CyberHippie Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think everyone in Canada needs to read this article, pass it on: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Content...tacodalogin=yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Good piece - precisely the perfect points made. It would be nice to see a piece like this in the Sun or somesuch, though, where it might make a dent in the thinking of the jackasses responsible for these laws (I've seen the Post, bizarrely, tilt more on occasion towards libertarian attitudes on it). Or channel 11. I don't know if anti-pot nuts ever pick up the Star; I hate it myself, but that's because there's so much Rosie DiManno in it (sorry, Rosie, that's a bit uncharitable for this early in the morning, but there you go). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/\/illy Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 That's a very good piece. I've been walking around saying that since the day it happened. I'm happy that someone in the media had the good sense to publish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Quite right - I shouldn't be so picky. Media contrition is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 wow, i am so impressed with the Star right now, i sent it to almost everyone in my address book and also my "introduction to information work" class. thanks for posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 indeed, that was an excellent article. but consider the author....ben rayner is a pop culture critic, and probably pretty marginalized inside the star. but any light shed on this issue is good. while i was in BC last summer there was a Fraser institute report that essentially said that pot was the largest industry in BC. Forstry was something like 50 million CDN, pot was 60 million. Their take on it was legalize it & tax it. If the people that advise "...the jackasses responsible for these laws" (thanks DEM) think that it oughta be legalized, maybe there's hope after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 You make good points, Timouse, however I note that you point out that the author in the Star is a bit "marginalized", and then go on to cite the Fraser Institute study. In my experience, the Fraser Institute tends to be regarded as comprised of "left-wing nuts" by the powers that be. If your criticism of authorship applies to Mr. Rayner, I would suggest it applies doubly to the Fraser Institute. (Do not mistake the above for a criticism against the message here. I am with Mr. Rayner and the Fraser Institute on this one; however I'm probably also a left-wing nut...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 In my experience, the Fraser Institute tends to be regarded as comprised of "left-wing nuts" by the powers that be. Left-wing as in libertarian? That tends to conflate with the right for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I take it you refer to the fact that in this case the Fraser Institute is suggesting that the government should stop dealing with marijuana as a criminal issue, and in that way this opinion is "libertarian" in that it abrogates the role of the state. Bear in mind, though, that the Fraser Institute is also suggesting a tax on marijuana, and I would suggest that also involves a hefty role for the government in regulating. When I say they are regarded as left wing nuts, I am referring to the fact that they tend to publish conclusions that call for a radical change to the status quo; as they are doing in this case. It is that sort of leaning that brings resistance from those who call for conservativism and continuing along the same Draconian path we always have. If you don't regard that as "left wing", then it is merely a matter of semantics. Label them how you want, but my point is the same. The Fraser Institute is regarded as radical. Do you disagree that they are regarded as radical by the "old boys" in power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamH Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Whoa horsey. I'm not so sure about the Fraser Institute being "left-wing nuts" so much as free-market zealots who support fiscally and philosophically conservative political platforms. That doesn't HAVE to mean they are right-wing but I would never put them left of center, and with Preston Manning and Mike Harris as Senior Fellows it's pretty clear where they stand...oops they're an independent thinktank, how silly of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamH Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I see you beat me to the punch lawyer. Radical, yes they are. Semantics are semantics (I must've hit send just as you did) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I must admit that I was unaware of their affiliation with Preston Manning and Mike Harris. I take your point ahess/Polkaroo, and agree that those two would never belong to a group that was truly left-wing. Most of what I know about the Fraser Institute is really a result of reading the criticisms of their conclusions by the status quo over the years; and it's on that basis I had come to regard them as lefties. I take back my comment that they are left-wing, and clarify that I mean radical. Thank you for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think I was thinking of the "les extremes se touchent" sort of l/r crossover. I wonder if they don't throw otherwise radical pronouncements out to distract from nastier and subtler bits of policy they're working through ("slash welfare? now that sounds reasonable - you really had me going with that legalisation thing"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamH Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 There are so many great "independent thinktanks" in the world that make the Fraser Institute look like small potatoes. Here's my favorite: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Members include Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and a number of other Neoconservatives we all love. Peruse some of their policy papers and learn what's guiding the US administration lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhishyK Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Let's take a moment to give thanks that we live in Canada. An article like Ben Raymer's would never appear in a major US daily. Again - have a look at the cartoon from the Victoria Times Colonist, posted the day after the murders. Fear FEAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Let's take a moment to give thanks that we live in Canada. An article like Ben Raymer's would never appear in a major US daily. Again - have a look at the cartoon from the Victoria Times Colonist, posted the day after the murders. Fear FEAR. well said. and stone mtn, it does become semantics. i had alwayd regarded the Fraser people as right of centre....knowing that Preston (refoooooooooorrrrmmm!)Manning was involved gave me that impression...dr evil may be right to call them libertarian. i guess my original point was that if people klike the Fraseroids thought that legalization was a good idea then the battle was over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 if people klike the Fraseroids thought that legalization was a good idea then the battle was over I must admit that now that I have learned more specifics about the Fraser Institute, I am much more pleased that their views are coming down on "our" side. As I said, I really only knew about the Fraser Institute (before today) based on critiques of its conclusions. Now that I know who is involved with them, though, I agree that it is more significant that they have concluded as they did in this situation; and I am certainly glad that there are right-wing thinkers who can still arrive at radical conclusions. (... and certainly no offense intended to any of the mice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 heheheee...mice are not easily offended and go check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/ these guys make the Fraser Institute look like angels. here's a passage from their page. "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." be afraid. be very afraid. but at the same time be glad to be in canada where we are a good bit more progressive. i hope. stone mtn, are you really a lawyer, or do you just play one on tv? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I really am a lawyer; and not remotely reluctant to admit it. In fact, in your case I think I can prove it, in that I suspect I'm among the few on this Board aware that the name "Harvard Mouse" comes from an intellectual property issue arising out of patenting live animals; an action which actually made it to and was eventually dispensed with by the Supreme Court of Canada (or maybe everyone knows that; I dunno...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 excellent! stone mtn is officially in the harvard mouse club! yeah, the supreme court ruling on harvard's patent came out just as mark tonin was getting us to play in public, and it seemed like a perfect band name...it made us all really mad to think that someone could patent a life form that they had souped up.from what i understand of US patent law, this sort of thing is becoming more common. that's just nuts, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave-O Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 "Higher life forms are not patentable subject matter in Canada. However a process for producing a higher life form may be..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 nothing like leaving a door open. there's a david suzuki series called naked ape to superspecies that just blew me away. i think it's episode 4 or 5 that fearures jeremy rifkin talking about the legal precedents in the US for patenting life forms, it's incredibly disturbing. rifkin figures that the biotech guys are in a position to own great swaths of genetic code... *sigh* another reason to try to hitch a lift with a flying saucer...who's got my heady sub-etha thumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 *sigh* another reason to try to hitch a lift with a flying saucer...who's got my heady sub-etha thumb? Ford Prefect does!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now