Thursday, March 31, 2005
I love this quote and only wish I came accross this first. A Pennsylvania pastor said this about those who attack the teaching of Intelligent Design.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"
Pogge says it all. "Um, pastor? Think about that."
Let me make something clear. The problem with ID is not some of the negative arguments made by its proponents. For example, although Behe's attempt to prove a negative by labling something as a "complex structure" is, well, silly, his focusing in on difficult cases and knocking down weak adaptive explanations helps clear the way for stronger ones. The problem is their positive argument, often not even stated, sucks. Just how does a non-spatially extended God interact with the world to create these structures? What the ID people want is to have an unworkable and outdated Cartesian substance dualism declared a scientific. It is not.
The quote came from here. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=1&u=/afp/20050327/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligion
Pogge blog's is well worth looking at by the way. One of the better Canadian blogs out there.
(0) comments
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"
Pogge says it all. "Um, pastor? Think about that."
Let me make something clear. The problem with ID is not some of the negative arguments made by its proponents. For example, although Behe's attempt to prove a negative by labling something as a "complex structure" is, well, silly, his focusing in on difficult cases and knocking down weak adaptive explanations helps clear the way for stronger ones. The problem is their positive argument, often not even stated, sucks. Just how does a non-spatially extended God interact with the world to create these structures? What the ID people want is to have an unworkable and outdated Cartesian substance dualism declared a scientific. It is not.
The quote came from here. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=1&u=/afp/20050327/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligion
Pogge blog's is well worth looking at by the way. One of the better Canadian blogs out there.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
In the fall of 2003 there was a buzz surrounding Canada's plans to legalize same sex marriage and to decriminalize pot and not just in the Canada. Prominent US news organizations wrote glowing articles about Canada being a northern Nirvana.
the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030707ta_talk_hertzberg
From the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/magazine/06QUESTIONS.html?ex=1112072400&en=7aef39efeffd405d&ei=5070&ex=1061697600&en=5c469e9929ae55fa&ei=5070
the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&s=klein
From the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p02s01-woam.html
From the San Jose Mercury News: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1051/a10.html
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030730sam0730p1.asp
From CanWest News Service: http://cpod.ubc.ca/analysis/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=421
From Macleans: http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/essay/article.jsp?content=20031013_67003_67003
In the September 27 2003 edition the Economist also pronounced that Canada was cool, but in order to access that article you have to pay for it.
Alas, the sponsorship scandal and Martin government's tendency to water down policy and discussion has dampened the enthusiasm, the post US election buzz aside, of the most avid Canada watchers in the States and in Britain.
Gay marriage is the one exception. Although, loath to come out too strong, the Martin government has succeeded, despite of itself, in painting the Conservatives into a corner. In this regard, they have benefited from the media coverage. The media has slowly come to realize that the arguments put forward by the opponents of gay marriage are entirely devoid of merit. As it stands, Gay marriage is the one thing holding up the Conservative march to the middle storyline playing out in the MSM.
All that being said, the tentative nature of many Liberal pronouncements on gay marriage have all the passion of someone trying to convince themselves to go to the dentist to get an achy tooth looked at. As such, the leadership, a la Kerry, has hardly endured itself to the base even though it has rallied it. The Liberal party does not believe, as its base does, that this legislation will help birth a new age.
When it comes to pot decriminalization, things are not going nearly as well. The Martin government mistakenly believes that it can have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he does not want to anger the Americans and on the other he does not want to see anyone end up with a criminal record for possession of substance the majority of Canadians believe to be pretty innocuous. Chrétien: “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” As such, he has tried to put forth a plan to please both parties, but in reality has succeeded in doing neither. The problem at least with regard to Canadians is this: in a free and democratic society the law must be seen to be legitimate and marijuana prohibition is certainly not seen as such. Yes, Canadians understand that the Americans would not be pleased about legalization. However, that does not make marijuana prohibition in a general sense legitimate in their eyes; it just means that Canada is tailoring its own laws to meet the illegitimate demands of the Americans. There are certainly practical advantages to doing so, but the perception that Canada is enforcing laws to please a bullying third party is simply poisonous to the health of a functioning democracy.
The current plans for decriminalization are a particular affront to Vancouverites, people whom the party wants desperately to appeal too. Not only is opposition to Canada's marijuana laws particularly strong in Vancouver, but in many respects ticketing people for possession would represent something of a crack down. Yes, the number of people charged for possession in BC is higher than anywhere else in Canada. However, that reflects the sure magnitude of the marijuana industry here. As Vancouver police spokesperson Ann Drenan has said "In Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." Put differently, Vancouver police use possession almost exclusively to nail dealers and not casual users.
As a recent study shows, since 1997, the police and the courts in BC are slowly but surely opting out of the drug war by failing to pursue more and more cases to their conclusion. (The study was mentioned a few weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun. I was not able to locate it online and, of course, the Sun story is behind a Canwest subscriber wall.) Tougher sentencing guidelines are unlikely to change attitudes regarding enforcement.
Now, the two of the most discussed political topics in the last couple years or so have been the Iraq War and Gay marriage. In both cases, discussion has benefited the Liberals. It is time the Liberals add marijuana legalization to that list.
As with the other two, what the party says will be quickly droned out by the political discussion that will follow. The government has no need to manufacture legitimacy; the Canadian people, in discussing the issue, will do that for them. The issue is already pregnant; the government is no more than a midwife.
That said, although the Liberals will be loath to talk too plainly about the subject, the Liberals could learn a thing or two from George W Bush. Namely, nothing inspires respect and loyalty among your supporters like conviction -- or least the perception of it. Using focus groups to design arguments to please everyone may sound like good politics, but, as the Gore campaign in 2000 showed, what is good on paper does not always work out in practice. There is often no substitute for a good argument.
The two political advantages to introducing would be this.
It will be popular in Vancouver. Just a few years ago Mayor Campbell was given the biggest mandate in Vancouver municipal history by capitalizing on another controversial issue, viz., safe injection sites. Change was in the air, Campbell sensed this and offered Vancouver voters a new solution to an old problem. The Liberals should capitalize on Vancouver's emerging image of itself, which Larry Campbell tapped into, as being the next Amsterdam.
On the other side of the country, marijuana legalization is about the only issue big enough to offset some of the affects of the Gomery inquiry in Quebec. I think it was a Macleans poll that pointed out that no province was more pleased with the direction the country was taking, pre sponsorship scandal, than Quebec. It may yet be possible to pick up where this left off and again foster the perception, true in many respects, that Quebec’s values are becoming Canadian values. The best way of doing this is by not being afraid to pass controversial legislation on issues Quebec and Canada as a whole are trending towards. We value what you value, child care, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, harm reduction and no to George Bush’s conservative revolution. Values convergence and not asymmetrical federalism, favored by Martin and that clown Jean Lapierre, is the key to taming separatism. Quebers will go with the party that is able to address their concerns and only the Federal government can offer socially liberal Quebec this. The Bloc can not. The Liberal party would benefit by willingly taking on the role of midwife.
Needless to say, no more scandals would also help.
Legalization of marijuana will also do something else. It will, obviously, bring Canada, and by extension Paul Martin and his Liberal Party, international notoriety. And this underscores a little noticed truth, the key to increasing our presence aboard does not lie with what we will do in the area of foreign policy, but rather with what will do domestically. Break open the emerging cultural fault line by introducing progressive policies and the world, especially the Americans, will take heed.
(0) comments
the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030707ta_talk_hertzberg
From the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/magazine/06QUESTIONS.html?ex=1112072400&en=7aef39efeffd405d&ei=5070&ex=1061697600&en=5c469e9929ae55fa&ei=5070
the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&s=klein
From the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p02s01-woam.html
From the San Jose Mercury News: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1051/a10.html
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030730sam0730p1.asp
From CanWest News Service: http://cpod.ubc.ca/analysis/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=421
From Macleans: http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/essay/article.jsp?content=20031013_67003_67003
In the September 27 2003 edition the Economist also pronounced that Canada was cool, but in order to access that article you have to pay for it.
Alas, the sponsorship scandal and Martin government's tendency to water down policy and discussion has dampened the enthusiasm, the post US election buzz aside, of the most avid Canada watchers in the States and in Britain.
Gay marriage is the one exception. Although, loath to come out too strong, the Martin government has succeeded, despite of itself, in painting the Conservatives into a corner. In this regard, they have benefited from the media coverage. The media has slowly come to realize that the arguments put forward by the opponents of gay marriage are entirely devoid of merit. As it stands, Gay marriage is the one thing holding up the Conservative march to the middle storyline playing out in the MSM.
All that being said, the tentative nature of many Liberal pronouncements on gay marriage have all the passion of someone trying to convince themselves to go to the dentist to get an achy tooth looked at. As such, the leadership, a la Kerry, has hardly endured itself to the base even though it has rallied it. The Liberal party does not believe, as its base does, that this legislation will help birth a new age.
When it comes to pot decriminalization, things are not going nearly as well. The Martin government mistakenly believes that it can have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he does not want to anger the Americans and on the other he does not want to see anyone end up with a criminal record for possession of substance the majority of Canadians believe to be pretty innocuous. Chrétien: “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” As such, he has tried to put forth a plan to please both parties, but in reality has succeeded in doing neither. The problem at least with regard to Canadians is this: in a free and democratic society the law must be seen to be legitimate and marijuana prohibition is certainly not seen as such. Yes, Canadians understand that the Americans would not be pleased about legalization. However, that does not make marijuana prohibition in a general sense legitimate in their eyes; it just means that Canada is tailoring its own laws to meet the illegitimate demands of the Americans. There are certainly practical advantages to doing so, but the perception that Canada is enforcing laws to please a bullying third party is simply poisonous to the health of a functioning democracy.
The current plans for decriminalization are a particular affront to Vancouverites, people whom the party wants desperately to appeal too. Not only is opposition to Canada's marijuana laws particularly strong in Vancouver, but in many respects ticketing people for possession would represent something of a crack down. Yes, the number of people charged for possession in BC is higher than anywhere else in Canada. However, that reflects the sure magnitude of the marijuana industry here. As Vancouver police spokesperson Ann Drenan has said "In Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." Put differently, Vancouver police use possession almost exclusively to nail dealers and not casual users.
As a recent study shows, since 1997, the police and the courts in BC are slowly but surely opting out of the drug war by failing to pursue more and more cases to their conclusion. (The study was mentioned a few weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun. I was not able to locate it online and, of course, the Sun story is behind a Canwest subscriber wall.) Tougher sentencing guidelines are unlikely to change attitudes regarding enforcement.
Now, the two of the most discussed political topics in the last couple years or so have been the Iraq War and Gay marriage. In both cases, discussion has benefited the Liberals. It is time the Liberals add marijuana legalization to that list.
As with the other two, what the party says will be quickly droned out by the political discussion that will follow. The government has no need to manufacture legitimacy; the Canadian people, in discussing the issue, will do that for them. The issue is already pregnant; the government is no more than a midwife.
That said, although the Liberals will be loath to talk too plainly about the subject, the Liberals could learn a thing or two from George W Bush. Namely, nothing inspires respect and loyalty among your supporters like conviction -- or least the perception of it. Using focus groups to design arguments to please everyone may sound like good politics, but, as the Gore campaign in 2000 showed, what is good on paper does not always work out in practice. There is often no substitute for a good argument.
The two political advantages to introducing would be this.
It will be popular in Vancouver. Just a few years ago Mayor Campbell was given the biggest mandate in Vancouver municipal history by capitalizing on another controversial issue, viz., safe injection sites. Change was in the air, Campbell sensed this and offered Vancouver voters a new solution to an old problem. The Liberals should capitalize on Vancouver's emerging image of itself, which Larry Campbell tapped into, as being the next Amsterdam.
On the other side of the country, marijuana legalization is about the only issue big enough to offset some of the affects of the Gomery inquiry in Quebec. I think it was a Macleans poll that pointed out that no province was more pleased with the direction the country was taking, pre sponsorship scandal, than Quebec. It may yet be possible to pick up where this left off and again foster the perception, true in many respects, that Quebec’s values are becoming Canadian values. The best way of doing this is by not being afraid to pass controversial legislation on issues Quebec and Canada as a whole are trending towards. We value what you value, child care, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, harm reduction and no to George Bush’s conservative revolution. Values convergence and not asymmetrical federalism, favored by Martin and that clown Jean Lapierre, is the key to taming separatism. Quebers will go with the party that is able to address their concerns and only the Federal government can offer socially liberal Quebec this. The Bloc can not. The Liberal party would benefit by willingly taking on the role of midwife.
Needless to say, no more scandals would also help.
Legalization of marijuana will also do something else. It will, obviously, bring Canada, and by extension Paul Martin and his Liberal Party, international notoriety. And this underscores a little noticed truth, the key to increasing our presence aboard does not lie with what we will do in the area of foreign policy, but rather with what will do domestically. Break open the emerging cultural fault line by introducing progressive policies and the world, especially the Americans, will take heed.
Friday, March 18, 2005
A distinction is usually made between “civil marriage” and “religious marriages”. The two are said to overlap for the most part. However, not all civil marriages are conducted in a place of worship and not all religious marriages are recognized by civil authorities.
Now, those who oppose gay marriage do not oppose “religious” gay marriage; they oppose “civil” gay marriage. Various religious bodies have been “marrying” homosexual couples for awhile now and no one has batted an eyelash. Come to think of it, I image no one would bat an eyelash if someone married their cat in a religious ceremony. The reason for this is simple. Marriage is really no more than the rights and obligations that make up “civil” marriage. The issue is obscured by the fact that the government has given churches the ability to act as de facto agents of the state. That is, it has given them the power to legally join a couple in whatever type of marriage the state officially sanctions. The result of this is that various religious bodies have been able to dress marriage up in religious drag.
The Conservatives have accepted gay marriage, but have insisted, under the guise of “protecting” the “traditional definition of marriage”, gay marriages be called civil unions. There are many things wrong with such a suggestion and I mentioned them elsewhere. One thing I have not said, though, is this. Religious opposition to gay marriage is by no means universal; many main stream churches (e.g., the Anglican Church of Canada) have no religious objection to them and willingly marry gay couples. The question thus arises is why would the Conservative party give more weight to one religious body than another. If freedom of religion means anything it all, it means that the State should not play favorites and pick one religious interpretation over another.
Other groups have suggested that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. By this they mean nothing more than all married couples would be deemed to be joined in civil union and not in holy matrimony. This is nothing more than a bunch of hocus pocus. At least the conservative party’s suggestion makes sense on a semantic level. The distinction the Conservatives propose would be akin to the distinction between waiter and waitress. The straight name change changes nothing at all. Besides, this would hardly placate the religious groups opposed to gay marriage. These groups want to be on a different footing than other groups – if only on a semantic level.
(0) comments
Now, those who oppose gay marriage do not oppose “religious” gay marriage; they oppose “civil” gay marriage. Various religious bodies have been “marrying” homosexual couples for awhile now and no one has batted an eyelash. Come to think of it, I image no one would bat an eyelash if someone married their cat in a religious ceremony. The reason for this is simple. Marriage is really no more than the rights and obligations that make up “civil” marriage. The issue is obscured by the fact that the government has given churches the ability to act as de facto agents of the state. That is, it has given them the power to legally join a couple in whatever type of marriage the state officially sanctions. The result of this is that various religious bodies have been able to dress marriage up in religious drag.
The Conservatives have accepted gay marriage, but have insisted, under the guise of “protecting” the “traditional definition of marriage”, gay marriages be called civil unions. There are many things wrong with such a suggestion and I mentioned them elsewhere. One thing I have not said, though, is this. Religious opposition to gay marriage is by no means universal; many main stream churches (e.g., the Anglican Church of Canada) have no religious objection to them and willingly marry gay couples. The question thus arises is why would the Conservative party give more weight to one religious body than another. If freedom of religion means anything it all, it means that the State should not play favorites and pick one religious interpretation over another.
Other groups have suggested that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. By this they mean nothing more than all married couples would be deemed to be joined in civil union and not in holy matrimony. This is nothing more than a bunch of hocus pocus. At least the conservative party’s suggestion makes sense on a semantic level. The distinction the Conservatives propose would be akin to the distinction between waiter and waitress. The straight name change changes nothing at all. Besides, this would hardly placate the religious groups opposed to gay marriage. These groups want to be on a different footing than other groups – if only on a semantic level.
