bleeding heart

I don't defend them at all. I think Duffy is crooked as hell. That doesn't, however, mean the PM (and more obviously, at least for now, the PMO) is clean in all this. And Harper has now stated outright that deception came from the PMO...an explicit change of story, as you well know.

You mean when the PM of your own country lies, it is much ado about nothing. If the President of the United States lies...now, that's an outrage!

And these war-friendly, big-business friendly, Establishment-Centrist-Liberals are not quite what most people mean when they talk of "the left." If you are really going to jump on the reactionary train ride of claiming a "left-wing media," it would be even better if you could, well, provide some solid evidence for it.

Harper now claims that the deception came from the PMO.

James Wan of the overworked, overrated "Saw" franchise has been branching out to more PG-13 horror fare. The latest, and by far his best-received, is the "Amityville Horror/Exorcist" conflation called "The Conjuring." I'm pretty ambivalent. I didn't hate it. Didn't like it. But it's hard to imagine a more...well, conventional horror film. Oddly enough in this day and age, it's totally lacking in irony, totally lacking in any moral complications. No doubt is sown among the audience; no characters display moral or ethical complications or contradictions; and there is no subtextual social critique, which I believe the best horror films always play with. It turns out that the ghost is not really a ghost at all, but a demon. That is, an unearthly presence that has never walked the earth as a human being. But all the haunted house/ghost story elements are present. And man, this demon is pure evil. Period. Not only that, but it is a Christian (in fact, Catholic) horror story, complete with crosses, the whole shtick. Interestingly (or maybe not) the Ghost Hunters-cum-Exorcists are played straight. There's no question whatsoever that they are the genuine article, that demon possession is real, and that demons are pure and unadulterated evil. Ostensibly "based on a true story," I feel pretty confidant that this "true story" is the viewpoint of the real-life "ghost hunters" who are two of the four main characters (the other two being the victimized couple...the children are basically props). I'm still trying to consider how this is different--blander, more--ok, let's say it--conservative than a lot of horror films. The difference is clearly present, but I haven't got it clarified yet in my head. Rating: meh.

This is the sort of remark that's bound to generate more erections than a Hustler layout.

Exactly. Why the need to get God involved? I guess it ultimately has something to do with End Times "prophecy." If "self-fulfilling fantasy" has any actual meaning, this kind of stuff will be it.

............

I have suggested that Canada may well have been directly involved in the overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Haiti--and his subsequent replacement by vicious thugs. I have opined that Canada's foreign policy is often quite distinct from the notions of "peacekeepers," and other benign myths. I deride the very notion that countries are moral agents...they are centres of concentrated power, in which the most benefits accrue to the top-tier--not naturally, but in an engineered fashion. I think patriotism is an amoral quality, not a moral (or even innately immoral) one...but that the majority of it bespeaks of normal human weaknesses, not strengths. But I'm not saying the term doesn't exist at all--I'm saying it's unimportant as any sort of "issue." And to suggest that its usage is on par with the promiscuous use of "anti-American" is crazy. But the point only came up at all because Pat Condell used it, and (in his typical fashion) quite viciously. Apparently Condell is a right-winger who wishes to stifle debate? (And to clarify: no, I don't see that as the actual case). I DO think "anti-Americanism" is a rhetorical weapon, and I DO think it's a profoundly stupid term...but I have heard it used by liberals lots of times. The late Christopher Hitchens was quite--shall we say "liberal"--about using it, once his patriotic militarism took over his senses.

But by "we" you don't mean Pat Condell...whose stated views generated this very thread, and whose views you defend quite vociferously. I'm not sure why you hold this man whom you respect so much to such lower standards than you hold the rest of us...especially given that his stated views are the thrust of your own argument here.

I think this is absolutely correct...and as you surely know, it goes both ways, regardless of who started any thread. Myself, Dre, and doubtless many others have been unfairly deemed "anti-semites"...the word "Zionism" need not appear (and I personally don't go into that part of the discussion at all, ever); all one need do is claim bad behavior on the part of Israel...and it won't take long for the anti-Semite label to appear, boiling like a mass of maggots in rotten meat. I should add a point that's not even debatable--anyone who accuses me, personally, of anti-Semitism...is a moral coward and an intellectual loser, without exception.

Me too. I tried it for the first time just a couple of days ago, when I bought a Pumphouse variety pack. Actually, I liked all of them very much, which is unusual.

I believe he's all three. It would appear from the first few paragraphs of his piece that he somewhat agrees with the "d-bag" assessment himself. But it seems inconsequential. It's very much beside the point.

What you actually mean is the opposite of "Western apologism." But no, you're flatly mistaken anyway. First of all, I don't think it is at all a common term...it's virtually non-existent, in fact. Second, I see that you view the two things quite differently: "anti-Americanism" is a very real issue to be taken seriously; whereas "Anti-Canadianism" is a ridiculous term thrown around viciously and without merit. So now you understand how I view cries of "anti-American." As one part too-delicate, and two parts trivial and meaningless.

And so the "appeasers" of retrograde cultural views are not here the progressives--but the conservatives, and, until extremely recently, mainstream liberals.

Wikipedia is the only tolerable of the three, in my view.

The Western powers, of course, are only culpable of terror and mass murder on the command of their dictatorial masters.

I have no idea why you think I've argued otherwise, and from where you summon the qualifier "still"; it's as if you really believe this is part of our ongoing dispute. And I think this illustrates part of my criticism of Condell: the invention of a dispute, and the assumptions of others' positions. Again, I was asking you what is this alleged "Progressive ideology," not for a litany of perceived weaknesses that some progressives might indulge in. And the idea that the faults of liberals, conservatives, and others are ultimately the fault of some sinister entity called "progressivism"--which you as of yet have remained unwilling or unable to even define (and have said elsewhere that only some progressives are guilty of "it," whatever "it" is....appeasement of evil, evidently)....well, the idea is preposterous on its face. OK...but everybody's at fault, according to this existentially catastrophic worldview: conservatives, liberals, the media, everybody. In which case "progressivism" is not a useful term, because it means nothing more or less than "Western society." Precisely not. It sided with the Indonesians, from '75 until '99....when sensing the jig was up, weapons ceased flowing, diplomatic support dried up, and the slaughters ended. And in fact, the killing stopped with such ease and abruptness that we understand it could have been stopped at any time. All the West need do was stop supporting it. There's lots of information; this site is a good start. http://etan.org/etan/

You'll have to clarify what exactly constitutes my embellishment, since you immediately afterwards repeat the same argument I've criticized. I'm not sure why you pretend to speak of generalities, when we were discussing a specific example. And two matters come immediately to mind: First, your argument on this point is not, or not only, with myself....but with everyone who ever tries to deny the ugly truth (which you seem to fully concede, though your conclusions appear to be speculative at best, grotesquely illogical at worst). Which is to say, and this is no exaggeration: virtually everybody. More to the point, you manage to evade the most obvious point which must be generated from your opinion (as you evaded it the first time around, too): you have yet to explain to me how the raping of East Timorese peasants generated wealth for Westerners in general...and for yourself and your family (as per your original example) in particular. I daresay you'd have a terrible time of such an explanation. It's one thing to make broad, general statements as you've done; rather like the more usual approach to the East Timor issue, wherein folks like to utter "Cold War," as if precision in argument is something to be avoided. It's quite another thing to tackle the subject at hand, to illustrate your argument by using....well, the argument we're having.

No need. It's a tough research project, sifting through a large quantity of videos, I get that, and have no reason to demand many hours of research from another poster. I only asked because you offered. No, not really...I think he is (because most people do) distinguishing between "the liberal left" and the farther left--his enemy, no better than Islamist killers, I think--who are often seen as quite combative to one another. For example, when I talked of the Left as early defenders of homosexual rights, I was thinking of the time when more mainstream liberals had no interest in the subject, happy enough to let the bigotry carry on. However, as you have said, and as I have said, and in contradistinction to what (I've so far heard) Pat Condell say, is that the labels are somewhat nebulous, and sometimes overlapping. At any rate, no, I haven't heard him acknowledge anything good about the left, except for vague terms (which he says they don't believe in anymore) such as "tolerance" and "social justice." He also brings up the evidently horrific scourge of "anti-Americanism," without ever acknowledging American--to say nothing of British, Canadian, French, etc--culpability in...well, in anything...except for their alleged "appeasement of Islam" the one unforgiveable sin. At any rate, genuine "anti-Americanism" is only really constituted by people who wish it destroyed. As he uses it, it's close to meaningless. At best, it's a triviality. No one's ever called me "anti-Canadian" for my indictments--whether they're foolishly harsh, somewhat exaggerated, or spot-on. But "anti-American" is used, well, pretty freely, even promiscuously. An interesting phenomenon.

I've never used the report button. Try again.

Awesome. But again, it's not my claim, but reportage.

A terrifying punishment to come, no doubt. Or am I remiss in "intruding" upon remarks meant for GostHacked?

It's not my accusation, but a reiteration of his own stance. Certainly no one's disallowing him to respond. As for "surrender"---well, see it how you like. I enjoy these discussions, but I genuinely don't worry about what you think.

Yeah....I don't think you've got a strong argument here. I was responding about a poster's explicitly stated views, for the purpose of displaying to you that your associative-guilt declaration was silly. Hell, you've practically conceded the point, though unaccountably won't admit it. Everything else has been your attempt at obfuscation.