bleeding heart

It's both a weakness and a strength. As for "monopoly power of the state"...this is selective perception. Statists arise from the Right every bit as much as from the Left...and they move comfortably around the Centre, as well.

I appreciate the compliment, as they are rare around here ...but my main point was that, first, I don't think either of the "devil's advocate" answers I offered were plausible, and that, second, I don't think it's relevant anyway.

I think that's the correct answer. It's not a public issue, because the public doesn't care.

If I bought into the notion, and I had to guess, and to play devil's advocate, I can't really think of anything except for, 1. low grades (which, as a...pretty recent President has shown us, is not an issue...maybe even an endorsement!) 2. some kind of academic disciplinary issue...which, again, is of little consequence, since we know that actual authorites (as opposed to university "authorities") were never brought into it. In other words....there's nothing plausible to argue for, even speculatively.

???? What the hell? I haven't even been part of this discussion. Ever. Try to distinguish between the various people that you despise so much. We're not all the same guy, you know. Your hatred is making you fumble around in error.

Very interesting, and very timely given our discussion here.

I was pointing out the regressive attitude of one Ms. Kay, frothing right-wing journalist extraordinaire. You say it wasn't about her; and yet my post, to which you responded, was about her. So, think on that a little, if you're able. Her view on rape is that of provocatively-dressed women turning men on and then getting attacked. I only pointed out the truth--that this is a fallacious view of rape. Since it's an incontestable truth, I can't imagine why you would disagree. Sure you do. This entire post of yours (and some of your others) reek of sanctimony and self-righteousness. A pretty unfortunate fact, given your attempted argument here. The rest is just your ranting about spitting in my face and other delights, so there's no need for further comment.

Right back at you, brother.

Either way, that's not relevant to how knowledgeable the respective viewers are.

Yep.

Far be it from me to agree with American Woman on two different subjects in only two days...... but she's got a point. Look: like many of the posters here, I don't have a big problem with the Canadian system--and I agree it's worked reasonably well. (Although even that view might underline a...certain lack of imagination? Is that point not worth considering? Not just for our system, but for all of them?) I'm not an Abolish-the-Monarchy type. And, for reasons well-stated by others, a Parliamentary system with an (almost inherently) partisan President instead of a Monarch is seriously problematic. (Can everyone say: "permanenet Conservative Government"? Shudder.) So, there we are. But the inheritance/religious/gender issue raised is real. It's not a phantom of the imagination, and it's not trivial. We can say "meh," all we like...but we should at least be able to concede that this is an issue, considering contemporary notions and ideals about exactly these matters. Consider it this way: for all those who believe the Inheritance/Religious/Gender matter is trivial; and simultaneously considering our contemporary feelings about all three of these aspects in every other realm of society...I think the onus is on them to explain why it's trivial....not the other way 'round.

No, that's not the way feminists think. (Oh, there might be a trivial handful of fringe extremists...but it's not the norm). And no, obviously men are not now in the position--re abuse or otherwise--that women were in 50 years ago. That's a wanton exaggeration, to put it generously. Certainly, abuse of men--whether by women or by same sex partners--is serious, and it's a problem. I'd never try to diminish it. But we're not talking about equal phenomena here.

No...I'm saying they are doing it so they can find work, period. Most don't go on pogy, but simply go looking for work. What's so difficult to understand? No, it's what one does while sititng at the computer and pondering the inferiority of everyone looking for work.

I don't even understand how "Zero" could not be an option. No doubt there will always be contestable marking decisions (ie a "0" for insufficient effort, which maybe deserves a 20%, 25%, or what have you). But some assignments and tests--say, zero work done on it--deserve a zero. That doesn't sound unreasonably harsh to me.

It has nothing to do with the ivory tower, academics, or statistics. And no one ever "gave" you a job, Wild Bill. They rent out your time, so long as your labour is cheaper than the profit extracted from your labour. (And no, that's not "Marxism," but basic capitalism.)

...

Yeah, well, what irritates about Kevin is that he seems fully aware of the ugliness of his propositions, and utters them (continually) in a way designed to provoke; he enjoys it. He's like those folks who bravely condemn "political correctness" right before going on a racist or sexist or homophobic rant...under the pretence that "I'm just saying what everybody thinks!" And of course this is usually dead wrong, factually incorrect, and that's where O'Leary's thoughtlessness, his demonstrable lack of true insight and understanding, comes into play. I mean this exactly; I'm not engaging in rhetorical overstep; consider: O'Leary: "Mixing economics and morality is evil, and shouldn't ever be done." OK, I realize that less thoughtful and insightful "free marketeers" [sic] will nod their heads numbly at this proposition...because they don't understand the meaning of basic English words. But you can't moralize about how something should have no moral component. That doesn't make sense. If there is no morality to economics, it is logically impossible for such an admixture to be "evil." Yes? What a maroon. I guess this is what you get when simplistic and narrow-parameter thinkers like Hayek replace the more thoughtful humanists like Adam Smith.

A ploy! Only if you contend that Eastwood is a secret Democrat, hired by "the media" (all of it?) to fumble the ball at the Convention.

Do you mean that the rain votes Republican? Or do you mean this is a sign from the God you don't believe in?

You might have also noted that Stewart's fans tend to be more knowledgeable about world events than their FOX-viewing counterparts. But you forgot to mention it.

It was an explicitly political event, and Eastwood was directly involved, and openly taking a partisan, political position, and publically criticizing the opposing party and leader. This perfectly legitimate behaviour leaves him legitimately open to criticism from opposing partisans. It has never, will never, and can never be any other way. Are you saying this tough old bird shouldn't be criticized, after a political performance? Are you saying that 84-year-old Noam Chomsky should be free from criticism? That's not how it works.

People move all the time because they need to work. It's not generally because they "have run out of pogy." What a jerkoff thing to say. Unbelievable.

Of course.

No, his argument (though not nearly his entire point) is that the majority of fundamental research is done on the taxpayer dime.