This is perhaps the single most intelligent response to the critique of the Bush administration's handling of the stem cell dossier.
(Note that I still consider this off topic as pertains to the article, but never the less...)
I too was shocked when I first heard that Bush would dare end stem cell research. I mean, come on folks, it's a question of survival for those of us that are already living, right?!
Then I sat back and informed myself a little. Okay, he has only stopped government financing of the research.
Where is the problem? Contrary to popular belief, not all "geeks" believe that we need the crutch of the government to generate innovation.
Free speach is not the freedom to say only what others find acceptable. Otherwise, where does the madness stop?
The idea is to have a free market of ideas. If a radio host continues to say things that people don't agree with, they'll ultimately stop listening. Eventually, the radio station will understand that their audience is disappearing because the host continues to utter imbecilities.
I don't want people like you to take that liberty away. Regardless of whatever federal or provincial law deems "incitement to hatred". It's acts that count and should be punished if they're wrong, not thoughts.
By the way... The radio station in question, CHOI, is quite good for entertaining broadcasts and ideas perhaps less heard. I encourage you to take a look. http://www.choiradiox.com/
Don't forget that the comments of a certain host do NOT reflect those of the radio station; the former supply a forum for the latter to express his views. To take the fact that he used offensive language to describe several groups (which still does not comprise the majority of his program's content) and call the entire radio station "neo-nazi" is at best an exaggeration.
It seems, however, that Jeff Fillon's "inappropriate" comments were overshadowed by the fact that his political views challenged the establishment (anti-welfare state, very critical of the cozy soveraignist lobby). This would help a great deal to explain the fact that neither the federal or provincial governments, not to mention the majority of the press, refused to contest the refusal of their licence by the appointed (i.e. non elected) federal authorities.
Moreover, considering that a popular protest in favour of the station managed to gather the largest number of people ever in the streets of Québec City proves that your opinion is in the minority. You can not silence those with whom you do not agree.
The consumer's freedom of choice and health care are evidently two very separate questions.
I think that "Canadian culture" has nothing to fear from American TV or radio. If Canadians prefer American (sic) programming to Canadian programming, hell, that's their choice. Why should the government tell them that they have to buy an ExpressVu or a StarChoice dish instead of whatever the US market offers? That's coercion and I'm totally opposed to that.
The fact is, there will always be a demand for local/national programming here in Canada. People are interested in what's going on around them and what affects them. If the quality is lacking, they will turn to the competition. Tough. The shitty Canadian station that the viewers hate (and is probably subsidized by the government to pump out its crap) will either close or reorganize and the consumer will be happy.
Moreover, your concerns are specific to anglophone Canada. In the francophone parts, I can personally guarantee that competition from TV shows and films from the States will never eliminate our own because people want to see stuff in their language and people like myself HATE DUBBING. (rant rant rant Give me subtitles ANY day instead of that shitty dubbing.)
As to anglophone Canada and its perpetually quest for a cultural exception, think about this: if your culture is truly valuable, there should be no shortage of people willing to commit their time (for TV or radio) or their money at the box office to see your productions because it reflects their way of life. This seems pretty self evident.
By allowing only two satellite broadcasters and whatever Canadian cable companies, we restrict ourselves to monopolies in bed with the government. Viewer choice, quality of programming, price and customer satisfaction all suffer.
My choice to pay for programming is NOT an act of charity, thank you very much.
While it's surely a good thing that people will soon have the option of receiving foreign (i.e. States) programming, we need to look at the big picture.
What a lot of people don't realize is the gradual demise of free speach in Canada.
Want to be fined for calling someone a queer? Maybe you deserve a bloody lip, but does 1000$ from your pocket sound better? An excellent summary of what's going on can be found on the Volokh Conspiracy (I stumbled upon it by chance):
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_07.shtm l#1097586698
Moreover, the recent controversy surrounding the refusal of the federal communication commission (CRTC) to renew the licence of a Québec-based private radio station on the grounds that its content was inacceptable. This link, in French, provides a good résumé:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/040915-15.htm
(Other articles include a history of the Canadian government censorship of private broadcasters.) If the libertarian blog "Le Québécois Libre" isn't to your taste, you can surely find the story on the CBC's or Radio Canada's web site.
Canada is a great place. Québec even better.:-D But free speech is rapidly becoming more and more restricted. I believe that despite what's going on in the States, they have more liberties in this regard and quite frankly, I'm jealous!
First of all, thanks for mentioning Canada. It's kind of bizarre, though, to quote the fuel economy in MPG since I pay for my gas by the litre.
According to one conversion, 60 MPG is 3.9 L/100km. This assumes that the MPG was quoted in US gallons and not imperial gallons. Otherwise, 4.7 L/100km (slightly more believable).
About three years ago, I was in Europe for an exchange and we even did a case study on the Smart car. Any serious study came to the conclusion that the Smart was smaller, less practical and more expensive than cars with similar fuel economies. It was strictly for use in the city centre and even then, little room for things or friends.
(The joke amongst us was that if you don't have any friends, by a Smart.)
Yes, the size can be a serious advantage in terms of parking, but even most Euro-weenies don't like the thing it would seem.
I think that the critical distinction to make here is between (a) the rebels who knowingly engage in such amoral activities and (b) the companies, dependent on this material, whose means are limited in terms of assuring the origin of the coltan.
A problem for which we must undoubtedly find a solution, but hardly the fault of "borderless capitalism."
Although I was never lucky enough to be aboard one, I have had the interesting experience of being in a plane behind a Concorde at Roissy/CDG.
The pilot announces in a bemused tone that we will be slightly delayed "because there's a Concorde directly in front of us." Great, I said, finally I can see it.
For the first couple of minutes, nothing (taking position). Then, I hear a gradually approaching roar of magnificent proportion (at least to me).
Our plane, a 737, begins to shudder almost violently and one or two overhead compartments open themselves (admittedly, poorly closed). Then I see the Concorde race past, its afterburners creating a dark smoke cloud behind it.
So yes, louder at take-off than any other 747 that *I* have seen.
Well obviously you're going to see a lot more of them in those shared corporate jets programmes. Yes, $100M is a lot for even one company. But pool them together, rent time and who knows what you get. I don't work in the industry, but if NetJets can imagine a profit-making scheme, it may very well be possible.
You know, you're absolutely right. I am totally against the difficulties that we create for developing nations, that keep them from putting their goods (usually agricultural) on our markets. The fact is, both the United States *and* Europe are guilty, one as much as the other. That said, many African governments have adopted protectionist policies of Marxist inspiration. Mugabe is only the latest and most flagrant example; it's been happening for decades. So you can't expect Country A to allow Country B's goods into their domestic market if there is no reciprocity. Reciprocity is essential for free trade. However, this is done in a bilateral fashion on a category-by-category basis, so reciprocity would apply to, say, all raw agricultural products. The fact that they don't want to drop tarifs on your heavy equipment is not a mitigating factor related to the said agricultural products, as far as I understand.
Point 2: Natural resources
I'm growing very wear of the argument that we are raping all those poor countries' natural resources. The fundamental nature of economic exchange is the fact that someone places a higher value on your good or service than you do. This is how wealth is generated, *this* is the basis of true economic development.
This is silly, I shouldn't even have to illustrate it, but let's take the example of diamonds. African Country is rich in diamonds. The country really doesn't know what to do with them -- it doesn't have experienced jewellers to cut them or industries to use them in other products. However, African Country has people with families to feed, and these people need jobs. That means that a demand exists for a domestic product that will create a net inflow of cash if exploited.
Basically, I suppose that it comes down to an ideological preference. Do you prefer free commerce that generates new wealth, or are you stuck in the sclerotic mindset that prefers to give away millions of dollars in the form of "aid" that will never encourage these countries to take the steps necessary to improve their well being? If your dream is to create a global welfare state, we have nothing further to say to each other.
What I'm going to say is nothing new, totally unoriginal, but...
I find it paradoxal that the bleeding hearts will criticise the US military to no end, when there very right to express those opinions has been secured by the technological edge that allowed the US and its allies to win both WWII and the Cold War.
You needn't be an avid fan of the current government's decisions to realise that many *many* people have benefited enormously from the security and technological advances that were pioneered by this "war machine".
To add my own anecdote, this is very similar to the discussions that I have with fellow French Canadians. We've got a big collective chip on our shoulder against the English. However, the reality is that the English system of government, instituted here in Canada and the United States, has spared us from the sort of upheaval that our blood-thirsty European ancestors have inflicted on themselves. Bloodthirsty, yes, because before Europe decided to "remake" its virginity, it was one of the most war-torn shitholes on the planet. And I don't think that will ever change because people there remain as naïfs as before.
Writing from Norway, eh?
Probably a country that benefited enormously from the protection guaranteed by the US and its allies. So much so that you had no need to invest in a real military to defend yourselves. So shut the fuck up.
Nurgled, you seem to trust the government bureaucrats to do a better job than yourself when it comes to spending your own money. Sorry, but that's typical of the intellectual deficit affecting voters today.
Slashdot Mirror
This is perhaps the single most intelligent response to the critique of the Bush administration's handling of the stem cell dossier.
(Note that I still consider this off topic as pertains to the article, but never the less...)
I too was shocked when I first heard that Bush would dare end stem cell research. I mean, come on folks, it's a question of survival for those of us that are already living, right?!
Then I sat back and informed myself a little. Okay, he has only stopped government financing of the research.
Where is the problem? Contrary to popular belief, not all "geeks" believe that we need the crutch of the government to generate innovation.
Free speach is not the freedom to say only what others find acceptable. Otherwise, where does the madness stop?
The idea is to have a free market of ideas. If a radio host continues to say things that people don't agree with, they'll ultimately stop listening. Eventually, the radio station will understand that their audience is disappearing because the host continues to utter imbecilities.
I don't want people like you to take that liberty away. Regardless of whatever federal or provincial law deems "incitement to hatred". It's acts that count and should be punished if they're wrong, not thoughts.
By the way... The radio station in question, CHOI, is quite good for entertaining broadcasts and ideas perhaps less heard. I encourage you to take a look. http://www.choiradiox.com/
Don't forget that the comments of a certain host do NOT reflect those of the radio station; the former supply a forum for the latter to express his views. To take the fact that he used offensive language to describe several groups (which still does not comprise the majority of his program's content) and call the entire radio station "neo-nazi" is at best an exaggeration.
It seems, however, that Jeff Fillon's "inappropriate" comments were overshadowed by the fact that his political views challenged the establishment (anti-welfare state, very critical of the cozy soveraignist lobby). This would help a great deal to explain the fact that neither the federal or provincial governments, not to mention the majority of the press, refused to contest the refusal of their licence by the appointed (i.e. non elected) federal authorities.
Moreover, considering that a popular protest in favour of the station managed to gather the largest number of people ever in the streets of Québec City proves that your opinion is in the minority. You can not silence those with whom you do not agree.
The consumer's freedom of choice and health care are evidently two very separate questions.
I think that "Canadian culture" has nothing to fear from American TV or radio. If Canadians prefer American (sic) programming to Canadian programming, hell, that's their choice. Why should the government tell them that they have to buy an ExpressVu or a StarChoice dish instead of whatever the US market offers? That's coercion and I'm totally opposed to that.
The fact is, there will always be a demand for local/national programming here in Canada. People are interested in what's going on around them and what affects them. If the quality is lacking, they will turn to the competition. Tough. The shitty Canadian station that the viewers hate (and is probably subsidized by the government to pump out its crap) will either close or reorganize and the consumer will be happy.
Moreover, your concerns are specific to anglophone Canada. In the francophone parts, I can personally guarantee that competition from TV shows and films from the States will never eliminate our own because people want to see stuff in their language and people like myself HATE DUBBING. (rant rant rant Give me subtitles ANY day instead of that shitty dubbing.)
As to anglophone Canada and its perpetually quest for a cultural exception, think about this: if your culture is truly valuable, there should be no shortage of people willing to commit their time (for TV or radio) or their money at the box office to see your productions because it reflects their way of life. This seems pretty self evident.
By allowing only two satellite broadcasters and whatever Canadian cable companies, we restrict ourselves to monopolies in bed with the government. Viewer choice, quality of programming, price and customer satisfaction all suffer.
My choice to pay for programming is NOT an act of charity, thank you very much.
While it's surely a good thing that people will soon have the option of receiving foreign (i.e. States) programming, we need to look at the big picture.
m l#1097586698
:-D But free speech is rapidly becoming more and more restricted. I believe that despite what's going on in the States, they have more liberties in this regard and quite frankly, I'm jealous!
What a lot of people don't realize is the gradual demise of free speach in Canada.
Want to be fined for calling someone a queer? Maybe you deserve a bloody lip, but does 1000$ from your pocket sound better? An excellent summary of what's going on can be found on the Volokh Conspiracy (I stumbled upon it by chance): http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_07.sht
Moreover, the recent controversy surrounding the refusal of the federal communication commission (CRTC) to renew the licence of a Québec-based private radio station on the grounds that its content was inacceptable. This link, in French, provides a good résumé: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/040915-15.htm (Other articles include a history of the Canadian government censorship of private broadcasters.) If the libertarian blog "Le Québécois Libre" isn't to your taste, you can surely find the story on the CBC's or Radio Canada's web site.
Canada is a great place. Québec even better.
First of all, thanks for mentioning Canada. It's kind of bizarre, though, to quote the fuel economy in MPG since I pay for my gas by the litre. According to one conversion, 60 MPG is 3.9 L/100km. This assumes that the MPG was quoted in US gallons and not imperial gallons. Otherwise, 4.7 L/100km (slightly more believable). About three years ago, I was in Europe for an exchange and we even did a case study on the Smart car. Any serious study came to the conclusion that the Smart was smaller, less practical and more expensive than cars with similar fuel economies. It was strictly for use in the city centre and even then, little room for things or friends. (The joke amongst us was that if you don't have any friends, by a Smart.) Yes, the size can be a serious advantage in terms of parking, but even most Euro-weenies don't like the thing it would seem.
Haruchai -- read your article with interest.
I think that the critical distinction to make here is between (a) the rebels who knowingly engage in such amoral activities and (b) the companies, dependent on this material, whose means are limited in terms of assuring the origin of the coltan.
A problem for which we must undoubtedly find a solution, but hardly the fault of "borderless capitalism."
Regarding the noise at takeoff of the Concorde:
Although I was never lucky enough to be aboard one, I have had the interesting experience of being in a plane behind a Concorde at Roissy/CDG.
The pilot announces in a bemused tone that we will be slightly delayed "because there's a Concorde directly in front of us." Great, I said, finally I can see it.
For the first couple of minutes, nothing (taking position). Then, I hear a gradually approaching roar of magnificent proportion (at least to me).
Our plane, a 737, begins to shudder almost violently and one or two overhead compartments open themselves (admittedly, poorly closed). Then I see the Concorde race past, its afterburners creating a dark smoke cloud behind it.
So yes, louder at take-off than any other 747 that *I* have seen.
Well obviously you're going to see a lot more of them in those shared corporate jets programmes. Yes, $100M is a lot for even one company. But pool them together, rent time and who knows what you get. I don't work in the industry, but if NetJets can imagine a profit-making scheme, it may very well be possible.
Point 1: Barriers to trade
You know, you're absolutely right. I am totally against the difficulties that we create for developing nations, that keep them from putting their goods (usually agricultural) on our markets.
The fact is, both the United States *and* Europe are guilty, one as much as the other.
That said, many African governments have adopted protectionist policies of Marxist inspiration. Mugabe is only the latest and most flagrant example; it's been happening for decades. So you can't expect Country A to allow Country B's goods into their domestic market if there is no reciprocity. Reciprocity is essential for free trade. However, this is done in a bilateral fashion on a category-by-category basis, so reciprocity would apply to, say, all raw agricultural products. The fact that they don't want to drop tarifs on your heavy equipment is not a mitigating factor related to the said agricultural products, as far as I understand.
Point 2: Natural resources
I'm growing very wear of the argument that we are raping all those poor countries' natural resources. The fundamental nature of economic exchange is the fact that someone places a higher value on your good or service than you do. This is how wealth is generated, *this* is the basis of true economic development.
This is silly, I shouldn't even have to illustrate it, but let's take the example of diamonds. African Country is rich in diamonds. The country really doesn't know what to do with them -- it doesn't have experienced jewellers to cut them or industries to use them in other products. However, African Country has people with families to feed, and these people need jobs. That means that a demand exists for a domestic product that will create a net inflow of cash if exploited.
Basically, I suppose that it comes down to an ideological preference. Do you prefer free commerce that generates new wealth, or are you stuck in the sclerotic mindset that prefers to give away millions of dollars in the form of "aid" that will never encourage these countries to take the steps necessary to improve their well being? If your dream is to create a global welfare state, we have nothing further to say to each other.
What I'm going to say is nothing new, totally unoriginal, but...
I find it paradoxal that the bleeding hearts will criticise the US military to no end, when there very right to express those opinions has been secured by the technological edge that allowed the US and its allies to win both WWII and the Cold War.
You needn't be an avid fan of the current government's decisions to realise that many *many* people have benefited enormously from the security and technological advances that were pioneered by this "war machine".
To add my own anecdote, this is very similar to the discussions that I have with fellow French Canadians. We've got a big collective chip on our shoulder against the English. However, the reality is that the English system of government, instituted here in Canada and the United States, has spared us from the sort of upheaval that our blood-thirsty European ancestors have inflicted on themselves. Bloodthirsty, yes, because before Europe decided to "remake" its virginity, it was one of the most war-torn shitholes on the planet. And I don't think that will ever change because people there remain as naïfs as before.
Writing from Norway, eh?
Probably a country that benefited enormously from the protection guaranteed by the US and its allies. So much so that you had no need to invest in a real military to defend yourselves. So shut the fuck up.
Flamebait, yes, but it needs to be said.
Nurgled, you seem to trust the government bureaucrats to do a better job than yourself when it comes to spending your own money. Sorry, but that's typical of the intellectual deficit affecting voters today.