bleeding heart

Guyser: I agree with your post, as I always do, except for the point about guys' vs. girls' bathrooms. Ask any cleaner, janitor, maintenance worker, etc: women's public washrooms are a disgusting disgrace, that make the stench and evil of men's bathrooms an oasis by comparison. I have no idea why this is, since in every other way I am aware of, men are three to seven times more disgusting than women.

Since Carville is a Democrat PR Agent extraordinaire, he most certainly abides by "scripts." It's just that, as with the more talented paid deceivers PR experts, he can talk off-the-cuff, amiable, genial, humorous...but always staying on message. Some people seem to think that The PR industry--both in politics and advertising (which are closely linked)--spends and gets paid billions of dollars a year for...telling simple homespun truths! This delusion underscores nothing except that they're good at what they do.

Just to clarify, the reporters were not relying on hearsay evidence. They had personally seen the evidence. Now, I agree that, for the rest of us, who hadn't, it was reasonable to wait to see t for ourselves. But the reporters were not vindicated in that they happened, luckily, to be correct; they always knew they were correct, even if the rest of us couldn't be 100% sure. Also, journalistic assertions have never had to be directly corroborated. "Anonymous sources"--usually, though not always, meaning bland assertions by government officials--have always been given the shiny gloss of "objective truth"....for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. that's why we "knew" that Reagan was not involved in intentionally funding terrorist groups in Latin America, and that France's hopes and dreams for the Algerians was always based on humanitarian principles, and that the UK would never knowingly send weapons to Generals committing genocide.... .....because of the uncorroborated claims made by the government, and often presented as "fact" in the press. Are things worse now than before? Maybe...I honestly couldn't say.

Surely the NDP can find some bigger fish to fry.

Alright, Shady, then you can of course show where I've "come to their defense on a regular basis." Or once, for that matter. I await your retraction, though without holding my breath.

I appreciate your post here, Rue, but I have a point of contention: I was talking of general, public criticisms; you brought up the UN. that is a good discussion ton have too, of course, and I can even take your point regarding Israel...but the US? How does the UN hold the US to a standard it does not apply to other countries? If anything, the UN is too lenient, no doubt because of America's immense power and influence. The US gets practically a free rise from all powerful entities, including the UN...which frequiently is in collusion with violent American policy. Hell;, the Americans can intentionally and materially help mass terrorists, as they did with the Indonesian pseudo-fascists....and the UN remains toothless and mostly silent.

I didn't mean the spokesperson admitted to breaking the law--paid PR professionals cannot do such a thing, obviously, as much of their job is spin and deception (by definition, actually).. What she said was that spying on Canadian citizens is illegal (and against the explicit mandate of the organization, under law). The law that was broken is, of course, that CSEC has indeed been spying on Canadian citizens. You have already conceded this point, earlier, apparently misunderstanding the law and thinking there are cases in which CSEC is allowed to do this. But that is not the case.

??? they tracked Canadians' wireless activity. That is spying on Canadians. That is illegal...as even CSEC's spokesperson declared.

Keepitsimple, you seem to post a lot--both about and directly to--a fellow poster whom you've got on "ignore." It begs the question of why you have him on ignore, doesn't it?

Yes, I switched from Rogers to Bell Aliant. I should add that I'm not disparaging the non-cable methods. I mentioned Netflix, which I'm not crazy about, but as you point out, there are others...and in conjunction, I see that the service can be really good. I like my cable, but I'm not married to it. If other options seem better, I'll go in that direction.

Ah, I see. That's not my situation. I have the pay based on demand feature (which I never use), but the free on-demand content is actually much larger, and better. It's no slower than Netflix (actually, it's far quicker and easier to navigate)...and the selection is, in my opinion, far stronger than that of Netflix. Netflix has price going for it, to be sure. Aside form that, I find it inferior in literally every single way.

Mighty AC, I'm not big on channel flipping either (unlike my wife, who can do it all the day long). But the "subscription" option in my cable package allows me to watch what I want, when I want; and while the content is considerably less than Netflix, it's nonetheless in the several hundreds, if not thousands...and there are better movies and tv programs available, as well as newer ones.

I was once given a warning (by the Chief, no less, for some reason walking about in his pure white uniform). He informed me that jaywalking tickets do indeed occur.

While I always like, and often agree with Bonam's posts, including those on religious subjects, I'm inclined to Tim's view on this matter. Contrary to Hitchens' "Religion poisons everything," I believe that religion (and at its worst) merely replicates and exploits already-existing weaknesses in the individual and social psyche. In the same way that people can't, at the moment anyway, sprout wings and fly, I see it as impossible for religion to cause abominable behavior; to clarify (because I understand this sounds, at best, counterintuitive), religion as a negative is an effect, not a cause. All the horrors are innate, innately human. And religion is a, not the, vessel in which bad ideas and bad compulsions can be exacerbated. Hell, we can look right here; I daresay all of us on MLW have at times shaken our heads in disbelief at ideas we perceive as so profoundly preposterous (even dangerous, at times) that we might view the offending ideas as faith-based....as, effectively, religious ones. I've not a doubt that people have thought this of myself, as I have of many others. (to complicate things a bit, the person who is viewing others with amazement can herself be misperceiving reality thanks to her, effectively "religious," worldview on certain subjects. That is, our opinion that someone is thoughtless or incorrect or crude or stupid can be the result of our own "religious" views on political matters.) This is all just my long and self-indulgent way of saying that the non-religious are in most ways--and fundamental ways--beset by the same weaknesses. (And strengths, but that's maybe a slightly different subject.) I should add that I'm not defending Biblical literalists, Creationists, violent jihadists or the killers of abortionists. I have no patience for religious lunacy. Fortunately, and self-evidently, the vast majority of religious people (ie the majority of people) are only occasionally lunatics, as I rarely am myself.

Where in the world does anyone get the idea that there is "no outrage" over the behavior of Iran, China, Russia? There is plenty of outrage, it's ubiquitous (and well-deserved, incidentally). It's funny: erstwhile "defenders" of Israel, of the US, and many other countries sure like to whine about their reputational persecution. It's a nationalist hobby in France too, so I understand, and (at least among the political Right) in the UK, forever crying about the mean things people say about their favoured geopolitical entity. And lest we forget, geopolitical entities is the actual subject here. Nationalists simply do not like criticism...of forgodsakes countries, not even of themselves! And let's also not forget that nationalism is grotesque, even a form of cowardice. To be avoided like other bad habits and cultural weaknesses.

Derek, the presumption of innocence is a legal term (and a crucially important one, yes); but the majority of cases that go to court (yes, including civil court) are actually guilty. That's because the Prosecution cannot afford--financially, politically, and ethically--to put too many probably innocent people before the judge. In other words, while presumption of innocence is absolutely necessary, I don't think that you genuinely believe that the majority of people being charged with crimes are actually innocent, beforehand. If I tried to make that argument, you'd laugh it out of the room, and properly so. What you're doing is offering special pleading for the more powerful entities. Hell, even such a power-worshipper as Conrad Black had his eyes opened about the difference between the legal treatment of the weak vs the strong, despite his own case being a rare exception. As for CSEC spying on Canadians...well, of course they did (do), as you concede. And it is illegal.

But the idea isn't to "tell banks that they must pay the cost of an outside service provider"; as Derek pointed out, the proposal would allow a smaller fee...one that would still cover their costs. (And a little extra, in fact.)

Derek, But you're "doubt[ing] anything will come of it" is not a "prejudiced legal view"....even though you've made a declarative opinion on the outcome...that I have refrained from doing? As for why the Government would break its own laws rather than amending them...well, first of all, the government cannot always simply amend laws to suit its purposes, however much our little spy-lovers wish it were so. But it's moot...if CSEC is spying on Canadian citizens, that IS breaking the law. If you want to know why they didn't simply amend the law instead of breaking it, you'd have to ask them.

"What deception?" You ask directly before you proceed to defend that very deception. And the defense itself demands absolute trust in government agencies....a brand spanking new worldview for Derek, I would say, given your notions on government generally. As for overreach....the case is likely to go before the courts--presumably based in part on the findings (well, lack of findings, all thanks to CSEC's illegal activity...or total incompetence, take your pick) of CSEC's watchdog.

I see very little tinfoil-hattery going on, but a lot of concern about government agencies spying on us; not to mention the incontrovertible fact that they have been lying directly into our faces about it...and some of our faces are wan with obedient credulity, while others take a more libertarian approach to the matter. I understand the "meh" response...but given the twin overreach of spying and deception, it's actually a fundamental opposition to democratic principles. I suppose if one is adolescent enough to believe that powerful men are merely protecting us from Islamist Evil, it's not a big deal. Since I think only stupid people and nationalists--I know, redundant--really are that credulous, I don't suppose offering bedrock principles of the Enlightenment philosophy that undergird modern democracy is going to be much use in such discussions. As for NSA--I wasn't talking about those draconian bozos, nor the cute little sycophants who applaud them. I was speaking of CSEC. We shall hopefully see how far they've overreached (as their own watchdog suspects, thanks to their (no doubt intentionally) "shoddy record keeping" on the matter of illegal spying on Canadian citizens)...once the Civil Liberties case goes to court, which is in the works as we speak.

"Under the law [CSEC] is prohibited from targeting Canadians." -- Lauri Sullivan, spokesperson, CSEC

Kevin O'Leary is busily reprising the Gordon Gekko role, however.

It's true there are a few goodies to be enjoyed (though I maintain that Law and Order is a little on the "meh" side.) But for my money, I still think True Detective has them all beat...at only three episodes. Sure, it could get worse...and any possible subsequent seasons might or might not live up to my subjective love affair with it. But so far, I think it's the best yet.

Damn, I forgot, you're right....The Wire, ok, that ranks right up at the top as well.

When I was a teenager and VHS was a newborn--this was before Blockbuster came along, or at least before it came to Fredericton--I used to prowl the video store looking for the subversive exploitation flicks, the "video nasties" as they were termed (and sometimes banned) in Britain. It was a search for movie thrills that felt...illicit, somehow. The kind of movie that I felt scared to even watch...that's what was looking for. So I watched I Spit on Your Grave, Driller Killer, The Last House on the Left. I could never find Cannibal Holocaust, though I finally watched it a year or two ago. A raft of 70s exploitation films, most of them dull and disappointing; but mostly horror films. Most are not especially good movies, and some are downright awful. Once in a while, I would subject myself to a truly unpleasant movie experience...oddly, you might say, just what I was hoping for. Some of this feeling has stuck with me, even though I'm now old and eminent. I think it has nothing much more to it than the desire to be deeply affected by what I'm watching; nihilistic dread has its pleasures, as many a fan of horror films can attest. I've seen some good ones, too, and not long ago: the French films Martyrs and Inside, brutal and transgressive, but (I'd argue) really fine movies. And then there's A Serbian Film, which has become infamous in horror-fan circles...and the fans are divided right down the middle, it seems. The movie is, I guess, more or less symbolically about the oppression, the mass killings and rapes, the war...and this is vaguely alluded to. As such, it goes to great lengths and clear effort to make itself as repellent as possible. Milos is an ex-pornographic actor, who is contacted by a mysterious figure offering a ridiculous sum of money to make the first truly Artistic Porn film...one which, this shadowy producer-director says, will be about "real sex, real life." Well, it's called "A Serbian Film" for a reason, so you can imagine how it degenerates. There are virtually no taboos. The violence is so extreme and dirty that it reaches absurd levels....but then, given what I assume to be a vaguely metaphorical context or subtext, this makes sense. The last half of the movie is a hallucinatory nightmare of sadism and murder and grotesque sexual violence. I've seen movies that disturbed me more, but probably none that tried so hard to do it. I should add that I heartily do not recommend this movie. I'm not being in any way coy here: I genuinely do not recommend anyone put themselves through it. I think that most people would either find it too distressing, or else simply a waste of time. I'd say it's a strong effort, but that it goes too far for my taste.