Michael Hardner

When I felt that Michael Moore was more interested in self-promotion than truth, I lost interest in him. That attribute doesn't seem to sway your interest in Beck - why is that ?

I would say that 'uncontemplative' sectors are a problem wherever they appear. In Canada, this could mean liberal middle-class types such as myself. From what I hear at parties, they're also susceptible to lazy thinking. Everyone is. Whatever the pervasive bias happens to be, the nature of politics is for somebody to take advantage of it. The ascent of new media, though, tends to destabilize and you will find somebody taking advantage of THAT. Hitler did it with radio, and Ron Paul is doing it with the web.

Beck speaks about power in ways that people understand. The institutions of government didn't keep up with the shrinking attention spans of the voters. So they need to understand, but they can't. The system doesn't reflect the people who live by it so you get Becks - people who can exploit that alienation for their own benefit. I'm convinced, though, that the system has a *wholeness* that will readjust when out of balance. Reasonable people are starting to go to the internet to discuss and find the facts. Hopefully, that demographic will start to become more important to candidates.

He contradicts himself on global warming, that's for sure. As for his other 'claims' I don't even know if you could refute them - he's called Obama a racist and a socialist and since Obama himself has never made those claims ... how could you refuse that ? Just a media clown exploiting the penchant for outrage...

Yes, I think you said that on this thread - that the dollar and euro would go to ... zero ? When is that ?

It's the bias of those who graduate from journalism school, and eventually make up the institution known as the "press". I would say: middle class, slightly liberal, generally supportive of corporations though also suspicious of them... fair but given to biases as we all are...

Give us a number, Mr. Rolleyes, that tells us what % of bad people we need before condemning a group.

My Jewish friends will tell me of their Cedar Supper. Very interesting, and I admire the cultural investment that it requires to keep a cohesive identity going, and I see the value of it. My Muslim friends will describe the feast they had at EID. Also very intriguing. However much I appreciate the cultural ornamentation of religion and nationalistic culture, I recognize that these things are vestiges of the past and that all will wash away with time.

Why do differences need to be resolved ? Various reasons. Sometimes, for example, a dispute may involve on group with more power subjugating another group. Of perhaps the rest of the world is being affected by the dispute and wants a resolution. What is wrong with differences ? Nothing. Sometimes they need to be resolved though. I didn't apply that idea to a particular culture, though, nor am I applying it to one now. I am applying it to all of us, including my own. Shaping cultures is fine, but cultural identity is, to me, often a meaningless thing and gets in the way of healthy living. Do distinct identity contribute to conflict ? Of course. Do I hope for a world where cultural identities are erased ? I don't have to hope for one - I firmly believe that cultural entropy exists. If you don't believe me, ask your Sumarian and Mesopotamian friends at coffee break. Do I hope to live in a post-nationalist world ? I do live in one, at least the beginnings of one.

I can't imagine the PM having to spend more time building alliances so as to get his bills passed through the HofC. Parties are just an efficient way to bundle groups of people who have similar visions for Canada.

My thoughts are that in sentence 1 you ask a question and in sentence 2 you propose a *solution* when no problem has been described. Almost all of the complaints I read about government and democracy relate to how the party machine works. That machine has evolved over decades to make decisions so as to win the next election. The key components of the machine include: the marketing team, the media (especially television), money and the groups that influence government. Most of the solutions that I read don't propose to do anything about these groups, but instead focus on some other component of the system such as voting percentages, etc.

No, I don't. I do categorize all of it as a group like that, though. Kinda like - I respect individual religions, but not religions as a group.

I watched him then. He was just kinda a diffident middle aged goofball. Kinda lovable. He's Howard Beale from Network now. A Network News jester who sells himself for the right amount of gold.

He's always hitting the alarm button... on Obama... on the Dems... in general. Chicken Little he is.

How about the quote where he said that you'd have to be crazy not to believe Global Warming...

<posted in wrong thread....>

Not at all. But differences that come out of the here & now can be resolved. Differences that happened between our ancestors can't, really. Why do you think that shedding this ridiculous cultural baggage is part of an unrealistic quest to rid the world of conflict ? Not my view, anyway.

Punked is right to bring it up. Beck is personally the source of all problems in the US right now. Perhaps I'm overstating it but...

If they were, would you feel close to them ? Personally, I think we're reaching a point in history where we would all do well to put our heritage behind us.

I renounce her...

I think Shady is the one who insisted that a religion was responsible actually.

Sorry - I'm getting confused between you and Shady ... who said "Islam was responsible". I'm sure you can see how it can get confusing, what with some people scapegoating an entire religion, and others focusing on something else.

I don't even want to try to imagine how you think. It seems like you think your perceptions on things should decide how the rest of us decide to do things, though. Like 50-cent is the cause of violence, Muslims are the cause of terrorism etc. In any case, I think we need to guide people to a higher level of thinking than to just look at the superficial similarities between the perpetrators and determine that that is the 'cause'.

Actually, it may cause a stir after all - depending on the tenor of the group. You could imagine various configurations of that group, some of which would be objectionable other which wouldn't.