bleeding heart

I have been mildly surprised at the level of support and defense, too. Not so much apathetic acquiescence...but outright support for it. However, after the many unfortunate erections-for-cruelty on disturbing display after the torture "scandals" broke, I guess surprise is a bit naïve.

A double--maybe triple!--zing!

You didn't comprehend my post. That's not my opinion, but a demonstrable fact. My point couldn't have been more clear, and is completely divorced from your inane assertions. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you aren't lying outright. Let me generously try to help you out yet again: I made exactly zero--zero!--remarks about "the Jew lobby." Nor did I hint at it in any way. In fact, in response to Bud's assertion about Israel's influence, I contended that he had it wrong. I contended that, so far as one nation has undue influence on another, it is the United States who is the boss. You see? Not Israel; certainly not an organization like the Israeli lobby. And again, whether a person agrees with me or not, there is nothing about "conspiracy" involved in my point; nothing about the lobby whatsoever. And demonstrably nothing anti-Semitic in anything I said. You're so promiscuous with your use of the term that it blinds you to what other posters are actually saying. That's not my fault. Considering that I've just now educated you on the way you've twisted what I've said (beyond recognition....almost to the opposite, in fact), this little rant takes some serious gall. Look in the mirror.

What's pathetic is that you completely misread my post. I was stating (with perfect clarity...for anyone not an illiterate) that the US is the boss of that particular relationship. Not Israel. Of course, you'd have to read like a normal person, without waiting to pounce with a cowardly "anti-Semite" response. Agree or disagree, what's anti-Semitic about that notion? Pray tell, Rue. Expose your wisdom. Well, perhaps your remark to bud contains said insights: Yeah...oh, wait. Bud and I completely disagreed on the point you take me to task for. I think you should read more cautiously. Just sayin.'...

??? Your blanket assumption is that they ARE. But I guess you demand higher standards from others.

And more to the point--as you elsewhere pointed out--the line is a blurry one indeed. In Fredericton, you can see MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) ads on public transport...but, as the founder of MADD herself stated (abandoning the organization in the process) MADD has become increasingly politicized, even offering anti-alcohol ads totally divorced from the (in itself, reasonable) message against drunk driving. And one could go deeper into the nexus of commercial/political, if one wished to do so, perhaps starting with Dole and PepsiCo's astonishing behaviours in Latin America over the decades.... ...and so on.

?? Of course they're not able to come to terms with the body they have. That's never been disputed by a single person. Yes, so you said....and I answered this explicitly. Anorexia has precisely zero to do with the subject wishing or thinking that he or she is a different gender. Also, anorexia is a potentially lethal disorder...and no one disputes that it is a bad thing. Transgender issues are a whole other ball of wax. It's deeper than that, unless you think "identity" is a trivial matter. Well, if you're bringing up "mental health" you might note that mental health professionals tend to disagree with you. This isn't an argument from authority...but you ARE speaking authoritatively on issues of mental health, so surely you can back it up. Your entire argument is premised on "I don't get it, bro'." And that's it. And that's fine...but it (merely) is what it is.

Damn, you're right. Personally, I don't consider Trudeau to be terribly impressive. But I don't think he's quite defending a (non-existent) Islamist takeover of Canadian society just yet.

When your one and only point is to "win" every debate, such contradictions are more an asset than a liability.

Capitalist "principles," such as they are, are about trying to negotiate the best possible deal. When you negotiate for money in private enterprise, or try to sell your product for as much as you can get away with, or when a board determines the pay scale for a CEO...they don't sit around thinking about "principles." They don't worry about free market theory, or about what Adam Smith or the Austrian economists might think about it. (Hell, our discussion elsewhere about the Big Three Canadian communications companies tell us quite explicitly that capitalists are among the least people concerned with such "principles." In fact, few people hate "free markets" and "competition" more than successful capitalists do.) As I said, we can certainly argue about whether or not public servants should get this or that...and that is what is being debated. But the idea that public sector workers are doing something wrong...well, that's not what capitalism is supposed to be about. We can't have it both ways.

Bloody masochist. (I kid, I kid!)

The specifics of this case aside, I get the impression that you don't quite understand what's at stake here for the subjects. It's not a matter of disliking your body in the usual sense (which is also unfortunate, but a totally separate issue). you're talking about girls who worry about their weight, or wish their breasts were more aligned with conventional cultural standards of beauty; or boys who wish they were taller, or had larger penises. These things are quite unrelated to the body-issues that trans-gender kids face. We're talking about something absolutely crucial to their very sense of identity. something that a non-transgendered person literally cannot comprehend. Which is why imagination, compassion--and trust that people know what they are--is so important. As for the idea that parents need to help them "accept themselves for what they are"....well, that's rather the point of parents accepting their child's transgender wishes. Denying it is not helping them accept it, anymore than sending your kid to "Go straight" camp is "helping" them to accept who they truly are. Now yes, it's a difficult line to traverse for parents, no question; you don't wish them to hate the body they're in, even if they want to change it...I agree. And you don't want to jump the gun, in cases where a desire for change might be more...transcient than in other cases. But transgenderism as a whole is not a mental illness...though denying it can probably lead to some such thing.

I think you've gotten who is the boss and who is the client state rather mixed up.

You've got to be kidding. You assert all manner of things as authoritatively as anyone else.

Hell, how any self-described capitalist could bemoan groups or individuals trying to negotiate a better jobs package is frankly bizarre. It's one thing to say that they shouldn't get it; fine, that's an argument worth having. But it's quite another thing to excoriate them for trying. "Rational self-interest" is supposed to be one of the pillars of the capitalist model.

A nice acid test of the times is when people start "accusing" a politician of being a "Muslim." First of all, the allegation is ludicrous fear-mongering. Second, it takes it for granted that being something called a "Muslim" is a kind of evil.

Yeah, I ain't buying it either.

Yes, some people do deny it, and it's a bizarre argument.

Dre's on a roll. Awesome post. Even insofar as a "happiness index" is problematic--and I have no doubt it is--that very argument also seriously undermines the "religious folks are happier" theme.

OK....I have to admit, these are really good points. Well said.

True. In fact, it was the (probably literally clinically insane) Gellar ads, against the Palestinians, that were the truly provocative and insulting ones. But then, Gellar and her folllowers are knuckledraggers (also birthers, just for some added fun!)...so we can't expect too much from them.

You haven't either shown a policy change regarding Israel. The relations are not always warm and cuddly, as you know.

I showed you exactly what you were asking for.

I think this is a fair point. The 65 cut-off point belongs to an era in which life expectancy and average health of 65-year-olds was different.