bleeding heart

I disagree. Excellent businesses are about profit, not profit margins. The insurance industry has, designed as its actual business model, thin margins, But because of volume, the profits are extremely high indeed. Credit services work on the same principle, as do, generally, banks.

I dislike insurance companies as much as the next person, but these don't strike me as totally unreasonable questions. the first is about how much time you will spend on the road--usually in heavy traffic; the second is about potential damage to your vehicle, isn't it? I answered both honestly....and am paying a whopping 65$/mo.

I have no doubt at all.

I'm not sure what's worse about this: the elementary douchiness, or the fact that the humour is poor by any standards (offensive or otherwise) of what constitutes good humour. I mean, parse it out, on its OWN douche-y terms...it still fails muster.

I hear this a lot ("What about the Sudan?" is arguably the most common refrain), but I don't think much of it, honestly. Using your logic, why in the world would they concern themselves with atrocities in Egypt...when there are the monumentally worse horrors that have been long unfolding in the Congo? Or why not Haiti, for that matter, a poverty- and violence-stricken country so extreme that it simply cannot support the thriving tourist industry of, oh, say....Egypt?

I agree, but only provisionally. The crude, fundamentalist, God is a giant, humanoid, physical entity sort of belief...I do consider that to be Cosmic Gummy Bear stuff. However, the metaphor-laden versions are another matter. I'm just not feeling them, but that doesn't seem to me too relevant. For example, my father goes to church every Sunday, and he calls himself a Christian. Yet he doesn't believe in the Divinity of Christ. (To many people, this disqualifies him from being called a "Christian," but neither he nor I cares too much). Rather, he takes comfort and meaning in the idea that a community of people worship the idea of moral perfection, of love being the most important human quality, and how it is symbolized in the story of a really cool Rabbi named Jesus. I don't see anything to object to.

Jacee's right. The US is a complex society, and as with all complex societies, the variation of opinion is massive. Even as far as generalizations go, there are pretty significant regional distinctions, and then further distinctions within each region. At any rate, the cultural/social similarities between Americans and Canadians far outweigh the differences, in my experience. So on that note, maybe I'm being self-indulgent when I say that Americans are awesome people.

No, because, again, Asimov's lack of belief is of a reasonable genesis (if I can use the word ). That he has "articles of faith" himself, as we all do, doesn't mean these articles of faith are equal in any way...not in what they signify, and not in how and why we adhere to them. As he says, "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist." Just so. No one does. But, as we keep going round and round about here, that applies to an innumerable number of not-proven ideas that virtually no one expects us to adhere to. The philosopher Bertrand Russell came to a vaguely related conclusion: in the most pedantic sense of the word, most atheists are actually "agnostic" (though not in the sense that many agnostics themselves use the term); but we can only call them agnostic insofar as they are agnostic about a thousand different notions, many of them monumentally preposterous. That is, a concession that we can't prove a negative (which is a concession that people of religious faith seem predisposed to avoid....as they must, or else question their own faith) is necessary only because the religious side of these debates refuses to give ground, so such generous concessions to pedantry must be tolerated. So, no, we can't "prove" there is no God. Just as we cannot "prove" that we exist at all, Descartes' possibly faulty formula (Cogito ergo sum) notwithstanding. We cannot "prove" we aren't surrounded by a gaggle of invisible, capering demons, either. THAT'S the level such concessions are working from.

Way the F over here in Canada's East, it was 6:48...which is almost a civilized hour.

But that's not the way to measure it. Walmart's admirers like to make the same point (and tend to underestimate profit margin, but that's another issue). The point isn't margins, it's overall profitability. Thin margins means large volume...and can translate into massive profits, relatively "thin" or otherwise. Thin margins are not a problem foisted upon such businesses, who then have to deal with it. Rather, it is their actual Business MODEL, and in the right hands it can be stunningly lucrative. ???? Yes, the working drones do not see the fortunes of the companies that rent their labour. How is that different from (again) massive retail behemoths and the like?

That's good news.

Well, it's true that you never hear kids suggesting that Donald Trump would make a good President.

Perceived Victim mentality. Same as in politics and religion.

That's just it. Further, the "we all BELIEVE" argument is reaching absurd proportions. The pedantic "belief" argument ultimately insists that we don't KNOW if we exist; we could be components in the elaborate dream of the Great Turtle who holds the Earth on his shell. Well, that's fine, if people want to push that argument. Except that they don't. The pedanticism is not about this at all. They never argue "You BELIEVE that the Homeric pantheon doesn't exist." They always argue, "You BELIEVE that God (singular, and related to the Abrahamic theological traditions)) doesn't exist." So we can see their "philosophical" argument about the nature of "belief" is not completely honest.

It was, but I would argue that the Falcon Crest type, as well as most police and hospital dramas, are fundamentally status quo oriented. "Conservative," really, though I don't mean that in any sort of partisan sense. Breaking Bad is, I think, a lot more subversive. It's essentially the middle-class suburban drama exploded to epic and absurd proportions, with a heady dose of questioning notions of the American dream, and of middle-class manhood.

As far as jaw-dropping endings go, the final bit of season 4 was really something to behold. Still, I liked the show's finale. And ultimately, Walt achieved his initial goal--at least more or less--even if it wasn't ideal, and even though (as he admitted to Skyler) his reasons were not entirely "pure" (ie helping his family.)

But this was part of what I was questioning. In every single case, exactly how the policy was implemented or followed "generally for the broader good" needs to be explained and discussed. Otherwise, it's boilerplate, conveying zero information. As I said, the idea that we can use "Cold War" or "War on Terror," or any other imposed ideological framework to generalize is of limited utility in understanding specific cases. It's one thing to say that the US and its allies had to make some muddied moral and legal decisions in its fight against Soviet expansionism. Quite another matter to say that this justification applies prima facie to each and every case....and that we can use it as a template to understand (and, oh, just coincidentally, to defend and justify) every monstrosity of which we've been a part. Rather, the Defenders of the Faith have the onus placed on them: exactly, precisely, how was East Timor, Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador...every single contentious matter about foreign policy violence...how was each one justified from concerns that most people could deem reasonable? How was the cost/benefit analysis navigated...if at all? And how many sycophants can dance on the information-free pronouncements of powerful men?

I don't really disagree with your final thoughts here. But my distaste for Mark Steyn is certainly not based on some ethereal "cool factor" which I think he lacks. It stems from the fact that I have average intelligence and normal moral inclinations, unlike Steyn's inferior admirers.

I can agree with this, but I might be more inclined to blur the lines between B movies and Prestige pieces...or "literary" novels with the "popular" variety. The lines are problematic, and this is a good thing. I'd think of Breaking Bad in the genre-crunching tradition of (since you mentioned film) Pulp Fiction, or Seven Psychopaths (I know, nobody saw 7 P...but everyone should. It's quite brilliant.) Or any number of Stanley Kubrick films, now that I think of it. I suppose "gimmicky" might be apt, but the connotations are off a little. You mention Six Feet Under; were the prologue Death Scenes not very obviously "gimmicky"? (Note: I'm not criticizing this, I liked it.) Did the Sopranos not use a gimmicky framing device--psychoanalytic confession, lifted straight from Analyze This? Or, for one you've noted with approval: Mad Men. Well, it's all pretty subjective, for sure, and I really DO understand how some people aren't as in love with BB as I am. For what it's worth, I thought Breaking Bad sort of--just ok--for the first season. Season Two caught me off guard, however, and it is now my favourite tv drama, of all time.

And would have no reason to do so...unless we adhere to the MALEVOLENT Design theory, an idea which gets surprisingly little traffic, given the (relative) evidence.

Just so: Person of Faith: "There is an all-knowing, perfect God, and He is objectively real, and we should live by His precepts." Atheist: "I'd like to see some evidence before I make such an enormous claim." Pretty much identical claims of logic.

Good point. Percentage-wise, low-income employees can net their employers more money than high-income employees in some cases...an often overlooked fact.

A small portion of it. This is not a complaint, but a clarification. Meaning only that Jacee's point was precisely correct.

I concede that you make some realistic points here, but also some very bad ones. For the record, I'm not suggesting that the democracies should never be allied with dictators. It would be nice, but I don't see quite how we could go about it. There are cases where you simply work with what's there. Ideally, the influence of the liberal societies should be beneficial in and of itself...and in some ways, this is arguably the case. For example, the Iranian youth (that is, most of the country) has large swaths that are strongly admirous of the freedoms they see in Western society, and pretty obviously want a piece of that. This is true even of those who hate Western, and probably especially American, foreign policy. So this influence could, in the long run, be highly beneficial, whatever retrograde notions are held by the current rulers and their more extremist compadres. Time will tell. However, I'm quite willing to be more cautious with the blanket generalizations (bad Western meddling, etc); but it's difficult to do so when you're arguing against exactly the same type of generalizations coming from the opposite direction. And that's my problem with the Cold War defense in argument...or rather, I have a two-pronged problem with it. First of all, every case is unique, and must be looked at in isolation. Because reasons shift and change across each one, no matter what the stated justifications, which remain dubiously generalized and foolishly consistent. I'll give you exact examples. The Indian situation you describe, at least to my limited knowledge, makes me inclined to agree with you. The brutality of Indian authorities is bad, but in that case, genuine fears over actual totalitarian Communist incursion might well justify our continued help. Not that the brutality was justified, and of course you make no such claim. But, and I don't mean this callously, thi9ngs were what they were, and the United States was dealing with the cards as dealt. But this does not automatically extrapolate to every case, not by a long shot. The Indonesian example that has me so exercised is a case in point. The East Timorese victims were not enemies...of anyone. And they were no Communists. In fact, they had floated their Constitutional ideas towards the West, looking for advice and encouragement, because they were modeling it on Western ideals. The US and its allies were not concerned with this;and they were certainly not concerned with a Communist East Timor. They were throwing a bone to Indonesia; because Indonesia was a staunchly anti-communist regime (verging on fascist, actually); plus, the possibility for Western moneyed interests re natural resources, were profound, both in Indonesia and in its proposed colonies and, let's face it, proposed slave states. And it's not, as some like to say, that Indonesia's behavior was tolerated. The support was absolute. That by definition is culpability, based on justifications that range from dubious (fear of Communism) to openly mercenary (investment opportunities in fascist-run regions). It's not even a grey area, as some others are (which is why I bring it up so often). I don't much buy the "ancient history" matter, either; if we found a co-conspirator in the 2001 hijacking mass murders, we'd prosecute...or, per Obama's favoured style, assassinate. And yet the international crime--monumentally bigger, actually--that ended just two years earlier....well, apparently everyone should just get over it. After all, 9/11 saw the murder of three thousand Americans. East Timor was a mere 100 000...maybe twice that. And scarcely an American among them. We know the list of names involved, up to and including respected luminaries: Kissinger and Wolfowitz, say; or the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who boasted in his memoirs about making the UN ineffective in doing anything about the violence. But to say that Kissinger or Wolfowitz are culpable in the mass murder (which by the standards we lay out for others, they obviously are) is considered lunacy. And Moynihan is a cherished figure among the Ambassadorship hagiographists, his crimes never called out in "respectable" circles. Why? Well, I suppose because there are no specific Iranian leaders who share any responsibility for the bad behavior of Hezbollah? Also, none of the institutional structures and ideologies have been dismantled. The Cold War made the US what it is today, internationally. So Negroponte was given an important overseers-type job in the Iraq War...Negroponte who was so involved with the right-wing death squads of Latin America. And that's another matter with dubious justification. The whole history of US/Latin American relations, culminating in the terrors of the Reagan era, was about crushing the LEFT--and independence movements generally, which are rationally inclined to oppose US hegemony...actual "communism" was surprisingly often not at issue at all. So again, it's about matters of geopolitical control...and, of course, financial interests. We call that "gangsterism" until a (or rather, the proper) President or Prime Minister gets involved. In short, yes, these are complex matters; but I disagree that intent is benevolent, nor even justified.. And since we're talking about matters like mass murder, overthrowing democracies, and terrorism...the onus is on the defenders to explain exactly how each case is motivated by benign motives and genuine, reasonable concerns about totalitarian Communism. I daresay they'd have a terrible time at it, not that I feel sorry for them.

Most repellent post I've read in a while. And it has nothing to do with "bureaucrat-speak,' sanitized or otherwise.