bleeding heart

Well then, you must think African Americans are pretty damn stupid for voting this way. The blacks and the Jews...not too bright? Is that your view? Priceless.

I think you'rte aware of the consensus. I don't know why you deny pretend it doesn't exist. First of all, scientists do believe the former...as you have repeatedly and unequivocally conceded (except when yoiu haven't, as here...the contradiction is a little baffling.) The latter point, which undoubtedly does not have the same overwhelming consensus, is an entirely different point. So, your employment of the debate "method" in which you continually take on two opposing beliefs: man does/doesn't have a primary position in climate change--means that you are untrustworthy? If that's your contention, colour me convinced.

Right. I don't exactly disagree with Manny on this, but on the other hand, a lot of posters use it as a kind of shorthand, which doesn't seem a problem; it doesn't necessarily mean "leftist" or "rightwinger" need be defining characteristics.

Yes, but you opined that "the language and nastiness of the review should be noted." Which is puzzling; there's no way not to notice a caustic attack from a satirical, political standpoint. I mean, it's not as if it's not meant to be read that way. I guess I don't quite see your point.

Well, "who she thinks she is" doesn't matter; Rush has already informed us; we know that she supports the right for women to be sexually active...so she's a "slut," of course!

The answer is much more simple: the review is nasty and caustic because the entire site is a leftwing satirical site, politically incorrect, and whose primary mandate is comedy. As for your final remark, I'd say it's both; primarily a political attack, but also a literary one.

It's true that they are increasingly perceived as fringe lunatics, and not without some justice.. "Only 97% of climate scientists agree! The scientific bias is a result of a leftwing hoax! Listen to the local weatherman, he'll tell us what's what!"

Some folks just looove having a scary enemy...I imagine it gives them an excuse to practice the servility-to-power which they so very much wish to exercise.

My "purpose" was my appreciation of your let's-not-get-too-worked-up-over-internet-debates comment. I apologize if I misread this as rational.

There has to be some latitude for lots of human behaviour, which is never perfect...but that is not my argument. My argument is that "stated good intentions" can be sometimes nothing more than statements. Platitudes. Every leader of every country, with precisely zero exceptions, to my knowledge, pronounces high moral purposes behind everything they do...and this doubles up under matters of war. Such statements carry very little factual information. Occasionally they are likely quite accurate. But to assume it's always the case seems to me unwise, to put it gently. Interestingly, the truism--which our children understand as well as we do--that politicians frequently lie....well, we take that as a given.... ...Until matters of war become the topic. That is, at the precise moment where lies are most likely is the instant that a number of people decide that, well, they must be telling the truth...because they must have "good intentions." Why? No one has ever said why. Look at the US-backed democratic subversions that have taken place in Latin America over the decades. And look at the common thread of leaders who have usually not been overthrown by the US, its allies and proxies: right-wing dictatorships. That's no coincidence; and neither is it remiss to suggest that the brutal proto-fascist regimes were not "good for [their] own people." If the argument is that the lefty regimes were worse (or might be worse...a waffling which itself begs serious questions), then each has to be discussed on its own merits. The Chilean socialist was in no demonstrable way "worse" than his US-backed replacement, Pinochet. And few people have the stupidity or moral cowardice to argue otherwise. (Thatcher excluded, but then, Augusto was her buddy.) Nor was Haiti's replacement an improvement over Aristide (Canada's involvement in that particular fiasco should make us proud)...nor was it supposed he would be superior...not to the Haitian people; thus your argument about "the good of the people" and the "health" of the local area doesn't hold water, at least not in many cases. Further, no doubt you'd support and defend a US regime change in Canada, to replace the too-liberal and too-nationalistic Harper with someone more suitably fascist in tendencies...and more obedient to Washington. (By the way, see my signature quote from Bill Graham...he seems to understand, thanks to personal experience, just how things work.) A "mistake"? How was it a "mistake"? It was no more a mistake than Iran's "mistake" of funding Hezbollah. An unfair analogy, however...unfair to Iran. Hezbollah are nowhere near as brutal as the Contras, whose infamy derived solely from its torture and murder of innocent peasants. But I find your double standard here quite fascinating. Maybe in the manner of Orwell's doublethink, in which one kills the South Vietnamese (yes: South) in order to save them from their own bad decisions. More to our point here, that one fights the brutality of the Sandanistas by training, funding, and arming people who are ten times worse. They claimed it was a threat to the whole region, but that doesn't mean that they actually thought so. No more than Tony Blair really believed Saddam could (and would) attack England in 45 minutes, as per his preposterous claim. In fact, Reagan ominously warned that the Sandanistas, a terrible threat to the United States, were "two hours driving time from Arlington, Texas." Now, there's no way the US believed that this "threat" from the Sandanistas. That government wasn't very good guys, true, but they sure as hell weren't going to attack the United States...Reagan's declared State of Emergency (a promiscuous misuse of Presidential power, by the way) notwithstanding. (The Mexican president made some remark, complaining about Reagan potentially causing the entire country to "die laughing." ) Believe away. I personally assume there was a confluence of intentions, good mixed with bad, as is the case in most large-scale human endeavours. But in the case of war, where the consequences are so massive, special consideration and care needs to be taken. These effete little Leninists running the Administration at the time famously did not give a good goddamn about care or consideration. Or honesty. Or tyrants...as we know, uncontroversially, that they have no issue, none whatsoever, with tyrants. Their performance there makes them directly and unequivocally culpable for the mess that's ensued. Yes...and that was a predictable consequence (we know this, because it was widely predicted, and not only by peaceniks). The United States and its cute little lacky coalition specifically precipitated what happened afterwards, and so share direct responsibility with the extremists themselves. You don't know this; it's a (self-serving) assumption; interestingly, it almost undermines a major part of your thesis; the US, you are implying, is scarcely an agent at all; it reacts to crazy world events...uselessly, incidentally, and without any ill effect worth considering.

I got hesitant, and balked a little... but yes, that's just what I was getting at.

Indeed, elementary morality virtually demands it. American Woman and I were simply parsing the difference between the condition of being a pedophile, and of acting on one's pedophilic desires. That is, the difference between pedophilia and sexual assault of children. A person can be a pedophile without ever acting on his desires.

The United States has in many ways been a force for good, not least in its difficult-to-quantify but very real cultural effects in the realm of freedom of expression and stated opposition to tyranny...which I think have had practical positive effects. But when it, and we, directly oppose these tendencies, there is a need for an accounting of it--based on precisely the princiiples which underline your argument here. So when the US and its "spineless" allies commit to subverting demcoracy (which is not unusual) or when they resort to semi-clandestine support for terrorist groups, or commit explicitly to wholesale slaughter, it can't be excused on any grounds, certianly not on some "on the whole" approach; like with the other point I made, the "on the whole" approach is, first, impossible to measure, and second (and more importantly) contradicted by the states' own behaviours. Cuba has occasionally performed some distinct international good, including medical help for ravaged regions, and even an intervention in Angola to protect democratic forces agaisnt brutal invasions from (US-backed) South Africa and Zaire. And while I admit it's wise to recognize these facts, it doesn't, for me, ameliorate Cuba's repression, its historical attacks on basic freedoms and so on. For a coalition of democratic states who have recently conducted a savage and destabilizing attack on Iraq--and which a newly-released CIA report now contends that the anti-war folks were correct, astonishingly (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/06/inside-the-cia-dossier-on-iraq/), there are both heartening and disheartening truths that are self-evident: it's heartening that we can now see the CIA admitting that those opposing the war were correct; but it's disheartening that such behaviours, which are often as bad as anything our enemies can conjure, are not unusual deviations, but institutional parts of international policy. I'm not even 100% clear on why people object to hearing the facts. It doesn't reflect on them personally, unless they're wholly invested in self-aggandizing myths that have affected their personal identity...indoctrination, in shorthand. And the hostility is never about the facts, anyway, but rather about some perceived overarching approach to the subject(s), which on the whole is a pretty trivial complaint.

Yeesh. Pretty greasy.

Here is a lengthy, very funny review of the book by Michael Caigoy (he reads it "so you don't have to.") This is the first part, and the other seven or eight parts are available by link in the original. Edit to add: I, personally, have read (some of) Atlas Shrugged (even most of the book's admirers haven't tackled the whole thing, in my opinion...much like the (admittedly smarter and more sophisticated) admirerers of Joyce's Ulysses). I point this out only to ward off the predictable "if you haven't read it, how can you comment on it?" remarks. Well, I haven't fried my genitals on a hot stove either, and no amount of remonstration will change my tack on that matter. But yes, I have tackled a big part of Rand's "novel," so need for any sanctimony about experiencing it for myself. After all, haven't I suffered enough? (Oh...and because I predict a charge of literary snobbery or something...I like all manner of stuff, including the inconsistent but talented Stephen King.) Anyhoo: http://buffalobeast.com/caigoy-shrugs/

War can certainly be illegal.

A fair point. In fact, actively avoiding acting on one's sexual predilections can be somewhat difficult. I don't mean to overstate this; I don't mean a person should be applauded for adhering to basic moral norms, as it should be expected of us all. But it's good to recognize, as you say, that "pedophile" is a condition, not an evil...it's all about behaviour, the only thing that matters here.

Nothing to do with Harper...I don't know from where you got that conclusion. It was about Oily Tony, the "facts fixed around the policy," the "sexing up of documents," the unneccessary (therefore illegal) war...the warnings about "45 minutes" before Saddam could unleash destruction upon the dewy shores of England. Etc.

Sans the War Criminal bit, hopefully.

Takes a bit of gall to say this, considering you have just ignored Dre's most relevant points first. Lie that, oh, for one example, how the Western allies, most notably the United States in recent decades, have been objectively more destructively belligerant and aggressive than Iran has ever been. Now, you might wish to argue that such behaviour is more justifiable than Iran's...but if you back the more belligerent, destructive and lawless rogue states, then the onus is on you to expand on this and explain why.

Exactly so. And it's not defending their behaviour to merely point out that they behave, internationally, quite normally (ie somewhat badly); and in fact, they have been less wantonly aggressive than, say...well, everyone gets three guesses, and they'll likely all be correct. What's interesting is the continual double standard at play...hell, I've had a couple of posters (ie more than one) explain to me straight-faced that Western-backed terrorism is generally justifiable, whereas Eastern-backed terrorism is the virtual definition of Evil. Or when, during the Iraq War, we were constantly informed about the "foreign interference" of Iran into Iraqi affairs. A true jaw-dropper, that one.

That's not what I was responding. I replied to a poster whose "how dare you critique the PM's decisions" theme rubbed me the wrong way. But then, I'm not a Commissar.

Walmart has a huge, huge number of employees who are "officially" part-time...but who work full time hours. Thus benefits are neatly avoided.

.....

No, you're right. There is precedent for non-contiguous inclusion (and I mean aside from the colonies of Empire). It can be perfectly feasible, though it's only fair if travel passage privelege--without the hassles of officially traversing a foreign country--are included.