bleeding heart

Tss, Maybe a lot of us are indeed fools...but there's no "witch hunt," which usually implies that a person is innocent of the charges. For example, the hysteria surrounding Satan-worshipping child molesters at a daycare centre some time back....was a "witch-hunt," because none of it was true. You're assuming the man here didn't mean what he did in fact say, based on a rather cheap kind of armchair psychologizing..

Or, we might say that the existence of hypocrisy does not demand nothing ever be done. Not to be trite, but as the saying goes, "why make the perfect the enemy of the good"?

That's my understanding as well. They're willing to provide the machinery of execution, and to profit from it; but they don't wish anyone to know about it.

Spike Lee's comments rivals the defense of war crimes as sanctioned by God? (re Palin) Only if we give religious fanaticism a condescending "pass"....which I'm not so sure is a great way to go.

Also--not that we're discussing a real Thinker here, mind you--anyone who has even the faintest of praise for slavery is not one opposed to "authority." By definition. Further to the same point, there is a profound authoritarian strain in right-wing libertarian tendencies anyway, though they tend not to recognize it. That's because when they think of "bad power" they think "government"...unwilling or unable to follow the critique of power to its logical conclusions. Governmental abuses and overreach is an effect of Power, not the cause.

That's pretty good.

Cybercoma's a planted Ad Man. I remember Don Draper didn't care for such antics, but his underlings proved to him the effectiveness of it.

sure, I think it was implied, six words into my post. But just for the record: dogs would (and do) too.

I love the little kitty psychopaths myself...ours died recently, and we just adopted two from the SPCA: a young one and an old one. They're awesome.

I sometimes wonder why "free market" economists, thinkers and commentators spend so much time arguing with those who have differing theories on political economy....and so little time (ie: zero) excoriating those who most despise "free market" economics, and who do the most to effect it: business owners and shareholders.

Not that this undermines your point, Michael--it doesn't, at all--but just to clarify the matter for Chomsky (much maligned on this particular situation): he was asked to write a piece on the subject of free speech, only tangentially about the racist bit under discussion, to be published with other pieces, or perhaps in a newspaper editorial; it was included as an "Introduction" (not written as one) without his consent.

Sure. the authors of those fine words were themselves not too concerned about irritants such as "universality of principle"....less so than most of us here today, in fact.

I don't agree with capital punishment, but I certainly wonder if there aren't better ways to go about it. This isn't the first "painful execution" controversy around lethal injections, either.

Spike Lee's history of dumbass comments rivals the Masters of the genre: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Kanye West. Though it appears John Kerry is making a Herculean effort to join their ranks, he's still got a ways to go.

Argus,, I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Are you asking me why the NBA has certain issues with certain behaviours, but not with others?

Yes, guyser, you're right; the "man and woman" bit is a pointed remark. They couldn't have been more clear about their intent. And again, I agree they have the right to do this. What this right has to do with my criticism of morally-cretinous bigotry has yet to be spelled out satisfactorily.

Well, like most people, I agree that the Orange Crush was probably something of an anomaly, and that the numbers will drop dramatically next time around. however, in some ways, the "damage is done," as an opponent of the NDP might put it. That single election has given them more credibility, more power, and a far bigger potential voting bloc. They're not going to go back to previous low levels, I don't think.

You're right, Rue, that owners have rights. IF there were indeed to be bans, I guess a ban on breeding would be in order...not a ban on already-existing dogs. But then, your point on the complications of breeding are well-taken. Obviously it's a topic I know nothing about. But if a potential owner says "we have a right to such-and-such a breed"....I can't help but shrug.

On the other hand....what Boges said. Fair enough.

Rue may well be right. I have no sympathy for the guy, but nor do I sympathize with such machinations (if it is indeed the case, of course).

It's a very interesting argument; but I certainly take Michael's repeated point: being "prejudiced" against Pit Bulls (or any breed) is irrelevant, even if true. No serious and obvious "rights" are being denied even by banning breeds altogether.

I agree, the reaction has been overwhelming. We can talk about "political correctness" all we wish, but plainly this sort of overt racist remarks really strikes a collective nerve.

We can give them the "benefit of the doubt"...but we also see that they've omitted "homosexual marriage" from their "sacred" point on their magical scale; and we also know (uncontroversially) that more "sodomy," and by a terrific measure, occurs among heterosexual couples than homosexual ones. Giving them the "benefit of the doubt" is to assume they're not moronic children, and taking their words at face value. We know that they aren't obviously interested in "specific sexual acts," but that they are obviously interested in homosexuality. So why would they single out homosexuality...rather than going after the bigger culprit: heterosexual relationships, in which most of the cases of sodomy occur...and which makes up a greater part of their captive audience, over which they have more influence?

Tim, They said their views were based on the "sacred"ness of heterosexual marriage. The obvious omission is not only clear, it's intentional. And, as I said (and which you ignored), "sodomy" among heterosexual couples is not only the norm...it occurs with monumentally more frequency than it does in homosexual relationships, thanks to sheer numbers alone. So that argument's a non-starter based on the uncontroversial truisms with which you and I undoubtedly agree. Again, your interepretation is not based on what they've said....it's based on....well, nothing at all. But what's more interesting to me at the moment is your perverse need to make every debate about my baleful weaknesses....and my "prejudices and preconceptions" (you don't seem to think that "gayness is bad" is a prejudice or a preconception, for...some reason, unstated). You can not debate me--ever, on a single subject--without commenting on [my] "prejudices and preconceptions," on which all my arguments, without exception, it would appear, are "based entirely." That's on your good days. On your bad days, you like to tell me that I "don't care about rape" and other such sober reflections. I bring it up because this has become an obvious reflex for you, to make every debate about me, personally; needless to say, many of us sometimes come to similar conclusions about other posters, but after brief consideration, decide that it adds nothing to debate. If you ever bothered to read and consider other posters' arguments, rather than erupting with sanctimony and an implied self-indulgence, you might learn something. It's one thing if it happens now and then; but when it's all you got, well, it maybe speaks for itself.