Black Dog

Through the wonder of the "search" function we find: That's a few among the 5,030 results. Harper says get sus 3,300 hits. That tells me the headline is only "suspicious" if you go in with the expectation of bias. Shit. What a pointless excercise. "Says" is not a word that is generally associated with authenticity. It just means someone said something. Now, if the word was "claims" or "alleges", then you might have a case. I think I've dealt with the "says". The scare quotes, well, quotes can be used to punch up keyphrases that would otherwise sound weird in straight text. And the mention of U.S. conservatives probably came from a) the fact that Basham works for the conservative Cato institute, the fact the initial column wa sin the right-wing washington times and c) from the following excerpt: How one reads the tone of a piece is influenced by their own biases. You are aware of the prexisiting bias by the CBC against Harper, therefore you expect it to be there. If you didn't know better, you'd probably shrug and move on.

Uh...being a citizen of the U.S.A is not a race. Yeah, what do they need with our oil, gas, wood, hydroelctric power etc etc... The term for that is "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". Let's see: the U.S retains close economic ties with the countiesy that gave them Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), a major superpower rival who threatens U.S. allies and shoots down U.S. planes (China), and a host of other nations run by regimes that would be quite happy if the U.S. as we know it suddenly ceased to exist. But they are going to cut us off for hurting their feelings? Riiiight.

Well, what is the "muslim community"? Unlike, say, Catholicism, there's no central authority in the Islamic religion. So frequently, these "minor immans and community organizations" are the one's most representative of the whole. But even then, there are scores of divisions within Islam, nor are all Arabs adherents. I don't understand this notion that Muslims the world over are somehow responsible for the actions of all Muslims. Well, I guess when you start off by dismissing any condemnations that do come out as "tepid", it's easy to build a strawman argument that Muslims are silent. Assuming collective responsibility based on race is a pretty ugly proposition.

So it is. Be that is it may, it's a pretty standard useage. CBC's search function. No, I don't think the question is unfair. But I do think the perception of the anti-Harper CBC causes people to seek out bias where none may lie. I think the CBC article is a pretty fair summary of Harper's response.

I'm curious now: do you have any background on this "troublemaker" angle? Reports I've seen have mentioned anyone of Arabic or Mediterranean apperance was tagetted. So even if we're talking about a specific group of troublemakers, the focus of the rioters was on any swarthy-types. Furthermore, it strikes me as a little odd that 5,000 people would descend upon this little community en masse to deal with a local problem. So even if we accept the premise that there was some tensions between the white and brown folks, it's clear that this was fuelled by general rascism and xenophobia.

But how fares the War on Christmas?

Please. No one goes around spewing the kind of garbage that Coulter and Malkin et al do without intending to provoke a reaction. In fact, in the many, many discussions we've had on these types of people, I can't count how many times I've been told that Coulter's schick is intentionally "over-the-top" and how she exists to "get a rise out of liberals". Well congratulations: apprently, its working. Oh and here's some "Classic Coulter Quotes" for sharkman to knaw on:

Yes. This article was basically a reprint of Harper's letter. The phrase "Harper says" doesn't appear in the article. As for "appeared to" a quick search of the phrase on the CBC website turned up 4 uses in regard to Harper and 5 for Paul Martin. I disagree. In the context of the paragraph, the quotes are correct. The direct attribution of the like "great dissapointment" gives the statement more heft than it would without the quotes, where it would look like simple editorializing on the part of the author: remember, people reading this article might not necessarily see the original letter. Meh. I think people are so convinced of the meme that the CBC has it in for Harper that the CBC could print an article on why Harper would make the best Prime Minister ever, and Conservative supporters would still rail at it.

I seriously doubt that a large number of Americans give even a passing thought to Canadian attitudes.

There's a fairly broad social consensus regarding the depiction of children in sexual situations. Most people don't like it. However, no such consensus exists with regard to mind or mood altering chemicals, as evidenced by the acceptance and legality of many demonstratably harmful substances (as well as the acceptance and widespread use of banned substances). So the argument that pot prohibition is a moral issue based on "society's" disapproval of getting wasted falls apart because of the lack of consistency with which the social sanction is applied.

Let me get this straight: they went after Arabic-looking types, but it's not about skin colour or race? Right, makes perfect sense. Sounds to me like the mob is guilty of the same broad generalizatons that characterize your post.

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

Hmm. I make a point about your overriding obsession with one subject and you respond with a purile insult. I guess that's because the left is so full of hate while we watch the Soviet-style, taxpayer-funded CbC and count all the blood money we recieved from Saddam while enabling terrorists and freedom-hater everywhere.

Argus: you're out of your element. Noooooo. The existence of a black market in prohibited substances or products is not an argument for repealling those prohibitions. But then, child porn and pot are illegal for very different reasons, one's that shouldn't have to be spelled out for you. Unlike child porn, there is no exploitive aspect to pot use. Kiddy porn, involving as it does underage participants who are not deemed to be able to make their own decisions, is inherently exploitive. Hence society's dissapproval. Myth. None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, nor is there any convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions. Because that's the wrong tack to take. If someone wants to get stoned or drunk, it's none of your damn business. I don't recall you being appointed arbiter of what constitutes acceptable recreational activities. Uh...i don't think BDSM activities are banned. Circular logic (pot is bad because society doesn't like it, society doesn't like it because it's bad). Society has already given us the go-ahead to get as fucked up as we want on anything from booze to Xanax: so its clearly not the act of getting high or altering one's conciousness that's society has the problem with: just the means. So what's so special about pot? When you consider that most people addicted to drugs like meth or heroin commit crimes as a means of sustaining their habit, then legalization isn't such a bad idea. Treating drug addiction as a criminal matter, rather than a public health issue, has been a miserable failure. The illegal drug trade is a byproduct of prohibition laws, not the drugs themeselves. During the '30s there ws a thriving and violent underground trade in booze. After prohibition was repealed, the street trade dried up. Today, you don't see liquor store owners waging turf wars and murdering each other in the street. Nope. THC stays in the fat, but it only acts on the brain for a relatively short period. Unless your brain is full of fat? It also works great for killing people (alchol is a factor in more than 30 per cent of fatal car crashes involve alcohol, 54 per cent of all assaults, murders and attempted murders and 40 per cent of all child abuse cases).

Of course you do: you're a monomaniac.

Who dissmissed the horrors of WW2 or any war? War's are horrific. And yet, those who benefit most (those that send men to die) never get their hands dirty. Argh. This is precisely the mythologizing I'm trying to skewer here.

You cite Malkin and then have the gall to question my sources?

And you're suffering how? Yeah: these punk kids were just looking for fame: I know facile analogies are something of a specialty with you, but this one takes the cake. Individuals living under oppressive and violent regimes are not the regime.

It's happened before: what make syou think it won't again. We're a tiny portion of the earth's population, yet we control most of its wealth. See where I'm going? My argument is, simply, no matter how much they might think they are protecting our freedoms etc. etc., the primary job of a soldier is to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The fact that society as a whole profits from the subjugation of others does little to change that fact. The war in Iraq is a perfect example. The American way of life runs on oil. The war in Iraq (as much as its defenders like to pretend it doesn't matter) is predicated in some degree on maintaing that dependency, a dependency which all Americans benifit from to some degree. But some beneift more than others (a lot more) and they are the one's sending the guys who would be otherwise working the gas station to die. This is not hard: people who believe they are fighting primarily for freedom are believing a big, fat lie.

Why? Uh...it's a campaign. All politicians make promises during campaigns. By the same token, then, Harper's GST reductions, small business tax cut and day care stipend are "bribes" too. The biggest problem with PR is its complexity. People tend not to support changes they don't understand. They are, apparently, much happier marking one X and then bitching about a system that gives one partyy near absolute power.

Possibly. But they are definitely committing them. A lot of celebereties have body gurads. I bet Michael Moore does too. Oh no! Hecklers! HATE CRIME! How ever will we go on with out Ann Coulter's wonderful, positive, hate-free ideas about blowing up the NYT or debating whether liberals are stupid or evil. I agree, those protests got out of hand ( though I also agree that Netanyahu is a p.o.s). Are you kidding? They have organizations for that sort of thing. Oh and that was your link. I've been going to babble a lot longe rthan I've been coming here. And I can't tell you how many right-wingers come on to that avowedly progressive site and begin by insulting the community here, mocking progressive ideals and generally acting like trolls until they are kicke doff. There's a solid cadre of right-wingers on that site: only they know how to treat the place with respect, which a lot of others do not. Funny you should mention Mr. burns: here we have a guy who constantly referrs to left-wingers as terrorist-enablers, freedom haters etc etc etc ad nauseum: yet it's the left who hates.

Of course you believe it: who wans to think of themselves as a tool? No. I'm not talking about "freedoms", but of our privileged place in the world. You're arguing against a point I'm not making. I'm not arguing that soldiers don't believe all the happy-happy stuff about "making a difference" and "protecting our freedoms". In fact, I'm sure they do. My point is, and has been all along, that war is about none of those things, no mater how ardently the people dying believe it is.

Wow. I can't believe you'd counter so lamely. Hitler's theory is pretty well known: in P.R. circles, it's known as the "Big Lie". And you don't have to have any sympathy with the man whatsoever to recognize his ability to manipulate. What can I say except your exposure to any right wing thought must be pretty limited. Just this morning, I came across a web site with Howard Dean done up as Hitler. And there's entire phalaxes of pundits who've made their careers on negativity and hate (Ann Coulter is a prime example). I think the main difference is that left wing hate is more often than not the product of individuals who use their anonymity to grind their axes. On the right, hate, anger and negativity is institutionalized. So some mixed up kid proves what, exactly? Really, shall I dig up some examples of genuine hate crimes for you? Do names like Matthew Sheppard or James Byrd Jr. ring any bells? Citation? All I've found is a WingNut Daily article that is speculating on the attack. So we'll see.

I wonder: would some form of proportional represntation reduc eor eliminate teh need for strategic voting? It seems to me that, as a practice, strategic voting is entirely a byproduct of the first-past-the-post system.

So: what recent ex-babbler are you?