bleeding heart

We had the discussion under Trudeau. Then we had the discussion again in the famous Morgentaler decision. The the PC's made some attempts to strike this down. Then they lost at their attempt. Is it that you don't feel we've had a "discussion" until the law comes down in a way with which you agree?

Neither does "legacy enrollment," by definition a type of elitist "affirmative action," of which former Presidents of both Harvard and Princeton declared ""the overall admission rate for legacies was almost twice that for all other candidates." So, it's the children of Ivy League graduates, especially among the more affluent and well-connected, who are the most serious obstacle to others getting their fair shake based on merit.

I still don't get what you mean. Leaving aside what "feminsists support"--not really the topic here--very few Canadian women who have abortions take the sex of the fetus into account. It's not the reason for abortions.

Women who have abortions are, well golly, jist as smart as you and me! Honest! They already know it's slightly better than 50/50. At any rate, and on second thought, there's no way that you meant any of this, anyway.

Well, there's the inconvenient fact that we'd need to ask the French, and graciously, for their permission. Which of course we wouldn't get, because it's a preposterous idea. Even Noble and Perfect Canada cannot tell France what they must do.

Ok, I see that. I can't say for certain, but I think I more or less agree.

I agree with much of this, but whether the great majority of Canadians are "socially conservative" is certainly arguable. However, as you imply eslewhere in your post, it sometimes comes down to a problem of definition.

He's an effete little radical, with pretensions to intellectualism, and all his physical strength laid in his weapons. In prison, he'd be more apt to be in danger than to be dangerous. That's possible. Another reason for his secretive fanboys to cheer a little more.

Especially coming from someone who likes to cite Kevin O'Leary...who likes to lecture everyone that (and I quote) "mixing economics and morality is evil." (A wanton contradiction in itself, as O'Leary isn't thoughtful enough to even comnprehend, but that's a separate argument, I suppose.)

I have read some of their little debates, and it's interesting watching them get tied into ideological knots. They have the same issue with Israel/Palestine: yes, the Jews are evil, & co. & co.....on the other hand, the Arabs are subhuman inferiors...so what's a poor WS supposed to think?

Presumably the show's writers/creators have the larger story in their scopes, and are trying to navigate it to what they feel is most fitting for the medium. Apparently, the author himself is part of the process, as consultant or what have you. That said, I agree there are some pacing issues so far. (Though not to the egregious extent of The Walking Dead, which went seriously awry.)

Sure, I get that, and I'm one of those who did bring it in. But subjective remains subjective, whether it's generating debate on MLW or not. I agree completely. I had thought the improper bit was part of your argument. If I read you wrong, I apologize. I appreciate that, but I'm not perfectly clear on the distinction. I think the idea that Iran is behaving badly and we are behaving properly also cuts to the heart of identity, namely a kind of relativistic triumphalism about the purity of our motives (compared to the dankness of all Official Enemy's motivations). I have these sorts of discussions all the time, up to and including an explicit support for terrorism itself, if it's we who are involved in it.

Ah, true. Polarizing is the wrong word. But it is every bit as much politicized as the piece we're discussing here...and worse, it is a more factually arguable point of view. So are we to say that if a politicized and crudely-thought-out comedy bit is bad according to the debates generated in places like this? Or are there more objective measures by which we can measure (and bemoan) "improper" politicization, regardless of how sectors of the viewing public bites at it? And your (correct) response raises another, and related, issue: why is the crudeness of the religious bit polarizing, where the sycophantic, Establishment-foreign-policy view (Iran is hostile, we are reasonable) is not "polarizing"?

The reality as based on your unproveable (at least unproven) personal anecdotes, that "socialists" stubbornly refuse to accept at face value?

Yes, but again, only in your won subjective view that it isn't "actually" funny. And consider a comparison: Stewart recently did a little editorializing about Iran's supposed intransigence. And while people could certrainly make an honest argument that Iran isn't the only party being hostile and intransigent--thus making Stewart's comedy bit inherently "polarizing by politics", if not wilfully, politically blind--I still thought it humorous.

No....most of the middle eastern tyrants hate Iran, and want to see their nuclear capacity disabled. (You learned this from Wikileaks, by the way, just in case you were wondering from where you got this info!). However, most of the people in the Middle East consider the US and Israel to be the major threats, not Iran. Just so we know about whom we're talking here...and with whose views you are personally aligned.

It's pretty clear from Kimmy's post that she did read and understand your argument. She simply--gasp!--disagrees with you.

I understand the argument against misplaced genre-smashing (and it's why I think Salman Rushdie's novel Fury is a self-indulgent piece of garbage); but there's no real rules about it. And at times it's perfectly fine. Some great comedy has had successes in mixing low and high-brow. Heck, look at Stephen Colbert; he famously mixes it up on every single show, without exception. And no, it doesn't always work. But the mixing-up is not the reason it doesn't work. As for polarizing by politics....another long and noble comic tradition.

Anyone who claims that the non-union, private workforce is inherently "efficient" and "merit-based" has not spent his or her lifetime working in non-unionized private industry. It's incredible to me that people think Theory poached from the oversimplisic pages of introductory texts in the "dismal science" actually trumps objective reality itself. And then gets angry and defensive about this!...but then, I guess that's part of what Fundamentalism is.

He's implying no such thing; he's responding to others who make the claim of the threat. Further, these others are explicit about it, not implicit; they're here on this website; and they are, by most appearances, your conservative compatriots. Therefore, you call "racist" for the folks condeming the "yellow peril" racists, while leaving the actual "yellow peril" racists* alone....which is, I put it to you, at least a kind of implicit support for their views. (I mean they're "racists" according to your measurements, not my own.)

Quite right, especially since there was a Trudeau-era energy policy that they're still smarting over.

Well said, and it's rare for us to look at this matter as rationally as you have.

Slightly off-pace, I agree, though the fourth episode was incredible (and maybe the most brutal of the entire series so far, what with the torturers, and with Joffrey's nasty little sex-violence game. And yes, Tyrion shines, definitely.

Manny's certainly right, that there are of course all sorts of self-labelled "conservatives" who don't tend to share all that much in common. Hell, a middle-aged lefty like myself has witnessed enough liberal idiocy that I have to give conservatives some benefit of the doubt.