bleeding heart

???? As opposed to...which candidates?

It is. Interestingly, despite August's protestations, I discovered that typing "WTF is Palm Bay" into Google not a bit more onerous than typing "WTF is Palm Bay" onto a post on this site. But then, WTF do I know?

I have a slight interest in this topic as well, because my parents fit into this mold. They identify as Christians, they go to church every Sunday, and are involved in various church activities (charitable events and fund-raising....the latter because the Canadian Anglican Church is in massive financial trouble and decline). That is, my father, the Christian, flatly disbelieves in the miracles, in the virgin birth....and doesn't, in fact, believe in the Divinity of....Jesus Himself! According to almost-universal Christian doctrine, this last thought alone disqualifies one from being termed a "Christian." To my Dad, Jesus was this really excellent Rabbi, who preached what might be termed a "radical love" for humanity....and whose long-term influence is not only because of the vagaries of religious and political power, but because of the sheer resonance of what was relayed by the man. But perhaps most important to my folks is the sense of a shared community of people worshipping the symbol of human moral perfection. To me, this sounds a little more like Quakerism than the Anglican religion of a Canadian Conservative. But I see little to object to, frankly.

Oy.

No Canadian on this board is more obsessed with--or more critical of--the United States of America than you are. I know, I know--you only despise and ridicule something more than half the nation.......

As if the Mayor of Toronto is not part of the very "establishment" which they incorrectly believe that they despise.

You expect Mr. Wright to publically announce, "The PM was correct, I, Nigel Wright, deceived the Canadian public"? (That is Harper's new claim, as I'm sure you've heard.) Well, maybe. It's not impossible. I guess we'll see.

There we go. Well said.

.......

Of course....but you have repeatedly said that we shouldn't be talking about the PEOPLE who hold views, but the IDEOLOGIES themselves. You wish to cut a break for Condell, but not for me. I should say, you want to cut a break for yourself, as well: interspersed among your suggestions that I stop talking about people, and remain fixated on ideologies (as "Pat" conceives them, yet! )...you have repeatedly "wondered aloud" if I, personally, might not be a Typical Progressive Relativist, or engaging in Typical Progressive "apologism" for evil. Surely you can do something about these waves of contradictions. But this is moot, because neither you nor Condell have yet made a convincing argument that "Progressive ideology"--and in contradistinction to the "old Left"--has at its core all the horrible things you say it has. I think you want me to accept the premises of your argument as a given, and then we proceed from there. but since I don't accept the premises, how can this occur? If your point is that when conservative and liberal governments support terrorism, oppose democracy, intentionally and knowingly fund mass murder....that they are acting in opposition to stated ideology....I'm inclined to agree. But that doesn't matter. It makes zero difference. What matters is what they do. Similar to the issue with progressive racists, in fact. It isn't, as you seem to be saying, that part of "Progressive ideology" is to engage in racism; it's that racism is NOT part of their ideology, so when they engage in it, it's hypocrisy and a betrayal of stated ideals. And that was one of my original points: there is no difference in the hypocrisy and betrayal of principles between (what we're naming as shorthand) "conservatives," "liberals,' and "progressives." The fundamental flaw is the same. ​

I've heard legends of that performance. I'm not especially sorry I missed it though. I think getting rid of honour rolls is counter-productive at worst, useless at best. I might be getting on in years, but I have zero memory of anyone seeming distressed, left out, or debilitated (if such things are at issue here) by the fact that some students were honoured for their achievements.

Because it's good for your brain, to put it in simple, 21st century terms.

I think Schiff was the wrong person to go after Brand, because Schiff had nothing really of interest or insight to say. I see better arguments (including similar ones) right here on MLW on any given day. Having said that, I'm inclined to agree that Brand has not seriously considered all his points. Some of what he says rings true, some of it sounds like the leftist boilerplate of 2nd year undergrads discovering politics for the first time...except that Brand is 38 and is guest Editor of the New Statesman. I find him engaging and energetic...but then, I find the late Christopher Hitchens engaging and energetic, and I disagreed with probably four-fifths of everything he said. Where Brand is good is when he speaks from the gut of compassion and humour rather than from pat socialist retreaded theory. He's correct that there's an underclass (a point probably more potent in his native land than here, but I think there is still some application for what he says for us, too). I partially agree with him about voting...though not completely (but then, I'm a consistent voter, personally). I agree with him about the self-generating incestuousness of the political and monied classes...as a generalization, that is, not as in-every-case. anyway, lots to disagree with, to be sure. But it's good to see discussions and debates of the big ideas, which we need more of...I think we too often ge caught up in the implicit notion that the status quo would be perfect, were in not for the Right, or the Left, or the mushy middle...the (take your pick) wrong people screwing up the sublime system.

I wonder if the response I'm predicting will come, and from the usual suspects.

The closest thing to "death panels" are the private insurers.

I agree the cast was quite decent, I'll give it that.

What a tease.

An argument can be made that no one more viciously protects their "right" to income than those who are already wealthy.

I think this is a strong point, and I think the analogy is better than most internet-debate-analogies. But I'm afraid I don't quite see what it has to do with my post.

Well, as was already clear, that anti-Zionist rhetoric often goes way too far is not something we disagree on, though perhaps you missed my agreement in the earlier post (#241). For the record, I don't consider harsh criticism of Zionism to be anti-Semitic, even though I consider Zionism more complex than its critics, maybe. That all anti-semites are also anti-Zionists is true, but doesn't alter the first point. But of course, that has exactly zero to do with anyone who does not post in such a way--myself for example--and nevertheless have more than once been deemed an "anti-Semite," based on nothing at all except, presumably, fear of having an honest discussion. However, for those who engage in such unfair debating practices, there's nothing I can (or should) do about it. Except to point it out, on the off-chance that some other intellectual weakling takes their invective as wisdom or insight.

This is beside the point I was making: you said we should focus on ideologies, rather than the actual people who might be described as holding to these ideologies. I pointed out that all this has been in context of Pat Condell's videos...in which he consistently, rancorously, and explicitly condemns and vilifies the people whom he perceives as holding such views. Which is why I asked why you hold Condell--whom you evidently admire, and with whom you agree--to a lower standard in this discourse. Especially given that his views are what generated this very discussion. Since you actually quoted what I actually said, this is a baffling response. I wrote (and you quoted me): Seriously, we've gotten to the sorry point where you aren't reading my remarks even as you respond to them...unaware even of the very words you quote!

Oppositional politics (ie democracy) are, well, oppositional. Do you suppose that this has all suddenly been invented by the official Opposition to the Conservatives? That in the old days, the Opposition Parties would say, "Hey, let's give the Government credit, stop bugging them, and don't worry about future elections"?

Whether or not poster "socialist" is an outright troll or not, he or she quite obviously, and consistently, goes to some lengths to be provocative, maybe for provocation's own sake.

In most contexts, it's a totally unfair pre-emptive strike. But because it goes after those (and only those) who intentionally use such unfair "debating" tactics, it's all good.

And Conservatives seemed to believe a few weeks ago that Nigel Wright was a man of honour and integrity...because Harper said so. Now that Harper seems to be changing his tune...he will be blindly supported in his different opinion. And you know this is true. And the partisanship is not the biggest issue here...hell, Harper's supporters are not exactly famous for their objective lack of partisanship, now, are they? It doesn't matter, scribblet. Hopefully the truth will come out, and then we'll all know. Why you care that people who hate Harper will, predictably, continue to hate him no matter what...you haven't explained.