bleeding heart

I agree. The banks are rotten institutions, no doubt. But I believe the OP was moving in a slightly different, uglier direction, more away from truth than towards it. Dre has turned a bad thread into a potentially interesting one. Good on him.

But no one's caling you out on your hypocrisy for these actions (which are politically activist, by definition)...rather, for the hypocrisy of your lack of attention to other matters in which you are not involved. Why hold the demonstrators to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

Yes. A sober view, and the most likely scenario.

So...we've got international banking conspiracies here; and elsewhere remarks about the Jews.... I have little doubt they all tie together, yeah? This stuff is old, bigoted, and long-past discredited, m' man.

Bush said that drinking used to be an issue for him...that's not unambiguously an "alcoholic." At any rate, it appears that he quit, so there's no issue by any standards.

The different name was an accident--I meant it as a signature, not a name (I still have "bloodyminded" as a login); and it amused me, so I kept it. Plus, I couldn't really care less. You are the third or fourth person to whom I've mentioned that "bleeding heart" is formerly "bloodyminded"...it's not as if I'm trying out a new identity. So, yes, your response was slightly odd.

On the contrary, those are synonyms.

It would appear you disagree with the police. Not authoritarian enough for you?

That's an odd response, yeah?

It's an unneccessary and silly blunder. But since the family's ok, then that's the main thing.

Yes, while responsibility for other involved nations' forces is casually diminished, as if the US is the only culpable agent. So on that matter we touch on some sort of agreement. However, I was talking specifically about the way we speak about the Afghans themselves--either as supportive of the West, or as crazed fanatics. I was responding to your remark: Which is true; just as my response is true. That's not entirely surprising, since he and I are the same person. I don't see why one must be equal to the other. If you feel it's an imbalance--remarks about Joya versus remarks about military folk behaving admirably--that you're trying to rectify, then by all means, more power to you. But it seems a false dichotomy. Joya isn't screaming about "the troops"; she's suspicious and critical of the NATO intervention wholesale. Perhaps you're right. And that has nothing whatever to do with my remarks, which were not about bad behaviour of certain military personnel, but rather a rejoinder that some Afghans who are not crazed lunatics nonetheless do not like our presence there, and do not support it. I'm "glossing over what you said" because I'm not nodding eagerly at your every word, and am adding another, mostly ignored, point of view. As I've already openly admitted, based on your cute little "rollseyes" response, that my assessment was "incorrect"...what more do you want? Should I have conceded the point twice, rather than once? Again: see above. What makes you think that I considered your explanation a good one? So by "power system" you didn't mean all of them--you only explicitly said it. You were only talking about "degrees of power" (a distinction not intitially present, but which evidently we're meant to take as a given, thanks to our mind-reading abilities). Degrees of power is a complex measurement which I assume you've got all worked out. Well, of course; I never implied otherwise. My initial response started with "And there are also": an unequivocal agreement with your main thesis.

Interesting. If you're right that excessive oversight is the primary cause of inefficiency (and you'd know better than I, so I defer to your judgement here) then of course your next point is correct as well; the ineffiencies will continue just as before, and for the same reasons, but may in fact be exacerbated....fewer people subject to the same amount of work and to the same culture of excessive oversight.

Right. There is as yet no definitive proof of the Government's wrongdoing, which means that it's all bulls***; except, just by the way, the NDP are probably responsible.

Then why is it "so-called"?

Ah! A good point. Without Enemies, they would be compelled to create some....

What of it? Pol Pot was worse than Pinochet; I eagerly agree. Therefore you're going to defend Pinochet? As if it must be an either/or formulation? So much for your derision of zero-sum notions; you're inventing new ones as you go along. Here's another one, rather more germane to our actual discussion: who was worse, Pinochet or Allende? Let's use number of killed, "disappeared," imprisoned, silenced and tortured as the crucial marks of delineation....rather than tax-law, or who is allied with whom. (The latter point is the only one that seriously matters to the intellectual sycophants and Commissars; the rest of us can ignore it as irrelevant to the question at hand.) Pinochet "wins," hands down. You're the one who brought up Allende vs. Pinochet. That is, a hypothetical extremism vs. an objectively-the-case, really-existing one. A "debate" in which you firmly place your support for the latter. Your first point, generalization though it is, can at least be argued for or against on its merits. Your second point is boiler-plate, and is demonstrably false. The Right is, and always has been, firmly authoritarian. Now, there is a sector of the intellectual libertarian right which feels (or at least talks the game) much as you say. And interestingly, many of them have explicitly allied themselves to the radical Left, as the only other openly anti-authoritarian sector of the political spectrum. I'm thinking Andrew Bacevich, Paul Craig Roberts, and conservative intellectuals of their ilk. This is an aspect of democratic representation--period. It's not a "leftist" issue but a mainstream one--and has long been debated and discussed as we all try to navigate complex issues of democratic governance.

And? Is there an underlying point here? No doubt...but can you think of a single contentious issue in which this isn't the case?

Good for you, Kimmy. Such insensitive provocations should not go unanswered. My own special identity-group is considering action against the "...for dummies" series of how-to books. Such insults will not stand.

Most of the discussion is about the medieval religious fanatics who hate us; or the Afghans who like us. No, those I mentioned are rarely discussed. Very rarely. It was not a dismissal; no more than your decision to provide some context of military personnel behaving admirably and courageously is a dismissal of other points of view. I'm assuming you aren't dismissing other points of view; I ask only for the basic civility of assuming the same about me. I said "attack"; you said "dismissal." If that helps you, fine. Both are incorrect, just by the way; my incorrect assessment of your view, and your clarification. Well maybe you could be so kind as to clarify what you mean. Is an elected MP not part of the "power system"? Who? The Afghans? What are you trying to get at exactly?

What makes you think that it's "a legitimate expression" to do such a thing?

Yes, I'm aware of that. You stated this; I (in the spirit of your call for balance) pointed out a third (rarely discussed) element...and you repeat yours again? Why? Why do you take my remark as some sort of attack? Well, as for Joya: she has spent her entire adult life battling both the Taliban and our Warlord allies (many of whom are idelogical twins of the Taliban itself). At great personal risk. Constant death threats, including from other MPs and our own Afghan allies, all in the name of secular humanism, women's, children's and minority rights, a more liberal political system and laws based on protecting individual rights. So your stated opinion--that we have troops there who not only have done more for the Afghans--but who "care more about them"--is preposterous.

The question is why aren't you demonstrating in front of the book shop?

But determining that written advocacy is identical with the act itself is not a given; at least it's a legally (and morally) complex matter in some cases. Because that's we're talking about: written advocacy, not the act itself. Do those who advocate for war in Iran constitiute war criminals? I'm not being coy; it's a serious, perfectly germane question.

But you--you, Peeves--do believe in taxation. So you support "stealing," in your own formulation. And so it is literally impossible to take your arguments seriously; or to even suppose that you mean them seriously. Which kinda begs a question or two, don't you think?