bleeding heart

Agreed, exactly so.

Then it's an infinite prospect, because they will never leave.

Good point. The idea that drug manufacturers would simply "go on strike" and stop producing, Atlas Shrugged style, is preposterous. As Kevin O'Leary said, "I'd be a commie if I could make a buck at it."

Hoo, boy. I'm not going to educate you on how our system works, because plainly you don't want to know.

I agree. I also question what I think is an implied corollary here; that somehow, we owe "rich people" something, as if they need to be rewarded for their contributions to society. The riches are the reward. What else can one demand? Love and adoration from everyone else? And Rush Limbaugh and the Koch brothers aside, most rich people would think this an uncontroversial truth.

I know. He's so great, that like every decent human being, he thought that released photos of an Iraqi detainee with a banana stuck up his butt was sooo hilarious!--my gosh that's funny, innit!

I also think it's unwise, politically, to use language that seems (whatever the intent) to be so charged. I don't think people mean it as some sort of critique of the poor, but it can sure sound like it to a lot of people, I'd wager.

At least the last part is plainly true. I'm flattered by the offer, but I'm a married man. But good luck to you in your search. Shivering through another of your patented little tantrums, I see. No, little tantrum-thrower, the "sad reality," the "cold hard reality," is that women are not usually grabbed in dark alleys because of the way they're dressed, and then raped at knife-point. And even the minority who do suffer through exactly this, through such horrific crimes of opportunity, are not attacked because of the way they're dressed. Virtually all rapes have nothing whatsoever to do with the way women dress. Hell, most rapes are by men that the women already know. I see you're unaware of basic facts, and of "cold hard reality." If you're going to insist upon using Ms. Ford and Barbara Kay as your authorities on rape, it's little wonder you're so ignorant of the subject. No doubt she would wish so too--I'm rather handsome. But again, I'm a married man.

Sure, it's not as if you are currently--in your very post here--indulging in exactly the same exercise, towards me. Good job. After all, why hold yourself to the same standards you expect of others? What makes you think she was "misconstrued"? What point was she really trying to make, but in which basic English failed her? More to the point--since I was talking about Barbara Kay, not Ms. Ford--how was Kay misconstrued? And how did her editors miss the shoddy writing which subsequently led to her being misconstrued? She said exactly what she meant. Nothing has been misconstrued. But if my stupidity was pronounced loudly in a newspaper article, and my opinion (in the context of rape) is that women shouldn't be dressing like "sluts" and "whores," then hopefully more reasonbale folks would be calling me out on my foolishness. Meanwhile, rue, you could applaud my fine opinions on the matter, defending me from criticism, and joining the other reactionary mouth-breathers...who, after all, are soooo morally superior to "whores." Yep: Barbara Kay and Rue: towering pillars of moral decency, unlike the "whores" they so righteously detest.

And why, by the way, are their different "laws" for gentiles than for Jews?

That's my experience too. Lots and lots of jobs, with lots and lots of co-workers, all in the private sector. Firings are rare. And the private sector plainly breeds just as much lazines and incompetence as does the public sector. Why wouldn't it? Both are made up of human beings. There's no objective "efficiency meter" which weeds out the bad and rewards on merit. To think so is to insist that theory trumps reality itself.

Since I misread you, apparently not. My apologies. At any rate, I should probably have made another point as well: I pretty much agree with you. These big campaign conventions are not in any way necessary to make an informed judgement, and are basically reality tv, degraded entertainment for those of us interested in politics. That wasn't the intent, originally, but it is the effect. And no, "Here comes Honey Boo Boo" is not, in my view, more stupid and more degraded than the Republican Convention. It's not my cup of tea, but I don't see it as the worst of reality television. Not even close. (Although the pageant show that spawned it is among the worst. Gross.) I also agree with you about the American versus Canadian jingoistic "we're the best" stuff; that is, there is no "versus." They're more or less the same thing. (If not, why not, eh?) No doubt there are slight cultural distinctions, but they are "distinctions without a difference," as the phrase goes. In both cases, it's mostly harmless anyway (if irritating), especially if it's not actually a political opinion, or rather as the genesis of a political opinion. (One of the differences between liberals/conservatives, left/right--to generalize a lot, sure--is that the Right more often uses patriotism as part of their political stance, their worldview...which is strange to me, but to each his or her own.)

I (very, very clearly) pointed out that markets are often very efficient. I also pointed out a basic and uncontroversial truth; that they're not, in every case, the most efficient...nor the least expensive. Do you honestly disagree? If you do, you'll have to explain the examples already given you to counter such fanatical religious beliefs. As for "statism": that's nonsense. Do you believe in the death penalty? Statism. Pro-life? statism. Think we should have joined the Iraq War? statist. And so on..... You've been told that "statist" means "leftist" and has something to do with taxes.....and you didn't bother to look into the matter any deeper.

Tsk Tsk, indeed. The provinces don't give a red cent to one another. Try again.

She does, very obviously. I'm not sure the purpose of the pretence to the contrary.

Ezra, and Steyn, were both absolutely correct about the HRC. Two stopped clocks, occasionally correct. That doesn't mean they aren't creeps, obviously.

Evidently. A remark about failures of "non-Americans"," in this context, implies something else about "Americans." Grammar's a bitch!

Hell, no. Cleavage? Lots of leg? Dangerous behaviour. Yes, that's the other side of it. As Pakistani Tariq Ali said, "The religious and cultural oppression of women in my country is, at a fundamental and philosophical level, also extremely disrespectful of men." Which maybe raises yet another question: "Whores"? Really?

I'm making a point about comfort (and freedom, in my analogy) relative to other places...and how "you already got it good" is no good excuse to telling people their protests are worthless. Hell, you said, "if anything us here in Ontario should be taking to the streets"...after which most American students could say, "Stop your whining, you got it easy!"

And since Elections Canada is, so I've been informed here by some Conservatives, quite profoundly evil, this matter shouldn't be hard to comprehend.

Hence her remark, ...and its clearly-implied correlative. She really does think that a geographical accident of birth makes her smarter than everybody!

That has been covered fairly well in this very thread.

Margaret's stronger, but Babs is as mean as a rattlesnake; it'd be anyone's fight.

In my view, this particular show (of which I can base my opinion only on one episode, for what that's worth) is less offensive than most reality tv. There is a an old tradition of "rednecks" and "white trash" in entertainment that makes self-effacing fun of itself, while simultaneously humanizing themselves, by playing past the caricatures. (I'm not trying to protray this show as the product of deep-thinking...only that there is cultural subtext to...well, to any part of culture.) Far more ugly and disturbing, for my money, are the "experts help you poor slobs" shows: the Chef Gordons, the whatsername Canadian debt-advice lady, and so on: "wise" and superior authorities berating people, humiliating them, and then, ultimately (after they've paid the price in humiliation and debasement) their lives are magically turned around. After which, in every case, without exception, massive praise and adoration is heaped upon the "Star" who used "tough love" to make them better people. Now that's some dirty and disingenuous train wrecks of reality television. However, I don't know why American Woman thinks that success, and achieving your dreams, is some sort of uniquely American attribute. Those days are more or less over, at least for the time being. Your chances of upward mobility are much higher elsewhere, nowadays.

We were just laughing about this knuckledragging idiot and her "sluts kinda/sorta deserve it but not really" column in another forum! Small world.