bleeding heart

First of all, I have no idea why you believe I'm gay, and why you think I "hide behind [my] gay status," which does not in fact exist; nor do I know why your mistaking my sexual preference has you so vexed. Second, I don't deny collective Jewish identity, and I'm not an anti-Semite. You're the one making the awful allegation, so the onus is on you to cite instances of my anti-Semitism; and to cite where I "deny [your] collective identity"; and where I've even faintly hinted that the Jewish people are "uppity." Your tantrum-throwing is one thing; your delusions--or outright dishonesty, in which you promiscuously toss about the "ant-semite" card where it most certainly does not belong--is another thing altogether. We have long and often disagreed with one another, and have neither of us always been civil. But now you're determined, for some reason, to sink to depths you have normally and intentionally avoided. And that's too bad.

Yeah...there were simply no other reasons.

There has been some obvious misunderstanding. It has not been "proven" (nor did it need to be) that Martin instigated the situation. We simply don't know who said what to whom, who moved this way or that, exactly when the weapon was drawn...none of it. I mean, I'm as impressed as anyone by the notion of objective omniscience...but I remain stubbornly skeptical about it.

For the record, I wasn't referring to Christianity at all; and I believe the Christian influence on Western culture has not only negative, but positive aspects as well. No, I was referring to brute foreign policy, as practiced and defended by the religious and the secular alike..

If you don't like it when people point out that you falsely deem them as anti-semites...then don't use such a cowardly little method of "debate."

I understand it's not to everybody's taste. And you might argue that the "cabin in the woods" theme is downright lazy. But I think this a pretty great movie. And the young-people-going-to-the-cabin-in-the-woods trope is not fundamentally different, or more lazy, than is the "haunted house" theme. Both still work fine, depending only on the skill of those making the film. Like the original, it's absurdly over-the-top, and delights in its own manic lunacy. But they've (mostly) done away with the slapstick comedy, and have concentrated on the visceral dread of the thing. And it is extraordinarily violent, and verges on the nihilistic....but has its own strange, if qualified, upbeat quality to it. I give it four and a half dismembered bodies, nail guns, and rape-y trees out of five.

This is a pretty astonishing remark, and rather contradicts your earlier assertions (in the same post!) about "hardwired" desires and modes of dominance and the primacy of power among human affairs. The current "war on terror" (which isn't even the first one declared) is not something radically new, in my opinion; it's a continuation of old policies, albeit with some novel components. Certainly I agree that extremist Islamism derives from their own aggression and power-hunger (I'm simplifying of course); I even agree that "moderate" Islam is way too damn conservative for my taste. But to paint the West as reactive victims against Muslim aggression is absurd. Like I said, the complex of international policies is more a continuation of Western modes of aggression than a genuine defensive set of maneuvers. For example, when the Western nations join with tyrants in opposition to democratic movements--a profound part of our history, including recently, as no doubt you know--people get angry. And not just extremist Islamists (though their anger is justified also in this regard). More startlingly and importantly, the West has been directly, intentionally and materially supportive and involved in far worse acts of terrorism than those we get so self-indulgently sanctimonious about in recent years. Do you not consider our aggression and violence to be as serious a problem as that of others? If not...why not?

I'm inclined to agree. I think there's a common opinion, probably correct, that the prosecutor blew this case; perhaps the potential sentences shouldn't have been murder or manslaughter in the first place, but something lesser, to hold Zimmerman accountable. Whatever Martin's behavior (and let's remember that his "aggression" remains speculative), Zimmerman's eager foolishness is what brought the death about in the first place.

Yeah. As for the alleged spinoff, starring "Better Call Saul!"....I'm in.

Early August, is it? That's not so bad. An awesome show, and I find it beautifully addictive.

I'm sorry you believe that the "leftist" CPC government has been remiss in financial help for these victims; and that the "leftist" CPC government was too generous to Arar. The "left's" baleful influence runs deep and wide, it would appear.

Maybe I'll check it out. Personally, I'm extremely eager about the return of Breaking Bad.......but in the meanwhile....

Shoulda, but didna.

Here's what you wrote: "You respect everyone's identity er um except the collective identity of Jews right?" Try to debate with a little integrity, Rue. It might make you feel a little better!

Rue claimed that Morris himself said he wasn't an historian. So the discussion, at least between rue and myself, is not quite the contorted one he is now backtracking towards.

Just so. And I've stated before that I do find some comparisons, whether outright or implied, as silly and irritating. "Americans are fat." Yeah, well, so, join the club! "Americans are arrogant." Fine...so is an annoying though well-loved friend of mine. All quite beside my point, which was an uncontroversial and non-offensive truism.

Am I "recognizing" it? I stated exactly that, already. Explicitly. ????

The remark stands on its own as a demonstrably false statement.

no...not the remark to which I was responding. Capice?

Saying "we are the best" is, by definition, a comparison. There is no other meaning to the phrase. That's not even a debatable point...assuming that words have meanings, and that we can suss such meanings out. I certainly didn't say Americans have the same feelings about Canada as so many Canadians do about America. Obviously they don't, fortunately, as this teeters somewhere between irrelevant, boring, unproductive, and useless. However, that's not the point to which I was responding. I was responding to a declarative statement which was demonstrably untrue.

I didn't say anything about comparing it "to, say, Canada"; I said Americans compare themselves to others, by definition. To say "Americans have probably the best free speech laws in the world" (which is my opinion, incidentally) is a comparison; to say "we're number 1!" is a comparison. If you say "we're the greatest country in the world (or even "one of the greatest countries in the world")...well, that's a comnparison. The meaning of all these are, explicitly, comparisons. I have no idea whatsoever why you'd object to this truism, by the way. It's not an insult.

Daniel Elsberg.

Of course they compare themselves to others. That's not a critique--it's simply a universal.

Those Cracked lists are often quite good. What was a blatant Mad Magazine rip-off when I was a kid appears to have grown into its own.

What makes us think it necessary that there be a "purpose"?