bleeding heart

Interesting op, cybercoma. there appears to be a rough hierarchy of oppression amongst the more extremist countries; with "apostate women" being roughly at the bottom of the acid pit. Afghan MP Malalai Joya, who knows something of this hierarchy first-hand (her own startling political success notwithstanding) has had much to say on this matter. But, cybercoma, I think she would also be wary of international intervention...unless, perhaps, it were to take local dissidents and peaceful rebels as the proper people with whom to negotiate and power-share. And that's simply not the way we prefer to do business. For example, she has spent her adult life battling both the Taliban and the Warlords; but she also knows full well that Afghans (and by extrapolation Sudan and others) simply cannot trust Western forces as exemplified by NATO. As for the UN...they have been tools of the US/Canadian/French imperial ambitions in Haiti over the past decade--and explicitly so. It's not even concealed. So UN "intervention" has to be taken with a fat grain of salt, too.

Further, smallc's responses have been typical of the formulaic apologetics for Western crimes (which he implies earlier might not exist at all, an astonishing view); first, as in the response above, he suggests that it would be illogical for media to ignore the "huge story" of "government untruths" (in this case, the predictable "untruth" is about intentional, material support of state terrorism resulting in a minimum of 100 000 murders)...of course the Government(s) are going to cling to "untruths" on a matter of international aggression, state terror, and mass murder when they among the guilty parties. But he then says that the story, which he elsewhere claims must never have happened...since he doesn't know about it...since the media didn't report it...never took hold because the public "wasn't interested." Meaning, I suppose, that he isn't interested. Patriotic "truths" are more important than facts, after all. If one has grown up thinking (as most of us have, I believe) that this benign entity we call "the West," most certainly including the particularly Noble Anglo nations, has "the world's" best interests at heart, and always is trying to Do the Right Thing--maybe occasionally making minor "mistakes" which does us no good to dwell upon too much--well, then of course you're refusing to ever have a serious discussion about global affairs. It's not far off from debating with Creationists; and I doubt this is an exaggeration.

But I've named some that were scarcely brought up...and you say "people don't care, and it won't sell papers"...right after telling me the omissions wouldn't happen, because it's a "huge story." You want it both ways. And I didn't say the truth never comes out; I stated--explicitly--the precise opposite. In plain English. Sometimes it does....often it does not. that's why our propaganda is so much more effective than the cruder version beloved by more authoritarian states. Hell, you're trying to defend it...first by saying the media wouldn't ignore a "huge story" (like intentional Western complicity in the outright murder of a hundred thousand...maybe almost twice that...a fairly "huge story," doncha think? Makes Putin look like Gandhi in comparison, yes?)...and then you changed tack as soon as your silly idea was effortlessly demolished, citing Market Principles [sic] as the cause of Western public ignorance of Western crimes.

Government untruths are sometimes a huge story...and sometimes virtually ignored. Especially--just as I've said--in matters of foreign entanglements. How much interest have you seen in the major news media about the overthrow of the elected leader of Haiti--to be replaced by a West-friendly dictator? And the evidence of Canadian, American and French complicity in the circumstance? While it's true there is a lot of salient information missing....there's a lot more than what we know about what's happening in Ukraine. What about east timor, with over a hundred thousand murdered...with the intentional and material help of Western governments? That's explicitly criminal, and in fact eclipses anything Putin is even currently accused of doing. Does that not sound to you like a "huge story"? But it wasn't...and still remains mostly under the radar. I can go on interminably, if you like; the fact is you haven't considered any of these matters at all...which is your right, but it begs the question of why you'd pronounce on a subject about which you haven't thought about for five minutes.

Wrong. Sometimes the kitchen staff does indeed share in the pooled tips. I was there...I benefited from it.

smallc, whether or not "corporations would benefit from spinning the government line" is arguably beside the point. One of the most important aspects of journalism is the issue of "sourcing." the news media needs cheap and continual sources of information, ones that appear credible. "Appear" being the operative word." So the vast, the overwhelming amount of source material that journalists use comes from government and big business spokespeople. that's just the way it is. So we get a huge amount of our information from an alignment of professionally-friendly, establishment sources, whose need to "stay on message" is more than profound...it's crucial. This is reported to us, stenography style, as "fact" from "credible sources" (ie those with a stake in getting their message out in a particular way). Unfortunately, this is even more the case in matters of international and militaristic matters....precisely when we need more independence. But it's expensive to get "facts" elsewhere, so "officials" are relied upon; there is the possibility of intense research, but it takes time and effort which journalists often cannot spare, especially in meeting deadlines and keeping up with news cycles. The farthest most "dissent" goes is partisanship...that is, ask the Opposition, or prefer one type of party-friendly "think tank" over one more aligned with the other party. In other words, we get propaganda....sometimes even accurate, or semi-accurate propaganda, but more often there is deception...usually completely unwilling and ill-considered, I should add. this is all rather starkly visible in the Ukraine matter....I personally, after pointing out numerous times that Putin is a "thug" and a "criminal" (I use quotation marks because "m quoting myself)...have been several times termed a "Putin-supporter" or "anti-Western." I would go even further...those who willingly believe what they are told by people in power, especially over matters of international affairs, are "anti-West"...because they don't believe in accountability, and are even unaware--shockingly unaware--that one of the primary reasons for a democratic system is predicated on mistrust for people in Power. A rational, historical distrust, I might add...and therefore useless, even hostile, to a system of government-friendly media propaganda.

Michael, I don't think you understood my point. My point is that you have stated that the electronic snooping isn't a terribly big issue for you...that you've got some concerns, but that it's not one of the biggest issues in your view. Which is all good, don't get me wrong. But you also point out that you're not alone...that Canadians are very much divided between those who think this incredibly important, and those who think it less so. Also true. I was only pointing out that you, personally, undoubtedly have much more profound and visceral concerns about this or that, when it comes to what the Government is (or isn't) doing....and that, per your argument, lots of Canadians wouldn't give a rat's behind about what you're concerned about. Meaning only that "Canadians are divided" is not an answer to somebody's concern about government intrusion and authoritarianism; Canadians are very divided on, literally, almost every single issue you could name. Certainly fear of terrorism is not big on Canadian (citizens') radars, for example. why would this division be an "answer" to those concerned about this issue...and not, say, ones you consider more important?

Well, there's some truth to that. I think taxes should be raised across the board (excepting the lower-income workers...and yes, I get that the devil's in the details when determining criteria); further, I think the tax hikes themselves should reflect the "progressive tax" hierarchy, so that the increases themselves are percentage-wise bigger, the more income you've got. I'm doing well enough that I would feel it...and the only reason I bother to mention it is because of the "spending other people's money" claim that invariably gets thrown out.

Well, I don't know, argus...you keep making claims, and then asking me to research them.. Which, being a friendly sort, I have so far done. but now you ask how dangerous later-term abortions (the tiny minority) are compared to live births. I don't know. Neither do you...so why not look it up?

What are you talking about? Do a Google search, and you'll get plenty of them, immediately and without effort.

Jbg, your question doesn't pertain to a single thing I've ever said on the subject. What in the world makes you think I've been talking about "the West['s]...interference in [Russia's] internal affairs"? I mean, you're making declarative claims...so undoubtedly you could back them up by quoting where I've even faintly hinted at it. On the contrary, I have stated, repeatedly, that Russia's behaviour is completely unjustified, and that Putin is, and I quote, "A thug" and "a criminal." Now, you and Shady can't even see such things when they're written....and why? Well, because I also tend to criticize Western behavior. Totalitarians cannot abide 50% agreement...it's got to be closer to 100%, or else I'm "supporting the enemy," or other such childish and outlandish remarks. Weak, brother. Weak.

I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I find the entire kerfuffle here quite odd. The Obama administration, in keeping with proud tradition, is a profoundly criminal, violent organization. This particular episode scarcely ranks a mention in comparison to other matters....the ethical (and likely legal) rot of many drone strikes, for the most glaring example. I suppose it's less of a political football because the aristocratic little gangsters (aka "The Republican Party") are quite onboard with murderous drone strikes...a few fringe exceptions, both in the Republican and Democrat parties, notwithstanding.

I'm not suggesting that regulating abortions causes abortions....I'm saying that regulating abortions does not clearly and unambiguously decrease the number....especially since, as I said, almost all of them occur in the first trimester anyway. And by the way...when you remarked on the health risks, you of course must have been unaware that childbirth is riskier to a woman's health than abortion...and by a large measure. Which begs a question that I need not ask, I hope.

Well, if countries like Sweden are the holy Grail, it would appear we are aligned de facto anyway, by practice if not by policy...according to UOttawa stats I looked at, 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and most of the others are performed by 16 weeks (thus beating the super-magical 18 week number anyway). further still, abortion in Canada is on the low end of numbers in developed countries (though Quebec apparently skews statistics up just slightly). So for those who think there should be fewer abortions, maybe emulating nations with higher rates is not plainly the direction in which to go.

Yes, a significant portion of the public wants certain controls legislated over a woman's right to choose....but why? If you're opposed to abortion, why would it be acceptable before (for example) 18 weeks? If you support a woman's right to choose, why restrict it to 18 weeks...or determine that a "health board" [sic] needs to make the decision for her? I can understand the principled positions: none at all, or no arbitrary "week" restrictions. The rest sounds to me like either 1) a sort of stealth attack on reproductive freedom, or 2) a position which is simply ill-considered, ill-thought out. For most folks, I think it's the second, and is a view unconsciously influenced by anti-abortionists.

His post is silly, and best ignored.

Oh, well, sure; if someone has any criticism of the media's general handling of the ongoing crisis...they must be "useful idiots" for Putin, as well as "anti-West." Anyway, it's interesting that you think all those who complain of "leftist bias" in the media are "useful idiots" and "anti-West." Because you can't have it both ways.

Just so. The idea that we should emulate Sweden because....well, for some unstated reason....doesn't convince me. I consider Canada's position on abortion superior to Sweden's.

Besides, Michael, while you're only...shall I say, "tentatively concerned" about this matter, there are doubtless other issues about authority, accountability et all that you do feel much more impassioned about; and yet, as with all things, you will note that "Canadians are divided" over how serious any of those issues might be. Probably almost without exception. So I don't quite get how "Canadians are divided" is an answer...unless you offer a "meh" to all issues, since there are few that have even a terribly large majority agreement. For example, I would put it to you that very few Canadians are seriously, profoundly worried about terrorism....and yet terrorism is the reason [sic] precisely for the increased government intrusions.

Smallc, the Western media frequently spins in favour of Western government positions, at least in terms of foreign entanglements. I think Chomsky/Herman's "Propaganda model" is especially convincing.

Jay Gould, Robber Baron:

I do remember a discussion about magnets which displayed Herculean patience. Hats off!

Yes, she may well get her redo. time will tell. And I agree with your assessment. As for what many see as Obama's betrayal...some on the Left were saying from the beginning--before the election, even--that the idea of Obama tracking far to the left of the Democratic power core would be institutionally impossible, or at least unlikely. As I remember, one could get a sense from Obama supporters that such critics were, well...ruining the party, as it were.

I understand that you and bud both think "Israel!" should be inserted into every discussion, no matter what. Some of us disagree...but fill your boots.

Thanks, Michael! Incidentally, I'm slightly surprised that an out-of-context "it is not because we care about children" (to explain that this, among other things, does not explain the organization's effectiveness) can be read as "we don't care about children."