Black Dog

The important part is the second half of that last line. Moore, IMO, is not a "smash the state!" Marxist, but an advocate for fair treatment of the working class. The idea is that making money and treating workers fairly are not mutually exclusive. For example, his early targets were corporate CEO's who would lay off thousands of workers while awarding themselves extravagant compensation packages. So I don't see his success as being incompatible with those principles (unless he's using sweatshop workers that I don't know about). What continues to interest me is that you self-identify with right-wing causes, and claim to loathe hyporcisy, even as you turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of the right-wing. Even if Michael Moore is a hypocrite of the first order, why is it that hypocrites with far greater reach and power to affect people's lives get a free pass? I mean, what is one filmmaker compared to the President?

Snipe hunt over ...because I never miss a chance to remind people that the main excuse for the was false.

Nonsense. Your invective is always directed at "Arabs"; not "religious whackos", but Arabs in general. So, even if you're not a racist (which I don't believe to be the case), you're intellectually sloppy. Furthermore, your disdain for "religious whackos" seems rather selective. Where's your criticism of the ultra-radical Jewish settler movement, a movement even Israeli authorities consider a potential terrorist threat? After all, if you can demand that your opponents be equally forceful in denouncing all human rights violations committed anywhere, then surely the same standard must apply to the denunciation of "religious whackos". False dichotomy, given that neither position is supported by any evidence. Sorry, but it's pretty obvious you're reaching. The 100 worst It's a few years old, but I doubt much has changed. And hey! Look who's cracked the top 10? I've already indicated why Israel receives criticsm. Part of it has to do with the rank hypocricy of a self-described democracy behaving like a banana republic, part of it has to do with apologists like you who are all to willing to excuse, defend and justify crimes against humanity. If you're too thick to have grasped that the first half dozen times, well, that's not my problem. I'm still waiting to see if you can produce a criticsm I've made of Israel based on race. I'll be waiting a long time because you're clearly not capable of mounting an argument not based on sophistry. More prevarication. Not to mention you're contradicting yourself. If your overt statements on Arabs in general (as I produced earlier) do not constitute racism, then your accussations of racism by inference ring even more hollow (FYI, anti-semetism is racism). Ignorance on your part does not prove malice on mine. You coward. What kind of craven lowlife would hurl unfounded and unproven accusations of racism about repetedly and freely without evidence, yet cry about a few expletives? I think that says a lot about your total lack of character and principles. You're a joke.

I get what you're saying , but I think there's far worse hypocrisy out there to harp on. I don't think Suzuki's oppossition to overconsumption fossile fuels (SUVs being the most obvious target) precludes him from using fossil fuels: it ould be a differnt story if e owned an Escalade. As for Moore, he's an embodiment of the American dream: working class schmoe turned millionaire. I don't see much hypocrisy there. So shouldn't he be talkin of fostering a culture of not making omlettes without breaking a few eggs? Well, I expect someone like Suzuki practices what he preaches. For someone like that, credibility is so important that he simply can't afford to be a hypocrite. So I'd have to see some damn convincing evidence before I start labelling him a hypocrite (the Kennedy one was a good call, though).

Let's get the terminology straight: "Tranvestite" is a term for "cross-dresser"; that is: someone who wears the clothing of another gender for any reason. Cross-dressers may have no desire or intention of adopting other behaviors or practices common to that gender, and generally does wish to undergo medical procedures to facilitate physical changes into a membe rof the opposing gender. "Transgender", on the other hand, refers to non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the gender one was assigned at birth. So when discussing the latter, lets not cheapen the discussion with the image of men in drag trying to use the ladies room to score a cheap thrill.

But wait: what about the false claims of Iraqi WMD the media trumpeted? Surely heads rolled for that? Selective punishment shows media's true bias The Scorecard.

Let's not confuse Paul Martin style, large "L" Liberals with real liberals, shall we? As for Kerry, Edwards (the former married into money, the later earned it), and the Democrats, the G.O.P have them beat on the wealth front hands down (how many of Bush's cabinet members are millionaires and multimillionaires?) Sure, there's some examples of hypocrisy to be found. That's human nature. I like to think that instances where wealth is used to promote progressive views more than balances these few instances out. What I do find interesting is that the right is spared your venom. F'r instance: is it not hypocrisy in George W. Bush talking of fostering a "culture of life" while waging a war that has cost gthousands of innopcent lives? By your logic, in order to maintain any credibility, David Suzuki should be living in a cave and subsisting on nuts and berries. I think that's ridiculous, nor do I think you have any inside knowledge upon which to base that opinion. The trappings of wealth and ideals are not mutally exclusive.

IYHO. If diversity would raise ratings, these guys would be on it in a flash. Instead, they've learned that people are much more interested in personal health questions. Bull. Shit. You forget that "these guys" have a vested interest in ensuring that only certain viewpoints get out and they're certainly not going to allow any views out that could harm them. Do you think a network owned by G.E. would allow a program to report on the dangers of nuclear power? Would ABC report about the treatment of sweatshop workers making Disney paraphanalia? Hell no. Remember: the audience doesn't dictate content. Advertisers do. The audience is merely the product that the media delivers. Which is why we're becoming a society of ignorant drones. IMV.

Right. Like a relative handful of millionaire celeberties with leftist leanings can somehow compare to the stagering number of wealthy plutocrats on the other end of the spectrum. In any case, I fail to see the logic of the idea that the only way someone can be a "real" leftist is if they are poor. We live in a capitalist soceity. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich. If someone of the liberal persuasion is able to get rich by the sweat of thei rbrow and then use that wealth to support positive change, I say power to them. Funny too how people like David Suzuki and Michael Moore, people who got rich by their own work ethic, are scorned while old-money brats like Dubya are revered.

Thee problem with that is that, since such individuals are free from the usual journalistic restraints, they tend to play fast and loose with facts. So what you end up with is people "informing" themselves by watching Crossfire or listening to Rush, but getting bad information. Frankly, it's not possible to have completely unbiased news. Peopel have biases and that will shine through. The problem with the mainstream media is there's little diversity of opinion. That diversity is necessary to ensure good discourse and accuracy in information. As an aside, to comment on the CBS memo incident: the reason that happened was not out of bias, but simply because of the competitive nature of the news business today. When getting the news out first is priority number one, then getting the news right will get lost in the shuffle. That said, I maintain the whole thing was cooked up by Karl Rove anyway, as it couldn't possibly have worked out better for Bush. But I digress.

You'd be a lot more convincing if you dispensed with the exceptionalist American mythos you drape yourself in. It's bad enough to see so many fictions at once, but to think that such rubbish is sold and purchased wholesale by the American people: well, its scary. As some have pointed out (and historians agree) the Soviets were the biggest contributors to the Nazi's defeat (70 per cent of German war casualties were from the Eastern front) Brilliance? The Soviet Union, accorcding to U.S. intelligence estimates going back as far as the mid '70s, was unsutainable, wracked with economic chaos and internal dischord. What Reagan did was to take a decaying, failed Soviet state and whip up fear of the non-existent threat for the purpose of retaining political power. So what is that cost you keep talking about? Is it a dollar? 5 bucks? $800 billion? Yes because Saddam was oh-so close to coming over the North Pole.... Canada is a enormous, geographically isolated nation. We just don't face very many threats. Of course this is completely undermined by American history, which shows that the U.S. is happy supporting dictators or undermining democracy when it suits its purposes to do so. Personally I find vulgar displays of nationalism to be, at best, tacky. Most Canadians would probably agree. Half? Who? Quebec, where separation has been bandied about for decades, but has yet to come to fruition? Alberta, where less than 10 per cent of the population supports soverignty? Who else? Plenty of Canadians would probably cite the '72 series as Canada's moment. I'm glad I live in a country where we can feel connected by something as harmles as sport, rather than a collective taste for bloodshed. Except by Americans... Fresh horrors at Gitmo Afghan women no better off.

Yawn. Can you name any examples of unbiased media outlets? This would be a great phenomenon if the decay of the media was a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. It's not. Media concentration is indeed the culprit and opening the Canadian market up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch won't help matters.

I'm certain that if you had refered to Arabs as "sandni**ers" or some such, you would still prevaricate and whinge about "context". Whatever. Meanwhile the best evidence you can offer of my"racism" is my "relentless attacks on Israel and Israelis". What rot. Your little tactic is pretty common among those trying to defend the indefensible: simply turn the tables, that way you won't have to confront your own moral vacumn. It's pathetic. Frankly. I don't give a fuck if they are Jewish. They could be Shriners for all I care. Putting aside the fact that Zionism itself is a race-based ideology, the dominant ethno-religious character of Israel is secondary to the crimes the state commits. In fact, it's funny that my political position puits me in line with other prominent anti semites like Jews Against the Occupation, Gush Shalom, and these fellows. But I suppose they are just "self-haters". What's this? Why, it's another accusation without a shred of supporting evidence! Honestly, old boy, I don't know why you even bother with such flaccid barbs. The way I see it, it's hilarious that a poster with a proven track record of slurring a particular ethnicity is accusing another poster of racism, yet can't back it up with anything more than a patently fallacious line of reasoning that's been reguritated to the point where it's become a cliche. I think it was a few months ago on a similar thread (I don't have time to check right now) where you trundled out the same line. Then, as now, you were unwilling or unable to produce concrete evidence (like, oh, say: a quotation?) demonstrating 1) my hatred of Jews and (2) my support for terrorism. In short, you were a lying piece of shit then, and you're a lying piece of shit now. (Added) Oh look! More bilge! Logical fallacy. No one has argued anything of the sort. Gosh, you mean there's a gap between what people are supposed to believe in and what they actually practice? I'm shocked! and appalled!

Ahem. The truth about Sweden.

The Conservative agenda (at least what passes for conservatives today) is pretty basic: expanding the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful and ensuring the rest of the rabble don't get too uppity and demand their slice of the pie.

Getting a lot of mileage out of those 5 little words, aren't you? I'll admit it: prima facie, I understated the degree of entaglement between Israel and its Arab neighbours (then I remembered Damauscus and others). So I'm correcting myself now. Which brings us back to your point: I reiterate: the Palestinian issue is the number one issue. It is not a private civil matter, but an embodiement of 60 odd years of animosity between Israel and its neighbours. Basically, you are trying to isolate that conflict from the rest (to what purpose I'm not sure, though I speculate its to create a narrative wherein Israel is the unjust victim of Arab animosity). I'm telling you that's not possible.

It always cracks me up when right-wingers cite the oil-for-food program as an example of the UN's corruption. The United States and Britain, along with the other members of the UN Security Council, designed and oversaw the oil-for-food program. The United States alone had 60 professionals review each of the 36,000 contracts awarded - more than twice the size of the UN oil-for-food office's professional staff. America and Britain held up 5,000 contracts, sometimes for months, to ensure that no technology was getting through that Saddam could use for weapons purposes. But they held up none - not a single solitary one - on the grounds of pricing irregularities, even when alerted by UN staff.

I would hesitate to characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a private one due to the historical events that brought us to this stage of the game. I also think you're greatly underestimating its impact on the Arab world's attitudes towards Israel. Furthermore, I also wonder if Israel's willingness to play loose with other countries' soverignty in its own quest for "security" (see Mossad's use of Canadian passports, the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, recent extrajudicial assasinations in Damascus) is enough to constitute a threat.

There is a fair point to be made about the inconsistency between the UN membership's censure of Israel and their ignorance of other human rights violations perpatrated the world over. Are there a number of UN member States with an axe to grind against Israel? Sure. But to take that simple nugget of information and use it to swing wildly in the other direction (that being Israel is a poor, persecuted innocent) would be disingenous, if not downright dangerous. Truth is, Israel deserves censure. So do many other nations. So the problem is not one of Israel getting singled out too much, but other's not getting what's coming to them. At the end of the day, however, the resolutions passed against Israel are nothing but bits of paper. The Security Council would never approve of any action that would have tangeible effects on Israel or, if such were the case, any other human rights violators, nor would Israel or anyone else feel compelled to take heed, simply because national political and economic interests trump human rights every single time.

Um...no that's not what I'm saying that at all. What I am saying is that Israel does not threaten the existence of any of the Arab states by its physical presence. It's not poised to attack Syria et al (though I'm sure it's been discussed). Say: what happened to Anthony? Let me guess: he was LLL's sock puppet?

I already did, indicating the existence of immigration quotas which restricted European Jewish immigration to the U.S. from the 1920s through to the 1960s. Thomas A. Kolsky echoes the same sentiment in his book "Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948". So I've done my part (and some of your homework too). Let's see if you come back.

Actually, I'm asking you to back up your accussation that "kill the Jews & infidels, pedophilia is good & keep those damned women in their place" is part of Islamic doctrine. You made the claim, you back it up. I'm not about to do your work for you (especially since I highly doubt you've read Qur'an yourself). So far, I've found verses calling for treating Jews and Christians as "People of the Book"... ...equal treatment of women... and nonviolence...

Thelonius is bang on. A recent Angus Reid poll had opposition to Canadian participation in the missile defence scheme at 58 per cent. Acording to a Time-Ekos public opinion poll in the November 1st edition of Time magazine, 53 per centof Canadians oppose joining the American missile shield with 24 per cent strongly opposed to joining. This is backed by a poll by the Council for Canadian Unity which showed half of half of the 3,200 Canadians surveyed strongly opposed the missile shield.

I'd be interested to see what parts of the Qur'an you are referencing. Also, given the prevelance of perversity and barbarity in the Torah and Old Testamant (not to mention the vast, vast numbers of peaceful Muslims around the world), your analysis is rubbish.

I doubt it, as I'm generaly careful to single out fundamentalist Christians (ie. Jerry Falwell) for scorn.