bleeding heart

Very interesting, and parts of it are quite devastating.

Why, when we are all continually offering our opinions, does the uncontroversial fact that something is "just [my] opinion" suddenly become a fighting jab? To state that my opinion is, well, my opinion....is not a debating point. You might also point out that I'm an East-coast Canadian who likes cats. (On second thought, those might actually be legitimate critiques....)

I don't know about your second point, WestCoastRunner, but I wholeheartedly agree with your first. The criminal justice system is inherently a class-based system, on the distinctions between degrees of counsel talent alone.

WWWTT, That the Russians were hugely important in the fight against the Nazis, and underwent terrific national sacrifice, changes not a single note of what I've said. I think Canada has done many fine and excellent things; that doesn't mean that, by some magical moral extrapolation, Canada was not involved in the illegal overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Haiti. Canada was involved. Lots of countries have done lots of things which we can admire, condone, what have you. And they also tend to do terrible things....and I see no reason for any geopolitical entity (ie countries) to ever get a pass for any of its bad behaviours. Including, obviously, Russia.

Big Guy: I agree; as you see, I was making fundamentally the same point.

Well, at least two matters here are close to self-evident: the Russian incursion has not been legitimate; and the Ukranian government has been infiltrated by people with (explicitly) fascist sympathies. I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other; both are virtual truisms, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure why anyone would sympathize with Putin, nor can I understand how people view openly anti-Semitic neo-fascists as "the good guys."

I have heard about this as well...a fascinating phenomenon, and one which complicates the issues around piracy quite a bit. I doubt GoT has been the only big-name benefaciary, either.

If one plans to become a former child star....you'd best vote....Republican! Can that really have been the message to "the kids" here? How bizarre.

No doubt very-real issues with the public sector aside, I do take some issue with the mostly faith-based belief that "in the private sector, salary increases [are] based on two main factors: job performance and profitability." The second point may or may not be true (in a highly qualified sense); but the first, well, it's far from so clear. As someone who has spent their entire life working solely in the private sector, in numerous jobs and in numerous positions of responsibility, the oft-stated idea of "meritocracy" as it relates to "the efficiency of the market" are often--maybe mostly--illusions. I understand the theory, and sure, it sounds right, doesn't it? But maybe we should stop pretending, for ideological reasons, that, when theory and practice clash (which they are wont to do, continually) that theory wins out; that theory is more important--hell, more real--than lived reality itself. I beg to differ.

Perhaps his suspension is still underway.

Given some of the conversational topics here, I think the notion of what we mean by "agnostic" needs to be navigated....because it means different things to different...agnostics. For example, I am an atheist. I also consider myself an agnostic...and all reasonable atheists as agnostic. But of course, we're only "agnostic" in the very strictest sense...in the cases where an argument over the matter becomes, frankly, a little pedantic. That is, I am as "agnostic" about Muhammad's confabs with Allah as I am about the Divinity of the Christ. In other words, if convincing evidence is presented, I will hope to be reasonable and open-minded and honest enough to say, "Cool, I was wrong." But, as I think is clear enough, for all intents and purposes, this "agnostic" is actually "atheist." that said, the only agnosticism I can have any genuine respect for is the pan-agnosticism to which I have alluded. If one's "agnosticism" constitutes the possibility of his or her native cultural dominant religious beliefs to be possibly correct...with all others omitted....well, that's closer to religious faith than to genuine agnosticism...isn't it? that is, if you are "agnostic" about the Judeo-Christian gospels....but a firm disbeliever in Hinduism, the Homeric gods, et al...then...what the hell, man? .

One might reasonably argue that there aren't any "token leftists" in the liberal-left haven that is the arts and entertainment industries. Hell, the disproportionate leftism is one of the political right's chief complaints about Hollywood et al. (A rather misplaced complaint, mind, for reasons I can get into in another thread if anybody's innerested.)

I think it should be added in response to Argus, that he supports an election under military occupation....so long as the occupiers are American and the country is Iraq.

Or else to accept their drug addiction as fine, and move on. The argument's confused enough, so that the analogy is also confused. At any rate, ultimately, as with some folks' views on homosexuality, I'm sensing that this is fundamentally merely an argument from a regressive "ick" factor, and retrograde ideas about sexuality and sexual identity.

Bigoted? Against whom? Addicts? My rejection of the addiction analogy is that the analogy is ill-considered and silly.

Prescribing dangerous drugs to addicts is a proposal that recognizes the actual, physical dangers of extreme withdrawal, which in (a very few, yes) cases can actually be lethal. That said, there is no rational analogy to be had. Even if the heroin prescriptions are a terrible idea (which sounds it to me, for what it's worth) it bears no relation. I don't know why you insist upon repeating the addict analogy...it's promiscuously inaccurate. Transgender people are not suffering from anything resembling an addiction. And no, no activists are seeing sex changes as "default treatments for gender identity issues." It's that activists support sex changes when the subject wants them, which is always after long and thoughtful consideration on the part of those who want the changes. The medical professionals whom you have cited as authorities seem to broadly agree.

Good lord, "eugenics"? "Strawman" is accurate, but almost too generous.

Fair point. Low-wage employees can sell cigarettes (arguably a more damaging product than alcohol)...and police their own behavior about selling to minors.

I am not saying that. There is no "must." It depends on the individual. I am pointing out that sometimes there is a biological component that appears to have something to do with the psychological gender....and this uncontroversial truism seems to have you up in arms. Probably because it complicates your ostensible trump card of "biological fact" vs. "psychology."

What do you mean, "why can't accept that"? When have I argued that people do not have the mismatch, and that some of them do not wish to use invasive medical procedures to eliminate it? Seriously, who are you even talking to? further, the point I have been making here is that sometimes there is a partial biological MATCH with the psychological gender....that is, the possible biological component of transgenderism that you are unwilling to address.

People understandably find the issue of children difficult. The general consensus appears to be: let the child lead in the direction that makes him or her most comfortable, and wait to see what the future brings. Not the most radical proposition, I should think.

Tim, you're being obtuse about this. You are insisting upon a clear-cut male-female dichotomy...when I pointed out that many transgender people have biological differences--including structural brain differences, and hormonal differences--which problematize your stark male/female binary.

Well, let's say for the sake of argument that such a thing constitutes a mental illness. I have no horse in the race...and as I've said, there is sharp debate over designations, both within and without of the professional medical community... ....so in either case, what is the problem with the medical procedures? To clarify: what have been the problems with it? I understand the desire for caution about invasive medical procedures...but what is, specifically, the problem here? Can we pointe directly to any actual serious problems that have in fact arisen? Because as I've said: while the transgender communities and medical communities are debating the mental illness designation, there appears to be far less debate about the efficacy of the procedures.

Just so. This has long been a dispute, both among transgender individuals (some who do think it should be considered a mental disorder, and some who don't), as well as a dispute between mental health professionals. The usefulness of medical interventions, on the other hand, enjoys far less dispute and disagreement. It appears to be a near-consensus, in fact. At any rate, I'm not sure why, Tim, after using "natural" biology as one of (perhaps THE) chief arguments....you blithely pass over the biological component in these cases, effectively shrugging it off. You want it both ways. You can't have it. If the debate fundamentally hinges on matters of biology....then there are questions of hormonal and even brain structure among many tested transgender folk that problematize your oversimplified view. Evidently even brain structure is a matter of "political correctness," when convenient.