Black Dog

Wel duh. A guy like the late, unlamented Wolfgang Droege probably wouldn't hesitate to use terms like "nigger" or what have you, precisely because of the historic hatefullness the word conveys. But then, folks like him also sneer at "political correctness". What people seem to be missing out on is the essential fact that a word is not just a word. A rose by any othe rname would smell as sweet, but how would your wife react to getting a bouquet of, say, crap-blossoms instead? Words matter and while some "politically correct" terminology can seem silly or frivolous, I'm not convinced the whole concept is "insanity".

My big beef with most religions, Christian denominations in particular, is that their heaven is so hard to get into. I mean, surely a life lived with good intentions and good deeds, not free from all sin (humans being human), but free from the most egregious acts against one's fellow man, would suffice for a loving god. I certainly don't see how a just and loving deity could alow such a thing as eternal damnation to exist. A eternity of torment and pain for sins committed in a single short lifetime on this earth? Seems like a raw deal to me. No, IMHO, I don't think Jesus would have really cared if we believed in him or not. Nor do I think he would think we'd have to be completely pure to get into his kingdom. But then, I don't actually buy any of that stuff anyway.

What about those of us whoare wholly uniterested in Christian Heritage?

In the balance between government spending on services and low taxes for citizens, the Klein government has managed to incorporate the worst of both in this year's budget. Canada's oil emirate receives more revenues than any other provincial, yet Albertans pay the highest provincial taxes in Canada. Despite the incredible wealth Albertans continue to be saddled with regressive taxes such as the health care preimiums and flat tax. What do we get for our money? Well, Alberta also comes in dead last in nearly every indicator of social progress such as food bank usage, homelessness, class sizes and child care. Infrastructure got a bit of a boost, but health care and education saw little help. Some places where the Tories did step up? A $45 million subsidy to the horse racing industry and the continuation of oil and gas royalty tax credits that suck $93 million a year out of Alberta's economy. Somehow, the Alberta Tories have managed to piss off both fiscal hawks and socialists with their wild, directionless spending hikes that do little to improve the lot of Albertans. When will people in this province wake up and focus on the government that has been robbing them blind for decades instead of chasing the bugbear of "western alienation"?

I find his choice of example to be interesting. The use of a religious-based example is very deliberate. Anyone paying attention to events down south can see the religious right is attempting to whip their followers into a frenzy to put the pressure on Repuiblican lawmakers to start paying back the debt the G.O.P owes. That is manifesting itself in small skirmishes: Terri Schiavo, this, for instance, but the ultimate battle will be fought over Bush's Supreme Court nominees. The extremists want to pack the bench with fellow wing nuts, folks who will overturn the traditional constitutional sepraration of church and state. Academia is another front in that war. Reason is under attack in the U.S.A. and its fascinating to see far right lawmakers using the progressiv elanguage of tolerance to force institutions to give credence to their loony views. The media today is pandering more and more to the political fundies. There's no way the mainstream press would say to someone like James Dobson "You're a kook." for fear of appearing intolerant and drawing the wrath of the zealots. Now they are setting their sights on education.

I wouldn't be surprised. The U.S's food inspection system is a disgrace. Of 30 million cattle slaughtered each year, only 40,000 are tested for BSE. There's also an over-reliance on self-policing by producers and packers. In Alberta we've seen the power the U.S. cattle lobby holds in wasshington in keeping the border closed. That sam elobby is also devoted to keeping government regulation in its business at a minimum. After all, we can't have petty concerns like the safety of the food supply get in the way of big agribusiness' bottom line.

Right so if a student believes the sun revolves around the earth, or some other kooky and unscientific belief (like, say, "intelligent design") they can sue? What a bunch of malarkey. People have the right to their personal beleifs, no matter how out there thay might be, but when institutions of higher learning are being forced to "respect" suchj outlandish views, that's going too far. This is educational McCarthyism.

Two totally different people with totally differnt MO's. Personally I think MM's tactics of camera ambush, cut and paste film making, truth distortion, slander, and utter hypocrisy are bad for teenagers and the hardworking Americans they're marketed to. Somehow to me, making fun of liberals doesn't fall into this category. Of course. You perfer people who just make up facts, insults disabled Vietnam veterans, hypocritically bemoans personal attacks while using phrases such as "traitor", "half-wit" and worse to describe her opponents, calls for the deportation of immigrants from "terrorist producing countries" etc etc. etc. But that's all fun and games. You're not partisan. Just looking out for the children, right? You can compare the relative popularity and methodology of Moore and Coulter to unfavourable slag the former, there's many commonalities: both are media persoanlities, both are successful because of their outrageousness, both cater in large part to partisan constituencies, both are rich (Moore through his body of work, Coulter largey through the patronage of the well-funded conservative apparatus), bothe rare vilified by their opponnents, both play fast and loose with the facts to suit their agenda. Yet, in your view, one "spews venom" while the other one "plays for laughs". I don't know how you do it: for most people, holding two completely contradictary opinions at the same time would caus etheir head to explode.

She's making books (best-sellers, as I understand it) and cruises the talk show circuit. I guess the question is: if it's not the Average Joe that's making her a mint, then who is? Again, though, thanks for proving my point that Michael Moore gets you frothing at the mouth while Ann Coulter gets a pass, despite having the same schitck. The easiest way to tell when she's lying is to look at her mouth. If it's open and there is sound coming out, she's lying.

Saudi's hard line on gays Saudis execute six men without sentence House of Saud re-embraces totalitarianism Meanwhile, at the ranch...

Huh? So you're in a queue and people are randomly walking up to the black girl and apologizing? And you figure this is "political correctness" in action? Sorry, but that story doesn't make any sense.

No I think you're perfectly willing to parrot whatever shill comes along that makes you feel big. I wouldn't have a problem with the vast right-wing media circle jerk if it kept to its own. But it keeps bubbling up and infecting the mainstream. I'm willing to be a month's pay you've never even read Chomsky. So what you're saying it's the wealthy elites who are lapping up this stuff. How doe sthat square with th ecommon notion that the right wing represents the little guy, the working stiff, the silent majority? See I keep hearing from people like Coulter about the "Hollywood Liberals" and "New York elites" that are destroying America. And now you're telling me these folks are her fanbase? WTF? By the way, since when is lying in the public record okay as long as it's just for entertainment?

Bullshit. Nobody writes books, shows up on natonal television etc etc. just to preach to the choir. Riiiiight. Totally unlike Coulter who only wants to banter playfully with felow conservatives, and in no way intends to stir up fear and hatred of liberals, democrats, ter'ists for partisan purposes. Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound when you try to peddle this rank bullcrap?

It's funny how the right-wing will get their knickers all in a twist over Michael Moore's propaganda and will fall over each other to pounce on any inaccuracies, distortions or half truths he uses. Yet when one of your own utilizes the same dubious tatics (not to mention the race-baiting that underpins so much of Coulter's b.s.), it's all just a big laugh. How can you claim (as you have) that people who defend Michael Moore risk losing all credibility, while you defend and downplay Coulter's lies? I learned a long time ago not to expect any intellectual consistency from the right, but it's still gross to see the doublethink in action.

Boy that liberal media sure is keeping her down. Of course, you'll note she's filed under "entertainers", not "thinkers".

Usage determines the meaning of words. Language is capable of social evolution. There's a danger in simply assuming a word's meaning is benign when the words themselves come with social and historical baggage that alters the meaning. Take the "n-word" for example. The widespread usage of it as a term of endearment between African Americans is part of an attempt to "reclaim" the word. However, that does not strip it from the connotations it carries when directed at blacks by white, given the social history of the word as an insturment of oppression. Considered within that broader context, the intent of the user does not outweigh the baggage attached to the word's use. August has his mind on his money and his money on his mind. Oppression need not be simply material. For example, upper-class women in Victorian England were surrounded by material wealth, yet were social inferiors to men. Class trapping aside, there was a fundamental imbalance beteween the sexes (an imbalnce which persists today, but that's another story). Similarily, the social stigma around homosexuality persists and constitutes another means of oppression. Minority rights can be viewed as part of the broader class struggle: and divide and conquer strategies used by the ruling class to maintain their hegemony.

Uneccesary ad hominem from someone who usually opts to cut and run when faced with a real argument. Tell you what: why don't you head down to the playground where you can rule as intellectual overlord of the sandbox (barring the precense of any precocious 6-year olds). Health care costs have been rising across the board (drug costs alone are rising twice as fast as other areas). Costs also rising about twice as fast as inflation (though not as fast as GDP). As for the notion that taxes relating to health car eincreasing, that's balderdash. At the federal level, the amount of money going into health care has been shrinking (not sure exactly how low, I belive it's around 15 per cent). Meanwhile, more provinces have been adopting regressive taxes in the form of health care premiums which, at least in our case here in Alberta, go into general revenues and not back into the health care system. Bottome line? The system has been choked for funding even as costs increase (which is a result of external factors), the feds have been downloading like crazy, and the provinces, most of which are strapped for cash to begin with, keep chipping away. There's absiolutely no reason to think that a renewed committment to public funding couldn't alow the system to regain lost ground.

I expect you meant "count". In any case, I'l tak eyour in depth, well thought out and thoroughly informative response to indicate you don't have any thing of consequense to add to this discussion.

Well for starters, a Democrat is not necessarily a liberal (hello Joe Lieberman!). Second, I asked for 5 liberal media personalities. You named 5 including a Democratic Senator (therefore, not part of the media. That would be like me citing the fact that President Bush was on TV as evidence of the riht wing media bias) and a guy who apparently works to prove a liberal media bias. So you didn't respond fully. Finally, the larger point is that personal political orientation does not prove bias. Content proves bias. Individual personalities have individual biases, but they pale in comparison to the larger structural biases inherent in the media which tilt the press towards power and money.

So you know your history. Good for you. What does this have to do with the alleged hatred of Jews by those Bush-approved Arab scholars?

Oh yes: raging leftists all. I'll give you Mike Moore. That's one. Tim Graham, I've never heard of him, but if it's the same dude google gave me, you've just named a guy who works for the same organization who's study you just cited as proof of liberal media bias. I disqualifiy Hillary on the grounds that she is not a media pundit, but a politician (and not a particuairly lefty one at that). Jennings? Williams? How do these telepromter reciters stack up to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Scarbourough and other fire-breathing righties who have their own shows to disseminate their ideaology from? Barbara freaking Walters? Is she slipping Marxist class analysis into her teary celeberity puff pieces now? George Stephawahatsahoozah? You're telling me the former aide to the last Democratic president might be (gasp!) a Democrat? What you have is mostly a selection of mushy centrists and centre-right establishment drones. In other words, your kind of people. Great. Now I've gione and turne dthis into anoher discussion on bias. Oh well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Political junkies and partisan pundits are outraged and rightly so, but I wonder how a cynical public will look at it. Could people be so inured towards political corruption that this won't make a dent?

When I hear the term "U.S. support of Israel", I take it to mean the government and state of Israel. I'm fairly certain that the $2.1 billion per year in military aid and $600 million per year in economic support coming from the U.S. is not going to individual Jews within Israel.

Wait aminute: a right wing organization dedicated to prove a left wing bias in the media has found a left wing bias in the news media? Well knock me over with a feather! I really can't help noticing that the study in question focused not on media content, but individual reporters personal beliefs which may or may not manifest itself in their coverage. Nor does it The discussion is not about media bias. That's already been done and if you want to go back and wade into that thread, be my guest. But here's a question: if there's such an overwhelming number of liberal voices out there (and in a world where a Democrat is instantly regarded as a liberal, the term liberal means little), can you name, say, five?

When? That's swell. But kind of a cop out. After all, how do you exopect people to buy your miracle cure if you don't know if it's in pill or liquid form? Know what I mean? Less area means there's less infrastructure required (physical and administrative), while a small population means there's more coverage to go around. Human behaviour for one. This is especially relevant to health care because helath care is not a commodity that people can shop around for. If you're in a car accident and you need treatment stat, are you in a position to comparison shop? Not only that, but in health care, consumers are highly reliant on the providers of the service. Ever taken your car into the shop for an oil change and walked out because you "needed" new brake pads, taransmission fluid, etc? Now imagine doing that with your health.