bleeding heart

Sure, but I wasn't arguing against public schools, nor for private ones. I was only responding to socialist's idea that disagreement constitutes trolling.

That's just it: first, Ford said HE saw the reporter; then he amended it to "my neighbor told me"; then he insinuated that the man might be a pedophile. Now he says that isn't what he meant...except we heard him say it, and it obviously can have no other meaning. (Unless Ford's defenders would like to posit another possibility? I'd love to hear it! Finally, the police, looking at the journalist's camera and phone, and also checking surveillance video, have concluded that the allegation has no merit.

That he did About Schmidt is incentive enough for me to give it a look. A very fine, very poignant and funny movie.

Well, the argument has been about "market forces"....but it's kind of funny: Whenever someone claims that "market forces" will correctly determine the "proper" wages....that argument has to ignore all sorts of other "market forces" which can, and often do, undermine the very principle, itself. As Boges' Walmart story above illustrates with perfection.

No, not at all.

Mmmmm....parties take this money from taxpayers, through the donation scheme....to help us, and keep us interested in democracy...... I mean, it's not as if you actually believe this. And it's interesting how libertarian-influenced principles about Government, and about taxpayers, so often fly out the window when the more important principle--partisanship!--enters into the conversation.

socialist, "your" thread was not "hijacked by trolls," or by anyone. People have disagreements with you, that's all--and are in fact making some strong arguments, which you refuse to seriously address, for some reason.

Like I said: *shrug.*

I disagree. A good argument can be made that propaganda is more effective in the relatively-more-free societies. If we look at the history of propaganda in the modern-to-contemporary sense, starting with Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, the rise of the PR industry and its relationship with (highly effective) advertising techniques, we get quite an education. Hell, "propaganda" as we generally discuss the term is roughly an invention of the Anglo democracies....its methods heavily borrowed from us by the Nazis and the Soviets.

I would prefer a Harper Government over a Murphy one. A fine interviewer...but then, so is Ghomeishi. Otherwise, Murphy is a polemical blowhard with a fine turn of phrase and a practiced derision for anyone, say, actively opposed to a war, and other such deranged, untenable positions..

"Seen," just so, as commissars are not only willing to believe in distortions....they love them. I can feel some measure of compassion for such frightened little people, but unfortunately there's not much to do except to shrug them off.

Oh, believe me, I will if I can things in order re my computer. As it stands, I can't even cut-and-paste...I have to type every remark to which I'm responding. Point taken, but it sounds like you're rather cynically "making the perfect the enemy of the good." Besides, the primary reason people believe this about Lincoln is precisely because of the effects of the "doctrinal truths" that I mention: for example, hero worship of political figures, which is a weakness that each person would do well to fight, in the way other ugly and violent impulses are repressed by civilized people.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with trusting them. But the trust should be provisional, and subject to diminishment if warranted. All institutions of power and influence require continual institutional analysis. I have no problem with the idea that 9/11 has needed intensive investigation; only that the Truthers have not seemed to go about the investigation or analysis in a sober and robust manner. The method is not to take it for granted that Cheney masterminded it, with the help of Israeli agents or whatever, and then go about cramming facts into this analytical hole. Rather, the proper investigative measure is to NOT assume we are being told the broad truth....but NOT to assume otherwise, either, as often the "Official Truth" is in fact more or less accurate. (As in 9/11 itself.) That is, I have no problem whatsoever with someone saying "I'm not convinced that the government is telling us the truth, and am going to find out." This is not only reasonable...it's part of the bedrock of democratic principle (which is based in one vector on reflexive mistrust of Power and Authority). However, the Truthers, the Kennedy conspiracists, the Bilderberg theorists....as far as I can tell, these folks are not performing a methodology of doubt....but of certainty. Yes, an interesting question. It breaks down like this (and we can make of it what we will): The American public very well might have been outraged if Ford and Kissinger had said, "We are have greenlighted the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia; even though East Timor has done nothing to us, or to Indonesia, and has even asked for our advice on its new Constitution, which is to be modeled after the Western style.... .....Further, Indonesia is a pseudo-fascist state, and so theoretically a natural enemy. But we want the alliance, and there are exploitable natural resources, after all....which has raised the interest of other allies, who are also on board. Further, we will materially aid them in their invasion, which is projected to kill a lot of civilians, for no demonstrable national security reasons on our part.". This is unthinkable....though literally accurate in every point. However, if, years later, the exact same information comes to light--which it has done (though activists were making the same allegations for decades, mind)....yes, you're right, general apathy. However, most of it is due flatly to ignorance, isn't it? I'm not being sanctimonious, as I'm ignorant of many important things myself, this one being a rare exception. But I think it telling that, in several discussions, the "greenlighting the invasion" bit is derided as "conspiracy theory" (or, oddly, "Western self-hatred")...until I link them to the declassified document, which is more than usually clear on this point, actually. Crystal clear, including the plan to deceive the American public about it. At which case the discussion invariably ends, abruptly. So there's more than apathy going on, I think; if I can be blunt, I believe there are Doctrinal "Truths" about Western behavior that are not to be contradicted--factually or through mere opinion--in polite company. (Or maybe folks simply hate being proven wrong, understandably.) On the other hand, I think these things very well may have long-term effects, at least potentially. The broadly-held Western convention of women as intellectually and emotionally sovereign beings is an idea that's been around for a long time; hell, I'm 46, and I personally remember "debates" about whether women actually had the mental fortitude to be professionals, never mind politicos. And that's the early 1970's. A view still held, yes, but deemed reactionary, and usually held only by a minority of relatively hardcore religious fundamentalists (most of whom have also abandoned it, not incidentally). So there are few huge moments of public awareness leading to quick change....but it is the awareness which can lead to change over the longer term.

I can agree with that. All three are fantastic.

Well, in that spirit, thanks for pointing out that "not interested" is also, dictionary-wise, a legitimate definition. I had thought it only meant (roughly) "objectively." Interestingly, looking at the history of the words, I discovered that until the 18th century, "uninterested" meant what "disinterested" (1st definition) now does. This is counterintuitive to me....so I guess I also must not know the history of the prefix "un-". Yeah, fair enough, I just have to concede this one. I guess I just don't wish to have my views associated with what we broadly term "conspiracy theorists"; because I think that view is generally not commensurate with the way things work. My view is far more aligned with the by-now oldschool, often lefty institutional analysis of...well, institutions. Whether my opinions are right or wrong, they're based on mainstream enlightenment philosophy, at bottom....and conspiracy theories don't tend to work too well under such a paradigm. At best, such theories demand better evidence. (There are, incidentally, genuine conspiracies that are real--say, Ford meeting with Suharto and greenlighting the invasion of East Timor...we now know this is fact thanks to the declassified records. Or the accepted 9/11 narrative, which is also a conspiracy theory...that happens to be true: the 19 hijackers, etc. But while these are,, by definition, "conspiracies," obviously the connotations of the term are about what most of us consider irrational theories.)

I apologize for the impression of trying to school you in grammar...not my intent. I thought you had written it in error. And yes (undermining what I've just said), you're absolutely right that both definitions are presented in dictionaries...but why you think the first one incorrect (as you imply) is odd. Not to overstate the matter, but I think the #1 definition far more useful, rather than using both words to mean the same thing. For example, as in the most common comparative adjective phrase in which they are used,, the distinction is always in the same denotative direction, for good reason: "disinterested observer" vs "uninterested observer." Which rather speaks to my point, doesn't it? Already addressed. My very point. You didn't respond to a case of a paranoiac response; you responded to all who have evinced more concern than you do over the matter. Again...as we know from a small handful of religious posters that have shown up here, all people of faith are murderous, creationist morons. My point being that your remarks about those who differ from you on this are objectively untrue. That is, how big a concern this is simply a matter upon which you and I differ; but whether or not I (and the overwhelming majority of folks concerned about the issue) am a "New World Order conspiracist"....well, I put it to you that this is NOT a matter of "opinion," in which we can agree to disagree. (Just incidentally, you have misunderstood Paglia's response: she avers that climate change fears are entirely unwarranted, and that the reason they are believed is because liberals are so ignorant that they don't even know that polar bears can swim. Your take on the matter was not her point at all....she's an outright denier (as opposed to a "sceptic.")

No one would do such a thing!

???? This is an odd way to get around to talking about the government spying on its citizenry. It seems approximately 100% irrelevant. A truly Augustian remark, if you take my meaning. It reminds me of Camille Paglia's bizarre dismissal of climate change concerns: "Liberals are unaware that polar bears can swim." You're caricaturing, by conflating those with genuine concerns about surveillance with the wilder conspiracy types. I had thought you had some objection to such methods of "debate," as in the conflation of all people of faith with terrorist bombers and creationists. That the spying doesn't particularly concern you--including the incontrovertible, inherent fact that our elected, "representative" governments have been lying into our faces about this matter all along--is fine; but it doesn't mean that those who are concerned are a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics. Interestingly, you subsequently go on: Assuming you meant "uninterested" (as MORE "disinterest" might serve us quite well), I don't see how dismissing government spying as a concern only of global conspiracy theorists is exactly robust thinking.

A long and difficult struggle, BC_chick, but you persevered!

Bonam is right; the concern is more than legitimate. And governments, anywhere, do not spy on the citizenry solely to protect them from terrorism, or other threats. The real enemy here is the domestic one, from the point of view of government. And people make a big (and in fact quite ancient) error when they play the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you need not worry" card. As Bonam aptly pointed out, what constitutes "subversion" changes over time.

And you didn't support the "war for democracy" in Iraq....?

Nope...two and a half, he should be a little more manly by now......

Thanks everybody.

I have a sweet little grandson, and am hoping very much for a little grand-daughter someday.

Yep, a weakness, further evidence of the "feminization" (inherently a bad thing, I'm told) of Western civilization. Eyeball would do better to avoid such namby-pamby parenting practices as quickly as possible.