I want to emigrate.

[floating opera]

As a non-american, it amazes me that laws like these can be passed in a state and that they're not mandated federally. if the U.S. was a more federalist country, then retarded laws like this couldn't pass because they'd need a consensus from a much larger group and some small group of backwards-thinking politicians couldn't just go ahead and unilaterally pass laws.

to be honest, it's this lack of solidarity between states that freaks me out the most about travelling around the US. what i do in Vermont might be perfectly legal but by the time I get to Conneticut, I could go to jail for the exact same thing... sends shivers down my spine.

I will personally welcome any deserters that feel things are getting too crazy to handle. Fuck whatever the gov't says.

[floating opera]

Aid groups advised to ‘shut the f--- up’ on abortion

May 03, 2010

Susan Delacourt
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA – Aid experts alarmed by Canada’s new anti-abortion stand in foreign policy have been advised to “shut the f--- up” or risk Prime Minister Stephen Harper taking even more harsh measures – abroad, or maybe even at home if abortion becomes an election issue.

“We’ve got five weeks or whatever left until G-8 starts. Shut the f--- up on this issue,” Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth told a group of international-development advocates who gathered on Parliament Hill on Monday to sound the alarm about Canada’s hard-right stand against abortion in foreign aid.

“If you push it, there will be more backlash,” Ruth said. “This is now a political football. This is not about women’s health in this country.”

Ruth’s remarks, intended more as friendly advice than a warning, were met with gasps of disbelief and even anger among the approximately 80 aid representatives who converged on Parliament Hill to condemn what they see as a gathering storm against women’s rights in Canadian aid policy.

“We do want people to feel a little nervous about where our institutions are going because our development effectiveness is actually being undermined,” said Joanna Kerr, chief executive of Action Aid International. “We are increasingly distancing ourselves from an urgent agenda … to advance the rights of women and girls worldwide.”

Kerr and other aid experts appearing on Parliament Hill Monday say there is now a “chilling” climate in the foreign-aid community, where advocates are afraid of speaking out for fear of having their aid dollars cut.

But Ruth, who was appointed to the Senate by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, and who sponsored the gathering on the Hill on Monday, said that silence may be the best strategy for now. “Let it roll out,” Ruth said.

Ruth is convinced that the final communiqué of the G8 meeting in Canada in June will include a mention of this country’s support for family planning, but fears that ongoing furor over abortion could harden the Conservative government’s stand even more.

“I hope I’m not proven wrong but I have every confidence that it will include family planning,” Ruth said. “Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Don’t make it into an election issue.”

Last week, Harper’s government announced that Canada would not support abortion in any foreign-aid programs – a ban that former president George W. Bush also enacted during his eight years in office.

Harper and his Conservatives say they are simply following the lead of the House of Commons, where a Liberal vote to support “the full range” of family-planning options in foreign aid was defeated in March.

But at Monday’s gathering of aid experts, the anti-abortion announcement was described repeatedly as part of a larger pattern against Canada being a progressive voice abroad – one that began a decade ago, under Liberal governments, but which has said to have intensified to seriously worrying levels under Harper’s government since 2006.

[elbandito]

Eff the queen. I ain't no loyalist. I'm a freedom fighter.

Aid groups advised to ‘shut the f--- up’ on abortion

May 03, 2010

Susan Delacourt
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA – Aid experts alarmed by Canada’s new anti-abortion stand in foreign policy have been advised to “shut the f--- up” or risk Prime Minister Stephen Harper taking even more harsh measures – abroad, or maybe even at home if abortion becomes an election issue.

“We’ve got five weeks or whatever left until G-8 starts. Shut the f--- up on this issue,” Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth told a group of international-development advocates who gathered on Parliament Hill on Monday to sound the alarm about Canada’s hard-right stand against abortion in foreign aid.

Ruth’s remarks, intended more as friendly advice than a warning, were met with gasps of disbelief and even anger among the approximately 80 aid representatives who converged on Parliament Hill to condemn what they see as a gathering storm against women’s rights in Canadian aid policy.

Kerr and other aid experts appearing on Parliament Hill Monday say there is now a “chilling” climate in the foreign-aid community, where advocates are afraid of speaking out for fear of having their aid dollars cut.

Ruth is convinced that the final communiqué of the G8 meeting in Canada in June will include a mention of this country’s support for family planning, but fears that ongoing furor over abortion could harden the Conservative government’s stand even more.

“I hope I’m not proven wrong but I have every confidence that it will include family planning,” Ruth said. “Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Don’t make it into an election issue.”

Last week, Harper’s government announced that Canada would not support abortion in any foreign-aid programs – a ban that former president George W. Bush also enacted during his eight years in office.

But at Monday’s gathering of aid experts, the anti-abortion announcement was described repeatedly as part of a larger pattern against Canada being a progressive voice abroad – one that began a decade ago, under Liberal governments, but which has said to have intensified to seriously worrying levels under Harper’s government since 2006.

Since Stephen Harper has been in office, things have been becoming more and more "American" here, this is true. But there's a huge and visible divide happening here. Harper put the entire government on hold last year so that he could pass laws without any competition... there's much more going on than just a foreign anti-abortion stance. For now, in this country, any woman can choose whether or not she wants an abortion and that's the way it will stay. I'll tell you: in Montreal at least, ppl will friggin riot if something like that changes. There were two altercations with the cops last week alone. One, after the Habs came back and swept the series and another during an International Workers Rights/Anti-Capitalism protest.

Things won't change until WE make/let them change.

[floating opera]

from what i've heard. western Canada--Calgary/Alberta is just a conservative as south Western us--Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona. both ann coulter and sarah palin have given speeches this march in Calgary.

that Canada's commitment to womyn's rights globally is not he same as it is domestically seems like a abhorrent double standard.

[cloudscapes]

from what i've heard. western Canada--Calgary/Alberta is just a conservative as south Western us--Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona. both ann coulter and sarah palin have given speeches this march in Calgary.

that Canada's commitment to womyn's rights globally is not he same as it is domestically seems like a abhorrent double standard.

not quite, but close. it's a pretty huge contrast from say victoria or montreal, which is probably the most liberal/progressive minded large cities in the continent. like elbandito said, there'd be riots here if Harper pushed his shit too hard.

[floating opera]

i don't think Harper is afraid of a may day parade and a bunch of drunk 'nuck hockey fans. those aren't riots anyway...

[elbandito]

i don't think Harper is afraid of a may day parade and a bunch of drunk 'nuck hockey fans. those aren't riots anyway...

I didn't say those were riots. I said they were altercations with the cops. When the police came out to stop the street party, the car was surrounded by "drunk 'nuck hockey fans" and they were pounding on the car and shouting "calesee la police!" until the cops come out in full force with batons and shields to push us all back. If we're willing to fight for the freedom to have a good time, what makes you think we wouldn't fight for something we actually believe in?

I read somewhere that George Washington himself said that it's the duty of the population to rise up every so often to ensure the gov't stays in line... apparently, that's part of the reason why you're allowed to have guns.

...so, floating opera, when was the last time YOU did something to let your gov't know that you're unsatisfied?

[smile_man]

awe heat.

i don't think Harper is afraid of a may day parade and a bunch of drunk 'nuck hockey fans. those aren't riots anyway...

[floating opera]

I read somewhere that George Washington himself said that it's the duty of the population to rise up every so often to ensure the gov't stays in line... apparently, that's part of the reason why you're allowed to have guns.

it was Jefferson that said that. and Jefferson was vehemently anti-Federalist. Washington was literally an autocrat w/monarchic tendencies. Americans, unlike Canadians, staunchly value their freedoms and FEAR a tyranny of the majority. this is why America does not have a Federal government like Canada or European-style parliament or a Governor Governor or pics of the queen on US dollars.

also. i'm an advocate of a Jeffersonian democracy but that quote is a double-edged sword becuz right-wing militias use it as an cowardly excuse to blow up Federal bldgs that occupy womyn and children and other innocent victims. and in the US the Federalist Society is an association of Conversative lawyers; to be honest, if you at any Totalitarian or Fascist government, one characteristic each share is a strong centralized 'government.'

[McSpunckle]

Stop pretending that America as a whole values anything more than snuggies and fast food.

A lot of us care, but the whole "small government" thing doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Look at how bad things got because some greedy rich bastards had nothing to lose. A large population needs some form of governmental control or a select few progressively take everything. We're at the mercy of a select few large corporations. The for-profit initiative has caused our health care prices to sky rocket and has given a way for greedy bastards to cut whatever corner necessary to maximize profit. The result is food that makes us sick, and health care that's hard to afford. The poor is forced to stay poor while the rich have nothing to lose.

I seriously don't understand the patriotism of some people in this country. An afternoon on Wikipedia will tell you we're not doing that well. What's more, those that are exceedingly patriotic do nothing but complain about our government whilst acting like we have the best government in the world. It's ignorant at best-- and voluntarily ignorant.

[01010111]

The American founders didn't set up a limited government nor did they intend for everyone to vote. While the national government was intended to be relatively non intrusive, they figured the state governments would become their own extreme form of government (they figured it was ok because it was tyranny from the local government instead of the national government), the constitution and the bill of rights weren't applied to the states till after the civil war so states could abuse the rights of their citizens to no end, and that's exactly what they did.

The founders set up a system where only land owning white males could vote, where the people who voted for president were chosen by the separate state governments, and where half the legislative body of government was appointed by state governments. The founders created an essentially aristocratic system.

As to the whole more government versus no government thing, not only is it a false dichotomy, those in favor of "limited government" are typically only espousing anarchist views under a more modern and somewhat more respectable guise. To propose a government as limited as most libertarians propose, ignores the problem of economically and politically powerful interests in society. The whole social contract thing wasn't only intended to protect us from tyrannical governments, it was mostly intended to protect us from tyrannical individuals. In a "limited government" individuals can gain power to the point where the threat of tyranny isn't from government but from individuals underneath the government.

To even set up a government as limited as they were thinking leaves out all the externalities involved with industrialization, globalization, and population increases; essentially it's a system that might work if there were still only 22 million people on the planet, and even then there's a high risk of tyranny from powerful individuals. I could write a whole lot more, but I don't think this is the place for it.

And I agree with McSpunckle.

[elbandito]

I read somewhere that George Washington himself said that it's the duty of the population to rise up every so often to ensure the gov't stays in line... apparently, that's part of the reason why you're allowed to have guns.

it was Jefferson that said that. and Jefferson was vehemently anti-Federalist. Washington was literally an autocrat w/monarchic tendencies. Americans, unlike Canadians, staunchly value their freedoms and FEAR a tyranny of the majority. this is why America does not have a Federal government like Canada or European-style parliament or a Governor Governor or pics of the queen on US dollars.

So you're saying that the reason that you allow states to pass ridiculous, offensive and barbaric laws is because you fear tyranny? And that Canadians don't value freedom because we have a parliament and irrelevant leftovers from our association with the Commonwealth? You sir, are a douche.

to be honest, if you at any Totalitarian or Fascist government, one characteristic each share is a strong centralized 'government.'

I don't know how much wikipedia you've read but I think it's time you pick up a real book on politics and gave the internet a rest. You're making yourself look like a fool... as if one can say that say (or even imply) that any and all gov't that are centralized are either totalitarian or fascist.

Stop pretending that America as a whole values anything more than snuggies and fast food.

A lot of us care, but the whole "small government" thing doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Look at how bad things got because some greedy rich bastards had nothing to lose. A large population needs some form of governmental control or a select few progressively take everything. We're at the mercy of a select few large corporations. The for-profit initiative has caused our health care prices to sky rocket and has given a way for greedy bastards to cut whatever corner necessary to maximize profit. The result is food that makes us sick, and health care that's hard to afford. The poor is forced to stay poor while the rich have nothing to lose.

I seriously don't understand the patriotism of some people in this country. An afternoon on Wikipedia will tell you we're not doing that well. What's more, those that are exceedingly patriotic do nothing but complain about our government whilst acting like we have the best government in the world. It's ignorant at best-- and voluntarily ignorant.

+1

[floating opera]

to be honest, if you at any Totalitarian or Fascist government, one characteristic each share is a strong centralized 'government.'

I don't know how much wikipedia you've read but I think it's time you pick up a real book on politics and gave the internet a rest. You're making yourself look like a fool... as if one can say that say (or even imply) that any and all gov't that are centralized are either totalitarian or fascist.

which books do you recommend i read? i'd be more than happy to seek them out and read them.

[01010111]

-Locke Second treatise of government (an argument for democracy and government in general)
-John Rawls Justice as Fairness (essentially an add-on to Locke's social contract)
-The Federalist Papers (based on your posts I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what they were saying if you did read it (the sparks notes could help you understand it better but are very misleading in places); and focus on the papers before 30, the ones after that deal with the specific institutions and aren't as fun to read) number 10 is critical.
-Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville: very important for understanding the American mindset, and why a system that requires more action on the part of citizens is likely not to work.

If you make it through that much you should at least have an understanding of why America is the way it is. From your posts it sounds like you've been listening to Hayek, who I'm pretty was responsible criminalizing socialism in the eyes of the American public.

[floating opera]

-Locke Second treatise of government (an argument for democracy and government in general)
-John Rawls Justice as Fairness (essentially an add-on to Locke's social contract)
-The Federalist Papers (based on your posts I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what they were saying if you did read it (the sparks notes could help you understand it better but are very misleading in places); and focus on the papers before 30, the ones after that deal with the specific institutions and aren't as fun to read) number 10 is critical.
-Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville: very important for understanding the American mindset, and why a system that requires more action on the part of citizens is likely not to work.

If you make it through that much you should at least have an understanding of why America is the way it is. From your posts it sounds like you've been listening to Hayek, who I'm pretty was responsible criminalizing socialism in the eyes of the American public.

hey thanks for the recommendation but i was specifically asking el-bandito for his book recommendations. i actually have copies of everything except Rawls but you are right i have not read them yet. been meaning to... (& your off about Hayek...)