bleeding heart

I wouldn't make so broad a statement, but ok. But by the same token, the idea that "gook" meant NV fighters, but no other Vietnamese...well, such distinctions don't get much traction, and the accuracy of the claim is pretty questionable anyway. And for some Marine in the field...who cares? Let him vent. He's earned the right to be politically incorrect, if for no other reason that people are actively trying to kill him in real time. Otherwise and elsewhere...not so much, I think. Most can, hopefully. But look at it like this (another imperfect analogy, but give me some leeway cuz I'm a nice guy): Chris Rock (I think) did a famous piece on the "N word"...the piece borrowed from Richard Pryor, but leave that aside: Rock pointed out that there are "N's...who are distinct from African-Americans, in that "N's" are people who behave in bad ways. All very funny, all timely and provocative and telling of contemporary culture and matters of race, identity, perception, etc etc. But if I flit about using the "N word", but claim "I only mean it for the bad ones"....how much sympathy am I gonna get for that view?

Well, when it comes to pepper spray, I agree completely. I suspect the bans on this are a mater of authoritarian overreach by the powers-that-be. Tasers is a slightly different matter. I'd prefer firearms, to be honest...I think they'd be safer, though some people might find that counterintuitive. The way I see it, we can't even trust our police with tasers....because society simply remains wilfully uneducated about how dangerous they can be. (Also, tasers didn't replace the use of clubs, as was the theory; their use far exceeds the use of clubs.) Firearms, on the other hand, are much more well understood in terms of consequences of use.

I suspect he was being mischievous, as part of his tv celebrity shtick. Maybe so; and some people enjoy being provocative, for various reasons. And just to be clear, the very idea that some entity called "capitalists" are cold and lack compassion is a flawed premise on its face. We're all just people...sharing many flaws, and many excellent qualities.

Oh, yes. Well, it was an imperfect analogy on my part. All I meant was that a benign word can seem to boil with maggots and prejudice when used in a different context. And when "haji" is used...it usually a disrespectful pejorative against a people, not an enemy.

But the stats you offered were clear on that--80% friends and family--though I can't vouch for the accuracy. However, I will say that in (adult) sexual assaults, as with child molestation, "stranger danger" is an overblown phenomenon, and tends to cloud the uglier reality.

If only it were restricted to the sitting government, I could look upon it all with more equanimity.

Are you trying to tell me that you were using "hajji" ina respectful manner, and not an insulting one? Seriously? For a brief moment, I thought we were having a serious discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji Yes, but when we're talking about killing "hajis," the connotations seem clear enough. For example, when someone jokes about the killing of Zionists...it's hard to imagine that they're using the word in the same benign spirit in which Zionists would use it...even though it's exactly the same word.

Yes, sell that one to the public at election time: "We're going to lower taxes...so the companies can pay you less..and you'll end up with the same income!" That might make tents in the pants of a few ideologues, but most people would offer a great big middle finger to that bit of nonsense.

Ok, sure, i get that. Nonetheless, it is not always objectively meaningful...and I personally don't need officials informing me of who isn't and is a terrorist organization. Plus, they're not trustworthny sources, sad to say. If Howard Dean, Rudolph Guiliani, Andrew Card and other bigwigs are going to start hanging out with (officially designated) terrorist organizations; and advocating for them and even accepted money (which is completely illegal)...and the Government's response to this activity is to delist the organization as a terrorist one...then, well, we're dealing with total and bipartisan bullshit at the highest levels, and can't take their pronouncements on "terrorist organizations" seriously. In fact, we are remiss exactly if we do take them seriously, given the unfortunate facts. And didn't President Bush declare that aiding terrorists is exactly as bad as being a terrorist? Whether he meant it or not (and I doubt it), it's plain that many politicians from both parties, as well as some eminent figures such as Elie Wiesel, are guilty by the letter and the spirit of such notions.

Well, that 80% of the assaults occur in the victims' homes, and moreso that the same number are perpetrated by friends and family.

I don't think much of O"Leary, but I suspect he's extremely practical. ("I'd be a commie if I could make a buck at it," as he said.) So I imagine, in customer-based business, he would ensure to look after their needs and wants...not from "morality," but because he would presume that others are concerned about "morality"...so it would make business sense. (Which, yes, does somewhat contradict what he's said...but then, I don't believe he's a deep thinker. Or, it's all an act...a possibility I think is real.)

Of course. Whenever you hear the word "haji" used, you can be almost certain it's being used as "gook," essentially. It has nothing to do with any "holy war," against the West or anyone else. It's basically used in two ways: as an apolitical honorific, a casual sign of respect; or as an insult by Westerners roughly equivalent to "gook." Certainly, if you have any citation suggesting otherwise, that's cool.

I meant that I consider Hamas a terrorist organization...and it has nothing to do with being Officially Recognized as such by the great noble warriors against terror, whether we're talking the US, the UK, Canada, Fatah, or Israel. I think we need to be extremely suspicious, in fact, of Official Recognition of Terrorist Organizations, as such things are political moves above all. The Iranian ex-pat MEK has just been "officially" delisted as a terrorist organization--because it opposes the Iranian regime (preferring itself, of course, as legtimate tyrants), and because so many US politicians have been (illegally!) advocating for them. So, while I obviously think terrorism is real, I don't think that official pronouncements about who is and isn't a terrorist organization are worth the breath expended to state the case.

It's true that the complaints of Israel unduly influencing US policy are common, notably with discussions about the Lobby. I'm not seeing it. And really, I don't think it's as simple as my little snark made it out, either, as international relations are complicated; but on the whole, I would say that as far as there's a boss in that relationship, it's the United States, not Israel.

Well...a somewhat disarming reply. Thank you.

Probably, but I don't know that it has much to do with extremism, in a political sense. Very "moderate" liberals and conservatives, as well as self-described "centrists," are just as prone to acting aggressively or insultingly, I think.

I don't disagree with you for a second about his opponents...but don't you ever tire of thinking that all Harper's faults are reactive...that he only behaves badly because his hand is forced by the evil Opposition parties? Truly, He's too good for this fallen world....

Good lord. First of all, it's not even an accurate scenario...to claim that killing four-year-olds in Pakistan is a method of saving four-year-olds here is so specious it defies description. Second, it's the idea of a moral cretin.

It's true. Even here in NB, not exactly famous for our riches and our good roads, there are already alternate routes, except in a very few cases.

Yes, which is silly.

Someone better tell Kevin O'Leary that capitalism is a moral enterprise. Because he is offended by the very notion. (In fact, he called the mixing of morality and capitalism "evil"...which, of course, means he hasn't really thought his own opinions through....)

According to the stats you offer in the same post--regarding the place of most assaults, and the identity of most assaulters--it doesn't appear that would make a dent in the problem.

Bone splints.

If Armstrong owes anyone an apology, it's the people he sued for telling the truth about his behaviour.

Well, yeah, that little elephant in the room is at least as possible as the idea of (particularly) "intolerant liberals."