The King is Dead. Long live the King. Re: Liberal leadership, I think Stephan Dion would make a fine PM.

Ooops Stephane Dion. I blame google.

John Manley's my least worst choice for the Liberals.

John Manley creeps me out more than Stephen Harper.

One point I have seen over and over this morning is that "the Conservatives are on a short leash". But I don't think this is the case. True, the Tories probably can't pass their social-conservative agenda, and that's good as far as it goes. But they will partner with the Bloc to devolve powers to the provinces, effectively destroying Canada as a federal dominion. Bye-bye, national health care, national education standards, and every other area where the federal government has any control over the provinces; the federal government will do two things: pay for the provinces' programmes, and build up the army (to support the Americans in their coming invasion of Iran). The separatists will get a lot of what they want, so they will eagerly partner with the government to pass such legislation. If there's one thing the Tories and the Bloc agree on, it's that they both want Quebec out of Canada.

Ken Dryden.

No missteps. Efficient and effective as a Cabinet Minister. Unquestioned integrity. Handsome. Fluently bilingual. Smart enough for the intellectuals, but played hockey. Still loved in Quebec.

That's pretty much the whole (Canadian) package, you ask me.

how about coco crisp?

Dryden's my pick as well.

Johnny Nemo also has a very good point about what may come to pass. By announsing his resignation, Martin has seriously hobbled the Liberals in their ability to stand up to the Tories. They can bluster all they want, but they're not going to force an election until their new leader is ready.

You're in some nutty paranoid cookoo land, Johnny. Federal standards for education? Good-bye national health care? As for Iran, why not talk to Flea? Apparently the Liberals are the champions of gay rights and Iran is desperately in need of some of those. Being tortured and murdered for being gay, I admit, isn't as big an issue as the nomenclature applied to the tax status of same sex couples, but perhaps you can put down the Latte and take a few seconds off plotting the underground revolution to contemplate that.

Okay, I don't know, maybe I'm in the minority of women who don't watch sports (joke), but I think former hockey star will play (haha) less well among women voters.

Also, Alan can you reign in the 'latte' set comments please, they're about as funny as 'gliberal' or 'Librano.'

On the issue of how good the 'good guys' are see:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001807768

And David, Iraq is not an appropriate comeback for every argument you don't like. "Oh yeah, we don't need to worry about child care in Canada because in Iraq they don't have a child care program either..." is not a valid argument either.

Normally, I'd agree, Marian. But Dryden piloted the National Child Care initiative (R.I.P.), which earned him big time Estrogen points. Whether or not they saw him play against the Russians, he registers well with women voters.

I'm not shilling for the guy, just sayin' it's pretty much there for the picking if he wants it. And therein may lie the rub.

I mean Iran, of course.

Nils, I guess I just think with the Bloc doing as well as it's doing it's time for a francophone Quebec leader.

I can't find what the turnout was - has anyone seen it noted anywhere? Thx.
About 14.5 m votes cast ... divided by what?

Oops, a little more searching found it. 65%

My ruling!<blockquote class="smalltext"><center>Ruling #2397</center><p>On the second charge: The Iran comment is perfectly acceptable. It is a policy comment and not personal.<p>On the first charge: the latte comment, while not as pathetically vacuous as "liebrano" is still a peronal slur by implication - especially as I do in fact like latte or rather its weaker cousin cafe au lait which I make by microwaving half a mug of milk to scalding and then pour in coffee.<p>Obiter nagging from the administrative tribunal: in the end we can do better and we do like our manners around here to invest ourselves in the listening to of the words of others so as to glean the best from all.</blockquote>

Where did I mention Iraq?

Johnny "screed.ca" brought up Iran, I responded why he (I'm assuming) a progressive should nominally care about Iran. This is going end up covering a lot of old ground from the last few weeks but the reason I use the word <i>nominally</i>, is of course I don't think progressives care much about the rest of the world except as a way to blame the US for something.

Whoeee! On a short leash, eh??? Your conservatives won a narrow victory, just like a certain Republican won a narrow victory here, twice. Has he spent a lot of time in the middle, diplomatically serving the population as a whole, or has he marched ahead with a narrow right-wing focus? Good luck on that one, my friends. NPR down here this morning made much of the fact that your new PM is likely to become a good friend of our dear leader...
Once again, God Bless Marian, whoever she is, for speaking up for progressives around the world--the wife and I say "quiche and a triple soy latte on us, good lady."

David, it's not whether you brought in Iran that matters, it's your use of it as a counter-argument that's ineffective, i.e., lacking in validity. That there are bad things happening elsewhere does not discount the bad things happening here (even if the bad things happening elsewhere are very very bad, as in executions). E

I didn't mean to suggest, Alan, that using Iraq like that was impolite, just that it was illogical.

You are ignoring Ruling #2397, Marian. Refer to Ruling #5 for the implcations of taking that path. We are all illogical and stupid in our own ways and have to have a measure of self-awareness. Nothing is so vacuous that it is invalid. It has to go to weight of the argument and there is an argument that progressive politicians do have a tepid approach to the actual solving of difficult problems they highlight. You may refer to GB Shaw's play <i>Major Barbara</i> on this point.

I'm not familar with the version of logic where someone brings up Iran, especially in the context of ab accusation of a stripping of Canadian rights, but it's "illogical" and "ineffective" to respond to that by saying that there's very good _rights based_ reason for doing something about Iran.

I can't believe you Canadians voted in Bush-lite! You were a beacon to all of us Americans!

Now, gays won't be able to be married and abortion will be illegal. Is that what you wanted?

Harper is going to spend all of your health care on the military so he can be Bush's friend. When Canadian children come back in body bags from Iran then you'll see what you've done!

Okay. I'm a philosopher. It's what I do. In Philosophy, there is in fact something called logical validity. If you don't want me to talk like a philosopher here, then I won't. But, by excluding logical validity you will also be excluding a whole academic discipline. I hope that's not your intention.

Once again I find myself in the minority of people who believe gay people should enjoy equality before the law in Canada and who also believe everybody in Iran deserves to have representative and responsible government. The bizarro opinion to me is one that believes arguing for one is exclusive of arguing for the other. I agree too much of the left is fixated on the various motes in the eye of democracy. I am equally baffled at those on the right who think imposing their religious ideology on their fellow citizens is just fine even as they condemn various religious bigotries overseas.

Personally, I can't stand latte.

It is not logically invalid. Explain yoursel on this point using abstract logic. You cannot rely on credentials or Gary would trump us all.<p>Don is not being helpful but people commenting at his blog use "Liebranos" and think it is clever.

Since you bring it up, I'm a mathematician (or at least I have a degree in it) so I have more than a passing familarity with logic.

But since you're helping me out on my debating style, I'll feel free to return the favor. "Haper is bad for Canada because policy X will turn Canada into a neo-con quasi-fascist state" is a much more effective (and perhaps even logical) if "X" is some policy a minority government says they're going to do, rather than something one has just made up.

If "neo-con quasi-fascist state" is too tough (or too weak) for you, feel free to substitute some other dire outcome.

I can't stand it either, Master Flea, being an espresso man myself. Flea, Marian, and my new friend Don are all welcome to my treehouse for an IPA and some rousing progressive group-think. My man Don said it: Canada was our beacon of hope!
They say Iceland is nice, in the spring.

Flea, the issue of equality before the law of gays in Canada is 99% settled (and has been for about 5 years). As I have mentioned several times before in other threads GX@40, the "gay marriage" issue is primarily one of nomenclature used for taxation. No one is longer seriously disputing the economic outcomes for gay couples should be the same as heterosexual ones, except for some fringier gay groups.

Referring to Iran as a greater case of badness is an informal fallacy called a red herring: "Red Herring
A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, such that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, and toward a different conclusion. It is not logically valid to divert a chain of reasoning with extraneous points. "

Johnny's point is that the Conservatives will do bad things. David's counterargument is that there are people dying in Iran and we should get a little perspective, and\or that progressives don't really care about human rights in the world.

Look it up, if you don't believe me http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic23.htm

Note "seriously" in the last sentence.

Also, I've gotta go.

No, Johnny's points were that even under a minority government (A) there was going be a stripping of rights in Canada and (B) the Canadian military was going to be used to invade Iran. May contention was that if (A) is an issue for you then (B) should not necessarily be considered a bad course of action; that is, holding opinions A and B smell of contradiction.

Johnny introduced Iran so it is not a fallacy but one of a number of items on a related list. A red herring is an unrelated sidetrack. One factual connection I know of is the execution of gay people in Iran, the potential for a US led invasion of Iran and the relatively restricted respect among CPC for gay rights. It is, however, an odd juxtiposition which may not suitible support either arguement. Not, however, a red herring.

Did you notice that your clock is off by an hour?

Johnny introduced going to Iran as one of the things he lists might go wrong for us as progressives under Harper (Going to Iran is listed in brackets as a potentially bad thing). That doesn't mean you can take Iran and conditions there and make those things the main point of Johnny's argument. The central argument for Johnny is that Harper would do bad things, not Iran sure sucks why aren't progressives better people? If David wanted to show that Johnny was wrong he would have to say why Harper would not do those things. If I were being charitable I would say that he may have been trying to undermine the premise that going to Iran was bad at all, but he was vague about that, in fact his main point seems to have been as he stated after the fact, that progressives who drink lattes don't care about human rights. He says: "Apparently the Liberals are the champions of gay rights and Iran is desperately in need of some of those. Being tortured and murdered for being gay, I admit, isn't as big an issue as the nomenclature applied to the tax status of same sex couples, but perhaps you can put down the Latte and take a few seconds off plotting the underground revolution to contemplate that." It's a classic red herring.

Disagree totally. A red herring cannot have the ring of truth and David is reordering the argument to show a weakness. You may be suffering from introducing an overlay of logic rather than rhetoric. David is winning this point so far.

David: the servers are in PEI. I obey the chronological demands of my Island overlords.

Thanks GR - it's good to see there are some reasonable people up there still.

I'm glad you think so. I must go.

I don't think so, I know so as explained. You cannot either use credentials or the presumption of being right. You have to make a better explanation. That is the downside of mannered debate.

Let's see: Ken Dryden v. Michael Ignatieff?

That would be the "old white guy" (Rona Ambrose's quote), former puck stopper, McGill law graduate, former Minister of Whatever, author of "The Game", "Home Game" (written with Roy MacGregor)and "In School" (written with Roy MacGregor)
v.
"I'm too sexy for my shirt", PhD in history from Harvard University, the Harvard Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice, Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, with academic publications include "Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment"; "The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on the Philosophy of Human Needs"; "The Warrior's Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience"; "Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond"; "The Rights Revolution;Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry; Isaiah Berlin: A Life"; and "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror", who served on the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.

Ya, sure, Kenny's got a chance.

Kenny is amongst the greater clan-in-law but I am thinking its Mike.

In Alberta we drink plain coffee, sometimes we put cream and sugar in it, scary huh.
Harper drinks coffee, he is scary then too.
Alberta wants in, but not to punish the latte drinkers, we just want them to be fair to other coffee drinkers.
They drink coffee in Iran and Iraq too, they are scary.
Harper won't drink coffee with them, some say he will to scare us.
Bush drinks coffee, he is really scary.
Harper wont't drink coffee with Bush, people will say he will to scare us.
Liberals drink coffee, maybe they should be drinking de-cafeinated coffee.
I did not make this up!

That joke died yesterday. Give it up and wait for the next Blogging Tory meme to tell you what to type. If you don't, at least try a version that makes sense let alone is funny.

I seem to remember that my mother worked with Dryden, something to do with education. Nice guy. Ignatieff? My number one choice for "Liberal dinner party I'd like to attend if they're there" (excepting some young Liberal female types).

IMHO, neither are the type of bruisers that are needed to win the Liberal leadership these days.

Wait for Ignatieff to unleash <i>The Return of Trudeau's Ghost!!!</i>. It will be just like when they said the Bay City Rollers were going to be the next Beatles. [That is funnier to say than it is true.]

LOL!

Trudeau getting to lead the Liberal party was a pretty exceptional circumstance in the first place. The man himself had unusual charisma and physical presence and learned quickly to be exactly the sort of facile bruiser you'd never want to meet in a trench with a bayonette. Still, if it wasn't for the hapless, luckless Joe Clarke, one wonders if he'd be remembered today except as another one of the wacky 70's personalities.

BTW: Pandora, a music discovery/internet radio channel, rocks.

Wait, didn't Trudeau have the hot wife? The one who sunbathed without.....
Canadian politics: percolated, not filter-dripped but sometimes steamy.

It is true: our politicians and their spouses and even some off spring of the age of majority seem to be far better looking than those of our southern brethern, Gary. I recall Frank magazine having a recurring theme related to the daughter of NS Premier Cameron around 15 years ago.

Post-marriage, Maggie Trudeau is very well known for a photo of her getting our of a car wearing a a miniskirt, and um, well, no knickers. Very 70s.

A lot of Canadian politicians have attractive daughters, for some reason.

A lot of Canadian politicians have attractive daughters, for some reason.

The Law of Repetition.

If unreadable, pretentious books and the embrace of the self-acknowledged intelligentsia mattered at all, why is Margaret Atwood not Prime Minister?

Michael Ignatieff may be all that and a box of Corn Flakes, but I've never seen him in a crowd of people who weren't drinking white wine and eating brie. I'll be keen to see if he can bear to rub shoulders with real people. Residents of Rosedale gathered at toney salons and fundraisers don't count.

Dryden against Ignatieff? No contest. Dryden versus McKenna? Now you have a race, because Frank has the common touch.

I threw out Dryden's name as a possibility - there are many others. Michael Ignatieff is only a possibility if the Liberals want to spend the next decade wondering "why, if we're so smart, don't they ever put us in charge?"

Gary, keep in mind the minority government situation, with a center-left separatist group and a left-center group holding the balances of power. With a Republican House and Senate, Bush certainly has had the equivalent of a majority gov't in the parliamentary sense.

Dryden's campaign photos could have him leaning on his goalie stick, gazing off at the bright future of the country ...

I am distantly related to one Francis "Never" Beaton of Antigonish NS who was apparently one of the orneriest cats to ever pummel his way through the AHL and other minor leagues, but he played a few games with the Rangers. He was also arrested by 6 cops with billy clubs in a Cincinnati dressing room while playing with the Birmingham Bulls in 1978 for breaking the cheekbone of some guy at a gas station who had spilled gas on his corvette. (That's not on the Campbelly side though.)

"Frank (Never) Beaton only played 25 games as a Ranger from 1978 to 1980, but they were memorable ones. He was – plain and simple – a brawler. And he was proud of it, with his devilishly dancing eyes and a menacing scowl. The feisty left winger only scored one goal and one assist for the Rangers, but he is best remembered for an epic Madison Square Garden brawl with Paul Stewart of the Quebec Nordiques in 1979. Later in his career, after he lost a few fights, he changed his nickname to Frank (Seldom) Beaton."

http://www.newyorkrangers.com/tradition/lookback.asp?Ed=NickNames

When I was a kid, Trudeau was campaigning in NS and we saw him at the mall parking lot at Greenwood. He worked his was through the packed crowd with a combination of easy and authority. He wasn't waiting for security guards and say things like "Hey - back off!" Margaret shook my hand.

Nils, maybe you've hit on an issue, that's become more apparent once again by these election results.

The Liberals with money: don't they see themselves as the city-dwelling "white wine, brie-eating, self-acknowledged intelligentsia" crowd? Why else would you draft someone like Ignatieff to run for your party, and give him a safe seat in urban Toronto? So that he could sit in the third row of the opposition back bench, to ask questions of some self-made highschool dropout who is now the CPC Minister of Immigration about the backlog of applications to reunite family members, reciting the plight of of his constituents, the Zenawi family etc. Somehow I don't think so.

The "common touch", that's so, well...."common". These people don't want "common" - they want "stars" - intellectual "stars" - they're dazzled by the likes of Ignatieff and they'll fund him handsomely for the leadership for which they courted and drafted him - its money that counts and Liberal money indeed is the hands of the "residents of Rosedale gathered at toney salons and fundraisers" - not at the local Tim's.

Now, back to the interesting issue about the "common touch": is it true that Canada is becoming as polarized as the US in the "blue states/red states" thing, except our blue is much more predominantly rural, and red is much more predominatly urban?

Don't get hung up on the colour thing - we can mix and match: "blue" in the US is liberal; "red" is conservative and rural.

So, for clarity: are our "blues" Liberal cities, and our "reds" conservative rural areas?

Mike C--You have a good point, about limits of gov't power and control. Alan, maybe one day I will shake the hand of the guy who shook Madame Trudeau's memorable hand. When the wife asked last night how I remembered this important first lady, it was easy to explain that as a teenager in the 70s, I noticed who partied with the Stones and sunbathed without a....

I think it is really important to remember than there has been no shift in this election of any really importance in terms of a cultural shift. In 2000 the conservatives, Reform/Alliance got 37.7% of the vote and this time the CPC got 36.7%. 2004 was a collapse to core vote for Harper. The only change was away from the Liberals due to scandal - not to a better ideology or policy. <p>But we will have to endure the triumphalism of those who mistake about 1/3 for more than 1/2. That is to be expected. Admitting somone ran from something instead of to you is never easy. But it is when the little nanny staters of the right try to shift the majority to the minorities position that it will get irritating and the Liberal coffers will start to fill again.

Where's the "triumphalism"? And strange that you should characterize the CPC as "nanny staters", since a broad contrast of CPC vs., say the NDP, would be one of decentralization vs. centralization, individualism vs. control, liberty vs. obediance.

Read dumb blogs, David. Pretty evident but I congratulate you on not reading dumb blogs. Talk of "cultural change" abounds among the lapdogs and ninniocrachy of our new rural overlords.<p>Socon social engineering is the new "nanny state". It's January 25th, man. Catch up with the new lingo wouldja!

The NDP wouldn't try to tell me who to have sex with but they'd loan me money if I was down on my luck. They're more like the "best-buddy" state.

I dunno. I would like an NDP to dismantle the CRTC before I would go that far - and I vote for them. I think it is more like an "Auntie Maureen state".

I don't read dumb blogs, except my own once in a while. I'm kind of a squatter over here now...

I noticed those bags in the hallway. Are those yours?

Interesting point, SayNay. I wonder, though, if the Liberals with money - the really really smart smart people who brought in Ignatieff - will wield as much power as they used to (and as they've come to feel entitled to) as time and technology move along.

I've heard lots of folks flogging the impact of the internet - specifically blogging - on the dessemination of information and on supplanting (to a greater or lesser degree) the role of the mainstream media. Can it come to pass that the growing number of adherents the same technology that took "disseminating news" out of the exclusive grasp of a cabal is poised to do the same for "political power"?

Maybe not right away. But two, three, five years from now? Hmmm.

Are they ticking?

Oh, I hate to be a nag about this one or sound overly repetitive but Bill C-6 The Assisted Human Reproduction Act, enthusiastically endorsed by the progressive left, placed massive restrictions on your ability to exchange genetic materials with other humans. That's not quite sex, but if you get 40 years old and are having trouble starting a family, it might seem more than a little petty or even draconian.

I think that is a concern shared by the right, too.

Almost certainly, unfortunately ... though not be me or me libertarian leaning pals.

However, my point in this particular instance was the even in cases of highly personal descisions involving reproduction -- the "my bush" issues, as it were -- we're not finding champions of individual liberty on the left.

THat would be true in some areas but not others. I don't think "individual liberty" is a category of experience that is easily definable when you get to specifics.

Alan, David et al: Seahawks or Steelers?

Steelers, because (1) my betting expert says so (2) teams I would cheer for normally (i.e. The Seahawks) lose.

I knew that DJ and I would find common ground one day. The Seahawks have a smart, experienced coach and a terrific QB and running game. The defense is strong. The Steelers have an experienced, smart coach, a great running game and QB. The defense is strong. This Patriots fan says: Pittsburg, like Green Bay and Chicago is a football town. Seattle doesn't deserve to win, it has good coffee instead. My prediction--a grinding 3 point win for the Steelers.

Steelers. They are the eastern team and I always root for the eastern team that is not the Yankees and is not the Habs. Their uniforms are much scarier, too.

Please, not simply "Steelers". They're "Mike's Steelers". Thankyou.

Well, I like New England (the place, not the team). You said you live there, no?

I also admire the way the "Mike's" Steelers picked apart the D the last two games they played.

Been in New England for awhile, DJ, but leaving soon. As a Pats fan, I feel I can be generous here, and we can let another team have a Super Bowl win.
(If you live in Toronto, I grew up a few miles away, as the blue jay flies, in a little Western NY town by Lake Ont.--will soon be returning to the area)

I sense a picnic coming.

Stephen Taylor makes his cabinet predictions. Stockwell appears to be the junior secretary for US relations. Interesting coming from a junion insider.

Excellent line: "Paul Martin, the new Kelley Hrudey of Canadian politics."

I know. You're all getting along so nicely. And here I am barging in again on some trivial point. But I have to. It's kind of point of honour. So for the record:

Alan, on the issue of credentials:
Let's say I started claiming that there were actually no laws in Canada, and that all talk of laws was a sort of mythology, or even a big pile of crap.I am betting that many lawyers would jump up and say, "well no, actually, I am a lawyer, I've made my career out of being a lawyer which means knowing the law and helping to administer it fairly."

Similarly, when you said this:

"Nothing is so vacuous that it is invalid." You are essentially saying that logic and argument does not exist as well as that logical validity doesn't exist.

So I said this:

"Okay. I'm a philosopher. It's what I do. In Philosophy, there is, in fact, something called logical validity. If you don't want me to talk like a philosopher here, then I won't. But, by excluding logical validity you will also be excluding a whole academic discipline. I hope that's not your intention."

Which boils down to saying: "Hey, that's my discipline you're saying doesn't exist (and 'nee's discipline?)!" Not "Hey, listen to me, believe me, because I have a bunch of degrees" That is, it was not meant as an argument from authority.

And by the way, David's point that Johnny was using an argument about rights and that all he was doing was offering a rebuttal is simply untrue: ("No, Johnny's points were that even under a minority government (A) there was going be a stripping of rights in Canada and (B) the Canadian military was going to be used to invade Iran. May contention was that if (A) is an issue for you then (B) should not necessarily be considered a bad course of action; that is, holding opinions A and B smell of contradiction..") Johnny does not mention rights at all, anywhere. He talks about the socon agenda, it's a stretch to say that that’s obviously about rights. Also, Johnny specifically says that he’s not worried about this part of Haper’s agenda. Johnny's main point is that the Conservative are not, in fact, on a short leash and they will no doubt be able to do bad things, not that they will get rid of human rights.

A red herring doesn't have to be untrue or uninteresting, it just has to be irrelevant to the argument that's being made. It is a diversion. David essentially changed the subject.

Anyway, when I said I had to go, I did. And now I have to go again.

What you are not accepting is that it was not irrelevant. Johnny did mention socon agenda which includes rights which includes the rights of gays and he did mention Iran which includes recent execution of gays. It may have been weak but even a tenuous connection can illuminate. <p>And the proper analogy on credidentials is the joke (which is not meant to be a comment on you but on credentials): what do you call a doctor who got "D" in anatomy? Doctor.

What Al said, except I don't believe the connection to be tenuous although as mentioned I am inferring things from the connotations of the phrase "socon agenda".

Yes, it goes to weight and we disagree on the degree of its insignificant tenuousness. I am mostly against absolutism in any discourse which is not what Marian is stating directly but which I perceive is there by implication.

So Marian, Seahawks or Steelers???

As for qualifications, Alan tossed my name in there somewhere as a red herring, and the only thing my rather expensive degree in art qualifies me for is making clay piggies. Arguing Canadian politics is a hobby. Top that, David Janes!

I have to confess to total ignorance when it comes to sports. I don't even know what game we're talking about when we say Seahawks or Steelers. Is it football? Politics is of course a sort of sport for non-sporty types like me. I mean, arguing *Canadian* politics is almost always a hobby of some sort, isn't it?

On another note, has anyone seen this post election text of a conversation between Bush and Harper? http://www.optimuscrime.com/2006/01/minori-whatnow.php

Actually, you can just click where my web address is supposed to be.

One more thing about relativism: It is one thing to say that there is no absolute truth, meaning of life etc. and it is quite another to say that there are no specific localised truths. It's like that joke in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy where some philosophers argue that God doesn't exist and that there is no absolute truth and then proceed to claim that black is white and white is black at which point they get killed at the next zebra crossing.

Ignorance is no excuse, Marian. Everybody knows football is more important than politics.

Oh, so it's football?

(Is somebody poking a little fun at you, Marian?) It doesn't sound like you have any qualifications on American football. Feel free to make comments anyway!
OK-next question: Sean Connery or Roger Moore?

Blogmaster Alan will soon be...aggh!...gack!...pulling my keyboard.....help!

Sean Connnery, of course. I'm a little proud of my glaring ignorance where sports are concerned. I'm sure that's annoying.

To be a bit clearer, I believe in abolutism but not absolutes in discourse. We part perceivers cannot state what ultimately is so therefore cannot report upon it.

Okay. So what you're saying is that God may indeed exist, or absolute truth may exist, but none of us can claim to know this. Fair enough. What I'm saying is that there is a huge difference between this kind of (T)ruth and the little truths such as that SayNay was talking about Ignatieff up there. That fact is either true or false in a way that can be determined by any of us.

By the way, nobody likes Ignatieff. The left doesn't like him because he supported the war in Iraq. The conservatives don't like him because he's an intellectual. The intellectuals don't like him because he's a populist. I don't think he would win, either, personally.

Uh, I mean a populariser, not a populist. He's a lightweight, say many.

I agree with big truth little truth, too, but I also have a hard time with any "fact" being absolute. Law works on evidence and perception but, as I once asked at a meeting of prosecutors and defence lawyers, is perception absolute? All agreed (or those who wanted to go there at least) that every thing could be shown objectively to be not absolute, all tests are subject to a failure rate of some degree, all perceptions once reported move through the filter of one individual's memory. Once you get there is does get all uncomfortable and ultimately unreliable but so is reality if quantum physics is to be trusted.

Now you're teetering on the edge of the zebra crossing zone. You seemed fine until you started to get philosophical, then you no longer seemed to 'know' whether there are chairs or whether there is concrete or cars...You may need help crossing the street. Let me call someone.

How unwittgensteinian of you.

One hundred.

Damnit.

HaHa. I must have superior perception or something. Take that you illogical diverter of arguments.

Now someone should say: foiled again!