Comments for Quotulatiousness

Comment on Conservative arguments for legalization of marijuana by Brian Dunbar

Brian Dunbar — Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:44 +0000

and at the same time operate a criminal enforcement regime that shames their claim to being the leaders of the ‘free world’.

Forty years after the War on Drugs was declared and … any US high school kid who wants to get baked, can. Time to declare the war over and bring the troops home.

I don’t know if we _can_ do that.

The problem is that the government likes the power they’ve gotten to run the War on Drugs a whole bunch, and they won’t want to give it up.

If we had an actual democracy it’d be done away with real quick. We don’t, so don’t look for it to get better anytime soon.

Comment on The politics of the school lunch by Nicholas

Nicholas — Sun, 20 May 2012 02:11:42 +0000

On the other hand, my wife was in the Navy reserve: one of her first meals at a Canadian Forces base included a muffin with diver’s watch filling (not the whole watch, but the body and a few key parts).

Comment on The politics of the school lunch by Dwayne

Dwayne — Sat, 19 May 2012 23:23:06 +0000

For all the fun we make of military cooks, they do a great job of feeding masses of people. Much has to do with how much someone cares about their job, and for some reason I have a feeling that school cafeteria cooks don’t have that same feeling, I guess. At least their track record suggests it is that way.

Comment on Conservative arguments for legalization of marijuana by Nicholas

Nicholas — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:31:45 +0000

Actually, the biggest problem with pot isn’t the stigma, as much as it is the fact that we share the world’s longest (once undefended) border with one of the world’s biggest hypocrite on drug policy. Americans individually provide a disproportional share of the world’s demand for all drugs — but especially marijuana — and at the same time operate a criminal enforcement regime that shames their claim to being the leaders of the ‘free world’.

If we didn’t share a land border with the US, we could easily have legalized pot a decade ago, and be enjoying the benefits (even anti-legalizers would admit that it would ease pressure on the police and the prison system and provide profits to be taxed). The problem is that any move we make to legalize could — and likely would — be met with further slowdowns at the border, and more legal and bureaucratic interruptions in our bilateral trade with the US.

They’d hurt themselves by doing so, but they’d hurt us much more.

Comment on Conservative arguments for legalization of marijuana by Dwayne

Dwayne — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:11:52 +0000

When placed in proper context the argument has merit. I am against pot only because it is illegal, not because of its many effects. Booze has many bad side effects, but it is legal. Smokes the same thing. If the government made pot legal, in my mind, it would be just like booze and smokes. It would still be illegal to grow your own to sell, the way it is illegal to make your own booze to sell, without a license.

The biggest problem is the stigma of pot as an illegal drug, having it accepted would take some time, but I think it could work in the long run. But, how would they reconcile public consumption since smoking is on the way out in almost all public spaces, including the great out doors?

Comment on What’s in a name? Just centuries of military tradition by Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:21:58 +0000

You’re going to have to explain the logic.

It’s along the lines of naming regiments/having units drawn from a named geographical area means that losses in combat will be concentrated in the home recruiting areas, creating morale problems on the home front and raising political pressure to make peace/reduce combat tempo/pull that unit out of “dangerous” combat assignments.

The RNR example is pretty extreme, as Newfoundland casualties were (I believe) the highest ever suffered in one battle by an Imperial or Commonwealth unit, and Newfoundland was then (and is still) lightly populated compared to other colonies/dominions in the Empire. In more human terms: there were very few families in Newfoundland who were not mourning a dead soldier after 1 July, 1916.

Comment on What’s in a name? Just centuries of military tradition by Brian Dunbar

Brian Dunbar — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:03:15 +0000

The argument against using traditional names is supposedly made by the fate of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment on 1 July, 1916:

You’re going to have to explain the logic.

The ‘crats would rather what … the soldiers involved voted on whether or not to attack? Declined to obey orders? Wrote their mom and complained?

Comment on Toronto Police “violated civil rights, detained people illegally and used excessive force” by Russ

Russ — Thu, 17 May 2012 03:52:27 +0000

Nicholas, in my opinion, the police were (most often) the group that was out of control. But alas, it is now history, the damage is done and the incidents are forgotten by those who could have implemented some degree of retribution towards the officers who abused their oath. Of course the Officer Bubbles incident will live on in cyberspace. All of this is very scarey.

Comment on What’s in a name? Just centuries of military tradition by Nicholas

Nicholas — Tue, 15 May 2012 20:05:31 +0000

The argument against using traditional names is supposedly made by the fate of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment on 1 July, 1916: "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further." 780 men started the advance, less than 1 in 7 ended the day alive and unwounded, and 68 men answered the roll call on 2 July.

Comment on What’s in a name? Just centuries of military tradition by Dwayne

Dwayne — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:15:52 +0000

Canada tried this in WWI. We learned…