bleeding heart

It's all about a woman's choice, not others determining under which circumstances she should have the choice. Your argument applies far more accurately to anti-abotionists, interestingly.

It's become a bit of an ongoing discussion, and I think potentially an interestng one. However, as it stands, it's a separate topic.

Walmart's own public polling determined profound customer dissatisfaction with their customer service, which was deemed worse than most other major retailers. So much so that they've made customer service one of their main "goals for change" for the foreseeable future. So I don't know from where you got your opinion information. You're right, they're not at all combative about this practice, and I think it's a good one. Still, when your "good customer service" is premised on the fact of shoddy goods that need to be returned....it raises some questions, maybe.. Far be it from me to defend Walmart (I used to work there, so I know what a crappy company it is)...but I think this reputation is slightly unfair, comparatively speaking (my own jab about returns notwithstanding). They sell all the major brand stuff, of varying quality, that other comparable retailers do; and the cheapie Walmart Home brand stuff is probably no worse on the whole than are the other retailers own brands, also. After all, the "Home Brands" of all retailers are essentailly knockoffs made by the major companes at lower prices. Walmart chips, for example, are made not by some Walmart factory, but are made by Humpty-Dumpty I believe (or whatever company bought them out). The same is (usually) true of Housewares, Electronics, etc etc.

Good lord, no kidding. It's an interesting phenomenon: occasionally, the more political and financial success achieved...the greater the delusional sense of victimhood and injustice. I agree that Westerners, and certainly Albertans, have had some perfectly legitimate gripes about the federation. But the times have changed, quite profoundly. No one is "screwing over" Alberta. It's a preposterous idea.

But since you're quite promiscuous with the designation, we'll have to take your "consideration" with a big chunk of salt.

Uh, yes, you are. You and I have had this specific conversation (more than once, as you keep up with this bizarre pretence)...and then you say, "oh! I didn't know that!" Until next time, when you repeat the same thing again. I don't know why; I suspect you are trying in some vague way to bait people, though without obvious success.

Now, it's not really fair to speak this way of the drone assassina...oh, wait.....

Why yes. Quite mad. The notion of holding ourselves and our allies to higher standards than official enemies....well, that's considered outrageous and "unfair"....rather than bespeaking of the elementary morality that every six year old understands.

Of course Hamas are rotten. I agree 100%, without qualification. In fact, they're about as bad as an organized leadership gets, in my view. But of course, Israel is also a murderous, rogue state. In terms of these ongoing debates, there is one chief difference; only the so-called Supporters of Israel are positively bloodthirsty about the matter; on one of the threads in The Rest of the World" forums, we've got two posters openly wishing for hostilities to continue, rather than to cease. It's very amusing for them, evidently. So the last thing they wish is for Hamas to behave itself. No Palestnian civilians dead means no more jollies.

It's true. All we have to do is look at the timelines: the growth of the middle class, the increased secularization, advances in technology and knowledge in medicine, scientific knowledge generally, the decrease of corruption in the legal and political spheres, the increase in civil rights...heck, even the unprecedented increase in the numbers and holdings of the wealthy class....all occurred under the auspices of the social safety nets...of the "welfare state," if one prefers that language. Now, sure, one could protest that "correlation does not necessarily imply causation". But we'd be talking quite the coincidence, I'd say.

An interesting idea. I used to be a great admirer of Salman Rushdie (though I feel he's passed the point of diminishing returns, both as a novelist and as a political commentator). And I well noted the difference between pre-9/11 Rushdie and post 9/11 Rushdie (after which he reconfigured himself, like his friend Hitchens, as a Hawk)...and now it appears he's moved back to his "old self" as it were. Indeed, a lot of liberals committed to the same phenomenon that you desribe here...and predictably became very hostile to the leftists who stubbornly adhered to principle and facts. (Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Glenn Greenwald, etc). It appears that lately a lot of liberals, no longer quite as concerned about the looming Cresent shadow of the impending Caliphate, have moved back towards their older selves once again (although a kind of sycophancy towards Obama complicates this matter somewhat).

No, he definitely got elected legitimately. That doesn't mean there wasn't electoral cheating, by the party or on behalf of it.

Hell, yes, absolutely. My father's a Christian...and he doesn't even believe in the (literal) Divinity of Christ! For him, it's about metaphor, philosophy, and sharing worship with a community. Christ as the symbol of humanity's striving for moral perfection. I don't share his religious faith, but I certainly have no issues with it.

I think Coyne shows some insight here. When people, including Liberals, say that "the Party has to rebuild," they should take their own advice seriously. "Rebuilding" does not mean achieving primary status in the next two years, as Coyne points out. It means gaining a dedicated, hardcore following...and then incrementally expanding on this. If I were them, I'd study the history of the current Conservative Party, for starters..

Easily overcome, if done with the proper political professionalism. i mean...just look at what the leaders of every party have managed to commit over the decades, often to little--or zero--public denunciation.

OK...if we're going to compare him to Glenn Beck, then he wins hands down, I agree.

I just don't understand what is meant by "successful history." We cannot be speaking of economics...obviously. So that's out. Cultural influence? Let's be serious. Alterations of the historical, international geopolitical landscape? I'm not being self-effacing. Canada is an historical success. But I don't get how the US is less so...what? Nor do I understand the purpose of the comparison in and of itself; nor do I get how it relates to the very post within which it appears. The whole thing is a mystery to me. August? Can you expand on the theme?

It's not. It's an absurd statement derived from a meaningless comparison. Whenever August talks about movies, he drives off a cliff in way or another. This one was particularly a non sequiter, I agree.

At any rate, my feelings about Spielberg films is that they are not to be taken as high art (his occasional pretences to it notwithstanding). He's a more of a brilliant, commercial craftsman. Martin Scorsese said that Spielberg was the only director he'd ever met whose final productions perfectly matched his original vision. In other words, there' s usually a sort of paint-by-numbers quality to Speilberg movies. I don't even mean this as a criticism...i like lots of his movies. But they're--in every case, without exception to my knowledge--highly conventional, mildly conservative, artistically unambitious, and not terribly insightful or profound. (Though they sometimes have their sublime moments, sure.) Again, this isn't a critique--this is all by design, i believe. His style is of big, professional, well-paced storytelling, and he does it well. (This is as true of Schindler's List as it is for Raiders of the Lost Ark.)

Fair point, and perhaps I'm understating the offense. (And my last clause is exaggerated to the point of being actually incorrect, I concede.) My point is maybe summed up by analogy: the late Mordecai Richler once said that he had a friend working in the anti-Defamation League; and that, whenever some silly idiot scrawled a swastika somewhere, the ADL was thrilled, rather than offended. Meanwhile, most swastika-scrawlers aren't really anti-semites with an agenda, but malcontents finding an easy way to rebel through blatant offensiveness. The peripheral point being that a person spraypainting a swastika, or writing a racial slur on a bathroom wall, is rarely doing so out genuine malicious racism. The result is offensive; the act itself is, at least usually, not truly malign...it's even trivial. It's just stupid. But by bathroom wall standards--replete with hate, with gleeful references to everything from rape to racism to general misanthropy real or pretended, it's just another piece of ugly foolishness.

Agreed. I imagine we've all seen all manner of vile things written in bathroom stalls....things so degraded they make casual racism read like "I Have A Dream" in comparison.

Well said, good points.

I find him mildly irritating, personally. Michael Moore too, for that matter.

ibid.