bleeding heart

If you find a democratic country without internal strife and serious divisions...there is arguably a serious problem with that democracy. In my opinion. Seriously, eh? I don't get this narrative at all. Further, I note well the implied distinctions: Quebec behaving badly; Westerners rationally aggrieved. And: aggrieved by what? Trudeau? He's gone, man, solid gone. In some ways, the West is now in charge (yes, that's oversimplistic, I know). If they "don't feel they belong" then the problem is now of their own making, I would humbly suggest.

I think you're right about this. There are pretty clear Left tendencies at play in all this. (A matter which, in the larger sphere, offends some poeple more than the spectre of separatism does...but most of these critics have little understanding of the contemporary Left...which is why they so often babble about "communism" and such things.) And while separatism will no doubt long remain an issue, it is not currently at the forefront.

Then if you "browbeat"--that is, caustically disagree with anyone on any subject, in less than perfectly diplomatic tones (which you do, blueblood, regularly)...you are holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. For...some reason, unstated. At any rate, betsy doesn't need your spirited defense:

Well said. And as you pointed out earlier, very few gun owners are gun owners for purposes of self-defense; even many who claim it are only using the theme as rhetorical justification for a perfectly legal enterprise. In other words, they're letting their opponents set the terms of debate, and then going on the defensive within these debate parameters. I see no problem with owning firearms; as many posters have said, follow standard, well-known safety rules, and there's little chance of things turning tragic. But there is an ideologue's tendency for argument that doesn't help the case at all. For an analogy, consider poster "socialist" and all the good he does for typical left-wing causes!

And because they claimed to be concerned about "hate speech." A very separate matter...but it's their claim, not mine. Nor yours, since you are avoiding the topic of one of the reasons they gave for the incident. Is it your view that they are liars, desperately searching for an excuse, or both?

Yeah, those damn Hug-a-Dissident leftists don't care about the Government victims.

I have spent my entire life working in the private sector, various jobs, from minumum wage (and less), to relatively well-paying jobs. The amount of sheer laziness, patronage and incompetence, from low-wage worker to boss, matches anything the PS has to offer. You guys have to come up with some new myths, ones that aren't so easily discredited by other posters' own observations. I suggest starting with something that isn't plagiarized from some ideologue's Talking Points handbook. No one's buying it.

The British have, very recently, expressed their true opoinions about the worth of embassies...so no harm, no foul, from their vantage point. Exactly! When the PM speaks, it is not for us to criticize or to disagree. People need to learn their proper place, and learn some respect for the Great Man.

I get that feeling too.

If you don't "support the troops the traditional mother and wife of the successful Businessman"...you are a commie!

But lots of atheists, myself included, have been in their shoes. Part of my issue with religion is that I do know how many of them think. In fact, I'd wager a lot more atheists have been religious than religious people have been atheists. And no one, or at least very few, disagree. Again, it's about public policy. (And no, no one is advocating for an "atheist" public policy, so it's hardly the same thing.)

How does your theory account for the Democrats getting the Jewish vote--every election, without exception?

Ah, yes, the "Great Man" theory of history, cherished by Commissars and sycophants everywhere. But it's reasonable to ask if it's true; and the facts don't bear it out. Let's take a look: This is empty platitudes, the sort of thing uttered so often and so casually by leaders that it's nothing more than boilerplate. Because, and I'll take it as a given that you are--astonishingly!--unaware of this...but the Western nations, certainly including the US, have not (and are not, currently) too fond of reformers; they don't like secular nationalists, they don't like uprisings, they don't appreciate democratic revolution, unless the Boss States have some measure of control (which underrmines the vaunted "democratic principles" by definition). For example, currently there is a bipartisan push to end the "Terrorist" designation of the terrorist group opposed to the Iranian regime; that is, supporting one band of tyrannical religious crazies over another, in the usual tradition. This is not only "tolerating" or "excusing" oppression, as Bush ahistorically determines eager Western support and material aid for mass killers...it is outright support for oppression. Or look at Afghanistan; all along, as this and that political leader moaned about our attempts to bring "freedom" to the Afghan people, we have continually sidelined (even opposed) the actual democratic, secular forces--the ones most philosophically aligned with our stated goals--because it has suited us to support and aid the regressive warlord types, ideological kin to their enemy Taliban. Meanwhile, our allies oppress and attack the secular democratic forces...not an issue, since our leaders don't like them anyway. There are innumerable other examples, as Bush (if not yourself) is perfectly well aware.

The kind of person who sees the centrist wing of the one Business Party as ....leftist! Who promotes freedom, but opposes ss-marriage and abortion...on the grounds that queers and women need as much "freedom" as the (straight, and preferably moneyed) menfolk are willing to give 'em! Oh, and fans of underage teen-diddler Ted Nugent, newly-minted "traditional Family Republican Spokesman."

Excuse me; but the Republicans have been in power for much of the past "FIFTY YEARS," as you so eloquently stress the point. More than half of those fifty years, actually. Now, I realize it offers a giddy, partisan pleasure to not only blame the left for what the left does...but to blame the left for what the right does, too! Pleasureable, but unwise, and unreasonable. The fact is, as some conservative-leaning folks like to say, we are responsible for our own actions. Another way to put it is "conservative/Republican is what conservative/Republican does." They've been in power more than half of these fifty years; therefore, they share at least fity percent of the blame for everything you are criticizing.

Bill Gates explicitly said that the "luck" of his upbringing was virtually 100% responsible for the position he's in now. So, bad example....

Why do Indian taxi drivers in Canada not make Indian cab driver wages? That's the relevant question here.

I don't know what to what "thread 27" refers, I'm afraid. As to my point, I think it's a slight misreading: I have said repeatedly that a moral posiiton is more meaningful when we condemn the terrorist actions of our own states and our allies than if we criticize the terrorist actions of others, especially official enemies. That's not to say that their terrorism isn't real, or doesn't deserve condemnation; only that, in a democratic society, speaking out against our own bad behaviour has the reasonable chance of success; condemning others has less rational expectations of good effect.

I have some sympathy for this view, but I think the author's take here was from a slightly different direction. Harris' views on Islam (with which I don't entirely disagree, incidentally) seem to be married both to his views on torture...and (directly related) his views on the "War on Terror," in which Enlightened States flit about trying to fight evil, and so their actions must be given, relatively, something of a pass from principled objections. The problem (or one of the problems) here is that Harris, much like the late Hitchens, certainly know better than this; at any rate, they have not renounced their respective reams of opinion and analysis on exactly these subjects...which suddenly became...inconvenient to them...after 9/11, once they got excited about black and white Wars Against Evil. [edit] I should add that I don't know enough of Harris to even state that these arguments against him are accurate (as I believe they are for Hitchens, more or less); only that I think this is the criticism of him here.

Well...let's say 30 seconds each, instead.

That's true. And a self-employed plumber could simply not afford to work for those wages, buy and upkeep materials, and run his work vehicle.

The availability of "cheaper gardeners" would affect a vanishingly small number of Canadians, so would have about zero effect on the economy.

I didn't really know which forum in which to post this, but as it's a humorous piece (albeit obviously quite serious, too), this seems as good a place as any. I haven't decided which piece I like best. Anyway, worth a look, and a laugh. Here's a sample from each: Sam Harris: Bill Maher Penn Jillette Ayaan Hirsi Ali S.E. Cupp http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-most-awful-atheists?page=0%2C0&paging=off

I wonder too, but have no idea. Time will tell. If I had to guess...I would say it is slowly on its way out.