en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/948043 Comments by Party_of_One http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/07/the-search-for-simple-answers#IDComment150108618 I absolutely agree. Karygiannis is the prototypical "entitlement" pol. It's true that he works fairly hard in his constituency and therefore gets reelected, but over the last couple of years he's made some really inane statements. Consider also that despite being an MP for 14 years, he's rarely acheived anything in Cabinet: oooo, he was Minister for Democratic Renewal...that went well, didn't it? Oh, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Sun, 8 May 2011 19:58:58 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/07/the-search-for-simple-answers#IDComment150108618 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/01/orange-prudence/#IDComment147948640 Elections don't change fundamental economics. IF (and that's a big "IF") the NDP were elected, especially to a minority government, the sun would still set in the west, the sky would still be blue, and the NDP would have to deal with fiscal and economic realities.____It's likely that there would be fairly significant "capital flight" in the short-term, as corporate interests would seek to impose their interests on the government. In the longer term(six months to a year), however, it's likely that they would come back...because the fundamentals, in Canada, are still sound. If there's money to be made, capital interests will be here to make it. They've done so in any number of far less stable (or palatable, for that matter) regimes Sun, 1 May 2011 21:17:09 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/01/orange-prudence/#IDComment147948640 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/10/how-to-respond-to-don-cherry/#IDComment115185873 Yeah...I would say that, as a political pundit, Cherry makes a good sports commentator. Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:55:07 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/10/how-to-respond-to-don-cherry/#IDComment115185873 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/10/the-lion-of-the-house/#IDComment115181970 Ummmm....you ARE aware that much of what goes on in the HoC is predetermined, right? Pretty much everyone there can count, and knows what the outcome of ANY initiative is likely to be. And that speeches in the HoC are NOT intended to "convince" the other honourable members, but are rather designed for public consumption, through things like this blog? And that even the Conservatives, when one of their members is speaking in front of the cameras, all move to fill up the seats behind the speaker? The "important" work of the HoC is NOT done in QP, or debate in the House itself. The important work is done in committee rooms, or in members' offices. That's where the real horse-trading goes on. "Debate" of a foregone conclusion is merely "The Show" Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:16:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/10/the-lion-of-the-house/#IDComment115181970 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/10/the-lion-of-the-house/#IDComment115179928 Interestingly, NO provincial premier has gone on to be Prime Minister of Canada. Ever. Sun, 12 Dec 2010 01:59:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/10/the-lion-of-the-house/#IDComment115179928 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/20/the-commons-picking-up-wherever-it-was-we-left-off/#IDComment100162904 Or maybe...site as in "web site"... Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:57:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/20/the-commons-picking-up-wherever-it-was-we-left-off/#IDComment100162904 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98463579 I appreciate how many people in hopeless situations may be attracted to this creed, especially in "early historical" times, but it provides no "comfort" or "explanation" to me. You're welcome to it, enjoy it, whatever gets you through the night, I'll never deny anyone the right to believe what they choose. Just please extend that same courtesy to those who choose NOT to believe what you believe in. (I think that's a version of "The golden rule", isn't it?) Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:23 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98463579 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98463197 For God (who?)so loved the world (how?) He gave His only begotten Son (evidence of parentage? evidence of "only"?) that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (how's that been delivered on?)For God did not send His Son into the world (did "God" send anyone, anywhere?) to condemn the world (proof?...and what if he did?) but that the world through Him might be saved. (errr...from what...salesmen?) Pretty good pitch(EVERLASTING LIFE! CALL AND ORDER NOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU TWO!), but really only believable if one suspends disbelief. It doesn't seem all that productive to quote Scripture (written and edited by who, and with what agenda?) to people unless you're pretty sure that they share the faith you have in the existance of YOUR god in the first place, because it will fall on deaf ears. And if they do share your faith, you're preaching to the choir loft. What's the point? Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:44:51 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98463197 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98236673 Funny thing about "common sense" though, Emily; it doesn't seem to be that "common"! And in societies that promote individual interests over collective ones (consciously and deliberately or not!) "common" sense would justify individual actions that are injurious to the functioning of the society. So an imposed "restraint" on the actions of individuals that is justified by invoking a "higher power" (which could literally be ANYTHING, really) makes sense. Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:14:24 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98236673 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98234620 And yes, I recognize that terrible things have been done in the name of "God"...by human beings. But good things have been done as well. In both cases, though, "God" has been inert, that is, not an active participant in what has been done in his/her/its name. The invocation of "God" and "God's will" as a justification for human action has always struck me as a blatantly transparent grab for power, power that is held to be beyond questioning, unlike any other forms of power. To me, this fundamentally attacks the very basic human capacity of reason and of being able to question "Why". Again, it doesn't really matter if the invocation of "God" is in the service of good OR evil actions, it is nontheless an attempt to "trump" human beings collective responsibility to justify their own actions. Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:53:41 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98234620 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98232364 It seems to me that "God" did not create "man", but rather that "man" created "God"...for better or for worse. What we conceive of as "God" is a product of human invention and is limited only by the capacity of our mental and emotional processes, which may or may not be evolving. Which is why I've always liked Tom Waits' line, "Don't you know there ain't no Devil, there's just God when he's drunk!", as it highlights the very human origins of "God". Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:30:37 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98232364 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98231279 I should point out that the proscriptions of the ten commandments, or other similar set of rules, are NOT unique to any particular religion, and don't even require a religious justification. They're just functional to a "well-ordered" society, and even societies that didn't believe in gods would probably adopt most of them, with the obvious exception of the ones about not worshipping other gods, etc. Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:19:40 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98231279 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98230555 Whether or not "God" or "Gods" or "gods" exist is immaterial, actually. It's enough that the concept of "god" exists, a concept developed to provide explanations for the unknown, and to provide a "higher" authority or justification for the clearly fallible actions and decisions made by human beings. If we could pretend, for a moment, that the concept didn't exist, it seems pretty clear to me that we would invent, or develop it, because the concept itself is functional to the maintenance of any society. I'm pretty sure every religion has some version of the ten commandments; "thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife", etc., are pretty good basic rules to ensure that people can live together in society. Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:12:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-most-provocative-blog-post-in-the-history-of-the-internets/#IDComment98230555 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/09/a-word-from-stephen-harpers-god/#IDComment97896806 All your base are belong to us! Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:25:12 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/09/a-word-from-stephen-harpers-god/#IDComment97896806 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/08/for-those-considering-whether-to-invest-public-money-in-professional-sports-venues/#IDComment97685151 sorry to hear about your affliction with Arsenal! ; ) Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:55:56 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/08/for-those-considering-whether-to-invest-public-money-in-professional-sports-venues/#IDComment97685151 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97384130 Mike...how does one measure " the most successful politicanof his time in a western democrary"? Is it that he got re-elected time after time? Was he the most successful at formulating policy and ensuring it got properly implemented? What's the metric? I happen to appreciate Chretien as Prime Minister because by the time he got there, he had been in just about every important portfolio as Minister; he knew his stuff, and his staff. But I still don't know how one can determine whether or not he was "the most successful"! Tue, 7 Sep 2010 02:48:59 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97384130 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97260354 As to refusing to go to Iraq, neither the US nor the UK made a sufficiently cogent argument for going to Iraq, and Chretian recognized that, and also recognized that Canadians wouldn't accept a half-assed justification for that (to his credit). His decision was also made easier by the fact that our armed forces at that time were quite ill-prepared to pay a meaningful role in that "conflict". Let's also not forget that there was significant and vocal opposition to the Iraq "adventure" even within the states(UK and US) that sponsored it. Mon, 6 Sep 2010 08:35:51 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97260354 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97260051 I suspect appeals to "reason" are also culturally determined. Have you read "Voltaire's Bastards"? John Raulston Saul makes a pretty good argument along this line. And I think that what may seem "reasonable" to us in a wealthy, even complacent society may not resonate with those who live in societies where basic survival is a daily struggle. No, peace-keeping has NOT ever been a favourite of the UK or the US, but both have been hegemonic powers whose interests lie, and lay, in maintaining the status quo that favours them. Canada's role in peace-keeping has not constituted a major impediment to this, and because Canada is really NOT a world power that represents a "challenge" to their dominant position, they've "allowed", or at least tolerated it.. I think that Canada's "reasonableness" has often cast us in the postion of the "good cop", and may even have been endorsed, or even sponsored, by progressive elements in the contempraneous hegemonic power. Mon, 6 Sep 2010 08:31:13 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97260051 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97212600 Well, I think "soft power" is along the lines of "moral suasion" in Canada's case, and you're right, it can be the strongest power of all...IF the individual or society involved accepts the moral values underpinning ones argument.. However, if they don't... Perhaps I'm too much a "relativist", but I can't and won't assume that MY (or Canada's) moral values can or will necessarily resonate with other individuals or societies, especially in instances where the cultural, political, and economic background mitigate against adopting my "favoured" values. WRT "leadership", yes, we have provided it, but have we ever really done so in the face of serious opposition from our colonial "sponsors"? I would suggest that we have, on several memorable occaisions to be sure, been "allowed" to assume the leadership on various issues. Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:36:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97212600 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97207203 Yes, I agree. But being "ideally suited" is a benefit to Canada and Canadians, and doesn't necessarily translate into "power" or "leadership". We're a good example that other nations may or may not choose to follow, we provide a good "model", but we're far from "perfect", and other nations also see the endemic problems of our system. Furthermore, the historical path to ANY particular model is circuitous and often complicated by socially and economically specific decisions and values that are not necessarily easily emulated or even possible by other societies and economic entities. Sometimes, as the farmer says to the lost stranger asking for direction, "You can't get there from here!". Of COURSE you can, but doing so on a societal basis requires a whole lot of upheaval and dislocation at a cost that may ultimately be too high for THAT society. Sun, 5 Sep 2010 23:40:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/05/jean-who/#IDComment97207203