bleeding heart

Perhaps you could explain how this begins--or even attempts--to answer the question posed.

I think you should go back and try to see what I've written on that subject. As it is, you're arguing with phantoms of your imagination. Ah...an implied concession that your self-indulgent remarks about East Timor were way off base. Now was that so hard?

You're the one rationalizing, as your own example here illustrates nicely. You summon the cherished myth that we "looked away from the atrocities" in East Timor--some august intellectuals have even gone so far as to wonder aloud if "looking away" was the wrong thing to do--except that this is self-indulgent nonsense. Several nations, your own by far at the forefront, materially aided the mass murders, intentionally and knowingly supporting the invasion and the State terror which ensued...and which eclipses anything even dreamt of by such terrorist amateurs as Hamas or Hezbollah. "Did nothing to intervene"? Quite the opposite. Interestingly, you already knew this, but seem to have conveniently forgotten. A skill, I suppose, though not clearly an enviable one.

Got to give you that one..

No...but in here NB, longer than it should be. But then, God despises us (and the feeling is mutual) so.....

Commie.

Suuuurrrrrre they would........

The lefties have long accused the BBC of bias, and it reached a head in the Iraq War reporting. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this connotes neutrality.

[ Pointing out your logical errors is not "whining."

A charming rhetorical style, eh?

1. If the Sasquatch should be given such rights, then certainly the Palestinians should be. 2. If the Palestinians are given such rights,then certainly the Sasquatch should be. The first is an arguably humorous reductio ad absurdum. The second implies that Palestinians are equal to or lesser than the Sasquatch; and it also implies that they shouldn't be given such rights. The "if/then" formula depends on placement of the subjects for its very meaning.

Truly, they're too Good for this Fallen World.

Even if we are going to dilute the fact of intentional deception--lying people into war, which is inherently a war crime--you are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. If Bush, Blair et al hadn't been such monumental screw-ups, people might be more willing to trust claims for Just War. It's not dissimilar to the boy who cried wolf syndrome. So there's yet another bad residual effect of the Iraq catastrophe. They've sure been adding up over the past nine years. Heckuva job, Brownie! .

I didn't say it was bad. I said it was the case. The social safety net has been a robust part of the process. I didn't say that charity grew the ranks of the poor. I said that charity, without the tax-based safety net, was insufficient to tackle the problem. First of all, like what? Everything in which some people are going to gain at taxpayers' expense is going to have "special interests." Want a strong military? Well, there's lots of money to be made, and there are people who are going to even advocate for war because it improves their bottom line...this can even be a legal necessity, if one has shareholders to which he is beholden. The same is true for infrastructure, policing and prisons, and in fact every single funded matter you could dream of. Second, lots of people vote for what you consider "entitlements"...but not for their personal gain at the expense of society. Lots of people vote for a stronger social safety net because they think it is for the benefit of society as a whole. This ongoing theme of selfishness, using "other people's money" ignores the fact that the people most in need are the people least likely to vote. If I were voting based on my personal wants "at the expense of society" then I would vote Conservative. They are most likley to be beneficial to me on a short-term financial basis. I'm not poor. But federally, i have lately been voting NDP. (Provincially, I sometimes vote PC...NB PC's are ideologically indistinguishable from the Liberals). Now, whether that's a wise choice or not, it's certainly not my doing so for "special interests"...or no more so than saying "we got to protect the ever-victimized rich"...for there are few smaller-in-number "special interest" groups than the wealthy. Ditto for military spending; more military spending is obviously a financial boon to small special interest groups, whose business is not "national security"...their business is Business. Of course. So tell me: what do we do, vote-wise, to "benefit society" while not benefitting special interest groups?

It's by definition, BC. Less of your smugness means less smugness. Sure. It's a strong Amnerican trait as well, so you don't have much of a point here.

???? Then why provide a reference which you suspect is mistaken?

?? Didn't you read the etymology that you provided for us?

It's a remark by a former Foreign Minister who felt that Canada has, at an official capacity, a weak-kneed tendency to toadying to the "political masters in Washington." Whether he's correct, I don't know. I think Presidents and Prime Ministers make such comments with promiscuous impunity, and I pay them little heed. Besides, it can just as well be argued that "supporting Israel" means rejecting some of its behaviour. When I criticize Canada's support of the overthrow of an elected leader in Haiiti, and his replacement by a bunch of thugs friendly to the North American/France aliiance, that doesn't mean I am not "supporting Canada." Further, an argument can be cogently made that those who defend this behaviour do not "support Canada," since it can have deleterious effects on our standing, our respect, and our stated principles. In the current situation, "supporting Israel" does not have to mean supporting its decisions; it can mean opposing them.

If you cease moralizing with your sense of smug superiority, it will automatically dilute the amount of it to which you feel subjected.

Let's sum this up: You thought that a non-existent "syndrome," coined about somebody else altogether for altogether partisan reasons, and used incessantly ever since by people whose only rhetorical style is to crib from luminous reactionaries like Charles Krauthammer because they're too lazy to even find someone good from whom to plagiarize....and well, you're wondering why it hasn't subsided? Because you do not wish to abandon the delusion that it's real, or that it's meaningful. That's why. You mean our poster Kimmy? Really?

I make no claims about "worst ever," but Moonbox makes a good point about poverty in India. Because attention has been focussed so fixedly on India's modernization and the changes in its economy, the truly astounding plight of the poverty-stricken there, which ranks among the worst on the planet, remains surprisingly little-known.

Uh...no. Your point was distinctly the other way 'round, which is quite a different matter.

True. But it is discrimination with roughly zero bad effect, in and of itself. I think that point trumps the other. I disagree. "Discrimination" is not something that carries innate evils. The only measurement we can have of what's wrong with discrimination is what are the possible effects of the discrimination.

My uncontroversial point was that there are whiners aplenty to go 'round, and that some of them are (gasp!) people with whose sad whining you sympathize. Nor is it all about bizarre non-sequiters. No, I took your unequivocal meaning for reasons everyone could understand. You got sanctimonious...and now you regret it a little, I suppose. I put it to you that this is not plainly my fault.

I agree. It's a discriminatory practice, but one that has no actual, objective, real-world deleterious effect on potential customers. So shrug your shoulders--retort "your loss!" if you absolutely need to vent it--and go elsewhere. Problem solved, literally and totally. What's the issue?