's for incandescent every fall when it gets cold.  I also found a toilet that will actually flush solids properly. IKEA has some great LED lamps now. Better than both CFL and incandescents. I'm switching over to those as they are pretty awesome.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2014)

While I am for LED bulbs in principle, the local Home Depot has single 60 W replacement bulbs at $13/ea, while some CFL's can be had in 2 and 3 packs for about the same price (and you can buy @ 48 conventional lightbulbs for the same price at the Superstore or the Dollar store).


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While I am for LED bulbs in principle, the local Home Depot has single 60 W replacement bulbs at $13/ea, while some CFL's can be had in 2 and 3 packs for about the same price (and you can buy @ 48 conventional lightbulbs for the same price at the Superstore or the Dollar store).



What are their "Life Spans"?  One that lasts 5 years is better than two that last 2 years, or then that last 6 months.  Or is my math all screwed up?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2014)

In gereral, I don't find CFL's to last anywhere near as long as advertized, and if you try to use them in a "harsh" environment like the inside of a garage or the exterior lights, they might not even last a year.

I have no experience with high power LED's, but the fact they need large heat sinks makes me suspect they are not quite what they are cracked up to be either (if they are in an enclosed fixture they will probably overheat and die as well....)


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Jan 2014)

I don't care for the Home Depot LED bulbs. They are a generation behind and overpriced. IKEA has stepped up with some decent dimmable LEDs. The 10 watt perform exactly like a 60w bulb. Inside a frosted(but not sealed) fixture I can't tell the difference. They are much more durable than CFL's, which I think are junk.  They are rated for 25,000 hours. Not cheap at 14.99$ but the 10w is cutting edge. The 6.3w is almost as good and much cheaper at 8$ or so. 

They have decent colour temperature, turn on instantly, are dimmable and don't flash or strobe like the last generation. In two years CFL's are dead as LED will crush them for 90% of applications. I don't think I would bother buying another CFL. I also have a number of incandescent bulbs stored in the basement now that Ontario has banned them. I want to try one of the 6.3w LED's in my trouble light to see how durable it is compared to an incandescent.


----------



## pbi (8 Jan 2014)

I've got quite a few LEDs in my house: I'm gradually replacing all my CFLs (only a couple left...I never really liked them), and my few remaining incandescents and my single fluorescent. I've got LEDs in several different types of mountings, including the dimmable pot lights I did in my TV room downstairs, where they produce next to no heat (unlike traditional pot lights), and in kitchen and hallway fixtures. 

 I've purchased them from various suppliers: in general they seem to be getting much better each year. I did initially have one or two that flickered, but not lately.

I haven't done any scientific testing, but if their lifespan claims are correct (too early to tell), coupled with a claimed  lower power demand and an evidently much lower heat output, then they seem like a good thing so far.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Jan 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Boris merely states a simple truism.  Sooner his honesty that Clegg's smarm any day.  Clegg believes that he is of the elite but refuses to utter the phrase.  Instead he (and his wife) "suffer" the indigent while never associating with them.
> 
> The leftists win by pretending that they can, and that they want to, make all right with the world, and deliver every street sweeper Buckingham Palace.
> 
> Boris wasn't being unpleasant.  He was being honest.



Seems millionaire Kevin O'Leary is being just as honest to the CBC's Amanda Lang in this video as British MP and former London Mayor Boris Johnson was in the situation described by Kirkhill in the above quote.

CBC youtube link: Kevin O' Leary on Global Inequality: "It's Fantastic"

What progressives don't get if they have ever had economics training is that wealth redistribution won't work. 

"Why redistribute wealth from an economic pie when growing the size of the pie is better, since it will mean more for both the rich and poor?" as one of my grad. school professors once said.


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Jan 2014)

The only weird thing about LED's is they cannot radiate heat . They can only dissipate heat by convection. So they can't be put in sealed fixtures or they will overheat and die early. This is why they have substantial heat sinks.

As to O'Leary thinking it's fantastic that 85 people own more than 3.5 billion I think he has become intoxicated on theories. In reality wealth redistribution works great up to a point and creates that bigger pie you talk about. The exact point is floating and not constant. It does seem that the magic number for it failing is 50%. Once you reach that things usually break down. When FDR brought out the New Deal it was to prevent a revolution that would have killed capitalism. His top income tax rate was 94% as a punishment for the staggering inequality of the time. Capitalism has a moral framework(Adam Smith)_ in theory_. The reality is that economic systems tend to throw off any collar we put on them and are innately prone to abuse. For decades the pie has grown and the slice average people get is not changing. The stock market has never been higher, but Americans are still getting poorer. Trickle down is pseudoscientific mythology. What we need much more than the redistribution of wealth is the redistribution of opportunity.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jan 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> What we need much more than the redistribution of wealth is the redistribution of opportunity.



:bullshit:

The opportunities are there, irrespective of money or other wealth.  What people want is results with no effort.  Gentlemen such as O'Leary (et al) have taken risks, done the work themselves etc to get themselves to where they are today.  People want something for nothing.  "Give me convenience, or give me death" ought to be their rally call.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jan 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :bullshit:
> 
> The opportunities are there, irrespective of money or other wealth.  What people want is results with no effort.  Gentlemen such as O'Leary (et al) have taken risks, done the work themselves etc to get themselves to where they are today.  People want something for nothing.  "Give me convenience, or give me death" ought to be their rally call.



 :goodpost:

The problem with the misnamed _progressives_ is that they hate progress.

Real human progress comes when ordinary people master the skills and knowledge necessary to advance their own prosperity: farming, weaving, carpentry, metal working, chemistry, sailing, medicine, machinery, steam power, internal combustion, electricity, flying, nuclear technology, computing and genetics. None of these things ever required any _redistribution_ of anything. If anything, _opportunity_ is hampered by the lunatic left which wants "every child to succeed" when it is plainly obvious to anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers that we are not all equal in much of anything ... save, perhaps greed and envy. The young people who will lead the world to a better, more prosperous tomorrow will be literate and numerate ... those who are most literate and most numerate will become rich and powerful. Those with great self esteem but little in the way of hard academic or technical skills will polish shoes and serve meals to those who actually worked in school, apprentice programmes and colleges, in universities and in _productive_ occupations.

I am the first to admit that we can and need to do better at providing "equality of opportunity." I have no doubt, not even a smidgen, that children from middle and upper class families attend "better" elementary, middle and high schools and are, broadly and generally, much better prepared for college and university (and the higher incomes that come to those who graduate fromreal programmes (not _victim studies_)). But I am reassured, every year, when I read that kids from low income families, who worked their tails off in less than really first rate schools, get high value scholarships to first rate universities because that proves to me that anyone can overcome the _system_ that the lunatic left has put in place.

The points is that it is real, ordinary people who overcome the stupidity of socialism and achieve success ... we are all equal in our ability to exploit our own talents to achieve as much as we can. Governments, broadly, except for a few a few agencies like the treasury and the courts, just get in the way and make things harder by trying to make things "equal."


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2014)

Education is a determining factor in success and upward mobility on the personal wealth scale.  The poor will remain poor if they do not become educated.  Without an education, the opportunities for upward mobility in society is not going to be achievable.   Thus the poor will be relegated to the lower end paying occupations.  It is those who have strived to better themselves through knowledge, who have broken through the 'class barriers' to no longer be below the 'poverty level'.


----------



## Dissident (24 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Education is a determining factor in success and upward mobility on the personal wealth scale.  The poor will remain poor if they do not become educated.  Without an education, the opportunities for upward mobility in society is not going to be achievable.   Thus the poor will be relegated to the lower end paying occupations.  It is those who have strived to better themselves through knowledge, who have broken through the 'class barriers' to no longer be below the 'poverty level'.



BOOM! Headshot.

Three of us, myself and two childhood friends (brother and sister) were from welfare families. Drug addicted, welfare cheating, poor life decision making "parents".

The brother became a drug addict, dropped out of school, whereabouts unknown. 

The other one and myself manage to make it through college and she later put herself through an electrical engineering degree (now working for GE). No doubt the affordable Quebec education system is a big part of our "escape". The access to education allowed us to go from being well below the poverty line to upper middle class. This is in ~15 years. _It might not have been easy, but it was far from hard._


----------



## Shrek1985 (25 Jan 2014)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> BOOM! Headshot.
> 
> Three of us, myself and two childhood friends (brother and sister) were from welfare families. Drug addicted, welfare cheating, poor life decision making "parents".
> 
> ...



The situation has changed. Post-secondary education exists now as a self-perpetuating conspiracy. A BA is wholly without value in getting a job, because most of the work force in their 20s has them. Only the trades are still useful and for years the value and respectability of those has been consistently played down.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Jan 2014)

Then don't get one.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2014)

We need to look at "education" much more broadly than just what sort of credentials you get from "school X" vs "college Y" vs degree from "University Z".

One thing I find rather alarming is so many young people have virtually zero life skills when coming into the job market or entering the Army. Do they know anything about credit, the time value of money, budgeting, setting up a household (even a rental one) etc? How many of them are glued to the screens of their smartphones, with barely the SA required to keep from walking into walls or the street? How many are fully prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse, but have no idea of what to do after graduation (as per a nasty demotivational poster I have seen)?

For that matter, how many are prepared to implement the Protestant work ethic, or even the Bourgeoisie values of delayed gratification and saving and investing for the future? Most criminals and drug users are not "evil" in the usual sense, but have poor impulse control; who is teaching them that, or rather, how to overcome poor impulse control?

This ties into the common observation that "x" is an "idiot with a degree"; people who are book smart in a narrow field, but have little common sense or the ability to function outside of a very restricted environment.

I will lay much of the blame on a society that has taken the last 40 years or so to tear down the various social and personal restraints to behaviour, giving license to impulsive behaviour while eliminating many of the "small platoons" of social organizations that used to mentor and prepare people for life. Much of the program of the "Progressive" movement is to try to supplement or even replace the "small platoons" and the family with the bureaucratic State, with the (perhaps) unintentional results we see here.


----------



## Dissident (26 Jan 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> The situation has changed. Post-secondary education exists now as a self-perpetuating conspiracy. A BA is wholly without value in getting a job, because most of the work force in their 20s has them. Only the trades are still useful and for years the value and respectability of those has been consistently played down.



Granted. I don't think either of us would have done all that well had we chosen general studies followed by a BA. While she did what amounts to woodworking in college, I did Civil eng tech. We found gainful employment easily and went from there. I am pretty sure this could be duplicated.

Mind you, I moved across the country and she also was willing to move to Ontario.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2014)

Liberalism as (possibly) unintentional class warfare. While I have doubts as to how "unintentional" or "unintended" the results are (there have always been plenty of correct predictions of the negative results of "Progressive" programs dating back to the New Deal, which have been poo poo'd by Progressives at the time, but proven true with the fullness of time), the results speak for themselves: (Part 1)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2014/01/29/social-liberalism-as-class-warfare/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0



> *Social Liberalism as Class Warfare*
> 
> By ROSS DOUTHAT
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2014)

(Part 2)



> Maybe so — but for the sake of argument, let’s consider the possibility that they don’t. Not infrequently in culture-war arguments, conservative complaints about liberalism’s hostility to “traditional values” (or whatever phrase you prefer) are met by the counterpoint that liberal regions of the country seem to embrace bourgeois norms more fully than conservatives communities. (The contrast between family stability in Massachusetts and Alabama, for instance, is often invoked by cultural liberals as an argument-clincher.) I think this counterpoint oversimplifies a more complicated landscape and elides some crucial issues, but it does get at something real: In upper class circles, liberal social values do not necessarily lead to libertinism among the people who hold them, and indeed quite often coexist with an impressive amount of personal conservatism, personal restraint.
> 
> But if we’re inclined, with Waldman, to see our elite as fundamentally self-interested, then we should ask ourselves whether the combination of personal restraint and cultural-political permissiveness might not itself be part of how this elite maintains its privileges. Waldman, for instance, makes the (completely valid) point that just telling a single mother to go get married to whomever she happens to be dating isn’t likely to lead to happy outcomes for anyone involved. But is that really just because of wage stagnation and the truncation of the potential-mates bell curve? Or could it also be that the decision to marry only delivers benefits when it’s part of a larger life script, a way of pursuing love and happiness that shapes people’s life choices – men as well as women — from the moment they come of age sexually, and that exerts its influence not through the power of a singular event (ring, cake, toasts) but through that event’s place in a larger mix of cues, signals, expectations, and beliefs?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2014)

Interesting to see how deep rooted the "Progressive" fear of the "small platoons" really is. This article points to books written in the 1920's, so many of these attitudes go back farther to indoctrinate the author ("Progressivism" dates back to the turn of the 20th century, and its philosophical roots go back to at least the 1860's). Of course the real reason to hate and fear the "small platoons" of society is they provide stability, help and mentorship to their members, all which make them less likely to want or need any intervention from the State (and indeed, to resist the intrusions of the Bureaucratic State since it is far too distant and disconnected from the wants and needs of the population, and unable to respond in a timely and effective manner like one of the "small platoons" can). People who are satisfied and self sufficient cannot be easily controlled by the State:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/24/rotarians-plot/



> *Rotary Club Plots to Seize American Power*
> 
> January 24th, 2014 - 1:23 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2014)

Some ideas are so bad they deserve to be kicked when down. The logical end point of Socialist thought, Communism, still has supporters it seems (although oddly I doubt the person who wrote in support of Communism is making plans to move to the DPRK or Cuba any time soon...):

http://spectator.org/articles/57691/worst-idea-world



> *THE WORST IDEA IN THE WORLD*
> Young communist Jesse Myerson recycles old red clichés.
> 
> By Robert Stacy McCain – 2.5.14SmallerLargerPrint Article
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2014)

Time for another swift kick. Going to the link there are a lot of screen captures of tweets denouncing NBC's whitewash of Communism:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/02/07/nbc-praises-communism/



> *Video: NBC Praises Communism as One of History’s ‘Pivotal Experiments’*
> 
> February 7th, 2014 - 7:07 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2014)

The truth is the most powerful weapon against great or petty tyrants, and should be persued with the utmost vigour. No less a figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn showed how this was true, and we should all do our best to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes:

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/02/09/live-not-by-lies/



> *Live Not by Lies*
> 
> by Angelo M. Codevilla/10 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The truth is the most powerful weapon against great or petty tyrants, and should be persued with the utmost vigour. No less a figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn showed how this was true, and we should all do our best to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes:
> 
> http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/02/09/live-not-by-lies/



Agreed. But when is it OK to call attention to the truth? Is it OK when a government (of any stripe) is caught lying or dissembling in the midst of a war or other crisis? Or is that "unpatriotic whining?"

Is it only "the truth" when it embarasses a government we don't like, but "sedition" or "treason" or "disloyalty" when spoken against a government whose ideology we agree with?

Kind of like the "free speech" question, isn't it? Is it "free speech" only if it's what we agree with, and "propaganda" if we don't?

Personally, I think *all* governments should be poked, prodded, regarded with skepticism and embarassed as often as possible, in order to keep them humble. They don't have to like it, and they shouldn't. Rabble-rousing media has always been an important part of the Anglosphere parliamentary political tradition, as have media outlets that took a blatantly partisan stance. 

The more secretive and monolithic a government tries to be, the more they should get a good bollocking for it.

Who else can we look to to expose government misbehaviour? The government?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2014)

That is really the slippery slope. Some things indeed are and should be secret for operational reasons. The problem with that is governments have deemed more and more things "secret", or go to great lengths to destroy or obscure evidence. 

Friday afternoon "dumps" of emails and documents requested under Freedom of Information requests (with maybe one nugget buried inside the 10,000 documents), massively redacted documents or simply stonewalling requests are fairly common these days, and of course briefings and other information presentations done over the telephone so no permanent record will ever exist is another. The McGuinty government also mastered the "accidental" deletion of emails to ensure the record is obscured.

What I believe Solzhenitsyn was getting at is we don't remain silent or throw our hands up in frustration at these provocations (and that is exactly what they are) but go in after the officious bureaucrats and arrogant politicians with bayonets and root out the truth, while loudly denouncing then as liers and cheats; unfit for the offices they hold.

If it were possible to ensure these actions could be followed up with long jail terms, I'm sure the "incentives" to lie and cheat will be reduced. OF course the ultimate sanction would involve the liberal use of lamp posts, but things will be pretty terrible for the civil population when things get down to that point, and history suggests that things will come to a bad end soon thereafter (if we are "lucky", we may end up with Oliver Cromwell. If not, we get the arrival of "the Man on the White Horse")


----------



## pbi (11 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> That is really the slippery slope. Some things indeed are and should be secret for operational reasons. The problem with that is governments have deemed more and more things "secret", or go to great lengths to destroy or obscure evidence. ...



Or slander the questioners as being somehow "un-patriotic" or "un-Canadian", or suggest that by asking pointed questions of the Govt of the day, one must therefore automatically support whatever "evil" the Government is adressing (or trying to hide...). I'm reminded of the old saying "Patriotism-the last refuge of the scoundrel".



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If it were possible to ensure these actions could be followed up with long jail terms, I'm sure the "incentives" to lie and cheat will be reduced. OF course the ultimate sanction would involve the liberal use of lamp posts, but things will be pretty terrible for the civil population when things get down to that point, and history suggests that things will come to a bad end soon thereafter (if we are "lucky", we may end up with Oliver Cromwell. If not, we get the arrival of "the Man on the White Horse")



OK: I'm with you on all of this. This is one of the reasons that I suggested on another thread that, like BC and a number of US states, we should have a process for voter recall of elected officials. We also need to discourage the culture that describes questioning the government as being disloyal or unpatriotic.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2014)

Mark Styen on the MO of Progressives. Crushing free speech and dissent sounds awfully familier in the historical playbook:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/366896/print



> *The Age of Intolerance*
> The forces of “tolerance” are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.
> By Mark Steyn
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (5 Mar 2014)

> "How do you make a fruit cordial? Be nice to him. Or else"




Remove "fruit".  Insert racial epithet of choice here. 

How does that feel, now? 

IMHO this is thinly disguised rationalization for stupid behaviour by people who don't realize times have changed. We don't tell "polite" or "cute" ni***r jokes any more (like we did in the '50s and '60s), so why do the same thing about gays?


----------



## Jed (5 Mar 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Remove "fruit".  Insert racial epithet of choice here.
> 
> How does that feel, now?
> 
> IMHO this is thinly disguised rationalization for stupid behaviour by people who don't realize times have changed. We don't tell "polite" or "cute" ni***r jokes any more (like we did in the '50s and '60s), so why do the same thing about gays?



I think you missed the intent of this article. Yes times have changed and what was considered humourous then is now somewhat crass.

It is just plain difficult not to offend some minority using the common vernacular.  Someone always seems to take offense at what was said or what they thought was meant.  We seem to live in an age where everyone feels entitled to be a victim of unkind verbiage.

I miss the day when it was common to hear someone say " I don't care what you call me, just smile when you say it."


----------



## pbi (19 Mar 2014)

Jed said:
			
		

> I think you missed the intent of this article. Yes times have changed and what was considered humorous then is now somewhat crass.



Perhaps. To declare my bias, I have a gay adult son. Although he is doing very well now, I am only too familiar with how difficult it can be for gay people, especially males, even in today's supposedly more liberal atmosphere. I don't want to see the clock turned back, so maybe I react more than others might.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> It is just plain difficult not to offend some minority using the common vernacular.  Someone always seems to take offense at what was said or what they thought was meant.  We seem to live in an age where everyone feels entitled to be a victim of unkind verbiage.
> 
> I miss the day when it was common to hear someone say " I don't care what you call me, just smile when you say it."



I am in general agreement with this, as long as it isn't used as a cover for reversion to stupid behaviour. I see a big difference between people struggling to be treated fairly based on their abilities not their traits, and people making a culture (and sometimes a living...) out of victimhood.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2014)

Looking at Progressiveism as a secular religion, and its roots. By this point in time, the Progressive religion has hardened into something similar to Puritanism or Catholicism at the time of the Counter-Reformation. 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/



> *The Rise of Secular ReligionDavid P. Goldman*
> Today’s secular liberals are the direct descendants of the past century’s Puritans and Protestants, deeply concerned with matters of sin and salvation in the church of politics.
> 
> Published on March 17, 2014
> ...


----------



## Jed (19 Mar 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Perhaps. To declare my bias, I have a gay adult son. Although he is doing very well now, I am only too familiar with how difficult it can be for gay people, especially males, even in today's supposedly more liberal atmosphere. I don't want to see the clock turned back, so maybe I react more than others might.
> 
> I am in general agreement with this, as long as it isn't used as a cover for reversion to stupid behaviour. I see a big difference between people struggling to be treated fairly based on their abilities not their traits, and people making a culture (and sometimes a living...) out of victimhood.



I agree with you on this, as well. To declare my own bias, I have a gay brother in law who I care for a much as my own blood brothers. 

I also have been subjected to several predatory advances in my youth that were not welcome. If I would have been a timid soul I may have had my head screwed up more than normal, lol.


----------



## pbi (20 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Looking at Progressiveism as a secular religion, and its roots. By this point in time, the Progressive religion has hardened into something similar to Puritanism or Catholicism at the time of the Counter-Reformation.
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/



This article seems to deal in caricature-like stereotypes, which I suppose is the danger inherent in trying to force real people into the particular paradigm to be presented.

My guess is that there is a pretty large chunk of Canadian society that like me, while we oppose things like 





> bigotry, power, corruption, mass opinion, militarism, and oppression


 (OK, well...maybe not militarism   ), are at the same time not the yoga-ites, vegans, organic gardeners, or in pursuit of "expanded gender identities".

It isn't as simple as that, but it seems to be a consistent part of a US-driven political and social narrative that says "you are either like this or you are like that". This sort of simplistic thinking is unfortunately becoming all too common, and is best typified on one hand by the Rush-Limbaugh-esque primal shriek of "_you hate America_", or by the people on the opposite pole who immediately trot out accusations of "racism" when somebody tries to comment objectively on the behaviours of a certain segment of society.

For example, I'm a regular attender at Catholic Church in order to support my wife in her faith, (although I'm an Anglican), and I have a huge respect for our priest, whose lessons I find relevant and often thought-provoking. At the same time, I have serious concerns about several aspects of Catholic theology and orthodoxy, and beyond that I have absolutely no time whatsoever for the book-burning, apocalyptic Religious Right who simply frighten me with their angry interpretations of Christianity (or at least the bits they like...)

Surely we are not defined by being "Left" or "Right", but by our ability to look at things and come up with a rational solution or conclusion. Just because I support capital punishment doesn't, in my mind at least, clash with my support for equal treatment of gays. Just  because I believe in reducing unnecessary regulatory and tax burdens on businesses doesn't mean I am prepared to let those same businesses rape the environment or exploit workers. 

We are all, I hope, painted with more than one brush.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> This article seems to deal in caricature-like stereotypes, which I suppose is the danger inherent in trying to force real people into the particular paradigm to be presented.
> 
> My guess is that there is a pretty large chunk of Canadian society that like me, while we oppose things like  (OK, wel...maybe not militarism   ), are at the same time not the yoga-ites, vegans, organic gardeners, or in pursuit of "expanded gender identities".
> 
> ...




 :goodpost:

I'm with you!


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2014)

A graphic representation of how "Progressives" deal with people and ideas they don't like: they respond with force. We have had plenty of examples here in Canada as well, all I can say is I hope the people who were assaulted get charges laid and have their day in court. Regardless of what you or I may think of the opinions and beliefs of the people involved, there is NEVER a justification to initiate the use of force. If the full power of Law was brought against the people who actually initiate the use of force, then perhaps people might consider that plan B is to respond to speech you don't like with even better speech. The fact that the perpetrator is employed as a professor at a University _should_ be astonishing, but sadly it isn't at all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/20/uc-santa-barbara-professor-steals-young-anti-abortion-protesters-sign-apparently-assaults-protesters-says-she-set-a-good-example-for-her-students/



> *UC Santa Barbara professor steals young anti-abortion protester’s sign, apparently assaults protesters, says she ‘set a good example for her students’*
> BY EUGENE VOLOKH
> March 20 at 11:29 am
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2014)

More on the University Brownshirt brigade. This is a place where the Education Bubble meets Progressive Thought, and explains why Brownshirts have worked so hard to infiltrate and take over educational institutions. Anyone remember Queen's University's experiment with seeding dorms with "Thought Police" who would report on any real or imagined violations of PC thought, speech or action, and subject the alleged perpetrator to "re-education?", or the almost routine use of force against any speaker who the Brownshirts deem as being "inappropriate?"

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2014/03/22/meaning-of-mireille-miller-young/?singlepage=true



> *The Meaning of Mireille Miller-Young, or Free Speech for Me, Theft, Battery, and Vandalism for Thee*
> 
> March 22nd, 2014 - 1:24 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2014)

The Progressive Agenda is highlighted in the final paragraph: Modern elite liberalism is based on the simple creed that one’s affluence and education, one’s coolness and zip code,_ should shield him from the consequences of one’s bankrupt thoughts that he inflicts on others_. We are a state run by dead souls who square the circle of their own privilege, who seek meaning in rather selfish lives, _always at someone else’s expense_

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/ideologies-without-consequences/?singlepage=true



> *Fish Instead of People, Ideologies without Consequences*
> 
> March 31st, 2014 - 12:08 am
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Apr 2014)

A few from somewhere else on the political spectrum:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/30/100-years-of-right-and-left-moves.html



> 100 Years of Right (And Left) Moves
> The sign-up deadline for the Affordable Care Act has arrived, and in looking back at the last century of presidential power actions on both party sides Robert Shrum has reached a bigger conclusion: the progressive truly trump the conservative.
> The sign-up deadline for the Affordable Care Act has triggered a predictable series of jeremiads from the right. Perhaps the most remarkable appeared (no surprise) on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal with Daniel Henninger’s portentous, supposedly comprehensive indictment: “The political left can win elections, but it’s unable to govern.” Henninger’s ambition here vastly exceeds his actual argument.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2014)

@ PPCLI Guy:   That was an interesting article and while it does compare left and right I think I disagree with what he considers a progressive or even what he considers left (it's much more center I think).  Today I wouldn't caracterise those examples as what we know of progressives today.  Stephen Harper has a lot more in common with Barrack Obama on policies and politics and I doubt that he would be labelled as progressive here in Canada.

Good find.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Apr 2014)

>Good find.

You misspelled "tendentious propaganda".

Henninger's argument is basically sound.  Progressives do tend to aim for big one-size-for-all solutions, and the fragmentation of the ACA is a direct consequence of their own inability to craft the legislation carefully and to resist their own temptations to dip into the trough.  The web site is still subject to serviceability failures (including yesterday) and still does not have its "back end" (ie. the parts in service do not "work", and the full application doesn't "work").  The 7,000,000+ "signups" supporters are crowing about today are not expected by anyone to convert into 7,000,000 policyholders, which means they missed target - period.  And all of the score-keeping is beside the point - the ACA only "works" if it is sustainable.  We're almost midway from 2010 to 2020, at which time the spending projections which have been gamed to show modest spending growth are expected to accelerate upward.  That's before the additional cost of expanded Medicaid and premium subsidies.  Progressives are in danger of losing much due to a stubborn refusal to lose anything.

On climate, Henninger attacks the entire multinational structure of poseurs, not just the US's failures.  Shrum didn't attempt to properly address that.

Progressive municipal governance failures amount to more than de Blasio's peculiar war against opportunities for child education.  Consider bankruptcies.

The way he writes about Roosevelt, one might think Shrum believes that conservatives are against progress.  That's just fu<king dumb.  Measured, careful progress is still progress.  Progress in a hurry isn't an unalloyed good - I remain convinced that some of Roosevelt's policies unnecessarily prolonged the Depression and that it remains unproven that those policies would ever have "solved" the problem - WWII interceded, so we can never really know, but the government was still flailing when war intervened.

"When he finally became president, Nixon walked away from that war [on poverty] to prolong a futile one half a world away."

Not a fu<king mention of which prior president started and which prior president continued that "futile" war, or which party controlled Congress when it elected to throw away victory by abandoning support of South Vietnam.  What a mendacious evasive misleading untrustworthy little sh!t.

"Today he would be exiled from his own party as a RINO (a Republican In Name Only.) "

More bullsh!t.  Reagan is highly regarded by most factions under the Republican tent, and Democrats have no compunction about invoking Reagan for themselves, which tends to disprove Shrum's theory about conservative governance being less effective.

"Thus, the shameful, bigoted neglect of HIV/AIDS for most of his [Reagan's] term at an uncountable cost in human life."  And not a mention of GW Bush's programs to fight HIV/AIDS.  Again, what a mendacious etc.

Contra Shrum, Gingrich's "Contract with America" House warrants the credit for moving Clinton to a position where the combined efforts of the administration and Congress managed to balance a couple of budgets on the backs of the dot-com revenue boom.

"So the largest share of the debt increase is due to Bush even in the years since he’s been gone; and last year, “the federal deficit fell more sharply than in any year since the end of World War II.”"

Now he's just in la-la land, completely ignorant of deficit trends prior to FY2008 and again - apparently - unaware of exactly how the US budgeting process works.

Lickspittle fart-catching fact-evading weasel.

PS. If progressive government is so superior, someone will have to explain away the plight of the poorer populations in mostly Democrat-controlled cities such as New York and Chicago in mostly Democrat-controlled states (New York and Illinois).  In particular, why can't Democratic administrations and the teacher's unions they support (and are supported by) deliver a proper grade 12 education?  They've had decades to prove themselves, and have completely fu<ked it up.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Apr 2014)

Why don't you say what you really think?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Good find.
> 
> You misspelled "tendentious propaganda"............................



Now I remember why I stay out of the political threads.

 :boring:

You might want to wipe some of the spittle off of your face.


----------



## BorisK (2 Apr 2014)

On a lighter note, sunny California produces another eye catching headline :

http://rt.com/usa/leland-yee-senator-charged-california-661/

:facepalm:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> and the teacher's unions


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2014)

Unfunded liabilities for government employee pensions and benefits are estimated to be between $2 and 4 _trillion_ dollars in the United States.

Unfunded Federal pension and benefit liabilities in Canada are estimated to be $500 billion dollars, while the figure for unfunded pension and benefit liabilities for the Proivinces and Municipalities is currently unknown (or at least has not been collated into a single figure), but considering that the average government employee makes @ 13% more than a private sector employee doing the same job and up to 36% more than a private sector employee doing the same job when pension and benefits are factored in (and most private sector employees do not have a pension at all), the final total will be considerable.

These unfunded liabilities are in addition to government debt (so the Government of Canada alone actually owes at least _$1 trillion dollars_), all coming out of the taxpayers pockets...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Apr 2014)

I'm assuming you have Stats to back your claims up?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2014)

There is a legitimate, albeit terminally boring to 99% of the population, concern about the extent to which government pensions matter in economic terms.

As it happens the _Globe and Mail_ has a timely article on the subject today.

One is not anti-union or anti-public service just because one expects that _iron rice bowl_ employment contracts ought to be 'paid for' through e.g. lower salaries and/or smaller pensions or that generous, guaranteed pensions should also be 'paid for' through e.g. employer flexibility in personnel management. As a broad, general rule the _public sector_, federal and provincial governments plus MUSH (municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals) are _inept_ (not bad) employers because they provide all of good salaries, generous pensions and _iron rice bowl_ employment standards. It is not just expensive for the _shareholders_ (taxpayers) it is unproductive, at best, and maybe even counter productive because the public sector attracts people who would be better (more productively) employed in the tougher private sector.

Unfunded liabilities are not a problem so long as they are taken into account. The problem comes, as evidenced in e.g. California, when governments decide, knowingly, to ignore the impact of those liabilities. But the Government of California's real problem is the people of California who continue to demand a system in which they get whatever they want but can (Proposition 13) decline to pay the piper. They We all get the governments we deserve.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2014)

But, speaking of wages and quasi-public services (like government supported near monopolies), you get what you pay for, I suppose: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/famed-violinist-wants-outreach-from-air-canada-after-being-stranded-in-airport/article17765605/#dashboard/follows/

When I said "tougher private sector" above I wasn't thinking of airlines, but I cannot imagine this happening in the white hot competitive Asian business travel market in which e.g. Cathay Pacific competes for dominance. In fairness, _Air Canada_ is, probably, no worse, in customer service/employee attitudes, than other North American and European Airlines, all of which operate in a tightly regulated 'market' in which governments are 'players' rather than, simply, regulators and facilitators.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Apr 2014)

>You might want to wipe some of the spittle off of your face.

Hardly.

"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy.

Those who understand what the quotation means shouldn't have any difficulty understanding why the article should be ignored.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Apr 2014)

Aside from the fact I was writing about failure to educate, not crashing the economy...

Large numbers of (mostly inner city) kids who are functionally illiterate graduate by courtesy (grade 12!) with educations that might be equivalent to grade 3 or 4.  (A similar problem exists in some Canadian jurisdictions, but chiefly due to cultural apathy - I can't remember the term of art for a high school diploma which isn't really a diploma.)

In the US, teacher's unions actively resist virtually any attempts to deal with the problem constructively.

How far below 50% do graduation rates have to fall, and for how many decades (lost generations), before you think "crash" might be an apt description?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >You might want to wipe some of the spittle off of your face.
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> ...




 :rofl:

Confirmation bias.  Google it.

And now I am done in political threads


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2014)

The politics of envy and resentment. While things haven't gone quite as far in Canada, the essential program of the NDP and other socialist/social democrat or national socialist parties in Canada all point in that direction, and judging from the antics of the "occupy" people in previous years, there is a reservoir of people primed for this sort of behaviour ready to be tapped here as well:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/186440



> TECH OVERLORDS SUDDENLY CAST AS BAD GUYS: Anti-tech protesters target Google Ventures partner Kevin Rose.
> 
> Protesters stood with signs and handed out flyers outside of a Google Ventures partner and entrepreneur’s home in San Francisco’s Potrero Hill neighborhood Sunday, calling him a “parasite” and a “leech.”
> 
> ...



Protestors in SF have also shown up at the houses of Google employees for the "sin" of taking the shuttle to work, and attacked the "Google busses" as well. Considering that shared and public transit is one of the Progressive goals, and Google provides a large fraction of the wealth that keeps SF and California afloat, you _might_ think this behaviour is counter productive...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2014)

But I would argue that the motivation behind the various _conservative_ movements is the same. For a long period (1931 to 1995, with two brief (two years each) GOP _interregnums_ (1947-40 and 53-55) the Democrats in the US controlled the House of Representative and, almost a much, the White House. In Canada the Liberals were in power, in Ottawa, almost steadily from 1921 to 1957 (Bennett's Conservatives governed from 1931-35). _Conservatives_ of various stripes were green with envy and they _trashed_ everything the Liberals/Democrats did, no matter how well considered or useful those _progressive_ policies might have been.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2014)

There is a pretty significant difference here, though:

Progressives are firmly in the driver's seat in both the US Federal government and the California State House (not to mention the San Fransisco City Council), and the person being protested has been a significant contributer to the Progressive cause in the past. This isn't attacking the opposition political party, but (through the inexorable logic of Progressive "Class Warfare") turning on their own. 

If you want a closer analogy, watching the French Revolution consume itself, or the destruction of the early Bolshevik leadership through the show trials and purges of the 1930's would seem to describe the situation much more closely. Reading "Animal Farm" is instructive as well.

This isn't to say the TEA Party movement and other right wingers won't be cheering them on from the sidelines; watching your enemies destroy each other is almost as satisfying (and much more economical) than doing it yourself.


----------



## jpjohnsn (7 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This isn't to say the TEA Party movement and other right wingers won't be cheering them on from the sidelines; watching your enemies destroy each other is almost as satisfying (and much more economical) than doing it yourself.


Coming from the area of the political spectrum that turned "primary" into a verb,  cheering on a destruction of the progressives might be more akin to two men falling off a cliff and one celebrating the fact that the other is about to meet his doom.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

More on the "Protests" in San Fransisco. This seems to be a derivative of the "Occupy" movement, with equally vague ideas and goals. The danger is the underlying resentment of the successful people could be used to whip up the "Occupy" types to more drastic actions:

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/04/06/vanishing-point/?singlepage=true



> *Vanishing Point*
> 
> April 6th, 2014 - 9:56 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2014)

Waiting to see this start happening in Canada:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/civil-war-on-the-left.php



> *Civil War on the Left?*
> 
> The conventional wisdom is that the Republican Party is badly divided between Tea Party insurgents and the “Establishment.”  And while there is some truth to this, consider the following question: What happens to the Democratic Party in 2016 if Hillary Clinton decides not to run?  My answer: chaos and ideological infighting you haven’t seen inside the Democratic Party since its suicide attempt in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2014)

Yuval Levin made some points at NRO with respective to the progressive/conservative "war".

It touches on the notion that all that should be needed to sway people from one set of beliefs to another is more (and more accurate) information, and why it is an unlikely recourse since there are philosophical and material factors which weigh deeply.

I agree with him that these are what lie at the heart of each faction:

"American progressives have long contended that as social science enables us to overcome some of the limits of what we know, it should also be permitted to overcome the constitutional limits on what government may do. They take themselves to be an exception to the rule that all parties see only parts of the whole, and therefore an exception also to the ubiquity of confirmation bias, and so they demand an exception to the rule that no party should have too much raw power."

and on the other side:

"But the progressives’ understanding of how social science can come to know society and of how such knowledge might be put into effect has itself been a point of great contention with conservatives — who tend to think that a society’s knowledge exists mostly in dispersed forms and therefore that public policy should work largely by enabling the dispersed social institutions of civil society, local community, and the market economy to address problems from the bottom up through incremental trial-and-error learning processes."

Progressives are fond of claiming the mantle of being rational, objective, data-driven thinkers.  In brief, they claim to support "whatever works".  But that would mean discarding and changing "whatever doesn't work".  It isn't difficult to find examples of legislative programs and policies favoured by progressives, about which they become extremely "conservative" (or politically over-committed and defensive) if any change or tinkering is advanced by anyone not under the progressive tent.  Thus:

"It is also no coincidence, therefore, that people who claim that progressivism is pragmatism strongly incline to centralized technocratic approaches to policy — which leave little room for experimentation, make it difficult to evaluate success and failure, and create programs that are very hard to change or discard when they fail, and therefore aren’t very pragmatic at all."

The dirigiste / decentralized divide is what animates each side.  Dirigism is self-evidently limited by the capacity of people to assimilate information and act (ie. decision cycles), just as decentralization is self-evidently limited by the problems of insufficient interest to merit effective intervention (ie. market failures).


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2014)

An interesting idea: Political correctness is an economic activity, providing a "payoff" to the practictioners of this activity. Since people follow incentives, then the solution to PC tyranny is to eliminate the "payoff":

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correctness



> *The economics of political correctness*
> 
> Kristian Niemietz
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2014)

More on how these people think. Using "Profit making" as a pejorative is interesting, since it is the profits and savings of the productive that they feed off of. 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-17/liberals-make-profit-a-dirty-word



> *Liberals Make 'Profit' a Dirty Word*
> 61 JUL 17, 2014 12:41 PM EDT
> By Stephen L. Carter
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2014)

This could equally go into the education thread, but since it touches on how Progressives think and react to outside influences, it seems to be appropriate for here:

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=3050#.U_EBvFbGKG_



> *Our higher education system fails leftist students.*
> 
> By Michael Munger
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2014)

As might be expected, the Progressive political "elites" have a different set of incentives, which don't align with the greater society:

http://freebeacon.com/culture/the-liberal-gilded-age/



> *The Liberal Gilded Age*
> Review: ‘The New Class Conflict,’ by Joel Kotkin
> 
> BY: Jay Cost
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2014)

Similar travesties occur here as well (the policies of various Canadian newspapers and media outlets to prevent the CPC from showing ads, while ghostwriting and promoting the Young Dauphin's biography is perhaps the most recent and obvious)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/mayday-explains-when-we-say-money-we-mean-conservative-money.php



> *MAYDAY EXPLAINS: WHEN WE SAY “MONEY,” WE MEAN CONSERVATIVE MONEY!*
> 
> Two left-wing groups, MoveOn and Mayday.US, sponsored a video contest to highlight the “problem” of money in politics. They published the videos that were submitted on a web site, and encouraged viewers to vote for the best one. Sadly, their effort was nowhere near as successful as the Power Line Prize competition of a couple of years ago. They got one really good entrant, produced by American Commitment, which focused on the epic hypocrisy of Tom Steyer, the number one funder of the 2014 election cycle. Here it is, “America’s Biggest Hypocrite”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG9H0o2Sr-8
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Similar travesties occur here as well (the policies of various Canadian newspapers and media outlets to prevent the CPC from showing ads, while ghostwriting and promoting the Young Dauphin's biography is perhaps the most recent and obvious)
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/mayday-explains-when-we-say-money-we-mean-conservative-money.php




Actually I think the reverse is true. We, here in Canada, like the UK, have a robust _conservative_ media, something that is missing in the USA. The _quality press_ in Canada, as in the USA, tends to be liberal_ish_ on social issues, but, in Canada, unlike the USA, it is, more generally - even the Toronto Star - conservative on economic issues.

The other difference between the two countries is that the US _blogosphere_ is much more 'active' and, in many cases, verges on the extreme. We have equally 'extreme' _bloggers_ and _tweeters_ here in Canada but, for whatever reason, it _appears to me_ to be more entrenched and advanced, if that's the right word, in America.

I note, just for example, that the issue of Jonathan Kay _ghosting_ Justin Trudeau's memoire was aired almost immediately by _Sun News_ here in Canada and, also quickly, explained by Mr Kay. But I thought the _conservative_ media, here, was a bit amateurish: it attacked Mr Kay for doing what many journalists do - _moonlighting_ - but didn't ask M. Trudeau why, if he's so smart and sincere, he needed a ghost writer.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Dec 2014)

While watching with some trepidation and disbelief at the antics of the "Social Justice Warriors" in the United States (the UVa "Gang rape story" hoax and the various antipolice e "narratives" being strung up in Ferguson and New York City), it occurred to me there should be some powerful arguments that refute the idea of "Social Justice" as opposed to "Justice" (which in this context is a totally different concept, requiring evidence, due process and Rule of Law to function).

As it turns out F.A. Hayek thought long and hard on this, and even wrote a book on the subject; Law, Legislation and Liberty (Volume 2)
This quote sums up the argument rather nicely, and I offer it in case anyone ever has an encounter with a "social justice warrior"



> "_n...a system in which each is allowed to use his knowledge for his own purposes the concept of `social justice' is necessarily empty and meaningless, because in it nobody's will can determine the relative incomes of the different people, or prevent that they be partly dependent on accident. `Social justice' can be given a meaning only in a directed or `command' economy (such as an army) in which the individuals are ordered what to do; and any particular conception of `social justice' could be realized only in such a centrally directed system. It presupposes that people are guided by specific directions and not by rules of just individual conduct. Indeed, no system of rules of just individual conduct, and therefore no free action of the individuals, could produce results satisfying any principle of distributive justice...In a free society in which the position of the different individuals and groups is not the result of anybody's design--or could, within such a society, be altered in accordance with a generally applicable principle--the differences in reward simply cannot meaningfully be described as just or unjust."
> _


_
_


----------



## CougarKing (12 Jan 2015)

This Dr. Rochon, who wrote his article, must be the one of those professors who puts up his university students to hold up a sign "STOP HARPER!" at university commencement/convocation ceremonies.   :

Yet another ivory-tower academic with his self-delusions? It seems his branding of Canada as a small "l" liberal country is simply just his opinion, if the last election isn't an indicator of how many people began to identify as small "c" conservatives/"red" Tories or are centre-right. (Or at least voted that way) If the 65% of Canadians do oppose Harper as he claims, it doesn't show at the ballot box. 

CBC



> *Is Canada becoming a right-wing country?*
> 
> Despite growing concern, Canada remains a small-l liberal country, says professor of economics
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2015)

> Like John Maynard Keynes once opined, conservatives “offer me neither food nor drink — intellectual nor spiritual consolation ... [Conservatism] leads nowhere; it satisfies no ideal; it conforms to no intellectual standard, it is not safe, or calculated to preserve from the spoilers that degree of civilization which we have already attained.”



Interesting Keynes quote.  It rather plays to what Thucydides has been arguing for a while.

The Left need something to follow. They crave to be led somewhere. They look for their daily bread to be provided.... Manna from heaven.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2015)

Prof Louis-Philippe Rochon is not wholly wrong:

     1. Prime Minister Harper has introduced a number of _conservative_ economic policies - that's true;

     2. Canadians still hold essential _liberal_ economic views - that's true, too; but, and here's where Prof Rochon goes off the rails

     3. Canadians don't actually oppose Prime Minister Harper's policies. They may _believe_ that there are better economic choices
         but they also _understand_ that Prime Minister Harper is making the least bad choices.

Canadians may _wish_ for a _liberal_ (read NDP) economy but they will not vote for it because they _know_ the price and they don't want to pay it ... "If wishes was 'orses then poor men would ride."


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2015)

A long article in "The American Interest" about the idea of "nudging". The degradation of language is quite self evident here: "Libertarian paternalism " is an oxymoron (and this is in no way libertarian or even in the realm of classical liberalism). Far better to resurrect H.G.Wells formulation of "Liberal Fascism" and tell it like it is. The article is rather long, but I am adding an excerpt:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/12/10/nudge-or-shove/



> A government of nudges is opposed to any constitutional principles governing where it may and may not act, because it views all such questions as empirical in nature and thus not subject to being cabined before the fact. It acts, for the most part, in relatively small ways, but over a huge, sprawling canvas. It prefers to be organized technocratically and wants to create islands of expert governance insulated as much as possible from popular control or enthusiasm. It prefers to leave most decisions at least nominally in private hands, but then layers regulation and subsidy on top to push private actors to produce publicly approved patterns of outcomes. So it adds up to a form of micro-stealth paternalism with the potential to produce macro-social consequences.
> 
> One can imagine another kind of liberalism. This vision would limit government fairly rigorously, with a very sharp distinction between what government should and should not concern itself with. So while Sunstein and his fellow behavioral economists have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to get individuals to save more effectively in private retirement accounts, a liberalism of shoves would increase government’s role in retirement by simply increasing the amount of income replaced by Social Security—by taxing and spending—while eliminating our current regime of regulating and subsidizing IRAs and 401(k)s. Instead of trying to figure out how to get people to more effectively put away money for their children’s college education, it would simply increase Pell Grants. In lieu of using informational campaigns and regulation to reduce global warming, it would impose significant carbon taxes.
> 
> Overall, a liberalism of shoves seeks to attain public ends through a transparent application of governmental power. It foreswears Sunstein’s effort to attain liberalism’s ends through fairly low-profile acts of micro-governance in the name of uncontroversial ends, and instead recognizes that most social problems are the result of power imbalances that can only be rectified through shifts in social structure. Where government acts in the name of the liberalism of shoves, it does so by more or less occupying the field, and is legitimated by having secured a clear political mandate to do so. But beyond big interventions with a few big structures, it seeks to bind its own hands against the temptation to act upon everything. A shoving liberalism looks for true torque points; it abjures a capillary-level form of pervasive, statistically based manipulation.



The other objection is the presumption that if individuals make "poor" decisions then the State must make "better" decisions for them. Hayek demolished the argument many years ago, this is simply a variation of the Local Knowledge Problem.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2015)

Now that the oil and commodity bubbles have popped, Venezuela and Argentina are standing around with no clothes (again). Sadly, it seems that no matter how many times this happens the lessons are never absorbed and another generation will be condemned to learn the hard way:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-02/the-delusions-of-venezuela-and-argentina



> *The Delusions of Venezuela and Argentina*
> 680 MAR 2, 2015 9:00 AM EST
> By Megan McArdle
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2015)

Progressiveism in history: Just as bad as you thought





> Why is America Ignoring the Centennial of First World War?
> Posted By Ed Driscoll On March 13, 2015 @ 1:18 pm In Liberal Fascism,The Memory Hole,War And Anti-War | 17 Comments
> 
> David Frum wonders why World War I doesn’t receive much play in the American overculture:
> ...



and some of the links embedded in the article:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/19/the-l-word/
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/05/26/from-the-law-firm-of-durbin-wilson-and-obama/
http://reason.com/archives/2002/12/18/dixiecrats-triumphant

and:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html



> *You want a more 'progressive' America? Careful what you wish for.*
> Voters should remember what happened under Woodrow Wilson.
> By Jonah Goldberg  FEBRUARY 5, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2015)

For the low information voter, this might come as a surprise, but people are demanding to be paid for their parts in stirring the pot in Ferguson. It is wrong to think that such things don't happen in Canada, many of the US "progressive" foundations like the Tides foundation routinely fund "progressive" causes in Canada as well, and though means which in other circumstances would be thought of as money laundering, which should make you wonder who and what else is being funded here? "Occupy" and "Idle no more" were certainly professionally organized.

https://ricochet.com/staging-riots/



> *Staging Riots *
> 
> Paul A. Rahe
> May 20, 2015 at 8:50 am ( 20 hours ago )
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2015)

The left is eating its own. While rather entertaining in of itself, the larger problem is the "long march through the institutions" means these civil wars are taking place within many of the institutions that are needed to keep civil society functioning. Burocracies, Academia and the courts riven with internal bickering over status, privilege and power simply will not be able to create the outcomes that are needed for the rest of us to carry on (and indeed can only harm anyone caught within their nets i.e. virtually everyone).

One can only hope that these antics cause a quick implosion and the rest of us can pick up the pieces and rebuild these institutions in a more useful and relevant form:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/06/03/the-left-continues-to-devour-itself/?print=1



> *The Left Continues to Devour Itself*
> 
> Posted By Ed Driscoll On June 3, 2015 @ 2:41 pm In God And Man At Dupont University,Liberal Fascism,The Return of the Primitive | 28 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jun 2015)

Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/15/inside_the_conservative_brain_what_explains_their_wiring/



> Tom Metzger, the leader of White Aryan Resistance, expressed a perception of human nature in which competition is taken to the extreme. Metzger believed that little had changed since Hobbes’s state of nature, since life remained a war pitting man against man: “either I am strong enough to defeat you or you will smash me. It’s simple,” he said.
> 
> Ezekiel uncovered a similarly dangerous worldview among a Detroit cell of neo-Nazis. What most impressed the ethnographer about the neo-Nazis after his months of fieldwork with them was the emotion of fear: “These were people,” he explained, “who at a deep level felt terror that they were about to be extinguished. They felt that their lives may disappear at any moment.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jun 2015)

Time for another round of "science says right-wingers are psychologically unbalanced", is it?

Another hypothesis: "fear" is just "acknowledgement and recognition of reality", while the non-"fearful" are merely naive.  That tends to fit the "mugged by reality" political transition behaviour.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2015)

Of course empirical evidence also shows that conservatives are far more likely to give to charity, volunteer for charity work and be involved in their communities than "liberals".

But Kilo isn't about empirical evidence, unless it supports the narrative. Think on the other recent thread where Kilo decries the idea that America passed on a chance to become another Sweden, even though more people from all over the world choose to go to America, and Americans are quite a bit wealthier than Swedes, per capita. Once those facts were pointed out the thread became suddenly silent. Imagine all the other tropes that will be trotted out as the American election campaign swings into high gear. The ones that are being pushed by the American legacy media will be the ones Kilo will enthusiastically promote, while contrary evidence will be ignored.

In fact, I will point out one for the upcoming Canadian election. While waiting for coffee to brew, I listened to the CBC news report on the Senate expense scandal. The commentator talked a lot about Sen Duffy, mentioned Sen Harb not at all, and quickly passed over the fact that seven other senators were now under investigation by the RCMP at the end of the story. Why so quickly? Five of the Senators are Liberal and only two are Tories. The Duffy affair has a huge possibility of blowing up in the faces of the Liberals and opponents of the CPC in general; I predict the story will be allowed to "fade away" since it no longer supports the "narrative".


----------



## Underway (5 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> But Kilo isn't about empirical evidence, unless it supports the narrative.




Your posts above are yes less inflamitory and to a generally receptive audience but generally are also to support your own narrative even when they are opinion pieces with little to no evidence yourself.  Now I find where Kilo's quotes clumsy and overly inflamatory it is true that conservatives come across as afraid and illogical.  There is a reason Tory's in the UK are called the nasty party.  And don't say this is a media construct.  I've met enough libertarians, religeous conservatives and hard core party faithful to make my own assessment thank you.  I used to think the same myself until I read "Rescuing Canada's Right"[/url] and learned what a small-c conservative was.  And then I realized that I was a small-c conservative in many ways.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> In fact, I will point out one for the upcoming Canadian election. While waiting for coffee to brew, I listened to the CBC news report on the Senate expense scandal. The commentator talked a lot about Sen Duffy, mentioned Sen Harb not at all, and quickly passed over the fact that seven other senators were now under investigation by the RCMP at the end of the story. Why so quickly? Five of the Senators are Liberal and only two are Tories. The Duffy affair has a huge possibility of blowing up in the faces of the Liberals and opponents of the CPC in general; I predict the story will be allowed to "fade away" since it no longer supports the "narrative".



So whats the excuse for CTV coverage then? The Globe and Mail? The National Post? Is it a big conspiracy?  Mike Duffy IS the story because he's the most obvious star.  He was well known around the country for his TV presence and also made things worse because of his loud mouth ill advised PUBLIC responses to the investigation.  If Harb was as arrogant and flamboyant when investigated then he would be more of a story.  But Duffy just can't avoid stealing the show even when he should keep his mouth shut.  He's also probably the worst offender as well, and the entire PM staffer giving him a "loan" connects him directly to the PM's office.  Grassroots conservatives HATE this stuff.  Its the story not the CBC necessarily.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2015)

Duffy was "connected" to the PMO by a lot more than the $90K loan from Nigel Wright.

He was recruited into the Senate of Canada by the PMO because of his excellent communication skills ~ he's a damned good speaker, and his high public profile ~ he was, generally, well liked by Canadians, and because of his (presumed) good relations with the mainstream media. He was featured in TV and, especially, internet advertising campaigns and was sent out to "light up" lackluster Conservative candidates.

In short, he was thew PMO's "man," an important part of the (perpetual) campaign team. Mike Duffy bought nothing to the Senate except his media/campaign skills, but that's why the PMO wanted him.

But Mr Duffy's waistline should have been a warning ... he likes the _trough_ too much.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course empirical evidence also shows that conservatives are far more likely to give to charity, volunteer for charity work and be involved in their communities than "liberals".
> 
> But Kilo isn't about empirical evidence, unless it supports the narrative. Think on the other recent thread where Kilo decries the idea that America passed on a chance to become another Sweden, even though more people from all over the world choose to go to America, and Americans are quite a bit wealthier than Swedes, per capita. Once those facts were pointed out the thread became suddenly silent. Imagine all the other tropes that will be trotted out as the American election campaign swings into high gear. The ones that are being pushed by the American legacy media will be the ones Kilo will enthusiastically promote, while contrary evidence will be ignored.
> 
> In fact, I will point out one for the upcoming Canadian election. While waiting for coffee to brew, I listened to the CBC news report on the Senate expense scandal. The commentator talked a lot about Sen Duffy, mentioned Sen Harb not at all, and quickly passed over the fact that seven other senators were now under investigation by the RCMP at the end of the story. Why so quickly? Five of the Senators are Liberal and only two are Tories. The Duffy affair has a huge possibility of blowing up in the faces of the Liberals and opponents of the CPC in general; I predict the story will be allowed to "fade away" since it no longer supports the "narrative".




And charity has largely been proven to be ineffective and symbolic. In reality it's public policies that have the most effect. 

 Then again, conservative minds cling to symbols like religion and nationalism against all evidence and logic (getting rid of the long form census is merely more evidence of this).  

I also don't see the connection between this and the "legacy media" in the US or that 5 of the 7 Senators in Canada accused of improper expenses are Liberal. I don't support the MSM in the US (it's largely a joke, as it is in Canada) and I certainly am no Obama supporter. I also despise the Liberal Party. 

Finally, if you're using my silence as evidence that you have somehow won an argument you're mistaken. My point was simply that the countries of the world that have in place policies that you decry as being socialist seem to have far better standards of living than the US. That is reality. If you want to live in a country where private bondsmen have reality TV shows, everyone owns a gun and a trip to Denny's might turn into the OK Coral, then go there. You're on the wrong side of history. Most Americans support Obamacare (15% wanted something even MORE liberal, imagine that), and more Americans are realizing that austerity is a lie, just as conservative thought is. If you're not a millionaire you're voting against your own interests.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2015)

Narrative: Americans want Obamacare.

Empirical evidence:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2015/obamacare_by_the_numbers



> *Obamacare By The Numbers*
> Thursday, March 26, 2015
> 
> President Obama yesterday celebrated the fifth anniversary of Congress’ passage of his national health care law, but most Americans still don’t like it.
> ...



Seems Empirical evidence does not support the narrative at all. For the logically minded, this means the narrative is false (unsupported by evidence) and people should stop making stuff up, or repeating falsehoods as truth.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Seems Empirical evidence does not support the narrative at all. For the logically minded, this means the narrative is false (unsupported by evidence) and people should stop making stuff up, or repeating falsehoods as truth.



That's the tactic: keep repeating the lie over and over until some of it sticks.  Once part of it sticks, the rest will follow.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jun 2015)

You mean like Global Warming?


----------



## Underway (9 Jun 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You mean like Global Warming?



[valleygirl]Um thats climate change.[/valleygirl]  Global warming is so 1990's, the phrase has now been coopted by climate change deniers. That's like going around thinking the Blue Jays are winning world series and it's still team Christina vs team Brittany.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2015)

Limosine Liberals and Silk Stocking Socialists are not only "not" helping the poor, they are actively working against them. This book lays out what some of us know already:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1496960319/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1496960319&linkCode=as2&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkId=MUDVAK64CMMCKTMC



> *The Left's War Against the Poor: Rethinking the Politics of Poverty*
> Paperback– February 9, 2015
> by John Pepple(Author)
> 
> Leftists have been waging a war against the poor since the 1960s. During that decade, the left began turning its attention to other causes and in doing so began a war against the poor. This war is not an intentional war, but it is a war nevertheless. It manifests itself in a number of ways: by environmentalists who never think about the impact that their policies have on the poor; by well-meaning people who destroyed the public schools; and by people who support criminals over their victims, who are almost always poor people. Why did this war happen? It happened because the left, despite its focus on the poor, has almost always been controlled by the rich. When the left adopted new issues several decades ago, these rich people refused to listen to those among the poor who protested. But while the left's war against the poor goes back only a few decades, the fact that the left has been controlled by the rich ever since the left began means that the left has never really been wholly committed to helping the poor. Instead, the analyses and policies formulated by rich leftists have helped rich leftists (who get to keep their wealth and to control the government) more than the poor. This book argues that a leftism by and for the poor will be strikingly different from leftism as it now exists. While Rich People's Leftism blames capitalism for exploiting the workers and wants a redistribution of wealth, Poor People's Lefism wants job creation. The more jobs there are for the poor, the less they are exploited. It is job creation more than anything else that will help the poor escape from poverty.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jun 2015)

>Finally, if you're using my silence as evidence that you have somehow won an argument you're mistaken.

Arguments are not "won".  Your worldview either becomes more accurate and factually sound in the face of what is presented, or you exercise your right to freedom of belief and it does not.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2015)

Glad to know that everyone is focused on all the "correct" issues of the day. This illustrates why Progressives, SJW's and other leftists are increasingly irrelevant in today's world, despite having achieved control of most of the levers of political, judicial, bureaucratic and academic power:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-off-stage-horror-amid-the-euphoria-1435355279



> *Love Among the Ruins*
> 
> Hurrah for gay marriage. But why do supporters save their vitriol for its foes instead of the barbarians at our gates?
> By
> ...


----------



## Underway (29 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Glad to know that everyone is focused on all the "correct" issues of the day. This illustrates why Progressives, SJW's and other leftists are increasingly irrelevant in today's world, despite having achieved control of most of the levers of political, judicial, bureaucratic and academic power:
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-off-stage-horror-amid-the-euphoria-1435355279



Thucydides, as much as I admire your dedication to using any possible scrap of media to bludgeon the terrible leftists with a dedication bordering on fanaticism this article completely misses the point.  Because its _over there_ and doesn't effect me directly, therefore few care.  We rarely do.  We care more for lawn watering restrictions than children starving in some 3rd world country because human nature is inherently selfish.  The leftish FOX News never even ran a story on terrorists in France (may have been on later in the day but you get my point)  because gay marriage will move the ratings in the US.  Civil rights in the US on controversial issues are always a BIG DEAL for Americans.

This has nothing to do with the left, progressives or anything of the sort.  Its all about "me" for all of us.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Jun 2015)

Thuc, that article is some of the greatest bull I have seen in a long time, particularly the first portion you underlined in yellow, which is collection of philosophical babbling meant to convey nothing (which is all it means in reality) but confuse people with big words that don't go together and no one understands.

Here is that sentence again:

"Moral relativism has become its own, perverse form of nativism among those who stake their identity on being universalist and progressive." 

And here is how it translates using the most generally accepted definitions (I have used Britannica and the Encyclopedia of philosophy):

_The theory that holds that moral values are strictly human inventions and not from god (whether "individual" [Nietzsche] or "cultural" [Montaigne])_ has become its own perverse form _of the doctrine (destroyed by Kant) that at least certain ideas (such as god, infinity or substance) must be innate because no empirical origin of them could be conceived_ among those who stake their identity on _advocating loyalty to and concern for others without regard to national or other allegiances_ and _on favouring or promoting political or social reform through government action (even revolution) to improve the lot of the majority.
/i]  

If somebody can tell me that this makes any sense or means anything, then more power to you, 'cause its meaningless drivel to at least 99.99999% of the world's population._


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Its all about "me" for all of us.



As fair a statement of classical liberalism as will be found.  The difference between the socialist and the capitalist is that the socialist allies himself with others to secure that which the capitalist has and they have not.


----------



## Underway (29 Jun 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As fair a statement of classical liberalism as will be found.  The difference between the socialist and the capitalist is that the socialist allies himself with others to secure that which the capitalist has and they have not.



I come at it from game theory and evolutionary ecology.  If it's in my best interest I'll do it.  If that means I'm socialist then I'm socialist.  Next week I might be capitalist.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jun 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thuc, that article is some of the greatest bull I have seen in a long time, particularly the first portion you underlined in yellow, which is collection of philosophical babbling meant to convey nothing (which is all it means in reality) but confuse people with big words that don't go together and no one understands.
> 
> Here is that sentence again:
> 
> ...


_
Au contraire.  Put simply, Moral Relativism holds that morals ("Good" and "Evil") are all, well, relative.  And subjective to what people believe.  It is without substance and illogical. It is simply opinion held as fact.  For example, today I identify as a woman, therefore I *am* a woman. Tomorrow, I identify as a Klingon, therefore I *am* a Klingon.

The polar opposite of Moral Relativism is Moral Objectivism.  It hold that there is a "Good" and "Evil".  Religious people hold that these come from God.  Others hold that these just *are*, just as 1+1=2.  It just is.  And we can know or recognise "good" and "evil" through the use of logic, reason, observation, etc.


If someone is a Moral Relativist, then silly things like objective science are simply barriers, because, well, truth is relative, right?  It sounds absurd, because it is.  But in a society in which Moral Relativism runs rampant, truths are no longer universal.  Think of this next time you hear someone criticize or justify something based on the year, and not based on reason. ("It's 2015.  That shit shouldn't be allowed!"....I'm not sure what 8:15 pm has to do with right or wrong, but hey, who am I to judge, right?)
/hippy

_


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jun 2015)

If everything, then nothing.


----------



## Marchog (29 Jun 2015)

> Au contraire.  Put simply, Moral Relativism holds that morals ("Good" and "Evil") are all, well, relative.  And subjective to what people believe.  It is without substance and illogical. It is simply opinion held as fact.  For example, today I identify as a woman, therefore I *am* a woman. Tomorrow, I identify as a Klingon, therefore I *am* a Klingon.
> 
> The polar opposite of Moral Relativism is Moral Objectivism.  It hold that there is a "Good" and "Evil".  Religious people hold that these come from God.  Others hold that these just *are*, just as 1+1=2.  It just is.  And we can know or recognise "good" and "evil" through the use of logic, reason, observation, etc.
> 
> ...


Sanest thing I've read on the internet this week. Mind you, that's not saying much, in light of the kulturkampf going on down South.

For the pedagogically minded, I would suggest reading up on the history of western philosophy, and the trajectory it followed since the Early Modern period. Much of today's relativistic weirdness stems from entrenched philosophical assumptions (and as far as I'm concerned, mistakes) inherited from thinkers anywhere from Descartes to Kant. Especially relevant is the inferred perception "filter" between the mind and the external world (via hyper-dualism and the "mind-body problem", a non-issue in ancient and medieval views), which opened up the possibility that the external world could be perceived differently by different minds (thus relativism). 



> I come at it from game theory and evolutionary ecology.  If it's in my best interest I'll do it.


I'm going to sound harsh, but is this really the attitude the military should be encouraging? Half of my BMQ was spent deliberately bludgeoning "me me me" thinking out of our heads.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2015)

Getting back to the article a bit, the idea that "we" can afford to turn a blind eye because "they" are doing things over there does not bear scrutiny.

First of all, *we* are already engaged, even if only in a small way. The CF-18 pilots flying missions over Iraq and Syria are proof enough that at least some of the people in charge of these resources do believe that it is worth taking a risk and spending blood and treasure to defend human dignity against barbarism. Even if I don't agree with the form this takes, I do believe that *we* need to take active measures. If I could figure out what the best ones would be....

More appropriately, the behaviour of the "Progressives" is disgraceful because they are turning a blind eye to assaults on human life and dignity here as well. While they celebrate victory over microagression on campus, I never heard one word from the "feminists" "Studies departments" or many of the other cheerleaders of moral relativism against the domestic violence which resulted in the murder of young Afghan-Canadian women and their mother not too far away from where I am in Kingston. Total silence about the real "rape culture" in Rotherham, England or other abominations right here at home. "Yes but" for the Charlie Hedbo massacre in France. IF events this large can happen without comment right under our noses; what lesser crimes are totally unremarked?

So in the end, this is very much an issue of focus and proportionality, and the various groups which presume to speak for the Progressive cause have totally failed to keep what is truly important in focus, preferring to expend disproportionate amounts of effort on trivia instead.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

This article has two very succinct messages.

1. Why waste time trying to debate/change the minds of Progressives/Social Justice Warriors/Climate change alarmists/etc. Set them on ignore.

2. They are acting in bad faith since their agenda is and always has been: Power

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/



> *Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.*
> Written by Kurt Schlichter
> 
> American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2015)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is being channeled by candidate Carly Fiorina. the response of the media is eerily similar as well...

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/215423/



> *FIORINA POPS THE LIBERAL BUBBLE*: “It has been impossible to miss the shift in tone among liberals when criticizing Carly Fiorina. The timbre of their opposition to the surging Republican candidate has evolved from dismissive and aggravated disappointment to disproportionately seething rage.  Among liberals, Fiorina has inspired passionate resentment, and it isn’t hard to see why. She has rather deftly infiltrated the left’s comforting and previously impenetrable habitat of fictions, and they vehemently resent the contamination of the fragile artificial environment they have constructed for themselves,” Noah Rothman writes at Commentary:
> 
> 
> For two weeks, Fiorina has been made to answer for what the political press has universally dubbed not merely the conflation of B-roll footage with actual events – an honest and deserved critique of her characterization of the Planned Parenthood videos – but a willful misrepresentation of the specifics. There is a reason for this: the image of the moving, likely viable fetus out of the womb – an infant born alive during a failed abortion attempt – is so grossly disturbing that it has the potential to move the cultural needle. Those images present an existential threat to those who would advocate for unrestricted access to elective abortion. The videos themselves cannot be discredited in the absence of an investigation, but the Republican candidate who has become their chief evangelist can be. In that way, the liberal activist and journalistic classes can perhaps vicariously delegitimize the bombshell Planned Parenthood videos.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2015)

Finally, credit for the ideas of the Fascists is being given where it is due. This is more interesting since we are in election season and the various ideas that are being put forth by the Liberals and NDP share much of the same pedigree. (Sadly, the CPC hasn't made a very great effort to put these ideas in their proper place: the dustbin of history):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425012/economic-policymaking-obama-1930s



> *Checkmate: The Economic Chess Masters Play a Losing Game*
> by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON	October 2, 2015 3:30 PM @KEVINNR
> 
> The Institute of Supply Management issued a study warning that American manufacturing growth had come to a standstill in September, and the Labor Department’s latest employment figures, the worst jobs report of the year, tell the same story from another perspective: unemployment rate stagnant, wages stagnant, hours worked down, number of new jobs far below forecast, previous reports revised downward, labor-participation rate at 38-year low, with nearly 95 million eligible American workers sidelined. That the Obama administration is foundering from an economic-policy point of view is not news. Barack Obama & Co. represent the very freshest and most imaginative thinking of the 1930s — stimulus, public works, monkeying with the minimum wage, political favoritism for union constituencies, the ancient superstition that simply putting money in somebody’s pocket makes the nation richer through the miraculous power of the economic multiplier, etc. “Get ready for the new normal,” writes Scott Sumner. “3.0 percent NGDP growth — it’s coming soon.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2015)

And a useful "how to" guide to eliminate "Progressive" and SJW influence on your workplace:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2015-10/001582.html



> *Reading List: SJWs Always Lie*
> 
> Day, Vox [Theodore Beale]. SJWs Always Lie. Kouvola, Finland: Castalia House, 2015. ASIN B014GMBUR4.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2015)

Funny how most screeds about "saving capitalism" are exactly pointed in the wrong direction. Here is a pretty effective takedown of the latest effort in that direction:

http://www.hoover.org/research/economic-fantasies-robert-reich



> *The Economic Fantasies Of Robert Reich *
> by Richard A. Epstein
> Monday, October 12, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2015)

Hardly a surprising development, as the authoritarian streak of Progressivism rises to the surface. (This is mirrored in other public arenas by such devices as speech codes, using tactics like disqualifying or shouting down/shutting out speakers who do not hew to the "narrative"). Free speech islands like Army.ca will become more of an exception, and are vulnerable to being attacked and taken down by law fare much like Free Dominion was. As well, since this is a special interest community, there is also the fact that it has a limited circle of readers or even people who would be interested to "test the waters", so the ability to influence will also decline under these circumstances.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/27/the-lefts-war-on-comment-sections/



> *THE LEFT’S WAR ON COMMENT SECTIONS*
> by ALLUM BOKHARI
> 27 Oct 20155,105
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2015)

SJW's in operation, and an example of a pretty good defense. The blogger points out that using dialectic to combat rhetoric is a losing cause, and as some of have seen even on this board, the typical SJW/Progressive response to being confronted is to move the goalposts and try to claim they are talking about something else:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/10/exposing-true-face-of-sjw.html



> *Exposing the true face of SJW*
> 
> Rosarior beats back and exposes an SJW entryist attempting to impose a Code of Conduct on the Awesome-Django project:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2015)

A very long article in City Journal, which actually covers lots of topics (education, public service unions, corruption etc.) and well worth reading on its own. I am including an excerpt which discusses the growth of the "underclass"; and while it is specific to the US situation, many elements could be transposed here in Canada to explain the "welfare traps" of Atlantic Canada or the grim situation among the aboriginal peoples. It isn't about money (in the United States, the African American population was making steady gains up until @ 1964, and despite the oceans of money spent since, their situation has catastrophically collapsed), but rather culture. For more about how culture matters, I also recommend Trust by Francis Fukuyama. 

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_4_city-journal.html



> You will find this hard to believe, but in 1994 I didn’t understand why underclass women were having so many out-of-wedlock children. After all, I reasoned, with my 1960s assumptions, doubtless everybody wants to have sex, but everybody also knows about cheap and universally available birth control. It was Kay S. Hymowitz who set me straight. Women, she explained politely but firmly, want to have babies. Accordingly, underclass girls, she argued from many interviews in a landmark City Journal article, have a different vision of life from that of middle-class girls. They haven’t been nurtured by diligent parents to develop the sophisticated cultural traits—orderliness, self-discipline, deferral of gratification, goal-oriented ambition, and so on—that prepare middle-class girls to go to college and professional school, defer childbearing, get married to Mr. Right, and become doctors or dealmakers.
> 
> Everything in underclass culture, where fathers are absent and marriage is dismissed—as useless as a bicycle to a fish—tells girls that sex before 14 is normal, and an out-of-wedlock baby at 16 is the mark of maturity. The grandmas in their thirties are as excited about the new baby as the teen moms, who imagine that finally someone will love them unconditionally and who revel in showing off their shiny new strollers and cute baby outfits. When the babies begin to toddle, their signs of independence and contrariety spark maternal disappointment. An all-too-common underclass cultural pattern has the oldest sibling left in charge of the younger ones when the grandmother won’t babysit, while the mother goes off on new adventures. As for careers or even work, most of Kay’s informants had only adolescent dreaminess, not plans.
> 
> Here, then, was striking confirmation of how the 1960s transformation of mainstream American culture had indeed produced seismic changes at the bottom of society, creating a self-subsisting underclass subculture with its own mores—its own life-script, in Kay’s apt phrase—which policymakers had to decode to understand underclass behavior, let alone change it. In years of wise, carefully observed, and irrepressibly witty articles on women, marriage, sex and sex roles, child rearing, and early education, Kay never lost sight of this central insight. And given the thinness of underclass culture, starting with the many fewer times that underclass mothers talk to their children than middle-class mothers do, with the result that their kids start school with much smaller vocabularies and fewer concepts than their middle-class counterparts—some teen moms themselves haven’t learned to do a budget or brush their teeth—it’s hard not to worry that even the best schools can’t fully make up the deficits in childhoods that are so culturally, intellectually, and often emotionally impoverished.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2015)

For people who wonder where the:Fascism-right wing" meme comes from:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/219147/#respond



> And with this, Communism apologists come full circle. Or as Jonah Goldberg wrote last year:
> 
> Stalin championed the idea that all of his political opponents should be dubbed fascists, including many of his fellow Bolsheviks, such as Leon Trotsky (whom Stalin had assassinated), and much of the Red Army’s officer corps (whom he had executed), and countless Ukrainians (whom he had liquidated). Stalin insisted that even mentioning the man-made – i.e., Stalin-made — Ukranian famine was evidence you were an agent of the Nazis.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

Progressivism tracked back to its roots. Wilson's presidency was marked by some pretty remarkable thuggish behaviour, not to mention his own virulent racism. Wilson in his own words:
(Part 1)

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress



> Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?”
> 1912
> Introduction
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

(Part 2)

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress



> *“What Is Progress?”*
> Woodrow Wilson
> 1912 campaign speech published in 1913 as chapter 2 of The New Freedom
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

(Part 3)

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress



> But what is progress going to do with the past, and with the present? How is it going to treat them? With ignominy, or respect? Should it break with them altogether, or rise out of them, with its roots still deep in the older time? What attitude shall progressives take toward the existing order, toward those institutions of conservatism, the Constitution, the laws, and the courts?
> 
> Are those thoughtful men who fear that we are now about to disturb the ancient foundations of our institutions justified in their fear? If they are, we ought to go very slowly about the processes of change. If it is indeed true that we have grown tired of the institutions which we have so carefully and sedulously built up, then we ought to go very slowly and very carefully about the very dangerous task of altering them. We ought, therefore, to ask ourselves, first of all, whether thought in this country is tending to do anything by which we shall retrace our steps, or by which we shall change the whole direction of our development?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2015)

Perhaps the best deconstruction of modern Progressivism ever: Progressivism is a system designed to avoid reality...

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/12/point-deer-make-horse



> *Point Deer, Make Horse*
> The Federalist has an article stating that for the Left, their God is Caesar, that is to say, the State, that is to say, themselves.
> 
> After a disaster or lost battle, the Jews of old said it was it is the punishment rightfully delivered for not being faithful enough to Jehovah, not giving him what he demanded for their good: an upright heart and pure more sacred to him than any ritual sacrifice.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2016)

One man's journey in to and out from SJWism:

https://archive.is/rd8cZ#selection-2305.0-2395.122



> [–]NeilAndJorie 129 points 10 hours ago*
> 
> Changing was a long process. I initially got into SJW groups sort of through popularity- feminism was supposed to be THE thing for equality, and I wanted everyone to be treated well, so I joined a bunch of feminist forums, which branched into more garden variety SJW circles. Initially I had no idea there was a dark side to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

"One man's quest to avenge his family and rid the world of progressivism. It's a hard, lonely job, but someone's gotta do it."


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2016)

MLK offered a devastating criticism to Socialism (and its major subset communism). Interestingly enough, if you were to offer this today without attribution of the source, you would probably be accused of various forms of "wrong think" in an attempt too disqualify you:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/135514



> During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. I also read some interpretative works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day.
> 
> First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian, I believe that there is a creative personal power in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality-a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2016)

How "Codes of Conduct" are used as means of SJW entryism, and how SJW's refuse to separate personal, political and professional in order to attack opponents. I had been somewhat bemused by the kerfuffle surrounding the 2015 Hugo awards for Science Fiction, where SJW's essentially tore down the event rather than allow anyone not "approved" from being nominated or winning an award (this probably explains why so much SF written in the last decade or so is so crappy), and am aware of "Gamergate" (SJW's with personal and professional relationships with various media organizations using their leverage to attack projects and games they don't like under the comer of supposedly "unbiased" reviews in the media), but trying to infiltrate open source code efforts makes me wonder where they draw the limits? Is there anything SJWs are not interested in infiltrating?

http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214



> On the Proposed PHP Code of Conduct
> 2016-01-19 pmjones Management, PHP, Programming
> 
> Recently, Anthony Ferrara opened an RFC for PHP internals to adopt and enforce a code of conduct. Even leaving aside for the moment whether this is an appropriate use of the RFC system, the RFC generated a lot of discussion on the mailing list, in which I participated at great length, and for which I was hailed as abusive by at least one person in favor of the RFC (a great example of a kafkatrap).
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> MLK offered a devastating criticism to Socialism (and its major subset communism). Interestingly enough, if you were to offer this today without attribution of the source, you would probably be accused of various forms of "wrong think" in an attempt too disqualify you:
> 
> http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/135514



Any analysis of Marxism based on religious grounds holds less water than one based on political/economic grounds. We should also remember that MLK was wary of appearing too "socialist." There were many facets of the civil rights movement that WERE rooted in socialism, but to be politically palatable to sympathetic whites, they had to be glossed over. 

If anything, the continued economic repression of blacks in the US underlines that capitalism (as it exists in the US) isn't really equipped to address racial inequality, as structurally much of the US depends on that inequality.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> How "Codes of Conduct" are used as means of SJW entryism, and how SJW's refuse to separate personal, political and professional in order to attack opponents. I had been somewhat bemused by the kerfuffle surrounding the 2015 Hugo awards for Science Fiction, where SJW's essentially tore down the event rather than allow anyone not "approved" from being nominated or winning an award (this probably explains why so much SF written in the last decade or so is so crappy), and am aware of "Gamergate" (SJW's with personal and professional relationships with various media organizations using their leverage to attack projects and games they don't like under the comer of supposedly "unbiased" reviews in the media), but trying to infiltrate open source code efforts makes me wonder where they draw the limits? Is there anything SJWs are not interested in infiltrating?
> 
> http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214



Are you acquainted with the views of those who led the Hugo voting in 2015? It's all fine if you want to go around calling people "SJW" but that is by definition agreeing with the trash below. Do you agree with these views?

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31677/



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/18/hugo-award-hijack-just-proves-progressives-right



> But because this is the internet, someone always has to pitch in and turn the hostility up to 11. Enter a man called Theodore Beale, also known as Vox Day, with his own slate called Rabid Puppies. Vox Day is even less polite about minorities and “victim groups”: he claims that marital rape is an oxymoron, because “marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis”, and that race is linked to IQ (you can imagine which way). He also opposes women’s suffrage, saying “the women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilised western society and little girls”.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2016)

Yes, but what were the stories like?

Me, I have never accepted the Science Fiction Fantasy amalgam.  I have alway seen them as two separate genres.

For me Science Fiction is "The Martian", Heinlein, Pournelle, Dickson, Asimov, Clarke et al.  Largely engineers that wrote fiction to explain their science.

On the other hand, probably starting with Andre Norton and progressing through Norman's Gor series to various local and extraterrestrial utopias/dystopias, which had more in common with Hobbits and Lions in Wardrobes, fantasy was an entirely, and not often enjoyable different realm.

The Hugos were the awards that defined the Science Fiction writers.  

To be honest, I had never heard anything more of them since I stopped reading Science Fiction decades ago (ca 1980) for the lack of "quality" product.  Heinlein was the exception - keeping me entertained up until his death in 1988.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yes, but what were the stories like?
> 
> Me, I have never accepted the Science Fiction Fantasy amalgam.  I have alway seen them as two separate genres.
> 
> ...



I also enjoy the authors you've listed above. I would add Haldeman (The Forever War is great military SF and a counterpoint to Starship Troopers), Gibson, Neal Stephenson (Seveneves is VERY science oriented) and a few others. Good SF isn't just about science though. The best SF is often about addressing/examining current social/political issues, or broadly the human condition while extrapolating on current trends. Children of Men (the film) for example gives us a glimpse into a possible near future. I think it got a lot right in fact.

Fantasy is definitely separate beast altogether. Star Wars is fantasy for example.

I haven't read any of the books by the "right wingers" who sabotaged the Hugos. But their opinions are online for the world to see, and they're blatantly racist and sexist. Extremely so, in fact. If you're referring to blacks as "savages" and are against women's rights full stop, there's a good chance your opinions on whether or not the "PC crowd" are ruining SF are completely off base.

I'm not sure if Thucydides subscribes to these views or is even aware of them, but they're quite easy to find and it's clear that these views are what is behind this drive to make SF "safe" for white males again. Pretty pathetic.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2016)

I also like Haldeman and agree that social commentary is certainly part of Science Fiction.  Heinlein wasn't shy in that field, neither were Pournelle and Niven in their collaborations and nor was Gordon Dickson. In fact one of my favourite characters in his Dorsai series was a high tech pollster/social engineer as I recall.

But that is by the point.  All of those men were accused of fascist tendencies in their writing.  Overly militaristic for some.

And yet they wrote good, readable books - and books that informed.

Shouldn't we be evaluating the books up for the Hugos and not the authors?  The words and not the man?


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2016)

Evaluating the book and not the man seems to be the issue with the Hugos in 2015. From what I understand, the organizers chose to block vote against any authors who were in the Heinlein/Haldeman/Asimov mode and ensure there were "No Awards" presented in multiple categories rather than accept books that some fans would choose to nominate.

Since I have largely stopped reading SF for the last decade or so, I'm not sure there are any real replacements for the giants of SF. Anyway, if the organizers of an event like the Hugos are so willing to go against the fans (especially since the Hugos are voted on by the fans) then it certainly speaks poorly of their integrity and devotion to the form.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Evaluating the book and not the man seems to be the issue with the Hugos in 2015. From what I understand, the organizers chose to block vote against any authors who were in the Heinlein/Haldeman/Asimov mode and ensure there were "No Awards" presented in multiple categories rather than accept books that some fans would choose to nominate.
> 
> Since I have largely stopped reading SF for the last decade or so, I'm not sure there are any real replacements for the giants of SF. Anyway, if the organizers of an event like the Hugos are so willing to go against the fans (especially since the Hugos are voted on by the fans) then it certainly speaks poorly of their integrity and devotion to the form.



This is not what happened at all. This article from Wired sums up the situation, I suggest you read the entire thing. Again the well publicized views the "three white men" who spearheaded this are very extreme and very disgusting. Were you not aware of them?

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/hugo-awards-controversy/



> On March 19, 2015, Kloos, a former noncommissioned officer in the German military who now lives in rural New Hampshire, sat down at his computer in his tiny study. Angles of Attack, the third book in his series, was a month away from release; he was on deadline with the fourth. But instead of writing, Kloos found himself staring at an email from the organizers of science fiction’s preeminent awards: “We are very pleased to tell you that Lines of Departure is one of the 2015 Hugo finalists in the Best Novel category.”
> 
> He was ecstatic. “This is the Hugo we’re talking about,” Kloos says, “The big one! It was a pretty happy time.” Sure, the genre gives other prizes—the Nebula, the Tiptree, the Philip K. Dick. But since 1953, when the first silver rocket trophies were bestowed, Hugo winners have included deities of the field like Isaac Asimov, Ursula K. Le Guin, Arthur C. Clarke, William Gibson, and Octavia Butler. Named for pioneering editor Hugo Gernsback, the Hugos are the Oscars of sci-fi—with a dollop of the Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards, because they aren’t bestowed by members of an academy. Any and all science fiction fans who care to pay a membership fee can vote. For Kloos, who self-published his first novel before signing with Amazon’s 47North imprint in 2013, being named a Hugo finalist for his sophomore effort was enormously validating.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2016)

I wasn't aware that Irene Gallo, creative director for Tor books, was a privileged white male. Calling authors and fans Nazis on a social media site (where she is publically identified as a member of the publishing firm) and not being sanctioned for it (particularly when it violates both Tor and overall owner McMillan's standards) is pretty brazen.

The three people mentioned in the article did not have any books or other media nominated, so gaming the Hugo's to generate "no award" across multiple categories to attack them seems a bit extreme. Probably the weirdest case of trying to shout "disqualify" ever rather than judging books on their literary merits.

Since this is intriguing, I have taken a bit of time to skim various sites. As a preliminary finding, any site which seems to be in favour of what happened does not review the books on their merits, but does spend a lot of time denouncing people, pretty much going against the man rather than evaluating the book. Perhaps somewhere deeper in the sites are real book reviews, but a quick look does not turn this up.

OTOH, when doing quick looks at sites in favour of the "Sad Puppies", it seems to be about 50/50 if they are going to talk about the book or denounce SJWs. Naturally I'd like the ratio more in favour of evaluating the book and not the man, but it is interesting to see that discussing literary merit seems to be important.

Perhaps the best site belongs to this Vox Day character, who seems to have discovered all the hot buttons for triggering SJW's. Going through the posts about the events leading up to the Hugo's, it seems he accurately predicted what was going to happen well in advance (looking at the dates of the posts and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it is actually quite eerie).

I have discovered a new author John C Wright, and look forward to delving into his work, so there is a silver lining to all this; I have discovered a new SF author who seems to be worth reading.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Nice article tracing Progressive thought in the United States from its early 20th century origins to today. Candian "Progressive" thought seems to have run at double speed since the 1960's to catch up, but since they are building on the intellectual foundations of the Americans, it is much easier to leapfrog ahead. The end result either way is the same....
(Part 1)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/what-next-for-the-left/article/2000801



> *What Next for the Left?*
> The progressives go from bad to worse
> Feb 08, 2016 | By James W. Ceaser
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Part 2

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/what-next-for-the-left/article/2000801



> The Intellectual Movements of the Left
> 
> Modern progressivism's second dimension developed from a breach that opened on the left midway through the progressive century. In a movement known as the New Left, college students in the 1960s, their professors in tow, joined with antiwar activists in reaction against "the system," the amorphous name given to society's controlling ideas and dominant institutions. Falling into this last category for the New Left were not only the business corporations that were the targets of the old progressives' ire, but also the universities, the media, and parts of the government, all of which had a large progressive presence. To their great dismay, progressives — known at the time as liberals — found themselves under attack from the left, mostly in the persons of their own offspring. Families were riven, and major institutions, including the Democratic party and many universities, temporarily came apart. Further challenges from the left followed in the ensuing decades, inspired by multiculturalism and postmodernism.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Part 3

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/what-next-for-the-left/article/2000801



> Multiculturalism today exerts considerable influence on the administrative agencies involved with issues of race and gender. It is well to recall, however, that the origin of the civil rights movement predated the rise of multiculturalism, going back to the 1960s or even to the 1860s, and was born of a different spirit. Civil rights legislation developed not out of an abstract ideology, but from an effort to deal with the problems stemming from America's "original sin" of race slavery and its aftermaths. Its aim was to end legal segregation and discrimination and make good on the liberal democratic principle of equal treatment of all individuals. Its theoretical foundation was the principle of natural rights, with added support from biblical teachings. As multiculturalism began to colonize the intellectual left, it also penetrated the civil rights movement, altering its focus. Its agenda today includes boycotts on products from Israel, calls for gender and ethnic studies programs at universities, and plans to establish a national curriculum in American history favorable to a multiculturalist narrative. The spirit behind multiculturalism is captured in the building excitement over the moment in 2045 when, according to census projections, "white people" become a minority of the American population. This demographic shift is already being hailed as a landmark in American history, above all by those who elevate their own racial self-contempt to the status of a high moral virtue. The civil rights movement may have expanded its coalition, but it has lost its soul.
> 
> Modern progressivism is suspended somewhere between acquiescence to and approval of multiculturalism. The hesitations come from contradictions that have emerged within multiculturalism in response to its confrontation with real events. The genocide in Rwanda and the chaos that followed the Arab Spring exposed the fiction of solidarity among the oppressed and showed that fanaticism can be constituent of an authentic culture. The most severe regimes of oppression against women and gays are perpetrated by victimized cultures. Progressives in extreme cases have concluded that certain oppressed cultures may need to be condemned or policed. The problem has been to find a justification. Happily for progressives, the quandary is always resolved by the arrival, just in the nick of time, of Puff the Magic Value. Overnight America, the oppressor nation, is magically transformed from being the carrier of the "white man's burden" to becoming the defender, in President Obama's words, of "human dignity" and "universal values." Alas, Puff does not linger, but slips back into his cave in Honalee. The trance over, multiculturalists return to their more comfortable posture of assailing Western privilege.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2016)

Finally, someone got a spine implant. The proper way to deal with SJW's, since they are parasites, is to deprive them of any source of attention or nourishment. Too bad it took the threat for the school to be cut off from donations for the administration to see that:

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.ca/2016/01/panicked-oxford-cancels-completely.html



> *Panicked Oxford Cancels “Completely Barking” Mad Decision to Remove Rhodes Statue After Alumni Threaten to Withdraw Millions*
> 
> Oxford University’s statue of Cecil Rhodes is to stay in place after furious donors threatened to withdraw gifts and bequests worth more than £100 million if it was taken down, The Daily Telegraph's Javier Espinoza has learnt.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2016)

SJWs as totalitarians. Luckily, their thought process is so confused that the very idea of "Social Justice" will almost certainly self destruct becasue of "Intersectionality". Being against Homophobia and at the same time being supportive of Islamists (who hold homosexuals in utmost contempt, and in more fundamentalist jurisdictions like Iran or the ISIS "Caliphate" put them to death) tends to set up cognative dissonence or forces SJW's to create heirarchies of victimhood, wher verious "victim" groups can now attack one another.

South Park shows the best way to neutalize SJW's; just laugh at them and their antics:

http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/



> *The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’*
> Much of SJW's passion goes into speech and culture policing directed at victimless crimes that violate their moral taboos
> By Cathy Young • 02/02/16 10:00am
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (3 Feb 2016)

I hate to admit it, but I can't understand half of the arguments here because I have no idea what an SJW is...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2016)

ici aussi


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2016)

SJW="Social Justice Warrior", the pathologies can be seen everywhere. 

The most recent high profile one here in Canada was a woman was forced to stop teaching yoga classes at U of O because of "cultural appropriation". She was subsequently replaced by a woman of East Indian ancestry. The fact that the replacement was born in Calgary, had only visited India once and in all other regards was a middle class Canadian woman apparently made no difference to the SJW's, the surface appearance of an "Indian teaching yoga" was created for the masses to consume.

You can see why the SJW's will rapidly strangle themselves in convoluted intersectional warfare.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2016)

Some interesting quotes. People could really learn from History, if they were taught it in the first place:



> The Social Democrats were democratic only so long as they were not the ruling party; that is, so long as they still felt themselves not strong enough to suppress their opponents by force. The moment they thought themselves the strongest, they declared themselves as their writers had always asserted was advisable at this point for dictatorship. Only when the armed bands of the Rightist parties had inflicted bloody defeats on them did they again become democratic until further notice. Their party writers express this by saying: In the councils of the social democratic parties, the wing which declared for democracy triumphed over the one which championed dictatorship.
> 
> Of course, the only party that may properly be described as democratic is one that under all circumstances even when it is the strongest and in control champions democratic institutions.
> 
> Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-10). Liberalism . Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition



and



> While Communism might conceivably be established upon the largest scale, and has, in a hundred experiments, been upon a small scale established, by voluntary consent, Socialism begins with the use of the powers of the State, and proceeds and operates through them alone. It is by the force of law that the Socialist purposes to whip up the laggards and the delinquents in the social and industrial order. It is by the public treasurer, armed with powers of assessment and sale, that he plans to gather the means for carrying on enterprises to which individual resources would be inadequate. It is through penalties that he would check wasteful or mischievous expenditures.
> 
> --Socialism (1886), Scribner's Magazine.



Note in the second quote there is no discussion about "who" decides what is "frivolous", "wasteful" or a "laggard and delinquent".


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2016)

When "1984" becomes the "how to" guide instead of the warning. (Video at link):

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226239



> *THE MOROZ FAMILY – FROM THE SOVIET UNION TO THE LIBERAL GULAG*:
> 
> Michael Moroz is the son of Soviet immigrants. I interviewed Michael’s mother, who told me that they left there because they wanted their son to be able to grow up with freedom. Freedom to speak his mind without concern that saying the wrong thing would mean that the state would come down on him. She believed our marketing materials for “The American Way.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2016)

Twofer tonight:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2016/02/03/the-left-has-two-huge-advantages-and-i-have-no-idea-how-we-overcome-them-part-2-of-5/



> *The Left Has Two Huge Advantages, and I Have No Idea How we Overcome Them (Part 2 of 5) *
> By Brother Bob 
> Wed, Feb, 3rd, 2016 
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> When "1984" becomes the "how to" guide instead of the warning. (Video at link):
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226239



Great post!  And interesting article. 

I think this fits in the "Liberalism Needs Defending" Topic.  Has our liberal society come so far that we need to defend the very liberal principals we stand for from those very sam principals ?


----------



## CougarKing (16 Feb 2016)

What happened? So did this column writer get into bed with David Suzuki and Stephen Hawking to come up with this latest fear-mongering about why capitalism will be the doom of us all?  :

Forbes



> *Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050*
> 
> Drew Hansen ,
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2016)

If only the Roman Catholic Church would rescind its prohibition of birth control...small steps...

[/half joking]


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> What happened? So did this column writer get into bed with David Suzuki and Stephen Hawking to come up with this latest fear-mongering about why capitalism will be the doom of us all?  :
> 
> Forbes



Or maybe Science.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2016)

Outstanding look at how Socialism really looks at and treats people:

https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/why-i-cant-be-a-socialist/



> *Why I can’t be a socialist*
> Posted on February 21, 2016
> 
> I’ve tried (over time) to explain my opposition to socialism in these terms:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2016)

Fun meme to explode progressive snowflake's heads:

If you want to see a real "safe space", here is an example from Israel:


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2016)

Venezuela’s then-minister of education lays out the Socialist program in plain language for everyone to see and hear. Too bad there are millions who will literally read this and either actively deny it or pretend it never existed:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228040/



> QUOTE OF THE DAY “’A couple of years ago, [socialist Venezuela’s] then-minister of education admitted that the aim of the regime’s policies was ‘not to take the people out of poverty so they become middle class and then turn into escuálidos’ (a derogatory term to denote opposition members). In other words, the government wanted grateful, dependent voters, not prosperous Venezuelans.’”
> 
> Or to put it another way, “They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please. . . .”


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2016)

Progressivism as a mental disorder. That does explain a lot about the behaviours of the SJW wing of Progressivism:

http://thedeclination.com/pretending-to-be-something/



> *Pretending to be Something You’re Not*
> by Dystopic | Mar 3, 2016 | Celebrity Stupidity, Culture War, Decline, SJWs, Sociology | 11 comments
> 
> A woman I’ve known for some time is fond of making great declarations of intent which she’ll never follow through on. Once, she explained that she was going to go to medical school and become a plastic surgeon. “Lawrence,” she told me, “I’ll look you up when I’m living up the good life.” I’m not sure if she expected to create some kind of jealousy in me, or if she really believed all of this and was trying to be gracious to her friends. But, a few months later, her goal to become a plastic surgeon had been completely forgotten.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2016)

What campus cry bullies really want. "Triggering", safe spaces and other nonsensical demands are just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261991/what-campus-crybully-wars-are-really-about-daniel-greenfield



> *WHAT THE CAMPUS CRYBULLY WARS ARE REALLY ABOUT*
> The end of education as we know it.
> February 29, 2016  Daniel Greenfield  120
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (7 Mar 2016)

*sigh*

They can protest and demand all the want. Engineering and Professional (Law, Architecture, etc) degrees will not suffer at the hands of political correctness because there isn't anything to be politically correct about. Sure, they may present arguments as to why current Engineering and Professional curricula _are_ politically incorrect, or that they marginalize certain cultures/races, but those arguments will be thin and easily refuted, receiving attention only thanks to the clamour of those spewing them.

As for the social sciences... does it matter what they actually teach/don't teach in those classes? You can't get a job with them these days anyhow.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2016)

While you and I might think the content and nature of STEM courses make them relatively immune to SJW shenanigans, the activity is not aimed specifically at the content, but rather the person of the students and faculty.

Teaching them that there are areas which cannot be debated, that rational thought does not apply outside of very narrow boundaries and that you individually can be carved out of the herd and rendered unemployable because you have transgressed against whatever ism/phobia de jour is currently in vogue. The issue isn't to be able to do STEM disciplines, but rather to _control people _ and make them afraid to speak or act lest they draw the wrath of the SJW establishment.

I have been following a fascinating thread on a blog by a person calling himself Vox Day. He has chronicled a development in the "Open Source" community where SJW's (who do not contribute code at all) try to force "Codes of Conduct" on projects and then proceed to wreak havoc on the various projects by using these "codes" to harass and eventually eject people from the project. SJW's also tend to congregate in HR positions (answering your question about what use non STEM degrees are in terms of employment). Other examples are the bankrupting of the GNOME project after hiring a "diversity and outreach" officer, who blew the budget on "outreach" to woman and minority programmers (rather than hiring coders who knew their stuff and could contribute). And upthread there is the example of the Gamergate instigator who insists they are a "Game designer" despite never having written code at all.

This isn't even new, science and technology have been "politicized" in places like Nazi Germany, the former USSR and Communist China, and woe betide anyone who objected to the idea that things like the Aryan Race, "Deep Plowing", Lysenkoism or smelting steel in backyard furnaces on the basis they didn't exist or work.

Wow, they skys opened and granted me this example:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228434



> ACADEMIC GIBBERISH WATCH: WE HAVE ANOTHER WINNER! “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.” “Yes, I too was sure this was a parody, but in fact the lead author is the associate dean at the University of Oregon.”


----------



## big.guy.for.you (7 Mar 2016)

It kind of disturbs me how much credulity certain social sciences are treated with, especially those married to postmodernism. Every once in awhile I read an op-ed, a book excerpt, or even a paper published by such-and-such sociologist or gender theory professor or whatever, and it just blows my mind how actual paid-and-tenured academics will just give their opinion and frame it as incontrovertible truth. Bloggers will cite these things as though they're fact, with no evidence or even some basic reasoning to back it up. It's just opinion framed as fact. Even worse, some progressives hold their worldview as just the next step in the progression of society toward enlightenment, rather than... just another worldview. As though society simply progresses along a straight line, and they're two steps ahead. They'll go so far as implying that progressive ideas (like cultural relativism and multikulti) aren't just ideas but axiomatically _good _ideas, which to me is no different than die-hard conservatives saying homosexuality is just _bad_, for example.

My pet hypothesis for why this is that social sciences are relative newcomers in academia and don't have the same pedigree of intellectual discipline that other areas have. Historians, for example, don't even call themselves a science but every observation or inference they make is completely hedged with "maybes" and "possiblys", and thoroughly supported with physical evidence whenever possible.

Personally I'm very liberal but I just can't stand listening to other liberals, especially young, academic ones. These zealous progressives just make me smh tbh fampai


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2016)

Then you will just love this. I wasn't sure if it should be put in a humour thread instead:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/07/the-most-grotesquely-comical-academic-paper-ever-published/?singlepage=true



> *The Most Grotesquely Comical Academic Paper Ever Published*
> By Rick MoranMarch 7, 2016
> 
> The following is not an example of academic hijinks, but a serious academic attempt to feminize glaciers.
> ...



Outside of the well deserved scorn and mockery, I would be having serious questions if I were a parent who's child was enrolled in any program in that university.


----------



## Flavus101 (8 Mar 2016)

The real question is how much money they received in grants for this rubbish.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Mar 2016)

This thread is a hilarious echo chamber, seeing as how it's the conservative pro-market policies of cutting taxes, cutting spending, attacking intellectual "elites" and militarism that is getting the US a potential Donald Trump presidency. 

Instead of crying about how Canada isn't an unregulated third world nightmare, just go live in a country that closer resembles what you want. Like the US. Or one of those Eastern European "miracles" with flat taxes. See how your quality of life decreases and report back.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Mar 2016)

How about NZ?

They went broke in the 1990s and were forced to slash or reform every government program.

I found the country to be refreshingly entrepreneurial and not at all over governed. Yet, it was still not tooth and claw capitalism. It seemed "small c" conservative economically, while also "small l" liberal socially.

In many respects, I preferred it to Canada.


----------



## big.guy.for.you (8 Mar 2016)

A strong welfare system isn't mutually exclusive of lightly-regulated businesses encouraging entrepreneurism. It's a hard balance to strike though.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Mar 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How about NZ?
> 
> They went broke in the 1990s and were forced to slash or reform every government program.
> 
> ...



NZ in many respects also has far more progressive policies than Canada. Marylin Waring, a very successful feminist politician (who is also famous for her academic work on how the domestic labour of women, while being essential to any society is not counted in national GDP) was an MP in NZ and quite radical by most standards. 

Now the above nonsense on glaciers from a feminist perspective is nonsense. There are very real disagreements amongst progressives as to the virtue of identity politics. I happen to think they distract from structural economic issues, but then I am also a white male. To pretend that being a visible minority or a female or both doesn't affect many aspects of one's life is delusional. 

The point is, we could just as easily have a thread about "regressive thought." Progressives and progressive thinking is what ended slavery for example. Or gave us a five day work week with over time if necessary. 

At one time (I know, hard to believe) the wealthy and the poor got very different treatment in the eyes of the law. That never really changed, but we HAVE made PROGRESS, as much as conservative movements the world over have tried to turn the clock back. 

Are Thucydides et al against these progressive ideas? What is the cut off date for acceptable progressive thinking?

The tragedy (or farce) of it is that unless you're quite wealthy, conservative policies and ideas hurt you. They reduce your quality of life, and make it harder for you to get ahead. Does anyone believe those bible quoting Republicans that trickle down actually works? Or is it more likely they focus on the bible and nebulous ideas around morality and hard work to draw attention away from the fact that their economic policies consist mainly of graft and legislation for their corporate buddies?

Progressive thought is what saved the masses from a miserable existence at the hands of tyrants in a feudal system. It's really that simple. And I for one believe we still have a ways to go. That is, unless we really believe that the poor are poor because they're lazy.

This thread is hogwash, and will only become more obviously so as we continue to see greater concrentrstion of wealth in fewer hands, the continued dominance of corporate power in politics, more casino economics that destroy the lives of the poor while befitting speculators, and the rise of neo-fascism as a result of the sheer hopelessness many people feel in the face of market economics. We need progressive thought now more than ever.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This thread is a hilarious echo chamber, seeing as how it's the conservative pro-market policies of cutting taxes, cutting spending, attacking intellectual "elites" and militarism that is getting the US a potential Donald Trump presidency.


If you think that Mr. Trump's popularity is because of the above, you're just not paying attention.  He's sold himself as an outsider, the epitome of the American Dream.  He's the result of cronyism that sees Hilary Trump running for president, getting the establishment vote in terms of the Super Delegates (instead of her being in jail), and any number of other establishment types on both sides of the spectrum.


			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Instead of crying about how Canada isn't an unregulated third world nightmare, just go live in a country that closer resembles what you want. Like the US. Or one of those Eastern European "miracles" with flat taxes. See how your quality of life decreases and report back.



I live in the US.  My quality of life is amazing.  I'm reporting back.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Mar 2016)

Kilo, you do know the difference between a liberal and a libertarian, right? Don't mistake what Thucydides is, he's actually been quite clear on his position.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If you think that Mr. Trump's popularity is because of the above, you're just not paying attention.  He's sold himself as an outsider, the epitome of the American Dream.  He's the result of cronyism that sees Hilary Trump running for president, getting the establishment vote in terms of the Super Delegates (instead of her being in jail), and any number of other establishment types on both sides of the spectrum.
> I live in the US.  My quality of life is amazing.  I'm reporting back.



Right, but Trump's popularity is a reaction to the fact that these policies, contrary to popular myth foisted on us by conservatives around the world, simply don't work. They don't deliver for anyone but the wealthy. Clinton is almost as bad as the Republican establishment on this count, but instead of hiding behind a bible she hides behind flowery language like "love and kindness" to appeal to progressives who aren't quite at the point of understanding the structural economic issues behind the problems. Cronyism is certainly part of it, but what are the results of the cronyism? The result is governing on behalf of corporate interests. 

As I've been saying on this forum for years, the scales have clearly tipped in favour of capital over labour, and this results in a destabilization of the system. Trump isn't an answer, he's the first of what could be several US politicians with neo-fascist tendencies. The only alternative is a critical look at the structural issues facing the US. 

Overall, I would say the US is like the canary in the coal mine in this regard. They never instituted universal healthcare, they're far less regulated than most advanced countries, so capital had less work to do when it came to rolling back progress made since world war 2. Consequently we're seeing this lean to the far right. But neo-liberal economics are the priority for many other Western governments too. Continue down the path of privatization and deregulation and other nations will see the destruction of the middle class and a similar destabilization. 

"Progressive thought", properly executed in the form of progressive taxes, more social spending, and an emphasis on a fair living wage is the only way to avoid this. 

What we are seeing is conservative economics, the gospel of privatization and deregulation, the myth of trickle down,being exposed for the fraud that it is. 

Libertarianism is just another form of government designed to help the already wealthy. Forgetting for the moment that it is simply unworkable, a libertarian country would result in leaders far worse than Trump. If you think people don't feel like they have a voice now, imagine how they will feel in a society where corporations have even more sway and more freedom because of an utter lack of regulation. Libertarianism leads to feudalism, which of course leads to despots.


----------



## biernini (9 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This thread is a hilarious echo chamber, seeing as how it's the conservative pro-market policies of cutting taxes, cutting spending, attacking intellectual "elites" and militarism that is getting the US a potential Donald Trump presidency.


Not to mention ironic seeing as Canadian and American military personnel enjoy some of the most socialist and progressive policies of any institution in the world. Perhaps we should extend this rugged individualism onto the military as well. We should have them emulate something like the warlord model; armies financed wholly or in part by opportunism and racketeering, with members equipped and trained only as well as they are individually able to procure for themselves, and battles fought according to the highest bidder mercenary-style. We merely have to look for inspiration with the French Foreign Legion, the DPRK, ISIS and other banana-republic "generals" in Africa and our militaries can be just as ideologically pure as our resident libertarians deserve.

As usual with libertariarns and conservatives, good enough for me but not for thee. I'm reminded yet again of one of Canada's most famous exports, John Kenneth Galbraith, who said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."


----------



## Flavus101 (9 Mar 2016)

I don't think the French Foreign Legion would take you lumping them in with ISIS too well...


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

biernini said:
			
		

> Not to mention ironic seeing as Canadian and American military personnel enjoy some of the most socialist and progressive policies of any institution in the world. Perhaps we should extend this rugged individualism onto the military as well. We should have them emulate something like the warlord model; armies financed wholly or in part by opportunism and racketeering, with members equipped and trained only as well as they are individually able to procure for themselves, and battles fought according to the highest bidder mercenary-style. We merely have to look for inspiration with the French Foreign Legion, the DPRK, ISIS and other banana-republic "generals" in Africa and our militaries can be just as ideologically pure as our resident libertarians deserve.
> 
> As usual with libertariarns and conservatives, good enough for me but not for thee. I'm reminded yet again of one of Canada's most famous exports, John Kenneth Galbraith, who said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."



:goodpost:

A couple good reads on why ordinary people vote Conservative or Republican, and in doing so vote against their own interests. I can only hope everyone on this thread is a millionaire, otherwise they fall into this category:

"What's The Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank

"Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-*Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.
*
A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People."

https://www.amazon.ca/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

"Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War" by Joe Bageant

"Deer Hunting with Jesus is web columnist Joe Bageant’s report on what he learned when he moved back to his hometown of Winchester, Virginia, which-like countless American small towns-is fast becoming the bedrock of a permanent underclass. By turns brutal, tender, incendiary, and seriously funny, this book is a call to arms for fellow progressives with little real understanding of "the great beery, NASCAR-loving, church-going, gun-owning America that has never set foot in a Starbucks."

]https://www.amazon.ca/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457536511&sr=1-1&keywords=joe+bageant]


----------



## Journeyman (9 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> A couple good reads on why....


Have you read either book?


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Mar 2016)

> _From: Biernini_
> As usual with libertariarns and conservatives, good enough for me but not for thee. I'm reminded yet again of one of Canada's most famous exports, John Kenneth Galbraith, who said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."



Ah yes, the 'evil' twin brother bookend to the 'how dare you imply we're lazily over-entitled and look to have others pay for our socialistic desires that in practice far exceed those basic, truly justified supportive resources' left arc-of-fire... :nod:

Far better to keep one's hands off the shovel so that they may receive what others work for?  That attitude doesn't even fit the Marxist model...time for a new shtick... :not-again:

G2G


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Have you read either book?



Of course. They're on my bookshelf in fact. Would you like to borrow them? I'm not even kidding, if you're in Toronto you're welcome to grab them.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2016)

As mentioned, Libertarianism is a distinct philosophy with pretty clear boundaries, and the strawmen being built upthread are in fields that are not even in the same county.

There is no Libertarian who would suggest that we do not need an armed forces, police or courts of law. Libertarians would be in favour of very light, easily interpreted laws and regulations that provide clear guidance and boundaries for consenting adults to carry out their business (protected by the Police, Armed Forces and backed by neutral courts as arbitrators of disputes).

As for the foaming mouth declarations about how conservatism doesn't work, please define how the Obama Administration is conservative? They have carried out virtually every progressive nostrum, from $15 trillion in deficit spending, green energy, enhanced welfare and food stamps and Obamacare, yet economic growth is tanking, unemployment (after factoring back all the various things the BLM conveniently leaves out like labour participation rate and people who have stopped looking) has never dropped below 10% since 2008, and of course the only places which have managed to stay above water are the so called "Red" or "Flyover" states which have avoided progressive nostrums at the State level.

BTW, under which Canadian Prime Minister and government did Canadians have a higher median income than the Americans (hint, this was before the last federal election)?

Now I'll just step back while more strawmen are set on fire, goalposts moved and a smattering of Ad hominem attacks are rolled out.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As mentioned, Libertarianism is a distinct philosophy with pretty clear boundaries, and the strawmen being built upthread are in fields that are not even in the same county.
> 
> There is no Libertarian who would suggest that we do not need an armed forces, police or courts of law. Libertarians would be in favour of very light, easily interpreted laws and regulations that provide clear guidance and boundaries for consenting adults to carry out their business (protected by the Police, Armed Forces and backed by neutral courts as arbitrators of disputes).
> 
> ...



Not sure where to start with this. The Obama administration is solidly neo-liberal. He has tried to roll back some of the advances capital has made, but has been unsuccessful. I don't believe he's a true progressive.

Also not sure where your figures are coming from. The unemployment rate in the US was 5.5% in May of 2015.  

Are you against food stamps for people who simply can't find jobs to support themselves? Would you rather people starve? Food stamps are on the rise due to the 2008 crash, which in turn was result of deregulation. 

Would you also rather that people remain uninsured when it comes to healthcare? You do understand that the US pays more per capita than any other Western nation on healthcare and has very poor results. 

As for this ad hominem stuff, don't play the victim card. People are discussing your ideas, not you as a person. It just so happens that your ideas would seem to indicate you have very little empathy or understanding of what many people must go through to live. You seem to buy into the idea that poor people are simply lazy. I can only surmise this from the ideas you espouse. Many people in the Red states that you so love, good Republicans, are on food stamps. And they're living in poverty.

As for Canada versus the US. No one mentioned median income. We're talking about quality of life. Canada consistently ranks above the US in this regard, and most European countries with more progressive policies rank above Canada. 

You have to ask yourself why infant mortality rates are higher in the US. Why are more people per capita living in poverty? The US is far less regulated than Canada. Isn't that supposed to mean greater wealth, and greater quality of life? Doctors without Borders now has one of their biggest operations in the US. This is a "first-world" country we're talking about here.

None of the policies or ideas you rant on about on this thread have worked for anyone but the wealthy. This is fact. 

Libertarian policies by definition will lead to a greater concentration of wealth in fewer hands, with all of the implications for democracy and political power. Do you deny this?


----------



## Journeyman (9 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Of course. They're on my bookshelf in fact. Would you like to borrow them?


No thanks.  I just see too many people, on both ends of the polemics, who will point to something they haven't read or don't understand, citing a 'friend of a friend' or the advertising on the dust jacket to justify their views.

Bonus points for actually reading.  Mind you, I also tend to encourage people to read outside of their comfort zone.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No thanks.  I just see too many people, on both ends of the polemics, who will point to something they haven't read or don't understand, citing a 'friend of a friend' or the advertising on the dust jacket to justify their views.
> 
> Bonus points for actually reading.  Mind you, I also tend to encourage people to read outside of their comfort zone.



Well my books consist mainly of politics, economics and military doctrine/history/science fiction. I suppose anything on Oprah's list would qualify as outside of my comfort zone  ;D

In all seriousness though, you should check out those two books I posted above. Believe it or not I used to be very conservative, until a friend handed me "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Nothing wrong with being conservative, I just think that a lot of people are like me, in the sense that they are conservative based on the wrong information. Which of course, is by the design of the conservative movement.


----------



## biernini (9 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the 'evil' twin brother bookend to the 'how dare you imply we're lazily over-entitled and look to have others pay for our socialistic desires that in practice far exceed those basic, truly justified supportive resources' left arc-of-fire... :nod:
> 
> Far better to keep one's hands off the shovel so that they may receive what others work for?  That attitude doesn't even fit the Marxist model...time for a new shtick... :not-again:
> 
> G2G


Wow. I don't know if you could stuff more words in my mouth if you tried.


----------



## biernini (9 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There is no Libertarian who would suggest that we do not need an armed forces, police or courts of law.


Who said anything about not needing armed forces? I merely suggested that if libertarianism is so awesome for everybody it should be equally awesome for the armed forces as well.

Of course, we all know that's not true, and in that brief moment of concurrence lies the big lie all libertarians and conservatives tell themselves to justify their own selfishness.


----------



## biernini (9 Mar 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I don't think the French Foreign Legion would take you lumping them in with ISIS too well...


Why should I care what they think? With enough money I can tell them exactly what to think.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2016)

Sadly, arguing with progressives is much like shooting at fish in a barrel. Take this small piece for example, which outlines how a "Conservative" Administration created a bubble through deregulation which contributed to economic inequality. Since the charge is constantly that "conservative" policies cause these disasters, I will accede and ensure that every administration or government which creates or implements policies like these are labeled conservative:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228544/



> *BUT IT ENRICHED WALL STREET FATCATS/DONORS: Note to Hillary: Clintonomics Was a Disaster for Most Americans: Under Bill Clinton, Wall Street created a ruinous bubble, while workers lost wages and power.*
> 
> How could Clinton have undergone such a lightening-fast reversal? The answer is straightforward, and explained with candor by Robert Rubin, who had been co-chair of Goldman Sachs before becoming Clinton’s Treasury secretary. Even before the inauguration, Rubin explained to more populist members of the incoming administration that the rich “are running the economy and make the decisions about the economy.”
> 
> ...



The real problem is the ideological blinkers which blind people who keep trying to blame conservatism. The problem is big government and incentives which drive people towards bad choices. I will also note that the 2008 crash was caused by a "conservative" policy first enacted by the Carter Administration (the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA), which decoupled metrics like income and creditworthiness from mortgage lending. This was generally allowed to be ignored by the Liberal Reagan and Bush administrations, but revived by the "conservative" Clinton administration, which also heavily incentivized "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac" to underwrite poor loans with the carrot of bonuses to bankers who pushed CRA loans, and penalties for bankers who insisted on credit and income as metrics to assess the ability to repay mortgages. The "conservative" Democrat house fought the second Bush administration's attempts to both reign in the developing mortgage credit bubble, and also prevented the deployment of a wide range of savings tools (the "Ownership Society"), much like our new "conservative" government is removing wealth generation tools like enhanced TFSA's.

The current "conservative" administration has deployed virtually every progressive economic nostrum, yet the predicted "recovery summers", economic growth and reduction in real (vice BLM numbers) unemployment have not happened during the entire eight years of this administration. You are correct: "Conservative" economic policies do not work whatsoever. One can only watch and wait to see if a Trump administration is going to be Liberal or Conservative (Trump used to be quite "conservative", even being a big supporter of the Clintons at one point).

As for the last sentence in the Instapundit article: But the stratospheric rise in stock prices and the debt-financed consumption and investment booms produced a mortgaged legacy, this and the resulting fallout are not explained or explainable in Keynesan economics, but described in great detail by F.A. Hayek.


----------



## big.guy.for.you (9 Mar 2016)

I'm far from a libertarian but I think a lot of people in this thread are mistakenly conflating it with anarcho-capitalism...



			
				biernini said:
			
		

> Who said anything about not needing armed forces? I merely suggested that if libertarianism is so awesome for everybody it should be equally awesome for the armed forces as well.



Funny you should mention putting words in people's mouths, I don't think any sane libertarian would suggest that a volunteer military should be internally governed by libertarian principles.

I mean, most liberal Canadians are pretty strongly in favour of freedom of expression, but even with a liberal government if you mouth off to an officer you're still going to get in trouble. I think it's pretty much implicit that armed forces operate on their own principles by necessity. This isn't ideologically inconsistent with libertarianism; after all, you volunteer for the military and willingly sign contracts committing you to the lifestyle.

Basically that's a pretty silly argument fam


----------



## biernini (9 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real problem is the ideological blinkers which blind people who keep trying to blame conservatism. The problem is big government and incentives which drive people towards bad choices. I will also note that the 2008 crash was caused by a "conservative" policy first enacted by the Carter Administration (the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA), which decoupled metrics like income and creditworthiness from mortgage lending. This was generally allowed to be ignored by the Liberal Reagan and Bush administrations, but revived by the "conservative" Clinton administration, which also heavily incentivized "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac" to underwrite poor loans with the carrot of bonuses to bankers who pushed CRA loans,


Only vaguely true, cherry-picked to death and presented with such obvious bias it's a truly excellent example of motivated reasoning that pops up from time to time.

The CRA did not "cause" the crash. The relatively tiny government program merely _proved_ that many people previously thought to be credit risks actually were not. It's in the reports; CRA mortgages did not default at a greater rate than the median, before, during and after the crisis. That's it. What crime can be laid at the feet of CRA is proving statistically that there is a much bigger customer base for mortgages than previously thought, which inspired the banks to soften their lending standards. Nobody held a gun to their heads and said lend to deadbeats, property-flippers, and other real estate investors (the latter two comprising most of those risky mortgages, BTW). Nobody held a gun to their heads and told them to lie to everyone about the risks involved in their flexible-rate mortgages. And nobody held a gun to their heads forcing them to package their crappy mortgages as investment vehicles and fraudulently selling them as triple A commodities, fueling the entire fiasco until it collapsed. Those are all utter fictions told by conservatives to feed their hate against the poor.

One of the many reasons why Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are is because both of them know all this, as does much of the electorate. It's only doctrinaire conservatives and libertarians in their ivory towers who keep telling themselves this lie that everything that is wrong with the world can be pinned on the lazy poor and "big government". It's no wonder the establishment politicos are genuinely getting scared this cycle.


----------



## biernini (9 Mar 2016)

big.guy.for.you said:
			
		

> I don't think any sane libertarian would suggest that a volunteer military should be internally governed by libertarian principles.


That's my point, nobody would.

So if nobody thinks that libertarian principles are good for the armed forces, why is some form of socialism and progressivism fine for the armed forces but not for everybody else? It's hypocritical to say the least.


----------



## big.guy.for.you (9 Mar 2016)

biernini said:
			
		

> That's my point, nobody would.
> 
> So if nobody thinks that libertarian principles are good for the armed forces, why is some form of socialism and progressivism fine for the armed forces but not for everybody else? It's hypocritical to say the least.



The military is pretty far from socialist too...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Mar 2016)

big.guy.for.you said:
			
		

> The military is pretty far from socialist too...



A dictatorship would likely be the best way to describe it.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Mar 2016)

Yup, jack-booted goose-stepping fascists in the streets...with guns... :

Poor Canadians, if only their government was less totalitarian.  Perhaps the Young Dauphin can reverse the fascist trend of the last decade...


----------



## big.guy.for.you (9 Mar 2016)

It's really pretty pointless to describe militaries in terms of political ideologies, especially ones primarily concerned with economic policy like libertarianism and socialism.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Mar 2016)

...don't forget anarco-syndicalism! :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (10 Mar 2016)

big.guy.for.you said:
			
		

> ...really pretty pointless .....


 Some threads (and posters) draw more than their fair share of that observation.    :nod:


----------



## biernini (10 Mar 2016)

big.guy.for.you said:
			
		

> It's really pretty pointless to describe militaries in terms of political ideologies, especially ones primarily concerned with economic policy like libertarianism and socialism.


War, and I would say the preparedness for war, is the continuation of politics by other means. Of course militaries and can be described in terms of political ideologies, particularly those ostensibly concerned with economic policy. Do you think the military-congressional-industrial-complex of the USA is a fiction?


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Mar 2016)

Absolutely! 

I wrote a paper on it years ago, and using numerous, respected academic writers, proved that Eisenhower was wrong about the existence of such a construct.  QED.

G2G


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, arguing with progressives is much like shooting at fish in a barrel. Take this small piece for example, which outlines how a "Conservative" Administration created a bubble through deregulation which contributed to economic inequality. Since the charge is constantly that "conservative" policies cause these disasters, I will accede and ensure that every administration or government which creates or implements policies like these are labeled conservative:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228544/
> 
> ...



You've said repeatedly in the past that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with 2008. So which is it? I'm starting to think you don't have a great handle on what neo-liberalism is.

Are you for de-regulation or against?

Do you still believe that trickle down works? These are tenets of conservative economic policy, which often overlaps with neo-liberalism. 

It's hard to pin down what you really think, aside from nebulous ideas about  "big government" and  taxes. Your ideology is incoherent.


----------



## Lumber (10 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You've said repeatedly in the past that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with 2008. So which is it? I'm starting to think you don't have a great handle on what neo-liberalism is.
> 
> Are you for de-regulation or against?
> 
> ...



I'm confused too, I was under the assumption that Thucydides was anti-big government and anti-regulation, but that article he posted screams of a need FOR regulation.

Also, did I read that right? They enacted a law that made checking someone's income and credit rating was not required in determining if they were eligible for a mortgage? What the hell else would you use as a metric? The size of their Pokemon card collection?!


----------



## big.guy.for.you (10 Mar 2016)

I don't know what awful bank you use but my shiny Charizard knocked $10k off the down payment on my house.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2016)

Kilo was saying conservatives are responsible for deregulation, so I acceeded and showed an example of a conservative administration deregulating  >

The CRA provided penalties to banks which did not "invest" in mortgages to poor people (i.e. minorities) despite their lack of creditworthiness. The US government also incentivised the process of providing mortgages to unqualified buyers through the implicit USG backing of "Freddie Mac" and "Fannie May", which underwrote these worthless mortgages, and then turned a blind eye as the banks monetized them. The damage was already evident in the early 2000's, and I recall that warnings were already in the press in 2006, although Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said that he would "roll the dice" rather than allow the Bush administration to reign in Freddy and Fanny, with results that we all know now.

And here is another story of a conservative State giovernment's regulatory overreach driving business away:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/03/10/carls-jr-headquarters-moving-calif-nashville-orange-county-register



> *Carl's Jr. HQ Moving From Calif. to Nashville; Press Avoids Saying Why*
> By Tom Blumer | March 10, 2016 | 9:12 AM EST
> 
> For years, Andrew F. Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants, the parent company of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's fast-food chains, has been telling the world that while the U.S. government makes life needlessly miserable for businesses, California, where it has been headquartered, is exponentially worse.
> ...


----------



## biernini (13 Mar 2016)

For what I hope is the last time the CRA did not cause the crisis. If you want to refute the research linked to below be my guest, but this narrative has always been total hogwash. I invite you to familiarize yourself with the research regarding CRA's involvement in the crisis with the two most important points:

1) Only 6 percent of all subprime loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers.
2) FICO scores on CRA mortgages dropped on average 7 percent to 707, as compared to the rest of subprime at below 640. Their delinquency/default rate bumped the overall rate between 0.1 to 0.4 percent, from 1.1 to 1.6 overall, compared to the rest of subprime which defaulted at over 25%.

Simply put CRA mortgages were profitable and had high standards.

And there is absolutely no way the CRA can be reasonably construed as "causing" the crisis.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2016)

There is a massive amount of research and commentary dating back to 2006 and possibly before that states otherwise, so your opinion is in the minority here.

As a checksum, you might want to research F.A. Hayek and how debt fuelled credit bubbles (which is what the CRA ended up creating) affect economies.


----------



## biernini (15 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There is a massive amount of research and commentary dating back to 2006 and possibly before that states otherwise, so your opinion is in the minority here.
> 
> As a checksum, you might want to research F.A. Hayek and how debt fuelled credit bubbles (which is what the CRA ended up creating) affect economies.


Your bandwagon appeal to authority is not an argument. I'm not presenting an opinion, I'm presenting rigorously documented, statistically verified facts.  If you're so confident that CRA mortgages caused the crisis/fueled a credit bubble, please provide any proof that they comprised an order of magnitude more than 6% of all subprime mortgages during the crisis.  If your're so confident that CRA mortgages caused the crisis, please provide any proof that they were delinquent or defaulted at an order of magnitude greater rate than what I present putting them in similar territory to subprime mortgages originating from non-CRA lenders.

I'm not the one peddling opinions as facts. If you really want to "deconstruct" progressive thought, I should think facts would be more helpful to your cause.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

More on how social meida is being used to manipulate users. If FaceBook or Twitter had been owned by the Koch borthers, I'm sure there would be a massive explosion of outrage...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/15/sunshine-week-transparency-private-sector-twitter-facebook-column/81743298/



> *Glenn Reynolds: Free market needs some 'Sunshine'*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 2:04 p.m. EDT March 15, 2016
> 
> Private sector businesses like Twitter and Facebook far from models of transparency.
> ...


----------



## biernini (18 Mar 2016)

Since this tangential but still thread-relevant discussion about the role of the CRA in the financial crisis is apparently stalled I'm going to make a final statement and walk away as well.

Everyone I've read who wants to blame the CRA for the crisis says variations on the same thing; that the CRA somehow changed lending standards to all mortgage lending. Well guess what, that's exactly what it was _supposed_ to do. Lost in all the finger-pointing after the crisis is the fact that "redlining" minorities and minority neighbourhoods from affordable credit was a real problem for a very long time. The CRA addressed this by reducing or eliminating "soft data" (read prejudice) from credit decisions and relying more on "hard data" (read credit scores and the like). The results were a _resounding success_. As I linked to above historical delinquency and defaults were bumped up insignificantly compared to mortgages based on traditional data: CRA mortgages were profitable, and had high standards. The problem is that every argument I've seen that blames the CRA for contributing to the failure of non-CRA mortgages is predicated on the belief that CRA mortgages had _lower_ standards, and somehow induced the same standard in other lenders. They did not lower standards, and their FICO scores prove it (again, refer to my link above).

For example, one argument is that lenders which offered both CRA and non-CRA mortgages eventually stopped offering non-CRA mortgages for fear of anti-discriminatory lawsuits. How is it that banks were eventually only selling CRA mortgages if the total share of subprime for CRA is 6%? How is it that a well-resourced bank would be so afraid of litigation mounted by low-income types, particularly if they have hard data on their side? Doesn't occam's razor suggest that greed borne of skewed risk assessments is more likely a reason for selling low-standard, sub-640 FICO mortgages, than the vague threat of litigation? To access a mortgage that required a relatively _higher_ standard?

Anti-CRA is filled with this kind of nonsense. I'm certain it's a kind of guilt by association, where if mortgages are extended to low-income minorities ipso facto they are low standard loans.  Because poor minorities are obviously stupid, lazy, and irresponsible and should've remained redlined in perpetuity.  Proven FICO scores, low delinquency and default rates be damned.

And lastly and probably most importantly if one is to really believe that the CRA caused the crisis, or fueled the credit boom one has downplay or basically ignore "low interest rates, the growth of securitization, a glut of foreign savings pouring into the US, a lack of yield from other asset classes, ratings agencies operating with minimal knowledge but lots of optimism, a faith in the ever-rising housing market, high oil prices, consumers looking to flip high-interest unsecured debt into lower-interest home-equity debt, a short-term federal budget surplus eating into the availability of Treasury debt, Fannie and Freddie’s mixed mission, the evaporation of profits from investment banking and brokerage, unrestrained shareholder demand for high profit margins, off-balance sheet financial innovations such as SIVs, unconvincing and non-influential risk managers, risk-pricing of MBS based on CDS pricing, a White House dedicated to expanding low-income and minority home ownership for partisan political reasons, economists touting the positive externalities of home-ownership, a poor understanding that heterogeneous populations have different responses to market movements and over-reliance on centralized and automated mortgage underwriting.". One has to completely "absolve the greedy and often corrupt lenders, the bubble-headed securitizers, the blundering ratings agencies [and] the careless MBS investors".

It's tunnel vision of the worst kind.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2016)

Just as "Libertarianism as a social movement" is a cultural as well as a political movement, this author tells us how "Leftism" is also a cultural as well as a political movement:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262160/mind-left-insider-michael-faraday



> *THE MIND OF THE LEFT FROM AN INSIDER*
> What I witnessed inside a faith of lies -- and what it took to leave.
> March 16, 2016  Michael Faraday
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

Libertarianism has it's problems, but the most glaring is nicely laid out here:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/libertarianism-white-men-ugly-truth-about-rights-favorite-movement



> Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male? This is a question that Jeet Heer of the New Republic explored last Friday, after a new CNN poll found that presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who happens to be the favorite among libertarians, is very competitive in the primaries amongst male voters, but almost completely rejected by females. This is a problem that has long haunted conservatism, but it is even more drastic for ultra-right wing libertarianism.
> 
> In a 2014 Pew poll, it was found that about one in 10 Americans describe themselves as libertarian, and men were more than twice as likely to be libertarians. In a 2013 Pew poll that Heer states in his article, it was found about two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans who identify as libertarians are men, and 94 percent are non-hispanic whites. Compare this to “steadfast conservatives,” who were found to be 59 percent male and 87 percent white, or “business conservatives,” found to be 62 percent male and 85 percent white, according to another survey done by Pew. Clearly, the entire conservative movement is dominated by white males, but libertarians are the most male-dominated.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2016)

Perhaps, the author misses a glaring point. Maybe it's a white male majority, that are tired of working, only to have their wages taken away to give to those that refuse to work? Maybe that's why they identify as libertarians. They want government out of their lives so they can afford and enrich their own lives, with their own wages and not supporting people that don't feel the work ethic is for them.


----------



## biernini (22 Mar 2016)

Immigrants are better at job creation than Canadian born.


> While immigrant business ownership rates are low immediately after entry, after four to eight years in Canada they surpass those of the comparison group (largely Canadian-born).[...] the per capita job creation rate via unincorporated self-employment was higher among immigrants than the Canadian-born. For almost one-half of the unincorporated self-employed immigrants, self-employment was a secondary activity; most of their earnings came from paid jobs.[...]Since the propensity to be primarily self-employed is higher among immigrants than among the Canadian-born population (the comparison group), job creation by self-employment is higher among immigrants.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Perhaps, the author misses a glaring point. Maybe it's a white male majority, that are tired of working, only to have their wages taken away to give to those that refuse to work? Maybe that's why they identify as libertarians. They want government out of their lives so they can afford and enrich their own lives, with their own wages and not supporting people that don't feel the work ethic is for them.



No the author didn't miss the point at all, but rather tried to use the SJW tactic of crying "racism" to shut down debate ("disqualifying" in their vernacular). The irony of the author using a racist statement in order to accuse others of racism should not be lost on readers, although in SJW land this is the normal mode of discourse.

The reality is this form of rhetoric has been used successfully for many years since it turns your natural instincts and good intentions against you. Most people find real racism abhorrent, so will try to modify their behaviour when being (falsely) accused of being racist. Shrill repeated accusations of racism can be made much more quickly than detailed dialectical explanations of why a position isn't racist or why race isn't even at issue in the discussion. Libertarianism is about defying the limits of the State and voluntary cooperation between consenting individuals, so race, gender etc. is irrelevant. I will voluntarily cooperate with anyone who offers value for value, I would not waste time trying to seek cooperation from the obviously racist author of that piece since they offer nothing of value for me.

Since silencing the opposition is the true intent of these Brownshirts, making people uncomfortable and being forced to limit the areas open to public discourse is a feature, not a bug. Coercion is forbidden under Libertarian thought, and Libertarians understand the concept of "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him".

Progressives might also consider "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him", since the rise of the TEA Party and later Donald Trump in the United States and nativist parties in Europe is partially a response by ordinary people to being silenced by coercion, "disqualifying" and other SJW tactics. People will be heard, and trying to put a lid on freedom of expression can be considered similar to fitting a lid over a pressure cooker. Clamp down harder and the pressure will continue to build. What comes _after_ Donald Trump, the AdF or the National Front?


----------



## Kilo_302 (23 Mar 2016)

A nice exercise that underlines the hypocrisy that Libertarianism is based on. It is most definitely a philosophy of the wealthy, for the wealthy. 


http://www.alternet.org/economy/11-questions-you-should-ask-libertarians-see-if-theyre-hypocrites



> ECONOMY
> 11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
> We aren’t suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite, but there’s an easy way to find out.
> By RJ Eskow / AlterNet September 11, 2013
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2016)

Progressivism and its proper response:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229797



> ROBBY SOAVE: At Emory University, Writing ‘Trump 2016′ on Sidewalk Is a Racist Microaggression, Unsafe: It’s enough to make you root for Trump. Well, almost.“No wonder so many non-liberal students are cheering for Trump—not because they like him, but because he represents glorious resistance to the noxious political correctness and censorship that has come to define the modern college experience.”
> 
> Congratulations, Emory Screaming Campus Garbage Babies. If you can make Reason writers think about voting for Trump, you’ll probably swing the election for him.
> 
> And the proper response of Emory’s President Wagner to complaining students was: Shut up, you’re idiots. If this bothers you that much, you don’t belong in college. Would you like me to call your mother to come get you?



We need many more college presidents to stand up for Liberal education (in the true sense).


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Mar 2016)

> “[E]very piece of anti-discrimination legislation passed over the past few decades, ignores one of the basic, inalienable rights of man — the right to discriminate. [Though] eliminating racial and sexual prejudice [had] noble aspiration, [anti-discrimination laws] necessarily utilize the ignoble means of coercive force.”
> 
> That young activist? Rand Paul in 1982.




...but it is okay to discriminate if you call it Employment Equity, or other such term.  Check.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...but it is okay to discriminate if you call it Employment Equity, or other such term.  Check.



Do you believe that everyone, no matter gender, race or sexual orientation has equal opportunity in the US or Canada? Employment Equity, affirmative action, whatever mechanism you want to refer to, are designed to compensate for biases that most people acknowledge exist. They're aren't perfect by any means, but if someone believes African-Americans for example are under-represented in Ivy League schools because of something *other* than being at an economic disadvantage, or the racial bias of admissions departments, the onus is them to prove what that is.

This is exactly the problem with Libertarianism. It removes the regulations and rules that create a more equal society. It's typically those with every conceivable advantage that push it, because they're already on top. If a central tenet of America is class mobility, well Libertarianism would destroy that pretty quickly. It ensures that those who are on top stay on top.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Do you believe that everyone, no matter gender, race or sexual orientation has equal opportunity in the US or Canada? Employment Equity, affirmative action, whatever mechanism you want to refer to, are designed to compensate for biases that most people acknowledge exist. They're aren't perfect by any means, but if someone believes African-Americans for example are under-represented in Ivy League schools because of something *other* than being at an economic disadvantage, or the racial bias of admissions departments, the onus is them to prove what that is.
> 
> This is exactly the problem with Libertarianism. It removes the regulations and rules that create a more equal society. It's typically those with every conceivable advantage that push it, because they're already on top. If a central tenet of America is class mobility, well Libertarianism would destroy that pretty quickly. It ensures that those who are on top stay on top.



So who's to say the particular compensation regimes are correct...of course, you have already assumed that it's fair to be unfair.  There are rules that direct how people are to be treated fairly, and in Canada, an important basis of these regulations is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  If that tool is available to ensure equitable treatment of all, then why adopt a regime of state-acceptable reverse-discrimination?

As well, why do you keep on refering to America?  We're in Canada here.  Can you provide me with factual examples of a Canadian institution, public or private, being permitted to discriminate against anyone?  I mean, other than men being deliberately prevented from gaining equitable treatment in the Canadian nursing profession?

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As well, why do you keep on refering to America?  We're in Canada here.  *Can you provide me with factual examples of a Canadian institution, public or private, being permitted to discriminate against anyone?*  I mean, other than men being deliberately prevented from gaining equitable treatment in the Canadian nursing profession?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



A friend of mine applying for the OPP is in a hiring regime where (according to his recruiting sergeant) 80% of the spots are "reserved" for women, ethnic minorities and aboriginal applicants. OTOH almost the same percentage of potential applicants are white males....Fire departments also have similar quotas for hiring

Having moved to a 6th floor apartment, I have some reservations that the latest 95lb fire department hires _might_ have some issues getting up and down the ladder with myself or members of my family. Just saying....


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Mar 2016)

Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jed (28 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I left the Federal Gov't and was trying to get back in.  Same story given to me for about 5 years. I finally quit trying.  Its been this way for a couple of decades


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ....Fire departments also have similar quotas for hiring



"I also explained that women and visible minorities, once qualified, are placed in their own group and that each class hired would require 50% from that group and 50% from the white male group."
Frank Ramagnano, Secretary-Treasurer - now President - IAFF Local 3888 - Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association.
https://issuu.com/local3888/docs/spring2009
Page 9.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Having moved to a 6th floor apartment, I have some reservations that the latest 95lb fire department hires _might_ have some issues getting up and down the ladder with myself or members of my family. Just saying....



Might depend on what city you live in.

"Only 44 of the FDNY’s 10,500 firefighters are female." That's an all-time high in the FDNY’s 150-year history.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/struggling-firefighter-injured-after-just-10-days-into-new-job/
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/
http://nypost.com/2015/12/27/unfireable-female-firefighter-returns-to-the-fdny/

When I hired on with Metro Department of Emergency Services, Operations Division was 100 per cent male, and remained that way for the next ten years. 

Not to say Metro D.E.S. was better or worse then or now, just different.


----------



## Flavus101 (28 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



And this is what infuriates a lot of people my age. Why should someone who is 20 something year old white male be forced out of a job position because someone who is less qualified for the position is either a minority or a female. It makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Jed (28 Mar 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> And this is what infuriates a lot of people my age. Why should someone who is 20 something year old white male be forced out of a job position because someone who is less qualified for the position is either a minority or a female. It makes absolutely no sense.



You should feel your white, male guilt and take one in the name of overall fairness for all of humanity.  [


----------



## Flavus101 (28 Mar 2016)

Perhaps I will just do a reverse Michael Jackson.  :nana:


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Mar 2016)

Just self identify as another race. Worked for that white woman at the NAACP in the US.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2016)

Arch Progressive Bernie Sanders has certainly held his views for a long time indeed:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/sanders-to-charities-drop-dead.php



> *SANDERS TO CHARITIES: DROP DEAD*
> From a 1981 New York Times story, revealing Bernie Sanders as the full totalitarian he is underneath his “democratic” socialism:
> 
> For the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont. . .
> ...



And of course Sanders can point to the remarkable achievement of the US Government spending far more than a trillion dollars to "fight poverty" since the 1960's Great Society and having the poverty rate remain static throughout all that time...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2016)

Mark Steyn comes through (as usual) and demolishes the Kumbyah contingent at the Munk debates. The turnabout in voting for a Toronto audience is remarkable, maybe reality can penetrate even in the darkest corners of Rosedale after all:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-when-mark-steyn-struck-back



> *Barbara Kay: When Mark Steyn struck back*
> Barbara Kay
> Tuesday, Apr. 5, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2016)

We also have plenty of people who are quite willing to ignore or misrepresent Canada's culture of free speech (with roots dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta), so look both for that, and the inevitable backlash that the author is posting about. Dean Steacy, who made the willfully ignorant statement about freedom of speech being an American concept which he felt free to ignore (or words to that effect) is just one of many public and quasi public officials who are perfectly willing to use the power of the State to shut down speech they don't like here in Canada:

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/04/11/so-i-guess-its-open-season-on-democrat-allies-right-n2145872/page/full



> *So I Guess It’s Open Season On Democrat Allies, Right?*
> Kurt Schlichter | Apr 11, 2016
> 
> I was super excited to find out about a bunch of liberal state attorneys general aping the Obama administration’s use of government power to persecute their political enemies. This thrilling development is awesome because it gives us conservatives the opportunity to do the same to liberals.
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Funny thing happened to me. I applies twice to become a Winnipeg Police Service constable. I was denied twice.
I can't prove it but I was pretty sure it was because I wasn't visible minority or female. I was at the time a near 20 year CAF member. The visible minorities were given a three month course just to enable them to WRITE THE APTITUDE TEST!!!

Flash forward to 2004 - several former CAF members were recruited by WPS because that's what the WPS wanted...the most qualified candidates.


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Funny thing happened to me. I applies twice to become a Winnipeg Police Service constable. I was denied twice.



Try thrice?

Winnipeg Free Press
11/6/2015 

"But the pool of potential recruits is getting smaller as interest in police work declines across the country, said Winnipeg Police Association vice-president George Van Mackelbergh.

"Recruiting right across the country is down. We don’t have near (as many) candidates – not just here but anywhere – coming to policing anymore," he said.

"A lot of people don’t view this as a desirable profession anymore. They see the scrutiny that we’re under and to a lot of folks, it’s just not worth coming here for that kind of money."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/WPS-wants-70-new-members-342123481.html


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2016)

"Not worth coming here for the scrutiny or the money"? I call BS. Most police forces have alienated their prime recruiting grounds, young white males. The "progressive" hiring plans to meet quotas mean a lot of very good candidates don't want to bother to go through the process only to be told "too white/male", or "We'd like to hire you, but we can't". Public safety professions should be best candidate available, no mention of race/gender/creed on any forms, and interview notes written non-gender specific. A board can sit, review each file (comprised of no one who has met the candidates) and the top X are picked.

I wonder what happens in 40 years when Caucasian is no longer the clear majority? In 2011 it was down (still a large number) to 76.6%, dropping roughly 3% every census period. If the trend holds, we'll reach 50% by 2057.


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> "Not worth coming here for the scrutiny or the money"? I call BS.



Unless Winnipeg has fallen on hard times, so do I.

A Toronto Police constable earned $244,095 last year.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Public safety professions should be best candidate available, no mention of race/gender/creed on any forms, and interview notes written non-gender specific.



When the time comes to rescue my sorry butt I don't care who they send, as long as they can LIFT!  ;D


----------



## Flavus101 (13 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> "Not worth coming here for the scrutiny or the money"? I call BS. Most police forces have alienated their prime recruiting grounds, young white males. The "progressive" hiring plans to meet quotas mean a lot of very good candidates don't want to bother to go through the process only to be told "too white/male", or "We'd like to hire you, but we can't". Public safety professions should be best candidate available, no mention of race/gender/creed on any forms, and interview notes written non-gender specific. A board can sit, review each file (comprised of no one who has met the candidates) and the top X are picked.
> 
> I wonder what happens in 40 years when Caucasian is no longer the clear majority? In 2011 it was down (still a large number) to 76.6%, dropping roughly 3% every census period. If the trend holds, we'll reach 50% by 2057.



 :goodpost:

I think that this quota non-sense will start to impact DND in a big way as well, if it hasn't already started.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2016)

Tying it all together:

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.ca/2016/07/the-progressive-thread-weaving-evil.html



> *The progressive thread weaving evil together*
> 
> There's a common thread weaving together all the terrorist incidents in Europe, all the murders of police officers in the USA, and all the political protest from the sometimes fringe, often violent left-wing and progressive groups in this country.  It's a fundamental determination to tear down and demolish the status quo in society by whatever means are necessary.  It's a declaration of war against the standards that have hitherto defined civilization.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2016)

And this. The root cause of the progressive world view:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2016/07/traits-are-no-substitutes-for.html



> *Traits are No Substitute for Accomplishments*
> If you've been paying attention, you've noticed an increased amount of insanity in the population.  This insanity manifests itself in many ways, resulting in a relentless onslaught of what is seemingly an incoherent potpourri of madness.
> 
> 31 flavors of pansexual genders.
> ...


----------



## OrganishChemiker (28 Jul 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A Toronto Police constable earned $244,095 last year.



That must have taken a lot of paid-duty work.

=============
Merging two posts
=============



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> s. The "progressive" hiring plans to meet quotas mean a lot of very good candidates don't want to bother to go through the process only to be told "too white/male", or "We'd like to hire you, but we can't".



I don't understand why any organization would advertise their hiring practices like that.
I think the whole concept of race should just be ignored.  The problem is that you can't ignore it face to face.  I certainly think hiring policies should be race-blind.

Thucydides, that blog is kind of nuts. Every 'leftist' or 'progressive' is a lazy, entitled, whiny, etc.?  Most people I know don't fit into either category perfectly, but I've not seen anything in real life that fits with what that blog is saying.  Plenty of people are lazy regardless of political affiliation.  Many on the 'left' do have a tendency to blame their problems on others or forces outside their control and people on the 'right' tend to do the exact same thing except the reasons they cite for hardship are different.  

The blog says something about how the lefties don't want to study hard subjects like math.  Most of the people I met while getting my chemistry degree, including students, graduate students and professors, worked hard and were far more left-leaning than right-leaning.  I think most scientists tend to be left-leaning.  Yes, there are a lot of people who I think are getting Arts degrees and expect automatic payoff just because they have a degree and it doesn't work like that, but it's not like all Arts students don't work hard (though I have to say that I found it much easier to get a BA than a BSc).

As for the thing about not reporting the muslim rapist that peaked my interest.  Do you know what that's all about?  It wouldn't surprise me if a rape report hadn't been filed for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacker being muslim.  Plenty of women don't report sexual assaults and I'm sure it has nothing to do with who their attacker was, so I'm curious about this case.


----------



## OrganishChemiker (28 Jul 2016)

My apologies for the double post.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2016)

Instapundit on Socialism. Headline is the money quote:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/240917/



> IN CAPITALISM, THE RICH BECOME POWERFUL. IN SOCIALISM, THE POWERFUL BECOME RICH.
> 
> Shot: “We expect revolutionaries to be indifferent to money. Yet in reality the Left thinks about nothing but money…the ambition of all true Communists should be to become billionaire revolutionaries.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2016)

How they gain power. This is a review of another book about the Great Depression, and how group of zealots forced their preferences on the American diet, of al things:

http://freebeacon.com/culture/canned-foods-banning-big-gulp/



> *From Canned Foods to Banning the Big Gulp*
> Review: ‘A Square Meal: A Culinary History of the Great Depression’ by Jane Ziegelman and Andrew Coe
> BY: Joseph Bottum
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2016)

More proof that SJW's are not only totalitarians, but also insane. From Mark Styen:

http://www.steynonline.com/7565/punching-back-twice-as-hard-oz-version



> *Punching Back Twice as Hard (Oz version)*
> by Mark Steyn
> The War on Free Speech
> October 21, 2016
> ...


----------



## c_canuk (24 Oct 2016)

Here's something to make your head explode:

One of my troops was ordered to take this course before doing mod 1 on his PLQ.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/intro-en.html


----------



## Flavus101 (24 Oct 2016)

You know, if you remove all of the catch phrases and general bullshit that panders to the "Activists" of today it actually looks like that course could have some interesting information. It seems like a rebranded COA developer. Here is what the mission is, here is what you have available to accomplish the mission, the constraints and restraints in place, etc. Just rebranded for what's cool in the new age (gender vs sex, equality between the genders, etc).

Do I think this is something that should be mandatory before PLQ, no. Do I find it somewhat interesting, yes.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Oct 2016)

I don't disagree that there is a kernel of information there, there always is.

I told my troop that completing it will help him understand where we are going as an organization, nonsensical as it's presentation is. I also told him that while exercises like researching GBA+ as it pertains to your boss asking for a briefing note on heart disease is an odd assignment, but to look past the subject matter, because it will teach/test him on how to do briefing notes and basic research.

I'm a little concerned how they're un-ironically using elements similar to George Orwell's 1984's "Newspeak".

You should see the certificate you get at the end of the course. It's exactly as new age re-educated-y as you'd expect.


----------



## Lumber (24 Oct 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Here's something to make your head explode:
> 
> One of my troops was ordered to take this course before doing mod 1 on his PLQ.
> 
> http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/intro-en.html



Free PER points for "Professional Development". This is a win on so many levels.


----------



## dangerboy (24 Oct 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Here's something to make your head explode:
> 
> One of my troops was ordered to take this course before doing mod 1 on his PLQ.
> 
> http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/intro-en.html



If you go onto the CANFORGENS this course is mandatory before you go on any leadership training (PLQ, ILP, ALP and whatever the officer courses are). I am at home so don't have the CANFORGEN number.


----------



## Flavus101 (24 Oct 2016)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> If you go onto the CANFORGENS this course is mandatory before you go on any leadership training (PLQ, ILP, ALP and whatever the officer courses are). I am at home so don't have the CANFORGEN number.



Do you know when this came into effect?


----------



## Lumber (24 Oct 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Do you know when this came into effect?



CANFORGEN 154/16 - 24 Aug 16

ADDITION OF GENDER BASED ANALYSIS PLUS (GBA PLUS) TRAINING TO CAF COMMON PD PROGRAMMES



> THEREFORE, AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, PENDING A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE LONG-TERM TRAINING REQUIREMENT TO FULLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN REF A, THE COMPLETION OF THE ON-LINE TRAINING FOUND AT REF C IS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE A PREREQUISITE FOR THE FOLLOWING CAF COMMON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES:
> 
> PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION(PLQ)
> 
> ...


----------



## Flavus101 (24 Oct 2016)

Thank-you kindly!


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2016)

Wow. We have "no time" to teach navigation with a map and compass, and only shoot once a year if we are lucky (and PWT 1 through-3 if we are luckier), many other training events are out of reach for lack of resources, but......


----------



## cavalryman (24 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wow. We have "no time" to teach navigation with a map and compass, and only shoot once a year if we are lucky (and PWT 1 through-3 if we are luckier), many other training events are out of reach for lack of resources, but......


At least male CF members haven't been ordered to walk about in cadpat and red high heels yet.   >


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2016)

Nothing like good old English snark:

https://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/a-handy-guide-to-left-wing-people-for-the-under-10s/



> *A handy guide to Left-wing people for the under 10s*
> CULTURE FEATURES HOME NEWS
> Andy Shaw
> 28 Oct 2016
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2016)

The articles are somewhat long, but quite illuminating.

Link one is from Gab.ai, a newer alternative social media site which was formed as a reaction to Twitter etc. banning and manipulating people based on their political expression and beliefs:

https://medium.com/@Torbahax/our-interview-with-fake-news-publication-the-new-york-times-33fafbbaf5b2#.fjhf2dwws

Link two is the resulting article based on the written interview:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/arts/the-far-right-has-a-new-digital-safe-space.html?_r=0

I tried reading both as to half of the same thing, but the NYT piece looks like it came from a parallel universe (maybe Spock has a beard there?). No wonder the media has lost almost all credibility and is no longer able to act as the gatekeeper of information and opinion. this also goes a long way to explaining how they got polls and coverage of the election campaign so wrong; they were simply making stuff up with no reference to reality (not much different from Russian propaganda techniques in Hybrid warfare: filling all available channels with noise to swamp out signal).

Of course reality penetrating the bubble is going to be far more painful for them the longer they try to stay insulated from reality.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Feb 2017)

I'm putting this here, but the mods can move it if it's in the wrong place.


As usual, Rex gets it right:

Rex Murphy: There are fascists on campus. Protesters don’t realize it’s them, not Milo Yiannopoulos

I suggest, as a corollary to Orwell’s prescient observation that (I’m paraphrasing) some things are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2017)

From the mouth of a leftist. Of course you may find some of the premises this individual believes in to be rather incredible, but this is how they think and operate. The fact that he has seen outside the bubble may be a hopeful sign, but far more likely is he will be branded a "heretic" and expelled from the Progressive movement:

https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/the-iron-law-of-institutions-and-the-left-735da96f61d3



> *the Iron Law of Institutions and the left*
> 
> During the Democratic presidential primary and the general election, you may have heard reference to the Iron Law of Institutions. It’s a really essential idea articulated by Jon Schwartz in a blog post that I recommend you read in full.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jun 2017)

Progressive thought. 

I punch you in the face then charge you with assault and call you a racist.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2017)

> I think there’s real problems within the left — theoretical, political, discursive, pragmatic. I say these things out of a deep and sincere belief that we must fix our own problems before we can hope to *gain power necessary to fix the world*.



That right there is the problem I have with the Left.  The world is not fixable.  If it were it would have been done by now..... and, probably, none of us would be here as the unexpected would have shown up and shattered the perfect crystal.

The good news is that we have a tendency to behave more like cats than sheep and are difficult to herd.  And even sheep are hard to pen up.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2017)

This goes a long way to explaining how the "Progressives" view the rest of the world nowadays (although George Orwell had them to a "T" back in the 1930's). So long as they maintain their smug insularity, they may think they are enlightened, but in fact the world is changing rapidly from underneath them and they are almost entirely unaware of what is happening or why:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/269668/#respond



> ITS ORIGIN AND PURPOSE, STILL A TOTAL MYSTERY:
> 
> Shot:
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This goes a long way to explaining how the "Progressives" view the rest of the world nowadays (although George Orwell had them to a "T" back in the 1930's). So long as they maintain their smug insularity, they may think they are enlightened, but in fact the world is changing rapidly from underneath them and they are almost entirely unaware of what is happening or why:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/269668/#respond



Like the Clinton Democrats, right?


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2017)

No worse punishment for Progressives indeed:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2017/08/the-pettiness-of-left.html



> *The Pettiness of the Left*
> 
> It was when driving across Arizona I had a small, but important epiphany.  I had the cheapest car I could rent, a cell phone approaching 3 years old, Wal-Mart attire, and would be sleeping on buddy's couch instead of having my own hotel room.  Yet, despite these hallmarks of a lower-middle income life, I was perfectly happy, for soon I would be meeting my best friend for some hiking on some of Phoenix's finest trails.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (3 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No worse punishment for Progressives indeed:
> 
> http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2017/08/the-pettiness-of-left.html



1. This article assumes that every middle and lower class person is a leftist, and that every rich person is a right-wing conservative (except for the author of the article, apparently).

2.  I feel like he's describing these whiny babies as Marxists rather than leftists, but I also feel like perhaps to be considered a Marxist there has to be some level of awareness that you are a Marxist (and what a Marxist is), where as the people he's describing are just ignorantly vain. 

3. I agree more or less with the article that people should be happy with their lot, but it's a primary tenant of capitalism 
that we build our economy by trying to increase our lot. If we weren't a little envious and desiring of having more, we won't try to get more, and our economy wouldn't grow. I believe it's fine to want more, but you shouldn't begrudge others for what they have, so I agree with the article on that principle.

4. He kind of lost me at this part due to his absolutism - my comments in yellow:



> Social justice warriors. Agreed.
> Feminists. There are both left and right wing feminists.
> Professional activists. There are both left and right wing professional activists fighting for their desired causes.
> Professors. Seriously?
> ...



4. Finally,  this is in the "deconstructing progressive thought", but I feel like what he's describing as a "leftist" is not a "progressive". Progressives aren't whiny babies, they are just those who believe that "that the way we've always done things" isn't always the best way to go about running society.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No worse punishment for Progressives indeed:
> 
> http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2017/08/the-pettiness-of-left.html



Any chance of posting things that aren't personal opinion blogs that serve as unsubstantiated hit pieces?


----------



## CEDE NULLIS (3 Aug 2017)

*"And when the day comes that they're on their death bed, all they will have to point to is a life of whining, complaining, hatred, and jealousy."*

I would say he has described his own life perfectly...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Any chance of posting things that aren't personal opinion blogs that serve as unsubstantiated hit pieces?



Army.ca Forums » The Mess » Radio Chatter » Topic: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought 

 ???


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Army.ca Forums » The Mess » Radio Chatter » Topic: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
> 
> ???



I don't think it's all that confusing. Some threads/posters get "only facts" type comments comments whereas others are permitted to paste clag like above that offers no intellectual stimulation or insight.

So,, on that note, here's a contrarian blog.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/stupid-stupid-votes/


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2017)

Flyer @ U.S. university -- U.S. veterans:  good enough for trade school, but not for universities?  :facepalm:


> A newsletter posted on the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS) campus started to make the rounds on social media Thursday. It states veterans should be banned from four-year universities. Several viewers asked 11 News to look into the origin of the newsletter.
> 
> The letter states military veterans should be banned from classes and compares the military culture to white supremacist groups.
> 
> The newsletter is titled "Social Justice Collective Weekly" and says it is the first issue. A spokesperson for UCCS said the newsletter has nothing to do with the school and does not represent the institution's views. However, it was reportedly approved by the university and posted on a bulletin board. The school says anyone is allowed to post items on the board ...


Scan of newsletter attached - here's what the university Chancellor had to say ...


> I write this morning in response to a flyer posted yesterday on the UCCS campus by a non-UCCS group. The flyer references veterans studying at institutions of higher education.  UCCS does not endorse and vigorously rejects the offensive viewpoints expressed in the flyer.
> 
> This flyer stands at the intersection of two core values for UCCS and higher education.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's the _vets_ who are intolerant ... #AnyIdiotWithAFlyer


----------



## c_canuk (28 Sep 2017)

lol, smells of satire to me...


----------



## Lumber (28 Sep 2017)

lol.

So, the the Tea Party and the NRA are "extremist" right-wing groups now? What does that make the KKK or the Nazis? Uber-Extreme Right Wing?


----------

