IntenseDebate

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ch-ch-changes · 1 reply · +1 points

If I remember right, we got just as much notice when the system switched over to intensedebate and I think it is safe to say that turned out well enough (and intensedebate isn't even all that great).

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Obama on Osama · 0 replies · +1 points

The best, most inspirational image of the US is that of a country that provides freedom and opportunity for all of it's citizens. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are written directly into the Declaration of Independence, and it has really shaped how the country sees itself, and how others see the US for the better.

Yet, I worry about where the US has been going since 9/11. There seems to be a real rush to concentrate executive power (which was already a trend that needed fighting) and to erode civil liberties. In the wake of Bin Laden's death, there are reports from progressive sources in the US that the Obama administration attempted to assassinate a US citizen. If this is true, it represents a deep betrayal of the principles that underpin US society and appears to be a clear violation of the Constitution.

Bin Laden may be dead, but the terrorists may well be winning if the US feels obliged to compromise it's founding principles.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ch-ch-changes · 0 replies · +6 points

Without something like reputation, there's a tendency to attempt to dominate discussions by what amounts to shouting louder.

If you don't like reputation, the best solution is just to ignore it.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The untold story of th... · 0 replies · +7 points

Thanks very much for this excellent piece.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ch-ch-changes · 2 replies · +1 points

Count me as interested. I suspect there are enough regular commenters around here that forums would be workable.

How long ago was that, out of curiosity?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ch-ch-changes · 4 replies · +1 points

Every so often, I think that forums rather than just comments would be nice. That would allow commenters to start discussions among themselves, and most forums I've seen have some pretty solid search, history, and reputation functions. It'd be completely understandable if that isn't a direction that is desired, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The search for simple ... · 0 replies · +2 points

I saw those tweets last night and indeed, they were the motivation for my reply.

I have to say, though, I'm not entirely sold on the wisdom of the guy who tweeted them:
While I obviously agree with his observation and am glad he said something, if he'd said the same thing on his blog instead of on twitter (or even better, if he'd done both), he might have been able to stem some of the baseless criticism that is frequently aimed at him there. I also thought it was funny that he went ahead and linked a story about Liberals the very next day, considering.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The search for simple ... · 1 reply · +8 points

It seems like there have been a lot of stories about the Liberal collapse, especially compared to stories about the Conservative majority or the NDP as official opposition. The Liberals story is certainly interesting, but I wonder if all of the attention is deserved at this point?

I'm quite curious to see how the media handles the re-arrangement of Parliament in their coverage; I'll be quite amused if the Liberals continue to receive as much coverage as they have.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "That's kind of the se... · 0 replies · +2 points

I entirely agree and suspect we're on the page on these points.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "That's kind of the se... · 1 reply · +2 points

I respect your position and actually agree with much of it. The issue I have is that I don't think moving to a donations-only environment removes the distortions (I suspect it may emphasize them in some cases) you list while it also changes the relationship between parties and party membership by increasing the pressure on members to donate, and may increase polarization by giving parties incentive to play to their base.

On reflection, I suppose it isn't necessarily donations that I am opposed to, perhaps it is instead the effect of money on politics in general. In another comment, I'd proposed eliminating donations and having a low cap on the maximum subsidy payout, but I can't see any reason why it couldn't be the other way around: remove the subsidy and cap the maximum amount of money a party can collect in donations.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with Iccyh

People I'm following

Iccyh